PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - What everyone thinks about Uri Geller

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » What everyone thinks about Uri Geller

Goto page 1, 2  Next

What everyone thinks about Uri Geller
Author Message
What everyone thinks about Uri Geller on Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:06 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I apologize right off the bat if this has been dicussed many times before but i did not find any other threads on it. Now I've seen some random comments about him here and there but no real debates. I've read on this site that many think he's a fake, yet I was under the impression he was studied extensively at M.I.T and by other organizations under very strict conditions and noone can explain how he does the things he does. (At least his site states so). I also understand that it's his site and ofcourse they wouldn't post anything controrary to "He's the real deal", but he sure has a lot of scientists backing him up. I'm not saying he's definetly for real but I am truely curious to know all of your views about him......In my opinion his powers are somewhat the real deal, but he mixes in a lot of fluff to make some money (i.e the crystal merchandise, etc.)

Please let me know what you think
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:40 am

somefatguy

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1187

I'm undecided really, but I am more so on believing he is the real deal.
Back to top
Re: What everyone thinks about Uri Geller on Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:03 am

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

derricktheone wrote:
I apologize right off the bat if this has been dicussed many times before but i did not find any other threads on it. Now I've seen some random comments about him here and there but no real debates. I've read on this site that many think he's a fake, yet I was under the impression he was studied extensively at M.I.T and by other organizations under very strict conditions and noone can explain how he does the things he does. (At least his site states so). I also understand that it's his site and ofcourse they wouldn't post anything controrary to "He's the real deal", but he sure has a lot of scientists backing him up. I'm not saying he's definetly for real but I am truely curious to know all of your views about him......In my opinion his powers are somewhat the real deal, but he mixes in a lot of fluff to make some money (i.e the crystal merchandise, etc.)

Please let me know what you think


First and foremost, Uri Geller is a showman. He does talkshows, writes books, and sells anything and everything he can. He's made a career through ESP, the emphasis here is on the word "career".

I can't really remember if it was here or elsewhere, but someone posted a link to a Youtube video showing Uri Geller forcefully bending a spoon during a performance, or something to that effect. Do a search for it. Does this mean that everything he does is fake? I dont think it does, but it certainly does mean you have to put extra scrutiny on him and his exploits.

Supposedly he's been studied. What the conclusions of these studies were, I'm not entirely sure. It's one thing to say you were studied, and it's quite another to say that during the study you convinced skeptical researchers that an unexplainable effect was occurring.
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:58 am

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I agree 100% with you roy about the career part but actually I changed my opinion about him and I now believe he's 100% real deal. Sure he tries to make money off his abilities but wouldn't you. I'd love to be able to show up some scientists with ease then just sit back and let the money roll in for doing it.

Quote:
Professor Victor Weisskopf physicist who studied under Niels Bohrr worked on the A bomb and over saw the development of European atom smashers.
"I was shocked and amazed how Mr Geller bent my office key at MIT while I was holding it. The sturdy key kept bending in my hand; I can not explain this phenomenon I can only assume that it could relate could relate to quantum chromo dynamics".

"Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific explanationas to how he did this."
(This is the first research related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility to have been released for publication by the US Department of Defence).
Eldon Byrd (US Naval Surface Weapons Centre, Maryland - U.S.A.)

"In our presence and in the presence of numerous eye-witnesses,Uri demonstrated the following telekinetic effects:he bent at our request metal keys and teaspoons, the spoonsbending to an angle of 90 degrees over a period of five minutesafter his influence had been exerted on them. Before the eyesof those present he germinated a radish seed to a small sproutin 8 minutes. He reproduced target pictures exactly to thenearest millimetre (square, triangle with a dot in the centre,etc.) and also wiped the information from an IBM cassette.He also correctly described a dome-shaped building that formerlystood in the Moscow river basin, the destruction of whichwas linked to the name of Stalin."

Professor V. G. Lukes(Director of the Ministry of Health Protection of the Russian Federation, Institute of Traditional Medicine, Moscow - Russia)
A. A. Karpeyev (Deputy Director)
R. Yu. Volkov (Department Head)
A. P. Dubrov (Chief Scientific Collaborator)

"I have spent my life in neuropsychiatry and have been interestedin strange mental states and odd phenomena for a number ofyears. I first met Uri three years ago and was able to watchhim bend a spoon on a colleagues's outstretched hand. I tooka spoon from the table. Uri did not touch it, I put it on my colleagues's hand and asked Uri to bend it. Uri ran hisfinger above the spoon and stood back. Nothing happened. Weexpressed some dissapointment, still watching the spoon. He said, Wait and Watch. Slowly, as we watched, with Uri standing well away, the spoon started to curl in front of us, andwithin four minutes the tail of the spoon had risen up likea scorpions sting. I then took the spoon, the first timeI had handled it since I put it there, and sure enough, it remained a normal spoon with a marked bend. "Dr.Peter Fenwick. MB, BChir, DPM, FIRCPsych


There's like 50 more on his site...A lot of well respected skeptics were baffled as well...If i knew how to put pics in here I'd like to show you the one of Uri doing experiments using the Kirlian technique on color film and you can actually see bursts of energy coming from his fingers..very cool
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:18 pm

TheOne

Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 10

James Randi did a special on uri gellar trying to prove he's a fake.

http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv
Back to top
Posted on Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:50 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Uri's a magician. Plain and simple.
Back to top
Posted on Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:24 am

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Uri's a magician. Plain and simple.


Then how about you explain that to the dozens and dozens of baffled scientists....are you a scientist Johnny?

Quote:
James Randi did a special on uri gellar trying to prove he's a fake.


Yes he tried to prove that the "tricks" can be faked...That doesn't mean he proved Uri's a fake....Almost all the stuff on this site can be faked, does that mean we're all phonies
Back to top
Posted on Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:23 am

Natsufan

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 17

TheOne wrote:
James Randi did a special on uri gellar trying to prove he's a fake.

http://www.darat.org/~dimossi/James.Randi.debunking.on.Tonight.Show.wmv


And wikipedia says Uri Geller has sued James Randi twice for libel and insult... And has won both times. Randi also lost a trial for libel against another man, because he blatantly said such man was a criminal, without it being true. In the end, the most skeptical Randi had to agree (secret agreement) with Uri Geller that he won' attack him anymore (and we'll suppose that Geller has agreed in not suing him anymore, because he has the habit of winning). So, whenever you read something from Randi, double-check, because he's been judicially proven to lie whenever he wants to prove a point.

It is also said that Geller has failed and cheated sometimes.

My opinion? Geller is a Psion, but also a showman. I bet he doesn't control his abilities very well. If he can't make use of real telekinesis, he probably uses sleight of hand. But I suppose there's some truth into it. If there wasn't, Randi would have caught him already (he wishes so much).
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:43 am

pants

Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

'And wikipedia says Uri Geller has sued James Randi twice for libel and insult... And has won both times. '

from wikipedia...

'Geller unsuccessfully litigated or threatened legal action against some of his critics. These included libel allegations against Randi and illusionist Gérard Majax.'

Stress on the unsuccessful. It gives details of another time that Geller won but in that case it was Randi saying Geller had led a man to suicide. Nothing to do with Randis quiestioning of Gellers powers.

'If there wasn't, Randi would have caught him already (he wishes so much).'
Uri Geller under controlled circumstances failed entirely. Indeed there has never been a sufficiently controlled experiment proving Uri's abilities.

Despite many 'baffled scientists' there has always been flaws. Considering how simple it would be to prove he has these abilities, I find that the total lack of papers conclusively covering his powers is decent circumstantial evidence for him not having any powers at all.

That and his being caught bending spoons with brute force.

Even if there is such a thing as Psi and Geller has a degree of Psi power the man has lost far too much credability to be considered as evidence to support it.

This will probably get long winded again but to go in to more depth, particularly about his site, I will quote something I wrote elsewhere in a similar debate.

'You are going to believe a set of selected quotes from Uri Gellers own site that is undoubtedly massively biassed and is mostly anecdotal with just about no scientific papers backing it.

Instead of, videos that clearly show his complete failure to accomplish the trick without prior preperation, and bending the spoon with brute force.

There really isnt much there. Scientists arnt infallible, without proper conditions they are just as open to deception as everyone else. Which is exactly why scientific papers exist. Decent papers is one thing Uri Geller is definately lacking.

Possibly the most known about experiment was at the SRI though it has been critisized and with good reason. The results were published in Nature magazine though what seems to be left out quite often is that it was published with a disclaimer that the experiment was highly debatable. Geller also failed repeatedly. He claimed he did not wish to bend spoons at SRI. This isnt actually true. He tried many times but always failed under the conditions imposed.

Any test he was apparently succesful within he has refused to repeat and indeed multiple sources were willing to provide tests for him to complete only for him to either refuse or flat out fail.

Look up the newspaper the mail on sundays attempts to test him. You could argue thats fairly reasonable to turn down. So what about The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. A respected group of scientists and magicians. He didnt respond to them either. (This isnt even mentioning Randis million dollar offer.)

Infact the only reasonably solid scientific tests run on Uri Geller was the Nitinol test. (Which is mentioned on his site.)

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

If you actually read in any great depth, it turns out to be a grossly flawed piece of science...

Its also something to note that Uris site doesnt mention any of these scientists or tests against him. They are content to post a new scientist story and point out how ridiculous it is in what is a clear attack on the scientific community. (Ironic considering his claim is percieved by many to be far more preposterous.) As a reader of the publication New Scientist is the tabloid of science magazines. It reaches for sensationalism and has often given up accuracy as a result. Just off the top of my head I can think of its articles on quantum processing and spin tronics both of which claimed the technologies would be revolutionising things by... well about 5 years ago... Needless to say, quoting the opinion of whatever scientist was willing to give a good and sensational story to the magazine, then attaching every skeptic in the world to it as a bunch of loons. Well it just goes to show the extent of biass that exists upon his site.'
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:20 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Pants read my first freakin post. I said I know that his site will be biased so shutup. Your post still fails to change my opinion whatsoever. I would like to know what you think of all the comments about him on his site then. About the ones where Uri never even touched the object for it to start bending in someone else's hand. Or the ones where it says that the experiments were well controlled and he was successful in hundreds of attemps of certain skills. These are scientists who would kill to be able to prove him fake. Yes, they're only people and people make mistakes but do you think all of them somehow missed somthing so he was able to cheat in all these experiments. They were specifically set up so you CANNOT cheat.

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

Professor Gerald Schroeder, who earned his doctorate at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (M.I.T) in two fields, the planetary sciences and nuclear physics and served as advisor to the Atomic Energy Commission and to countries such as the People's Republic of China. He earned his BSc, MSc and PhD all at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.
Following that he was seven years on the staff of the M.I.T. physics department, continuing his research at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and the Volcani Research Institute withlabs at the Hebrew University. Heis the Author of Genesis And The Big Bang (Bantam Doubleday)The Science of God (Free Press of Simon & Schuster; and BroadwayBooks of Bantam Doubleday)
"Uri appears to have concentrated energy. What makes me accept Geller at face value is that unlike a magician, he does not have a bag of tricks. He bends spoons. The one he bent with me peering over his shoulder continued to bend even after he placed it on the ground and stepped away. The Talmud claims there are two types of "magic." One is the "catching of the eye," an optical illusion. The other is the real thing,a mustering of the forces of nature. With Uri, I opt for the latter, though he claims he has no idea how these are mustered".

"Geller asked me to put my hand over a spoon supplied by me, we couldallsee the spoon clearly. Geller then put his own hand overmine and began concentrating. It was just as he 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)

"Thereis no logical explanation for what Geller did here. But I don't think logic is what necessarily makes new in roads inscience."
Dr Thomas Coohill (Western Kentucky University, PhysicsDept., Bowling Green, Kentucky - U.S.A.)

" I tested Uri myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key." Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)
"I have had more than fifty years experience with psychics and would-be psychics. From having observed Geller bend avolunteered latchkey under excellent conditions, and from having studied Mr. Geller's record of tests under various auspices, I have not the slightest doubt that his psychicabilities are genuine."
Jule Eisenbud M.D.(Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center- U.S.A.)

"Everything worked, I don't understand it. However, I cannot say I accept these powers in total. It would be accepting his theories against all the proven theories of science."
Professor J. Juritz, (Head of the department of physics,University of Cape Town:)

Were these hundreds of people who have viewed demonstrations all paid to say these quotes? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. Do you think if these people were mis-quoted or these quotes were made up they would stand for that and not sue? Why would they risk their scientific reputation for a large or small sum of money. I'm not saying he's never tried to cheat. Some days your better at PK than others and it would be extremely frustrating to be able to perform hundreds of times and then when you are asked to do it to prove it and you can't, I would bend the hell out of that spoon with my hand too. I'm not going to debate about it anymore because nothing you say can change my mind.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:22 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

derricktheone wrote:
Pants read my first freakin post. I said I know that his site will be biased so shutup. Your post still fails to change my opinion whatsoever. I would like to know what you think of all the comments about him on his site then. About the ones where Uri never even touched the object for it to start bending in someone else's hand. Or the ones where it says that the experiments were well controlled and he was successful in hundreds of attemps of certain skills. These are scientists who would kill to be able to prove him fake. Yes, they're only people and people make mistakes but do you think all of them somehow missed somthing so he was able to cheat in all these experiments. They were specifically set up so you CANNOT cheat.

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

Professor Gerald Schroeder, who earned his doctorate at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (M.I.T) in two fields, the planetary sciences and nuclear physics and served as advisor to the Atomic Energy Commission and to countries such as the People's Republic of China. He earned his BSc, MSc and PhD all at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.
Following that he was seven years on the staff of the M.I.T. physics department, continuing his research at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and the Volcani Research Institute withlabs at the Hebrew University. Heis the Author of Genesis And The Big Bang (Bantam Doubleday)The Science of God (Free Press of Simon & Schuster; and BroadwayBooks of Bantam Doubleday)
"Uri appears to have concentrated energy. What makes me accept Geller at face value is that unlike a magician, he does not have a bag of tricks. He bends spoons. The one he bent with me peering over his shoulder continued to bend even after he placed it on the ground and stepped away. The Talmud claims there are two types of "magic." One is the "catching of the eye," an optical illusion. The other is the real thing,a mustering of the forces of nature. With Uri, I opt for the latter, though he claims he has no idea how these are mustered".

"Geller asked me to put my hand over a spoon supplied by me, we couldallsee the spoon clearly. Geller then put his own hand overmine and began concentrating. It was just as he 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)

"Thereis no logical explanation for what Geller did here. But I don't think logic is what necessarily makes new in roads inscience."
Dr Thomas Coohill (Western Kentucky University, PhysicsDept., Bowling Green, Kentucky - U.S.A.)

" I tested Uri myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key." Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)
"I have had more than fifty years experience with psychics and would-be psychics. From having observed Geller bend avolunteered latchkey under excellent conditions, and from having studied Mr. Geller's record of tests under various auspices, I have not the slightest doubt that his psychicabilities are genuine."
Jule Eisenbud M.D.(Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center- U.S.A.)

"Everything worked, I don't understand it. However, I cannot say I accept these powers in total. It would be accepting his theories against all the proven theories of science."
Professor J. Juritz, (Head of the department of physics,University of Cape Town:)

Were these hundreds of people who have viewed demonstrations all paid to say these quotes? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. Do you think if these people were mis-quoted or these quotes were made up they would stand for that and not sue? Why would they risk their scientific reputation for a large or small sum of money. I'm not saying he's never tried to cheat. Some days your better at PK than others and it would be extremely frustrating to be able to perform hundreds of times and then when you are asked to do it to prove it and you can't, I would bend the hell out of that spoon with my hand too. I'm not going to debate about it anymore because nothing you say can change my mind.


Derrick, stop being an idiot. Pants has the right to throw in his 2 cents, especially because you named this thread, "what everyone thinks about Uri Geller" and you explicitly ask everyone their opinion of him! Seems like you're sending the wrong message by asking for an opinion and then telling someone to "shut up".

The problem is: everything you are quoting is from Geller's website and it's anecdotal. Just because they say "laboratory settings" doesn't mean their experimental protocol and design was foolproof.

When nothing can be said to change your mind, then you are close-minded. You have exhibited a very poor attitude in this post.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:17 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

wow I told her to shutup because all she was talking about was how his site is obviously biased and i said I know that already in the very 1st post, so don't use that as an argument against me, which is what she did almost her whole post. 2nd I apologize for letting my anger get the best of me but that doesn't mean i'm an "idiot" either.

The problem is: everything you are quoting is from Geller's website and it's anecdotal. Just because they say "laboratory settings" doesn't mean their experimental protocol and design was foolproof.

And it's just stuff like this that frustrates me. Did you not hear my arguments about why these people would put their scientific reputation on the line and say this guy's for real. Do you honestly think that this guy fooled all of these teams of scientists in his tests because they weren't foolproof. My God, these tests are set up for one purpose=
To prove if he's real or fake!! How much possible chance do you think they would leave for him to be able to cheat, minimal to none

And yes I did have a poor attitude before but only because of my frustration. Calling me close-minded because I'm using logic is dumb as well. I'm not saying I'm using logic to prove he's real, I'm using it in believing the quotes.

"Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key." Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)
If you believe he is a fake then the only answer to this quote is that this scientist completely made the whole thing up. And if money is the only reason you think he would do so I'm not buying it.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:40 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

derricktheone wrote:
wow I told her to shutup because all she was talking about was how his site is obviously biased and i said I know that already in the very 1st post, so don't use that as an argument against me, which is what she did almost her whole post. 2nd I apologize for letting my anger get the best of me but that doesn't mean i'm an "idiot" either.

The problem is: everything you are quoting is from Geller's website and it's anecdotal. Just because they say "laboratory settings" doesn't mean their experimental protocol and design was foolproof.

And it's just stuff like this that frustrates me. Did you not hear my arguments about why these people would put their scientific reputation on the line and say this guy's for real. Do you honestly think that this guy fooled all of these teams of scientists in his tests because they weren't foolproof. My God, these tests are set up for one purpose=
To prove if he's real or fake!! How much possible chance do you think they would leave for him to be able to cheat, minimal to none

And yes I did have a poor attitude before but only because of my frustration. Calling me close-minded because I'm using logic is dumb as well. I'm not saying I'm using logic to prove he's real, I'm using it in believing the quotes.

"Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key." Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)
If you believe he is a fake then the only answer to this quote is that this scientist completely made the whole thing up. And if money is the only reason you think he would do so I'm not buying it.


Letting your anger get the best of you doesn't make you an idiot, that makes you human, but blatantly contradicting yourself: that makes you an idiot. Don't worry though, I'm a nice guy, I won't hold it against you and I'm sure Pants won't either.

What frustrates me is that you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that scientists can be fooled. In a game of poker, I'll bet all my money if I BELIEVE I have the best hand. A scientist will stake his or her reputation if they BELIEVE their findings to be correct. A lot of what Uri Geller does is easily reproduced by mildly competent stage magicians using deception.

And quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick of you claiming these experiments were foolproof. Show me you have some fucking knowledge of experimental design. Show me some research literature on Uri Geller, and I'm not talking about secondhand information from his "sell you useless shit " website. Now that I think about it, it might be more for your benefit than mine.

The experiments aren't created to show if Uri Geller is real or not. Do you think universities or organizations throw money into researching the individual instead of the phenomenon? Get a clue. They're to study the PK effect, not the man.

I'm calling you close-minded because you AREN'T using logic. What's so logical about stating "I'm not going to debate about it anymore because nothing you can say will change my mind" ? This frame of mind makes you just as bad as any unrelenting skeptic.

Sure, that's one anecdote from one incident. How many times has it been replicated? How many times has Geller reproduced the effect? Where's other research performed by Helmut Hoffmann? Do you have this particular research literature handy so we can take a look at the experiment protocol to see how it worked?

Of course Geller is too busy with sueing Nintendo because of a stupid Pokemon card, or going on tv shows like the Surreal Life than to prove the skeptics wrong. The point is: he feels he's proved himself in the past and I don't think he has and since then he's been chewing the fat from gullible people who buy his crap.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:03 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

derricktheone wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Uri's a magician. Plain and simple.


Then how about you explain that to the dozens and dozens of baffled scientists....are you a scientist Johnny?

Quote:
James Randi did a special on uri gellar trying to prove he's a fake.


Yes he tried to prove that the "tricks" can be faked...That doesn't mean he proved Uri's a fake....Almost all the stuff on this site can be faked, does that mean we're all phonies

He doesn't do them in a controlled environment. Hoesntly. When you see a man in a labcoat advertising for a non-FDA approved supplement on TV, do you buy into that, too?
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:21 am

pants

Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

'Pants read my first freakin post. I said I know that his site will be biased so shutup.'
Rather aggresive arnt you.

Lets actually have a look at your first 'freakin' post.
'I also understand that it's his site and ofcourse they wouldn't post anything controrary to "He's the real deal",'

Here, as you said, you acknowledge that his site will be biassed. In the very next sentence.
'but he sure has a lot of scientists backing him up.'

Now maybe im missing something but that sounds to me that your saying. 'His site is biassed but it must have some substance to it.' My post is explaining why this is not true in order for my skeptical view point to make sense.

'I would like to know what you think of all the comments about him on his site then.'...
Despite telling me to shutup you dont appear to have read a single word I wrote anyway. My post detailed the only experiments that have any substance and how they are flawed. Whats more, you've repeatedly said that his site will be biassed. So I do not understand how you can continue to utilise it as a source of evidence.

You spend the vast majority of this post quoting off a site recognised as being horrifically biassed and nearly all anecdotal.

'Dr. Wernher von Braun' - anecdotal, not controlled
'Professor Gerald Schroeder' - anecdotal, not controlled
'Dr Edward W Bastin' - anecdotal, not controlled
'Dr Thomas Coohill ' - anecdotal, not even a test
'Jule Eisenbud M.D.' - anecdotal, no examples given
'Professor J. Juritz' - anecdotal

Only one has a test explained and there is no link to a paper, no sign of peer review, indeed I cant find a single book or site that provides one.

'Were these hundreds of people who have viewed demonstrations all paid to say these quotes?'
Unlikely.

'Do you think if these people were mis-quoted '
Probably not.

As Roy has said, you are missing the fact that these scientists can be fooled and given the pride found in many scientists they are often adamant about how genuine something is once they have been fooled. You are also missing the fact that these scientists have often placed a huge amount of time and money in to this subject area and want to be fooled. Helmut Hoffman has dedicated a large part of his life to this. In his shoes, could you honestly say you would be entirely impartial?


This isnt to say he is wrong. It is a strong indication that well written and backed papers are needed though. Non are available.

'I'm not going to debate about it anymore because nothing you say can change my mind.'
You can be aggresive to me, I dont mind. You can have any opinion you wish, that much is a good thing. To say nothing can change your mind though is grossly ignorant. I am not trying to insult you but I can think of no other way of putting it.

Incidentally. In your first post you say his site is biassed then use the fact scientists are on it as evidence. Second post you say I should 'shut up' his site is biassed then use the fact scientists are on it as evidence.

So, you are allowed to use the scientists on his site as evidence to support your view, but if I point out that this is flawed and non of them have actually provided any real evidence, in order to support my view, I should 'shut up'.

If you do not want a skeptical view of what you are discussing. Dont post on the forum called 'skepticism'.
Back to top

Goto page 1, 2  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » What everyone thinks about Uri Geller