Uri Geller - What do you think?
304 Replies, 48956 Views
Anyone else,wonder if Geller and Randi are not two sides of the same trickster coin?
I am not sure if anyone has seen it but there was a very interesting old article in the New Scientist about how Geller might have cheated in the experiments.
(This post was last modified: 2017-09-06, 03:05 AM by Fake Leuders.)
It is here: http://www.urigeller.com/new-scientist/ Please see the section "Hearing with a tooth". Geller's mentor Andrija Puharich invented a unique hearing aid device that could operate as a miniature radio receiver. Quote:Puharich is a medical electronics expert who developed a radio receiver which can be hidden in a tooth. It must therefore be considered plausible that Uri has a miniature radio receiver concealed on his person. Even if it is not hidden in his teeth, it could easily be hidden in his hair or in a wristwatch which he presses against his chin to hear. The possibilities are limitless, especially if Uri is not carefully searched. Because Uri constantly runs his hands through his hair and across his face, no one would notice him listening to his Dick Tracy wrist radio – nor, because of the direct nerve stimulation, would anyone else hear it. In regard to Laird's earlier statement, this is a possibility of fraud/sensory leakage that was not ruled out. As there are possible naturalistic explanations we should not be advocating the paranormal for Geller's results. I suggest a read of the above article. (2017-09-06, 03:04 AM)Leuders Wrote: I am not sure if anyone has seen it but there was a very interesting old article in the New Scientist about how Geller might have cheated in the experiments. I suggest a reading of the article all the way to the end, after which you will find this: Quote:Uri Geller had his teeth examined after this incredible story, (2017-09-06, 03:43 AM)Laird Wrote: I suggest a reading of the article all the way to the end, after which you will find this: Yeh I did read that. The problem is that it is irrelevant... his teeth were examined well after the experiments were done. He could have removed the device anytime before... also the device didn't have to be placed in a tooth it could work on other parts of his body. It is a very clever little device. (2017-09-06, 03:57 AM)Leuders Wrote: Yeh I did read that. The problem is that it is irrelevant... his teeth were examined well after the experiments were done. He could have removed the device anytime before... also the device didn't have to be placed in a tooth it could work on other parts of his body. It is a very clever little device. I predicted that response. Here's the problem with the hypothesis: many of the types of experiments conducted on Uri were double-blind, so communication would have been of no help, and, most importantly, one of the drawing experiments (in the preliminary experiments shown on video) was double-blind, and Uri did just as well on that as on all the others that weren't double-blind. So, radio communication can't explain his results. Also, in those preliminary experiments, even the drawing trials that weren't double-blind were blind to everybody other than the experimenter who looked at the drawing before resealing it and entering the room - so even in those cases, radio communication would have been of no help. (2017-09-06, 04:09 AM)Laird Wrote: I predicted that response. Here's the problem with the hypothesis: many of the types of experiments conducted on Uri were double-blind, so communication would have been of no help, and, most importantly, one of the drawing experiments (in the preliminary experiments shown on video) was double-blind, and Uri did just as well on that as on all the others that weren't double-blind. So, radio communication can't explain his results. Also, in those preliminary experiments, even the drawing trials that weren't double-blind were blind to everybody other than the experimenter who looked at the drawing before resealing it and entering the room - so even in those cases, radio communication would have been of no help. There is a problem, skeptics such as Paul Kurtz, David Marks, James Randi etc dispute that those studies were truly double-blind. I guess we need to look at some of their statements on this. Let me get back to you on that. But are you saying cheating was impossible? How do you know for sure he did not cheat? Do you actually believe Geller has psychic powers? Or are you just leaving it open that you do not know how he passed those tests.
Here's my position for the record: based on the evidence I've read and seen, I've personally concluded that Uri Geller has psychic powers. Is it possible that I'm wrong? Is it possible that he cheated? Sure, but you could say that about almost anything. It's possible that I'm wrong that the country Spain actually exists - I've never visited it for myself. Am I as convinced that Uri has psychic powers as I am that Spain exists? Not quite, but it is my (provisional) conclusion.
(This post was last modified: 2017-09-06, 04:33 AM by Laird.
Edit Reason: France => Spain (Oops, I *have* visited France!)
)
(2017-09-06, 04:26 AM)Leuders Wrote: There is a problem, skeptics such as Paul Kurtz, David Marks, James Randi etc dispute that those studies were truly double-blind. I guess we need to look at some of their statements on this. Let me get back to you on that. Oh, you mean this James Randi: Daily Telegraph Article Wrote:[snip] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/...nkers.html
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson (2017-09-06, 06:39 AM)Kamarling Wrote: Oh, you mean this James Randi: Why is it you point out negative things about skeptics but when it comes to mediums or psychics you only cite positive things? But seriously sounds like a clever man to me average annual salary of $195,000 ? Do you earn that much? I bet nobody here does. So what has that got to do with anything? Should I be talking about Geller's income? Nobody is perfect... everyone makes mistakes. You seem to have a grudge against only skeptics. Do you acknowledge Randi has done some good things? So he made a mistake with Sheldrake or told a lie but what about all his good cases? He debunked the fraud James Hydrick on live TV: We should give credit where it is due... On topic... here is Randi debunking Geller Do you accept Geller's spoon or key bending was done by fraudulent methods? Randi replicated them all. Also see 6:50 in the above video. When Geller could not touch or use his own objects in an experiment for the Tonight Show he could not move the objects and the whole thing was a failure. What do you think about that? You see it is easy to mention negatives! Your evidence against Randi seems to be that he lied about something and he made a lot of money? Is that why you hate Randi? How do you comment about the good things he has done? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)