I’ve watched many videos of him lying about being psychic-how does a video of him performing substandard magic tricks negate all the times when he has lied to people?
Another one who attacks that which he has not seen.
When you assume, you make a…well, you know how it goes, don’t you? I saw the video, and I remember the very first words out of his mouth-
Now tell me how the cheap tricks he performed on this show negate all the times he has lied about his supposed abilities?
All quotes from the bio page on uri-geller.com, linked here.
[QUOTE=Uri Geller]
Your Pass notes (November 6) imply I am a magician and conjuror - but that this cannot be stated outright because I am such a litigious fellow. I can say with absolute certainty I do not cheat. I am not a magician.
[/QUOTE]
A couple years later, 2007, he repeats that he’s not a magician (in German)
[QUOTE=URI GELLER]
Noch mal, ich bin kein Zauberer.
[/QUOTE]
My translation “Again, I am not a magician”.
What bothers me, a lot, is Geller trolling in the article:
My translation: The skeptics have made me the Uri Geller. You can’t buy “controversy”. James Randi has not only made me famous, but also a millionaire. That’s the stupidity of skeptics; rather than forgetting me, ignoring me, they deal with me and make me even bigger.
Yeah, I don’t see him claiming it’s magic.
Geller: No, what I do is real. It’s not magic and it’s not trick.
Okay, so what is it that is in actual dispute here?
Geller: No, I am not a magician, and I never have been.
At this rate, Peter, I have to ask: Have you seen the video you linked to?
Well, lots of magicians claim to have real “powers” in the context of their act. So I’m not sure what he says while performing really shows anything.
But Geller pretty clearly went way beyond that in the 70’s, allowing magazine articles, scientific studies, books, etc. to be written claiming his powers were real. And he appears to have continued in that vain since, selling his “powers” to people searching for minerals, “solving” crimes, selling goofy dowsing kits to the gullible, sensing ley-lines, etc.
In the first clip, the one introduced by James Randi, he’s in a private conversation with someone. He’s not on stage. He doesn’t even know he’s being recorded.
In the second clip, it’s on a TV show, so, yes, that might be considered a performance. But I disagree that his claim of magic powers is similar to the act that magicians might put on – which is in a dramatic presentation. In both cases, Geller is saying in a flat, matter-of-fact voice “I am not a magician.” It isn’t in a performance-like dramatic mode.
At one point, Geller did declare he no longer like to be billed as a ‘psychic’ but rather an ‘entertainer’. Splitting hairs, at best, at this point in his history.
What did he sue Gerard Majax for?
How about Victor Stenger?
Eh, probably not really worth arguing about, since we agree on the wider issue. But a “performance” can be for a single person, it doesn’t need to be on stage. And I don’t think the “dramatic mode” distinction is meaningful. If that was all there was to it, I wouldn’t think it was immoral. But its not, so I do.
It seems what the argument really needs at this stage is some evidence that Geller has ever denied having psychic powers. Seeing as there seems to be no shortage of evidence to say they do claim such powers I don’t see how it can be in any doubt that Geller makes these claims at this stage.
This is certainly a very odd read as a thread. I certainly don’t remember seeing someone provide cites before that directly disprove their own argument but this being continually ignored. Very odd. It’s like it’s all a presentation to an audience that won’t follow any of the cites and will just take a forceful argumentative style as evidence in and of itself.
You didn’t ruffle any of my feathers, but your replies to my direct queries are, to put it gently, odd.
It’s odd that you would take the position that Geller’s posting on his own website uncontradicted endorsements of his paranormal ability does not constitute a claim of paranormal ability on his part. This position of yours makes me believe you are not dealing with this board in good faith.
It’s odd that you would bring up your personal relationships with James Randi or with Uri Geller, and interactions with them or having told any one of them that X was his finest moment. This thread isn’t about any of those things.
Earlier I asked you whether you believed that Geller was a fraud, and I invited you to define fraud. You didn’t, and so I supplied a definition myself. Peter Morris responded to my definition, and I would ask you to respond as well, given 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.
Do you consider Uri Geller to be a paranormal fraud, and, if not, which of these elements are not true with respect to Geller and why?
Much like Pro Wrestling.
Until James Randi debunks Pro Westling I am choosing to believe it is real.
Further clarification of moderator instructions
After discussion among the staff, I am reversing my instruction that Randi may not be brought up in posts directed at Peter Morris
[QUOTE=Colibri]
After discussion among the staff, it’s been decided that bringing up Randi in a pertinent thread, even in direct response to Peter Morris, does not run afoul of the “no goading” corollary to the rule. You may quote Peter’s posts and refer to Randi in your discussion of them. Peter however may not in response discuss Randi, because the onus is on him to abide by the rule.
However, this should not be abused. Don’t taunt Peter by saying something like “neener neener, I brought up Randi and now you can’t reply.” If Peter says he can’t respond to a point because of the restriction on him, don’t badger him about it.
We recognize that this rule puts Peter at a disadvantage in threads in which Randi may come up, but them’s the breaks. We considered extending to the rule to exclude him posting in threads on the paranormal in general, but decided not to do so. It would be preferable if Peter avoided such threads, but he’s free to do so as long as he abides by the restrictions.
[/QUOTE]
In that case I find it worth noting (I actually thought it worth noting earlier, but the ruling was in a grey area) that even Randi didn’t think his efforts to debunk Geller were having any effect at the time. If Geller’s largely faded from view in recent decades, well… that’s what happens to most celebrities sooner or later.
Professional wrestling now openly admits that it is entertainment, and not a competitive sport in the traditional sense. And Geller may do the same now, but in the past he has asserted that he performed his act using psychic ability, in a manner akin to a wrestling promotor accepting bets on the outcome of the matches.
Now as far as I know Geller may be a nice guy and good friend to some, but it’s pretty obvious that pitching woo on this board is not well accepted, and that’s what Geller does. He has catered to and profitted from those who believe in supernatural powers, and it is considered a distasteful practice by many.