Kamarling, who started this thread, has agreed to move it to this sub-forum. So it's now an unrestrained Skeptic "debunking" free-for-all thread.
Have at it!
(2017-08-29, 07:49 PM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the source, I do not trust what he wrote, just an unreliable claim. Also Targ has had very bad eye sight throughout his life, even when he was testing Geller. He really is the last person you would trust to spot any kind of trickery. No wonder he was easily deceived.
He specifically mentions his eyesight and how he realized that the quality of attention was much more important. Do you think that a blind person can't be a stage magician?
(2017-08-30, 02:05 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I can imagine Geller would've been a charismatic, entertaining presence in the lab. I've no doubt that with his charm (and hypnotic powers?) he would've stacked the odds in his favour at every opportunity. There would have been a will to succeed on all sides; significant time and money already invested and the chance of more funding to follow. Superiors awaiting promising results.
The fact that we have seen such egregious examples of Geller's fraud in the past makes him a curious poster-boy for the psi community. Perhaps he is just more photogenic than Radin and Sheldrake? 
... Or perhaps folk double down on Geller in fear of having to admit a much darker truth: Randi might have been right!
Geller is a hansom fellow which helps him look trust worthy. He has a pleasent speaking voice. But what really cinches the deal is he oozes sincerity. Heaven forbid Randy ever being right. He's ebil.
(2017-08-30, 09:44 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]None of those tricks were similar to what Uri actually did in the double-blind experiments (the tricks involved manipulating objects; the experiments involved determining where objects were / what they looked like). Further, those tricks assume that the magician has control over the environment in which they were performed, which Uri didn't have.
Here's the challenge for you, Max: if you think Uri evaded double-blind conditions to fool a bunch of smart people, including not just PhDs but at least one (amateur) magician, then explain exactly how he did it, preferably pointing to frames in the video where you can see him perform his tricks.
Magcians can't be fool you say. How certain are you? Here's a vid of a blind magician fooling Penn and Teller.
https://youtu.be/TwFIJyWKs1k Smart people are just as easy too fool. Letters after one name does not make them immune to trickery.
I posted a vid showing Geller's slight of hand.
(2017-08-30, 04:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Magcians can't be fool you say.
No, that's not what I said.
(2017-08-30, 04:36 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]No, that's not what I said
It sure does read like that.
(2017-08-30, 04:42 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It sure does read like that.
Well, read it a few more times. Why would I make such a definitive statement when I've already seen Penn and Teller get fooled?
(2017-08-30, 02:53 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, really, Malf - a little below the belt tactic to get me to post again - amiright? I would have resisted were this not the thread that I started so I feel somewhat obliged to say something.
1. Explain how Geller's charm or hypnotic powers (again, really?) would have stacked the odds of him getting the drawings in the sealed envelopes right (did you watch the video)? What - he charmed them into telling him what they had drawn? And how does that work with the double-blind tests when nobody knew what was in the envelope?
2. So those testing him were frauds too?
3. Yes, Geller is a trickster. He is known to use stage magic. That was conceded on the first page of this discussion so he's no poster boy. Nobody really trusts him but there are some examples of his testing that still require a better explanation than "it's Uri Geller, guys - it must be faked".
4. Are you really suggesting that proponents are so shallow as to be swayed by his looks and ignore his faults? (ok, yes, I do see the wink smiley)
5. Look up the evidence of Scott Rogo exposing Randi for the liar he is and then tell me that you are not applying double standards here.
C'mon Malf - you can come up with a lot better than that.
Before I go again, I'd still like to know a couple of things if anyone has had the time to do the research or has better sources than I can find:
a) Is there any good evidence that any magician or mentalist has been able to reproduce similar results under similar conditions?
b) Does anyone have reliable evidence of cheating, either on the part of Geller himself (other than the fact that he's Geller and has been known to cheat elsewhere) or on the part of the researchers?
You brought him up. The implication is apparent you side with him having special powers instead of actually beyond more than lip service acknowledging he just as likely playing the audience.
A Uri Geller performance. Avoid reading the caption in this vids opening. Start at 5 seconds. If you don't see the slight of hand then read the opening video caption. Don't read the comments until after watching.
You know what's funny? Skeptics go on about how easy it is to get fooled, and that any test of a purported psychic needs to have magicians involved to check for trickery. But point out to them in a given experiment that a magician was involved and suddenly it becomes, "Oh, so you think magicians can't be fooled, huh?"
I tell you, the goalposts can be shifted endlessly.
(2017-08-30, 02:05 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Or perhaps folk double down on Geller in fear of having to admit a much darker truth: Randi might have been right!
I'd say that cuts both ways. With a high-profile case like Geller's a certain type of proponent will cling to the idea that the man has legitimate abilities, lest the reverse undermine the credibility of psychical research or the whole notion of psi phenomena; and a skeptic might cling to the idea that it was all fraud, lest the reverse undermine the credibility of his refutations and the whole notion of psi's supposed impossibility.
(FWIW - to the limited extent I'm acquainted with Geller's case, I'm inclined to be very suspicious of someone who's pulled tricks and deceit in his time in the spotlight, but I wouldn't pin all my hopes and fears for psi on a single case that happened to catch some mainstream publicity.