Uri Geller

#1
I started this thread because of the following post, found elsewhere here:

The problem is, whenever they show programmes involving "past lives" and "psychics" they're all immensely sensationalised. If they actually showed them like the lectures Dean et al do. It would be a lot better, and balanced. No Uri Geller nonsense, no stupid music, no crystal ball reading, no bigfoot, etc. Just a televised lecture of parapsychologists presenting their data. The exaggerated claims from delusional idiots is the kind of shit that allows entertainers like Derren Brown, Randi et al to flourish and further poisons the well of actual scientific research.
Well, well – the skeptics will always win. "Uri Geller nonsense" is what all people are saying, without having studied paranormal metal-bending and only believing all that skeptics say about it. Even proponents here believe that Geller is a total fraud and magicians have been able to do all his tricks, and even better than he has done.

Geller-bending is a serious business. He has often cheated in his shows but there have also been many cases with "impossible" effects in more stringent experiments. Unfortunately loud skeptics have succeeded in making scientists and even parapsychologists to believe in their skeptical message, without studying the big picture of the phenomenon.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
I
Geller-bending is a serious business. He has often cheated in his shows but there have also been many cases with "impossible" effects in more stringent experiments. Unfortunately loud skeptics have succeeded in making scientists and even parapsychologists to believe in their skeptical message, without studying the big picture of the phenomenon.
I've looked at the big picture and what I got was cheating and fooling people. However, I'm certainly happy to look at a specific example again. Do you have one that was carefully videotaped?

~~ Paul
 
#3
I started this thread because of the following post, found elsewhere here:



Well, well – the skeptics will always win. "Uri Geller nonsense" is what all people are saying, without having studied paranormal metal-bending and only believing all that skeptics say about it. Even proponents here believe that Geller is a total fraud and magicians have been able to do all his tricks, and even better than he has done.

Geller-bending is a serious business. He has often cheated in his shows but there have also been many cases with "impossible" effects in more stringent experiments. Unfortunately loud skeptics have succeeded in making scientists and even parapsychologists to believe in their skeptical message, without studying the big picture of the phenomenon.
No, I'm sorry, Geller is con artist, no question, he is exactly what parapsychologists do not need.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#5
I think Geller is like Eben Alexander.

A person so tinged with controversy we can't suss out fact from fiction. Though if Geller has performed in a lab under controlled conditions...
 
#7
I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying Geller is a fraud. Dean Radin has experimental evidence for psi, not the showmanship from Geller.
Sure, but is it just a coincidence that something Geller popularised as a(n apparently) fraudulent trick has (apparently) been independently shown to be an actual phenomenon. Or did Geller also perform the actual feat?
 
#8
I've looked at the big picture and what I got was cheating and fooling people. However, I'm certainly happy to look at a specific example again. Do you have one that was carefully videotaped?
Thank you for your answer. Would you please tell where you have looked? Any sources? I don't know any videos from well controlled experiments. Perhaps there are no good video recordings with Geller. But we still have the big picture, after all.
 
C

chuck.drake

#10
I don't know anything about Geller or those photographs, but that is a flat thin blade. To hide the bend he would have had to have been holding it with the wide part of the blade to the camera in the first frame. That doesn't appear to be the case.

We all went through a lot of stuff here...

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/sri-experiments-with-uri-geller-as-video-evidence.135/

Including the hilarious photos of Geller twisting an already bent rod to create the illusion of metal bending:

 
#11
I don't know anything about Geller or those photographs, but that is a flat thin blade. To hide the bend he would have had to have been holding it with the wide part of the blade to the camera in the first frame. That doesn't appear to be the case.
I think that is part of the illusion. Check out how the handle has revolved, and how the rod/blade grows in length.
 
C

chuck.drake

#12
I think that is part of the illusion. Check out how the handle has revolved, and how the rod/blade grows in length.
That is quite an illusion then. Maybe someone on the forum can recreate it with a flat bent blade.
 
C

chuck.drake

#17
You know some magic, Paul. Explain what is happening in the series of four images of Geller. I'm curious how that illusion worked.
 
#19
How does he keep the part that is shaped like an apple slice in his hand from appearing to turn?
It looks like he is holding a miniature sword with a knuckle guard.

The part that is "shaped like an apple slice" is the knuckle guard on the handle and clearly changes position (from behind to the front) by slightly more than 90 degrees from picture one to picture two. In the first picture, the (pre-existing) curve of the blade is concave towards the camera. As the handle is rotated between picture one and two (shown by the dramatic change in position of the knuckle guard), the curve is now concave upwards. There isn't much change in the rotation or the appearance of the curve between pictures two, three and four.

Is a failure to detect trickery what was meant by the OP?

Linda
 
C

chuck.drake

#20
It looks like he is holding a miniature sword with a knuckle guard.

The part that is "shaped like an apple slice" is the knuckle guard on the handle and clearly changes position (from behind to the front) by slightly more than 90 degrees from picture one to picture two. In the first picture, the (pre-existing) curve of the blade is concave towards the camera. As the handle is rotated between picture one and two (shown by the dramatic change in position of the knuckle guard), the curve is now concave upwards. There isn't much change in the rotation or the appearance of the curve between pictures two, three and four.

Is a failure to detect trickery what was meant by the OP?

Linda
Thank you. That makes sense as you can see he has rotated the object toward him. The images in no way show how the blade was bent, but the explanation that the blade was already bent, as suggested by Malf, and that the illusion was created by turning the blade makes no sense, as the blade is turned toward Gellar. I fail to see anything hilarious about this series of images. I also don't see that they indicate how the blade was bent. They could have been taken moments apart and he bent the object with his hand for all we know.
 
Top