Uri Geller - What do you think?

Yuck, it's very poor... there is no way of really knowing if you can rely on these experiments in the paper or not... there is sufficient doubt about sensory leakage, due to the info I'm seeing here... and the Nature paper is so short due to limited space as to be almost useless in clarifying the problems... I'll be interested in the answers Linda gives to those three questions.

I mean, if Geller was actually in an EMI shielded room with a window that overlooked the adjacent room, then I've got a problem with the paper, as it says... "...Acoustic and visual isolation is provided by a double walled steel room, locked by means of a inner and outer door, each of which is secured with a refrigerator type locking mechanism..." Because that's just not accurate IMO.

Reading the paper I would think that this description of the room was of an inner and outer steel wall construction with block or insulating infill, tight fitting inner and outer steel doors and locks etc. From a 'visual' leakage point of view, not mentioning the presence of a window is really concerning.

Heck, I'd want to know about the window construction now as well. From an auditory point of view... glass can be a great sounding board when one puts one's ear against it. Which opens another possible correlation with experiments 5,6, & 7 that Geller passed on. As these three experiments were supposedly prepared outside of the experimental group (thus not in in the adjacent room), and so no verbal discussion should have taken place in the adjacent room about the imagery they would draw to represent these chosen keywords.

Yes, it's fair criticism that the shielded room doesn't seem to have been accurately described - and the cable conduit would also have compromised acoustic shielding. (Though I doubt whether aural clues would have been sufficient - particularly for that uncannily accurate reproduction of the bunch of grapes.)

But I think the variety of conditions makes it difficult to argue that unintentional flaws in the experimental design could have been responsible for all these drawings. All these possible visual and acoustic flaws concerning the first shielded room would affect only five out of the ten drawings in the sequence - the ones that used the first shielded room and the adjacent room:

[Image: Geller.jpg]
From what Linda posted, it sounds as though Marks and Kamman made separate suggestions for each of the three other set-ups. It would be interesting to see the details, but it seems a bit of a stretch.

Shielded room 2 is the Faraday cage that Linda mentioned ("double-walled copper-screen"). I suppose Geller would have been able to see out of it, but on the other hand the paper says it was 54m down the hall and around the corner from the computer room where the targets were displayed.

Let's not forget that three of the sessions were carried out by outside scientists (all misses, by the way) 

Indeed.

At the very least we must all conclude that there was an environment created by the resident team at SRI that was extremely conducive to positive results. The conditions were optimum for Geller to perform his "magic", whatever that may entail. As far as I am aware Geller never performed anywhere near as well as this before, or after, these sessions with these investigators.

Lol I found the comments more interesting than the video. Almost every comment calling him a conman, fraud and liar.

I also see it is an advert for Kellogg's cereal. Uri must be desperate for money again...

I'm sure you noticed the first demonstration of the dimpled spoon bowl where we were not shown the spoon before its dimpling. And the second where the spoon bends until he does a scene change and lo and behold it breaks. It's telekinesis at work for sure.

I'm sure you noticed the first demonstration of the dimpled spoon bowl where we were not shown the spoon before its dimpling. And the second where the spoon bends until he does a scene change and lo and behold it breaks. It's telekinesis at work for sure.

If the point you are so obtusely attmting to make is that Uri Geller has been known to be frauduloent, OK, I'm down with that.

If you think he is a complete, total fake now I have a dilemms.

Do I believe Steve001 and QuaLueder or Jacques Vallee?  Tough one, have to meditate on it.

Idiot Vallee a man with no Integrity known for lying his ass off

WRT Vallee, he needn't be lying.

If the point you are so obtusely attmting to make is that Uri Geller has been known to be frauduloent, OK, I'm down with that.

If you think he is a complete, total fake now I have a dilemms.

Do I believe Steve001 and QuaLueder or Jacques Vallee?  Tough one, have to meditate on it.

Idiot Vallee a man with no Integrity known for lying his ass off

I'm intrigued why people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? A long time ago when I and he were much younger I was impressed with his abilities, not now. While his supporters are busy doing that the one question they don't seem to ask is this: Why didn't he do something more important than bending spoons and making compass needles move... with a talent like that?

I'm intrigued why people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? A long time ago when I and he were much younger I was impressed with his abilities, not now. While his supporters are busy doing that the one question they don't seem to ask is this: Why didn't he do something more important than bending spoons and making compass needles move... with a talent like that?

Because he's a showman - he can't help it, his ego demands it. How many times does this need to be repeated in a single thread: Geller is known to fake and use stage magic - nobody is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether he mixes stage magic and genuine psi abilities. Can he pass off stage magic as psi under controlled conditions? Just repeatedly pointing out that Geller is known to cheat doesn't answer that question. The investigation by Marks and Kammann looks more promising but, again, you have to weigh that report against the fact that Marks is a well-known and aggressively biased debunker, being a member of various sceptical organisations including CSI(COP) and its New Zealand equivalent. He is on record for saying the same thing that all dogmatic sceptics say - there is no evidence for psi. Of course he's going to cherry-pick evidence to support that claim, or should we be one-sided in giving the benefit of the doubt?

In the end, it comes down to how much you trust that the SRI scientists were honest in their own reporting and whether they left gaping holes (literally and figuratively) for Geller to take advantage of. So far, I have yet to see anything conclusive either way (which is why I started the thread).

As to your point about why he didn't do something more substantial than spoon bending, what do you suggest? He would be criticised whatever he tried - as he was when he did that geological dowsing. What if he claimed he could use his talents for healing - would anyone believe him any more than other healers have been believed? He would be vilified for unscrupulous self-promotion and using trickery on unsuspecting patients. Some healers get on with what they do for no profit or fame and we hear very little about them. Geller is not like that - he feeds on the fame and controversy and enjoys the profits. But is it all fake? I still don't know.

Because he's a showman - he can't help it, his ego demands it. How many times does this need to be repeated in a single thread: Geller is known to fake and use stage magic - nobody is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether he mixes stage magic and genuine psi abilities. Can he pass off stage magic as psi under controlled conditions? Just repeatedly pointing out that Geller is known to cheat doesn't answer that question. The investigation by Marks and Kammann looks more promising but, again, you have to weigh that report against the fact that Marks is a well-known and aggressively biased debunker, being a member of various sceptical organisations including CSI(COP) and its New Zealand equivalent. He is on record for saying the same thing that all dogmatic sceptics say - there is no evidence for psi. Of course he's going to cherry-pick evidence to support that claim, or should we be one-sided in giving the benefit of the doubt?

In the end, it comes down to how much you trust that the SRI scientists were honest in their own reporting and whether they left gaping holes (literally and figuratively) for Geller to take advantage of. So far, I have yet to see anything conclusive either way (which is why I started the thread).

As to your point about why he didn't do something more substantial than spoon bending, what do you suggest? He would be criticised whatever he tried - as he was when he did that geological dowsing. What if he claimed he could use his talents for healing - would anyone believe him any more than other healers have been believed? He would be vilified for unscrupulous self-promotion and using trickery on unsuspecting patients. Some healers get on with what they do for no profit or fame and we hear very little about them. Geller is not like that - he feeds on the fame and controversy and enjoys the profits. But is it all fake? I still don't know.

Oh, something practical like this. See this thread. The U.S. Military Believes People Have a Sixth Sense" 
How about figuring out how it works? Perhaps, if it's real it would give us a deeper understanding of how this universe works. If it's real who can imagine what practical applications might arise?

[Laird]

I'm really tired of the claim - counter-claim in this thread. I think it comes down to this: Puthoff and Targ and their team were serious, qualified researchers - quite obviously they would have been very aware of the possibility of sensory leakage and taken every necessary step to prevent it.

Only "skeptics" would believe this team could have made fundamental errors like allowing Uri to peer through holes.

I'll quote from the Scott Rogo chapter excerpt that Chris shared earlier (emphasis mine):

Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations.

This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth, which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn’t three feet above the floor but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it – even under optimal conditions – is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole – therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller experiments.

I have no doubt that the claims which Linda references are at the same level of fantasy.

Unless something very compelling comes up, I'm probably done debating in this thread.