If you’re correct, then I stand corrected. I had honestly misunderstood the position. I thought the Mods would prefer it if we didn’t publicly accuse a named individual of illegal fraudulent activity.
Who accused him of illegal fraudulent activity? BTW, can you show me where on his own website he claims to be a magician doing tricks, and not a psychic with paranormal abilities?
Acknowledge what exactly? Often, it has plenty to do with what Uri Geller and his ilk for what abilities they claim they genuinely have when not doing their show, and are stating they are not relying on trickery. In the Barbara Walters piece, it too, had plenty to do with Geller and what he was claiming and doing. Barbara couldn’t explain it, so she asked for Randi to duplicate something similar of which he did. Randi admitting to being a magician at least tried to show here a more plausible explanation that it is a magic trick, nothing more.
That seems a rather strange perception of events. Had Carson’s show got ahold of Geller beforehand and asked for advice, or something similar you might make a case for it. I doubt they did, other than to book him. Carson’s show did get ahold of Randi who wasn’t even going to be to on the show at that time. They asked for advice from Randi and what to look for and to make sure no trickery was going to occur, and were also advised by Randi to make sure not to let Geller use his own props among other things. This is because Geller had been making his rounds on lots of TV shows as a genuine psychic.
So true, Geller didn’t get debunked, but this is a far cry from saying Carson never wanted to see Geller debunked, or I would prefer to say, fail, and failed miserably he did. Had Carson wanted Geller to succeed here, he would have let him bring his own props, and do the same few tricks he was most known for. He didn’t. So it seems a reasonable assumption he had a similar distaste for him as Randi did in passing himself off as a genuine psychic who isn’t relying on trickery.
The fact you drop names and say Carson and you had corresponded with him personally before his passing, brings what to light, other than I suppose you want others to know you had a conversation with him? Carson had more than just an inkling that Geller was a fraud and charlatan. The fact that Carson invited Randi back to expose more charlatans like Popoff, weighs heavily that Carson did want Geller and the Popoff’s of the world shown to the world for the fraud that they were or at least help some see the light, anyway.
Does it make a hill of a beans difference if the invitations are to Uri and not from him? Uri’s own cite has him using psychic abilities to find minerals. He says if he makes a lot of money from it, he will donate a large part of it to charity.
They were not “well-qualified scientists” to be detecting fraud, however. Randi’s book Flim-Flam exposes a great deal of what was going on there in the chapter The Laurel and Hardy of Psi and devoted a great deal to it. Many found it surprising to find Nature running an article on parapsychology. Randi says the editorial called the article “weak,” “disconcertingly vague,” “limited,” “”flawed,” and “naïve.” He further notes even the New York Times fell into the trap, treating it as a respectable paper. Randi further elaborates, had the NYT known what is now known, they would have covered the Targ-Puthoff work in the entertainment pages.
Targ and Puthoff also have said repeatedly, that in their research, they do not retain successful tests and reject failures. Randi says this just isn’t true, and gives many examples of it in his book.
Being likable, doesn’t keep one from being a fraud. He is a fraud and charlatan (also Randi’s words) and Randi did everybody a great service for exposing him for the fraud and charlatan he is. If you say these magicians hardly can say a bad or unkind thing about Geller, and that the number is quite small, I say that doesn’t speak very well of magicians as a whole if that truly is the case, and if so, they are in need of some serious form of ethics reform. Here’s a great deal Geller’s fraudulent nature, from the wiki article.
In the same article, he is also flaky about this:
No, I cannot. I have never claimed that I could.
It’s rather interesting that you would take this position. It says something about your willingness to deal honestly here.
If I hand you a letter of recommendation that says that I was one of the most brilliant graduate students at Trinity College, Oxford, and I never tell you that I never attended Trinity College, Oxford, would you not take that as a claim on my part that I had in fact attended that college?
I’m glad we agree. Indeed, you might have noticed the posts in which I offered y’all the opportunity to define it. And then I went ahead and offered a definition.
Another interesting statement for you to make. The evidence is piling up that you are not participating in this conversation in good faith. Your credibility is on the line.
Has anyone suggested that all magicians are frauds?
Randi would not say that the method he used to achieve his drawing duplication effect has anything to do with any method that Uri Geller may or may not have used to achieve a similar effect. That’s the only point I’m making.
As I have already said and agreed, Randi’s point was to demonstrate that the psychic hypothesis is not necessary in order to account for a ‘drawing duplication’ effect. This is perfectly true and I completely agree. The only clarification I was trying to provide was that the method that Randi used on this occasion has no bearing on any method that Geller may or may not have used. That’s all.
An earlier posted said Carson debunked Geller. I was just trying to point out that I don’t think he did, or wanted to. Your interpretation may be different - that’s fine.
What Carson did was ask Randi’s advice and take steps to ensure that Geller wouldn’t be able to use any kind of trickery while on the show. Perhaps it’s just a matter of opinion, semantics or usage, but I don’t think this is ‘debunking’. I think ‘debunking’ usually means providing or demonstrating a more prosaic or factual explanation for something as an alternative to a more sensational or controversial explanation. Carson didn’t do this, or want to. It wasn’t his style.
Only if one is interested in facts. An earlier poster suggested Geller had made the invitation or invitations. I was just trying to point that to the best of my knowledge, this was not the case.
I agree with you. I never stated they were.
Yes he did, and he did an excellent job. I love that book and I have always praised in highly. However, he did get some simple factual matters wrong, which is why in the second edition he had to include quite a list of corrections and disputed points. This isn’t to detract from the brilliance and excellent of either that chapter specifically, or the book overall. In my opinion it’s Randi’s finest hour, and I’ve told him so.
You just KNOW that Uri Geller is bad, because other people have told you so, and you directly REFUSE to actually watch his act.
This tells me everything I need to know about you.
Burned any good books lately?
Given any cheap shots lately? What about those links you requested from razncain that he went through the trouble of providing for you?
And I answered the question in four paragraphs.
I gave you two examples of things that make John Edward a fraud, and for each of them I gave a reason why Geller is different.
Which is what you asked for.
Take a look at my post No. 68. Do you accept that definition of paranormal fraud? If so, which of those elements do you assert are missing with Geller?
Haven’t had time to study them closely yet. I’ll look at it tomorrow.
Peter Morris, I was specific in what I was asking a cite for. That link does not back up your claim that the lawsuit was regarding his skill as a performer and not about it being claimed that his supposed powers were just tricks.
I gave my own definition, and told you why Geller does not meet that definition.
BUt, okay let’s look at YOUR definition
*
- 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.
Uri Geller does not match items #4,5,6 of your list.
Firstly, many of the people that hire him are perfectly aware that he’s performing conjuring tricks. They don’t believe in him as having psychic powers in the first place.
Secondly, they are relying on his abilities to provide entertainment for the audience. And they get it. Money paid, job done.
Thirdly, It isn’t to their detriment. If the show is successful, then they profited by hiring him.
You could easily know more professional magicians than I do, but I wasn’t referring simply to the few I know personally, but also those that have written and spoken publicly on this subject. Geller may have many fans within the profession, and he may be a very nice person, but he still a fraud in my book.
So basically your position is akin to Larry Flynt and his Hustled cartoon of Jerry Falwell – yes, it falsely states that Falwell lost his virginity to his own mother, but the claim is so patently absurd that no one reading the cartoon would actually believe it to be true.
Yes it does.
*
"he attacks not only my abilities but also my originality. That is defamation aside from any paranormal issue. After all, spoon bending is my professional trademark. "*
No, it doesn’t. You said:
The quote you provided does not back up your claim that Randi was sued for claiming his tricks were taken from the back of a cereal packet. As a matter of fact, Randi never claimed that. He said his tricks “are the kind that used to be on the back of cereal boxes when I was a kid.” I doubt that statement could have a suit get as far as it did.
Anyway, these are statements that do not show what was alleged in the lawsuit. Got any real facts?
By the way, have we had the Master’s column listed about this yet?
#4/5/6 doesn’t match since Acsenray didn’t say “all people”, just people. So no, there are people that have hired him perfectly unaware that he’s “performing tricks”. Unless you think hiring someone who can divine gold underground is suddenly a trick and not a claimed psychic power. Which you’d probably be an outlier if you claimed that.
I’m sorry you can’t see this, but it does. The issue in the case was the originality of his act, not whether it was paranormal.