Uri Geller seems to have been debunked pretty thoroughly by Randi and others. But it’s interesting to me that he seems to be the only well-known modern illusionist who tried to pass off his illusions as real “magic” or telepathy or whatever.
Does anybody know if Geller ever admitted, publicly or privately, that it was all tricks?
But he has come up before. Maybe there’s some info in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=10472
Thanks for the link to the interesting Geller thread. Looks like none of the folks here has heard that he admitted it’s all tricks. Seems like a heck of a weighty secret to be carrying around all your life. 
Many posters to this forum have stated Geller is a fake, not really psychic, and passing off magic tricks as ‘genuine’ psychic phenomena. Unfortunately people do have to be careful about the risk of Geller opting to sue those who make such claims. The problem is that, the way the law works, it would be up to the sued to prove Geller NEVER demonstrates ‘genuine’ psychic powers, and ALWAYS uses trickery. This is next to impossible for anyone to PROVE in a court of law. Secondly, Geller is an expert litigant and is good at making life uncomfortable and expensive for those he sues, even if he makes sure that he is never required in a court of law to demonstrate his alleged psychic tendencies. He always has several escape clauses, such as ‘I can’t demonstrate my gifts to order under pressure, they don’t work like that’.
If anonymity is secure via this forum, or if such anonymity can be arranged and guaranteed, then I might be in a position to say more about his methods.
What about a hypothetical person who hypothetically used “tricks”? If you were going to exose this hypothetical person’s methods, what would they be? (Not talking about Uri Geller.)
maralinn, can you provide any links to someplace where Geller has admitted that what he does is trickery? Because the sources I am aware of, including his own website (www.urigeller.com) indicate that Geller still claims he has genuine paranormal powers (the mind reels at that one).
Chalice:
That isn’t the way the law works at all. If Geller were to bring a defamation suit against someone who claimed he was a fake, it would be his burden to demonstrate that he was not. Furthermore, civil lawsuits are always based on “a preponderance of the evidence,” a much lower standard of proof than criminal lawsuits.
pldennison, I’m not exactly sure if the defamation suit was set up exactly like that. I’m a Randi fan, and I remember it was more like a slander suit. I could be wrong, but it almost seemed like Geller was saying that Randi was hurting his buisness. Though I don’t think the suit ever really took off. Randi never said that Geller was a fake, he just implied it. Whenever he’s talked about Geller (and I have several shows with him on tape) he has said, “I don’t know if he’s genuine, but I can reproduce everything he does using trickery.” Randi has reproduced many of Geller’s and other “psychic’s” affects on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (Carson is an amatuer magician). The other thread covered all of the rest about what happened with Carson and Leno. Oh, and Johnny, since you asked…
Later all.
I don’t think he has admitted anything as he can still be seen on British t.v. doing his “stuff” ( making viewers broken watches start working again, drawing images that viewers think off etc. ) . He was even hovering over wembley stadium during a international(soccer match) a while back sending down positive vibs ( claims to have made the opposition miss a penalty by making the football wobble on the penalty spot ) down to the English team.
In slander and libel suits where the plaintiff is a public figure (which Geller most definitely is), the plaintiff must prove *malice * and malice is legally defined as reckless disregard for facts. This is usually extremely difficult to prove in court, which is why supermarket tabloids get away with so much. However, if you’ve got a lot of money, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the defendant got his facts straight, you can still haul him into court just for the sake of harassment. In other words, even if you know you haven’t got a case, you can still use frivolous slander or libel lawsuits to intimidate others into silence. The Church of Scientology has often used this tactic to persecute and harass its critics.
How did this clown garner so much attention? I would think that if psychic “gifts” exist at all, they must be far more useful than enabling you to bend spoons! Why can’t Mr. Geller demonstate his “powers” by escaping from a locked coffin (a la Harry Houdini)?
Then I might be inclined to take him seriously!
Or, why doesn’t he go to las vegas and break the bank at one of the bigger casinos?
This crap just goes on and on!
Silent Rob, when I last saw Randi he said something along the lines of: “All I can say is that if Uri Gellar is channelling messages from an alien civilization in order to bend this spoon, he’s going about it the hard way.”
What a hoot!
First off, a word about previous legal cases involving Geller and people such as Randi. The curious truth is that NONE of these case were ever about the reality of Geller’s so-called powers. ALL legal actions on record were based on other issues. For example, one author once wrote that Geller had a criminal record or had been arrested for falsely claiming psychic powers. Neither claim is true, and the author lost. Randi once made a comment in a Japanese newspaper to the effect that Geller was ‘a social disease’. Geller sued for defamation and won. Randi later claimed to have been mis-translated and mis-quoted, but he still lost.
And so on. Secondly, I stand by my original posting that if someone were to assert Geller is a fake, and Geller were to sue, then the onus would be on the person making the assertion to PROVE in court that EVERY time Geller performs, or has ever performed in the past, he uses or was using trickery. Given the few scientific citations he can produce SUPPORTING his claims (including a detailed write-up in NATURE magazine), and one or two testimonials from supportive scientists, magicians etc., it is highly likely that such an attempt would fail. Note also that Geller has several ways to sidestap the issue. For example, he could sue on the basis that the allegation damaged his earnings potential, and he could win for this projected loss of earnings and income IRRESPECTIVE of whether he’s genuine or not.
Also, if the accuser were to inadvertently let the word ‘fraud’ slip into his discussion of Geller, then Geller would certainly be able to sue and win. As far as the law is concerned, although there are various pieces of legislation that could (in theory) be used against a faux-psychic, in practice this never happens. In practice, he law says ‘Caveat emptor - you want to believe so-and-so is psychic, that’s your choice’. ‘Fraud’ is a much stronger term in criminal law, and the accuser would have a hard time proving that Geller is guilty of any such thing. He is much too smart and careful to leave himself liable to such charges.
In response to several similar questions, Geller has always maintained, and still does, that his powers are ‘genuine’. He has never stated anything else, in any of his books, publications or appearances. One could suggest that this is because he knows he has zilch value to anyone - even as an entertainer - without the ‘it’s for real’ claim.
Finally, to the question of ‘who cares?’. First, don’t forget that Geller lives a millionnaire lifestyle, huge mansion, all the rest of it. All credit to those who are successful through hard work and talent. But if someone gets there through mis-representation of magic tricks, is this quite as admirable? When an actor plays a doctor on TV, that’s okay. If he goes around in real life PRETENDING to be a REAL doctor, are we concerned? You bet. One can lie for entertainment purposes, but the key is both the actor and the audience understand where the lie starts and where it ends. Geller, if he is NOT for real, is violating this trust and this understanding.
Secondly, one can easily point to countless examples where belief in psychic ability is fun, does no harm, and may do some good. However, there is the wider issue of pollution of the cultural stream. We live in a democracy. Sometimes very important decisions have to be made on the basis of rational collective choice. Now, when it comes to tackling serious issues facing society, do you want to depend on the votes of people who are not given sufficient information to be able to understand that spoon bending is a trick? People who think hey - maybe it’s true, maybe mind power cna bend metal (it can’t, it’s ludicrous, and it’s a magic trick). And do you want the media networks to encourage this level of gullibility?
There was a case about ten years ago in which a psychic who had undergone an MRI sued because afterwards, her psychic abilities had been damaged or destroyed.
She won a significant settlement in her first trial. I say “first” because I really hope there was an appeal and a subsequent trial.
I hope. . . .
Dinsdale, lol. Randi’s great. My boss (at the magic shop) has met him several times. He’s also a very nice guy.
Just thought, I’d add that I find it peculiar that everytime I have seen a psychic try stuff in front of people that know what to look for (magicians, mentalists) they can’t do anything. Just a side note, but scientists only seem to find psychics as genuine when it’s not a double blind test or if they are biased. This is just what I’ve come across in my experiences though.
I’m also pretty skeptical because I have friends (a husband and wife team) who are professional mentalists. I trade tricks with them on a regular basis. They’re very believeable.
>>maralinn, can you provide any links to someplace where Geller has admitted that what he does is trickery?<<
No, of course not. That’s what I was asking for.
Chalice, you’ve crossed up the defendant and the plaintiff in your explanation.
You are describing it as if Geller would be on trial. It’s true that if the state were to try to procecute Geller as a fraud or for some other crime, the procecution would need to prove that he’d used trickery. However, they would only have to prove he’d done it on the occasion of the crime, not for every time he’d done anything. You might as well say that a thief could get off by proving he’d once visited his mother without taking her silver.
But, in the case you should be discussing, Geller would be claiming damages against someone else. The defendant would be the person who’d said Geller wasn’t genuine, and the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, Geller. In our system, doubt usually favors the defendant. Geller would be the accuser.