'Real' Psychics?

[Rodney]

The information that you stated was relevant was whether or not the case was hopeless. That requires expert knowledge and experience. In none of the cases do we have the first-hand account from those with sufficient expertise to provide some degree of certainty about the hopelessness of the case.
If it is documented that a medical doctor said that the Aime Dietrich or the Tommy House case was hopeless, would that change your mind?

What do you mean by that? It has certainly been documented that Cayce didn't say anything that required knowledge unavailable to him (or anyone else).
According to Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet, at pages 5-6, in the Tommy House case "Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna . . . Although homeopathic belladonna was sometimes used to treat lung and kidney ailments, pure belladonna, in the form Cayce recommended, was used only in topical ointments and was certainly not something to spoon into the mouth of a three-month old child."

So where did Cayce obtain the knowledge to prescribe a measured dose of belladonna to a three-month old child?

Again, this is a third, fourth, fifth-hand account of Munsterberg's findings. We have no idea what he really found or thought. There's no point to disputing something when it hasn't even been established that there's anything to dispute.
I have come across several accounts of Münsterberg's visit to Cayce, and all say essentially the same thing. Is there some alternative account of which I'm unaware that claims Münsterberg found Cayce to be a fraud, or at least unimpressive?

[Lusikka]

Ocelot, concerning the boys I experimented with:

They surreptitiously applied physical force. Either whilst to spoon was hidden from view or whilst you were distracted elsewhere.

An additional flourish might be the use of ratcheting.

Thank you for your kind answer. Now I am not forced to discuss only with links.

You have a problem here, I think. You were not present in the bending situations but I was present then. It is not a problem of theory or guessing but a problem of observation. What do you have as evidence for your guess? It is not very good idea to claim something without evidence.

Has it not occurred in your mind that also I could know something about critical thinking, skepticism, metal-bending tricks, metal-bending evidence and metallurgy? Perhaps even a lot more than you know? Are you sure you are able to learn me something I already did not know earlier?

I recommend a little experimenting for you and all other people here. Take a heavy soup spoon of ferritic stainless steel. The thinnest section must be at least 6.5x2.3 mm (250x90 mils), full metal. Give this spoon to an 8-year old boy and ask him to bend it surreptitiously, sitting at a table surrounded by adult spectators. Please, let us all here know the results.

You can also experiment as Dean Radin did:

http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

After 5 minutes of intently watching the woman attempting to bend a similar spoon, to my surprise my spoon started to bend! In accordance with previous claims I had read, the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown. It immediately hardened up, and it felt cold throughout. I used a thumb and one finger to make this bend, with hardly any force. I immediately checked my fingers for noticeable marks after the bend, and there were none, confirming that I had not unconsciously forced the bowl to bend. All of my attempts to repeat this effect later, both with and without the use of force, failed.

If you succeeded or did not succeed in accomplishing the same feat, let us know. Now it is my turn to guess and I guess you did not succeed. Evidently, Radin has experienced a paranormal phenomenon or is a damned liar. Or he has had a spell of schizophrenia and used some kind of tools and doesn't remember it.

Your credibility will be very low in my eyes if this discussion cannot take a more detailed and realistic turn.

[tsig]

Ocelot, concerning the boys I experimented with:



Thank you for your kind answer. Now I am not forced to discuss only with links.

You have a problem here, I think. You were not present in the bending situations but I was present then. It is not a problem of theory or guessing but a problem of observation. What do you have as evidence for your guess? It is not very good idea to claim something without evidence.

Has it not occurred in your mind that also I could know something about critical thinking, skepticism, metal-bending tricks, metal-bending evidence and metallurgy? Perhaps even a lot more than you know? Are you sure you are able to learn me something I already did not know earlier?

I recommend a little experimenting for you and all other people here. Take a heavy soup spoon of ferritic stainless steel. The thinnest section must be at least 6.5x2.3 mm (250x90 mils), full metal. Give this spoon to an 8-year old boy and ask him to bend it surreptitiously, sitting at a table surrounded by adult spectators. Please, let us all here know the results.

You can also experiment as Dean Radin did:

http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm



If you succeeded or did not succeed in accomplishing the same feat, let us know. Now it is my turn to guess and I guess you did not succeed. Evidently, Radin has experienced a paranormal phenomenon or is a damned liar. Or he has had a spell of schizophrenia and used some kind of tools and doesn't remember it.

Your credibility will be very low in my eyes if this discussion cannot take a more detailed and realistic turn.

How is anyone supposed to explain what you saw?

If you can bend spoons by changing the molecular structure with your mind why not just turn it into gold?

[fls]

If it is documented that a medical doctor said that the Aime Dietrich or the Tommy House case was hopeless, would that change your mind?

If the case were as thoroughly documented as they are for a typical case report (usually a few pages in length, btw), I might. The problem that any doctor of that era would have had is that the sorts of diagnostic tools that would have been necessary to form an accurate diagnosis were not available, even leaving aside the lack of knowledge. It was clear from the descriptions given that an accurate diagnosis was not formed in either case, and if you don't know what's going on, it's difficult to announce what's going to happen next.

According to Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet, at pages 5-6, in the Tommy House case "Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna . . . Although homeopathic belladonna was sometimes used to treat lung and kidney ailments, pure belladonna, in the form Cayce recommended, was used only in topical ointments and was certainly not something to spoon into the mouth of a three-month old child."

So where did Cayce obtain the knowledge to prescribe a measured dose of belladonna to a three-month old child?

It hasn't been established that he did anything useful in that case, so it hasn't been established that he had useful knowledge, let alone whether that knowledge was unavailable at the time.

I have come across several accounts of Münsterberg's visit to Cayce, and all say essentially the same thing. Is there some alternative account of which I'm unaware that claims Münsterberg found Cayce to be a fraud, or at least unimpressive?

All I can find is the same story passed around among Cayce believers. Why would there be an alternative account? The story doesn't serve anyone else's purpose.

Linda

[fls]

Evidently, Radin has experienced a paranormal phenomenon or is a damned liar. Or he has had a spell of schizophrenia and used some kind of tools and doesn't remember it.

Why not simply recognize that effort is highly variable and subject to suggestion, and that perception of that effort is highly variable and subject to suggestion? Perception of the effort taken is an inaccurate and unreliable measure of the actual effort taken. It is claimed that he has a PhD in Psychology, yet he pretends to be unaware of the effects of expectation on our perceptions? Even when there are simple parlour tricks that demonstrate the same effect? That's the part that I find hard to believe.

Your credibility will be very low in my eyes if this discussion cannot take a more detailed and realistic turn.

It is as though you are asking Ocelot to explain how a magic trick was done. Have you never been to a magic show? Even if you can't figure out how the trick was done, don't you still consider the performance the work of a magician rather than a psychic?

Linda

[Czarcasm]

If it is documented that a medical doctor said that the Aime Dietrich or the Tommy House case was hopeless, would that change your mind?Can you provide a cite where a medical doctor says this, so that we may judge for ourselves, or are hypothetical victories the only ones you can get now?

[Ocelot]

Ocelot, concerning the boys I experimented with:



Thank you for your kind answer. Now I am not forced to discuss only with links.

You have a problem here, I think. You were not present in the bending situations but I was present then. It is not a problem of theory or guessing but a problem of observation. What do you have as evidence for your guess? It is not very good idea to claim something without evidence.

My evidence as previously mentioned is that Geller has been observed to bend spoons this way coupled with your own testimony as a metalurgist that the spoons appeared the same as if they'd been bent by physical force.

Against that I have your witnesses swearing blind that no fakery is going on. You'll note that people who acknowledge that they fake this or those you've been caught faking it still have numerous witnesses who swear blind that there was no fakery going on. As such people swearing blind that no fakery is going on is entirely consisent with fakery going on.

We also have the implicit suggestion that an 8 year old is too sweet and innnocent to engage in such deception or too incompetant at deception to get away with it. For this I have my own recolection of spoon bending as an 8 year old after watching Uri Geller on the Multi Coloured Swap Shop. In my case I cheated but it was myself I was trying to decieve. My parent already knowing how Uri achieves this simple trick and apparently more influenced by their desire not to have their cultery bent than the power of suggestion and desire to have a magical child put a stop to it and pointed out where the ideomotor effect was responding to my desire to bend the spoon without me realising I was applying force.

I know plenty of very dishonest eight year olds.

I've no doubt that with different people and different circumstances an 8 year old can become an accomplished spoon bender. After all as I've repeatedly said the trick is trivially easy - benefitting greatly on the witnesesses desire to believe.

Has it not occurred in your mind that also I could know something about critical thinking, skepticism, metal-bending tricks, metal-bending evidence and metallurgy? Perhaps even a lot more than you know? Are you sure you are able to learn me something I already did not know earlier?

I have made no such claim, only taken the sensible precaution of not pressuming that you know anything. After all you did repeatedly feign ignorance of the methods previous posters alluded and linked to.

I recommend a little experimenting for you and all other people here. Take a heavy soup spoon of ferritic stainless steel. The thinnest section must be at least 6.5x2.3 mm (250x90 mils), full metal. Give this spoon to an 8-year old boy and ask him to bend it surreptitiously, sitting at a table surrounded by adult spectators. Please, let us all here know the results.

Did it nealry three decades ago, the 8 year old was me, I fooled myslef but not the adults.

A more appropriate experiement would be to ask a large number of 8 year olds to practice the trick and only then ask a group of adults who believed in such abilities to determine which children were faking it and which were genuine.

Under such circumstances do you think the group of adults would notice that all the children were faking it?

You can also experiment as Dean Radin did:

http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm



If you succeeded or did not succeed in accomplishing the same feat, let us know. Now it is my turn to guess and I guess you did not succeed. Evidently, Radin has experienced a paranormal phenomenon or is a damned liar. Or he has had a spell of schizophrenia and used some kind of tools and doesn't remember it.

Your credibility will be very low in my eyes if this discussion cannot take a more detailed and realistic turn.

I'm not about the dismiss the possibility that Dean Radin is a damned liar. I'm not saying he is but as someone who has fooled himself I can attest forst hand that you're presentign a false dichotomy. It is possible that he's not a liar and is simply mistaken about the paranormal event he thinks he took part in.

[Lusikka]

Why not simply recognize that effort is highly variable and subject to suggestion, and that perception of that effort is highly variable and subject to suggestion? Perception of the effort taken is an inaccurate and unreliable measure of the actual effort taken. It is claimed that he has a PhD in Psychology, yet he pretends to be unaware of the effects of expectation on our perceptions? Even when there are simple parlour tricks that demonstrate the same effect? That's the part that I find hard to believe.

You are right, in principle and concerning many actual situations. But not in this case. Have you tried to do the same trick as Radin claims he did? Using a heavy soup spoon? I recommend you not to answer before you have tried it. Naturally you have read the page I linked?

It is as though you are asking Ocelot to explain how a magic trick was done. Have you never been to a magic show? Even if you can't figure out how the trick was done, don't you still consider the performance the work of a magician rather than a psychic?

Linda

Naturally I have seen innumerable magic shows. I can without hesitation acknowledge that magicians can do wonders, so that I don't have a slightest idea how it is accomplished. But there is a difference between an experienced magician and a young untrained boy with his small hands.

[Lusikka]

How is anyone supposed to explain what you saw?

Naturally I did not in the beginning suppose that. But I was told that the boys were able to cheat me. In my opinion I had a good cause to ask "how".

If you can bend spoons by changing the molecular structure with your mind why not just turn it into gold?

I have never been able to bend metal pieces paranormally. And all people whom I know to have been able to do that have lost their ability for a long time ago. Only very seldom people have that ability a long time and they are not able to perform successfully in all situations.

[Ashles]

You have a rather interesting method of estimating things.
You have a rather interesting method of answering questions.
Completely ignoring the difficult ones.

I asked several questions in my post - you chose to completely ignore them all and simply hand wave with an inappropriate analogy.

Maybe you are new to this form of discussion about references, sources and actual evidence.
So far you have provided anecdotes. You have ignored my questions about potentially providing actual evidence.
Is this because, curiously, you do not currently know of anyone who can bend spoons with their mind? Just stories of people who used to be able to but now cannot?

There are only three policemen in Finland, because I know only them?
A) The existence of many Policemen in Finland is not considered in breach of current known physical laws
B) You could at least easily demonstrate the current existence of those three policemen (if anyone were to question their existence)
C) If you had only ever encountered or read about 3 policemen in Finland, why would you assume at least a thousand in the absence of any other information?
D)... Frankly if you need further explaining why this analogy is feeble then I seriously worry about your ability to discuss this issue in any productive way, or in any way skeptically analyse any claim

Good luck for you and your discussion style.
At least my discussion style actually... discusses something. Not simply ignores any question I can't answer with inappropriate anaogies.

It is clear you are heavily emotionally invested in believing people can bend spoons using only the power of their mind. I don't know why.
It also seems clear you have no real interest in observing such claimed instances in controlled circumstances.

You are trying to place the emphasis on others to try to bend spoons, whereas you are making he actual claim about the existence of people who can mentally bend spoons.
You are claiming it is amost a common ability, yet offer up no attempt to demonstrate it under controlled condistions and thus actually demonstrate a potentially groundbreaking piece of knowledge. In fact you actively ignore any attempts to set up such a test.

And you seem to think children cannot be involved in trickery or fool adults.
There are many such instances where this has been demonstrated not to be the case.

[Robert Oz]

Well, would you please tell me how the boys accomplished the trick with me. Detailed, in all steps. Ought to be "very simple". You are exprienced and knowledgeable. I will then comment as well as I can.

Without details there is no hope of progress in this discussion.


They bent the spoons when you weren't looking or they bent the spoons while moving their hands around. It is as simple as that.

You can say you never took your eyes of the spoon, but I don't believe you. The reason I don't believe you is because I have performed the spoon bending trick as well as moving the hands of a watch forward by one hour. The people I performed the trick for would swear they never took their eyes off my hands, but I can tell you that they did and it only takes half a second to bend a spoon.

I was not there for the boys you tested, so I can't give a detailed account, but from my own experience, my guess would be that they bent the spoon when you made eye contact with them or with some of the other people in the room.

Alternatively, the spoon can be bent while moving the hands around while talking. When done in this way, the spoon can be bent while people are still looking directly at it without being detected.

I normally wouldn't post a reveal, but this trick has been described by Randi so many times now, I figured it would be allowed. If it isn't, a moderator can edit this post as he/she sees fit.

[Matthew Best]

Why is it that people who can bend spoons with their minds always need to touch them with their hands?

[Rodney]

Can you provide a cite where a medical doctor says this, so that we may judge for ourselves, or are hypothetical victories the only ones you can get now?
With respect to the Dietrich case, Aime's father Charles stated in his affidavit:

"On March 1st, 1902, she was taken to Dr. Hoppe of Cincinnati, O., who made a most thorough examination . . . He told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks."

As far as I know, Dr. Hoppe never commented on Professor Dietrich's affidavit, but would you have expected him to say something along the lines of: "Dietrich's affidavit is correct: I thought Aime was gong to die soon, but a psychic cured her?"

With respect to the House case, Tommy's father Thomas -- a general practitioner -- eventually closed his medical practice and operated a hospital devoted to Cayce. Why would he do this if he thought Cayce had not cured Tommy, but were merely a cold reader?

[fls]

With respect to the Dietrich case, Aime's father Charles stated in his affidavit:

"On March 1st, 1902, she was taken to Dr. Hoppe of Cincinnati, O., who made a most thorough examination . . . He told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks."

So we do not know what the doctor actually said or thought.

As far as I know, Dr. Hoppe never commented on Professor Dietrich's affidavit, but would you have expected him to say something along the lines of: "Dietrich's affidavit is correct: I thought Aime was gong to die soon, but a psychic cured her?"

Why would you expect Dr. Hoppe to comment on Professor Dietrich's affadavit at all? How would he even be aware of something that was said many years after he had had anything to do with the case?

With respect to the House case, Tommy's father Thomas -- a general practitioner -- eventually closed his medical practice and operated a hospital devoted to Cayce. Why would he do this if he thought Cayce had not cured Tommy, but were merely a cold reader?

This happened twenty years after the supposedly amazing event, which suggests that the two things aren't really related and he had other reasons for changing his practice. He also didn't do any of the stuff you'd expect a physician to do after witnessing a purportedly miraculous event, like publishing a case report or making better use of Cayce's abilities.

Linda

[fls]

You are right, in principle and concerning many actual situations. But not in this case. Have you tried to do the same trick as Radin claims he did? Using a heavy soup spoon? I recommend you not to answer before you have tried it. Naturally you have read the page I linked?

These tricks of the mind are always of interest to me and I practise techniques that allow me to alter my perceptions. So, yes, I have tried to do the same trick, as well as others. Which is why I find Radin's supposed suprise unbelievable. I do read links before I comment on them (but I agree that it is worth your while to ask to question, because not everyone does :)).

Naturally I have seen innumerable magic shows. I can without hesitation acknowledge that magicians can do wonders, so that I don't have a slightest idea how it is accomplished. But there is a difference between an experienced magician and a young untrained boy with his small hands.

How so? It's not like young boys cannot also perform magic tricks or aren't capable of bending a spoon.

Linda

[Robert Oz]

It's not like young boys cannot also perform magic tricks or aren't capable of bending a spoon.


Indeed. David Copperfield began practicing magic at the age of twelve and was teaching a magic course at New York University by sixteen (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield_(illusionist)).

The marketing and advertising of many beginner's magic kits from magic stores are aimed at very young children.

[Czarcasm]

With respect to the Dietrich case, Aime's father Charles stated in his affidavit:With respect to my question, you didn't answer it.

[Lusikka]

These tricks of the mind are always of interest to me and I practise techniques that allow me to alter my perceptions. So, yes, I have tried to do the same trick, as well as others. Which is why I find Radin's supposed suprise unbelievable. I do read links before I comment on them (but I agree that it is worth your while to ask to question, because not everyone does :)).

I am able to interprete your text only so, that "the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown". Wow, congratulations! The bowl of a heavy soup spoon! You are much, much stronger than I am. I have sometimes tried myself, with no success.

Perhaps you have also taken photos and video recorded your feat? Perhaps somebody else here would also do the same trick, with good documentation?

How so? It's not like young boys cannot also perform magic tricks or aren't capable of bending a spoon.

Linda

I have never said young boys cannot perform magic tricks. I have only said that the skills of young boys necessarily are poorer than what experienced magicians have. Their hands are smaller and less strong. My boys have not practised magic tricks before or after their metal-bending. They had only some hours' time between seeing Geller and beginning their own bending.

[dafydd]

Why is it that people who can bend spoons with their minds always need to touch them with their hands?

Answer?

[dafydd]

I am able to interprete your text only so, that "the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown". Wow, congratulations! The bowl of a heavy soup spoon! You are much, much stronger than I am. I have sometimes tried myself, with no success.

Perhaps you have also taken photos and video recorded your feat? Perhaps somebody else here would also do the same trick, with good documentation?



I have never said young boys cannot perform magic tricks. I have only said that the skills of young boys necessarily are poorer than what experienced magicians have. Their hands are smaller and less strong. My boys have not practised magic tricks before or after their metal-bending. They had only some hours' time between seeing Geller and beginning their own bending.
So you admit they bend them with their hands?

[dafydd]

Those I've met were very real psychics in their own heads.
In my experiences testing them: 10% of the time, it's correct every time.
:cool:
If it's only correct 10 percent of the time it can't be correct every time. This is typical of the wooly minded thinkling of woo woos.10 percent of what? For example,if you were throwing a dice and they were trying to predict the number,10 percent is less than chance would predict,so that would not be very impressive.Can you describe some of these tests to us?

[eirik]

I am more into spending boon

[Moochie]

I am reminded of the Remarkable Geller's total impotence on the Johnny Carson show when faced with having to use the studio's/other cutlery rather than his own. Hilarious!

Lusikka, I will come some way toward believing this remarkable ability when I witness someone do it without touching the utensil.


M.

[Lusikka]

You have a rather interesting method of answering questions.
Completely ignoring the difficult ones.

I asked several questions in my post - you chose to completely ignore them all and simply hand wave with an inappropriate analogy.

Sorry, I have been engaged in a rather hot discussion here. You have really made many questions. You ought already have had some answers here and there elsewhere.

I have nothing to be afraid of here, even "the most difficult" questions. Please, if you would be kind and make a numbered list of the most difficult question, so I promise to answer them all.

[Lusikka]

I am reminded of the Remarkable Geller's total impotence on the Johnny Carson show when faced with having to use the studio's/other cutlery rather than his own. Hilarious!

You have double standards here. Skeptics are allowed to "prove" anything by using single cases as evidence. If parapsychologists tell single cases, they are only "anecdotes".

Lusikka, I will come some way toward believing this remarkable ability when I witness someone do it without touching the utensil.


M.

There have been many instances of bending without touching the pieces. Especially John Hasted has given some cases.

[Ashles]

Sorry, I have been engaged in a rather hot discussion here. You have really made many questions. You ought already have had some answers here and there elsewhere.

I have nothing to be afraid of here, even "the most difficult" questions. Please, if you would be kind and make a numbered list of the most difficult question, so I promise to answer them all.
Okay fair enough. It's often hard to keep track in these threads. A couple of these questions are slightly rewording the questions I have asked in order to attempt to avoid repitition.

You said "I have found about ten people in Finland who have told that they had the bending ability."
1) Can any of them do this now?
2) Are all your examples non-current?
3) How did you find them? Can the same method be used to find people now?

You said "John Taylor and John Hasted had found about one hundred metal-benders, mostly in Great Britain. There have been benders in nearly every country in every continent except the Antarctica. Only a small percentage has become public. That means one thousand is an absolute minimum number of metal-benders."
4) How do you know about the ones who are not public?
5) Where do you get the figure of one thousand as an absolute minimum?
6) What research has been done on the hundred you mention? Are there papers, video, references etc?
7) John Hasted seems to imply he believed Uri Geller was the real thing. Uri Geller has been demonstrated to have used tricks several times. Do you believe Uri Geller can genuinely bend spoons using his mind?

You said "I arranged my experiments in year 1974 and the two boys soon lost their ability. In the beginning the boys succeeded in bending before any audience. "
8) What was the most sceptical audience they bent spoons in front of?
9)Were there any notable skeptics in the audience who have written on that specifc instance (or could be contacted)?

10) (Sort of recapping earlier questions) Do you believe that the children you have described could have done it in front of scientists/a skeptical audience?
11) Do you know of anyone now who is able to bend spoons in the manner you suggest? Can we suggest a test from a local skeptical organisation? Or would you be happy to at least video such a demonstration?

[Ashles]

There have been many instances of bending without touching the pieces. Especially John Hasted has given some cases.
12) Do you have references for that?

[fls]

I am able to interprete your text only so, that "the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown". Wow, congratulations! The bowl of a heavy soup spoon! You are much, much stronger than I am. I have sometimes tried myself, with no success.

I may be more suggestible than you, then. Some things come to me naturally (without any sort of practice or training), like lucid dreaming, or come to me easily with little practice, like OBE's.

Perhaps you have also taken photos and video recorded your feat? Perhaps somebody else here would also do the same trick, with good documentation?

Isn't that interesting. You accepted reports from believers without any of that sort of documentation. Your skepticism is good, but isn't it showing up a bit late?

I have never said young boys cannot perform magic tricks. I have only said that the skills of young boys necessarily are poorer than what experienced magicians have. Their hands are smaller and less strong. My boys have not practised magic tricks before or after their metal-bending. They had only some hours' time between seeing Geller and beginning their own bending.

How much time do you think it takes to learn or practice a simple trick? Have you ever tried out something new and done a decent job on your first attempt? I have.

Linda

[Lusikka]

I may be more suggestible than you, then. Some things come to me naturally (without any sort of practice or training), like lucid dreaming, or come to me easily with little practice, like OBE's.

For sake of clarity: do you really have a heavy soup spoon with more than 300 degrees bent bowl? Bent by you in bare hands?

Isn't that interesting. You accepted reports from believers without any of that sort of documentation. Your skepticism is good, but isn't it showing up a bit late?

I have myself seen two boys bending my metal pieces, in experiments arranged by me. My sources have given detailed reports with photos.

How much time do you think it takes to learn or practice a simple trick? Have you ever tried out something new and done a decent job on your first attempt? I have.

Linda

No, I have not trained tricks myself.

[fls]

For sake of clarity: do you really have a heavy soup spoon with more than 300 degrees bent bowl? Bent by you in bare hands?

I don't know that I have any on hand - they're not exactly usable afterwards and tend to get thrown out. :) Plus, I never found it as amazing as you seem to find it. That's what always strikes me about believers - they seem to have a poor opinion of what humans are capable of accomplishing on their own.

I can't tell you the exact degrees, but it isn't particularly important - once they start to bend, it's relatively easy to bend them as much as you like.

I have myself seen two boys bending my metal pieces, in experiments arranged by me.

Without video documentation.

My sources have given detailed reports with photos.

But really, what does a photo of a bent spoon tell you?

Linda

[Lusikka]

Okay fair enough. It's often hard to keep track in these threads. A couple of these questions are slightly rewording the questions I have asked in order to attempt to avoid repitition.

You said "I have found about ten people in Finland who have told that they had the bending ability."
1) Can any of them do this now?
2) Are all your examples non-current?
3) How did you find them? Can the same method be used to find people now?

1) No.
2) Yes, the last from year 2000 from spoon-bending party experiments (not verified).
3) From newpapers and magazines.

You said "John Taylor and John Hasted had found about one hundred metal-benders, mostly in Great Britain. There have been benders in nearly every country in every continent except the Antarctica. Only a small percentage has become public. That means one thousand is an absolute minimum number of metal-benders."
4) How do you know about the ones who are not public?
5) Where do you get the figure of one thousand as an absolute minimum?
6) What research has been done on the hundred you mention? Are there papers, video, references etc?
7) John Hasted seems to imply he believed Uri Geller was the real thing. Uri Geller has been demonstrated to have used tricks several times. Do you believe Uri Geller can genuinely bend spoons using his mind?

4) It is only my estimation.
5) It is only my estimation.
6) Yes, also books.
7) Why not, he was the starter of the phenomenon? But he has alo cheated and acknowledged that himself.

You said "I arranged my experiments in year 1974 and the two boys soon lost their ability. In the beginning the boys succeeded in bending before any audience. "
8) What was the most sceptical audience they bent spoons in front of?
9)Were there any notable skeptics in the audience who have written on that specifc instance (or could be contacted)?

8) I don't know, it was not told in my sources.
9) Not as far as I know, unfortunately.

10) (Sort of recapping earlier questions) Do you believe that the children you have described could have done it in front of scientists/a skeptical audience?
11) Do you know of anyone now who is able to bend spoons in the manner you suggest? Can we suggest a test from a local skeptical organisation? Or would you be happy to at least video such a demonstration?

No.

[Lusikka]

10) (Sort of recapping earlier questions) Do you believe that the children you have described could have done it in front of scientists/a skeptical audience?
11) Do you know of anyone now who is able to bend spoons in the manner you suggest? Can we suggest a test from a local skeptical organisation? Or would you be happy to at least video such a demonstration?

Sorry, I was in hurry.

10) Yes. But the situation in Finland was catastrophal: I was the only one who tried to arrange experiments. An later no one has been interested. Skeptics have only looked at my sources and left without the least interest.

11) No to everything.

[Lusikka]

12) Do you have references for that?

John Hasted (1981): The Metal-benders. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Online:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=PLc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=%22John+hasted%22+metal-benders&source=bl&ots=khiIlYWICs&sig=30VZQkmWrB7vCpHl7bmAdqPGoKE&hl=fi&ei=Tr2-SfXfJomJ_gaWm_j0Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA10,M1

[Profwag]

John Hasted (1981): The Metal-benders. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Online:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=PLc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=%22John+hasted%22+metal-benders&source=bl&ots=khiIlYWICs&sig=30VZQkmWrB7vCpHl7bmAdqPGoKE&hl=fi&ei=Tr2-SfXfJomJ_gaWm_j0Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA10,M1

John Hasted was a Communist. He believed Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind while Uri was still convincing people he was genuine. Uri has since been exposed as a cheat and a liar. I think that about sums up truth of metal bending.

[Ocelot]

John Hasted was a Communist.
Is that in any way relevant?

[Ashles]

You said "I have found about ten people in Finland who have told that they had the bending ability."
1) Can any of them do this now?
No

That's not very helpful then. Anecdotal evidence is of no real use.

2) Are all your examples non-current?
2) Yes, the last from year 2000 from spoon-bending party experiments (not verified).

That is also anecdotal evidence. Again this has no weight as a claim.
Skeptics have been to spoon bending parties and observed nothing paranormal occurring.

3) How did you find them? Can the same method be used to find people now?
3) From newpapers and magazines.
What Newspapers and magazines? Sometimes getting answers to straightforward questions is harder than it need be.
Surely you would understand I am asking for specifics. Are you talking about articles about these people? If so you surely already know specifics enough to provide names and dates. Often older articels may be on the internet.
Skepticism is about details - that's what we are trying to find out - as many details as possible.
It is often where claims fall down.

4) How do you know about the ones who are not public?
4) It is only my estimation.
Based on what?
Are you taking unverified stories you have read about in newspapers and extrapolating from that? Would you consider that scientific?

5) Where do you get the figure of one thousand as an absolute minimum?
5) It is only my estimation.
Again I have to say you presented this earlier as pretty hard fact. You describe it as "an absolute minimum", yet your only direct experience is with a few people.
I am unclear - how many have you actually met and seen perform the spoon bending. ereading your posts it seems you never met the 10 mentioned in the papers, but only actually met the two boys (correct me if I am wrong).
This would mean you extrapolated an absolute minimum of 1000 instances from 2.

6) What research has been done on the hundred you mention? Are there papers, video, references etc?

6) Yes, also books.
Books are not the same as scietnfic study.
Has any actual scientific study been done? I asked about papers, videos and references (as in references to scientific studies). You said "Yes". Can you provide details?

7) John Hasted seems to imply he believed Uri Geller was the real thing. Uri Geller has been demonstrated to have used tricks several times. Do you believe Uri Geller can genuinely bend spoons using his mind?
7) Why not, he was the starter of the phenomenon? But he has alo cheated and acknowledged that himself.

How does being the starter of the phenomenon add to his credibility?
And if the actualstarter of the phenomenon has been shown (and admitted to) cheating, should this not cast doubt over the whole 'phenomenon'?

8) What was the most sceptical audience they bent spoons in front of?
8) I don't know, it was not told in my sources.
What sources?

9)Were there any notable skeptics in the audience who have written on that specifc instance (or could be contacted)?
9) Not as far as I know, unfortunately.
So as far as you know they only performed in front of those who were already believers in the phenomenon?
Or at least you have no reason to believe this is not the case?

10) (Sort of recapping earlier questions) Do you believe that the children you have described could have done it in front of scientists/a skeptical audience?
10) Yes. But the situation in Finland was catastrophal: I was the only one who tried to arrange experiments. An later no one has been interested. Skeptics have only looked at my sources and left without the least interest.
Who did you approach?
What sources did you present? If it was just a book written about the 'phenomena' then that is hardly incentive enough for a skeptic to get involved.
Skeptics would want to test a real person currently claiming the ability.
They cannot test an anecdote printed in an unverified and unscientific format.

11) Do you know of anyone now who is able to bend spoons in the manner you suggest? Can we suggest a test from a local skeptical organisation? Or would you be happy to at least video such a demonstration?
11) No to everything.
Well this is exactly the problem. You present only anecdotes.
You have no-one we could test, no studies we can examine, no video to examine, no details to investigate.
You seemed to be implying this was a commonly known and accepted phenomenon, but cannot provide anyone currently with the ability who could be tested.

At the moment all you have provided is an anecdote of an experience you claim to have had (which could easily explained in many ways), and stories you have read in newpapers and non-scientific books.

12) Do you have references for that?
John Hasted (1981): The Metal-benders. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Does this book actually detail any scientific studies that have been published elsewhere (e.g. in scientific journals)?

[Ashles]

Is that in any way relevant?
I agree that shouldn't be considered relevant.

(Except perhaps passingly to mention the amount of bad paranormal 'research' Russia seems to have done in the last century. E.g. look up 'nina kulagina')

[Robert Oz]

Wow, congratulations! The bowl of a heavy soup spoon! You are much, much stronger than I am. I have sometimes tried myself, with no success.

<snip>

Their hands are smaller and less strong.


Lusikka, with heavier spoons it may have been necessary to use something as leverage to bend the spoon (e.g. table, elbow, etc.). Similar thing with bending keys. It's quite difficult to bend a key with your bare hands, but not hard at all on a table or chair.


My boys have not practised magic tricks before or after their metal-bending. They had only some hours' time between seeing Geller and beginning their own bending.


In addition to magicians saying smarter people are easier to fool with magic tricks, they also often say, children can be difficult to fool,because they often don't fall for misdirection cues. It is quite possible that some children saw the way Geller was performing his trick.

But even if they didn't. It is conceivable that they merely thought of bending spoons with their hands while no one was looking and 'pretending' to be Geller. It would be fun considering how much attention they were getting.


I have myself seen two boys bending my metal pieces, in experiments arranged by me.

No, I have not trained tricks myself.


I'm sorry to say it, Lusikka, but I think your experiments were flawed. With so many metal benders in the world, surely one of them would have won the JREF million dollar challenge.

I would strongly suggest if you are testing anyone in the future, come on these message boards to design the test protocol. Then if they are still bending spoons, apply for the million dollar challenge.


10) Yes. But the situation in Finland was catastrophal: I was the only one who tried to arrange experiments. An later no one has been interested. Skeptics have only looked at my sources and left without the least interest.


The reason skeptics leave without interest is because they have seen this trick far too many times to waste time on it. It has been thoroughly debunked.

[Profwag]

I agree that shouldn't be considered relevant.

(Except perhaps passingly to mention the amount of bad paranormal 'research' Russia seems to have done in the last century. E.g. look up 'nina kulagina')

I didn't want to go through his whole biography, but his Communist viewpoint is what brought him notoriety in the music profession and he became somewhat famous for it. It could also be debated that if he had other viewpoints, he may not have been able to publicize his research as he did. But looking back at it a day after I posted it, no, it probably wasn't relevant and only showed my prejudice toward that political viewpoint. I apologize and I move to strike that comment from my post.

[Lusikka]

Thank you, Linda, for your answer. Sorry, but I am not very convinced about your bending of the bowl of a heavy soup spoon with your bare hands. Your description is not detailed enough and the whole case is somehow wavering.

I don't know that I have any on hand - they're not exactly usable afterwards and tend to get thrown out. :) Plus, I never found it as amazing as you seem to find it. That's what always strikes me about believers - they seem to have a poor opinion of what humans are capable of accomplishing on their own.

I can't tell you the exact degrees, but it isn't particularly important - once they start to bend, it's relatively easy to bend them as much as you like.

- - -

Without video documentation.

- - -

The double standards skeptics use between their own and parapsychological experiments are visible here. Linda requires video documentation from me after her own missing memory and not having even photos.

But really, what does a photo of a bent spoon tell you?

Linda

To a metallurgist a photo of a bent spoon can tell much in best cases. If the material of the spoon is known the photo may show 'impossible' sharp bends or breaking too early as if brittle material.

I wonder if we could achieve a consensus here:
Is it easy or difficult to bend the bowl of a heavy soup spoon with bare hands? Like Dean Radin shows here:
http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

It ought to be very easy to verify, everybody has spoons at home. Linda says that it is "relatively easy" and in my opinion it is practically impossible. More opinions?

[godless dave]

It's pretty easy to bend a heavy metal spoon. I've bent several trying to scoop ice cream.

[blutoski]

To a metallurgist a photo of a bent spoon can tell much in best cases. If the material of the spoon is known the photo may show 'impossible' sharp bends or breaking too early as if brittle material.

That would be news to 'metallurgists' (is that some kind of religion?).




I wonder if we could achieve a consensus here:
Is it easy or difficult to bend the bowl of a heavy soup spoon with bare hands? Like Dean Radin shows here:
http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

It ought to be very easy to verify, everybody has spoons at home. Linda says that it is "relatively easy" and in my opinion it is practically impossible. More opinions?

I doubt we would find a 'consensus' among strangers on a web forum.

I'll accept the challenge, tho. Could you elaborate a bit on 'with bare hands'. Most times I've seen somebody bend a metal object with their bare hands, they were not just using their hands.

If I could bend something when you weren't looking and make it appear to be bare handed, would that count?

[fls]

Thank you, Linda, for your answer. Sorry, but I am not very convinced about your bending of the bowl of a heavy soup spoon with your bare hands. Your description is not detailed enough and the whole case is somehow wavering.

The double standards skeptics use between their own and parapsychological experiments are visible here. Linda requires video documentation from me after her own missing memory and not having even photos.

I was pointing out that you were asking for something from me that you did not bother to ask for from anyone else. The only difference between my accomplishments and theirs was that they pretended it required paranormal assistance and I did not.

To a metallurgist a photo of a bent spoon can tell much in best cases. If the material of the spoon is known the photo may show 'impossible' sharp bends or breaking too early as if brittle material.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the degree to which it was folded in half.

I wonder if we could achieve a consensus here:
Is it easy or difficult to bend the bowl of a heavy soup spoon with bare hands? Like Dean Radin shows here:
http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

It ought to be very easy to verify, everybody has spoons at home. Linda says that it is "relatively easy" and in my opinion it is practically impossible. More opinions?

Despite your use of quote marks, I never said that it was relatively easy to bend the bowl of a spoon. It seems to generally require some mental preparation or dramatic alteration in expectations, such as the sorts of activities that go on at spoon-bending parties.

Linda

[Lusikka]

Lusikka, with heavier spoons it may have been necessary to use something as leverage to bend the spoon (e.g. table, elbow, etc.). Similar thing with bending keys. It's quite difficult to bend a key with your bare hands, but not hard at all on a table or chair.

I agree otherwise, but it is rather difficult without good tools. Wooden and painted surfaces get scratches that reveal the procedure.

In addition to magicians saying smarter people are easier to fool with magic tricks, they also often say, children can be difficult to fool,because they often don't fall for misdirection cues. It is quite possible that some children saw the way Geller was performing his trick.

But even if they didn't. It is conceivable that they merely thought of bending spoons with their hands while no one was looking and 'pretending' to be Geller. It would be fun considering how much attention they were getting.

They were sitting at a table surrounded with adults.

I'm sorry to say it, Lusikka, but I think your experiments were flawed. With so many metal benders in the world, surely one of them would have won the JREF million dollar challenge.

I would strongly suggest if you are testing anyone in the future, come on these message boards to design the test protocol. Then if they are still bending spoons, apply for the million dollar challenge.

In my opinion you made a positive claim that my experiments were flawed. How, or which are your references?

It was in year 1974. I had no knowledge then about the MDC and neither had Randi himself, I guess. It was only a rather short wave with the benders and they soon lost their ability.

Naturally, if I succeed to find new active benders, I will document the occurrences better and ask help, here for example. There is only a real problem: it is usually needed a positive and free atmosphere during the bending, and all preparing measures and restrictions have detrimental effect for successful bending.

I am sure you don't believe it, but it is a psychological law for many paranormal phenomena. The other unfortunate circumstance is that we are living in many quite differing worlds, skeptics in theirs and woo people in theirs.

The reason skeptics leave without interest is because they have seen this trick far too many times to waste time on it. It has been thoroughly debunked.

Not quite so. The skeptics have extremely scarce and twisted knowledge about the "mini-Gellers". They have got all their knowledge from skeptical sources, because reading more realistic sources is waste of time in their opinion. Skeptics simply are sure (=believe), that it is impossible mini-Gellers could exist.

Discussions here show this with the best clarity.

[Lusikka]

It's pretty easy to bend a heavy metal spoon. I've bent several trying to scoop ice cream.

Have you bent the bowl as shown in the Radin link? I am strongly skeptical.

[godless dave]

Have you bent the bowl as shown in the Radin link? I am strongly skeptical.

Have you never tried to serve ice cream right out of the freezer? I've bent a spoon almost double. I've also broken the blades of kitchen knives.

[Ashles]

Naturally, if I succeed to find new active benders, I will document the occurrences better and ask help, here for example. There is only a real problem: it is usually needed a positive and free atmosphere during the bending, and all preparing measures and restrictions have detrimental effect for successful bending.

I am sure you don't believe it, but it is a psychological law for many paranormal phenomena.
No it is not a "psychological law".
There is no such concept covered in the field of psychology.
I have a degree in Experimental Psychology so I can assure you there is no agreed '"psychological law" which covers the field of unevidenced paranormal activities.

There may be such a concept in the field of the paranormal, but being as this field is not governed by any particular facts, guidelines or agreed concepts or demonstrable results of any kind, this is of no meaningful relevance.
The 'skeptics just ruin it all' excuse is weak at best.

The other unfortunate circumstance is that we are living in many quite differing worlds, skeptics in theirs and woo people in theirs.
Only because the "woo people" (as you put it) will not agree to genuine testing.

Not quite so. The skeptics have extremely scarce and twisted knowledge about the "mini-Gellers". They have got all their knowledge from skeptical sources, because reading more realistic sources is waste of time in their opinion. Skeptics simply are sure (=believe), that it is impossible mini-Gellers could exist.
*sigh* What a tediously ancient argument.

All they need to do is demonstrate their ability in a situation where they could not cheat. They never, ever can. So all the believers wheel out feeble excuses.

We are open minded. We simply ask somebody to do what they claim and (for some shockingly unacceptable reason) request it be done in a mutually agreed situation in which they canot achieve the same effect by cheating.

Discussions here show this with the best clarity.
You describe anecdotes, people who used to be able to do amazing things (but no longer can), and amazing things that could convince anyone but which you have only heard about second hand (and regarding people who can only perform in, by definition, a non-controlled environment).

And you genuinely don't understand why this makes such claims appear appallingly weak?

Sorry, the "Look, I demand you just accept my stories as true without evidence" argument doesn't really convince anyone around here.

Maybe you should be a little more open-minded to the concept you have been tricked/misperceived events.

[Robert Oz]

I agree otherwise, but it is rather difficult without good tools. Wooden and painted surfaces get scratches that reveal the procedure.


Nonsense. I could easily use most painted wooden tables as leverage to bend a soup spoon without scratching the table. You are absolutely wrong about requiring good tools to do this.


They were sitting at a table surrounded with adults.


And so was I. When people believe you and don't expect you to cheat it is much easier to do things undetected right under their noses.



In my opinion you made a positive claim that my experiments were flawed. How, or which are your references?


Were the children allowed to hold the spoons in both hands for extended periods of time? If yes, then the tests were flawed, whether or not they were surrounded by adults or not.

Question: Do spoon benders have to hold the spoon to bend it? Can they do it by just rubbing with their index finger only?


It was in year 1974. I had no knowledge then about the MDC and neither had Randi himself, I guess. It was only a rather short wave with the benders and they soon lost their ability.


So you're working off memory from 35 years ago?


Naturally, if I succeed to find new active benders, I will document the occurrences better and ask help, here for example.


That would, sincerely, be fascinating to follow.


There is only a real problem: it is usually needed a positive and free atmosphere during the bending, and all preparing measures and restrictions have detrimental effect for successful bending.

I am sure you don't believe it, but it is a psychological law for many paranormal phenomena. The other unfortunate circumstance is that we are living in many quite differing worlds, skeptics in theirs and woo people in theirs.


I apologise if I have misunderstood, but are you saying that putting controls in place to eliminate the possibility of cheating has detrimental effect for successful bending? If that is the case, you will never find proof.

If you can't impose restrictions on the spoon-benders, how can you be so sure they aren't using magic tricks?

[Lusikka]

Have you never tried to serve ice cream right out of the freezer? I've bent a spoon almost double. I've also broken the blades of kitchen knives.

You did not answer my question. You are naturally right in this answer, but it is irrelevant according to my question. Please, more detailed and accurate answerws! Otherwise there is no progress.

In which part of the spoon the bend was? "Almost double" is OK. Did you read the Radin link?

[Ocelot]

Looking at the photo on the Radin page I can confirm that I was unable to bend a spoon in that manner. I'm sorry but when you'd previously quoted bending the bowl over I'd taken that to mean that the bend was at the neck of the spoon rather thna the bowl being folded in half.

Like I said earlier I'm not prepared to dimmiss the possibility of Radin being a liar.

[fls]

Looking at the photo on the Radin page I can confirm that I was unable to bend a spoon in that manner. I'm sorry but when you'd previously quoted bending the bowl over I'd taken that to mean that the bend was at the neck of the spoon rather thna the bowl being folded in half.

Like I said earlier I'm not prepared to dimmiss the possibility of Radin being a liar.

Have you seen this video (at about 2:45)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA

Linda

[EHocking]

...I am an engineer in machine construction and metallurgy. I have studied all my test pieces before, any time during and after the experiments. .Do you have any documented evidence of these metallurgical tests or a write up of your experiments?

[Ocelot]

Have you seen this video (at about 2:45)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA

Linda

No I hadn't. Very illuminating. Wider spoon than I tried it on, perhaps a bit shallower too. I'll have to get something similar to test.

[Moochie]

<snip>

It ought to be very easy to verify, everybody has spoons at home. Linda says that it is "relatively easy" and in my opinion it is practically impossible. More opinions?

Spoons? Bending spoons? Haven't you anything more useful and important to do than bending spoons?

You're entitled to believe any old codswallop you want to, but please, offer rational people something more meaningful than Radin, or memories/anecdotes. Hint: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All you've offered thus far are the crumbs of an overactive imagination.

Call me when you have some actual evidence.


M.

[Lusikka]

What Newspapers and magazines? Sometimes getting answers to straightforward questions is harder than it need be.
Surely you would understand I am asking for specifics. Are you talking about articles about these people? If so you surely already know specifics enough to provide names and dates. Often older articels may be on the internet.
Skepticism is about details - that's what we are trying to find out - as many details as possible.
It is often where claims fall down.

It would be recommendable to read everything carefully and with thought.

Your question:
3) How did you find them? Can the same method be used to find people now?

My answer:
3) From newspapers and magazines.
[I did not notice your second question. I ought to be more careful, too :). Naturally it is always possible to use the same method.]

[Lusikka]

Do you have any documented evidence of these metallurgical tests or a write up of your experiments?

Unfortunately not any measuring results. All detailed documents were lost when our metallurgical laboratory was closed down. I sent some pieces to a bigger laboratory and they told only the final conclusions without giving measured values.

The main conclusions were:
- in austenitic steel there was formed a normal quantity of cold working martensite (hardness testing)
- X-ray spectrometry and optical and electronic microscopy revealed a normal cold worked structure without anomalies
- residual stress distribution was normal

[dafydd]

You have a rather interesting method of answering questions.
Completely ignoring the difficult ones.

I asked several questions in my post - you chose to completely ignore them all and simply hand wave with an inappropriate analogy.

Maybe you are new to this form of discussion about references, sources and actual evidence.
So far you have provided anecdotes. You have ignored my questions about potentially providing actual evidence.
Is this because, curiously, you do not currently know of anyone who can bend spoons with their mind? Just stories of people who used to be able to but now cannot?


A) The existence of many Policemen in Finland is not considered in breach of current known physical laws
B) You could at least easily demonstrate the current existence of those three policemen (if anyone were to question their existence)
C) If you had only ever encountered or read about 3 policemen in Finland, why would you assume at least a thousand in the absence of any other information?
D)... Frankly if you need further explaining why this analogy is feeble then I seriously worry about your ability to discuss this issue in any productive way, or in any way skeptically analyse any claim


At least my discussion style actually... discusses something. Not simply ignores any question I can't answer with inappropriate anaogies.

It is clear you are heavily emotionally invested in believing people can bend spoons using only the power of their mind. I don't know why.
It also seems clear you have no real interest in observing such claimed instances in controlled circumstances.

You are trying to place the emphasis on others to try to bend spoons, whereas you are making he actual claim about the existence of people who can mentally bend spoons.
You are claiming it is amost a common ability, yet offer up no attempt to demonstrate it under controlled condistions and thus actually demonstrate a potentially groundbreaking piece of knowledge. In fact you actively ignore any attempts to set up such a test.

And you seem to think children cannot be involved in trickery or fool adults.
There are many such instances where this has been demonstrated not to be the case.

The Cottingley Fairies come to mind.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cooper.htm

They certainly fooled Arthur Conan Doyle,but he wanted to believe.

[Ashles]

It would be recommendable to read everything carefully and with thought.

Your question:
3) How did you find them? Can the same method be used to find people now?

My answer:
3) From newspapers and magazines.
[I did not notice your second question. I ought to be more careful, too :). Naturally it is always possible to use the same method.]
What Newspapers and Magazines? Just any ones?

Because I haven't seen a spoon bending story in years in any newspapers. And most magazines generally make even English tabloids look reliable and scientific.

[EHocking]

Unfortunately not any measuring results. All detailed documents were lost when our metallurgical laboratory was closed down. I sent some pieces to a bigger laboratory and they told only the final conclusions without giving measured values.

The main conclusions were:
- in austenitic steel there was formed a normal quantity of cold working martensite (hardness testing)
- X-ray spectrometry and optical and electronic microscopy revealed a normal cold worked structure without anomalies
- residual stress distribution was normalSo no evidence for your assertions at all then. Just a 30 year old recollection of possibly what a lab may or may not have sent to you. Not a terribly convincing argument when put next to the dozens of key and spoon bending videos demonstrating that this is merely a trick.

Your metallurgical assertions on the subject are mere anecdotes (i.e. not data) without verifiable supporting evidence.

[tsig]

Unfortunately not any measuring results. All detailed documents were lost when our metallurgical laboratory was closed down. I sent some pieces to a bigger laboratory and they told only the final conclusions without giving measured values.

The main conclusions were:
- in austenitic steel there was formed a normal quantity of cold working martensite (hardness testing)
- X-ray spectrometry and optical and electronic microscopy revealed a normal cold worked structure without anomalies
- residual stress distribution was normal

If you can readjust the molecules why not just turn the spoon into gold? In fact why do cheap parlor tricks at all?

[Lusikka]

A small collection of points Ashles gives:

Anecdotal evidence is of no real use.

Skepticism is about details - that's what we are trying to find out - as many details as possible.

Books are not the same as scietnfic study.

Has any actual scientific study been done? I asked about papers, videos and references (as in references to scientific studies). You said "Yes". Can you provide details?

What sources?

What sources did you present? If it was just a book written about the 'phenomena' then that is hardly incentive enough for a skeptic to get involved.

Well this is exactly the problem. You present only anecdotes.

At the moment all you have provided is an anecdote of an experience you claim to have had (which could easily explained in many ways), and stories you have read in newspapers and non-scientific books.

Does this book actually detail any scientific studies that have been published elsewhere (e.g. in scientific journals)?

Very good and important points indeed. But they seem rather amusing when noticing the double standards skeptics have. Parapsychologists usually have their facts in order because of peer review, which does not mean that the inside criticism is working well enough. Skepticism is not a science and there are no such limitations.

Martin Gardner is certainly an appreciated skeptical writer whose texts are often quoted in skeptical literature. In what scientific journals has he published scientific articles? At least Mathematical Games in Scientific American for a long time ago. And he has written a book with the bombastic name 'Science – Good, Bad and Bogus', (1981/1989).

How are his facts and details in that book? He often uses unspecified but absolutely reliable sources, for example as follows:

Other experimenters have had no difficulty twisting paper clips and pushing them into such globes where they intertwine to form tight scrunches, and to do it in just a few minutes." (p. 205)

It is certain, that such successful experiments have never been done and these "other experimenters" have never existed. But skeptics have not noticed that, although they ought to be masters in sources and criticisms.

Charles Honorton has written in his article 'Rhetoric Over Substance':
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v57/ai_14890637/pg_1

Martin Gardner (1983), 'The whys of a philosophical scrivener'. New York, Quill:

"How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology's perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics."

Honorton comments:

Gardner does not attempt to document this assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics' experiments and see what you find.

Well, skeptical books are OK science in the eyes of skeptics. With all their lack of details and references and with their twisted facts and even direct lies. Nobody from the own camp criticizes them. Skeptics are unable to find the flaws because they nearly never verify the claims in skeptical sources.

[Lusikka]

So no evidence for your assertions at all then. Just a 30 year old recollection of possibly what a lab may or may not have sent to you. Not a terribly convincing argument when put next to the dozens of key and spoon bending videos demonstrating that this is merely a trick.

Your metallurgical assertions on the subject are mere anecdotes (i.e. not data) without verifiable supporting evidence.

You are right, in the formal respect and with some exaggeration. I was alone with the metal-bending then, a young engineer in the beginning of my professional career. I had to be careful for not to be ridiculed too much. After all, I publicized all my experiments and results. A part of at least the headings of my articles can be found here:

http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/uribib.htm

It seems you don't understand one thing. There is a reality of the mini-Gellers, something has really happened. And I am sure I know more about that reality than you know.

[maatorc]

......Skepticism is about details - ......

Wrong: True skepticism, as distinct from pseudo-skepticism displayed here, is about peer based analytical criticism. You cannot skeptically question what is above your demonstrable attainments.

[EHocking]

You are right, in the formal respect and with some exaggeration. I was alone with the metal-bending then, a young engineer in the beginning of my professional career. I had to be careful for not to be ridiculed too much. After all, I publicized all my experiments and results. I was not aware that you had, thus my scepticism.A part of at least the headings of my articles can be found here:

http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/uribib.htm
Could you direct me to the links to your experiments please? Skimming over them, I couldn't see reference to yourself at all (and frankly I think Geller is a fraud, so admittedly I didn't scan too hard). If your data is there, why not point me to it rather than to an obfuscating collection of links about Geller?

Geller is not at issue here - I was asking about YOUR research and "publicized experiments".

It seems you don't understand one thing. There is a reality of the mini-Gellers, something has really happened.So far, I have only seen magic tricks. And I am sure I know more about that reality than you know.Well as soon as someone demonstrates metal bending by mind power alone, then I will know as much about reality as yourself. In the meantime, without corroborative evidence, the reality you speak of is mere anecdotes.

As a fan of Urban Legends and a denizen of sceptical (and woo) usenet groups for some years, I'm very aware of the unsubstantiated claims of paranormal types - but have yet to have convincing data presented that supports the numerous outlandish claims I've come across in those years.

[Lusikka]

Could you direct me to the links to your experiments please? Skimming over them, I couldn't see reference to yourself at all (and frankly I think Geller is a fraud, so admittedly I didn't scan too hard). If your data is there, why not point me to it rather than to an obfuscating collection of links about Geller?

Well, here you are :) :

[1974] December - Ultra [Finland] - No. 2 - Olavi Kiviniemi. - "Nuoret metallintaivuttajat" [No link available]
(Ultra is a New Age magazine. I wrote a similar article in a more appreciated magazine called "Tekniikka" or Technics.)

I also wrote a more free-style artcle in our internal information magazine in the company. There I told the story how it all happened.

http://www.pcuf.fi/~msiivola/para2000/artikkelit/olavi/Geller_ja_metallioppi.html
(This is a later article. You can try Google translate. I would be interested in co-operation to translate it in good English.)

So far, I have only seen magic tricks. Well as soon as someone demonstrates metal bending by mind power alone, then I will know as much about reality as yourself. In the meantime, without corroborative evidence, the reality you speak of is mere anecdotes.

There are huge amounts of corroborative evidence. But you could do something yorself also. I have not myself seen paranormal metal-bending since my own experiments.

As a fan of Urban Legends and a denizen of sceptical (and woo) usenet groups for some years, I'm very aware of the unsubstantiated claims of paranormal types - but have yet to have convincing data presented that supports the numerous outlandish claims I've come across in those years.

There is also something between skepticism and woo. Both of these camps don't give very much material for our realistic world view.

[EHocking]

Well, here you are :) :

[1974] December - Ultra [Finland] - No. 2 - Olavi Kiviniemi. - "Nuoret metallintaivuttajat" [No link available]
(Ultra is a New Age magazine. I wrote a similar article in a more appreciated magazine called "Tekniikka" or Technics.)

I also wrote a more free-style artcle in our internal information magazine in the company. There I told the story how it all happened.

http://www.pcuf.fi/~msiivola/para2000/artikkelit/olavi/Geller_ja_metallioppi.html
(This is a later article. You can try Google translate. I would be interested in co-operation to translate it in good English.)Again, I was interested in YOUR experimental data, not editorials on Geller. I've already stated my opinion of his "paranormal" abilities.
There are huge amounts of corroborative evidence.Yet you appear to be disinclined to present any.But you could do something yorself also. I have not myself seen paranormal metal-bending since my own experiments.Been there done that, as stated previously, and had Geller proponents shut down a website of mine 'cos I hosted a video of him cheating while bending a spoon "with his mind".
There is also something between skepticism and woo. Both of these camps don't give very much material for our realistic world view.?! The sceptical camp pegs itself out on evidence, not campfire stories.

Belief in magic is not a "realistic world view".