Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Uri Geller - What do you think?
#1
Geller was mentioned in another thread but I didn't want to derail that so I thought it might be interesting to open a new thread in case anyone has studied the guy. I've been aware of him since he hit the headlines in the 70's but have vacillated between being impressed and feeling conned. In the end I'm inclined to think that he uses whatever talents he has. Those talents definitely include stage conjuring (which he's admitted) but does he mix them with genuine psychic abilities? 

Here's a recent article (2017) by Jonathan Margolis who wrote a book about Geller some 20 years ago and still seems convinced. On the other hand, many people - even psi proponents - dismiss Geller as a showman. 

Quote:How does Dr Green feel when he hears magicians and sceptical fellow scientists say all such things relating to Uri Geller and others are simple magicians’ tricks and of no scientific interest

“The fact of the matter is that that isn’t correct. Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does, and the films of what he does, recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magicians’ tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery – has any value. It does not.” 
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.” ― C.G. Jung
[-] The following 5 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • Titus Rivas, Doppelgänger, Ninshub, Laird, Doug
Reply
#2
I'm quite skeptical of anything involving him. He is a media 'expert' (not any difference between him and any of the other 'experts', such as Blackmore) and to make matters worse, he also has the "Chopra stink", if you know what I mean (if you don't, I mean that he is an unapologetic attention whore).
"Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before..."
[-] The following 1 user Likes E. Flowers's post:
  • Brian
Reply
#3
(08-23-2017, 09:42 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: I'm quite skeptical of anything involving him. He is a media 'expert' (not any difference between him and any of the other 'experts', such as Blackmore) and to make matters worse, he also has the "Chopra stink", if you know what I mean (if you don't, I mean that he is an unapologetic attention whore).

Granted - he is all that but does that mean he has faked all of his tests with scientists. Some of them seem to be convinced that he couldn't have.

I've seen magicians like Randi and Derren Brown claim that they can reproduce - using tricks - anything that psychics claim they can do and, for the most part, that might be true. But the thing is that they need time to prepare and practice the trick. It remains questionable whether they could do those things under the same conditions with little or no preparation.
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.” ― C.G. Jung
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kamarling's post:
  • Titus Rivas
Reply
#4
Currently reading Vallee's Invisible College and he mentions SRI and Geller. I guess Vallee was there at that time.

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-College...0525474501
[-] The following 1 user Likes chuck's post:
  • Oleo
Reply
#5
Quite frankly, I'm only willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the remote viewing experiments (and that is because I know that there were some controls). But spoon bending? Probably not... Bend me a girder or something of the sort, the principle should be the same (manipulating the composition of the metal to make it more malleable).

This is not to say that I don't think that PK is possible and reproducible, but I'm in the camp that prefers zero physical contact and the isolation of the target.
"Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before..."
[-] The following 1 user Likes E. Flowers's post:
  • Brian
Reply
#6
It's a tough call, the mach one uri , seemed quite promising. The mach two uri, sort of pissed all over that legacy. At the same time.
I've yet to see any magic performer who could bend a piece of metal sealed inside a glass tube. As Geller is credited with doing at Kings Collage and elsewhere.
Reply
#7
I tend to think of Hansen's book, The Trickster and the Paranormal, when I encounter characters like Geller.

https://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Paranor...1401000827
[-] The following 2 users Like chuck's post:
  • Larry, Oleo
Reply
#8
It's a tough call, the mach one uri , seemed quite promising. The mach two uri, sort of pissed all over that legacy. At the same time.
I've yet to see any magic performer who could bend a piece of metal sealed inside a glass tube. As Geller is credited with doing at Kings Collage and elsewhere.
Reply
#9
(08-23-2017, 10:25 PM)Oleo Wrote: It's a tough call, the mach one uri , seemed  quite promising.  The mach two uri, sort of pissed all over that legacy. At the same time.
I've yet to see any magic performer who could bend a piece of metal sealed inside a glass tube. As Geller is credited with doing at Kings Collage and elsewhere.

So, Geller got less credible as he surpassed the speed of sound? :-)
"Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before..."
[-] The following 3 users Like E. Flowers's post:
  • Stan Woolley, Oleo, Typoz
Reply
#10
Obscure reference to Ford Mustang.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Oleo's post:
  • Obiwan
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)