That's alright we like conjecture here. Anyway you've said a lot except how you would feel to hear Uri state he never had paranormal abilities.
SRI Experiments with Uri Geller as video evidence
- Thread starter bishop
- Start date
bishop
Member
I would feel confused I guess. How would you feel? Like "I told you so?"
Let's flip the situation for a minute. What would it take for Uri Geller to convince you he had these abilities, and how would you feel if he demonstrated his abilities to your own standard?
Retesting. And I'd be tickled pink. You see I have nothing to lose.
Funny thing happened yesterday. I watched this movie called Red Lights on Netflix. I was amazed at the fact they recreated to almost perfection a smaller version of the original experiment shown here.
By all means a subpar movie, but I recommend checking it out if you have Netflix.
By all means a subpar movie, but I recommend checking it out if you have Netflix.
Pollux
New
I thought it was pretty good. I recommended it a bit over a year ago on the other forum > http://forum.mind-energy.net/skepti...ie-tv-recommendation-thread-5.html#post122218
But I can paste the post here as well. Its a bit of a synopsis and plot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Lights
It follows Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) who is a relentless debunker psychologist, and with her assistant, that eagerly follows her around, she debunks mediums, poltergeists, hauntings and psychic healers etc.
Without saying to much, but those who are well-read on the history of PSI and paranormal phenomenon and skeptical debunking will recognize most of the cases they weave in to the story.
Anyway, as the story goes on Margaret Matheson hears that one of her nemesis psychic that she never got to debunk is doing a comeback on the stage the coming weeks, but Matheson begins to doubt her ability to debunk this man.
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by this movie as I didn't expect anything of it. It has good actors in it so I thought they would carry the movie only, but I liked the story also. I hope you do as well. As I said, you will recognize lots of small incidents from the real world of PSI research and also debunking. One case they portrayed the outcome wrong though, but that was for the sake of the story.
Cast: Robert De Niro, Sigourney Weaver and Cillian Murphy.
bishop
Member
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. I wonder if they used the SRI research as a basis for the tests in the film?
I saw that film. It's okay, although you'll probably have more fun playing "spot the reference" than following the storyline. One line in the film is almost a direct quote from the (unpublished) Geller SRI report. (The line was something like "it was not clear whether such bending took place because Mr Silver has extraordinarily strong fingers and good control of micro-manipulatory movements")
bishop
Member
Aside from a couple questionable antics he's shown, for example on his TV show or some youtube videos, you would have to prove an entire lifetime of fakery. Given that he demonstrated his abilities in the SRI video as he did, I'd say it's a longshot.
The only clip I know of Sylvia Brown is that one clip that has been cycled over and over and over and over again of her making a wrong prediction on some daytime talk show. So I have one example of her being wrong. I don't think she's been tested by reputable scientists like Targ and Puthoff, so I can't say anything about the strength of her abilities.
Yes, I got testy. Why? Simply because over the years I have become sick and tired of the perpetual condescending way of questioning by skeptics. If Paul would have asked:
"can you please tell me more?" I would have been happy to respond in a nice way.
In any case, I know what took place inbetween each photo, when I go by the written report at the time - I don't known any more when precisely that happened - it must have been some twenty years ago or there abouts. Geller was much younger than now, his hair was long and dark.
Geller came to Amsterdam and while staying in a hotel he was approached by a reporter from a well-known (and non-sensationalist) weekly. Geller received him and a photographer in the hotel lobby. Except for Geller, the reporter and the photographer, there were more people in that lobby, who were all witness to what happened there.
The reporter asked Geller if he could give a demonstration of spoon bending.
No problem. A big spoon was brought to him by a hotel employee. So witnessed by several people Geller held the spoon at the tip in his hand, he did NOT rub it, but simply began staring at it. At intervals the photographer took shots.
And yes, the spoon began to bend. This is in line with the experiments at the Stanford lab, of which there also photo sequences known wherein one sees a spoon bending while Geller is staring at it.
As for the photos in this case, they showed Geller in high concentration before an unchanging background, so he did not move. Neither did the photographer.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt this event in the Amsterdam hotel lobby. It happened spontaneously, and was seen by several witnessess. And one of them had the unpleasant experience that his carkey in his pocket got bent as well, thus making it impossble for him to drive home.
Of course, it was not a scientific experiment, but a spontaneous one. It seems that under such spontaneous circumstances Geller performed best. One case in point. I remember a passage from a book (or article) wherein Targ and Puthoff describe their experiments with Geller, wherein they relate how Geller upset some workers in the lab as follows. He just opened a door of a room wherein some people were working in front of their computer screens. He then stretched his arm towards those screens and shouted UP. The image on the screen moved upwards. Next he shouted DOWN and the image on the screen moved downwards. Needless to say that this "trick" caused some consternation.
Oh - I just like to mention the book "Superminds - An Enquiry into the Paranormal" by Professor John Taylor, London, 1975, of which I have a copy. It describes many experiments with Geller and other spoonbenders (among quite a few children!). What some of those kids did was truly dazzling. The very many pictures in the book are telling.
It must be said that a year or so later Taylor wrote another book wherein he distanced himself from these experiments. It was rumoured, with some basis in fact, that Taylor had been forced to do this, as the university had threatened to end his tenure if he would not refute his own investigations into the paranormal.
Last edited:
How can you be sure of this? Street magicians perform supposedly spontaneous yet rigged tricks all the time. Blaine and Angel come to mind.
~~ Paul
Of course, Paul, of course, you are right.....
No.
But there are perhaps other & similar sequences available on line (i.e. those where Geller does not rub the stem of the spoon. I remember seeing them.)
If I can find the time I may reproduce some telling photo's from Prof John Taylor's book "Superminds".
Kamarling
Member
Has anyone ever tested one of the conjurors who claim to be able to do what Geller does, under the same conditions as those imposed during Geller's testing? If so, what results?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that no stage magician has ever been able to replicate the feats of DD Home under the same conditions described by witnesses at the time.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that no stage magician has ever been able to replicate the feats of DD Home under the same conditions described by witnesses at the time.
The same conditions would include the experimenters believing in the conjuror's powers. Such was the case, for awhile at least, with Project Alpha. It would also require that we know the exact conditions, but I don't think we do.
You've also read that no one ever discovered Home cheating. But you may be right about the replication.
~~ Paul
Kamarling
Member
So the experimenters with Geller went in already convinced he was for real? And, if so, are you saying that they somehow made it easy for him?
I'm not sure what your are saying here either but it seems to be: he must have been cheating but was never caught.
I believe they were already quite open to the idea that he was for real. I also believe this leads to biases that can result in poor controls, even without the experimenters realizing it.
But I believe he was caught. The folklore is that he was never caught.
~~ Paul
Kamarling
Member
You use the words "I believe" a few times there. Is it Randi who you believe about the D D Home cheating claims? The same Randi who has, himself, been caught cheating and lying?
This is from the Skeptiko interview with Stephen Braude:
Michael Prescott has a page on his blog about Home and Randi's claims too. Bear in mind, however, that it was you who brought up the cheating issue. I note, too, the use of the pejorative, "folklore".
Last edited:
Well, for example, the Wiki page talks about cheating, with various references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home#Critical_reception
I agree that many blurbs about DD Home claim that he was never caught cheating.
~~ Paul