I see a fundamental differe3nce between John Edward and Uri Geller.
People go to a John Edward show because they have lost someone, and they are desperate to know that the person still lives on in some form, maybe even get a message from that person.
Nobody goes to a Uri Geller show because they are desperate to have their spoon bent.
Most people seeing a John Edward show, most of the audience believe or want to believe in his power. If you could convince the believers that he’s using trickery, they would stop watching.
A large percentage of people seeing a Uri Geller show are perfectly aware that he is using trickery, but they watch anyway, because it’s fun. If you could persuade the believers that he’s using trickery, they’d still want to watch.
He doesn’t. He has sued people for falsely calling him a convicted criminal, or faslsely claiming that he drove someone to suicide.
On one occasion he sued someone for claiming that his act includes tricks taken from the back of cereal packets. The issue there was his skill as a performer. It was not about whether his tricks are real or fake.
He has NEVER sued anyone just for saying he’s a magician.
Name a few of the popular professional magicians that do then. It’s one thing to be doing or promoting your show to make all kinds of claims, it’s another thing to never admit that it’s just a trick even in front of scientists that are testing you for your paranormal abilities in the hopes that a scientific paper might show something positive about such work. With just about every professional magician I’m familiar with, they have no problem letting others know that they truly don’t have any paranormal abilities, and that are not sitting down with scientists being tested for their paranormal abilities either. What I know of the most popular ones say everything they do is done by natural means. If they never come out of their act, they are promoting something more than magic, and seems fraudulent to me.
No, that won’t change my opinion of him, so I don’t need to watch it. It won’t erase everything I know and have read about him.
And, not so, look at Barbara Walters, and many others just like her before Randi came along, although many still have the will to believe no matter what. Look at some of the credulous nature of many who will eww and awe thinking it is more than just a magic act, and that it is not a trick. Many don’t get it.
If the wiki article is correct, it mentions in ’92 Geller was asked to investigate the kidnapping of a Hungarian model. Geller, being the psychic he says he is, predicted that she would be found alive and in good health. She was found, but murdered by her kidnappers. Think it is okay to give loved ones false hope like this?
That cite I gave you earlier with him dealing with mineral exploration by using his psychic powers came from his own cite. In his book, again coming from his cite, Uri reveals his own powers.
You are putting words into my mouth, so to speak. I have not made any such assertion in this thread. In fact, to the best of my knowledge I have never made any such assertion elsewhere either, although I’m open to correction on this or any other factual matter.
I have visited his website many times and I know many of the people who are mentioned or featured on it. When you refer to ‘numerous claims’, I don’t know if you are referring to claims made by Uri Geller, or claims made about him by other people. I have often found in the past, when discussing Uri Geller, that people attribute claims to him that were actually made by other people about him. I think it’s useful to respect this distinction. Lots of people maintain websites where they include nice or complimentary things that other people have said about them.
You’re mistaken. You did not answer my question. I asked for a list of the elements that define a psychic fraud and identification of the ones that don’t apply to Geller.
For example, I might offer the following definition –
A psychic fraud:
Makes a false
Claim of fact
That he has a paranormal power
Which people believe
And rely on
To their monetary detriment
From which the alleged psychic fraud profits
Through false demonstrations of such power.
Would you accept this definition? If so, which specific elements do not apply to Geller and why? If not, then set forth your own definition and apply it to Geller.
If he features on his own website uncontradicted endorsements by others that he has real paranormal powers then that is the same as making the claim himself.
I wonder if you have had time to study what the Targ and Puthoff’s paper in ‘Nature’ magazine actually says? If not, it is free to view online, or at least it was last time I checked.
You refer to ‘some of Geller’s magic tricks’. Targ & Puthoff, in their Nature paper, were only concerned with one single phenomenon, which was the ability to reproduce randomly selected drawings by apparently telepathic means. They did not report on metal-bending or anything else.
To say they concluded that Uri Geller has genuine psychic abilitie (your plural) is rather over-stating the case. The actual conclusion they came to, as stated in the paper submitted to Nature, was rather more cautious and guarded than that, as you will see if you look it up.
As to whether Targ & Puthoff were credulous, I suppose that comes down to what you mean by the word ‘credulous’ and one’s personal, subjective judgment. I’ve spoken with Randi and with Ray Hyman (who was briefly involved with T&P’s research), and I once had a little correspondence with Russell Targ himself. I respect T&P as highly intelligent and respectable scientists who were willing to investigate some new areas where they felt there were new discoveries to be made. I believe they were less stringent than they could have been when it came to devising the experimental protocols they used with Geller and with other people. But I wouldn’t refer to them as credulous, no.
Peter Morris, you said he doesn’t claim to assist the police in solving crimes and that people that do that are lowlifes. Razncain and I showed you that he does do that, and he also sells instructions on how to dowse and develop ESP and telekinesis. Do you now label him as a lowlife or will you make a special exemption for him?
Cite? And I’m specifically asking for a cite that the lawsuit was regarding his skill as a performer and not about it being claimed that his supposed powers were just tricks.
Obviously, to have this discussion we need to understand what we mean by the word ‘fraud’.
If you are using this word in the legal sense, then to allege that someone is a ‘fraud’ is to suggest they have contravened a particular law or statute. It makes sense to be cautious about accusing a named individual of having perpetrated ‘fraud’ in the legal sense, on a public message board such as this. The Mods would probably prefer it if we didn’t.
If you are using the word as a synonym for ‘magician’, then I’d have to argue that these are not synonynmous terms.
I would suggest that this is self-evidently not the case. To reproduce what someone else said is not the same as saying it yourself. I think it’s really helpful to preserve the distinction, particularly when people are discussing things they think Geller has said.
I and everyone else reading this thread knew what Acsenray meant when he said “fraud.” Hint: He was using legal terminology or using the word as a synonym for ‘magician’.
BTW, this is bullshit. You have been here long enough to know legal issues are discussed and the mods have never had a problem with posters expressing belief that someone has committed murder, fraud or anything else.
How 'bout the first thing that pops up on a google search which gives two meanings with one as: A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Nobody expects magicians to drop their act during their show. AFAIK, Uri never drops the act in any public setting that I’m aware of.
Even in a legal sense, if wiki is correct, it says The Jerusalem Post in the 1970’s reported a court ordered Geller to refund to a customers ticket price and also pay court costs after finding he had committed fraud by claiming his feats were telepathic.
ianzin, why would we believe that Geller is truthful if he is respected by and liked by professional magicians? Doesn’t that just demonstrate his success as an enertainer in a field that requires keeping the truth from the audience? Also, the fact that people like him can be evidence that he’s a successful fraud. Successful frauds need to be people persons.
Robb, I am not contending that anyone should. An earlier poster said he had never heard any professional magician refer to Geller as anything except a fraud. I was trying to provide a different and, I would suggest, more accurate picture. That’s all. I wasn’t making any comment on Uri Geller’s truthfulness.
Thanks for the cite. It seems to me that you would have to do a great deal of dancing and word parsing if you are to claim that Uri does not claim to be psychic. For example,
[QUOTE=Uri Geller]
But that was not all. I found I was beginning to say things seconds before she [Uri’s mother] came out with them. This used to exasperate her considerably but at the time she did not know I was psychic.
[/QUOTE]
and
I bolded the word “psychic”. I don’t see a lot of winking and nudging in his presentation.
Didn’t know that. Oddly, spoon bending is one of the few tricks that I’ve successfully performed in front of friends. Speaking as a non-magician… IIRC, I picked up the trick from Cecil’s column.
Yes: Barry Madoff was said to have specialized in affinity fraud.