PDA

View Full Version : Uri Geller FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)


Lucianarchy
2nd October 2003, 01:55 AM
"A split hair's difference,
and heaven and earth are set apart!" - Sang ts'an

Subject: The Uri Geller FAQ.

Summary: This information is about Uri Geller.

Expires: 1.7.2009 00:00:00 GMT
Archive-name: www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/uri.html
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/uri.html

Posting-Frequency: Not specified.
Newsgroups: Not specified.
Last-modified: 25.7.2001
Version: 2
Copyright: (c) 1999 Lucianarchy(tm) repro allowed without alteration.
Maintainer: Lucianarchy

This FAQ ( Frequently Asked Question ) is compiled by a proponent of truth.

It is modelled on guidelines published by:

http://www.faqs/news-answers/guidelines/section-2.html

( Revised 18.01.2001 updates existing FAQ posted 15.11.99 )

__________________________________________________

Q: When did Uri first get his remarkable ability?

A: Uri thinks it was when he was a young child. He was with his mother ( a member of the Freud family ) when some cutlery he was eating with bent. He also remembers being hit by light from the sky.

Q: Was this from a higher intelligence?

A: Andrija Puharich suggested that Uri's subsequent 'powers' came from an extraterrestrial source.
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/126_nine.shtml

Q: Does Uri believe this?

A: Uri is quoted as stating " 90% probably not.", but retains an open mind.

Q: Who brought Uri to the attention of 'The West'?

A: Andrija Puhariach introduced Uri to astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Hal Puthof and Russel Targ at the Stanford Research Institute. Uri was tested and validated by the SRI and the results were written up in 'Nature' magazine.
www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/sria.htm

Q: Then what?

A: Uri became a media celebrity, and toured the world giving demonstrations of his abilities.

Q: Why did Uri drop out of the 'lime-light'?

A: Uri claims to be misrepresented by a group of sceptics which lead him to defend himself in Court. In one case, a Tokyo Court ruled that Geller had been insulted and awarded a judgement against one sceptic for 500,000 Yen. In another case, a Hungarian Court ruled against another newspaper over a different matter in favour of Uri, making the newspaper print a retraction. Yet another case resulted in Geller obtaining a written apology and acknowledgement of error from Prometheus Books.
http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/courts.htm

Q: Then what?

A: Uri decided to work for oil companies, using his ability to prospect for minerals. He says he gained his wealth and independence from this work. He also went to 'spiritually recharge' himself at a location under Mount Fuji, Japan and decided to "take a break."

Q: So, did Uri 'give it up'?

A: Not at all. He met with Nobel prize-winner, Brian Josephson and decided to undertake " confidential, but positive, work for scientists."

"IN AN OFFICE at King's College I had set up several experiments designed to measure the pressure applied by Geller during metal bending.The two main ones were very simple. The essential apparatus for one of them was a balance of the type used to weigh letters and parcels; it was sensitive enough to measure weights to a quarter of an ounce. A brass strip about 20 cm long was taped horizontally to the platform of the balance.

The major portion of the strip extended out from the platform, and Geller stroked the top surface of it while I measured, directly, by reading the scale, and by using an automatic recording device, the pressure he was applying.

At the end of the test the strip had acquired a bend of ten degrees although Geller had at no time applied more than half an ounce (20 gm) of pressure. It was out of the question that such a small pressure could have produced that deflection.

What is more, the actual bending occurred upward- against the pressure of the finger. Earlier, another subject gave a similar result, producing, with less than an ounce of downward pressure, a smaller upward deflection (two degrees) on a strip of copper. "
http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/g19.htm

"A BRIEF PSYCHOKINETIC INVESTIGATION OF MR. URI GELLER

J.B. Hasted, D.J. Bohm, E.W. Bastin, and D.O'Regan

Birkbeck College (University of London)

We possess four numbered and weighed brass Yale keys which were bent through angles of between 10 and 40 degrees under light stroking action by Mr. Geller. If, under symmetrical four point loading, force pulses of the order of 500 N (Say 50 kg weight) had been applied to the keys, similar bends would have been produced. No loss of surface brightness or change of weight, within the experimental error of 1 mg was observed. Mr. Geller applied a light stroking action between forefinger and thumb, or by forefinger with key placed on the table. In all cases several witnesses watched the entire operation intently from within 1m. In one case the key was not stroked but was simply, held under a cold water tap. In all cases the bending took a time of the order of minutes to complete, and it usually appeared to continue slowly for a short while after the stroking had, been terminated. No physical or chemical explanation of these Phenomena is readily apparent. The mean grain size at the bent surfaces has been compared with that in unbent and mechanically bent specimens by X-ray reflection and electron micrograph. No significant change in grain orientation or size was noted. "

Hasted was elected Chair of Experimental Physics, London University.

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/eng.htm

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/hastspec.htm

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/h&r.htm

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/spinelli.htm

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/inv.htm

"Based on preliminary investigations of Uri Geller,I cannot establish fraud .The powers of this man are a phenomenon which theoretical physics cannot yet explain." Dr Friedbert Karger (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Munich, Germany)

"Geller asked me to put my hand over a spoon supplied by me, we could all see the spoon clearly. Geller then put his own hand over mine and began concentrating. It was just ashe stopped that we all saw the handle of the spoon begin to distort." Dr Edward W Bastin (Holds doctorate degrees in both physics and mathematics. He won an Isaac Newton studentship to Cambridge University, and for a time was visiting fellow at Stanford University, California)

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/uribiog3.htm

"The apparatus for the other test was a small cylinder imbedded in a strip of aluminum in such a way that one end of the cylinder, covered by a pressure-sensitive diaphragm, was flush with the surface of the strip. When pressure was applied to the diaphragm by a person's rubbing the strip gently with a finger, an electric current proportional to this pressure was generated by a device installed inside the cylinder. This pressure-measuring device had been used with various subjects, but no bending was achieved. In Geller's case the consequences were drastic.

Holding the strip in one hand, he made it bend in the appropriate region so that the pressure could be measured. But as the bending occurred the mechanism in the cylinder suddenly stopped functioning. I took the apparatus from Geller and observed, to my horror, the pressure sensitive diaphragm begin to crumble. A small hole appeared in its center and spread across its whole surface till the diaphragm had completely disintegrated, the entire process taking about ten seconds. After another three minutes the strip in which the cylinder was imbedded had bent a further thirty degrees.

Attempts to influence objects without contact yielded more information. Geller held his hands over a plastic container in which had been placed a small crystal of lithium fluoride; within ten seconds the crystal broke into a number of pieces.

There was absolutely no chance of Geller's having touched the crystal. Throughout the experiment I could see a gap between his hands and the container holding the crystal. He also buckled a small disc of aluminum, which again was inside a plastic container. I held my hands between Geller's and the container in order to prevent any possibility of his directly manipulating the disc. -" Taylor

http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/g19.htm

Q: OK, but what about the magicians who have seen Uri?

"Uri bent a spoon for me, the first time he did it, I thought there must be a trick. The second time I was stunned, completely, completely stunned and amazed. It just bent in my hand.

I've never seen anything like it. It takes a lot to impress me.

Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn't recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person."
David Blain, (American Magician. Star of ABC's Television Specials.)

Q: So, what's the secret to Uri's success?

A: Positive thinking. Uri thinks that a collective energy of certain 'beliefs has the ability to make positive transformations.

Q: But is it true?

A: Attorney at Law, Ruth M.Liebesman states:

"We are happy to let people believe or disbelieve as their conscience dictates. Unfortunately, a few people are very threatened by what Uri can do, and do not want people to believe what we know; that what Uri does is real. As a result, some of the lies have been beyond reprehensible, many of them have been without any factual basis. But that's where I come in. I protect Uri from the lies."

Sources and links:

Uri Geller Magician or Mystic by J Margolis : UK - Orion / USA - Welcome Rain (2000).

Clarification of Legal Issues.

Scientists and Uri Geller.

Professor Hasted, Chair of Experimental Physiscs, Birbeck, London.

Article on Uri and Meta Analysis.

Taylor Experiments.

Magicians and Uri Geller.

Fortean Times 'The Nine' (article).
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/126_nine.shtml

http://www.uri-geller.com/peekatyou.htm

SPECTRA

'The X Factor' - Marshall Cavendish, London. 101 - 103.

'Saucer Smear.

www.uri-geller.com

'Nature' magazine on Geller.

Stanford Research Institute results.

http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/uri.html

davidhorman
2nd October 2003, 02:38 AM
How about "Why did Uri cheat and bend a spoon with his hands, which was caught on hidden camera by the BBC?"

Or "Why couldn't Uri bend the spoon given to him on the Big Breakfast, insisting instead on using his own, thinner spoon? (which he gripped firmly in his hand with his behind the bowl)"

Or "Why did Uri insist, on another appearance on the Big Breakfast that he was nowhere near the presenter when the presenter drew his "picture in an envelope", and yet one minute later the presenter said something to the effect of "he was in the room with me but he couldn't see what I was drawing?"

Or "Why is it that when Uri does his drawing trick, the other person draws first, but when Derren Brown does it, he draws first?"

Etc, etc, etc...

David

PS Paul Zenon, a British Magician appeared on a TV show here a few days after Uri, and was asked what he thought of his drawing trick, specifically how the drawings were the same sized. "Well," he said, "without giving too much away, they would be the same size if you traced it."

Lucianarchy
2nd October 2003, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by davidhorman
How about "Why did Uri cheat and bend a spoon with his hands, which was caught on hidden camera by the BBC?"



How about "Why did Maradonna cheat and bend the ball into the net with his hand, in the World Cup Finals, which was caught on open camera by the BBC?"

davidhorman
2nd October 2003, 02:57 AM
How about "Why did Maradonna cheat and bend the ball into the net with his hand, in the World Cup Finals, which was caught on open camera by the BBC?"

Maradonna didn't claim his previous goals were scored with magical powers bestowed upon him by aliens in order to fleece the gullible by selling them circles of orange paper.

Edit: and it almost certainly wasn't the BBC.

David

Lucianarchy
2nd October 2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by davidhorman


Maradonna didn't claim his previous goals were scored with magical powers bestowed upon him by aliens in order to fleece the gullible by selling them circles of orange paper.

David

So you admit that even those at the peak of their career or ability can 'cheat', regardless of "power" be it athletic, artistic or mental. The overall evidence in favour of Uri Geller's 'psi' powers being genuine is overwhelming. It would be perfectly understandable for him to sometimes not be able to perform, it would also be understandable for him to sometimes cheat (I believe his ability was strongest during the 70's). Many people forget that those who actually tested him in the labs (as opposed to 'showbiz' appearances) employed the services of magicians, and I believe Russ Targ (SRI/Geller) even had a background as a performing magician before he became a performing physicist.

Didn't Randi mention that in his books or any of his other writings about Uri at the SRI?

davidhorman
2nd October 2003, 03:54 AM
The overall evidence in favour of Uri Geller's 'psi' powers being genuine is overwhelming.

I for one am decidedly underwhelmed.

It would be perfectly understandable for him to sometimes not be able to perform, it would also be understandable for him to sometimes cheat.

It doesn't help his case against the sceptics (by which I mean people who are sceptical of his powers) though, does it? Do you really think I'm being completely unreasonable to doubt Uri even more than I would anyway, because we was caught cheating?

I believe his ability was strongest during the 70's

Wasn't that around the time he abysmally failed to show any ability at all on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, because Randi was there scuppering his tricks?

Many people forget that those who actually tested him in the labs (as opposed to 'showbiz' appearances) employed the services of magicians

Well I'm not qualified to assess the reliability of any of these magicians in the field of paranormal research - I probably wouldn't recognise their names. But if I did I don't think it'd lend much more credence to the tests in my mind.

"Employed the services of" is rather vague, too - although I'll assume they weren't the dinner entertainment.

If only we could settle this once and for all with a controlled demonstration of any of the numerous psi abilities that seem to be out there. Like, I don't know, this is just off the top of my head you understand, predicting lottery numbers? Now they're doing daily play we can do more trials in less time.

He met with Nobel prize-winner, Brian Josephson and decided to undertake " confidential, but positive, work for scientists".

[description of test]

A quick glance at Josephson's website would indicate he'd have a lot to gain in terms of his theories from any validation of Uri's powers. Given the description of the test I can't imagine it being too hard to exert a large force on the bar without exerting much of a force on the scale (although I'm not entirely sure what consitutes 20g - a bag of crisps?).

I did like this quote:

Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn't recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person - David Blaine

Or a shameless self-publicist.

You need to update your links - the only ones that work link to the same FAQ.

David

Jon_in_london
2nd October 2003, 05:22 AM
shouldnt this be in flame wars or skepticisn and the paranormal? or the bin?

tamiO
2nd October 2003, 06:12 AM
Q: OK, but what about the magicians who have seen Uri?

"Uri bent a spoon for me, the first time he did it, I thought there must be a trick. The second time I was stunned, completely, completely stunned and amazed. It just bent in my hand.

I've never seen anything like it. It takes a lot to impress me.

Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn't recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person."
David Blain, (American Magician. Star of ABC's Television Specials.)

Once again, I am confused as to why Randi sticks up for David Blaine in his commentary.

Ladewig
2nd October 2003, 06:43 AM
Don't forget the Popular Photography story in 1974 that included photographs of his cheating while claiming he could make images appear on unexposed film.


________________________________________

Here is a website (http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/uribib.htm) listing all of his appearances in print media.

AlienX
2nd October 2003, 09:01 AM
Uri Geller has been caught cheating on several occasions.
I've seen a couple of shows where hidden cameras were used
and he cheats in these.

So if he did have special powers why would he ever require mundane methods?

Actually I quite like Geller - he's a really good laugh. But I watch him in the same way that I would watch someone say like Derren Brown.

The is so much evidence Vs Geller that anything "unexplained" is simply people not having worked out the trick, although people like Randi etc spot this stuff easily, they then explain the trick to "believers" who prompty either don't beleive the explanation or point to another trick forgetting the whole point that he cheated in their given example.... some people ! :-(

The guy has such conviction that he's genuine it's hard not to watch and have a good laugh at him.

Simply put any of these entertainers who claim having special power get caught even once then it's all over. Thing is people wan't to believe and thus Geller is still doing the rounds after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar many times.

Derren Brown is playing Russian Roulete on telly soon, Geller should be on the other side of the table (Red Bandana - Deer hunter style). Derren can use whatever trick he's going to do and Geller can use his special powers only ;-)

AX

kookbreaker
2nd October 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[BQ: Then what?

Q: Then what?



Q: What kind of 'FAQ', has 'Then What' as Questions?

A: A really badly written one, often seen in sycophantic pieces poorly disguised as informative FAQs.

Chupacabras
2nd October 2003, 01:33 PM
But seriously: if several people here ask something about UG, say, 20 times, or almost everyday for a month, will the question be included and addressed in this FAQ?

I am asking seriously.

Diogenes
2nd October 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by tamiO


Once again, I am confused as to why Randi sticks up for David Blaine in his commentary.

You don't think such a statement ( that you quoted of Blaine ), might not be a bit of missdirection?

Ipecac
2nd October 2003, 01:48 PM
Q: When did Uri first get his remarkable ability?

A: He was with his mother ( a member of the Freud family ) when some cutlery he was eating with bent. He also remembers being hit by light from the sky.

Holy crap! I was hit by a light from the sky this morning!! I'm going to be able to share my spectacular gift of bending cutlery with the whole world!

Oh, wait, that was the sun.

Diogenes
2nd October 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Ipecac


Holy crap! I was hit by a light from the sky this morning!! I'm going to be able to share my spectacular gift of bending cutlery with the whole world!

Oh, wait, that was the sun.

I never have really understood the benefits of cutlery bending..
Is it just me?:confused:

kookbreaker
2nd October 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Diogenes


I never have really understood the benefits of cutlery bending..
Is it just me?:confused:

My favorite mocking of one of Geller's many origin stories:

"The aliens from the planet Hoova came down in their spaceship, came before me and bestowed upon me powers from beyond the stars.."







"and then I bent some spoons."

hgc
2nd October 2003, 02:29 PM
Q: When did Uri first get his remarkable ability?

A: He was with his mother ( a member of the Freud family ) when some cutlery he was eating with bent. He also remembers being hit by light from the sky.Isn't this "hit by light from the sky" thing right out of that John Travolta movie where your average Joe becomes a super genius and figures out how to keep rabbits out of his garden, falls in love with Kyra Sedgewick, and then dies of brain cancer.

c0rbin
2nd October 2003, 02:33 PM
Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn't recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person."
David Blain, (American Magician. Star of ABC's Television Specials.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once again, I am confused as to why Randi sticks up for David Blaine in his commentary.

Uri Geller is a "for real" what, exactly?

Ed
2nd October 2003, 04:07 PM
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend
Luci has a boyfriend

:eek:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
2nd October 2003, 06:25 PM
FAQ: Frequently Asked Qrapola.

~~ Paul

De_Bunk
2nd October 2003, 07:44 PM
Blaine, Geller and Randi...

Who's next to join..

Hang on..

Yeh...Keep it up David...You got Uri and Randi on your side...I'll paint a eye on my hand and be right down to give you support for this totally rivetting, and fascinating stunt...

Uri...David...I love you guys..

DB

PS...Geller can really bend spoons with his mind powers and start broken watches just by looking at them and shouting "Work"

:crazy:

xouper
2nd October 2003, 08:13 PM
Lucianarchy: The Uri Geller FAQ. Last-modified: 25.7.2001 Version: 2 Copyright: (c) 1999 Lucianarchy(tm) :s2:

Ed
2nd October 2003, 09:52 PM
Copyright under a pseudonym? Doubtful.

xouper
2nd October 2003, 10:09 PM
Ed: Copyright under a pseudonym?And a trademarked one, at that. :eek:

Lucianarchy
3rd October 2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Chupacabras
But seriously: if several people here ask something about UG, say, 20 times, or almost everyday for a month, will the question be included and addressed in this FAQ?

I am asking seriously.

Sure, Chups. Which question would you like added?

dingler44
3rd October 2003, 02:35 AM
2 things:

1. the tcom. links don't work

2. Uri Geller is a f*#king idiot.

Ersby
3rd October 2003, 03:15 AM
Lucian, your FAQ is full of dead links. The Fortean Times one is broken too.

Lucianarchy
3rd October 2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Ersby
Lucian, your FAQ is full of dead links. The Fortean Times one is broken too.

Thanks, Ersby. The FT is working now, I'll do the others as and when.

MRC_Hans
3rd October 2003, 03:47 AM
One question I'd like to ask about UG: Why is he in the entertainment business?

Hans

Lucianarchy
3rd October 2003, 09:25 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1295000/video/_1296899_gellerfilm_vi.ram

Barkhorn1x
3rd October 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The overall evidence in favour of Uri Geller's 'psi' powers being genuine is overwhelming.

Dude - it's almost 2004 forchrissakes.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

and, finally,

:eek:

Barkhorn.

Chupacabras
3rd October 2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Sure, Chups. Which question would you like added?

Well thank you!

I have wondered that in both science and the arts, it is customary (not going into a debate on this right now, though) that "masters" dedicate some time to teaching / preaching his findings. All masters have been tutors at some time, like physics working at universities, for example. This helps in several ways, such as distributing knowledge (a very noble labor of giving back to society), getting some feedback and ultimately "testing" ideas against imaginative, inquiring and supposedly unbiased minds.

In this vein, has Uri Geller ever embarqued into teaching his methods for spoon bending? If yes, when, where, to whom and what about the results? If no, then I'd wonder why.

I think there are other important questions, but I think I should write them carefully, in order to propose honest and respectful inquiries, and yet try to address medular issues.


BTW - I really liked "Chups"! :) Should have tought of it before...

Edito to add: I know UG sells books on self-improvement and other matters, but this time I'd like to stick to the "teaching of spoon bending" issue.

Ladewig
4th October 2003, 01:39 AM
I saw a short interview on television where he said he was teaching these skills to one of his children.

athon
4th October 2003, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by Ladewig
I saw a short interview on television where he said he was teaching these skills to one of his children.

Which is something we don't have enough of in current education curriculums - Cutlery Manipulation 101.

Seriously, the guy has long been a running joke. His tricks can be replicated by ten year olds, his style is amusing for all the wrong reasons...Luci, you only further embarrass yourself by trying to support his antics.

Hey, is this going into your children's book too?

Athon

xouper
4th October 2003, 10:14 AM
athon: Luci, you only further embarrass yourself by trying to support his antics.Nicely understated. :)

Pyrrho
4th October 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by xouper
And a trademarked one, at that. :eek:
Can you think of anyone else who'd want to use it? Oh, wait, does that mean we have to get permission first? Ah, never mind. Covered under Fair Use.

Pyrrho
4th October 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So you admit that even those at the peak of their career or ability can 'cheat', regardless of "power" be it athletic, artistic or mental. The overall evidence in favour of Uri Geller's 'psi' powers being genuine is overwhelming. It would be perfectly understandable for him to sometimes not be able to perform, it would also be understandable for him to sometimes cheat (I believe his ability was strongest during the 70's). Many people forget that those who actually tested him in the labs (as opposed to 'showbiz' appearances) employed the services of magicians, and I believe Russ Targ (SRI/Geller) even had a background as a performing magician before he became a performing physicist.

Didn't Randi mention that in his books or any of his other writings about Uri at the SRI?
When you claim to have paranormal powers sufficient to bend metal with your mind, and you cheat by doing it with your hands, you cannot expect to ever be taken seriously. If you cheat several times, and admit to it, then never submit to a situation in which you have to prove conclusively that you can bend metal with your mind without cheating, then the default position is that you're a liar and a fraud, despite all the excuses of "performance pressure". Hypothetically speaking, of course. This in no way implies that Uri Geller is a cheat or that Russell Targ failed to properly control for trickery.

I was an amateur magician once, too, but that doesn't automatically mean that I can construct a cheat-proof protocol. Uri's metal-bending tricks were new at the time. Other magicians hadn't seen them before...or at least magicians who had seen variations on them, such as the see-the-die-through-the-metal-box trick, had been long dead. Uri's reproduce-the-drawing tricks were so old and so shopworn that legitimate magicians didn't bother to give them much notice...except for Randi, who rightfully pointed out the wrong of claiming psychic powers on the basis of the same kind of magic typically conducted at birthday parties by clowns. Add to that the fact that magicians guard their secrets very closely and many were unwilling to expose Geller because, after all, he was a fellow performer.

Once Uri's metal-bending tricks became generally known, magicians had little trouble figuring out how they were done. As a result, you can learn how to appear to bend spoons with your mind for as little as $25. For a little more, you can buy videos which explain "the real work" in more detail.

Think of the simplest way to bend a spoon, folks. That's how it's done.

Ratman_tf
4th October 2003, 03:51 PM
If he couldn't perform, he should have just said so, instead of cheating. Now, even if he is the real deal (and that's a mighty big if there) no one can take him seriously due to his having cheated in the past.

Chaon
12th October 2003, 07:51 PM
A guy at the local bar is claiming that Geller was at Stanford for two years, and that he was there under a DARPA grant.

Can someone offer links/info on this?

Lucianarchy
13th October 2003, 08:34 AM
Targ, Russell and Puthoff, Harold E, Mind-Reach, Delacorte Press, 1977, pg 172-3

Ed
13th October 2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Targ, Russell and Puthoff, Harold E, Mind-Reach, Delacorte Press, 1977, pg 172-3

Targ was a lier and fruitcake. Same mold as Schwartz. Credibility=0

Rosencrantz
13th October 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Chaon
A guy at the local bar is claiming that Geller was at Stanford for two years, and that he was there under a DARPA grant.This is actually kind of misleading. I don't think the Stanford Research Institute is very similar to Stanford University, even if they're both in the same part of California. Their website says that they were founded "in conjunction" with Stanford University in 1946, and "formally separated" from the university in 1970. I don't know if that means they're conducting any sort of legitimate science, but it seems to me that the name allows supporters to imply he was recognized by a major university when they drop the word Stanford like this.

Chaon
13th October 2003, 07:31 PM
Lucianarcy:

Thanks, but I'm not going to buy the book just to read 2 pages.

Ed: Targ is definitely on the far end of the woo-woo meter, but Puthoff is a fairly respected scientist, with the caveat being that he is into exploiting zero-point energy (a tricky area; chock full of perpetual motion - free energy tyes, but also an interesting area of physics).

Rosencrantz: I hadn't even thought to look at the SRI website. This was interesting:

In the 1970s and 1980s SRI was contracted by a U.S. government agency to research some aspects of remote viewing. As this work was performed for clients, SRI no longer has the records relating to the research. All such records were returned to the clients.

and then:

Please note that the use of SRI's name in conjunction with this research and any claims made by participants in the research, other than those published in the journals cited below, is not approved by SRI and is not authorized by SRI.


http://www.sri.com/publication/remoteview.html

So, I still don't know if it was DARPA, the CIA, or what 'government agency' that funded the research.

Zep
13th October 2003, 08:15 PM
A little quote re Targ, Puthoff and Geller, from here (http://66.221.71.68/amaze20.htm).

British physicist Dr. Joseph Hanlon, who first drew the attention of the London weekly, The New Scientist, to the Geller phenomenon...is critical of the Targ-Puthoff experiments with Geller and of the paper in which they reported on it. He wrote:

"A dry scientific paper can never capture the feeling of an experiment. In this case, the Targ-Puthoff paper totally fails to communicate the circus atmosphere that surrounded all of the tests with Geller. As Targ commented to me: 'Deliberately or accidentally, Geller manipulates the experiments to a degree of chaos where he feels comfortable and we feel uncomfortable. Then he bends something.'" Hanlon quotes Targ as saying, "I feel confident that Geller will cheat if given a chance," but doubts that their "vigilance against cheating was rigorous enough, to eliminate Geller's possibly "sophisticated magic and psychological trickery."

(my emphasis).Luci, STILL want to push the Targ/Puthoff line??

Hannibal
30th October 2003, 02:29 AM
I just had to bump this one....

Luci, you are a constant "champion" of Geller - yet in another thread you quite categorically state that the sort of "power" he demonstrates is little more than a "back of the matchbox" parlour trick.

How can you reconcile these two viewpoints? Or let me phrase that another way...WHEN will you explain the disparity?

RonSceptic
30th October 2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Hannibal
I just had to bump this one....

Luci, you are a constant "champion" of Geller - yet in another thread you quite categorically state that the sort of "power" he demonstrates is little more than a "back of the matchbox" parlour trick.

How can you reconcile these two viewpoints? Or let me phrase that another way...WHEN will you explain the disparity?

Hannibal,

I thought you knew better than to ask Luci a question!;)

You may as well start up a Claus-style list!

Hannibal
1st November 2003, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by RonSceptic


Hannibal,

I thought you knew better than to ask Luci a question!;)

You may as well start up a Claus-style list!

I know, I know. It's a bit like drinking lots of beer....you know you won't get anything from it but it seems like a really good idea at the time.

Oh yeah...*bump*..heh,heh,heh

Lucianarchy
11th December 2003, 08:41 AM
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>edited by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>This post has been reported... the entire content, with no additional information I can find, was taken from this website: <url>http://www.uri-geller.com/uri-biography/uribiog3.htm</url>
Such postings are not allowed, as they violate multiple copyright laws. I tire of this ongoing refusal to abide by the rules. I have deleted the entire post, which again, may be found by following the link.
</font></td></tr></table>

Lothian
11th December 2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Blah Blah BlahTo rebuff your references I quote the famous Skeptic Lucianarchy.

She dismisses metal bending antics as ‘back of a matchbox tricks.'

I am sure you would not disagree with such a revered commentator.

The Don
11th December 2003, 08:54 AM
Chosing one

It all depends on your perspective, form your point of view the quote

Geller has bent my ring in the palm of my hand without ever touching
it. Personally, I have no scientific explanation for the phenomena."
Dr. Wernher von Braun (NASA scientist & father of the Rocket - U.S.A.)

proves that Dr. von Braun thinks UG's powers are for real. From my perspective he was "clearly" saying it must be an illusion

and this one

WHAT MAGICIANS SAY ABOUT URI GELLER
"You know, I like Uri Geller. He is a good guy. I think he made many
things with his abilities. I think some of the things he shows are
illusion. But I cannot claim for sure, that this applies to
everything."

David Copperfield

to you that says "even magicians concede that UG is for real" whereas I see "I won't spoil his act", mere professional courtesy

Lucianarchy
11th December 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Lothian
To rebuff your references I quote the famous Skeptic Lucianarchy.

She dismisses metal bending antics as ‘back of a matchbox tricks.'

I am sure you would not disagree with such a revered commentator.

OK, so you still can't debunk, so you try another liar tactic of trying to attribute this quote about Niels Krøjgaard:

"Back of a match-box stuff. It is not the same thing at all. "

Indeed it's "not the same thing at all."

Magicans can't replicate what Uri does. They try, they come close, but they can't do it, no matter how hard they try. I guess that's why Blaine claims that "Uri is for real", and eminent magicians and epxerts who rank alongside people like Randi in the literature fail to detect trickery or fraud.

Lothian
11th December 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK, so you still can't debunk, so you try another liar tactic of trying to attribute this quote about Niels Krøjgaard:

"Back of a match-box stuff. It is not the same thing at all. "

Indeed it's "not the same thing at all."

Magicans can't replicate what Uri does. They try, they come close, but they can't do it, no matter how hard they try. I guess that's why Blaine claims that "Uri is for real", and eminent magicians and epxerts who rank alongside people like Randi in the literature fail to detect trickery or fraud. No Luci. I was referring to your dismissal of Alistair Cook’s series where he replicated the tricks used by Psychics.

You claimed all he did was ‘back of a matchbox tricks’ He showed Uri Geller bending a key then he did it. He showed Uri bending a spoon then he did it.

link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870163159&highlight=parlour+trickery#post1870163159)