News1 min ago
Uri Geller
87 Answers
I’m currently reading ‘The Ghost of Flight 401’, recommended by a fellow ABer. Early on the author speaks about Uri Geller and names scientists who support his incredible claims of spoon-bending, watch-mending, etc, etc., which surprises me. I know James Randi has explained how these 'tricks' can be achieved, but I was under the impression that Uri Geller had also been ‘outed’ by science as a fraud. Has he – or is that just hearsay? I’d be interested in links to any formal papers on the subject.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Wow Naomi, I never thought you were so niaive (can never spell that word! It never looks right).
As from others above, Geller was a convicted fraud and the "Great Randi", (whose aim and organisation are determined to expose so-called miracle workers as fraudsters) demonstrated this and he showed how on TV.
Re the King's Physics Prof, he was just fooled and had to retract his support for Geller in scientific humiliation. I think, no connection of course, he resigned soon after.
Dunno about "The Ghost of Flight 401" - sounds like more Bermuda Triangle type nonsense.
Save the planet:) re-cycle or give the book to charity and concentrate on your real AB strengths (organised religion).
How can I say that without reading the book?. Easy, you've revealed enough of the book's unreliability as Erik von Daniken has proven to be in the past.
I dare to suggest your preferred reading in scientific out-of-the-box thinking that you read Velikovsky. I think it was called "Worlds in Collision". Very good fun and much more credible.
Oh, old clockwork watches used to be oiled and the oil would progressively thicken and they'd stop. But a sharp bang could re-start the movement for a short time. I've done that with my late-father's watch.
SIQ.
As from others above, Geller was a convicted fraud and the "Great Randi", (whose aim and organisation are determined to expose so-called miracle workers as fraudsters) demonstrated this and he showed how on TV.
Re the King's Physics Prof, he was just fooled and had to retract his support for Geller in scientific humiliation. I think, no connection of course, he resigned soon after.
Dunno about "The Ghost of Flight 401" - sounds like more Bermuda Triangle type nonsense.
Save the planet:) re-cycle or give the book to charity and concentrate on your real AB strengths (organised religion).
How can I say that without reading the book?. Easy, you've revealed enough of the book's unreliability as Erik von Daniken has proven to be in the past.
I dare to suggest your preferred reading in scientific out-of-the-box thinking that you read Velikovsky. I think it was called "Worlds in Collision". Very good fun and much more credible.
Oh, old clockwork watches used to be oiled and the oil would progressively thicken and they'd stop. But a sharp bang could re-start the movement for a short time. I've done that with my late-father's watch.
SIQ.
"Have you ever come across a magician who said, "I'm now going to perform a cheap magic trick"?"
Yep. Watch Penn & Teller do the woman sawn in half, or their cups and balls routine, or Penn's nail-gun mentalism trick, where the fact that the trick is a "lie" is repeated over and over again. In the first two, the duo deliberately play on the cheapness and tackiness of the trick for laughs, and make it more entertaining.
John van der Put (who performs as Piff the Magic Dragon) is similarly self-deprecating about his tricks.
Oh, and also see Slydini's old "paper balls over the head" routine, which is predicated entirely on the audience knowing exactly what the trick is, but being entertained anyway.
These are all people who are/were far more talented entertainers than Uri Geller.
Yep. Watch Penn & Teller do the woman sawn in half, or their cups and balls routine, or Penn's nail-gun mentalism trick, where the fact that the trick is a "lie" is repeated over and over again. In the first two, the duo deliberately play on the cheapness and tackiness of the trick for laughs, and make it more entertaining.
John van der Put (who performs as Piff the Magic Dragon) is similarly self-deprecating about his tricks.
Oh, and also see Slydini's old "paper balls over the head" routine, which is predicated entirely on the audience knowing exactly what the trick is, but being entertained anyway.
These are all people who are/were far more talented entertainers than Uri Geller.
jom, oh, I see. Right. Well, I read all sorts of things that people recommend to me. Can't really claim to have an informed opinion unless I've read them, can I?
Krom, I was sitting at a front table in a nightclub once where a magician 'levitated' his glamorous, sparkly-clad assistant. They were only about 10ft from where I sat – and I have no idea how he did it. It was magic, but it wasn't 'magic'. Clever!!
Krom, I was sitting at a front table in a nightclub once where a magician 'levitated' his glamorous, sparkly-clad assistant. They were only about 10ft from where I sat – and I have no idea how he did it. It was magic, but it wasn't 'magic'. Clever!!
Ty Naomi for finally settling my spelling of "naive" (my dictionaries & encyclopoedias are just too heavy at my age to make AB fun).
I think jomifl has made my point but it was not meant in any way insulting to you, just a real surprise that you read this sort of book. I really was shocked that you of all ABers read that sort of book that's all.
Erich van Daniken is another factor. In my genuinely humble opinion, scientifically he wrote a load of rubbish (AB seem to have tightened up on "swearing" so I'll stick to "rubbish"). At the same time, I admit to reading his stories and half-believing his bits like the South American "spaceship landing sites" but so much rubbish has really been explained by QI.
Luv,
SIQ.
I think jomifl has made my point but it was not meant in any way insulting to you, just a real surprise that you read this sort of book. I really was shocked that you of all ABers read that sort of book that's all.
Erich van Daniken is another factor. In my genuinely humble opinion, scientifically he wrote a load of rubbish (AB seem to have tightened up on "swearing" so I'll stick to "rubbish"). At the same time, I admit to reading his stories and half-believing his bits like the South American "spaceship landing sites" but so much rubbish has really been explained by QI.
Luv,
SIQ.
Apparently Carl Sagan didn't think so...
"That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken."
But apart from that...?
I've never read any of his works myself, but as put-downs go that one is rather special...
"That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken."
But apart from that...?
I've never read any of his works myself, but as put-downs go that one is rather special...
//Can't really claim to have an informed opinion unless I've read them, can I? //
This is true. But the charlatan who wrote it still has your money, regardless. :-)
Geller? He seems so plausible, so convincing. But people who use that whole "you believe me, don't you" tone of voice, too often, just give me the creeps.
This is true. But the charlatan who wrote it still has your money, regardless. :-)
Geller? He seems so plausible, so convincing. But people who use that whole "you believe me, don't you" tone of voice, too often, just give me the creeps.
I don't think I'm happy to be guided by other people's opinions, exactly. As I was reading a summary view of Daniken's views, on one or two of them I could have provided the refutation myself. For the majority of his arguments I certainly can't do that -- I'm not an expert in Peruvian/ Egyptian archaeology -- but it's an inauspicious start if I've barely got to the end of the first sentence and spotted something I know to be a mistake (various claims about the construction of the pyramids, if you're interested.)
And then, well, I suppose a number of factors combine to convince me that it's not worth reading his book at the moment. How much time can I afford to devote to continuing a refutation that appears to have already been done -- or to discovering the flaws in such a refutation? Can I add anything myself? Is it that important to me at the moment? For this topic, the answers are "not much", "no", and "not really".
In the long run, I hope to have the time to devote to studying this and other things in rather greater detail. For now, I don't really have the time, nor the motivation to make any, and so I suppose for the time being I'm satisfied that other people's opinions on the refutation are correct. It's not an ideal situation, so I'm not happy with it, but at the moment it seems realistic.
Does that make sense? I hope it does.
And then, well, I suppose a number of factors combine to convince me that it's not worth reading his book at the moment. How much time can I afford to devote to continuing a refutation that appears to have already been done -- or to discovering the flaws in such a refutation? Can I add anything myself? Is it that important to me at the moment? For this topic, the answers are "not much", "no", and "not really".
In the long run, I hope to have the time to devote to studying this and other things in rather greater detail. For now, I don't really have the time, nor the motivation to make any, and so I suppose for the time being I'm satisfied that other people's opinions on the refutation are correct. It's not an ideal situation, so I'm not happy with it, but at the moment it seems realistic.
Does that make sense? I hope it does.
Jim, if it is any help I read 'chariot of the gods, several decades ago. It was complete tosh then and I expect it still is. It is all very well to read books recommended by others, but it is also worth not reading complete rubbish identified as such by others. Books like CotG are the antithesis of scientific thinking, they cobble together a lot of unrelated facts and assemble them to create a story that is the authors fantasy. It is the facts that are conveniently left out that are really important.
What we read and why we read it is an interesting spin-off from Naomi's starter.
I question whether we need to read a book to form an opinion about it. Surely we have to be guided by friends, tutors and critics as Naomi is now doing with her ghost story.
For example, I have never read a Barbara Cartland book but I know I personally would find any of them rubbish as judged by others' summaries. But that's just me, many millions of her fans would scorn me for saying that - fair enough.
At the same time, I could not write an INFORMED critique of the late lady's work without wading through the everglades of her 100's of publications.
No big deal, just a thought prompted by Naomi catalysing an interesting discussion.
SIQ.
I question whether we need to read a book to form an opinion about it. Surely we have to be guided by friends, tutors and critics as Naomi is now doing with her ghost story.
For example, I have never read a Barbara Cartland book but I know I personally would find any of them rubbish as judged by others' summaries. But that's just me, many millions of her fans would scorn me for saying that - fair enough.
At the same time, I could not write an INFORMED critique of the late lady's work without wading through the everglades of her 100's of publications.
No big deal, just a thought prompted by Naomi catalysing an interesting discussion.
SIQ.
// Derren Brown is another example. He claims his tricks to be nothing supernatural and says he is "honest about his dishonesty". //
He might be nowadays, but he used to sell it as genuine 'mind control'.
I don't understand people's problem with Geller. Ok so he's an illusionist that doesn't admit to it - big deal. That's just part of his act.
He's not saying anyone who doesn't believe in his magic should die, and he's not taking money off people to 'cure' them of anything.
He might be nowadays, but he used to sell it as genuine 'mind control'.
I don't understand people's problem with Geller. Ok so he's an illusionist that doesn't admit to it - big deal. That's just part of his act.
He's not saying anyone who doesn't believe in his magic should die, and he's not taking money off people to 'cure' them of anything.
There was a documentary about Geller not long ago. It seems that he had persuaded some agency that he could tell whether planes had bombs on them. Of course so few planes do get blown up that he wasn't taking much of a chance, he did take the money though. If this con trick diverted effort from other (real) ways of detecting bombs then his actions were criminal.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Hezbollah Vows To Continue Resistance...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
