The I don't trust Geller thread

[Sandy B]

Secret CIA Psychic Lab Experiments - Watch Free Documentary Online - UFOTV

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Some of the tests with Geller at SRI had him try to affect a magnetometer and a scale used for making very typical types of measurements in scientific work.

Secret CIA Psychic Lab Experiments - Watch Free Documentary Online - UFOTV

Yeah, does not do anything for me. Hearsay, and clips from some data collections and other stuff. Of someone that has been caught using simple magic tricks - not worth anything in terms of evidence.

Sorry.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Work with Geller by Targ and Puthoff was published in the journal Nature. That's a respectable peer-reviewed journal.


What evidence do you have that the published work was the result of "magic tricks"? I'm not talking about hearsay, or whatever the skeptics dictionary may have published, or even what the supreme overlord of skeptics (James Randi) has to say on the matter. Where's your evidence?

I was not saying that what he did for them were simple magic tricks - though everything I have heard of Geller doing resembles fairly standard magic/mentalist stuff. I was referring to Geller in general being - shall we say questionable because of other instances.

I didn't see the articles - I was not referring to the articles. I was referring that that collection of clips didn't do anything to sway me any more than an episode of Ghost Hunters.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

An episode of GH is hardly the same thing as a film documenting the work of two scientists. The research presented in the film was conducted during a five-week period in late 1972 at SRI. Funding for the film was provided by the Mind Science Foundation, the Science Unlimited Research Foundation, and EDMA, all of San Antonio, Texas. It was originally shown at a physics colloquium at Columbia University on March 9, 1973.

Here is a link to the Nature article:
http://forum.mind-energy.net/local_l...&catid=8&id=75

So, he could predict what other drew - a few weeks ago a magician did this on America's Got Talent - I have seen many others do this kind of trick - it does not seem all that impressive.

Scientists can be fooled just as easy as the rest of the population, most are not trained to spot deception. Magicians master the art of misdirection to prevent detection. That is the one of the points Randi and JREF push - someone very familiar with this kind of work should be involved in the design and conduction of the testing.

Originally Posted by Sandy B

The Nature article only covers the remote viewing type of work that was done with Geller. That was the testing that Targ and Puthoff felt was the best controlled, and they also were able to find other subjects capable of the same effect (ie Pat Price).


This is what Targ and Puthoff had to say about the scale and magnetometer work done with Geller:
EXPERIMENTS WITH URI GELLER

I would hope they used a mass that was not magnetic and use one that was magnetic in the trials. I don't find it hard to imagine that a magician would have difficulty getting around a search, an electromagnet with the switch in the shoe might get past a magnetometer even.
I also would not be surprised that deflections did not match hand waving - that is where the eyes are drawn to, it is not where my 'trick' would be.

I am not sure why you think that the documentary is all that different than an episode of GH. I got the impression they knew what they wanted to find all along - hard to know, editing can change a lot. OK, I do give them more faith that they are at least not faking it for the show like GH. I just don't think it has any more strength in the way of evidence though, that was my point.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Was the magician doing it under controlled laboratory conditions? Somehow I doubt that.




Why are these magicians never able to do this stuff under controlled conditions?



Not long ago I attended a talk given by a Canadian Astronaut that included footage taken inside the Space Station. I suppose that it could have been faked given the quality of special effects possible in movies these days. There were no magicians on the station to make sure it was a real space mission. But in the context of footage shown at a University lecture by a distinguished scientist, I'm willing to take it on face value. I wouldn't give the same level of credibility to poorly scripted reality TV. Not even Survivor.

Somehow I would guess that you don't go to lectures or conferences and ask each speaker if he/she had a magician check to see if the test tubes were dirty or not before starting experiments. Do you compare videos shown at mainstream conferences with GH?

Well, a magician would not be who I would want checking the test tubes. If the same study was saying that after waving hands over test tubes of water it turned into wine - I would want someone testing the equipment and a magician being involved to detect deception would not be out of place.

As for the footage from the space station - Other than some 'way out' peoples I don't think there is any disagreement that we have a station up there and send people to and from. If the footage was showing something that does not fit with the 4 known forces - then yes, that data would, should be met with more skepticism. History has shown that the likely cause in those cases would be from error or fraud.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Why are these magicians never able to do this stuff under controlled conditions?

you say that as if geller himself is not a magician. or has no history of abject failure to produce under controlled conditions (what happened on the tonight show?). plus he has a history of cheating, some of it self confessed. well ok, we know he cheated here, and here, and here, but that's not proof that he always cheats. right here should go the overused roll-my-eyes smiley, but i don't use smileys. wouldn't it be nice if such a benefit of the doubt was available to everyone who lies and cheats.

so geller is, in fact, a magician, and a dishonest one bc he claims (or claimed) that he was doing all of it with special powers. but you are certain that he is more than that based on what, just the SRI stuff with puthoff and targ, or there is more?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

So you generally take at face value work that scientists brings in to show as guest lecturers then? Most people do, except a few "way out" sorts. The procedures and material shown in the Russel/Puthoff film were nothing "way out". If anything, it looked much more mundane that footage of the ISS. Your only real concern is that you don't trust Geller. But Geller isn't the researcher. It is their credentials that carry the weight of that paper in Nature, not Geller's.

Your objections are kind of like being opposed to all research done by scientists into schizophrenia based on the idea that you don't trust mentally ill people to be good scientists. Confusing the subject of research with the researchers themselves is just plain silly.

No, you get it wrong. I don't trust Geller, correct. I don't trust that Geller was not trying to pull one over on the scientists. It seemed like they let Geller impress them in informal tests much like what was done with the ALPHA project. It would be interesting to see what a documentary would look like from that project edited from the same perspective before the reveal was done. Thinking about that, how does the chronological timeline go with Geller's cheating and the editing/release of this documentary.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I would request that you provide evidence to back up your statements. Proper evidence, such as what one gets from controlled laboratory work,


Again, you need to provide evidence otherwise you are just slandering someone not here to defend themselves.

I agree with SandyB here, 4Vektor. The kind of statements you make may work elsewhere, but here, we like to see justification behind statements like yours. Keep in mind that if you believe Geller is a fraud based on, for instance, a youTube video, then you think he is a fraud based on a youTube video, that's all. In other words, unless the justification you provide actually constitutes conclusive proof, the statements you make about Geller will look less credible. This is why researchers, even skeptics who are annoying, like Richard Wiseman, are careful with what they write in their papers.


AP

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by paqart

I agree with SandyB here, 4Vektor. The kind of statements you make may work elsewhere, but here, we like to see justification behind statements like yours. Keep in mind that if you believe Geller is a fraud based on, for instance, a youTube video, then you think he is a fraud based on a youTube video, that's all.

sure, there are youtube videos. like this one: URI GELLER - Seeing is Believing - Documentary Reports - YouTube. but that's not all it's based on, so no, it is not only based on a youtube video...

In other words, unless the justification you provide actually constitutes conclusive proof, the statements you make about Geller will look less credible. This is why researchers, even skeptics who are annoying, like Richard Wiseman, are careful with what they write in their papers.

and this is not a paper. but i will back up my comments. which i think you should read carefully to see exactly what i said and didn't say.

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I would request that you provide evidence to back up your statements. Proper evidence, such as what one gets from controlled laboratory work, or how about through the court system. Has Geller ever been convicted of fraud?

ok. i said he cheated. geller confessed in his autobiography that he cheated by having his manager write down the customers license plates from parking lot. this was a magic act but geller presented himself as a psychic. so this confession of cheating does not count bc it is not accompanied by a court conviction?

but speaking of court, how about uri goldstein's breach of contract lawsuit filed against geller to recover the ticket cost on the basis that geller promised a psychic show and delivered cheap magic tricks, which geller had to pay.

i didn't mention a lab. i said abject failure under controlled conditions. that's what happened. you need to get the logic straight. the fact that geller failed under less tightly controlled conditions than (presumably, lol) SRI lab, but nevertheless controlled conditions on the tonight show, reflects worse for him. the control is to protect the integrity of positive results. looser control doesn't help the test subject as an excuse for negative result. geller acknowledges it as a failure, but his acknowledgment is unnecessary, bc there is a video, it is unambiguous.

that's enough for the statements that i made, prima fascie. but there is more if one wants to spend the time digging it all up and copy/pasting links, which is not what i do. i read that there was some study in israel which was never published bc he failed at everything so miserably, i don't have the proof, if i see again i will post but i am not going to dig deep for it. actually, i found out about uri geller 1st reading this forum. i didn't have an axe to grind. i never heard of him before. i don't have accounts or post on "pseudo-skeptic" forums. just the more i read about geller, the more i became convinced that he is a complete fake.

You mean like Randi? And before you ask for evidence...

i don't mean like randi. and i wasn't going to ask for evidence. i don't share the preoccupation with randi that some people here have. i was talking about geller.

Again, you need to provide evidence otherwise you are just slandering someone not here to defend themselves.

himself.

The SRI work was done under controlled settings. It was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

1. you have repeated this many times. i am aware of that. that those setting were sufficiently controlled to make cheating impossible, based on the critiques i have read (and among those randi's, what can i say, i don't like him but he made some good points), is not the case. that is not proof that cheating occured at SRI. which i didn't claim i had. this doesn't automatically reflect on puthoff's other subjects like swann, who i have my doubts about as well, but they deserve an objective analysis divorced from geller.

2. you have not answered the question. i will repeat: but you are certain that he is more than [a magician] based on what, just the SRI stuff with puthoff and targ, or there is more?

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

No peer-reviewed articles were written mistaking the frauds for anything worthy of study.

doesn't that spoil the significance of the meta-analysis? i mean suppose geller was tested 3 times, 2 studies were a failure and we never heard of them, and 1 was (presumably) positive. notice i said suppose. but, would that have any significance for you?

why do you hold a "peer-reviewed article", a term i can't help but notice you keep repeating a lot, in such high regard? peer-reviewed articles can produce false or contradictory results. or they do a study, get negative results and publish nothing...