Uri Geller - What do you think?

Sorry, I'm confused. Do you mean you asked Joe Nickell within the last 20 minutes, since you posted that you'd never heard the claim?

Yes I asked him. I have also worked with Joe Nickell in the past in real life.

Even so, it might not be a complete waste of time offering factual corrections.

I can't help being curious about the thinking behind RationalWiki. And if they did refuse to correct a demonstrable error, why that would be.

I decided to delete that post as pointless, I assumed that their recalcitrance to cooperation was self-evident and focusing too much on them would sidetrack the thread. But...

Maybe you can invite Steve out for dinner, they do share the same approach.

Just a claim from his own memoirs as a teenager....

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NNxH...22&f=false

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.

Ray Hyman. 

You probably shouldn't post this kind of thing... It exposes the profoundity of the research that goes into writing pieces at RW. If you are going to trash the man in such a juvenile manner (as is done here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sean_David_Morton), at least try to familiarize yourself with his background.

Rationalwiki has hundreds of editors, I was not involved in that page and very little on anything parapsychology related. I have not been involved in the majority of them. I focus on debunking mostly conspiracy theories and UFO reports.

Rationalwiki has hundreds of editors, I was not involved in that page and very little on anything parapsychology related. I have not been involved in the majority of them. I focus on debunking mostly conspiracy theories and UFO reports.

I wasn't accusing you of specifically adding that to Morton's biography, just pointing at the ironic lack of standards... And noting how you have been showing the same kind of "recycling" here by quoting arguments that I have seen in Skeptic Forum, while being oblivious to other basic facts about the subject that are present in other sources.

I actually checked the definition of legal blindness in California: 2/200 with corrective glasses. There is no practical way to ride a bicycle with 2/200 (that is something like +8 for you British folk), nevermind a motorbike.

I think Targ may have worse issues than being conned.

Thanks for the source, I do not trust what he wrote, just an unreliable claim.

Sorry - I'm still a bit confused. You said to me before "Thanks, I really need to ask around on this. I asked Joe Nickell and he told me Russell Targ was never magician and the claim is a fabrication. It would be interesting to know what Targ really says, I will check it out."

Now someone's told you what Targ really says and you've instantly rejected it. Does that mean you've already asked around and checked it out?