Ted Serios

Am I the only one who recoils when I see anyone presenting evidence from Rationalwiki? 

Am I wrong to think of it as the National Inquirer of information sources? Or that it is to psi, what Newsmax is to politics?

Maybe it's just me.

Apparently we are now supposed to act like it's not an ideological echo chamber since we have Leuders here. But, it's still basically the anti-Chopra. If you have ever stumbled upon one of his papers, you will know what I mean.

If they were hoaxed or not has little to do with "belief". Are you asking for critical examination or polling people?

I suppose Randi didn't need the money


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ted_Serios
[/url]
Serios agreed to a public challenge, but when magicians asked to examine the paper tube immediately after a photo exposure was made, "Serios backed away, putting his hand in his pocket." Investigators guessed that Serios' "gizmo" concealed a second, much smaller tube, most likely a common jeweler's loupe or transparency magnifier. With a tiny magnifying lens at one end and a section of a 35mm transparency affixed with tape at the other, the device could effectively project the transparency image into the lens of the Polaroid camera. Photos produced by investigators using this method were nearly identical to Serios' "thoughtographs."[3] After being summarily debunked and exposed by various photo experts and James Randi (when Randi replicated Serios' tricks on a live TV show, Eisenbud was reportedly "flabbergasted"), Serios faded into obscurity.[4]


[url=https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ted_Serios#cite_note-4](I can't get used to this forum software, I really can't!  It's totally up the creek!!!)

The allegations of fraud came from two photographers, Charlie Reynolds and David Eisendrath.

 "Anyone who knows anything about this issue knows that Mr. Serios was long ago exposed and thoroughly debunked as a fraud. This was done with absolute certainty by professional photographers Charlie Reynolds and David Eisendrath in the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography. Serios was observed, when he thought no one was looking, sticking pictures into his "gizmo," a tube he held between his head and the camera lens. That some claim he produced images without the tube, and at some distance from the camera, is easily attributed to double exposure or use of previously made exposures, followed by the fake snapping of a picture."

Len Peyronnin. (2011). Psychic Projections Were a Hoax. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

There was also another allegation of fraud from magician Persi Diaconis who stated he observed Serios putting a small marble with a photograph on it into a little tube that he used in front of the camera.

The allegations of fraud came from two photographers, Charlie Reynolds and David Eisendrath.

Len Peyronnin. (2011). Psychic Projections Were a Hoax. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

I have no idea which side of the argument is more accurate, but in his SPR encyclopaedia article, Stephen Braude writes:
"The primary source of this skeptical allegation was the article, ‘An Amazing Weekend with the Amazing Ted Serios’, in the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography, written by David B Eisendrath and Charles Reynolds. That article left most (if not all) readers thinking that the authors had successfully exposed the pretensions of an alleged psychic. However, the article was seriously misleading, and few learned later that no one had accepted Eisenbud’s challenge (in the following November issue)5 to duplicate Serios’s results under conditions similar to those imposed on Serios (more on that issue below). Before long, Eisendrath’s and Reynolds’s criticism evolved into the unverified assertion that Serios’s feats had been duplicated easily by the magician the Amazing Randi, and soon many people had accepted that falsehood as an established fact. The noted science author Martin Gardner undoubtedly moved this process along by repeating the allegation in his book, Science, Good, Bad and Bogus,6 and by claiming in the journal Nature that Randi ‘demonstrates it [the Serios phenomenon] regularly and with more skill.’7 However, Gardner’s claim is completely unsubstantiated. Randi never even attempted publicly to duplicate the Serios phenomenon under conditions resembling those that prevailed during Serios’s tests. He did, however, fail to duplicate the phenomenon under the much looser test conditions allowed on the television show Today on October 4, 1967."

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ted-serios

All I can say is... read Braude's first hand investigations on the subject. He's always been an accurate, finicky researcher of tremendous integrity.

Also to ask if his photographs were genuine or fraudulent is an ill-posed question. There might have been fake pictures among a good number of genuine ones.
In fact there is pretty strong evidence for anomalous phenomena that defeates conventional explanations.

If you have ever stumbled upon one of his papers, you will know what I mean.

I haven't. Would it be worth my time? or am I better off looking elsewhere for useful info?

Am I the only one who recoils when I see anyone presenting evidence from Rationalwiki? 

Am I wrong to think of it as the National Inquirer of information sources? Or that it is to psi, what Newsmax is to politics?

Maybe it's just me.

It's not just you, that's a sensible reaction, it's an awful, awful website.

You can always check their sources.  I doubt they would lie and then put a reference.  One could say, Am I the only one who recoils when I see anyone presenting evidence from an avid psi believer.  It's the same story - you present your evidence and there will always be evidence to the contrary.

It's not just the sources themselves, it's the one sided nature of the sources they use, and the snarky, condescending tone they take on 'rationalwiki'. Its frustrating cause many of us want the truth with psi/the afterlife etc, sites like 'rationalwiki' don't help us find the truth, they hinder it.

You can always check their sources.  I doubt they would lie and then put a reference.  One could say, Am I the only one who recoils when I see anyone presenting evidence from an avid psi believer.  It's the same story - you present your evidence and there will always be evidence to the contrary.

Funny you mention that Brian-

Yes- We drew straws, and I lost,,, I had to spend a couple hours of what I assumed would be a waste of time, because I figured you would ask. And yes, I found it was a total waste of my time...

I checked the Rational sources. The were 4 listed by the way, pretty lame for the substantial nature of your claims. 

I also, just for comparison checked out Wiki. Imagine using Wiki as the fair arbiter of information! Yikes!!!

Wiki had 22 sources, Rational had 4.

Of the 4 rational sources. 
1-100 words or so describing name birth and death dates and the Jules E. book. VERY thin on actual psi info. 
2- the Jules E. book which reportedly supports (or at least reports) Serios' claim for the most part
3- A photography book which essentially says Randi and other skeptics claim it was a fraud
4- A Randi book.

Oh one last thing- 
Rational's only web link, and one of Wiki's 4 listed, is the "skeptic's dictionary".

Imagine the need for such a thing. Reminds me of the book two very close relatives used to have as young Jehovah's Witness's. They carried them around so they would have the answer to any of the multitude of questions they may be asked. Sort of a JW Cheat sheet. Interesting to see that you guys (Skeptics) have a "bible" of sorts to keep you on the same page... Literally..  

Don't you ever wonder why you need to be lead around like a bunch of cattle and fed pre-written answers??

Anyway- so yes, I HAVE read the available on-line material and found that:
-The counter augments come almost exclusively from one person, guess who?: Randi. Most others simply point to Randi.
-Randi has decided to call it fraud (of course he would)
-Randi, even though he claimed to be able to, NEVER successfully replicated the event 
-Ted Serios offered to demonstrate this under controlled conditions, and Randi never took him up on it (strange right?)

So. No I'm not planning to make this a multi-day and $$ effort of buying the complete books and reading them. But I've found out, to my utter surprise that there is little or nothing here. 

Next time you might want to research this stuff yourself so you can understand how superficial the material is that you base your reputation on. 

If you did research this, and are satisfied with the information, it is a testament to how little information you need to be convinced. Although you are already convinced aren't you? You just needed something to agree with your POV to point to. 

Don't fret about that though, that's what most people do, so you are not alone.