HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drsmith@hamline.edu (jime)
Subject: loch ness (to be or not be)
Organization: Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:07:40 GMT



all right, here it comes again, from long ago, and far away...

re: the loch ness monster, it was noted that scientific research would
determine once and for all whether there is a loch ness, or whether the is not
a loch ness monster in loch ness.  i was wondering if anyone has seen/heard
anything recently (i posted this once--beginning of summer--and that was the
reply i got.) i still haven't seen anything come of it yet, and was wondering
if anyone else had and would be willing to share in their new-found chasm of
infinite wisdom?


thanks-a-manys!


dans
From: grimjack@milton.u.washington.edu (Leslie Basel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:23:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


Some questions I have for the people who have done this successfully are:

1) How accurate were you in your detection: dead on (within vert. space 
   created by extending the boundaries of item searched for perpendicular
   to surface being checed)?  Did you know of the existence of the item
   prior to looking for it?  How did test the accuracy of your test if
   you did not have prior knowledge (did you dig for it, look it up on
   structural drawings, etc)?  

2) Did you try the same experiment with rods you knew would not work? Or
   with rods disguised so you did not know if it was a 'working' or
   non-'working' rod?  Will a rod of any material work or only specific
   materials work?

3) Has everyone of your friends/co-workers/et al had the same success as
   you?

No, I have not tried it myself as I have not heard much from anyone on
actuals tests or testing procedures How can I be sure of replicating 
your data if I have no idea what your data is?

I apologise if there has been a post that I missed that said more than
"I did it and it worked"

Rodger Coghlan
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:03:21 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug12231207@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <11AUG199211554024@rover.uchicago.edu>, frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:
>
>> All that is happening is that the buried material is either magnitized
>> by the earth's magnetic field, and/or is distorting the earth's mag-
>> netic field.
>
>As I have said, I agree that it works, but saying the
>earth's mag field gets distorted just begs the question of
>why.  The answer works if the pipe is ferrous, but doesn't
>explain why the method works for, say, clay sewer tile or
>PVC sprinkler pipe (for which it does, in fact, still work).
>Now it's still possible that if some material, e.g. water,
>is in the pipe that the alignment of the molecules with the
>mag field of the earth might induce some distortion in the
>local field, but if that's so, you ought to be able to go
>out and measure it.  Anybody got the tools to do this?

Well, the effect (detectable distortion of the Earth's magnetic field)
does exist, although I have a hard time believing it could induce a
perceptible force in a pair of wires (no, I haven't tried it yet.)
Magnetometers (I think that's the name of the device) are used in
anti-submarine warfare, and I think also for detecting mineral deposits.
These have to be pretty sensitive, but of course they also have to work
over much longer ranges than a couple of feet.

As for PVC or ceramic pipes: It could be the pipes' contents, or it
could be an affect of an insulator lying around in the earth. I have 
no idea how uniform is the resistivity of near-surface soil, but
if it's pretty uniform, a stretch of insulator might have an effect
as significant as a stretch of conductor (or maybe not.)

A question to everyone who's tried this and had it work: Do you have to be 
moving, or if you stop over the pipe do the wires stop being attracted?
What happens if you pace the length of a pipe? Walk backwards over a pipe?


-- 
email: wiml@u.washington.edu             |  Home:  Seattle, Washington   |
     (William Lewis)                     |  47 41' 15" N   122 42' 58" W | 
NeXTmail: wiml@ingalls.cs.washington.edu `-------------------------------'
        --*-- Member, Coalition to Preserve Semantic Vacuity --*--
From: mock@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Kenrick Mock)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: loch ness (to be or not be)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:49:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Davis - Department of Electrical Engineering

In article <1992Aug13.000740.16093@uc.msc.edu> drsmith@hamline.edu (jime) writes:

>re: the loch ness monster, it was noted that scientific research would

I saw a little blurb on one of those tabloid TV shows about the team
in Loch Ness.  Supposedly they hit "something big" on sonar that soon
disappeared, so the mystery goes on....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEnie : K.MOCK     			Net : mock@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu
"Don't worry about the world ending today, it's already tomorrow in
 Australia..."  					      - CMS
From: corbier@weird.miami.fl.us (Daniel Corbier)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:49:06 EDT
Organization: Weird BBS [Amiga] (305)553-3207 S. Miami, FL USA

In article <1992Aug20.015531.7842@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes
B T (Dr)) writes:
>there are serious health risks in eating.

There's an even greater health risk in not eating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Corbier              |   Can you rub your tummy and press
corbier@weird.miami.fl.us   |   <ctrl> <alt> <F6> at the same time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wolgamot@milton.u.washington.edu (Greg Wolgamot)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:18:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I've put this subject out of my mind for about five years ago, when I tried
it myself.  My limited schooling made me not want to accept it, but strange
as it may sound, it honestly seemed to work!  I did not try it in a controlled
environment or with scientific method, however.  Maybe somebody has?
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt)
Subject: Re: Microwaved light bulb
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:48:22 GMT

gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes:

>I can't remember if this was the thread where someone posted about putting
>compact discs in a microwave, but I thought I'd post a note of thanks to
>whoever did.  It was one of the neatest things I've ever seen.  Anyone
>interested in making some really cool CD-decorations, take any CD that you
>never want to hear again (mine was a Samantha Fox CD) and place it shiny side
>up in your microwave.  Cook onigh for 5 seconds.  Really cool!

I'm glad you liked it.

Have you tried the Halogen car headlight yet?  Wear your welder's goggles...

See-ya,
Heath

-- 
On Saturday, April 18, 1992, this .sig became self-aware.
From: tlg@uknet.ac.uk (Tim.Goodwin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:09:33 GMT
Organization: UKnet

In article <uuefcmu@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>Nah.  Probably has a whole lot more to do with all the atmosphere between our
>eyes and the sun/moon on the horizon distorting the size.  At least that's
>what I remember from 8th-grade science class.

I thought the whole point was that the angle subtended by the moon's
diameter is the same, it just looks different.

>Test of the Dave and Carrie Theorems:  photograph the moon at moonrise and
>again at its apex.  If the photos show different sizes, then the Carrie
>Theorem has evidence (the light reflected by the moon is as distorted for the
>camera as it is for our eyes); if the photos show the same size, then the
>Dave Theorem has evidence (the camera doesn't have a brain affected by tilt).

I believe that the photographs will show the same size.  Has anyone
tried this?  Be neat if someone could take the photographs, feed the
results into a scanner, and post them here.

Caveat: the only thing I've read on this is Berkeley's "Towards a new
theory of vision", which is, uh, probably a little out of date.  BTW,
his explanation is that the brain correlates clarity with distance.
When the moon is high in the sky, there's less atmosphere in the way, so
the image is sharper, so the brain thinks it's further away.

Tim.
-- 
perhaps if people had understood fork() better we | ; who am i
wouldn't have threads - Rob Pike.                 | uknet.ac.uk!tlg
From: bobm@Ingres.COM (Bob McQueer)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:43:43 GMT
Distribution: na

In <1992Aug13.014852.10681@panix.com>,
	dated Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:48:52 GMT,
	carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:

>   Reminder:  Randi has tested quite a few dowsers before, and they have
> universally failed under controlled conditions.

Arthur C. Clarke's TV show had a section on dowsing in which he covered the
Randi experiments.  Clarke noticed the same thing about the Randi experiments
I did - Randi buried a bunch of pipes with water in them, and set things up
so that his dowsers would hit 1 in 10 by sheer luck.  In keeping with the
way he runs his $10000 contest, he got the dowsers to agree that they
would hit 9 in 10, and when they did not, he pronounced their attempt
a failure.  The interesting point was that the dowsers did hit quite a
bit better than 1 in 10, about 5 in 10 if I recall correctly.  Without
details about the number of trials and the exact conduct of the experiment
in front of me, that seemed to be a statistically significant result.  Clarke
made the same point at the end of the show.

In keeping with the original poster's request for sources, Clarke also had
a geology professor from the U of Wyoming, I believe, who thought he had
a rational explanation for dowsing.  I want to say that he was claiming
that people could detect small magnetic field changes as they paced a patch
of ground, but I may not be remembering correctly.  Whatever it was, it
sounded reasonable and not terribly off the wall.

Dowsing is often lumped with various stuff like astrology, Kirlian photography,
etc.  It somewhat muddies the picture that some of the practioners place
themselves in the "psychic" category (like the ones who "dowse" over maps).
However, the practice probably deserves some consideration.  I don't believe
it, but I don't disbelieve it either.  Unlike a lot of the other "claptrap",
it doesn't fly in the face of reason, or suggest vast rewrites of existing
theory.  There is also quite a lot of anecdotal support.

BTW, I'm not reccomending Clarke's show ("Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World"?
I'm not sure of the title).  It had its interesting bits, but was terribly
uneven, and Clarke was no James Burke.  Hasn't run in several years anyway.
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Lightning and trees.
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:33:23 GMT
Organization: Equinox Networks
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>While camping over the weekend with a thunderstorm raging overhead I
>started pondering the following questions:
>
>Why is it dangerous to shelter under a tree in a thunderstorm? Is it
>_just_ because if you are touching the tree the current will also
>travel through your body or are you at risk even if you aren't
>touching the tree? If the first is true, is it therefore safe to camp
>under a tree or will the spikes on the tent poles tend to attract the
>lightning from the tree? Are you more likely to be safe in a small
>tent under a tree or in a large marquee near but not under some trees?

Have you ever seen lightning strike close up? Or witnessed the results
afterwards?

Assuming you're not actually touching the tree [or whatever] there are other
dangers:

An intense electrical discharge is not necessarily localised to whatever
conductor it's currently using [a photograph of a lightning strike
illustrates this], so even being some distance away one runs the risk of
being struck by a peripheral discharge.

Any metal objects in the vicinity could produce dischages due to induction
even when not directly hit by lightning

A tree [most anything in fact] can react explosively when subject to intense
electrical discharge.

The usual dangers of burns and damage to eyesight due to flash, and hearing
due to the explosive nature of the event.

Trees have branches which can be damaged, falling on the unwary.

If nothing else if you're in a small tent under a tree that is struck by
lightning it'll scare the living bejeezus out of you.

As to relative safety, if the surrounding trees are generally higher, it'd
vote for the marquee, but when dealing with something like this, there are
no guaranteed results.

--
Geoff, Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 [4 Lines]
                               Voice: +64 (3) 3852101
        "Hi. You have just entered the fourth dimension. Small isn't it?"
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Seriously, microwave health risks?
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:36:28 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

One thing I have heard, and maybe you folks can shed some luminescence
on this, is that one should wait 30 seconds after removing food from
the microwave so that the microwaves can "settle down."
  Do microwaves "bounce around" inside food for a while? Or, will food
continue to heat up for a few seconds after the machine is stopped?
  thanks, Betsy
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:2995 alt.folklore.urban:21219 alt.tasteless:8887
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban,alt.tasteless
Subject: Re: Microwaved cat explodes
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:18:33 GMT
	<BsGrL6.1zz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Aug8.171706.12682@bbxrbk>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: russ@bbxrbk's message of 8 Aug 92 17:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.171706.12682@bbxrbk>, russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler) writes:

> Sure it makes some folks "feel powerful" - but I don't think that you
> need to limit yourself to 1/20 weight category.  There's lots of stuff
> you can do with animals down in the lower weight classes - say a
> gerbil.  You can do truly amazing stuff with a gerbil, a ziplock baggy
> and a roll of duct tape.

And don't forget the fun you can have 
tipping over cows.  The bigger they
are...

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:12:07 GMT
	<11AUG199211554024@rover.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: na
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: frank@rover.uchicago.edu's message of 11 Aug 92 17:55:00 GMT

In article <11AUG199211554024@rover.uchicago.edu>, frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:

> All that is happening is that the buried material is either magnitized
> by the earth's magnetic field, and/or is distorting the earth's mag-
> netic field.

As I have said, I agree that it works, but saying the
earth's mag field gets distorted just begs the question of
why.  The answer works if the pipe is ferrous, but doesn't
explain why the method works for, say, clay sewer tile or
PVC sprinkler pipe (for which it does, in fact, still work).
Now it's still possible that if some material, e.g. water,
is in the pipe that the alignment of the molecules with the
mag field of the earth might induce some distortion in the
local field, but if that's so, you ought to be able to go
out and measure it.  Anybody got the tools to do this?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:27:03 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug13142620@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.014852.10681@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>> For the record:  if you really believe that you can detect underground
>> or otherwise hidden metallic objects using bent wires (which colloquially
>> would be called "dowsing", although one correspondent restricts that word
>> to detection of water) then you should contact James Randi, who will gladly
>> award you a prize of $10,000 upon proof of this ability.
>
>This is getting tiresome.  Don't you bother to read the 
>articles you respond to?  We are NOT talking about dowsing,
>which is defined as the location of underground water (or
>sometimes mineral) deposits.

Do *YOU* bother to read the articles you respond to?  Or are you
simply illiterate?

Any word is defined by usage, which in a large percentage of Americans
includes using dowsing to mean any paranormal ability to locate buried
objects.  And Mr. Fink explicitly admitted that the terminology is
subject to dispute.

I think you owe Mr. Fink a public net.apology.

>And Randi is not the principle
>in this offer.
Randi has publicly made many similar offers, as have many other
"debunkers."

>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

Patrick Juola // Institute for Cognitive Science // Boulder, CO
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: srutt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (DNA Kaifeng)
Subject: $50,000 Divining Rods!
Summary: $50,000 divining rods
Keywords: divining rods
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:15:04 GMT

Frank Borger and Mark Slagle boast about their abilities to use
divining rods to locate hidden objects (metals). As a scientist
I must keep an open mind toward the possibility that either or
both of these gentlemen can perform the feats they describe.
But since ALL people claiming such ability have FAILED under 
proper scientific testing, such abilities would be called
extraordinary. And considering the canon "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" and since such evidence is not
available at present, I would bet against Frank and Mark's 
dowsing abilities.

In case these gentlemen are interested in putting their abilities
to the test (which I doubt), extraordinary evidence might be
obtained by having these gentlemen attempt their feats in a 
controlled testing environment run by a team of skeptical debunkers.
The CSICOP and the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER would probably be happy 
to supervise.

Oh by the way, I think the current prize for performing such
feats under conditions controlled by the above groups ranges from 
$50,000 to $100,000. Call Paul Kurtz at (716)-636-1425 for more
information. And if suddenly both of your powers disappear -
I'll understand.

                       -steve

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************
@ email: srutt@beagle.colorado.edu @* "Nothing in biology makes sense except *
@   Dept. of Molecular, Cellular   @*  in the light of evolution."           *
@    and Developmental Biology     @*  - T. Dobzhansky                       *
@ University of Colorado, Boulder  @*                   Opinions are my own. *
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Water ionization via magnetism?
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 16:59:58 GMT

Others said
# 
# I remember many moons ago a blurb on the radio about replacing your costly
# water softener with a super-duper high power magnet.  It was supposed to do
# the same thing by just sitting on your pipes.

Is that the same magnet you put on the fuel line near the carb
to get 3x the mileage, or a different one?

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Lightning and trees.
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 16:53:59 GMT

Others said
# If lightning does strike the car, then the thing to do is to stay put inside
# until the residual charge has been bled off.  

Use a rental car, or your ex's ;_]

1) None of the electronic will remain intact.
2) Don't worry about the residual charge. After the tires explode, and
the car sinks to the rims, it will quickly drain.....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: foltz@as.arizona.edu (Craig B. Foltz)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:07:36 GMT
Reply-To: foltz@as.arizona.edu
Organization: MMT Observatory, Univ.of Arizona


>Test of the Dave and Carrie Theorems:  photograph the moon at moonrise and
>again at its apex.  If the photos show different sizes, then the Carrie
>Theorem has evidence (the light reflected by the moon is as distorted for the
>camera as it is for our eyes); if the photos show the same size, then the
>Dave Theorem has evidence (the camera doesn't have a brain affected by tilt).

The photographs will show images with identical sizes.  Trust me.  I've tried it.
There are also some introductory astronomy texts which show such photographs.
Unfortunately, I don't have any here to check on a good reference.  "The
Great Moon Paradox," as it's called, is NOT due to atmospheric effects.


---
Craig Foltz                               cfoltz@as.arizona.edu
Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory     Tel   (602) 621-1269
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721        Fax   (602) 670-5740