New CSIRO chief on water divining
He’d like to see the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water on their properties.
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.
——-
Absolutely amazing that he is not aware of the large amount of research that has been done in this area.
Shit, his Phd is in physics. I was somewhat hoping it was in basket weaving or such.
I wonder if he has ever heard of James Randi?
dv said:
New CSIRO chief on water diviningHe’d like to see the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water on their properties.
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.
——-
Absolutely amazing that he is not aware of the large amount of research that has been done in this area.
Like the man said, nobody can explain it, but near-surface water is often found by diviners in areas thought to be completely dry or salty. In other areas you can drill pretty-well anywhere and expect to hit good water flow. So not easily generalised.
Let’s just hope that he gets a decent fenf shui practitioner in to remodel his office before he moves in.
I do hope the office is sitting on the convergence of a few decent ley lines.
it is pretty bad when the head of your main scientific research facility thinks there is something in divining.
ChrispenEvan said:
it is pretty bad when the head of your main scientific research facility thinks there is something in divining.
Divine inspiration perhaps
Cymek said:
ChrispenEvan said:
it is pretty bad when the head of your main scientific research facility thinks there is something in divining.
Divine inspiration perhaps
You three must be feeling very confident to dispute a CSIRO chief. Did any of you apply for the job yourself, sounds with your conclusions you would have got it?
yes we do feel confident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi
“James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, August 7, 1928) is a Canadian-American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, but after retiring at age 60, he chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls “woo-woo.”“
ChrispenEvan said:
yes we do feel confident.
Perhaps you should apply next time, sounds like a good job. Do you think you will need any experience?
why would i apply? are you saying there is something in water diving?
ChrispenEvan said:
why would i apply? are you saying there is something in water diving?
Some of those divers are very well paid.
specially on the north sea rigs.
:-)
divining.
to many ..in.. combinations.
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAA7SmSlrXGc&h=CAQFvvhh4
Mighty Mitta Muster Water Divining Challenge
transition said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi“James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, August 7, 1928) is a Canadian-American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, but after retiring at age 60, he chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls “woo-woo.”“
So as a retired stage magician and scientific sceptic says it is a load of tosh, he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
It was recently reported that the newly appointed head of the CSIRO, entrepreneur, venture capitalist and possibly the world’s most gullible chief scientist, Dr Larry Marshall, is promoting the “technology” of divining and dowsing for water, as a solution to Australia’s drought problems. Go back and read that again, I’ll wait.
No, it’s not April 1st.
Not only does Dr Marshall use anecdotal evidence to claim that some water diviners have an 80% success rate, he also thinks that there is “instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water”. Perhaps Dr Marshall is unaware of the Australian Skeptic’s prize of $250,000 for anyone who can successfully locate hidden water by divination with a consistent success rate above random chance. With recent funding cuts the CSIRO could certainly do with the extra money.
The fact that a diviner can sometimes find water is no more impressive than a fisherman sometimes catching fish or a punter sometimes backing a winner. In Australia there have been several conclusive blind trials done on dowsing and divining, clearly showing that even sincere practitioners suffer from confirmation bias, an effect that the head of any science department should be familiar with.
I look forward with anticipation to the new CSIRO alchemy research for turning coal into gold to solve our budget woes.
ChrispenEvan said:
why would i apply? are you saying there is something in water diving?
Well if the CSIRO chief says so, who am I to disagree.
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi“James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, August 7, 1928) is a Canadian-American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, but after retiring at age 60, he chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls “woo-woo.”“
So as a retired stage magician and scientific sceptic says it is a load of tosh, he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
Yes, yes he does.
don’t you claim to be a scientist???
>So as a retired stage magician and scientific sceptic says it is a load of tosh, he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
slow down, mate, someone mentioned the fella, I posted a wiki link for background information.
PermeateFree said:
he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
The CSIRO chief says: “I’ve no idea how they do it”.
So it would appear he’s admitting to pretty much complete ignorance of the topic.
It’s not about science knowledge. It’s about confirmation bias.
it is just a reflection of the parlous state of science in this country.
Skeptic Pete said:
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAA7SmSlrXGc&h=CAQFvvhh4Mighty Mitta Muster Water Divining Challenge
If I remember correctly they buried plastic tubes filled with water and told them to find them. With all due respects diving for an expanse of water is a little different than trying to divine a drop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
“Dowsing is a type of divination employed in attempts to locate ground water, buried metals or ores, gemstones, oil, gravesites, and many other objects and materials without the use of scientific apparatus. Dowsing is considered a pseudoscience, and there is no scientific evidence that it is any more effective than random chance.
Dowsing is also known as divining (especially in reference to interpretation of results), doodlebugging (particularly in the United States, in searching for petroleum) or (when searching specifically for water) water finding, water witching (in the United States) or water dowsing.
A Y- or L-shaped twig or rod, called a dowsing rod, divining rod (Latin: virgula divina or baculus divinatorius), a “vining rod” or witching rod is sometimes used during dowsing, although some dowsers use other equipment or no equipment at all.
Dowsing appears to have arisen in the context of Renaissance magic in Germany, and it remains popular among believers in Forteana or radiesthesia.
The motion of dowsing rods is nowadays generally attributed to the ideomotor effect.”
Good news IMO. Then we can use that water to power our Landies without having to worry about finding a tap.
you realise that these “tests” are set-up with rules agreed to by both parties?
Skeptic Pete said:
It was recently reported that the newly appointed head of the CSIRO, entrepreneur, venture capitalist and possibly the world’s most gullible chief scientist, Dr Larry Marshall, is promoting the “technology” of divining and dowsing for water, as a solution to Australia’s drought problems. Go back and read that again, I’ll wait.No, it’s not April 1st.
Not only does Dr Marshall use anecdotal evidence to claim that some water diviners have an 80% success rate, he also thinks that there is “instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water”. Perhaps Dr Marshall is unaware of the Australian Skeptic’s prize of $250,000 for anyone who can successfully locate hidden water by divination with a consistent success rate above random chance. With recent funding cuts the CSIRO could certainly do with the extra money.
The fact that a diviner can sometimes find water is no more impressive than a fisherman sometimes catching fish or a punter sometimes backing a winner. In Australia there have been several conclusive blind trials done on dowsing and divining, clearly showing that even sincere practitioners suffer from confirmation bias, an effect that the head of any science department should be familiar with.
I look forward with anticipation to the new CSIRO alchemy research for turning coal into gold to solve our budget woes.
If science knew all the answers there would be no theories and probably nobody would be doing scientific research. Think about it.
Couple of dowsing videos:
In this video from the Amazing Randi, we can get a hint of the kind of person who applies for the $1-million-prize. This time it’s a dowser. Watch the video to learn how dowsing really “works.”
Maybe the guy should have watched the next video before submitting his claim. In it, a group of dowsers in the United Kingdom are subjected to a double-blind test of their dowsing ability. Will anyone pass the test?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-dowsing-5028261/?no-ist
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi“James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, August 7, 1928) is a Canadian-American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, but after retiring at age 60, he chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls “woo-woo.”“
So as a retired stage magician and scientific sceptic says it is a load of tosh, he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
Yes, yes he does.
Wow, then he must be right!
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:So as a retired stage magician and scientific sceptic says it is a load of tosh, he knows more it than a scientifically trained CSIRO chief?
Yes, yes he does.
Wow, then he must be right!
Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
if the csiro chief were not taken so literally, what then might he mean?
ChrispenEvan said:
you realise that these “tests” are set-up with rules agreed to by both parties?
But they are not realistic. Just because a few nutters think they can divine all and sundry, does not mean quantities of underground water cannot be detected.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
you realise that these “tests” are set-up with rules agreed to by both parties?
But they are not realistic. Just because a few nutters think they can divine all and sundry, does not mean quantities of underground water cannot be detected.
Yes it does.
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,”
Nuff said.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Yes, yes he does.
Wow, then he must be right!
Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
transition said:
if the csiro chief were not taken so literally, what then might he mean?
Well it might just be a wakeup call to all the sceptics with a completely closed mind who do not want to re-examine the evidence in a more realistic examination.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:Wow, then he must be right!
Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
you realise that these “tests” are set-up with rules agreed to by both parties?
But they are not realistic. Just because a few nutters think they can divine all and sundry, does not mean quantities of underground water cannot be detected.
Yes it does.
Just because YOU say it does, in the overall scheme of things and the evidence you have presented, It means nought.
Skeptic Pete said:
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,”Nuff said.
And how many has you seen, regardless of the result?
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
What are you admitting defeat already?
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Well come on Skeptic Pete, I’ll give you the opportunity to present your scientific facts?
don’t do that again to me sibeen, I heard your chanting in my head, then I lost control and found myself in wikipedia, and look now….what you have done. You are evil.
PermeateFree said:
Well come on Skeptic Pete, I’ll give you the opportunity to present your scientific facts?
Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Well Randi clearly understands the need for blind trials which the head of the CSIRO clearly does not.
Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
I was watching the new Big Bang, but PF is so much more entertaining.
carry on PF
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:Well come on Skeptic Pete, I’ll give you the opportunity to present your scientific facts?
Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
The_observer said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
I was watching the new Big Bang, but PF is so much more entertaining.
carry on PF
Out of school already Observer? You must have been a good boy today.
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:Sorry, but I don’t think your condemnation of water diviners is based on any scientific fact either.
Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
Yeah but I don’t think any of them enjoy it :-)
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:Well come on Skeptic Pete, I’ll give you the opportunity to present your scientific facts?
Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
Science doesn’t work like that.
same as wookie, pete.
;-)
Skeptic Pete said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:Now I know why nobody here likes talking to you.
Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
Yeah but I don’t think any of them enjoy it :-)
No argument and out come the ad hominem remarks.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
Science doesn’t work like that.
It does work like that you popoed water diving claiming it had been proved to be scientifically wrong, Ok, so where is the evidence?
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:Well come on Skeptic Pete, I’ll give you the opportunity to present your scientific facts?
Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
That’s your statement which seem to me to be you saying it works.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
AwesomeO said:Evidence suggests some people absolutely love talking to him.
I was watching the new Big Bang, but PF is so much more entertaining.
carry on PF
Out of school already Observer? You must have been a good boy today.
No, seriously PF. I read through your discussion with Crispy E on the
Black Holes creating a Universe thread.
All here should have a glance at it. It shows the mentality one has to deal with in every discussion you partake in.
ChrispenEvan said:
same as wookie, pete.;-)
Devoid of argument. Am I surprised, of course not!
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
Science doesn’t work like that.
It does work like that you popoed water diving claiming it had been proved to be scientifically wrong, Ok, so where is the evidence?
If that sentence even made sense I wouldn’t bother answering it.
jjjust moi said:
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Shouldn’t the onus be on you to prove water-divining works?
I’m not saying it works or not, but a few people around here are under the misapprehension that it does not work, is based on scientific fact. If so please present it?
Like the man said, nobody can explain it, but near-surface water is often found by diviners in areas thought to be completely dry or salt.That’s your statement which seem to me to be you saying it works.
That is what is said and has been proven to be the case, but whether this is due to some currently unknown power is not proved or even known, as per the statement of the CSIRO chief.
it isn’t proven it is anecdote.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:I was watching the new Big Bang, but PF is so much more entertaining.
carry on PF
Out of school already Observer? You must have been a good boy today.
No, seriously PF. I read through your discussion with Crispy E on the
Black Holes creating a Universe thread.All here should have a glance at it. It shows the mentality one has to deal with in every discussion you partake in.
Observer, I know less about outer space than you know about climate change, which is not much. Therefore I do not argue or even offer an opinion, but merely relay the evidenced supplied, which apparently you did not bother to investigate. So don’t blame me as it is all in your head.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Science doesn’t work like that.
It does work like that you popoed water diving claiming it had been proved to be scientifically wrong, Ok, so where is the evidence?
If that sentence even made sense I wouldn’t bother answering it.
Of course not, I expected no more. A lost argument is harder to bear for some people.
ChrispenEvan said:
it isn’t proven it is anecdote.
Nor it is disproven which is a fact.
OK….a summary of testing by many and various groups around the world over quite a long period of time:
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
it isn’t proven it is anecdote.
Nor it is disproven which is a fact.
You really should read up on the scientific method. Your understanding is sadly lacking.
Nor it is disproven which is a fact.
science isn’t disproven either as that would mean it can be proven.
how many tests do we need to run before we say enough is enough and that is nothing in dowsing? just like all these paranormal claims none have shown to have anything in them.
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
it isn’t proven it is anecdote.
Nor it is disproven which is a fact.
You really should read up on the scientific method. Your understanding is sadly lacking.
Yes, at such an infant level of understanding you’re lucky we even bother trying to explain it to you pf.
Have the Mythbusters done an episode on it yet?
buffy said:
OK….a summary of testing by many and various groups around the world over quite a long period of time:
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
I’ll just repeat that. There has been scientific assessment.
well they just accepted my Bent Spoon nomination :-)
i heard the sigh from here pete.
buffy said:
buffy said:OK….a summary of testing by many and various groups around the world over quite a long period of time:
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
I’ll just repeat that. There has been scientific assessment.
>>There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water. But success could be due to factors other than divining ability. For example, diviners may unconsciously follow cues from soil type, vegetation, and topography. Or the underground water may be so extensive that they can hardly miss it. Or they may tend to remember hits and forget misses. Obviously such factors have to be excluded before we can decide whether divining works for the reasons claimed by diviners, namely “things not fully understood”.<<
>>Ultimately the question may be a practical one. Yes, diviners do successfully find water, but do they outperform hydrogeologists? The comparison is not as easy as it seems because a hydrogeologist will decide where to drill based on accumulated geological knowledge plus his local experience of soils, vegetation, and the geology underlying surface features, and if any of these are lacking then his failure rate can be high. A further complication is that the aim is not merely to find water but to find water of adequate quality and quantity. It is easy to find water in almost any valley simply by drilling a hole, but the water may be too salty to use. Nevertheless the experience of Australian state governments, most of whom employed diviners up to the 1970s, is that an experienced hydrogeologist with local knowledge will consistently outperform a diviner.<<
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
I think buffy and me might be the only people to read the above article and as it clearly says, the reasons are not known as to how diviners detect water. They may use visual clues and why shouldn’t they, the hydrologist used records and personal knowledge, but without that they too were poor at locating water. The report above states diving does work, but how it does is not known, which is what I have been saying. You lot (DO’s mates) claim it has been disproven, but that is only when conditions were inposed that disabled the diviner.
poikilotherm said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:Nor it is disproven which is a fact.
You really should read up on the scientific method. Your understanding is sadly lacking.
Yes, at such an infant level of understanding you’re lucky we even bother trying to explain it to you pf.
How did you become a pharmacist, was it without cheating? You just seem to be so dumb and juvenile.
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water
And there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
Skeptic Pete said:
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find waterAnd there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
The bookies must?
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find waterAnd there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
The bookies must?
Why?
I’m not a mathematician, but I thought bookies made their money regardless of which horses win or lose. Like casinos, aren’t the odds always in their favour in the long term?
Skeptic Pete said:
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find waterAnd there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
And visa versa, because you have no evidence either! Surely it is better to have a highly qualified scientist with an interest to discover exactly what is going on and importantly used to detect water in remote areas, instead of drilling many very costly holes, which is the current unsatisfactory method.
Skeptic Pete said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find waterAnd there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
The bookies must?
Why?
I’m not a mathematician, but I thought bookies made their money regardless of which horses win or lose. Like casinos, aren’t the odds always in their favour in the long term?
I’m convinced much of horse-racing is rigged, and the bookies are in on it.
Skeptic Pete said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find waterAnd there’s no doubt that gamblers do successfully back winners, but there’s no evidence that they achieve any better than chance.
The bookies must?
Why?
I’m not a mathematician, but I thought bookies made their money regardless of which horses win or lose. Like casinos, aren’t the odds always in their favour in the long term?
You may be right but they are also betting albeit a very informed bet with inside knowledge not available to the average punter.
So let’s design a way of testing it through scientific method…
1. Select a half a dozen fields in different locations
2. Get an experienced diviner (let’s use only the L-shaped wires method for now) to walk up and down each field in a systematic way, marking out places with a flag where any finds happen. Record position with GPS.
3. Get a couple other experienced diviners to repeat the process, but each separately, and with no communication with the others.
4. Train up some novices on the basics of the technique at another site, then get them to repeat tests on the same fields as the experienced diviners, under the same conditions.
5. Build a couple of robots with different wire holders, and repeat process.
Have a look at all of the GPS plots and see what patterns emerge.
If patterns emerge then examine what might be under the ground through resistivity, ground penetrating radar, magnetic anomalies detectors, bore holes, digging or whatever other sutiable method.
CSIRO under new management – project DIVINE
i know of 2 people who I would put money on hitting water (and we’ve used both of them at my old work)
no idea how it’s done, what they take their cues from, but i’ve seen one of them pinpoint a 2” pipe that was buried 15 years before… and not by him.
from what i’ve seen, the people who (believethey) can do it, can to the standards they need it for.
(and ftr, 8gauge welding rod is apparentlythe best to use)
PermeateFree said:
poikilotherm said:
Witty Rejoinder said:You really should read up on the scientific method. Your understanding is sadly lacking.
Yes, at such an infant level of understanding you’re lucky we even bother trying to explain it to you pf.
How did you become a pharmacist, was it without cheating? You just seem to be so dumb and juvenile.
now that’s what I open the Twisties for :)
party_pants said:
So let’s design a way of testing it through scientific method…1. Select a half a dozen fields in different locations
2. Get an experienced diviner (let’s use only the L-shaped wires method for now) to walk up and down each field in a systematic way, marking out places with a flag where any finds happen. Record position with GPS.
3. Get a couple other experienced diviners to repeat the process, but each separately, and with no communication with the others.
4. Train up some novices on the basics of the technique at another site, then get them to repeat tests on the same fields as the experienced diviners, under the same conditions.
5. Build a couple of robots with different wire holders, and repeat process.Have a look at all of the GPS plots and see what patterns emerge.
If patterns emerge then examine what might be under the ground through resistivity, ground penetrating radar, magnetic anomalies detectors, bore holes, digging or whatever other sutiable method.
Why put restrictions on the diviners? Just let them go.
Underground water is rarely restricted to a few point, but occupies a sizable area in a pervious rock, sand, etc. It would therefore need to be done over a sizable area and well away from bores. To test, you would need to drill down in these areas, which unless it was done for a reason is very expensive, which is where the problems start to mount. If there were going to be a number of test bores drilled by the government, then that would present an ideal situation, when a little experimentation might be possible.
wookiemeister said:
CSIRO under new management – project DIVINE
For people who like to be called scientists or followers of science, few actually are, but seem to be led by a herd mentality where science is soon discarded for the satisfaction of past slights, which isn’t very scientific. If you want to be real scientists then you should follow the rules regardless.
PermeateFree said:
Why put restrictions on the diviners? Just let them go.
Underground water is rarely restricted to a few point, but occupies a sizable area in a pervious rock, sand, etc. It would therefore need to be done over a sizable area and well away from bores. To test, you would need to drill down in these areas, which unless it was done for a reason is very expensive, which is where the problems start to mount. If there were going to be a number of test bores drilled by the government, then that would present an ideal situation, when a little experimentation might be possible.
Scientific method. If two or more diviners can get similar results independently on the same patch of land, then it might show there’s something to it. But part of the independence of the results is that the diviners don’t communicate and share information before seeing the particular patch of ground for the first time.
the brain of a diviner might be structurally different to allow them to find water, like animals are able to find water
I don’t think its anything to do with the rods – the rods are just a psychological vehicle that makes the diviner more efficient
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:Why put restrictions on the diviners? Just let them go.
Underground water is rarely restricted to a few point, but occupies a sizable area in a pervious rock, sand, etc. It would therefore need to be done over a sizable area and well away from bores. To test, you would need to drill down in these areas, which unless it was done for a reason is very expensive, which is where the problems start to mount. If there were going to be a number of test bores drilled by the government, then that would present an ideal situation, when a little experimentation might be possible.
Scientific method. If two or more diviners can get similar results independently on the same patch of land, then it might show there’s something to it. But part of the independence of the results is that the diviners don’t communicate and share information before seeing the particular patch of ground for the first time.
There are far better people than me who could devise a scientific test, but two diviners 100’s of metres apart could be detecting the same water resource. The only way is to pick a sizable area (several kilometres square) and go from there, otherwise no water might be found, or might exist under most of the area. You would need to have several diviners checking each other to see if they agree.
wookiemeister said:
the brain of a diviner might be structurally different to allow them to find water, like animals are able to find waterI don’t think its anything to do with the rods – the rods are just a psychological vehicle that makes the diviner more efficient
Possibly, there are a lot of people who swear by it.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:Why put restrictions on the diviners? Just let them go.
Underground water is rarely restricted to a few point, but occupies a sizable area in a pervious rock, sand, etc. It would therefore need to be done over a sizable area and well away from bores. To test, you would need to drill down in these areas, which unless it was done for a reason is very expensive, which is where the problems start to mount. If there were going to be a number of test bores drilled by the government, then that would present an ideal situation, when a little experimentation might be possible.
Scientific method. If two or more diviners can get similar results independently on the same patch of land, then it might show there’s something to it. But part of the independence of the results is that the diviners don’t communicate and share information before seeing the particular patch of ground for the first time.
There are far better people than me who could devise a scientific test, but two diviners 100’s of metres apart could be detecting the same water resource. The only way is to pick a sizable area (several kilometres square) and go from there, otherwise no water might be found, or might exist under most of the area. You would need to have several diviners checking each other to see if they agree.
I was meaning sizeable areas, not garden beds. But get several diviners to go over the same area independently, and see if their results match. if they all pick up on the same features then there’s something going on.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:Scientific method. If two or more diviners can get similar results independently on the same patch of land, then it might show there’s something to it. But part of the independence of the results is that the diviners don’t communicate and share information before seeing the particular patch of ground for the first time.
There are far better people than me who could devise a scientific test, but two diviners 100’s of metres apart could be detecting the same water resource. The only way is to pick a sizable area (several kilometres square) and go from there, otherwise no water might be found, or might exist under most of the area. You would need to have several diviners checking each other to see if they agree.
I was meaning sizeable areas, not garden beds. But get several diviners to go over the same area independently, and see if their results match. if they all pick up on the same features then there’s something going on.
Fair enough.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:Scientific method. If two or more diviners can get similar results independently on the same patch of land, then it might show there’s something to it. But part of the independence of the results is that the diviners don’t communicate and share information before seeing the particular patch of ground for the first time.
There are far better people than me who could devise a scientific test, but two diviners 100’s of metres apart could be detecting the same water resource. The only way is to pick a sizable area (several kilometres square) and go from there, otherwise no water might be found, or might exist under most of the area. You would need to have several diviners checking each other to see if they agree.
I was meaning sizeable areas, not garden beds. But get several diviners to go over the same area independently, and see if their results match. if they all pick up on the same features then there’s something going on.
Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
ratty one said:
Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
For a change, I’m trying to keep an open mind :)
ratty one said:
Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
sibeen said:
ratty one said:Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
Some of the forum miners appear to be proper mentalists.
party_pants said:
ratty one said:Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
For a change, I’m trying to keep an open mind :)
oh nice. ..
In truth I have no idea how helpful my tid bit was. For example , is their decision based upon previous events where drilling without the nod of the diviner eneded up without water or they just believe and don’t test the method further.
sibeen said:
ratty one said:Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
does he use maps in regions where water has been located. I have heard that method is preferred.
sibeen said:
ratty one said:Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
does that mean only one drilling company uses water diviners in Australia?
ratty one said:
sibeen said:
ratty one said:Some drilling companies use their indicators in that if a diviner says no…then at least one drilling company in Australia doesn’t drill.
That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
does that mean only one drilling company uses water diviners in Australia?
No, it means that nutters abound. Hell, for all I know, 50% of drilling companies use them.
Nearly every major newspaper in this country has a daily astrology section. Does that make you believe in astrology?
sibeen said:
ratty one said:
sibeen said:That at least one drilling company in Australia has a nutter in charge does not surprise me in the least.
One of my brothers is an exploration driller, and from what I’ve gathered, nutter abound.
The example is not equitable in the sense a newspaper has many purposes for usage aside from the horoscope. Where as relying upon a diviner is a cost factor to a company and seems contrary to how business is conducted generally speaking. Meaning not many businesses in Australia would consult a psychic before making a decision but for some reason this becomes different with diviners who so it seems.
I am not stating they are legit or otherwise but wondering what percentage of the sector use them reliably if at all. The question is a relevant one.
does that mean only one drilling company uses water diviners in Australia?
No, it means that nutters abound. Hell, for all I know, 50% of drilling companies use them.
Nearly every major newspaper in this country has a daily astrology section. Does that make you believe in astrology?
No, it means that nutters abound. Hell, for all I know, 50% of drilling companies use them.
Nearly every major newspaper in this country has a daily astrology section. Does that make you believe in astrology?
The example is not equitable in the sense a newspaper has many purposes for usage aside from the horoscope. Where as relying upon a diviner is a cost factor to a company and seems contrary to how business is conducted generally speaking. Meaning not many businesses in Australia would consult a psychic before making a decision but for some reason this becomes different with diviners or so it seems.
I am not stating they are legit or otherwise but wondering what percentage of the sector use them reliably if at all. The question is a relevant one.
The fact diviners find water most of the time is not surprising .. Dig a reasonable depth in most places and you will hit ground water
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.
Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
sibeen said:
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
A million dollars I believe is that reward figure.
Dropbear said:
The fact diviners find water most of the time is not surprising .. Dig a reasonable depth in most places and you will hit ground water
The great artesian basin and water tables generally speaking?
sibeen said:
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
The 2 people who I have seen that it seemed to work for aren’t really the types tobe looking for fame and fortune though.I’msure there is some accuracy in what they do, but s soon as youoffer big bikkies for proof of anything, you will be swamped by nutters
ratty one said:
Dropbear said:
The fact diviners find water most of the time is not surprising .. Dig a reasonable depth in most places and you will hit ground water
The great artesian basin and water tables generally speaking?
ratty, I can dig at the north eastern end of my property and basically guarantee to find water at a depth of about 2 feet. I live on a 1200 square metre block, 10 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne.
At other point on the property I’d have to dig way deeper, but I’d probably hit it anyway.
…basically guarantee to find water at a depth of about 2 feet.
well done sibeen, you’ve found the swimming pool.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
So let’s design a way of testing it through scientific method…1. Select a half a dozen fields in different locations
2. Get an experienced diviner (let’s use only the L-shaped wires method for now) to walk up and down each field in a systematic way, marking out places with a flag where any finds happen. Record position with GPS.
3. Get a couple other experienced diviners to repeat the process, but each separately, and with no communication with the others.
4. Train up some novices on the basics of the technique at another site, then get them to repeat tests on the same fields as the experienced diviners, under the same conditions.
5. Build a couple of robots with different wire holders, and repeat process.Have a look at all of the GPS plots and see what patterns emerge.
If patterns emerge then examine what might be under the ground through resistivity, ground penetrating radar, magnetic anomalies detectors, bore holes, digging or whatever other sutiable method.
Why put restrictions on the diviners? Just let them go.
Underground water is rarely restricted to a few point, but occupies a sizable area in a pervious rock, sand, etc. It would therefore need to be done over a sizable area and well away from bores. To test, you would need to drill down in these areas, which unless it was done for a reason is very expensive, which is where the problems start to mount. If there were going to be a number of test bores drilled by the government, then that would present an ideal situation, when a little experimentation might be possible.
If a diviner is paid for the role then I see no issue with them being tested for accuracy.
stumpy_seahorse said:
sibeen said:
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
The 2 people who I have seen that it seemed to work for aren’t really the types tobe looking for fame and fortune though.I’msure there is some accuracy in what they do, but s soon as youoffer big bikkies for proof of anything, you will be swamped by nutters
So what we’ve now determined is that the only people who can actually perform water divining are not in it for the money, and would never put themselves forward for fame and fortune.
My daughter won’t give out pictures of her pink unicorn, which lives down the bottom of the garden, for exactly the same reason.
;)
ChrispenEvan said:
…basically guarantee to find water at a depth of about 2 feet.well done sibeen, you’ve found the swimming pool.
That’s in the south east corner, you fool.
There’s gold under it, BTW. An Egyptian shaman told me that a few years ago after I passed a few sheckels his way.
sibeen said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
sibeen said:
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
The 2 people who I have seen that it seemed to work for aren’t really the types tobe looking for fame and fortune though.I’msure there is some accuracy in what they do, but s soon as youoffer big bikkies for proof of anything, you will be swamped by nutters
So what we’ve now determined is that the only people who can actually perform water divining are not in it for the money, and would never put themselves forward for fame and fortune.
My daughter won’t give out pictures of her pink unicorn, which lives down the bottom of the garden, for exactly the same reason.
;)
One day you will see that unicorn and then won’t you be surprised Henry Higgins.
:P
sibeen said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
sibeen said:
My point is, ratty, that woo abounds. whether it be in ‘reputable’ newspapers, or in business. People seem to have a need to believe in woo. None of it has ever stood up to a scientific rigorous test.Never.
Despite the fact that big amounts of feelthy lucre have been offered to anyone who can prove their ability in any type of woo. The prize yet remains to be claimed.
The 2 people who I have seen that it seemed to work for aren’t really the types tobe looking for fame and fortune though.I’msure there is some accuracy in what they do, but s soon as youoffer big bikkies for proof of anything, you will be swamped by nutters
So what we’ve now determined is that the only people who can actually perform water divining are not in it for the money, and would never put themselves forward for fame and fortune.
My daughter won’t give out pictures of her pink unicorn, which lives down the bottom of the garden, for exactly the same reason.
you don’t wanna know what comes up when i do a search for pics of sibeen’s daughter’s unicorn…
(but you should really find her another hobby Mr Sibeen) ;)
OCDC said:
Good news IMO. Then we can use that water to power our Landies without having to worry about finding a tap.
Nice one, centurion
BTW, whoever wrote the headline at ABC Online must be a real zombie, completely missed the important and shocking part of the story.
If aliens landed on the M5 he’d probably write “Delays expected on southbound journeys”.
Reminds me of an ABC article a few years back where they interviewed some codger who claimed to have made room temperature superconductors in his shed. The ABC reported it completely straight, no hint of incredulity, not realising the extremity of the claim.
playing it straight.
dv said:
BTW, whoever wrote the headline at ABC Online must be a real zombie, completely missed the important and shocking part of the story.
If aliens landed on the M5 he’d probably write “Delays expected on southbound journeys”.Reminds me of an ABC article a few years back where they interviewed some codger who claimed to have made room temperature superconductors in his shed. The ABC reported it completely straight, no hint of incredulity, not realising the extremity of the claim.
Maybe he kept his room quite coolish.
You show a great deal of disrespect for the new chief of the CSIRO, especially on a subject you are obviously deep prejudiced.
Dr Larry Marshall has been announced as the new Chief Executive of CSIRO. He will start in January 2015.
Dr Marshall began his career as an engineer with a PhD in Physics and over 100 publications and presentations.
The new head of the CSIRO knows exactly what it’s like to have dry, thirsty dams.
Dr Larry Marshall grew up working on farms and his family run a property in drought-affected Queensland.
It’s why he isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, on top of what’s already being done at the premier science organisation.
He’s interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water on their properties.
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.
“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
Dr Marshall believes the CSIRO can ‘push the envelope’ with such projects and contribute to improving agricultural productivity.
“Remember our mission fundamentally is to do whatever we can in terms of technology and our support for the land, to enable our farmers to be globally competitive,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/nrn-csiro-ceo-water-divining-dowsing/5822472
Mohammad on a moped, you really are a complete fuckstick aren’t you PF.
dv said:
Mohammad on a moped, you really are a complete fuckstick aren’t you PF.
I beg your pardon, what on earth have I done to you to deserve such an insult?
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
Mohammad on a moped, you really are a complete fuckstick aren’t you PF.I beg your pardon, what on earth have I done to you to deserve such an insult?
Yes of course, just another one of DO’s mates. Funny how you are all so similar.
sibeen said:
dv said:
BTW, whoever wrote the headline at ABC Online must be a real zombie, completely missed the important and shocking part of the story.
If aliens landed on the M5 he’d probably write “Delays expected on southbound journeys”.Reminds me of an ABC article a few years back where they interviewed some codger who claimed to have made room temperature superconductors in his shed. The ABC reported it completely straight, no hint of incredulity, not realising the extremity of the claim.
Maybe he kept his room quite coolish.
Nice work there.
As a matter of interest, there is about a 50 K gap between the highest superconducting transition temperature and the coldest outdoor temperature ever recorded on earth.
I see someone suggested a possible way of checking diviners abilities. I’ll repeat my reference from last night:
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
About halfway down that page is an experiment very similar to that proposed here last night.
“The Dale et al blindfold test took place in Maine during August 1949. A sandy field was carefully chosen where visual cues to the presence of water were absent, where water was present at depths not over 5 metres, and where the ground was soft enough for test pipes to be driven down without drilling. The field was level enough to be walked on when blind-folded. In places low bushes upset free movement but not seriously. A total of 27 water diviners recruited by ads in newspapers were blindfolded and then led to the test site where each had to (1) divine the best place to sink a well and (2) estimate the depth and how fast the water would flow in when pumped out. Each diviner then went through the procedure again but without a blindfold. About nine diviners were tested per day. As a control, a geologist and water engineer each estimated the depth and flow
at 16 points located evenly over the field based on what they knew about underground water in general. At each of those points, and at each of the sites selected by diviners, a pipe was driven into the ground until it touched water. A pump then removed water to measure how fast water flowed in. Both controls accurately estimated depth, which ranged from 1 to 3 metres, and the engineer fairly accurately estimated flow, which ranged from 2 to 20 litres/minute. But the diviners’ estimates of depth and flow were wildly high and even the best showed no relation with reality. Worse, the diviners agreed neither with each other nor with themselves when blindfolded. The largest discrepancies are shown in red. “
If you go to the link, the map is there. I think the blindfolds probably weren’t necessary. I think people can read the land by its features, but I don’t really think that would make much difference in an experiment like this. It would be interesting to know if it did though.
ChrispenEvan said:
it is pretty bad when the head of your main scientific research facility thinks there is something in divining.
Maybe he can use divining for a science minister and some more funding
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
Mohammad on a moped, you really are a complete fuckstick aren’t you PF.I beg your pardon, what on earth have I done to you to deserve such an insult?
Yes of course, just another one of DO’s mates. Funny how you are all so similar.
Funny how you are a massive numbnuts wrecking the forum with brainaching spam.
dv said:
BTW, whoever wrote the headline at ABC Online must be a real zombie, completely missed the important and shocking part of the story.
If aliens landed on the M5 he’d probably write “Delays expected on southbound journeys”.Reminds me of an ABC article a few years back where they interviewed some codger who claimed to have made room temperature superconductors in his shed. The ABC reported it completely straight, no hint of incredulity, not realising the extremity of the claim.
Zarkov got great press
I don’t know if it’s scientific but when I wanted to put in a water bore the driller searched the property & chose a spot. He drilled & found water but it was too slow a flow to be useful so he didn’t charge for the drilling. The next spot he found had adequate water flow & I was charged for the drilling & bore casing.
dv said:
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:I beg your pardon, what on earth have I done to you to deserve such an insult?
Yes of course, just another one of DO’s mates. Funny how you are all so similar.
Funny how you are a massive numbnuts wrecking the forum with brainaching spam.
And here was I only defending the reputation of the new chief of the CSIRO. Probably just the guy with an open mind and the first requirement of a scientist, which just goes to show where you stand in the scientific stakes. Ok Daryn?
Don’t leave your mind so open that your brains fall out.
Water divining is utter garbage. If it worked, there would be many professional water diviners that subcontracted to mining companies.
There isn’t.
End of discussion.
Kingy said:
Don’t leave your mind so open that your brains fall out.Water divining is utter garbage. If it worked, there would be many professional water diviners that subcontracted to mining companies.
There isn’t.
End of discussion.
I think you should read what he actually said and why he said it, before making statements that have no bearing on the situation.
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.
“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
—————————-
Are these actual quotes?
Kingy said:
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
—————————-
Are these actual quotes?
I would think so, at least that is from the article what all the fuss is about. The aims seem very sensible to me.
Well, I question the 80% accuracy claim.
Water “divining” is no better than random chance.
Drill a hole here, because that leaf on the ground there has fallen upside-down, therefore the bent stick waves randomly
Kingy said:
Well, I question the 80% accuracy claim.Water “divining” is no better than random chance.
Drill a hole here, because that leaf on the ground there has fallen upside-down, therefore the bent stick waves randomly
May I ask how much experience do you have with water divining?
Anyway, My father and his brothers sank wells for a living using the divining methods. Maybe they took a lot of other factors into account but they sank an awful; lot of wells without customer complaint.
PermeateFree said:
Kingy said:
Well, I question the 80% accuracy claim.Water “divining” is no better than random chance.
Drill a hole here, because that leaf on the ground there has fallen upside-down, therefore the bent stick waves randomly
May I ask how much experience do you have with water divining?
1) Water diviner told my brother to drill here. ($8000 Dry well)
2) That driller told my brother to drill over there. He didn’t. Next year, a new soak began to ooze where the driller pointed. No dowsing involved.
3) My employer paid a diviner to find a place to drill. $5000 later, another dry well.
4) His wife paid a water diviner to fix her sore hip. He found a spot on the property that had bad energy and drove a copper spike into the ground to fix it. It didn’t. She eventually went to see a proper scientist(doctor) who diagnosed a broken hip. No dowsing involved.
Not enough data to make a conclusive claim, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
Water divining is hocus pocus garbage.
Kingy said:
PermeateFree said:
Kingy said:
Well, I question the 80% accuracy claim.Water “divining” is no better than random chance.
Drill a hole here, because that leaf on the ground there has fallen upside-down, therefore the bent stick waves randomly
May I ask how much experience do you have with water divining?
1) Water diviner told my brother to drill here. ($8000 Dry well)
2) That driller told my brother to drill over there. He didn’t. Next year, a new soak began to ooze where the driller pointed. No dowsing involved.
3) My employer paid a diviner to find a place to drill. $5000 later, another dry well.
4) His wife paid a water diviner to fix her sore hip. He found a spot on the property that had bad energy and drove a copper spike into the ground to fix it. It didn’t. She eventually went to see a proper scientist(doctor) who diagnosed a broken hip. No dowsing involved.Not enough data to make a conclusive claim, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
Water divining is hocus pocus garbage.
Drilling holes does not cost that sort of money, unless a very fancy rig and a very long way from anywhere. And as for the broken hip I would say it is dream of yours, or your family is very gullible.
PermeateFree said:
Kingy said:
PermeateFree said:May I ask how much experience do you have with water divining?
1) Water diviner told my brother to drill here. ($8000 Dry well)
2) That driller told my brother to drill over there. He didn’t. Next year, a new soak began to ooze where the driller pointed. No dowsing involved.
3) My employer paid a diviner to find a place to drill. $5000 later, another dry well.
4) His wife paid a water diviner to fix her sore hip. He found a spot on the property that had bad energy and drove a copper spike into the ground to fix it. It didn’t. She eventually went to see a proper scientist(doctor) who diagnosed a broken hip. No dowsing involved.Not enough data to make a conclusive claim, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
Water divining is hocus pocus garbage.
Drilling holes does not cost that sort of money, unless a very fancy rig and a very long way from anywhere. And as for the broken hip I would say it is dream of yours, or your family is very gullible.
Yes it does. And not my family. Read more carefully.
Kingy said:
PermeateFree said:
Kingy said:1) Water diviner told my brother to drill here. ($8000 Dry well)
2) That driller told my brother to drill over there. He didn’t. Next year, a new soak began to ooze where the driller pointed. No dowsing involved.
3) My employer paid a diviner to find a place to drill. $5000 later, another dry well.
4) His wife paid a water diviner to fix her sore hip. He found a spot on the property that had bad energy and drove a copper spike into the ground to fix it. It didn’t. She eventually went to see a proper scientist(doctor) who diagnosed a broken hip. No dowsing involved.Not enough data to make a conclusive claim, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
Water divining is hocus pocus garbage.
Drilling holes does not cost that sort of money, unless a very fancy rig and a very long way from anywhere. And as for the broken hip I would say it is dream of yours, or your family is very gullible.
Yes it does. And not my family. Read more carefully.
It might interest you to know but I have had many holes drilled and it does cost anywhere near what you claim. Drilling for water is quite different from drilling for minerals, plus they also require a different rig.
Kingy said:
PermeateFree said:
Kingy said:
Well, I question the 80% accuracy claim.Water “divining” is no better than random chance.
Drill a hole here, because that leaf on the ground there has fallen upside-down, therefore the bent stick waves randomly
No. Your family are gullible to tricksters.May I ask how much experience do you have with water divining?
1) Water diviner told my brother to drill here. ($8000 Dry well)
2) That driller told my brother to drill over there. He didn’t. Next year, a new soak began to ooze where the driller pointed. No dowsing involved.
3) My employer paid a diviner to find a place to drill. $5000 later, another dry well.
4) His wife paid a water diviner to fix her sore hip. He found a spot on the property that had bad energy and drove a copper spike into the ground to fix it. It didn’t. She eventually went to see a proper scientist(doctor) who diagnosed a broken hip. No dowsing involved.Not enough data to make a conclusive claim, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
Water divining is hocus pocus garbage.
Kingy said:
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
—————————-
Are these actual quotes?
Yes.
Skeptic Pete said:
Kingy said:
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
—————————-
Are these actual quotes?
Yes.
Even scientists may wonder. It is a free world.
I read a quote at the beginning of a paper in an ophthalmological journal the other day that basically said….a lot of time would be saved if people would just check what other people have investigated (in science) before going off to do the same experiment again.
It was said more eloquently, but you get the gist. I should make sure I have a copy of it by the computer so I can quote it here properly.
buffy said:
I read a quote at the beginning of a paper in an ophthalmological journal the other day that basically said….a lot of time would be saved if people would just check what other people have investigated (in science) before going off to do the same experiment again.
It was said more eloquently, but you get the gist. I should make sure I have a copy of it by the computer so I can quote it here properly.
Good point.
Skeptic Pete said:
buffy said:I read a quote at the beginning of a paper in an ophthalmological journal the other day that basically said….a lot of time would be saved if people would just check what other people have investigated (in science) before going off to do the same experiment again.
It was said more eloquently, but you get the gist. I should make sure I have a copy of it by the computer so I can quote it here properly.
Good point.
buffy said:
I read a quote at the beginning of a paper in an ophthalmological journal the other day that basically said….a lot of time would be saved if people would just check what other people have investigated (in science) before going off to do the same experiment again.
It was said more eloquently, but you get the gist. I should make sure I have a copy of it by the computer so I can quote it here properly.
My favourite one from a few years ago.
http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Kingy said:
“I’ve seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy and I’ve no idea how they do it,” he said.“When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, ‘is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?’
“I’ve always wondered whether there’s something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly.”
—————————-
Are these actual quotes?
Yes.
Even scientists may wonder. It is a free world.
On the other hand, we expect scientists to keep up with existing research, particularly (as in this case) when the scientist expresses an especial interest in the topic.
sibeen said:
buffy said:I read a quote at the beginning of a paper in an ophthalmological journal the other day that basically said….a lot of time would be saved if people would just check what other people have investigated (in science) before going off to do the same experiment again.
It was said more eloquently, but you get the gist. I should make sure I have a copy of it by the computer so I can quote it here properly.
My favourite one from a few years ago.
http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/
Good one.
I wonder how many other letter writers out there have had two different letters published in two different papers on the same day.
Constance E Little will be rolling in her grave.
dv said:
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:Yes.
Even scientists may wonder. It is a free world.
On the other hand, we expect scientists to keep up with existing research, particularly (as in this case) when the scientist expresses an especial interest in the topic.
That IS the problem as there is no direct research on water divining. Buffy produced a testing of some sorts that did not really address water diving, but of buried water containers that is hardly comparable. The same paper also stated:
>>There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water. But success could be due to factors other than divining ability. For example, diviners may unconsciously follow cues from soil type, vegetation, and topography. Or the underground water may be so extensive that they can hardly miss it. Or they may tend to remember hits and forget misses. Obviously such factors have to be excluded before we can decide whether divining works for the reasons claimed by diviners, namely “things not fully understood”.<<
>>Ultimately the question may be a practical one. Yes, diviners do successfully find water, but do they outperform hydrogeologists? The comparison is not as easy as it seems because a hydrogeologist will decide where to drill based on accumulated geological knowledge plus his local experience of soils, vegetation, and the geology underlying surface features, and if any of these are lacking then his failure rate can be high. A further complication is that the aim is not merely to find water but to find water of adequate quality and quantity. It is easy to find water in almost any valley simply by drilling a hole, but the water may be too salty to use. Nevertheless the experience of Australian state governments, most of whom employed diviners up to the 1970s, is that an experienced hydrogeologist with local knowledge will consistently outperform a diviner.<<
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
I think if you are going to condemn a method that has been successfully used to detect water over thousands of years, plus demonise the new CSIRO chief in the process, then you should read the available evidence more carefully, because you really have next to nothing, except the opinions of a handful of people. To pass judgement in the fashion that is being done here on the lack of real scientific evidence, you should at least have some experience, which I doubt is the case with the most vocal here. Yes it is a good idea to get your facts before comment, but make sure they are facts, and just as importantly relevant facts.
and yet there is no scientific evidence that it does work. if there is then i’m sure it is on the web somewhere. all there is though is evidence that it doesn’t work. and as any good scientist knows the default position is scepticism.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
roughbarked said:Even scientists may wonder. It is a free world.
On the other hand, we expect scientists to keep up with existing research, particularly (as in this case) when the scientist expresses an especial interest in the topic.
That IS the problem as there is no direct research on water divining. Buffy produced a testing of some sorts that did not really address water diving, but of buried water containers that is hardly comparable. The same paper also stated:
>>There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water. But success could be due to factors other than divining ability. For example, diviners may unconsciously follow cues from soil type, vegetation, and topography. Or the underground water may be so extensive that they can hardly miss it. Or they may tend to remember hits and forget misses. Obviously such factors have to be excluded before we can decide whether divining works for the reasons claimed by diviners, namely “things not fully understood”.<<
>>Ultimately the question may be a practical one. Yes, diviners do successfully find water, but do they outperform hydrogeologists? The comparison is not as easy as it seems because a hydrogeologist will decide where to drill based on accumulated geological knowledge plus his local experience of soils, vegetation, and the geology underlying surface features, and if any of these are lacking then his failure rate can be high. A further complication is that the aim is not merely to find water but to find water of adequate quality and quantity. It is easy to find water in almost any valley simply by drilling a hole, but the water may be too salty to use. Nevertheless the experience of Australian state governments, most of whom employed diviners up to the 1970s, is that an experienced hydrogeologist with local knowledge will consistently outperform a diviner.<<
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-divi.htm
I think if you are going to condemn a method that has been successfully used to detect water over thousands of years, plus demonise the new CSIRO chief in the process, then you should read the available evidence more carefully, because you really have next to nothing, except the opinions of a handful of people. To pass judgement in the fashion that is being done here on the lack of real scientific evidence, you should at least have some experience, which I doubt is the case with the most vocal here. Yes it is a good idea to get your facts before comment, but make sure they are facts, and just as importantly relevant facts.
ChrispenEvan said:
and yet there is no scientific evidence that it does work. if there is then i’m sure it is on the web somewhere. all there is though is evidence that it doesn’t work. and as any good scientist knows the default position is scepticism.
You can be as sceptical as you like, but normally that does not include the outright condemnation or the slurring of a highly respected scientist.
yes it does when they believe this crap. you might not expect too much from scientists but we have high standards. and this one doesn’t meet them.
Some fringe science may have validity but surely all of it needs to be thoroughly tested by independent parties otherwise it’s open to exploitation. If water divining is real it must adhere to some form of physics, it seems to made out to be magic or at least some under known sense.
ChrispenEvan said:
yes it does when they believe this crap. you might not expect too much from scientists but we have high standards. and this one doesn’t meet them.
Science is a little more than I’m right and you’re wrong, therefore my default position is the only option.
Still I’ll leave you with your delusions as I have more important things to do.
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/I-divi.htm
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/S-grea.htm
http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/I-worl.htm
all look like fails to me.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
yes it does when they believe this crap. you might not expect too much from scientists but we have high standards. and this one doesn’t meet them.
Science is a little more than I’m right and you’re wrong, therefore my default position is the only option.
Still I’ll leave you with your delusions as I have more important things to do.
I find it amusing when people condemn science but still don’t mind using everything invented by our outstanding of science.
Cymek said:
Some fringe science may have validity but surely all of it needs to be thoroughly tested by independent parties otherwise it’s open to exploitation. If water divining is real it must adhere to some form of physics, it seems to made out to be magic or at least some under known sense.
The ONLY reason it has not been tested is the cost of drilling. Therefore it has not been scientifically examined at all, which awaits to be done. In the meantime it might not be very scientific to jump to conclusions, especially in such a derogatory fashion.
you just haven’t read the test that the diviners agreed to and failed to succeed at. remember they agreed to these examinations and they failed.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
Some fringe science may have validity but surely all of it needs to be thoroughly tested by independent parties otherwise it’s open to exploitation. If water divining is real it must adhere to some form of physics, it seems to made out to be magic or at least some under known sense.
The ONLY reason it has not been tested is the cost of drilling. Therefore it has not been scientifically examined at all, which awaits to be done. In the meantime it might not be very scientific to jump to conclusions, especially in such a derogatory fashion.
How far down do they drill, wouldn’t you find water in a lot of places if you drilled down far enough. You are saying its not being scientifically examined so how can it be given validity.
furious said:
- Still I’ll leave you with your delusions as I have more important things to do.
Very unscientific furious. It would seem most here prefer their unfounded conceptions.
Anyway gone now, might respond later.
>>There is no doubt that water diviners do successfully find water. But success could be due to factors other than divining ability. For example, diviners may unconsciously follow cues from soil type, vegetation, and topography. Or the underground water may be so extensive that they can hardly miss it. Or they may tend to remember hits and forget misses. Obviously such factors have to be excluded before we can decide whether divining works for the reasons claimed by diviners, namely “things not fully understood”.<<
Surely the above may be how divining works, it could be an inherent or unconcious skill that is very valuable
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
yes it does when they believe this crap. you might not expect too much from scientists but we have high standards. and this one doesn’t meet them.
Science is a little more than I’m right and you’re wrong, therefore my default position is the only option.
Still I’ll leave you with your delusions as I have more important things to do.
I find it amusing when people condemn science but still don’t mind using everything invented by our outstanding of science.
The only people misusing science around here Cymek are those who make similar comment to yours above.
it is the same way hydrologists find water as well. looking at surface cues, local knowledge, geology. only they don’t ascribe a woo element. bit like biodynamics, good farming practice but deluded by woo as to why it is good.
>..it could be an inherent or unconcious skill that is very valuable..”
men have certainly been finding the wet going back some, stick and all
Aren’t we allowed to be sceptical of outrageous claims without extraordinary evidence, human nature being what is will create people who just make stuff up to exploit others.
PF…about halfway down the link I gave is a drilling test. The diviners didn’t agree with each other, and didn’t do better than chance. They were blindfolded though, so perhaps that removes visual clues they use. However, many diviners do claim that its a sort of innate skill, so a blindfold should not bother them. It should not hinder them either if it’s magnetic or something that they work with.
it is funny as i am watching Harrison’s problems with the board of longitude atm and the similarities with the ever more ridiculous “tests” that they imposed upon him and the ever more ridiculous tests some expect before divining is relegated to the dustbin of woo would be funny if it went sad.
weren’t not went.
“some currently unknown power”
.
Right you lot; we need to work as a team & do things PF’s way.
We need scientific proof that this so called “ “some currently unknown power”” exists.
.
What do we want?
Scientific Proof!
.
When do we want it?
Now!
Why do we want it?
To pay homage to the new undisputed greatest scientist ever Dr Larry Marshall, venture capitalist extraordinaire,
so he can put the magic “some currently unknown power” in a box & sell it
making billions for ‘our’ CSIRO
Carry on
ChrispenEvan said:
you just haven’t read the test that the diviners agreed to and failed to succeed at. remember they agreed to these examinations and they failed.
Water divining is not a science, it has no rules or qualification, but made up of individuals from all walks of life, both sane and those completely off their heads, yet all are regarded the same by those who wish to misjudge this method of water detection. I have known people who claim to be able to not only divine water, but gold, opal and other minerals, but seeing as these people are usually living hand to mouth, their diving abilities are obviously not very sound. Nevertheless, there are sane sensible people who not only claim to be water diviners, but find water in normally dry country on a regular basis. So between the two extremes there are big gaps where just about anything goes and your general assessment of water divining is not too far wrong, but that is not the entire story and you should not judge it on such wide variation. However by all means be sceptical, although there is no clear divide one way or the other with a considerable amount of woo between, but view it all and not just one extreme.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
Some fringe science may have validity but surely all of it needs to be thoroughly tested by independent parties otherwise it’s open to exploitation. If water divining is real it must adhere to some form of physics, it seems to made out to be magic or at least some under known sense.
The ONLY reason it has not been tested is the cost of drilling. Therefore it has not been scientifically examined at all, which awaits to be done. In the meantime it might not be very scientific to jump to conclusions, especially in such a derogatory fashion.
How far down do they drill, wouldn’t you find water in a lot of places if you drilled down far enough. You are saying its not being scientifically examined so how can it be given validity.
Economically useable water is generally within 100 ft depth, with most being considerably less, although in some dry country areas they will go deeper, but nowhere near as deep aquifers.
buffy said:
PF…about halfway down the link I gave is a drilling test. The diviners didn’t agree with each other, and didn’t do better than chance. They were blindfolded though, so perhaps that removes visual clues they use. However, many diviners do claim that its a sort of innate skill, so a blindfold should not bother them. It should not hinder them either if it’s magnetic or something that they work with.
I have just answered this point. Please remember you are not dealing with a refined practise, but with individuals, many who grossly over estimate their abilities. Even so, none of the tests in your reference have any real relevance to water divining, which is detecting bodies of water, not relatively small containers of water with no relevance to surroundings, soil type or deeper moisture levels. There could be many factors involved, not just an oversimplified and irrelevant game, of which your reference can be little more than the results for that specific game. It is simply not relevant to what water divining might be.
The_observer said:
“some currently unknown power”
.Right you lot; we need to work as a team & do things PF’s way.
We need scientific proof that this so called “ “some currently unknown power”” exists.
.What do we want?
Scientific Proof!
.
When do we want it?Now!
Why do we want it?
To pay homage to the new undisputed greatest scientist ever Dr Larry Marshall, venture capitalist extraordinaire,
so he can put the magic “some currently unknown power” in a box & sell it
making billions for ‘our’ CSIRO
Carry on
A couple of powers thought magical before scientific investigation were magnetism and electricity, so don’t crap on something you do not understand, but have faith in science that it might discover a very useful tool to detect water rather than simple guess work, because currently that is largely all we have.
PermeateFree said:
A couple of powers thought magical before scientific investigation were magnetism and electricity, so don’t crap on something you do not understand, but have faith in science that it might discover a very useful tool to detect water rather than simple guess work, because currently that is largely all we have.
magnetism is quite easy to demonstrate.
Divining demonstrably doesn’t work.
““none of the tests in your reference have any real relevance to water divining, which is detecting bodies of water, not relatively small containers of water with no relevance to surroundings, soil type or deeper moisture levels.”
Are you sure you read it?
The Skeptics test required no detecting water, the containers were sitting there in plain sight; they just had to determine whether they were filled with water or sand….and all the self-declared diviners declared themselves satisfied with the conditions before they started.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:A couple of powers thought magical before scientific investigation were magnetism and electricity, so don’t crap on something you do not understand, but have faith in science that it might discover a very useful tool to detect water rather than simple guess work, because currently that is largely all we have.
magnetism is quite easy to demonstrate.
Divining demonstrably doesn’t work.
You are not being sceptic, just plain argumentative, as you have absolutely no evidence to support your statement.
Neophyte said:
““none of the tests in your reference have any real relevance to water divining, which is detecting bodies of water, not relatively small containers of water with no relevance to surroundings, soil type or deeper moisture levels.”Are you sure you read it?
The Skeptics test required no detecting water, the containers were sitting there in plain sight; they just had to determine whether they were filled with water or sand….and all the self-declared diviners declared themselves satisfied with the conditions before they started.
But that has nothing to do with water divining. It is nothing but a game anyone can play.
Neophyte said:
““none of the tests in your reference have any real relevance to water divining, which is detecting bodies of water, not relatively small containers of water with no relevance to surroundings, soil type or deeper moisture levels.”Are you sure you read it?
The Skeptics test required no detecting water, the containers were sitting there in plain sight; they just had to determine whether they were filled with water or sand….and all the self-declared diviners declared themselves satisfied with the conditions before they started.
A test was done in 1980 that used buried pvc pipes with running water controlled through valves.
The dowsers did no better with running water.
Skeptic Pete said:
Neophyte said:
““none of the tests in your reference have any real relevance to water divining, which is detecting bodies of water, not relatively small containers of water with no relevance to surroundings, soil type or deeper moisture levels.”Are you sure you read it?
The Skeptics test required no detecting water, the containers were sitting there in plain sight; they just had to determine whether they were filled with water or sand….and all the self-declared diviners declared themselves satisfied with the conditions before they started.
A test was done in 1980 that used buried pvc pipes with running water controlled through valves.
The dowsers did no better with running water.
Do you not understand the difference between water contained within a pipe with little or no influence on its environment and a body of water reacting with its environment over a much larger area. It is not like finding Easter Eggs SP.
The American Groundwater Trust says:
“A simple response to somebody wanting to know if divining works is “show me a wealthy water diviner whose income is derived from the power of witching.” With high drilling costs, and a worldwide thirst for the development of water sources, any person who could consistently and reliably find successful drilling sites with a stick could be a multi-millionaire.”
any person who could consistently and reliably find successful drilling sites with a stick could be a multi-millionaire.”
yeah, but, no real divining would be so mercenary.
buffy said:
The American Groundwater Trust says:
“A simple response to somebody wanting to know if divining works is “show me a wealthy water diviner whose income is derived from the power of witching.” With high drilling costs, and a worldwide thirst for the development of water sources, any person who could consistently and reliably find successful drilling sites with a stick could be a multi-millionaire.”
And you think that is scientific evidence, rather than personal opinion?
ChrispenEvan said:
any person who could consistently and reliably find successful drilling sites with a stick could be a multi-millionaire.”yeah, but, no real divining would be so mercenary.
I have known water diviners and they might be called on a few times a year and very often they don’t charge at all.
probably why you believe in it then. confirmation bias.
ChrispenEvan said:
probably why you believe in it then. confirmation bias.
Boris, I don’t think you have any appreciation of science and what it means. You are not here to debate it, but you are here to be argumentative and if you can annoy me so much the better. Good science is not built on such attitudes and only reflects your moral outlook.
LOL.
Alright then. The Germans did a very careful experiment. I read it through to see and it is double blind and under conditions agreed to by the participants. Make sure you go to the second part. There is a little bit of quirkiness in some of the translation.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=info/kassel/kassel1.dat
I’m wondering if I should chase up an email address for the CSIRO chief and send him some links to references.
buffy said:
I’m wondering if I should chase up an email address for the CSIRO chief and send him some links to references.
I’d imagine he has probably received thousands over the lat day or so. At least I hope he has.
buffy said:
I’m wondering if I should chase up an email address for the CSIRO chief and send him some links to references.
Nah, they might send a gang of chaplains around to drag you off to Nauru.
buffy said:
Alright then. The Germans did a very careful experiment. I read it through to see and it is double blind and under conditions agreed to by the participants. Make sure you go to the second part. There is a little bit of quirkiness in some of the translation.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=info/kassel/kassel1.dat
I’ve just watched a video of the 1980 test done by Randi and Dick Smith
Old and corny, but still very good.
buffy said:
I’m wondering if I should chase up an email address for the CSIRO chief and send him some links to references.
please do.
And congratulate him on his nomination for the Bent Spoon
buffy said:
Alright then. The Germans did a very careful experiment. I read it through to see and it is double blind and under conditions agreed to by the participants. Make sure you go to the second part. There is a little bit of quirkiness in some of the translation.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=info/kassel/kassel1.dat
The Hessische Rundfunk TV network, who paid for the expenses of setting up the dowsing tests, had covered the proceedings assiduously. Their crews were unobtrusively everywhere, taping every aspect of the tests. Such involvement of personnel and equipment, aside from the outlay of expenses for the basic water delivery system and security procedures, is quite expensive. They had planned to prepare a TV special, and GWUP had granted them this right in return for their participation. Crews and executives from the network were as eager as all of us to see the final results, but as it became evident that the dowsers had failed spectacularly, interest faded quickly. Crews packed away their equipment, scheduled post-results interviews were canceled, and the TV special never took place. It was a case of a “non-story” to Hessische Rundfunk, though if the dowsers had been successful, we expect it would have been a celebration of rare dimensions. – J.R.
i think what may have been forgotten is that you don’t need to be a formally trained scientist to do science. as long as your procedure adheres to scientifically accepted standards.
ChrispenEvan said:
i think what may have been forgotten is that you don’t need to be a formally trained scientist to do science. as long as your procedure adheres to scientifically accepted standards.
On Dr Karl’s show if someone does an experiment they get a prize pack.
ChrispenEvan said:
i think what may have been forgotten is that you don’t need to be a formally trained scientist to do science. as long as your procedure adheres to scientifically accepted standards.
Conversely, some formally trained scientists do pseudoscience.
dv said:
ChrispenEvan said:
i think what may have been forgotten is that you don’t need to be a formally trained scientist to do science. as long as your procedure adheres to scientifically accepted standards.
Conversely, some formally trained scientists do pseudoscience.
Yep. Especialy in the field of creation science.
His resume is impressive:
2008-2014 Managing Director Southern Cross Venture Partners
2005-2007 Managing Director, Arasor Corporation, USA
2003-2005 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Translucent Photonics, USA
2000-2003 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Lightbit Corporation, US
1997-2007 Chairman and Co-founder, AOC Technologies, USA
1996-2000 Vice President and Co-founder, Iridex, USA
1993-1996 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Light Solutions Corporation, USA
1989-1993 Technical Program Manager and Laser Engineer, Fibertek, USA
1985-1988 Cadet Research Scientist, DSTO
btm said:
His resume is impressive:
2008-2014 Managing Director Southern Cross Venture Partners
2005-2007 Managing Director, Arasor Corporation, USA
2003-2005 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Translucent Photonics, USA
2000-2003 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Lightbit Corporation, US
1997-2007 Chairman and Co-founder, AOC Technologies, USA
1996-2000 Vice President and Co-founder, Iridex, USA
1993-1996 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Light Solutions Corporation, USA
1989-1993 Technical Program Manager and Laser Engineer, Fibertek, USA
1985-1988 Cadet Research Scientist, DSTO
Doesn’t look like he’s been doing any science for a long time, just business exec stuff.
buffy said:
Alright then. The Germans did a very careful experiment. I read it through to see and it is double blind and under conditions agreed to by the participants. Make sure you go to the second part. There is a little bit of quirkiness in some of the translation.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=info/kassel/kassel1.dat
Is this any different to the other test you presented buffy? I think not.
I mentioned in an earlier post of mine the problems connected with this type of game, which I have reproduced below and of which I think you should read carefully:
>>Water divining is not a science, it has no rules or qualification, but made up of individuals from all walks of life, both sane and those completely off their heads, yet all are regarded the same by those who wish to misjudge this method of water detection. I have known people who claim to be able to not only divine water, but gold, opal and other minerals, but seeing as these people are usually living hand to mouth, their divining abilities are obviously not very sound. Nevertheless, there are sane sensible people who not only claim to be water diviners, but find water in normally dry country on a regular basis. So between the two extremes there are big gaps where just about anything goes and your general assessment of water divining is not too far wrong, but that is not the entire story and you should not judge it on such wide variation. However by all means be sceptical, although there is no clear divide one way or the other with a considerable amount of woo between, but view it all and not just one extreme.<<
I would say there would be few if any competent water diviners that would claim to be able to detect water in a pipe and certainly not minerals, and therefore would not enter such a test. There are plenty of nutters around willing to do this sort of thing if only for the notoriety, let alone a cash reward. Why can’t you understand that? These people are not scientists with rules and methods to follow and as you correctly point out with this area of operation, there is plenty of opportunity to deceive either yourself or others, so it is NOT science and cannot be considered as such.
What is needed are actual water diviners, dowsing in an area well away from known water deposits and their results tested by drilling bores to test their results, not this game play seemingly devised to attract the unstable or over confident and presented as entertainment. This is NOT science and I am surprised to see it presented as such.
ChrispenEvan said:
i think what may have been forgotten is that you don’t need to be a formally trained scientist to do science. as long as your procedure adheres to scientifically accepted standards.
And do you really think yours does in this instance?
Bubblecar said:
btm said:
His resume is impressive:
2008-2014 Managing Director Southern Cross Venture Partners
2005-2007 Managing Director, Arasor Corporation, USA
2003-2005 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Translucent Photonics, USA
2000-2003 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Lightbit Corporation, US
1997-2007 Chairman and Co-founder, AOC Technologies, USA
1996-2000 Vice President and Co-founder, Iridex, USA
1993-1996 Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Light Solutions Corporation, USA
1989-1993 Technical Program Manager and Laser Engineer, Fibertek, USA
1985-1988 Cadet Research Scientist, DSTO
Doesn’t look like he’s been doing any science for a long time, just business exec stuff.
I take it you have never been involved with business Mr Car?
Long Thread.
Could someone save me some time and post the links to the scientific experiments that showed this 80% success rate for dowsers.
Thanks.
>>What is needed are actual water diviners, dowsing in an area well away from known water deposits and their results tested by drilling bores to test their results, not this game play seemingly devised to attract the unstable or over confident and presented as entertainment. This is NOT science and I am surprised to see it presented as such.<<
I think some of the point of the thread is that the new CSIRO man says he wants to find the science. He’s not saying it isn’t science.
I meant to answer this one too:
>>I would say there would be few if any competent water diviners that would claim to be able to detect water in a pipe and certainly not minerals, and therefore would not enter such a test. There are plenty of nutters around willing to do this sort of thing if only for the notoriety, let alone a cash reward. Why can’t you understand that? These people are not scientists with rules and methods to follow and as you correctly point out with this area of operation, there is plenty of opportunity to deceive either yourself or others, so it is NOT science and cannot be considered as such. <<
In Germany water divining is a very long tradition. If you read the experimental setup, I think you will find that moving water in a pipe was chosen because after extensive discussions with diviners that was considered perhaps the easiest test. They were beginning experiments and meant to move on if this one got anywhere. I don’t believe the experimenters gathered a bunch of “nutters….willing to do this sort of thing if only for the notoriety” Possibly the one person who found the conditions not to his liking and refused to do the running water test and then was caught out cheating on the box test. But the rest were more than likely traditionalists, so completely believed in what they were doing. The community of diviners here is not the same as in Europe.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Long Thread.Could someone save me some time and post the links to the scientific experiments that showed this 80% success rate for dowsers.
Thanks.
There is none Rev.
Larry Marshall says anecdotally that he has seen this success rate.
And do you really think yours does in this instance?
i think they were as rigorous as could be and all methods were agreed to by both parties. you have remember the test were not just about finding water but about testing the other skills the diviners claimed to possess. and they failed these.
A very interesting anecdotal account of how a single man enlisted the talents of not one but three water diviners to test an area the owner had already surveyed and selected the spot where he wanted the well to be, can be found in Reminisces of a NSW south west settler Chapter 21 pp 193-201
I’ve had quite a few long conversations with Tom in the past as he was a regular visitor to my family home and to my place of work. The narrative is too long for me to copy out but suffice to say that of the three who all reported differing results, *though none were aware of the location already chosen by the landowner they all three said that this spot would have water *none were the same as to in which direction the water flowed *all were incorrect as to the water depth and flow rate
Water was eventually found at three times the depth indicated by the diviners.If you could divine water then you’d also need the ability to shut it off, water is everywhere
Cymek said:
If you could divine water then you’d also need the ability to shut it off, water is everywhere
:)
Boris should drill a hole into the atmosphere?
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
If you could divine water then you’d also need the ability to shut it off, water is everywhere
:)
Boris should drill a hole into the atmosphere?
Not that but at home water is in pipes, etc
Would a insane water diviner break into homes run to the shower and scream there she be and rip open the shower curtain in a Norman Bates style
My sister hired a local dowser when she wanted to sink a well on her old Elizabeth Town property (not because she particularly believed in dowsers, but because it was the local tradition to hire one to choose the spot). He chose a more-or-less convenient spot near the house, but it’s likely water would have been found virtually anywhere on the property.
bump
The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
buffy said:
The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
buffy said:
The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
I suspect that was a mistranslation from the Aramaic to Greek to English.
They actually meant diving. Most rivers in the middle east are quite shallow and this warning was to keep the number of spinal injuries to a minimum.
Ooh, sibeen. You are in Melbourne. You can go to the next society meeting. And their outings are so exciting. Just have a read of this report:
http://www.dsv.org.au/events.shtml
Yes, really. Read the bit about when they all got into the car….
sibeen said:
buffy said:The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
I suspect that was a mistranslation from the Aramaic to Greek to English.
They actually meant diving. Most rivers in the middle east are quite shallow and this warning was to keep the number of spinal injuries to a minimum.
sibeen said:
buffy said:The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
I suspect that was a mistranslation from the Aramaic to Greek to English.
They actually meant diving. Most rivers in the middle east are quite shallow and this warning was to keep the number of spinal injuries to a minimum.
They probably meant Divine. “Thou shalt not watch Divine movies”
buffy. that is funny. poor deluded sods.
buffy said:
Ooh, sibeen. You are in Melbourne. You can go to the next society meeting. And their outings are so exciting. Just have a read of this report:
http://www.dsv.org.au/events.shtml
Yes, really. Read the bit about when they all got into the car….
WTF is “non-beneficial energy”?
+1
negative vibes or a red aura sibeen.
or it could be a black aura.
…then raise personal vibrations to more appropriate and healthier levels.
good grief.
:-)
ChrispenEvan said:
…then raise personal vibrations to more appropriate and healthier levels.good grief.
:-)
The car was really shaking.
sibeen said:
They actually meant diving.
the word ‘diving’ has in fact been used, incorrectly, several times by one participant in this thread.
I’m not saying by who
ChrispenEvan said:
…then raise personal vibrations to more appropriate and healthier levels.good grief.
:-)
That’s it…. positively rude!
Bubblecar said:
sibeen said:
buffy said:The Bible says you shouldn’t do water divining….
http://rcg.org/questions/p204.a.html
I suspect that was a mistranslation from the Aramaic to Greek to English.
They actually meant diving. Most rivers in the middle east are quite shallow and this warning was to keep the number of spinal injuries to a minimum.
They probably meant Divine. “Thou shalt not watch Divine movies”
don’t shoot santa,,, even for that
Divert ley-lines around your house???
I hope it’s only the male ones and not the female ones, the female ones are supposed to be good.
I wonder how divining for opal bearing faults, permeates.
I’ve done quite a bit of it with a reasonable success rate but indeed it was done in known opal bearing ground and I am digging in the bits the old gougers left.
roughbarked said:
I wonder how divining for opal bearing faults, permeates.I’ve done quite a bit of it with a reasonable success rate but indeed it was done in known opal bearing ground and I am digging in the bits the old gougers left.
Yes the detection of faults and blows by divining is very easy once you know what you are looking for and something the old timers knew a thing or two about. They were very good at it, which I suppose having to hand dig shafts 30 – 60 ft deep which is a hell of a lot of work unless you had good reason to suppose opal was down there. I would have relayed some of my findings, but in light of the attitude here, I don’t think they would believe it.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
I wonder how divining for opal bearing faults, permeates.I’ve done quite a bit of it with a reasonable success rate but indeed it was done in known opal bearing ground and I am digging in the bits the old gougers left.
Yes the detection of faults and blows by divining is very easy once you know what you are looking for and something the old timers knew a thing or two about. They were very good at it, which I suppose having to hand dig shafts 30 – 60 ft deep which is a hell of a lot of work unless you had good reason to suppose opal was down there. I would have relayed some of my findings, but in light of the attitude here, I don’t think they would believe it.
There’s no reason to automatically reject any scientific evidence that dowsing works, but I’ve never seen any. It’s pretty obvious that uncontrolled anecdotal evidence is worthless in this context.
They were very good at it, which I suppose having to hand dig shafts 30 – 60 ft deep which is a hell of a lot of work unless you had good reason to suppose opal was down there.
so what was the % of successful shafts compared to unsuccessful shafts?
ChrispenEvan said:
They were very good at it, which I suppose having to hand dig shafts 30 – 60 ft deep which is a hell of a lot of work unless you had good reason to suppose opal was down there.so what was the % of successful shafts compared to unsuccessful shafts?
:)
We can assume that the majority of shafts were initially dug without any method of attempting to divine what lay below the surface. In fact we most likely know this to be the case in any mineral rush. ie: if gold was found in an area, people rushed there to dig up the whole place. In time it became clear that a more scientific approach was more economically viable.
In the case of the first rushes on opal at White Cliffs, the success rate was something like one in ninety nine struck rich finds. Perhaps a further twenty five in one hundred found less commercial quantities.
i’m referring to the shafts that were “dowsed” before sinking, not all shafts.
ChrispenEvan said:
i’m referring to the shafts that were “dowsed” before sinking, not all shafts.
I don’t believe there was ever an accurate record taken of this.
In my case I can say that I was handed two bent wires and told to have a go. I had no idea of what it was about or where any opal had been found specifically at the time. All I knew was that the field had once been covered with people digging shafts and that my father had divined water even though he was an engineer in several fields. On my first foray I marked a cross on the ground every time the wires crossed on my precarious and hazardous meanderings around the open shafts, whilst watching the wires rather than my feet. After putting the wires down it became clear to me that each cross thus marked, clearly indicated a line or fault line below the surface.In all other instances I have used the wires underground to indicate which direction to dig. In all cases I eventually came across a fault. In opal bearing ground most faults will contain some trace of opalisation. The trick is to find the larger or major faults, the complex faults. Those where water permeates.
and you give us “unbelievers” anecdotes and then rail against us for not supplying, which we have, scientifically conducted tests? sheesh. do you see why we think of dowsing as being a crock?
ChrispenEvan said:
and you give us “unbelievers” anecdotes and then rail against us for not supplying, which we have, scientifically conducted tests? sheesh. do you see why we think of dowsing as being a crock?
When have I said thus? I have not in any way stated that the anecdotes presented were any type of science. I have no explanations scientific or magical. I have never stood naked on a rock in the full moon light chanting mantras either. It was intriguing however to see a line of X marks the spot on the surface and even more intriguing to go down the open shafts and dig towards those marks and find opal bearing fault. Whatever the science or the magic, I have no idea. I only care that it saved me having to get in big machinery to dig up the whole field.
you miss the point. by “you” i mean believers in dowsing. i haven’t read one article saying that dowsing works. produce them or stfu. us “unbelievers” have put up. the whole argument is based on the claim by marshall that he has seen 80% success rate among dowsers. this is the claim we are arguing against. it is up to the claimant, and the supporters, to provide the evidence to back this claim. so far this hasn’t been done and for some reason us “unbelievers” have to provide, to your satisfaction, that this isn’t the case.
all i can say is, learn some fucking science or shut the fuck up about how it worked for you. fucking imbeciles!
i hope this is clear enough?
ChrispenEvan said:
you miss the point. by “you” i mean believers in dowsing. i haven’t read one article saying that dowsing works. produce them or stfu. us “unbelievers” have put up. the whole argument is based on the claim by marshall that he has seen 80% success rate among dowsers. this is the claim we are arguing against. it is up to the claimant, and the supporters, to provide the evidence to back this claim. so far this hasn’t been done and for some reason us “unbelievers” have to provide, to your satisfaction, that this isn’t the case.all i can say is, learn some fucking science or shut the fuck up about how it worked for you. fucking imbeciles!
i hope this is clear enough?
as mud. ;)
I’ll do some research but it may take me the rest of my life only to still come to the same conclusion. If it gets your rocks off, it doesn’t have to be a science. Enjoy life as you see fit as long as it doesn’t bother others.
Aye, Ronnie!
Boris you are not a scientist, you don’t behave like a scientist and going on your attitude in this thread you have no idea about a scientific approach. You have a slammed shut mind, letting nothing in except what suits your ignorant outlook. Not only do you undermine and degrade a process that has been successfully used over thousands of years, but demonised and character assassinate those with a different and more educated view than yourself.
We are animals and like other animals we have some highly developed senses to help us survive. The migration of birds has until very recently been misunderstood, the navigation of bees and many other animals also. Even we have a sense of direction. We often feel people looking at us, or a feel sense of danger. These senses are not infallible, but they aid us (or did) to live a life with fewer hazards.
I would suggest rather than crapping on things you have no knowledge let alone experience, you have a read of the following especially senses existing in the animal world. We are not a creature without senses ourselves, only most people are unaware of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
put up the evidence or stfu imbecile.
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence or stfu imbecile.
Try opening you mind you ignorant and scientifically illiterate oaf.
put up the evidence or shut the fuck up, imbecile.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence or stfu imbecile.
Try opening you mind you ignorant and scientifically illiterate oaf.
“some currently unknown power”
“some currently unknown power”
yeah, woo power.
How does divining work when you are surrounded by water, be it in the sky, river, puddles or underground.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence or stfu imbecile.
Try opening you mind you ignorant and scientifically illiterate oaf.
“some currently unknown power”
No just a prime motivation of science.
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:Try opening you mind you ignorant and scientifically illiterate oaf.
“some currently unknown power”
No just a prime motivation of science.
Shouldn’t it have to work under controlled test conditions, repeatable, etc we ask no less for any other scientific claim
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
Yes and if it works wouldn’t it win the Randi prize
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
There are none, which equates with the rubbish you have presented here that prove nothing, plus with your hostile attitude and closed mind, who would try to educate you.
Cymek said:
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
Yes and if it works wouldn’t it win the Randi prize
Example of a test (dowsing)
In 1979 Randi tested four people in Italy for dowsing ability (Mr. Fontana, Dr. Borga, Mr. Stanziola, and Mr. Senatore). The prize at the time was $10,000. The conditions were that a 10 meter by 10 meter test area would be used. There would be water supply and a reservoir just outside the test area. There would be three plastic pipes running underground from the source to the reservoir along different concealed paths. Each pipe would pass through the test area by entering at some point on an edge and exiting at some point on an edge. A pipe would not cross itself but it might cross others. The pipes were 3 centimeters in diameter and were buried 50 centimeters below ground. Valves would select which of the pipes water was running through, and only one would be selected at a time. At least 5 liters per second of water would flow through the selected pipe. The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. Additionally, the dowser must demonstrate that the dowsing reaction works on an exposed pipe with the water running. Then one of the three pipes would be selected randomly for each trial. The dowser would place ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he or she traces as the path of the active pipe. Two-thirds of the pegs placed by the dowser must be within 10 centimeters of the center of the pipe being traced for the trial to be a success. Three trials would be done for the test of each dowser and the dowser must pass two of the three trials to pass the test. A lawyer was present, in possession of Randi’s $10,000 check. If a claimant were successful, the lawyer would give him or her the check. If none were successful, the check would be returned to Randi.
All of the dowsers agreed with the conditions of the test and stated that they felt able to perform the test that day and that the water flow was sufficient. Before the test they were asked how sure they were that they would succeed. All said either “99 percent” or “100 percent” certain. They were asked what they would conclude if the water flow was 90 degrees from what they thought it was and all said that it was impossible. After the test they were asked how confident they were that they had passed the test. Three answered “100 percent” and one answered that he had not completed the test.
When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test. Dr. Borga had placed his markers carefully, but the nearest was a full 8 feet from the water pipe. Borga said, “We are lost”, but within two minutes he started blaming his failure on many things such as sunspots and geomagnetic variables. Two of the dowsers thought they had found natural water before the test started, but disagreed with each other about where it was, as well as with the ones who found no natural water.
The motion of dowsing rods is nowadays generally attributed to the ideomotor effect.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:“some currently unknown power”
No just a prime motivation of science.
Shouldn’t it have to work under controlled test conditions, repeatable, etc we ask no less for any other scientific claim
Well Cymek if you had been paying closer attention, you would realise no such claim has been made.
“there are none”
yet with test done, the rules of which both parties have agreed to and testing various claims made by the claimants, none have shown a positive result.
Cymek said:
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
Yes and if it works wouldn’t it win the Randi prize
I think you ought to shut up Cymek as you are being quite absurd.
Dowsing appears to have arisen in the context of Renaissance magic in Germany, and it remains popular among believers in Forteana or radiesthesia.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:No just a prime motivation of science.
Shouldn’t it have to work under controlled test conditions, repeatable, etc we ask no less for any other scientific claim
Well Cymek if you had been paying closer attention, you would realise no such claim has been made.
How can anyone claim its real then
Cymek said:
Cymek said:
ChrispenEvan said:
put up the evidence pf, any will do as long as it is repeatable. have you got anything? if it works then some test, somewhere at some time must have shown positive results? go look for it and post it here.
Yes and if it works wouldn’t it win the Randi prize
Example of a test (dowsing)
In 1979 Randi tested four people in Italy for dowsing ability (Mr. Fontana, Dr. Borga, Mr. Stanziola, and Mr. Senatore). The prize at the time was $10,000. The conditions were that a 10 meter by 10 meter test area would be used. There would be water supply and a reservoir just outside the test area. There would be three plastic pipes running underground from the source to the reservoir along different concealed paths. Each pipe would pass through the test area by entering at some point on an edge and exiting at some point on an edge. A pipe would not cross itself but it might cross others. The pipes were 3 centimeters in diameter and were buried 50 centimeters below ground. Valves would select which of the pipes water was running through, and only one would be selected at a time. At least 5 liters per second of water would flow through the selected pipe. The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. Additionally, the dowser must demonstrate that the dowsing reaction works on an exposed pipe with the water running. Then one of the three pipes would be selected randomly for each trial. The dowser would place ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he or she traces as the path of the active pipe. Two-thirds of the pegs placed by the dowser must be within 10 centimeters of the center of the pipe being traced for the trial to be a success. Three trials would be done for the test of each dowser and the dowser must pass two of the three trials to pass the test. A lawyer was present, in possession of Randi’s $10,000 check. If a claimant were successful, the lawyer would give him or her the check. If none were successful, the check would be returned to Randi.
All of the dowsers agreed with the conditions of the test and stated that they felt able to perform the test that day and that the water flow was sufficient. Before the test they were asked how sure they were that they would succeed. All said either “99 percent” or “100 percent” certain. They were asked what they would conclude if the water flow was 90 degrees from what they thought it was and all said that it was impossible. After the test they were asked how confident they were that they had passed the test. Three answered “100 percent” and one answered that he had not completed the test.
When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test. Dr. Borga had placed his markers carefully, but the nearest was a full 8 feet from the water pipe. Borga said, “We are lost”, but within two minutes he started blaming his failure on many things such as sunspots and geomagnetic variables. Two of the dowsers thought they had found natural water before the test started, but disagreed with each other about where it was, as well as with the ones who found no natural water.
This is a silly game, it is not science because it is totally unrealistic.
ChrispenEvan said:
“there are none”yet with test done, the rules of which both parties have agreed to and testing various claims made by the claimants, none have shown a positive result.
They are still games with NO practical application.
but the dowsers agreed to it. they had confidence in their abilities to pass these tests. they failed.
PermeateFree said:
I think you ought to shut up Cymek as you are being quite absurd.
It’s not just Cymek that thinks you’re an unscientific ignoramous. No one on this forum agrees with you and your unscientific theories.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:Shouldn’t it have to work under controlled test conditions, repeatable, etc we ask no less for any other scientific claim
Well Cymek if you had been paying closer attention, you would realise no such claim has been made.
How can anyone claim its real then
Exactly and at the same time how can you be so certain there is nothing to it?
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
Cymek said:Yes and if it works wouldn’t it win the Randi prize
Example of a test (dowsing)
In 1979 Randi tested four people in Italy for dowsing ability (Mr. Fontana, Dr. Borga, Mr. Stanziola, and Mr. Senatore). The prize at the time was $10,000. The conditions were that a 10 meter by 10 meter test area would be used. There would be water supply and a reservoir just outside the test area. There would be three plastic pipes running underground from the source to the reservoir along different concealed paths. Each pipe would pass through the test area by entering at some point on an edge and exiting at some point on an edge. A pipe would not cross itself but it might cross others. The pipes were 3 centimeters in diameter and were buried 50 centimeters below ground. Valves would select which of the pipes water was running through, and only one would be selected at a time. At least 5 liters per second of water would flow through the selected pipe. The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. Additionally, the dowser must demonstrate that the dowsing reaction works on an exposed pipe with the water running. Then one of the three pipes would be selected randomly for each trial. The dowser would place ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he or she traces as the path of the active pipe. Two-thirds of the pegs placed by the dowser must be within 10 centimeters of the center of the pipe being traced for the trial to be a success. Three trials would be done for the test of each dowser and the dowser must pass two of the three trials to pass the test. A lawyer was present, in possession of Randi’s $10,000 check. If a claimant were successful, the lawyer would give him or her the check. If none were successful, the check would be returned to Randi.
All of the dowsers agreed with the conditions of the test and stated that they felt able to perform the test that day and that the water flow was sufficient. Before the test they were asked how sure they were that they would succeed. All said either “99 percent” or “100 percent” certain. They were asked what they would conclude if the water flow was 90 degrees from what they thought it was and all said that it was impossible. After the test they were asked how confident they were that they had passed the test. Three answered “100 percent” and one answered that he had not completed the test.
When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test. Dr. Borga had placed his markers carefully, but the nearest was a full 8 feet from the water pipe. Borga said, “We are lost”, but within two minutes he started blaming his failure on many things such as sunspots and geomagnetic variables. Two of the dowsers thought they had found natural water before the test started, but disagreed with each other about where it was, as well as with the ones who found no natural water.
This is a silly game, it is not science because it is totally unrealistic.
How so, shouldn’t divining be reasonable accurate, if its a unknown sense or skill or combination of both and a person says its what they do as a job shouldn’t it return decent results.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Well Cymek if you had been paying closer attention, you would realise no such claim has been made.
How can anyone claim its real then
Exactly and at the same time how can you be so certain there is nothing to it?
I didn’t say that but it needs to be proven.
Its more anecdotal evidence
unreliable
I would want a CSIRO chief to be a good scientific observer
/tic mode
Did Tony Abbott appoint him?
/tic
All I want to see, is a large virgin area and not just garden beds with stuff hidden in it, given over to diviners to do their best work, however it is they do it. I’d like to see if a succession of diviners going over the same patch of ground independently can get some sort of match in what they find.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
“there are none”yet with test done, the rules of which both parties have agreed to and testing various claims made by the claimants, none have shown a positive result.
They are still games with NO practical application.
They do have a practical application, lets say you had underground water pipes from a demolished and cleared block so no evidence of where they might be existed, wouldn’t it be useful if a diviner could find them without some digging and destroying them.
no cymek, apparently you need rules so minutely defined that in reality it makes the tests worthless.
;-)
ChrispenEvan said:
but the dowsers agreed to it. they had confidence in their abilities to pass these tests. they failed.
Dowsers are individuals with individual experiences and ideas. If some want to overestimate their capabilities or just see how good they are, then fine, but it is not indicative of the whole and bears no relation to how divining in normally used. Even then it is not fool-proof as some diviners are better than others, weather also plays an important part and can distort the results. All it is, is an aid as is a sense of direction in us.
party_pants said:
All I want to see, is a large virgin area and not just garden beds with stuff hidden in it, given over to diviners to do their best work, however it is they do it. I’d like to see if a succession of diviners going over the same patch of ground independently can get some sort of match in what they find.
It should work that way shouldn’t it and what is accepted as accurate should it be centimetres, metres,etc
One could research it or more better
A team could research it
collect real evidence
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:I think you ought to shut up Cymek as you are being quite absurd.
It’s not just Cymek that thinks you’re an unscientific ignoramous. No one on this forum agrees with you and your unscientific theories.
I put you in the same category as Boris, ignorant, unscientific and unable to read.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
but the dowsers agreed to it. they had confidence in their abilities to pass these tests. they failed.
Dowsers are individuals with individual experiences and ideas. If some want to overestimate their capabilities or just see how good they are, then fine, but it is not indicative of the whole and bears no relation to how divining in normally used. Even then it is not fool-proof as some diviners are better than others, weather also plays an important part and can distort the results. All it is, is an aid as is a sense of direction in us.
So its a crude and fairly inaccurate sense?
weather also plays an important part and can distort the results.
do you realise how stupid you sound?
ffs.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:Example of a test (dowsing)
In 1979 Randi tested four people in Italy for dowsing ability (Mr. Fontana, Dr. Borga, Mr. Stanziola, and Mr. Senatore). The prize at the time was $10,000. The conditions were that a 10 meter by 10 meter test area would be used. There would be water supply and a reservoir just outside the test area. There would be three plastic pipes running underground from the source to the reservoir along different concealed paths. Each pipe would pass through the test area by entering at some point on an edge and exiting at some point on an edge. A pipe would not cross itself but it might cross others. The pipes were 3 centimeters in diameter and were buried 50 centimeters below ground. Valves would select which of the pipes water was running through, and only one would be selected at a time. At least 5 liters per second of water would flow through the selected pipe. The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. Additionally, the dowser must demonstrate that the dowsing reaction works on an exposed pipe with the water running. Then one of the three pipes would be selected randomly for each trial. The dowser would place ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he or she traces as the path of the active pipe. Two-thirds of the pegs placed by the dowser must be within 10 centimeters of the center of the pipe being traced for the trial to be a success. Three trials would be done for the test of each dowser and the dowser must pass two of the three trials to pass the test. A lawyer was present, in possession of Randi’s $10,000 check. If a claimant were successful, the lawyer would give him or her the check. If none were successful, the check would be returned to Randi.
All of the dowsers agreed with the conditions of the test and stated that they felt able to perform the test that day and that the water flow was sufficient. Before the test they were asked how sure they were that they would succeed. All said either “99 percent” or “100 percent” certain. They were asked what they would conclude if the water flow was 90 degrees from what they thought it was and all said that it was impossible. After the test they were asked how confident they were that they had passed the test. Three answered “100 percent” and one answered that he had not completed the test.
When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test. Dr. Borga had placed his markers carefully, but the nearest was a full 8 feet from the water pipe. Borga said, “We are lost”, but within two minutes he started blaming his failure on many things such as sunspots and geomagnetic variables. Two of the dowsers thought they had found natural water before the test started, but disagreed with each other about where it was, as well as with the ones who found no natural water.
This is a silly game, it is not science because it is totally unrealistic.
How so, shouldn’t divining be reasonable accurate, if its a unknown sense or skill or combination of both and a person says its what they do as a job shouldn’t it return decent results.
Suggest you read my posts more carefully, so stupid having to continually repeat myself.
All I want to see, is a large virgin…
don’t we all p_p, don’t we all?
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:How can anyone claim its real then
Exactly and at the same time how can you be so certain there is nothing to it?
I didn’t say that but it needs to be proven.
So why are you so hostile to the idea?
poikilotherm said:
Get the people in the space station to do “water diving” experiments
they have all that water below them
they should be able to collect heaps of evidence or maybe none at all
Do diviner gets paid?
If so do they tell the employer exactly what they may or may not find and how accurate those findings may be.
Cymek said:
party_pants said:
All I want to see, is a large virgin area and not just garden beds with stuff hidden in it, given over to diviners to do their best work, however it is they do it. I’d like to see if a succession of diviners going over the same patch of ground independently can get some sort of match in what they find.
It should work that way shouldn’t it and what is accepted as accurate should it be centimetres, metres,etc
Well the first step would be to see if results from several diviners going over the same ground match. If the within group results show no correlation we can call the whole thing off as bunkum.
ChrispenEvan said:
All I want to see, is a large virgin…don’t we all p_p, don’t we all?
Rolled in flour no less
like i said, the weather has to be right, the site has to be right, the target has to be right. how about phase of the moon? morning or afternoon? does it work if disbelievers watch?
so many rules as to make the test worthless.
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
PermeateFree said:I think you ought to shut up Cymek as you are being quite absurd.
It’s not just Cymek that thinks you’re an unscientific ignoramous. No one on this forum agrees with you and your unscientific theories.
I put you in the same category as Boris, ignorant, unscientific and unable to read.
I wanna know who DO is?
CrazyNeutrino said:
poikilotherm said:
Get the people in the space station to do “water diving” experiments
they have all that water below them
they should be able to collect heaps of evidence or maybe none at all
Nice photo by the way
Did you take it?
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
“there are none”yet with test done, the rules of which both parties have agreed to and testing various claims made by the claimants, none have shown a positive result.
They are still games with NO practical application.
They do have a practical application, lets say you had underground water pipes from a demolished and cleared block so no evidence of where they might be existed, wouldn’t it be useful if a diviner could find them without some digging and destroying them.
It might be useful, but it is not what diviners do.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Exactly and at the same time how can you be so certain there is nothing to it?
I didn’t say that but it needs to be proven.
So why are you so hostile to the idea?
I’m not I’m quite calm, I think it would be wonderful if human possessed ESP type senses, but I think its all fanciful and wishful thinking, much of it seems a backlash a science for spoiling myths and legends.
ChrispenEvan said:
no cymek, apparently you need rules so minutely defined that in reality it makes the tests worthless.;-)
Considering the tests mean nothing, it just undermines your scientific understanding to place so much faith in them.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:It’s not just Cymek that thinks you’re an unscientific ignoramous. No one on this forum agrees with you and your unscientific theories.
I put you in the same category as Boris, ignorant, unscientific and unable to read.
I wanna know who DO is?
I thought Dark Orange, but really have no idea
Making it fit the screen is also good…
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
no cymek, apparently you need rules so minutely defined that in reality it makes the tests worthless.;-)
Considering the tests mean nothing, it just undermines your scientific understanding to place so much faith in them.
How can you claim someone works if it fails or doesn’t adhere to tests.
Our other major senses all pass tests, in fact we name tests after them.
Shouldn’t science back up water divining, for example perhaps they have a unique (genetic?) ability to smell water above ground from large pools of underground water. If so its a real sense but also passes a scientific test
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
but the dowsers agreed to it. they had confidence in their abilities to pass these tests. they failed.
Dowsers are individuals with individual experiences and ideas. If some want to overestimate their capabilities or just see how good they are, then fine, but it is not indicative of the whole and bears no relation to how divining in normally used. Even then it is not fool-proof as some diviners are better than others, weather also plays an important part and can distort the results. All it is, is an aid as is a sense of direction in us.
So its a crude and fairly inaccurate sense?
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.
Can you stop trying to post that Furious – you’re giving me error messages whatever it is.
Life is short, troll hard.
furious said:
Making it fit the screen is also good…
Excellent
Get the people in the space station to do “water divining” experiments
they have all that water below them
they should be able to collect heaps of evidence or maybe none at all
Fixed
ChrispenEvan said:
weather also plays an important part and can distort the results.do you realise how stupid you sound?
ffs.
That is the problem with you Boris, instead of asking why, you jump to your normal mode of I know best. You would be a diviner who would over-estimate their ability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
Cymek said:
Do diviner gets paid?
If so do they tell the employer exactly what they may or may not find and how accurate those findings may be.
From what I know of them, usually no. Mostly they divine to find out things for themselves.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
weather also plays an important part and can distort the results.do you realise how stupid you sound?
ffs.
That is the problem with you Boris, instead of asking why, you jump to your normal mode of I know best. You would be a diviner who would over-estimate their ability.
maybe the weather “is inferring” with water divining experiments
doesn’t know whether to go up or down
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
Do diviner gets paid?
If so do they tell the employer exactly what they may or may not find and how accurate those findings may be.From what I know of them, usually no. Mostly they divine to find out things for themselves.
“Sir, Sir, Sir please Sir why is it called “divining”? does God tell the rod to bend or wave about?
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Dowsers are individuals with individual experiences and ideas. If some want to overestimate their capabilities or just see how good they are, then fine, but it is not indicative of the whole and bears no relation to how divining in normally used. Even then it is not fool-proof as some diviners are better than others, weather also plays an important part and can distort the results. All it is, is an aid as is a sense of direction in us.
So its a crude and fairly inaccurate sense?
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.
You can be assured of the quality of our tools – we offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee. It’s like a test drive – if you don’t like it for any reason, you can return it for a full refund or exchange. Because we dowse with the tools we sell, we are in a unique position to give you advice and answer your questions.
Basic dowsing is asking questions and getting answers determined by a certain kind of movement of a dowsing pendulum. The operator him- or herself is a necessary part of the system. You can dowse with a variety of devices – different kinds of pendulums and divining rods, you can even use your own body in “deviceless dowsing”.
It can be used for variety of tasks, from serching for water and minerals, missing people or lost objects, to checking health issues and sending subtle vibrations over distance. Pendulum dowsing is becoming a technique of choice for alternative health practitioners.
vaginal thrush
ChrispenEvan said:
like i said, the weather has to be right, the site has to be right, the target has to be right. how about phase of the moon? morning or afternoon? does it work if disbelievers watch?so many rules as to make the test worthless.
Dowsing in mainly used in dry environments, heavy rainfall can distort the resulst, something a person with a logical open mind would be able to appreciate. The rest is your normal hostile and ignorant mode that I shall ignore.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:So its a crude and fairly inaccurate sense?
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.
You can be assured of the quality of our tools – we offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee. It’s like a test drive – if you don’t like it for any reason, you can return it for a full refund or exchange. Because we dowse with the tools we sell, we are in a unique position to give you advice and answer your questions.
Basic dowsing is asking questions and getting answers determined by a certain kind of movement of a dowsing pendulum. The operator him- or herself is a necessary part of the system. You can dowse with a variety of devices – different kinds of pendulums and divining rods, you can even use your own body in “deviceless dowsing”.
It can be used for variety of tasks, from serching for water and minerals, missing people or lost objects, to checking health issues and sending subtle vibrations over distance. Pendulum dowsing is becoming a technique of choice for alternative health practitioners.
How does it differ from lizard stropping?
Soviet geologists have made claims for the abilities of dowsers, which remain unverified by any credible scientific means. Some authors suggest that these abilities may be explained by postulating human sensitivity to small magnetic field gradient changes.[44
This is interesting do large bodies of water distort magnetic fields?
I just wanted to repost this bit
“ Pendulum dowsing is becoming a technique of choice for alternative health practitioners.”
http://www.diviningmind.com/
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:I didn’t say that but it needs to be proven.
So why are you so hostile to the idea?
I’m not I’m quite calm, I think it would be wonderful if human possessed ESP type senses, but I think its all fanciful and wishful thinking, much of it seems a backlash a science for spoiling myths and legends.
That’s ok, nobody is trying to convert you, only to show how stupid a dogmatic attitude is in areas you have no serious information and no experience.
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.
this is just getting better and better.
ChrispenEvan said:
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.this is just getting better and better.
Don’t get hit by lightning
ChrispenEvan said:
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.this is just getting better and better.
And you are showing how amazingly dumb you really are. As passing interest, are you the Observer, because you are beginning to sound like it.
yes, i am the observer who is really DO.
PermeateFree said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Undeveloped that is the case. It is not just wandering around with a piece of bent wire, it takes a considerable amount of experience to understand what the wire (a tool) is telling you. You will make many mistakes initially, but determinations improve like with any tool with use.this is just getting better and better.
And you are showing how amazingly dumb you really are. As passing interest, are you the Observer, because you are beginning to sound like it.
your postings on this thread are absurd sir
ChrispenEvan said:
yes, i am the observer who is really DO.
and we’re all just moiii
ChrispenEvan said:
yes, i am the observer who is really DO.
Could be right too. Thanks.
ChrispenEvan said:
All I want to see, is a large virgin…don’t we all p_p, don’t we all?
A small one would do.
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?
>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<
http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
PermeateFree said:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
I can use the dowsing site http://www.diviningmind.com/ to debunk whatever you think the above proved.
quote
Dowsing, also known as rhabdomancy, witching, divination, dousing, doodlebugging, radiesthesia,
is an art and a science that allows you to detect vibrations that are not detectable by any scientific instruments.
.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
I can use the dowsing site http://www.diviningmind.com/ to debunk whatever you think the above proved.
quote
Dowsing, also known as rhabdomancy, witching, divination, dousing, doodlebugging, radiesthesia,
is an art and a science that allows you to detect vibrations that are not detectable by any scientific instruments..
Might have known you would bring that crap again, pity you can’t be original sometimes.
Anyway, if you want some science read my last post and more importantly read the link supplied.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
I can use the dowsing site http://www.diviningmind.com/ to debunk whatever you think the above proved.
quote
Dowsing, also known as rhabdomancy, witching, divination, dousing, doodlebugging, radiesthesia,
is an art and a science that allows you to detect vibrations that are not detectable by any scientific instruments..
Gravity waves perhaps
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
I can use the dowsing site http://www.diviningmind.com/ to debunk whatever you think the above proved.
quote
Dowsing, also known as rhabdomancy, witching, divination, dousing, doodlebugging, radiesthesia,
is an art and a science that allows you to detect vibrations that are not detectable by any scientific instruments..
Might have known you would bring that crap again, pity you can’t be original sometimes.
Hey, that’s straight from the horses mouth Mr PF man!!!!!!
lol
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.
What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:I can use the dowsing site http://www.diviningmind.com/ to debunk whatever you think the above proved.
quote
Dowsing, also known as rhabdomancy, witching, divination, dousing, doodlebugging, radiesthesia,
is an art and a science that allows you to detect vibrations that are not detectable by any scientific instruments..
Might have known you would bring that crap again, pity you can’t be original sometimes.
Hey, that’s straight from the horses mouth Mr PF man!!!!!!
lol
School holidays Observer?
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Maybe we could have an astrology division there as well, and not employ any actual scientists but just anyone who comes in off the street, deeply religious people believing in cosmic babies with wings flying around in space will be accepted, anyone believing in 2000 year old texts that never change will also be accepted, anyone who thinks the sun goes around the earth will be accepted etc, any one believing in a God that has never been scientifically proven to exist will be accepted etc etc no worries, come on in
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
CrazyNeutrino said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Maybe we could have an astrology division there as well, and not employ any actual scientists but just anyone who comes in off the street, deeply religious people believing in cosmic babies with wings flying around in space will be accepted, anyone believing in 2000 year old texts that never change will also be accepted, anyone who thinks the sun goes around the earth will be accepted etc, any one believing in a God that has never been scientifically proven to exist will be accepted etc etc no worries, come on in
It doesn’t matter what is said or what evidence is produced, once your minds are made up there is no changing you. Tell you what guys, you are not scientists or even remotely so.
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
I thought Tony Abbot might have appointed him
but yes, he could be doing a tic
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
I suspect the vast majority of the staff at the CSIRO would think that you sir, are the dickhead.
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
No, he is lot more aware of what is possible in the world, which is probably why he has been appointed chief.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
I think you’ll find its a letter to the editor of the Nadawadding Herald & Tribune, or some such prestigious publication.
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Maybe we could have an astrology division there as well, and not employ any actual scientists but just anyone who comes in off the street, deeply religious people believing in cosmic babies with wings flying around in space will be accepted, anyone believing in 2000 year old texts that never change will also be accepted, anyone who thinks the sun goes around the earth will be accepted etc, any one believing in a God that has never been scientifically proven to exist will be accepted etc etc no worries, come on in
It doesn’t matter what is said or what evidence is produced, once your minds are made up there is no changing you. Tell you what guys, you are not scientists or even remotely so.
You don’t produce evidence though
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
Nope. He’s fair dinkum mate.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
I suspect the vast majority of the staff at the CSIRO would think that you sir, are the dickhead.
You might like to read my earlier post before sending such a bigoted and self-obsessed piece of rubbish, which completely loses the point.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
I think you’ll find its a letter to the editor of the Nadawadding Herald & Tribune, or some such prestigious publication.
Sydney Morning Herald actually.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
If that is your letter to the CSIRO SP, they are going to think you are a right dickhead.
I think you’ll find its a letter to the editor of the Nadawadding Herald & Tribune, or some such prestigious publication.
Probably think he is a silly old fart by now.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
No, he is lot more aware of what is possible in the world, which is probably why he has been appointed chief.
He cant see past the end of his nose, which helps to explain the vacant look and all the pausing he does in his speeches
PermeateFree said:
You might like to read my earlier post before sending such a bigoted and self-obsessed piece of rubbish, which completely loses the point.
I did.
It was nonsense.
Skeptic Pete said:
roughbarked said:
Skeptic Pete said:
Recently appointed head of the CSIRO and Australian Skeptic’s Bent Spoon Award nominee, Dr Larry Marshall was recently quoted in an interview discussing the merits of water divining with some anecdotal evidence that he’s “seen people do this with close to 80 per cent accuracy” but has “no idea how they do it”. He isn’t afraid to talk about what he describes as an ‘out-there’ vision for agricultural research, and is interested in the development of technology that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water.What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance.
Is this really the type of scientific research the CSIRO should be spending its dwindling funding on? Are there also plans for an alchemy research division? It seems that without a science minister we are destined to drift aimlessly into the future relying on ancient wisdom and superstition.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
Nope. He’s fair dinkum mate.
Bloody hell
Why cant we have someone like Barry Jones appointed there
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Maybe we could have an astrology division there as well, and not employ any actual scientists but just anyone who comes in off the street, deeply religious people believing in cosmic babies with wings flying around in space will be accepted, anyone believing in 2000 year old texts that never change will also be accepted, anyone who thinks the sun goes around the earth will be accepted etc, any one believing in a God that has never been scientifically proven to exist will be accepted etc etc no worries, come on in
It doesn’t matter what is said or what evidence is produced, once your minds are made up there is no changing you. Tell you what guys, you are not scientists or even remotely so.
You don’t produce evidence though
It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
Hasn’t most fringe/pseudo science been investigated at some point in time by UK/US/USSR governments much during the cold war and found no validity to any of it.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Bloody hell
Why cant we have someone like Barry Jones appointed there
He doesn’t fit the pattern for this guberment, mate. They appoint an anti-person to whatever role it is. Dick Warburton to review the Renewal Energy Target scheme, that cranky old poetry professor to review the education curriculum, Tim Wilson as the Commissioner for Human Rights.. and blah. Appointing someone like Barry Jones to the CSIRO doesn’t fit the pattern.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:Has anyone thought that perhaps the CSIRO guy was doing this tongue in cheek because of Tony Abbott?
No, he is lot more aware of what is possible in the world, which is probably why he has been appointed chief.
He cant see past the end of his nose, which helps to explain the vacant look and all the pausing he does in his speeches
Wonders why they didn’t give the job to you?
PermeateFree said:
It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
Cymek said:
Hasn’t most fringe/pseudo science been investigated at some point in time by UK/US/USSR governments much during the cold war and found no validity to any of it.
Yes.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:You might like to read my earlier post before sending such a bigoted and self-obsessed piece of rubbish, which completely loses the point.
I did.
It was nonsense.
So science is nonsense now, how novel.
:))))))))))))))
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:It doesn’t matter what is said or what evidence is produced, once your minds are made up there is no changing you. Tell you what guys, you are not scientists or even remotely so.
You don’t produce evidence though
It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
The satellite detection is different to what senses humans employ though, wouldn’t we have discoverd this years ago if we could detect numerous parts of the EM spectrum beyond what we already know
The satellite detection is different to what senses humans employ though, wouldn’t we have discoverd this years ago if we could detect numerous parts of the EM spectrum beyond what we already know
one would think so.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:You might like to read my earlier post before sending such a bigoted and self-obsessed piece of rubbish, which completely loses the point.
I did.
It was nonsense.
So science is nonsense now, how novel.
:))))))))))))))
Oh no all that stuff about remote sensing from aircraft and satellites was spot on. Good science.
Has absolutely nothing to do with water divining though.
bump.
It is a rather warm night here, I have a fan on too
and this bottle of Baily Baily Folio Adelaide Hills Chardonnay Pinot Noir Curvee NV
is going down very well
I say the planet is being over taken by dumb people and the remaining intelligent ones are all but outnumbered
we could find another planet
and leave all these dumb ones to chemistry, Darwinian selection and climate change
pours another drink
Skeptic Pete said:
Cymek said:
Hasn’t most fringe/pseudo science been investigated at some point in time by UK/US/USSR governments much during the cold war and found no validity to any of it.
Yes.
From someone who neither believes or understands science. Absolutely marvellous! Can I quote you SP?
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
Keeping an open mind isn’t the same as accepting anecdotal evidence.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
Peak Warming Man said:
bump.
Who invited you into this thread?
why don’t you and curve go and start your own forum.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:You don’t produce evidence though
It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
The satellite detection is different to what senses humans employ though, wouldn’t we have discoverd this years ago if we could detect numerous parts of the EM spectrum beyond what we already know
Cymek, I do wish you would think before pressing the submit button.
ain’t gonna bump no more with no …
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:No, he is lot more aware of what is possible in the world, which is probably why he has been appointed chief.
He cant see past the end of his nose, which helps to explain the vacant look and all the pausing he does in his speeches
Wonders why they didn’t give the job to you?
which job
I can do lots of pauses while I speak and give a vacant look
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:I did.
It was nonsense.
So science is nonsense now, how novel.
:))))))))))))))
Oh no all that stuff about remote sensing from aircraft and satellites was spot on. Good science.
Has absolutely nothing to do with water divining though.
I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
Sorry – i’ll get this formatting malarky one day.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
Sorry – i’ll get this formatting malarky one day.
In science, you always keep an open mind.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:So science is nonsense now, how novel.
:))))))))))))))
Oh no all that stuff about remote sensing from aircraft and satellites was spot on. Good science.
Has absolutely nothing to do with water divining though.
I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
Look give a piece of wire or wood to scientists on board the International Space Station
they are floating above lots of water called oceans,
ask then to do a divining experiment using all that water below them
either something will happen in the experiment or nothing will happen
I’m going with nothing will happen
pours another drink
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Oh no all that stuff about remote sensing from aircraft and satellites was spot on. Good science.
Has absolutely nothing to do with water divining though.
I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
Look give a piece of wire or wood to scientists on board the International Space Station
they are floating above lots of water called oceans,
ask then to do a divining experiment using all that water below them
either something will happen in the experiment or nothing will happen
I’m going with nothing will happen
pours another drink
You are drifting into a total silly mode CN. Might be better to have a lie down or refrain from posting.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
Sorry – i’ll get this formatting malarky one day.
In science, you always keep an open mind.
Of course and unless a theory can be repeated, undergo some sort of testing, be peer reviewed and so on its philosophy or personal belief. Many of physics unifying theories border on this
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:Oh no all that stuff about remote sensing from aircraft and satellites was spot on. Good science.
Has absolutely nothing to do with water divining though.
I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
Look give a piece of wire or wood to scientists on board the International Space Station
they are floating above lots of water called oceans,
ask then to do a divining experiment using all that water below them
either something will happen in the experiment or nothing will happen
I’m going with nothing will happen
pours another drink
It wouldn’t work in micro gravity though would it
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
Look give a piece of wire or wood to scientists on board the International Space Station
they are floating above lots of water called oceans,
ask then to do a divining experiment using all that water below them
either something will happen in the experiment or nothing will happen
I’m going with nothing will happen
pours another drink
You are drifting into a total silly mode CN. Might be better to have a lie down or refrain from posting.
Do you have to be close to the ground?
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
Sorry – i’ll get this formatting malarky one day.
In science, you always keep an open mind.
I find that unsatisfactory.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:How long does one keep an open mind? This isn’t something new just because the new head of the CSIRO mentioned it.
Sorry – i’ll get this formatting malarky one day.
In science, you always keep an open mind.
Of course and unless a theory can be repeated, undergo some sort of testing, be peer reviewed and so on its philosophy or personal belief. Many of physics unifying theories border on this
But you have no science only games with no relation to real life. I do wish you would read the posts.
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:I answered that in a recent post of mine. Just goes to show how much you read, let alone absorb.
Look give a piece of wire or wood to scientists on board the International Space Station
they are floating above lots of water called oceans,
ask then to do a divining experiment using all that water below them
either something will happen in the experiment or nothing will happen
I’m going with nothing will happen
pours another drink
It wouldn’t work in micro gravity though would it
Well the bits of wire and wood, would just float around,
imagines bits of wood and wire floating around
but if there was anything in divining the bits of wood and wire or maybe a brick would point down towards all that water in the oceans
but its all nonsense
there is lots of water underground
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:In science, you always keep an open mind.
Of course and unless a theory can be repeated, undergo some sort of testing, be peer reviewed and so on its philosophy or personal belief. Many of physics unifying theories border on this
But you have no science only games with no relation to real life. I do wish you would read the posts.
Not sure what you mean by that
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:Of course and unless a theory can be repeated, undergo some sort of testing, be peer reviewed and so on its philosophy or personal belief. Many of physics unifying theories border on this
But you have no science only games with no relation to real life. I do wish you would read the posts.
Not sure what you mean by that
Not surprised.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:But you have no science only games with no relation to real life. I do wish you would read the posts.
Not sure what you mean by that
Not surprised.
If you mean my comment about satellite and human senses differing of course they do, humans don’t have ground penetrating radar for example.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:Not sure what you mean by that
Not surprised.
If you mean my comment about satellite and human senses differing of course they do, humans don’t have ground penetrating radar for example.
Does your employer know you spend such a great deal of time on this forum?
Does your employer know you spend such a great deal of time on this forum?
lol, the BC gambit.
JudgeMental said:
Does your employer know you spend such a great deal of time on this forum?lol, the BC gambit.
That was someone else you bullied so much that he had to leave. At least he posted a great deal more science than you do. All you do is try to find something to criticise.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Not surprised.
If you mean my comment about satellite and human senses differing of course they do, humans don’t have ground penetrating radar for example.
Does your employer know you spend such a great deal of time on this forum?
Does your carer know you spend such a great deal of time on the forum?
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:If you mean my comment about satellite and human senses differing of course they do, humans don’t have ground penetrating radar for example.
Does your employer know you spend such a great deal of time on this forum?
Does your carer know you spend such a great deal of time on the forum?
You are running out of insults Skeptic.
i wish DO would tell us when we can stop. he’s probably forgotten us.
JudgeMental said:
i wish DO would tell us when we can stop. he’s probably forgotten us.
No he has you so brainwashed you are on auto.
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
i wish DO would tell us when we can stop. he’s probably forgotten us.
No he has you so brainwashed you are on auto.
Whose do
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
i wish DO would tell us when we can stop. he’s probably forgotten us.
No he has you so brainwashed you are on auto.
Whose do
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
i wish DO would tell us when we can stop. he’s probably forgotten us.
No he has you so brainwashed you are on auto.
Whose do
What you are proposing PF is wasting money and time and research facilities, investigating how something works, before you have even determined IF it works.
If you can’t see the senseless waste in doing science like that, then by all means keep rambling on while we all have a laugh.
Skeptic Pete said:
What you are proposing PF is wasting money and time and research facilities, investigating how something works, before you have even determined IF it works.If you can’t see the senseless waste in doing science like that, then by all means keep rambling on while we all have a laugh.
SP you are talking through your hat as usual. I have never suggested doing any science! All I was doing was defending the new CSIRO chief’s remarks and tried to point out that there might be some substance there. It is you and others who have continually said it was unscientific, crap and should be ignored. And all this based on a few opinions and some silly tests, which tests nothing.
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:It proves different substances buried in the ground give off different signals. As other animals use various natural signals to navigate and for other reasons, why should we be so insensitive as to not be able to detect some signals our self?
You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
The information just blows straight through. Nothing is retained, rather like an Alziemers sufferer.
That could be the problem?
I’d like to partake in a water divining course.
Can anyone here direct me towards a respectable
university,
TAFE campus, or
Community College
where I can get my credentials?
thanks
I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
Skeptic Pete said:You just don’t get science do you.
I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
This is a selfie kindly submitted by the Observer.
jjjust moi said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
The big problem with the PF open mind, is that it’s open at both ends.The information just blows straight through. Nothing is retained, rather like an Alziemers sufferer.
That could be the problem?
And this is a selfie of the Observer’s twin brother. Notice the likeness of hair colour, slight balding and the close set eyes.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:I do actually and keeping an open mind is a very important part of it.
do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
This is a selfie kindly submitted by the Observer.
I am a sexy devil, hey
buffy said:
I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
Bugger, wrong state.
is there a chapter in shellharbour?
PermeateFree said:
jjjust moi said:
The_observer said:do you keep your open mind in a wheel barrow perhaps?
The big problem with the PF open mind, is that it’s open at both ends.The information just blows straight through. Nothing is retained, rather like an Alziemers sufferer.
That could be the problem?
And this is a selfie of the Observer’s twin brother. Notice the likeness of hair colour, slight balding and the close set eyes.
Look in good jjjust moi
you could always participate by scrying.
The_observer said:
buffy said:I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
Bugger, wrong state.
is there a chapter in shellharbour?
Have a look here. They do seminars…
Whoops!
linky:
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/
buffy said:
I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
You might like to read some real science from an earlier post of mine buffy:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?
>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<
http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
buffy said:
The_observer said:
buffy said:I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
Bugger, wrong state.
is there a chapter in shellharbour?
Have a look here. They do seminars…
I could get my qualifications & get hired by the CSIRO.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
You might like to read some real science from an earlier post of mine buffy:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?
>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
So how does a pendulum, bent wire, or forked stick sense EMR? They are inanimate objects.
buffy said:
Whoops!
linky:
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/
I can’t see any courses.
A PhD would do
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/A_EMF.htm
have a look sibeen.
Some of these unwanted signals have enough power to drive your meter, and are registered as power that you consume from the power company. Of course they show up on your bill as well. Norman has come up with a way to filter this unwanted field, or electric pollution, using a dipole condenser. You will have seen these on some computer power cords. You probably cannot purchase a ‘Dipole Condenser’, but I will explain how to build one, very inexpensively.
Really, you’re playing that game now?
So glad you could provide your selfie:
that was a really bad film furious. basketcase.
buffy said:
I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
events -
International Dowsing Day
Saturday 5 May 2013
bugger x 2,,, too late
The_observer said:
buffy said:
The_observer said:Bugger, wrong state.
is there a chapter in shellharbour?
Have a look here. They do seminars…
I could get my qualifications & get hired by the CSIRO.
You have to leave school first Observer. It’s only a few more years to go, it will pass and by then you will have matured a little and possibly changed your mind.
I find this thread unsatisfactory.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
You might like to read some real science from an earlier post of mine buffy:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?
>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
The mining industry using remote sensing
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
buffy said:Have a look here. They do seminars…
I could get my qualifications & get hired by the CSIRO.
You have to leave school first Observer. It’s only a few more years to go, it will pass and by then you will have matured a little and possibly changed your mind.
aww probably PF
maybe I could become a Spray Tan Technician instead
though that would be more… ‘in depth’
party_pants said:
I find this thread unsatisfactory.
Yes the observer does tend to take threads off at a tangent.
party_pants said:
I find this thread unsatisfactory.
It deserves a disabled parking sticker
Now here’s a thing.
There is no mobile signal at the redoubt, nothing, zero bars.
However when I looked at my mobile this morning there was a text message from my boss so I replied in text and blow me down if it didn’t get sent.
So text messaging works but voice is non existent.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:I found this last night….did you partake T_o? They might be able to teach you. Particularly read the writeup under “events” for some amusement.
http://www.dsv.org.au/index.shtml
You might like to read some real science from an earlier post of mine buffy:
It will be interesting to see what all you experts think of this?
>>Researchers and scientists use remote sensing to obtain information about land, water, or other parts of the environment without actually touching what is being studied. Today, remote sensing is usually carried out by satellite sensors or airplanes. Remote sensing is used to measure and map the Earth, and to ensure that the Earth’s resources are being used responsibly.
The word ‘spectrum’ (the plural of which is ‘spectra’) is used today to mean ‘a display of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength.
Satellite sensors record reflected and emitted energy from Earth in various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the continuous range of electromagnetic radiation, extending from gamma rays (highest frequency & shortest wavelength) to radio waves (lowest frequency & longest wavelength) and including visible light. The EM spectrum can be divided into seven different regions; gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves; we can see color, or reflected light, ranging from violet to red.
The reflectance of radiation from one type of surface material, such as soil, varies over the range of wavelengths in the EM spectrum. This is known as the spectral signature of the material. All Earth surface features, including minerals, vegetation, dry soil, water, and snow, have unique spectral reflectance signatures.
The property used to quantify these spectral signatures is called spectral reflectance: the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy as a function of wavelength. The spectral reflectance of different materials can be measured in the laboratory or in the field, providing reference data that can be used to interpret images. <<http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99
The mining industry using remote sensing
Yes to get an idea of the mining lease and what is the most productive looking part to concentrate exploration. Saves a great deal of money.
JudgeMental said:
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/A_EMF.htmhave a look sibeen.
Some of these unwanted signals have enough power to drive your meter, and are registered as power that you consume from the power company. Of course they show up on your bill as well. Norman has come up with a way to filter this unwanted field, or electric pollution, using a dipole condenser. You will have seen these on some computer power cords. You probably cannot purchase a ‘Dipole Condenser’, but I will explain how to build one, very inexpensively.
CrazyNeutrino said:
JudgeMental said:
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/A_EMF.htmhave a look sibeen.
Some of these unwanted signals have enough power to drive your meter, and are registered as power that you consume from the power company. Of course they show up on your bill as well. Norman has come up with a way to filter this unwanted field, or electric pollution, using a dipole condenser. You will have seen these on some computer power cords. You probably cannot purchase a ‘Dipole Condenser’, but I will explain how to build one, very inexpensively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_bead
CrazyNeutrino said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
JudgeMental said:
http://www.dowsingaustralia.com/A_EMF.htmhave a look sibeen.
Some of these unwanted signals have enough power to drive your meter, and are registered as power that you consume from the power company. Of course they show up on your bill as well. Norman has come up with a way to filter this unwanted field, or electric pollution, using a dipole condenser. You will have seen these on some computer power cords. You probably cannot purchase a ‘Dipole Condenser’, but I will explain how to build one, very inexpensively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_bead
I have one on a usb cable plugged into my laptop right in front of me
copied this from yahoo answers
The “magnets” on both sides of the USB cable are actually toroids. These are used to supress electromagnetic interference from the cable when connected.
When a cable is attached to a device it acts like an antenna, hence radiates various electromagnetic frequencies. The torroids are placed on the cable to provide a “low impedance” path for these waves and converts the energy to heat, hence reducing the overall emissions of the device.
I think some people need them around their head
seeing that the brain created electricity which created a some magnetic field
people like alan jones, tony abbot, christopher pine, clive palmer, they all need one to reduce noise
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:They are still games with NO practical application.
They do have a practical application, lets say you had underground water pipes from a demolished and cleared block so no evidence of where they might be existed, wouldn’t it be useful if a diviner could find them without some digging and destroying them.
does divining work?
I have the proof that I cannot fault until it goes wrong for me..
It might be useful, but it is not what diviners do.
The Society for Psychical Research has done a summary. All you (n)ever wanted to know about the human possible ability to detect a magnetic field. Although quite why underground water, gold, opals, whatever is being dowsed for should have a magnetic field I don’t understand.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
Why isn’t divining affected by their auras?
buffy said:
The Society for Psychical Research has done a summary. All you (n)ever wanted to know about the human possible ability to detect a magnetic field. Although quite why underground water, gold, opals, whatever is being dowsed for should have a magnetic field I don’t understand.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
It is easy if it doesn’t.
Divine Angel said:
Why isn’t divining affected by their auras?
There are those who will say it is.
roughbarked said:
buffy said:The Society for Psychical Research has done a summary. All you (n)ever wanted to know about the human possible ability to detect a magnetic field. Although quite why underground water, gold, opals, whatever is being dowsed for should have a magnetic field I don’t understand.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
It is easy if it doesn’t.
If you drop all pretense of magnetism and hokey pokey, then move on. It has less to make a meal of.
A couple of extracts from buffy’s latest contribution, which is also replicated to varying degrees throughout the article. However, the overall impression is dowsing is inconclusive, but not dismissed and thought worthy of further investigation. Therefore to dismiss dowsing out of hand, as has been done here, is unwarranted.
>>A recent experiment was conducted by Alvin Kaufman (1971, 1979), an electronics engineer, to test this idea. Kaufman attached one end of a forked stick to a strain gauge bending beam which could measure the force in the rod. He held the strain gauge bending beam in one hand and the other end of the stick with the other. Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for; and concluded that dowsing was a promising area in which to study PK. Although the published report is extremely short and gives few details, it appears that PK may indeed play a part in some dowsing phenomena. <<
>>In spite of the large number of investigations made into dowsing, its status remains unclear. This is largely a result of sloppy experimental procedures and or report writing.
For some people, dowsing does appear to be a useful problem solving tool. Dowsers do seem to be goal orientated, and in this reviewer’s experience, most do not care how it works: just as well perhaps, since science has no definitive answer. Critics and proponents alike should pay heed to the ideas of a grade school class that studied dowsing (Boone, 1965)—Conclusions should not be drawn on the basis of one experiment.<<
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
“ Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for…”
Question: did the dowser know there was an underground stream at that particular location?
The article found most ‘experiments’ were inadequately described for them to be repeated.
captain_spalding said:
“ Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for…”Question: did the dowser know there was an underground stream at that particular location?
I doubt this is necessary. Usually, if diviners move their hands it is about willing something rather than knowing anything.
captain_spalding said:
“ Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for…”Question: did the dowser know there was an underground stream at that particular location?
I doubt this is necessary. Usually, if diviners move their hands it is about willing something rather than knowing anything.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
“ Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for…”Question: did the dowser know there was an underground stream at that particular location?
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/
It’s a lengthy read, but edifying.
captain_spalding said:
“ Kaufman found that when the dowser he tested moved over an underground stream, a very much larger force was exerted on the rod than could normally be accounted for…”Question: did the dowser know there was an underground stream at that particular location?
Such a large paper I could not find it again, but they were talking about a hidden stream. If you are particularly interested, it is somewhere in the first half.
buffy said:
The article found most ‘experiments’ were inadequately described for them to be repeated.
All experiments with a lot of variables are difficult to replicate.
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:The article found most ‘experiments’ were inadequately described for them to be repeated.
All experiments with a lot of variables are difficult to replicate.
But in the published paper, there should be an adequate Methods section. The point of the Methods section is that the research can be replicated by other researchers to confirm the findings.
buffy said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:The article found most ‘experiments’ were inadequately described for them to be repeated.
All experiments with a lot of variables are difficult to replicate.
But in the published paper, there should be an adequate Methods section. The point of the Methods section is that the research can be replicated by other researchers to confirm the findings.
There were dozens of experiments and tests, so you want a methods description on each one to satisfy your scepticism. The assessment of the paper clearly stated the results were troubled by less than perfect scientific methods, yet dowsing was thought credible and deserved further research.
PermeateFree said:
Therefore to dismiss dowsing out of hand, as has been done here, is unwarranted.
Who has done that? Certainly I didn’t.
The discussion is about whether dowsing has been shown to work with a reasonable degree of scientific rigour, not whether it is possible that it might work.
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:Therefore to dismiss dowsing out of hand, as has been done here, is unwarranted.
Who has done that? Certainly I didn’t.
The discussion is about whether dowsing has been shown to work with a reasonable degree of scientific rigour, not whether it is possible that it might work.
Considering you hardly mentioned a word during the course of this thread, you were not even considered in any remark I made, plus it is quite obvious my comment was only directed at those who did dismiss dowsing out of hand, which I might add was the vast majority.
As for being shown to work with scientific rigor, that is NOT what this discussion was about, as it was dismissed outright even when I was suggested the possibility. Now that the possibility has been shown, we get this backsliding to save face.
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:Therefore to dismiss dowsing out of hand, as has been done here, is unwarranted.
Who has done that? Certainly I didn’t.
The discussion is about whether dowsing has been shown to work with a reasonable degree of scientific rigour, not whether it is possible that it might work.
Considering you hardly mentioned a word during the course of this thread, you were not even considered in any remark I made, plus it is quite obvious my comment was only directed at those who did dismiss dowsing out of hand, which I might add was the vast majority.
As for being shown to work with scientific rigor, that is NOT what this discussion was about, as it was dismissed outright even when I was suggested the possibility. Now that the possibility has been shown, we get this backsliding to save face.
The thread is called “New CSIRO chief believes in water divining” not “New CSIRO chief believes that water divining possibly might work”.
After numerous scientific tests showing divining is rubbish, we’re all suddenly supposed to take it seriously because PF gets a semi over it… Yeh makes sense
The Rev Dodgson said:
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Who has done that? Certainly I didn’t.
The discussion is about whether dowsing has been shown to work with a reasonable degree of scientific rigour, not whether it is possible that it might work.
Considering you hardly mentioned a word during the course of this thread, you were not even considered in any remark I made, plus it is quite obvious my comment was only directed at those who did dismiss dowsing out of hand, which I might add was the vast majority.
As for being shown to work with scientific rigor, that is NOT what this discussion was about, as it was dismissed outright even when I was suggested the possibility. Now that the possibility has been shown, we get this backsliding to save face.
The thread is called “New CSIRO chief believes in water divining” not “New CSIRO chief believes that water divining possibly might work”.
Doesn’t sound like you read much of the thread.
Dropbear said:
After numerous scientific tests showing divining is rubbish, we’re all suddenly supposed to take it seriously because PF gets a semi over it… Yeh makes sense
ALL the previous tests were not tests but games, they had no reality to the real world. But you apparently cannot grasp this fact, or the later information provided, which I doubt you even looked at let alone read.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/George_P._Hansen
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21729
JudgeMental said:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/George_P._Hansenhttp://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21729
As George_P._Hansen studies the paranormal, I am not surprised he gets involved with some very strange phenomenon. However dowsing as far as I could see was not mentioned in his books, but no doubt could be looked upon as also being paranormal, although it is not my understanding, it being related more to the ability to detect signals given off by various substances, as better explained in this link http://auracle.ca/news/?p=99. Something most people could do to varying degrees with a little training.
The paper by Hansen is littered with references if you wish to take study further. However, the paper is quite objective and was not saying dowsing is either fact or fiction, only it had merit and should be investigated further, which seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
There is lots of water under the ground, lots of water, even underground rivers
CrazyNeutrino said:
There is lots of water under the ground, lots of water, even underground rivers
Really? Now you don’t say.
CrazyNeutrino said:
There is lots of water under the ground, lots of water, even underground rivers
Lots of places there isn’t too (at least accessible, ie without drilling to considerable depth), especially inland.
CrazyNeutrino said:
a deep bore can go to 200 meters
Why not just get the dragon to dig for water?
font color = gold>like i said, the weather has to be right, the site has to be right, the target has to be right. how about phase of the moon? morning or afternoon? does it work if disbelievers watch?
so many rules as to make the test worthless.
Dowsing in mainly used in dry environments, heavy rainfall can distort the resulst, something a person with a logical open mind would be able to appreciate. The rest is your normal hostile and ignorant mode that I shall ignore.
All experiments with a lot of variables are difficult to replicate.
so now you agree with me.
:-)
roughbarked said:
Now can we get a fracking graph?
No need to swear.
Divine Angel said:
roughbarked said:Now can we get a fracking graph?No need to swear.
At least I took it all back to the correct thread.
sorry
around 16000 rebates have been issued for bores in perth
80 percent of water use comes from underground water
Can domestic bores help save our drinking water?
http://www.csiro.au/news/newsletters/0612_water/story7.htm
Thanks CN.
Bores should only be used for domestic purposes. Agricultural and industrial uses will only deplete the source beyond repair.interesting article on bore water from the age
Going to groundSA Gov fact sheet on bore water
SA Gov fact sheet on bore waterreply to my email
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information Officer
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information Officer
what? water? bit hard to farm without it.
JudgeMental said:
what? water? bit hard to farm without it.
Underground water.
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information Officer
why? what is wrong with any source as long as it is managed appropriately? and csiro (the good scientists anyway) is working towards that end.
roughbarked said:
JudgeMental said:
what? water? bit hard to farm without it.
Underground water.
no JM it didn’t. still it is as good as an admission that they are embarrassed by what he said.
JudgeMental said:
why? what is wrong with any source as long as it is managed appropriately? and csiro (the good scientists anyway) is working towards that end.
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all. Information gathered from the USA indicates that attempting to utilise this resource for agriculture is damaging to the ecosystem entire.
jjjust moi said:
roughbarked said:
JudgeMental said:
what? water? bit hard to farm without it.
Underground water.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
You are wasting your breath.
JudgeMental said:
no JM it didn’t. still it is as good as an admission that they are embarrassed by what he said.
it is. Yes.
roughbarked said:
JudgeMental said:
why? what is wrong with any source as long as it is managed appropriately? and csiro (the good scientists anyway) is working towards that end.
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all. Information gathered from the USA indicates that attempting to utilise this resource for agriculture is damaging to the ecosystem entire.
The human race in general is pretty poor at managing water and decides for some reason to pollute fresh water with all manor of muck
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all.
can you back that with some facts?
roughbarked said:
jjjust moi said:
roughbarked said:Underground water.
You don’t know what you are talking about.You are wasting your breath.
Without it there would be large shortages. Admittedly there are a few problems, but they are mostly caused by lower rainfall. The usage is being increasingly closely monitored.
JudgeMental said:
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all.can you back that with some facts?
JudgeMental said:
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all.can you back that with some facts?
Do I need to? If the CSIRO had something better to say, it would have been said and this whole thread full of posturing rubbish could easily be delegated to the receptacle for that.
jjjust moi said:
roughbarked said:
jjjust moi said:You don’t know what you are talking about.
You are wasting your breath.
Now I don’t know what the situation is over East, but a huge percentage of Perths fresh food is grown from land irrigated with water from the Gnangara mound.Without it there would be large shortages. Admittedly there are a few problems, but they are mostly caused by lower rainfall. The usage is being increasingly closely monitored.
Overpopulated.
jjjust moi said:
JudgeMental said:
Cisero as we called them back home, have no clear idea of what is good management of that resource yet at all.can you back that with some facts?
It’s RB Boris.
I’ll have you know, that i still have my gonads.
so you haven’t got anything?
What’s the recycle time for underground water, years, decades?
JudgeMental said:
so you haven’t got anything?
I’ve got more than you or you would have laid the facts out on the line by now.
Cymek said:
What’s the recycle time for underground water, years, decades?
A couple of interesting links that gave that answer were posted in this thread.
well out with them then. put up or shut up. you know the drill.
JudgeMental said:
well out with them then. put up or shut up. you know the drill.
recharge times can vary over huge timescale. depends on quite a few factors. probably looking at wiki for the great artesian basin would be a start. that would be one example.
JudgeMental said:
recharge times can vary over huge timescale. depends on quite a few factors. probably looking at wiki for the great artesian basin would be a start. that would be one example.
Yes. There is also, or was plenty of good information given by GeoffD in the past.
all wind as usual. i don’t know why you bother bullshitting. you always get called for it sooner or later.
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
What’s the recycle time for underground water, years, decades?
A couple of interesting links that gave that answer were posted in this thread.
Ok I’ll look for them later
JudgeMental said:
all wind as usual. i don’t know why you bother bullshitting. you always get called for it sooner or later.
I’m not bullshitting. You are a scientist, I do not know why you do not know.
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Cymek said:
What’s the recycle time for underground water, years, decades?
A couple of interesting links that gave that answer were posted in this thread.
Ok I’ll look for them later
CN posted a couple of useful ones this morning.
I’d also be interested in how much water crops take up and how much just sinks down into the earth short term irretrievable
Groundwater is a renewable resource.
In most parts of the country, water removed from the ground is constantly replaced, although in some parts of the country such as arid and semiarid regions, a low rate of replenishment is far exceeded by the rate of groundwater pumping, resulting in serious problems of groundwater mining.
Adequate time is needed to allow replenishment of underlying groundwater reservoirs (aquifers); also such areas must be properly managed in order to prevent water-soluble waste products stored in these areas from infiltrating and polluting the underground supply.
More than 90 percent of the groundwater pumped from the Ogallala, the nation’s largest aquifer underlying some 250,000 square miles stretching from Texas to South Dakota, is used for agricultural irrigation. Representing about one-third of all U.S. irrigated agriculture, it creates about $20 billion annually in food and fiber.
If spread across the surface of the entire United States, the Ogallala’s groundwater would cover all 50 states with 1.5 feet of water. Scientists estimate it could take 6,000 years to refill naturally if it were ever to be fully withdrawn.
The following myths continue to be perpetuated about groundwater:
Groundwater moves rapidly.
Groundwater migrates thousands of miles.
There is no relationship between groundwater and surface water.
Groundwater removed from the earth is never returned.
Groundwater is mysterious and occult.
Groundwater is not a significant source of water supply.
Cymek said:
I’d also be interested in how much water crops take up and how much just sinks down into the earth short term irretrievable
Depending on what sort of crop and the type of irrigation used.
A lot of research is done into getting the right amount of water onto the crop, not something you want to waste..
( a 14 span pivot costs $1000 to do 1 revolution, you don’t want it watering inefficiently!)
The gold fields of Victoria are a dry place but the miners had to install pumps to get rid of water from thier shafts…and burnt a lot of trees doing so.
stumpy_seahorse said:
Cymek said:
I’d also be interested in how much water crops take up and how much just sinks down into the earth short term irretrievable
Depending on what sort of crop and the type of irrigation used.
A lot of research is done into getting the right amount of water onto the crop, not something you want to waste..
( a 14 span pivot costs $1000 to do 1 revolution, you don’t want it watering inefficiently!)
Yes. There is a lot to consider.
AwesomeO said:
The gold fields of Victoria are a dry place but the miners had to install pumps to get rid of water from thier shafts…and burnt a lot of trees doing so.
This is also true.
AwesomeO said:
The gold fields of Victoria are a dry place but the miners had to install pumps to get rid of water from thier shafts…and burnt a lot of trees doing so.
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/
by UF Sheet – 2003 – Related articles
Jan 9, 2013 – Where does ground-water depletion occur in the United States? …. due to intensive use of ground water for agriculture (Burns, 1997). … Sustainability of ground-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186, 79 p.
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html
http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=47&lShowInd=0&subtop=201&lv=list.listByChapter&r=219669
jjjust moi said:
AwesomeO said:
The gold fields of Victoria are a dry place but the miners had to install pumps to get rid of water from thier shafts…and burnt a lot of trees doing so.
Kalgoorlie goldfields the same, pity the stuff was brine.
most groundwater is more salty than surface water. The last thing we want to do is contaminate it further.
The CSIRO at Hanwood NSW monitors the water table levels and groundwater levels at 15 minute intervals.
http://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/pdfs/GroundwaterGovernanceReport-FINALMay2013.pdf
file:///F:/usfactsheet.pdf
data.daff.gov.au/brs/brsShop/data/sfdm_groundwater_lores.pdf
www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/…/Groundwater_essentials.pdf
www.groundwater.com.au/…/economic-value-of-groundwater-final.pdf
If the tidbits I have supplied couldn’t have been found by yourselves then it may be worth the effort of a few minutes for me to find them for you. However I’m not at all interested in arguing the point with people who clearly aren’t interested enough to look for themselves.
roughbarked said:
file:///F:/usfactsheet.pdfdata.daff.gov.au/brs/brsShop/data/sfdm_groundwater_lores.pdf
www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/…/Groundwater_essentials.pdf
www.groundwater.com.au/…/economic-value-of-groundwater-final.pdf
If the tidbits I have supplied couldn’t have been found by yourselves then it may be worth the effort of a few minutes for me to find them for you. However I’m not at all interested in arguing the point with people who clearly aren’t interested enough to look for themselves.
I’m at work so can reply here but not actively look for things I don’t have time to read here, I’m not being lazy
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
file:///F:/usfactsheet.pdfdata.daff.gov.au/brs/brsShop/data/sfdm_groundwater_lores.pdf
www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/…/Groundwater_essentials.pdf
www.groundwater.com.au/…/economic-value-of-groundwater-final.pdf
If the tidbits I have supplied couldn’t have been found by yourselves then it may be worth the effort of a few minutes for me to find them for you. However I’m not at all interested in arguing the point with people who clearly aren’t interested enough to look for themselves.
I’m at work so can reply here but not actively look for things I don’t have time to read here, I’m not being lazy
That’s OK. Download them, read them, do some more of your own searching on your home computer.
We’re still here then?
Skeptic Pete said:
We’re still here then?
That’s what I was wondering.
Skeptic Pete said:
We’re still here then?
No
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information Officer
They would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information OfficerThey would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
They’d know that he knew his ems.
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information OfficerThey would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
Why?
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
reply to my emailDear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information OfficerThey would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
They’d know that he knew his ems.
I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
In Skeptic Pete’s letter to the newspapers, he stated:
>>What I suspect he means, is that he has observed diviners successfully locating water 80% of the time but is that really so impressive? Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the Great Artesian Basin, and the many aquifers underneath our dry continent. Perhaps he is unaware of numerous Australian trials that have conclusively shown that diviners do no better than random chance. <<
Below is a few details about the Great Artesian Basin, which you will note is up to ‘3,000 metres (9,800 ft) deep in places.’ Don’t think you would have any dowsers claiming to be able to divine to anywhere near that depth, they are usually divining within 100 ft of the surface and usually even less.
>>The Great Artesian Basin, located within Australia, is the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world, stretching over 1,700,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), with measured temperatures ranging from 30–100 °C (86–212 °F). The basin provides the only reliable source of fresh water through much of inland Australia.
The Basin underlies 23% of the continent, including the states and territories of Queensland (most of), the Northern Territory (the south-east corner of), South Australia (the north-east part of), and New South Wales (northern part of). The basin is 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) deep in places and is estimated to contain 64,900 cubic kilometres (15,600 cu mi) of groundwater. The Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee (GABCC) coordinates activity between the various levels of government and community organisations.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:They would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
They’d know that he knew his ems.
I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
its good they had Mary Anne and Ginger
they should have a bit more promiscuous too
PermeateFree said:
>>The Great Artesian Basin, located within Australia, is the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world, stretching over 1,700,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), with measured temperatures ranging from 30–100 °C (86–212 °F). The basin provides the only reliable source of fresh water through much of inland Australia.
The Basin underlies 23% of the continent, including the states and territories of Queensland (most of), the Northern Territory (the south-east corner of), South Australia (the north-east part of), and New South Wales (northern part of). The basin is 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) deep in places and is estimated to contain 64,900 cubic kilometres (15,600 cu mi) of groundwater. The Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee (GABCC) coordinates activity between the various levels of government and community organisations.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin
It also lies under the place with probably the highest evaporation rate.
Cymek said:
I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
:) fair point.
PermeateFree, what do you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:They would have thought you were a ‘dickhead.’
They’d know that he knew his ems.
I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
CSIRO
Employing nearly 6,500 staff, CSIRO maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and biological control research stations in France and Mexico. The primary roles of CSIRO include contributing to meeting the objectives and responsibilities of the Australian Federal Government and providing new ways to benefit the Australian community and the economic and social performance of a number of industry sectors through research and development.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree, what do you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:They’d know that he knew his ems.
I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
CSIRO
Employing nearly 6,500 staff, CSIRO maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and biological control research stations in France and Mexico. The primary roles of CSIRO include contributing to meeting the objectives and responsibilities of the Australian Federal Government and providing new ways to benefit the Australian community and the economic and social performance of a number of industry sectors through research and development.
I support the CSIRO I am just having a lend
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
CSIRO
Employing nearly 6,500 staff, CSIRO maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and biological control research stations in France and Mexico. The primary roles of CSIRO include contributing to meeting the objectives and responsibilities of the Australian Federal Government and providing new ways to benefit the Australian community and the economic and social performance of a number of industry sectors through research and development.
I support the CSIRO I am just having a lend
You have a strange sense of humour.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:I believe this is the CSIRO land and water flagship
CSIRO
Employing nearly 6,500 staff, CSIRO maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and biological control research stations in France and Mexico. The primary roles of CSIRO include contributing to meeting the objectives and responsibilities of the Australian Federal Government and providing new ways to benefit the Australian community and the economic and social performance of a number of industry sectors through research and development.
I support the CSIRO I am just having a lend
As I said, we affectionately call it cisero here. and I’m good friends with many who have worked at the local CSIRO over a period of some fifty years.
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree, what do you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree, what do you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
As I have been defending his opinion throughout this thread, plus providing evidence to support his view, I would have thought that it was obvious that I do not have a problem with it.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree, what do you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
It is unreasonable for the CSIRO to allocate a limited amount of money to water diving in the chance it does actually return positive results, government has lots of pets projects that go nowhere
roughbarked said:
As I said, we affectionately call it cisero here.
where the hell is “here” ?
& why do people from “here” call it that ?
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
As I have been defending his opinion throughout this thread, plus providing evidence to support his view, I would have thought that it was obvious that I do not have a problem with it.
Ok, so you believe in Water divining
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:As I said, we affectionately call it cisero here.
where the hell is “here” ?
& why do people from “here” call it that ?
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:As I said, we affectionately call it cisero here.
where the hell is “here” ?
& why do people from “here” call it that ?
Because it’s not “there”
or, it’s ‘way’ “out there” ?
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
As I have been defending his opinion throughout this thread, plus providing evidence to support his view, I would have thought that it was obvious that I do not have a problem with it.
Ok, so you believe in Water divining
From my experience and general research, I think it is quite feasible.
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:As I have been defending his opinion throughout this thread, plus providing evidence to support his view, I would have thought that it was obvious that I do not have a problem with it.
Ok, so you believe in Water divining
From my experience and general research, I think it is quite feasible.
sounds like you’re talking about god.
(but which god?)
The_observer said:
Tamb said:
The_observer said:where the hell is “here” ?
& why do people from “here” call it that ?
Because it’s not “there”or, it’s ‘way’ “out there” ?
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:You have posted throughout this thread and for you to have missed the discussion says very little about your comprehension.
I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
It is unreasonable for the CSIRO to allocate a limited amount of money to water diving in the chance it does actually return positive results, government has lots of pets projects that go nowhere
Agree
there is lots of water under the ground
the chances of walking around doing some drilling and finding water is common
no need to walk around with a piece of wire or a piece of wood
how can a bit of wire or wood know that there is water underground?
what about other materials?
When I was living in Goroke we had a bore in our property. we used it for the vegi patch
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:As I said, we affectionately call it cisero here.
where the hell is “here” ?
& why do people from “here” call it that ?
Because it’s not “there”
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Ok, so you believe in Water divining
From my experience and general research, I think it is quite feasible.
sounds like you’re talking about god.
(but which god?)
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
Tamb said:Because it’s not “there”
or, it’s ‘way’ “out there” ?
That’s defo not “here”
Reminds me of the non-pc blonde joke:
There’s this blonde out for a walk. She comes to a river and sees another blonde on the opposite bank. “Yoo-hoo” she shouts, “how can I get to the other side?” The second blonde looks up the river then down the river then shouts back, “You are on the other side.”
ta
I’ll add that one to my blonde joke list
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:From my experience and general research, I think it is quite feasible.
sounds like you’re talking about god.
(but which god?)
The dyslexic one Dog. They can find water anywhere.
especially if its a blond dog standing near a river :)
water divining is bullshit
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
Tamb said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
No. Bullshit divining is much easier.
You can normally find bullshit whilst wearing thongs.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:I want to know what you think about the New CSIRO chief believing in water divining?
It is unreasonable for the CSIRO to allocate a limited amount of money to water diving in the chance it does actually return positive results, government has lots of pets projects that go nowhere
Agree
there is lots of water under the ground
the chances of walking around doing some drilling and finding water is common
no need to walk around with a piece of wire or a piece of wood
how can a bit of wire or wood know that there is water underground?
what about other materials?
When I was living in Goroke we had a bore in our property. we used it for the vegi patch
Water is available in many places, especially in areas of good rainfall. However the major part of Australia has very low rainfall rates and therefore its ability to recharge catchment areas is low. There are other problems too like impenetrable hardcap, granite outcrops and areas of deep clay like deposits as exist above the Great Artesian Basin. Pockets of water at reasonable depth can be found in these areas, but they are not common and difficult to find. So it is not right to say underground water is everywhere because in most parts of Australia it is not.
Divine Angel said:
Tamb said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
No. Bullshit divining is much easier.You can normally find bullshit whilst wearing thongs.
true
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:It is unreasonable for the CSIRO to allocate a limited amount of money to water diving in the chance it does actually return positive results, government has lots of pets projects that go nowhere
Agree
there is lots of water under the ground
the chances of walking around doing some drilling and finding water is common
no need to walk around with a piece of wire or a piece of wood
how can a bit of wire or wood know that there is water underground?
what about other materials?
When I was living in Goroke we had a bore in our property. we used it for the vegi patch
Water is available in many places, especially in areas of good rainfall. However the major part of Australia has very low rainfall rates and therefore its ability to recharge catchment areas is low. There are other problems too like impenetrable hardcap, granite outcrops and areas of deep clay like deposits as exist above the Great Artesian Basin. Pockets of water at reasonable depth can be found in these areas, but they are not common and difficult to find. So it is not right to say underground water is everywhere because in most parts of Australia it is not.
wrong, there are common
Fixed
CrazyNeutrino said:
Divine Angel said:
Tamb said:No. Bullshit divining is much easier.
You can normally find bullshit whilst wearing thongs.
true
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
We gathered that was your attitude, unfortunately for you, it is not so certain.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Agree
there is lots of water under the ground
the chances of walking around doing some drilling and finding water is common
no need to walk around with a piece of wire or a piece of wood
how can a bit of wire or wood know that there is water underground?
what about other materials?
When I was living in Goroke we had a bore in our property. we used it for the vegi patch
Water is available in many places, especially in areas of good rainfall. However the major part of Australia has very low rainfall rates and therefore its ability to recharge catchment areas is low. There are other problems too like impenetrable hardcap, granite outcrops and areas of deep clay like deposits as exist above the Great Artesian Basin. Pockets of water at reasonable depth can be found in these areas, but they are not common and difficult to find. So it is not right to say underground water is everywhere because in most parts of Australia it is not.
wrong, there are common
Fixed
Wrong, they are common
Fixed
now stop it
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
apparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
Divine Angel said:
Tamb said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshit
No. Bullshit divining is much easier.You can normally find bullshit whilst wearing thongs.
CrazyNeutrino said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:Water is available in many places, especially in areas of good rainfall. However the major part of Australia has very low rainfall rates and therefore its ability to recharge catchment areas is low. There are other problems too like impenetrable hardcap, granite outcrops and areas of deep clay like deposits as exist above the Great Artesian Basin. Pockets of water at reasonable depth can be found in these areas, but they are not common and difficult to find. So it is not right to say underground water is everywhere because in most parts of Australia it is not.
wrong, there are common
Fixed
Wrong, they are common
Fixed
now stop it
Wrong, they are common
Fixed
now stop it
roughbarked said:
Divine Angel said:
Tamb said:No. Bullshit divining is much easier.
You can normally find bullshit whilst wearing thongs.
What do you need thongs for.. Duckshit between the toes is squidgier.
Yeah
I have noticed that
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshitapparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshitapparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshitapparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
<<<
and some of us are a little but funny
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:apparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
Tamb said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
water divining is bullshitapparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
Da comerade Lysenko.
Yep
Lysenko
Needed a really good Foot up his arse
Tamb said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
I don’t think that lady has ever been humorous.
No
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
Cymek said:Sometimes we are all just being humerous
I don’t think that lady has ever been humorous.No
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:apparently you are not allowed to say that.
there is no scientific evidence to support your comment, apparently.
I thought the science had been settled on divining, right here at this forum.
From now on please use the following guidline
So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
Yes, an in-joke at my expense.
PermeateFree said:
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
Yes, an in-joke at my expense.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:So pointless discussing anything with you, you ignore all the information posted and the only thing in your mind is to deny it. O wait a sec, you do the same with Global Warming! Seems you are very predicable Observer, as are your little friends.
Sometimes we are all just being humerous
Yes, an in-joke at my expense.
No, we rip on each other and don’t mean it, I don’t mean it anyway
bump
Still, the British have it worse
Skeptic Pete said:
bump
crash-tinkle
dv said:
Holy pump!
Still, the British have it worse
dv said:
Still, the British have it worse
Good grief.
Skeptic Pete said:
dv said:
Still, the British have it worseGood grief.
Ministers are not appointed for thier subject knowledge in the portfolio, they have to quickly learn and they come from the general population.
if homeopathy is good enough for the Queen then it’s good enough for me!
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:
dv said:
Still, the British have it worseGood grief.
Ministers are not appointed for thier subject knowledge in the portfolio, they have to quickly learn and they come from the general population.
I think it is a good idea if they at least keep up with general information about their portfolio. I don’t expect a health minister to know how to perform a lung transplant but I do expect him to know that leeching was phased out.
How about that Corby girl, eh?
JudgeMental said:
if homeopathy is good enough for the Queen then it’s good enough for me!
You’re thinking of homosexuality. It’s different.
they still use leeches, don’t they? and blowies?
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:Good grief.
Ministers are not appointed for thier subject knowledge in the portfolio, they have to quickly learn and they come from the general population.
I think it is a good idea if they at least keep up with general information about their portfolio. I don’t expect a health minister to know how to perform a lung transplant but I do expect him to know that leeching was phased out.
Unless they have a prior interest they have to learn on the job and some have preconcieved ideas. Rich tapestry and all that.
AwesomeO said:
dv said:
AwesomeO said:Ministers are not appointed for thier subject knowledge in the portfolio, they have to quickly learn and they come from the general population.
I think it is a good idea if they at least keep up with general information about their portfolio. I don’t expect a health minister to know how to perform a lung transplant but I do expect him to know that leeching was phased out.
Unless they have a prior interest they have to learn on the job and some have preconcieved ideas. Rich tapestry and all that.
Then perhaps they should be a bit circumspect in their comments before they get into gear.
But shit I expect any moderately well informed person to know homeopathy is bunkum.
But shit I expect any moderately well informed person to know homeopathy is bunkum.
and yet…the evidence for that being wishful thinking is all around us.
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
dv said:I think it is a good idea if they at least keep up with general information about their portfolio. I don’t expect a health minister to know how to perform a lung transplant but I do expect him to know that leeching was phased out.
Unless they have a prior interest they have to learn on the job and some have preconcieved ideas. Rich tapestry and all that.
Then perhaps they should be a bit circumspect in their comments before they get into gear.
But shit I expect any moderately well informed person to know homeopathy is bunkum.
They use them to keep blood flow to things like detached fingers before surgery
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
Skeptic Pete said:Good grief.
Ministers are not appointed for thier subject knowledge in the portfolio, they have to quickly learn and they come from the general population.
I think it is a good idea if they at least keep up with general information about their portfolio. I don’t expect a health minister to know how to perform a lung transplant but I do expect him to know that leeching was phased out.
No, leeches are still used today.
Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
buffy said:
Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
RevD and the answer was pretty lame.
I know they use maggots.Wasn’t aware they went back to leeches.
buffy said:
Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
The reply is not too far back in this thread.
roughbarked said:
buffy said:Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
RevD and the answer was pretty lame.
So he got an answer?
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
The reply is not too far back in this thread.
Thanks, I missed quite a lot of posts in the last two days. I’ll load the whole thread and see what I can find.
buffy said:
PermeateFree said:Shirley you have better things to do with your time, like uploading photos of the world’s fugliest dog?buffy said:Thanks, I missed quite a lot of posts in the last two days. I’ll load the whole thread and see what I can find.Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?The reply is not too far back in this thread.
buffy said:
PermeateFree said:
buffy said:Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
The reply is not too far back in this thread.
Thanks, I missed quite a lot of posts in the last two days. I’ll load the whole thread and see what I can find.
Good luck with that.
Found it. Post id ID: 616897
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.
it was me buffy.
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for contacting CSIRO Enquiries.
Dr Marshall was speaking in the context of CSIRO’s well documented work on water resources in Australia. He expressed his desire to help farmers with technology where appropriate. CSIRO’s Land and Water Flagship leads efforts in water resource assessment, management and impacts in Australia and internationally. More information can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Land-and-Water.aspx
Once again thank you for connecting with CSIRO. If you have any further enquiries regarding CSIRO and its research capabilities or services, please follow the links below.
Kind regards,
Marian
Information Officer
CSIRO Enquiries
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.
seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
buffy said:
Found it. Post id ID: 616897
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.
Then you ought to be more careful with the things that you post.
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
He basically didn’t mention the dowsing at all.
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
I don’t think so.
dv said:
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
He basically didn’t mention the dowsing at all.
It was a non answer.
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
I don’t think so.
Is there anyone apart from you in this entire thread supporting what he said?
Skeptic Pete said:
dv said:
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
He basically didn’t mention the dowsing at all.
It was a non answer.
To a silly question.
Any of youse know any CSIROese people?
roughbarked said:
buffy said:Who was it that emailed CSIRO asking for their position on water divining? Did you get an answer?
RevD and the answer was pretty lame.
Wasn’t me.
dv said:
Any of youse know any CSIROese people?Molly was.
so what was the question i asked PF, care to enlighten us as to the content of that email?
i do. steve morton. used to go mammaling with him back in the 70s. he wouldn’t remember me most likely though. and moll, who i have met.
Skeptic Pete said:
PermeateFree said:
JudgeMental said:
Looks like backing down to me. But then I don’t think I’d like to be having to defend a boss who comes out with statements like that.seems to be the near unanimous opinion.
I don’t think so.
Don’t you know what unanimous means?Is there anyone apart from you in this entire thread supporting what he said?
Not asking you to support what I said, only to read the evidence presented, plus not have such a closed mind.
JudgeMental said:
so what was the question i asked PF, care to enlighten us as to the content of that email?
It is a long way back in a very long thread, so not going there, but as you are the writer, perhaps you could present it again to remind us all.
i don’t believe it is in this thread. but hey, you commented on it so i expect you to actually know.
JudgeMental said:
i don’t believe it is in this thread. but hey, you commented on it so i expect you to actually know.
You don’t believe, don’t know or not going to tell?
dv said:
Any of youse know any CSIROese people?
Yes.
