Geller: the "after bending" effect
John Atkinson
reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact
with the metal spoon or key.
Magician Peter Duffie has compiled a long list of the reported "after
bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact with a metal
spoon or key, from the 1970s to the present. Read the listing these at:
http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/geller.htm
Are they all merely the result of suggestion?
Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when no-one
is looking?
Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this extra
effect in their demonstrations?
--
John Atkinson
http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Email: j...@bigfoot.com
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <awUSy6AS...@manx2.demon.co.uk> in sci.skeptic, on Tue, 14
I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
it would have kept bending after he set it down.
His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOFZFGJQgvG272fn9EQIxIwCeJoxiM7iraAib4zquB+WZzC9/gUMAniNE
KJ1yAtaoS6X3vLPIlJiYx9er
=gZnN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zugzwang
<j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Are they all merely the result of suggestion?
> Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when
> no-one
> is looking?
You have answered your own question. Yes to both.
> Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> extra
> effect in their demonstrations?
Randi has done it numerous times.
The most remarkable thing about Geller's metal-bending tricks is that
anyone even considers them at all interesting. They aren't even
entertaining, let alone indicative of supernatural powers.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Atkinson
<zugzwang...@null.net.invalid> writes
>In article <awUSy6AS...@manx2.demon.co.uk>, John Atkinson
><j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Are they all merely the result of suggestion?
>> Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when
>> no-one
>> is looking?
>
>You have answered your own question. Yes to both.
>
>> Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
>> replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>> extra
>> effect in their demonstrations?
>
>Randi has done it numerous times.
>
>The most remarkable thing about Geller's metal-bending tricks is that
>anyone even considers them at all interesting. They aren't even
>entertaining, let alone indicative of supernatural powers.
>
He should be given credit for stretching out a handful of simple
tricks into a whole career. Now, that's what I call amazing!
Come to think of it, even if it were supernatural, it would still
be boring by now.
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
--
John Atkinson
<John....@UAlberta.CA> writes
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <awUSy6AS...@manx2.demon.co.uk> in sci.skeptic, on Tue, 14
>Dec 1999 11:19:46 +0000, John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
>>the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
>>contact with the metal spoon or key.
>
>>Magician Peter Duffie has compiled a long list of the reported
>>"after bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact with a
>>metal
>>spoon or key, from the 1970s to the present. Read the listing these
>>at: http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/geller.htm
>
>
>>Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when
>>no-one is looking?
>
>>replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>>extra effect in their demonstrations?
>
>it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>
>His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>
I believe Randi has done that, but declared that he bent it physically
first. He then bends it some more when no-one is looking.
I believe Geller likes people to think he does it the hard way.
Zugzwang
<j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <022eeae0...@usw-ex0101-002.remarq.com>, Zugzwang
> <zugzwang...@null.net.invalid> writes
> >In article <awUSy6AS...@manx2.demon.co.uk>, John Atkinson
> ><j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when
> >> no-one
> >> is looking?
> >
> >
> have
> >> replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> >> extra
> >> effect in their demonstrations?
> >
> >
> >The most remarkable thing about Geller's metal-bending tricks is
> that
> >anyone even considers them at all interesting. They aren't even
> >entertaining, let alone indicative of supernatural powers.
> >
> He should be given credit for stretching out a handful of simple
> tricks into a whole career. Now, that's what I call amazing!
> Come to think of it, even if it were supernatural, it would still
> be boring by now.
Uri has definitely made no progress with his psychic powers in all the
years he's been pretending to have them. Maybe whatever invisible
powers gave Uri his psychic abilities decided to cut him off after
noting his spoon fetish.
john...@my-deja.com
> >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>
> it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>
> His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>
Randi? no way hosse, his a magician! But I know some one who bend her
key in front of hundred people, and is a women.
Out there are only two people so far, Uri Geller and Zana Gjergji.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tomyan...@my-deja.com
the
> reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact
> with the metal spoon or key.
>
> Magician Peter Duffie has compiled a long list of the reported "after
> bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact with a metal
> spoon or key, from the 1970s to the present. Read the listing these
at:
> http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/geller.htm
>
>
> Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when no-
one
> is looking?
>
> replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this extra
> effect in their demonstrations?
>
"Uri Geller as a psychic genius, has been able to demonstrate the
repeatability of controlled scientific psychic experiments. Thereby he
has proved the reality of psychic phenomena ( such as telekinesis,
clairvoyance and telepathy)."
In our presence and in the presence of numerous eye-witnesses, Uri
Geller demonstrate the following telekinetic effects: he bend at our
request metal keys and teaspoons. I believe Uri Geller is one of the
most powerful men alive today."
Dan Pressnell
> Randi? no way hosse, his a magician! But I know some one who bend her
> key in front of hundred people, and is a women.
> Out there are only two people so far, Uri Geller and Zana Gjergji.
Zana?
Is that the same Zana who posts love poems to Uri Geller in these
newsgroup?
Dan
Eric Hocking
>> I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
>> it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>>
>> His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>>
Who states that he is a magician and claims to be nothing else when
performing these tricks.
Whereas...
>Out there are only two people so far, Uri Geller and Zana Gjergji.
... are also magicians but one claims to have paranormal powers to gull
money out of people, the other I've never heard of.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Avital Pilpel
> > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> >
> > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
> >
> > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
> >
> > - --
> Randi? no way hosse, his a magician!
So is Geller. The difference is that Randi is a much better magician, and
a much more honest person than Geller.
Avital Pilpel
Dan Pressnell
> "Uri Geller as a psychic genius, has been able to demonstrate the
> repeatability of controlled scientific psychic experiments. Thereby he
> has proved the reality of psychic phenomena ( such as telekinesis,
> clairvoyance and telepathy)."
> In our presence and in the presence of numerous eye-witnesses, Uri
> Geller demonstrate the following telekinetic effects: he bend at our
> request metal keys and teaspoons. I believe Uri Geller is one of the
> most powerful men alive today."
I'm sure manking is healthier, more well fed, safer, and happier for all
those bent spoons.
Dan
PZ Myers
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
Let's get some perspective here. He won't really have helped *all* of
mankind until he starts bending chopsticks.
--
PZ Myers
Dan Pressnell
> >I'm sure manking is healthier, more well fed, safer, and happier for all
> >those bent spoons.
> >
>
> Let's get some perspective here. He won't really have helped *all* of
> mankind until he starts bending chopsticks.
Yes, of course. Over a billion people left out of his goodness. What
an evil man Uri Geller is!
Dan
John Atkinson
<my...@netaxs.com> writes
>In article <3857E77E...@ns.vvm.com>, Dan Pressnell
><dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>
>>tomyan...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> "Uri Geller as a psychic genius, has been able to demonstrate the
>>> repeatability of controlled scientific psychic experiments. Thereby he
>>> has proved the reality of psychic phenomena ( such as telekinesis,
>>> clairvoyance and telepathy)."
>>> In our presence and in the presence of numerous eye-witnesses, Uri
>>> Geller demonstrate the following telekinetic effects: he bend at our
>>> request metal keys and teaspoons. I believe Uri Geller is one of the
>>> most powerful men alive today."
>>
>>those bent spoons.
>>
>
He must be really worried every time he flies; imagine how worrying
it must be to think you had the power to bend the turbine blades in
the aeroplane you just happen to be a passenger on.
How does he stop his mind wandering?
>Let's get some perspective here. He won't really have helped *all* of
>mankind until he starts bending chopsticks.
>
You're right! Why didn't I think of that? I'm just worried in case he
does something to my fingers.
altheim
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> >
> >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>
> I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>
> His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>
I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
chemically softened metals would lose it.
--
altheim
altheim
> > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> > >
> > > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> > > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
> > >
> > > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
> > >
> > >
>
> So is Geller. The difference is that Randi is a much better magician,
> and a much more honest person than Geller.
You know this do you?
Sorry, but that's bollocks because it can be no more than
a subjective opinion. Randi doesn't even know the meaning
of 'objective' and neither do you it seems else you would not
have so blatently avoided the point of this thread - which is
'the after bending effect'. It would be rather nice if you guys
could concentrate.
The question was (following Atkinson but in my own words)
have any magicians (or any chemist for that matter) found a
compound which will not only soften a metal but cause it to
warp, whilst untouched, in the manner that spoons have been
observed to do after receiving the so-called Geller treatment?
--
altheim
Mike Hutchinson
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
Snip
>I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
>spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
>bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
>chemically softened metals would lose it.
What is this about "Randi's chemically softened spoons"? Are you
claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
others use them?
--
Mike Hutchinson
Co-author of 'Bizarre Beliefs' (with 'Guardian' columnist Simon Hoggart)
See http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk
Please remove "no.rubbish" from reply to address
Dominion
<j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is the
>reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact
>with the metal spoon or key.
>
>Magician Peter Duffie has compiled a long list of the reported "after
>bending" that continues when Geller is out of contact with a metal
>spoon or key, from the 1970s to the present. Read the listing these at:
>http://www.psyzone.freeserve.co.uk/geller.htm
>
>Are they all merely the result of suggestion?
>
>Or does he switch the object, or physically bend it further when no-one
>is looking?
>
>Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
>replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this extra
>effect in their demonstrations?
The secret of the continuing bend, revealed not for the first time.
I was a magician throughout my teens and 20's. In the late seventies -
early eighties I used to do a mental show replete with Gellerisms.
Here are some descriptions of various bending routines that I did.
Bending a Spoon:
There are two main ways to do the spoon bending stunt. The first way
is to have a common table spoon prepared by bending it back and fourth
about 20-30 times. You will notice a crack appear where the shaft of
the spoon meets he bowl. When you see that crack stop bending. Much
like Mr Geller, I wanted a lot of metal around me when I was doing the
bend. It was not uncommon for me to have a dozen spoons lying about.
It was a simple matter of palming the bowl of the spoon, laying the
shaft along the wrist and dropping it among the other spoons to "load
the gaff". If I was bored that night I would have a member of the
audience pick out the spoon, making sure to guide his choice to the
spoon that I had already prepared. If not I would simply pick up the
gaffed spoon. I would get the person to hold the bowl and the end of
the shaft firmly. I would put my fingers on the crack and start to
shake the spoon roughly back and forth. The stress fracture would give
and bingo, melted spoon with bowl dropping onto the table in a most
dramatic manner.
The second method is to simply grab a spoon, and when no one was
looking just bend it. I found that I could bend a spoon with one hand
in the act of moving my chair closer to the table I worked from. I
would then hold the spoon with the bend concealed in my fingers in
such a way that it looked unbent. As I stroked the spoon and yelled
"Bend Bend" I would slowly move my fingers back from the bend. Most
people that saw it would swear that the spoon "melted" over my
fingers.
The secret of the continuing bend is that as I was dancing around the
room, I would palm a spoon I had already bent and put another bend in
it. Sometimes it was making the first bend more pronounced. Sometimes
it was a totally new bend in the shaft. Spoons, after all, are not
that hard to bend. People would report that the spoons continued to
bend without my ever touching them. One person even claimed to see the
spoon bending on the table!
Bending a Key and/or Nail:
You can substitute nail for key in most of the below description. You
can't bend a nail like you bend a key, the nail is a lot harder to
bend with just your hand. I usually started with a bent nail and, a la
the spoon, I would introduce it in to a mix of nails. The continuing
bend trick is the same for both key and nail.
When I first started to do key bending, I used a short piece of square
piping that had a hole in one end. A piece of elastic was tied to the
hole. The other end of the elastic was attached to the collar of my
coat with a safety pin and run down the sleeve of the coat. I would
run it through a belt loop so that I could grab it when I needed it. I
would put the shaft of the key about halfway into the shaft and use my
thumb to press the head of the key. Again I would hold the key in such
a way to make it look like it was still straight and with mighty
stroking motions, work my fingers away from the bend. All I had to do
is remove the pressure around the pipe and it would fly up my sleeve,
out of sight.
After awhile I found that if someone handed me a car key, the hole in
the head was big enough for me to put the end of another key through
it. Again using my thumb I would bend the key.
A short time after that, I found that I could bend a key with just my
hand and a handy hard surface.
There are many ways to continue a bend in a key. The first way is to
get your hand on a key that was previously bent and bend it some more.
I would sometimes set the key on the table with the "v" part of the
bend against the table. Then I would stroke some more and then put the
head flat on the table. Most people would claim that there was more of
a bend in the key. However all these ways pale in what is my absolute
favorite method of the continuing bend.
I would pick up a key that had a bend in it. I would hold it straight
out in front of your eyes. I would start to stroke the shaft with my
fingers and right before your eyes, the key would bend more. It was
spooky to see. The explanation was not so spooky though, I merely
raised the end of the key.
I could also do the same thing with a nail by having a bend in it, and
holding it to the crowd with the bend facing them, I would slowly
rotate the nail so that the bend moved from facing to a side view. It
really did look like the nail was slowly bending. I know that a french
magician did the same thing with aluminum bars, fooling a lot of
people that should have known better.
While I am at it, in order to perhaps deflect the charge that I might
be saying that because I did it this way, Geller did it this way, I
assure you that I am not. Let me make it as clear as I can.
Just because *I* used tricks to bend metal, I do not claim that Geller
used tricks to bend metal.
What I can and DO claim is that I have NEVER seen Geller do anything
psychic. Whenever I observed "the Geller Effect" I saw Geller doing
tricks. I have seen the man on T.V. video tape, and live. I never once
saw the guy do anything remotely psychic. I did see a lot of slight of
hand.
I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
considered a total fraud.
--
Dominion
--
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure
de Guerre.
Dominion
>
>> >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
>> >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>> >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>>
>> I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
>> it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>>
>> His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>>
>> - --
>Randi? no way hosse, his a magician! But I know some one who bend her
>key in front of hundred people, and is a women.
>Out there are only two people so far, Uri Geller and Zana Gjergji.
There was also a french guy...Jean something...that was also a
magici...errr...psychic. He was pretty much crushed by Randi (see
Flim-Flam) when Randi painted red stripes on the aluminum bars. This
prevented Jean from putting a bend in the bar and then spining it to
show the bend. ;)
On second thought, I can see why you did not mention him.
--
Dominion
--
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and
not Gary Cooper."
-- Gary Cooper, on his decision to not take the leading role in
"Gone With The Wind."
Jim Phillips
>
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> > John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> > >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> > >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> > >
> [snip]
> > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> >
> > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
> >
> > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
> >
> Yeah yeah! now you've got the sarcasm out of your system
> I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> chemically softened metals would lose it.
Could you give me more details on this "chemically softened
spoons" business?
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
Let's have a Patrick Swayze Christmas!
Dominion
wrote:
>
>Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 john...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
>> > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>> > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>> > >
>> > > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
>> > > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>> > >
>> > > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Randi? no way hosse, his a magician!
>>
>> So is Geller. The difference is that Randi is a much better magician,
>> and a much more honest person than Geller.
>
>You know this do you?
>
>Sorry, but that's bollocks because it can be no more than
>a subjective opinion. Randi doesn't even know the meaning
>of 'objective' and neither do you it seems else you would not
>have so blatently avoided the point of this thread - which is
>'the after bending effect'. It would be rather nice if you guys
>could concentrate.
>
>The question was (following Atkinson but in my own words)
>have any magicians (or any chemist for that matter) found a
>compound which will not only soften a metal but cause it to
>warp, whilst untouched, in the manner that spoons have been
>observed to do after receiving the so-called Geller treatment?
There is absolutely no need to invoke a mystery substance that somehow
"soften" metal. I doubt that there is such a chemical. Geller produced
the illusion of metal becoming soft by slight of hand, not by using a
chemical.
Most people have no ideal how easy it is to fool the eyes. When I used
to bend spoons, people would swear that they "melted", that they "grew
hot" in their hand, that I "never touched" the spoon, key, nail,
whatever. I promise you that all these observations were simply wrong.
I bent metal the way that I saw Geller do it. With mechanical force.
I remember one fine day in particular. I had gone to a work picnic
with my mother, and being bored I started to do the "advance the hands
of a watch" trick. This is a simple trick indeed, requiring nothing
more than you getting your fingernail under the watch stem and holding
the stem still when turning the watch. My mom was in on the joke, and
I was very careful not to claim I was doing this using a supernatural
power, but I did use the old Kreskin cop out (everything I do is done
by natural means...etc...etc). People were impressed and I must have
done the trick about 20 times (quite against the Magician Code stating
"Thou shalt never do a trick more than once"). The next day after work
my mom was howling with laughter. People came up to her all day and
told her about the funny things that happened after I advanced their
watches. One person claimed that his car battery was drained of power
and he could not start his car. Another person that claimed to be
skeptical at the time reported that the watch grew so hot in his hand
that he almost dropped it. Yet another one claimed that tho I could
not get her hands to move (the stem was really hard to pull out, but
what the hey, a few failures always looks good, right Mr Geller?) the
DATE on her watch had advanced 2 weeks. Then in an unguarded moment,
my mom got serious. "Now really, you were doing a trick, right?" I
laughed as I once again showed her just how simple a little trick this
was.
It is in this way are mighty stories about the impossibility of Mr
Geller doing what he does get started.
I state again. I have seen Mr Geller numerous times, both live, on
tape, and on TV. I never saw him do anything that was psychic. I DID
get a lot of great ideas for my act.
--
Dominion
--
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know
they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me now
I would go to that man and take him kindly and forgivingly by the
hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him."
--Mark Twain
Dominion
wrote:
>
>John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
>> John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
>> >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
>> >contact with the metal spoon or key.
>> >
>[snip]
>> >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
>> >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>> >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>>
>> I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
>> it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>>
>> His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>>
>Yeah yeah! now you've got the sarcasm out of your system
>I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
>spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
>bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
>chemically softened metals would lose it.
Randi does not use a chemical. Geller does not use a chemical. I did
not use a chemical. Simple slight of hand is answer enough here.
--
Dominion
--
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon".
-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed
Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
Zugzwang
chemicals which soften metals for bending. Anything that could do so
would be extremly caustic and dangerous to handle. There do exist
chemical means to make certain metals "hot" via a chemical reaction,
and they, too, are dangerous tricks to play.
Stop trying to believe in Geller as some sort of demigod and start
thinking critically.
1. It is extremely simple to bend a spoon with the hands.
2. It is extremely simple for a practiced sleight-of-hand artist such
as Geller to prepare trick spoons ahead of time and plant them when and
where required, or to bend them by hand when required.
3. If you have half a mind to bend spoons, that's all you need.
mike
>
>I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
>on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
>considered a total fraud.
>
>
>
>--
>Dominion
>--
Thank you for that very informative post Dominion, though in all deference
to Geller (and I loath to give the man any deference at all) if he has used
slight of hand even once, though the evidence shows he has used it many,
many, many times, the most we can truly say is that it casts serious doubt
on his claim of psychic powers. It does not *prove* that he is a total
fraud, but it increases the odds dramatically. Especially since he has not
been able to perform, to any credulous person's satisfaction, any kind of
unambiguous, non-prestedigitory (is that a word?) psychic feat.
I think that you have also touched on a very important point, most of the
posts to this thread have not even addressed the issue of whether this
"after-bending effect" is real at all. You have explained how such an effect
can be accomplished by non-psychic means (and all one need do is watch one
of Geller's performances to see that is exactly what he is doing). Atheim
and others proposing that such an effect is genuinely psychic have not
presented any evidence to bolster their opinion. All they have offered is
the assumption that the effect is indeed psychic, which doesn't make for
much of an argument.
mike
Weasel
> In article <myers-336C05....@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ Myers
> <my...@netaxs.com> writes
[Uri Geller bends spoons]
> >Let's get some perspective here. He won't really have helped *all* of
> >mankind until he starts bending chopsticks.
> >
>
> You're right! Why didn't I think of that? I'm just worried in case he
> does something to my fingers.
That's a good point. Perhaps folks could encourage him to demonstrate
his powers by showing him an unbent finger.
Regards,
--Tom
Dina O'Grogan
dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
[---]
> I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
> on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> considered a total fraud.
>
You've got some tough nuts to crack! Some folks round here are accustomed to
come out with statements on this order:
Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
time...
And yes, they seem to actually think they've made a point thereby.
(Yes, Mrs So-and-so seems to have been cheating on those occasions when
someone turned up the gaslight: but how about all those *other* seances?...)
~D~
Dan Pressnell
>
> In article <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>,
> dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
> [---]
> > on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> > considered a total fraud.
> >
>
> come out with statements on this order:
>
> Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
> time...
Not only that, but here's one:
"You are really a psychic just pretending to be a magician."
Don't think this excuse can be used? Were you around when Bruce Daniel
Kettler was saying that James Randi really is psyhcic?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> Some years ago I read a paper from John Beloff called "Once a Cheat,
> Always a Cheat? Eusapia Palladino Revisited". It was a most particular
> plea for people to put aside the fact that Eusapia Palladino was
> caught cheating numerous times. His claim is that just because she was
> caught cheating on those occasions, it does not mean that she did so
> on every occasion.
When some controls are set up (like with Uri Geller and Johnny Carson),
the psychic's explanation is that he "doesn't have the power" at the
time.
To be honest, then, he should really say "I don't have the power now,
and for some reason I can't cheat this time, either...."
But we don't hear that, do we?
Dan
Dominion
>Dominion wrote in message <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>...
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:19:46 +0000, John Atkinson
>><j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>>I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
>>on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
>>considered a total fraud.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Dominion
>>--
>
>Thank you for that very informative post Dominion, though in all deference
>to Geller (and I loath to give the man any deference at all) if he has used
>slight of hand even once, though the evidence shows he has used it many,
>many, many times, the most we can truly say is that it casts serious doubt
>on his claim of psychic powers. It does not *prove* that he is a total
>fraud, but it increases the odds dramatically. Especially since he has not
>been able to perform, to any credulous person's satisfaction, any kind of
>unambiguous, non-prestedigitory (is that a word?) psychic feat.
>I think that you have also touched on a very important point, most of the
>posts to this thread have not even addressed the issue of whether this
>"after-bending effect" is real at all. You have explained how such an effect
>can be accomplished by non-psychic means (and all one need do is watch one
>of Geller's performances to see that is exactly what he is doing). Atheim
>and others proposing that such an effect is genuinely psychic have not
>presented any evidence to bolster their opinion. All they have offered is
>the assumption that the effect is indeed psychic, which doesn't make for
>much of an argument.
I am glad you enjoyed the information. I have been following this
thread with interest, wondering if anyone would get down to the "nuts
and bolts" of metala bending. This information is not secret, anyone
with an ability to read between lines can get most of these methods in
the book "The Magic of Uri Geller" by the esteemed Mr James Randi. I
know, I did it when I was in high school. Other slights I picked up
watching Mr Geller himself. In case of emergency I even have a few
tricks left up my sleeve thanks to "Confessions of a Psychic" by Uriah
(sp?) Fuller, a nom de plume for Martin Gardner if I remember
correctly.
However I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that
catching Uri cheating once means only that he was only cheating that
once. What is the old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me
twice, shame on me"?
Once a "psychic" is caught using slight of hand, then EVERYTHING
he/she does becomes suspect. As a magician I know better than most
just how hard it is to catch someone doing slight of hand. Even when I
know what slights are being used it can be hard for me to see the
move. I have seen Al Goshman a couple of times. I can do his whole
routine, I know every one of the moves. But even with my advanced
knowledge of slight of hand, I don't always see what he does. I have
to infer it from the movement of his hands. Hell I have even
experienced the same illusions that regular people do when watching a
trick. I remember seeing Paul Shelinder (sp?) at a magic lecture once.
He was doing a "coin thru the table" routine that consisted of him
putting four coins thru a solid table, one at a time. With the last
coin, he told a person from the audience to yell stop. When the person
did, Paul "threw" the coin at the table. To this day I swear I saw the
coin bounce on the table and vanish and I can assure you, knowing the
method that he used, there was no way I saw what I think I saw. :)
When I see a psychic using trickery to accomplish his "psychic" feats
I MUST assume that on the times that people say he did not use
trickery that he was simply not caught. Not that he has actually done
something psychic. I think this is the correct attitude to have.
Some years ago I read a paper from John Beloff called "Once a Cheat,
Always a Cheat? Eusapia Palladino Revisited". It was a most particular
plea for people to put aside the fact that Eusapia Palladino was
caught cheating numerous times. His claim is that just because she was
caught cheating on those occasions, it does not mean that she did so
on every occasion. Sorry but no. All it means is that she was not
caught cheating on those times she was not caught cheating. What was
her excuse? Well I will be darned, it is the same excuse that
apologist for Geller uses. She felt pressure to perform and so not to
disappoint all those nice men, she cheated. I don't buy it from her
and I surely don't buy it from Geller since you would think that he
would have at least learned from her mistake and never never use
slight of hand.
Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
assume that he cheats always.
--
Dominion
--
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against
which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily
in high schools."
-- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary
rocket work.
Dina O'Grogan
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
[---]
> here's one:
>
> "You are really a psychic just pretending to be a magician."
>
Just like Doyle and Houdini, eh?
...the position of the pieces on the board has really changed very little
since the turn of the century --- tropes from that time are still poppin' up,
fresh as daisies...
> Don't think this excuse can be used? Were you around when Bruce Daniel
> Kettler was saying that James Randi really is psyhcic?
>
No! Ya don't say so! <chuckle> Shouldn't surprise me, I guess...
I wonder if anyone's told that to Randi...
~D~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dominion
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>Dina O'Grogan wrote:
>>
>> In article <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>,
>> dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
>> [---]
>> > I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
>> > on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
>> > considered a total fraud.
>> >
>>
>> You've got some tough nuts to crack! Some folks round here are accustomed to
>> come out with statements on this order:
>>
>> Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
>> time...
>
>Not only that, but here's one:
>
>"You are really a psychic just pretending to be a magician."
>
>Don't think this excuse can be used? Were you around when Bruce Daniel
>Kettler was saying that James Randi really is psyhcic?
LOL. I was not around during that bit of sillyness, but I DO remember
Mr Kettler claiming to know the whereabouts of Andrew Cunanan and
getting it totally wrong.
It does not surprise me in the least, no less than Sir Arthur C. Doyle
did the exact same thing with Harry Houdini. One can't help but wonder
if Houdini or even Randi had this amazing power why they would keep it
secret??
But I forget. No logical thoughts allowed!
Matt Kriebel
dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:34:30 -0600, Dan Pressnell
> <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>
> >Dina O'Grogan wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>,
> >> dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
> >> [---]
> >> > I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
> >> > on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> >> > considered a total fraud.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You've got some tough nuts to crack! Some folks round here are
accustomed to
> >> come out with statements on this order:
> >>
> >> Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
> >> time...
> >
> >Not only that, but here's one:
> >
> >"You are really a psychic just pretending to be a magician."
> >
> >Don't think this excuse can be used? Were you around when Bruce Daniel
> >Kettler was saying that James Randi really is psyhcic?
>
> LOL. I was not around during that bit of sillyness, but I DO remember
> Mr Kettler claiming to know the whereabouts of Andrew Cunanan and
> getting it totally wrong.
Ooops. That was Riley, not Kettler. But I know how hard it can be to get
the kooks sorted out.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
See this .sig! Loathe this .sig! Hate this .sig!
Dan Pressnell
> > LOL. I was not around during that bit of sillyness, but I DO remember
> > Mr Kettler claiming to know the whereabouts of Andrew Cunanan and
> > getting it totally wrong.
>
> Ooops. That was Riley, not Kettler. But I know how hard it can be to get
> the kooks sorted out.
Yes, that's right. Come to think of it, Kettler has never demonstrated
even an attempt at psychic performance, has he? Just what does a
"certified psychic" do, anyway???
Dan
Dominion
wrote:
>In article <385959c2....@news.pdq.net>,
>dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:34:30 -0600, Dan Pressnell
>> <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Dina O'Grogan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>,
>> >> dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
>> >> [---]
>> >> > I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
>> >> > on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
>> >> > considered a total fraud.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You've got some tough nuts to crack! Some folks round here are
>accustomed to
>> >> come out with statements on this order:
>> >>
>> >> Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
>> >> time...
>> >
>> >Not only that, but here's one:
>> >
>> >"You are really a psychic just pretending to be a magician."
>> >
>> >Don't think this excuse can be used? Were you around when Bruce Daniel
>> >Kettler was saying that James Randi really is psyhcic?
>>
>> LOL. I was not around during that bit of sillyness, but I DO remember
>> Mr Kettler claiming to know the whereabouts of Andrew Cunanan and
>> getting it totally wrong.
>
>Ooops. That was Riley, not Kettler. But I know how hard it can be to get
>the kooks sorted out.
LOL. My bad. It is especially hard when you don't follow the ng as
much as I used to. I never had a lot of contact with either Riley or
Kettler they being somewhat after my time. I was posting alot when
Earl Curley was still kicking. It was he and Edmond Wollmann that I
had the most contact with in those days, Wollmann going as far as
complaining to my ISP in a futile effort to play net cop. Ahh memories
memories.
--
Dominion
--
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn
better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's
paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went
on to found Federal Express Corp.)
Matt Kriebel
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
> Matt Kriebel wrote:
>
> > > LOL. I was not around during that bit of sillyness, but I DO remember
> > > Mr Kettler claiming to know the whereabouts of Andrew Cunanan and
> > > getting it totally wrong.
> >
> > Ooops. That was Riley, not Kettler. But I know how hard it can be to get
> > the kooks sorted out.
>
> Yes, that's right. Come to think of it, Kettler has never demonstrated
> even an attempt at psychic performance, has he? Just what does a
> "certified psychic" do, anyway???
>
> Dan
Complains a lot.
Dan Pressnell
>
> In article <38594d63....@news.pdq.net>, dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
> >realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
> >real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
> >somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
> >pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
> >assume that he cheats always.
>
> nail bending renewed my faith in sceptical views.
Oh, but did he PROVE that he can bend a spoon with his hands???
Dan
George Black
>
>Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
>realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
>real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
>somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
>pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
>assume that he cheats always.
Long may you stay in this group. The methods that you describe for spoon and
nail bending renewed my faith in sceptical views.
Regards
mike
Dominion wrote in message <38594d63....@news.pdq.net>...
[snip]
>Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
>realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
>real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
>somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
>pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
>assume that he cheats always.
>
>
>
>--
>Dominion
>--
>
I do agree with you in a practical sense. My only point was that catching
someone cheating once, or twice, or 90% of the time does not *prove* that
he cheats always. Yes, it would defy common sense to sugest that such a
person does not always cheat, and we'd be idiots to think otherwise. But it
wouldn't be proven, which was my only point. As Randi says, Geller *could*
be doing his feats by divine means, but if he is, he's doing them the hard
way. =)
mike
John Atkinson
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>> > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
>> > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
>> > >
>> > > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
>> > > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
>> > >
>> > > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> So is Geller. The difference is that Randi is a much better magician,
>> and a much more honest person than Geller.
>
>You know this do you?
>
>Sorry, but that's bollocks because it can be no more than
>a subjective opinion. Randi doesn't even know the meaning
>of 'objective' and neither do you it seems else you would not
>have so blatently avoided the point of this thread - which is
>'the after bending effect'. It would be rather nice if you guys
>could concentrate.
>
>The question was (following Atkinson but in my own words)
>have any magicians (or any chemist for that matter) found a
>compound which will not only soften a metal but cause it to
>warp, whilst untouched, in the manner that spoons have been
>observed to do after receiving the so-called Geller treatment?
>
Yes, there is a substance called Nitinol, an alloy which remembers
its original shape. There is a version that responds to body heat
(37 deg.C). This could easily be made into a spoon. It is made by
a U.S. company (RayChem).
I don't personally believe that Geller uses such a trick, it would
not be necessary when one had his astonishing psychic powers, the
reason he isn't allowed to fly on passenger aircraft.
(I just hope his dear old 84-year-old mum doesn't ever need hip
replacement; just imagine her dancing around screaming as the metal
joint began to bend.)
Another reason why one wouldn't need to use the stuff is because a
simple conjuring trick would suffice, removing the possibility of
being caught.
>--
>altheim
BlueAce69
Dina O'Grogan <kle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83bcpu$bkl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> > considered a total fraud.
> >
>
to
> come out with statements on this order:
>
> Even if he cheats 90% of the time, he still *might* be for real 10% of the
> time...
>
>
> (Yes, Mrs So-and-so seems to have been cheating on those occasions when
> someone turned up the gaslight: but how about all those *other*
seances?...)
>
> ~D~
I like the historical perspective D. Seems there's been frauds as long as
there's been gullible people with money to waste.
Robert Templeton
"mike" <Noma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3859e...@news1.prserv.net...
> >realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
> >real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
> >somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
> >pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
> >assume that he cheats always.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Dominion
> >--
> >
>
>
> someone cheating once, or twice, or 90% of the time does not *prove* that
> he cheats always. Yes, it would defy common sense to sugest that such a
> person does not always cheat, and we'd be idiots to think otherwise. But
it
> wouldn't be proven, which was my only point. As Randi says, Geller *could*
> be doing his feats by divine means, but if he is, he's doing them the hard
> way. =)
>
I agree with you about this. There is no 100% proof. Then, there is no
100% proof of anything. Deduction allows us to circumvent the infinite path
of checking every case (such as whether a number + 1 is greater than the
number). As the evidence accrues above 50% and towards 100%, I think that a
certain consensus can be "deduced".
Additionally, doesn't it seem odd to anyone that a REAL PSYCHIC (emphasis
intended) would have to stoop to using parlor tricks. Even worse, stoop to
mastering these parlor tricks so as to fool his audience into believing that
he was performing with his REAL PSYCHIC powers.
So, basically, Uri Geller is a liar, cheat, charlatan, and fake. (period).
Robert Templeton
Dominion
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>George Black wrote:
>>
>> In article <38594d63....@news.pdq.net>, dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
>> >realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
>> >real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
>> >somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
>> >pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
>> >assume that he cheats always.
>>
>> Long may you stay in this group. The methods that you describe for spoon and
>> nail bending renewed my faith in sceptical views.
>
>Oh, but did he PROVE that he can bend a spoon with his hands???
WOO. Put your money where your mouth is. $10,000 in a verified account
and I will fly anywhere in the world to meet you. I will proceed to
bend a spoon of your choice, with my hands, right in front of your
eyes.
Bare in mind that in the best traditions of psychics everywhere, I
will sign a contract claiming that if I fail it will be an absolute
admission a complete lack of upper arm strength. In the event I DO
fail, I will trot out silly excuses of why I failed, including the
fact that you were sending negative vibrations that caused my hands
weaken at the moment I tried the bend. I will put up no money myself,
but I WILL demand that you follow my rules and if you don't I will
claim that the money is mine by default. Failure to accept this
challenge is an admission that you knew I could bend the spoon and
again, I will claim the prize by default. Get out your checkbook boyo.
I had more faith in you Dan. You need to talk to your amazing psychic
cat. He/she will explain to you how hard it is for us psychic
superstars to be taken seriously by spoil sport skeptics that keep
demanding proof. As Homer Simpson would say "Facts. Phhhttt. You can
prove anything with facts". And Homer Simpson is a towering
intellectual giant compared with some of the post I have read in the
Uri Geller threads.
Dominion
>
>Dominion wrote in message <38594d63....@news.pdq.net>...
>
>[snip]
>
>>Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
>>realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
>>real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
>>somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
>>pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
>>assume that he cheats always.
>
>
>I do agree with you in a practical sense. My only point was that catching
>someone cheating once, or twice, or 90% of the time does not *prove* that
>he cheats always. Yes, it would defy common sense to sugest that such a
>person does not always cheat, and we'd be idiots to think otherwise. But it
>wouldn't be proven, which was my only point. As Randi says, Geller *could*
>be doing his feats by divine means, but if he is, he's doing them the hard
>way. =)
Sometime I do not make myself as clear as I should. Proof is a pretty
slippery concept and I certainly don't want to make it mad at me. So I
will back peddle (something I learned right here in sci.skeptic).
Instead I will say that if a so-called psychic is caught cheating just
once, you must assume he cheats always. Any test that proves he has
real powers must be thrown out since we can never be sure that it was
simply a matter of not being caught. As you pointed out, Geller has
not been caught once, but time after time after time. There is a video
record of the man cheating. On just that bases alone I feel safe in
dismissing any report that is favorable to Uri Geller. SRI does not
impress me, Targ and Puthoff do not impress me. Wilber Franklin does
not impress me. What impresses me is that with my own two eyes I have
seen Uri Geller do nothing more than magic tricks. That fact, in and
of itself, apart from anything else, damns him.
--
Dominion
--
"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage."
-- H.L. Mencken
Avital Pilpel
> I like the historical perspective D. Seems there's been frauds as long as
> there's been gullible people with money to waste.
A fool and his money...
>
Avital Pilpel
Avital Pilpel
> However I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that
> catching Uri cheating once means only that he was only cheating that
> once. What is the old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me
> twice, shame on me"?
It's the old "catch-22" believers try to get skeptics into: when Geller
gets CAUGHT cheating, THEN he cheated. All other times therefore "must be"
real psychic power...
> When I see a psychic using trickery to accomplish his "psychic" feats
> I MUST assume that on the times that people say he did not use
> trickery that he was simply not caught. Not that he has actually done
> something psychic. I think this is the correct attitude to have.
Indeed.
Avital Pilpel
Robert Templeton
"Robert Templeton" <tem...@vplayground.com> wrote in message news:...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
> > >realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
> > >real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
> > >somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
> > >pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
> > >assume that he cheats always.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Dominion
> > >--
> > >
> >
> >
> > I do agree with you in a practical sense. My only point was that
catching
> > someone cheating once, or twice, or 90% of the time does not *prove*
that
> > he cheats always. Yes, it would defy common sense to sugest that such a
> > person does not always cheat, and we'd be idiots to think otherwise. But
> it
> > wouldn't be proven, which was my only point. As Randi says, Geller
*could*
> > be doing his feats by divine means, but if he is, he's doing them the
hard
> > way. =)
> >
>
> 100% proof of anything. Deduction allows us to circumvent the infinite
path
> of checking every case (such as whether a number + 1 is greater than the
> number). As the evidence accrues above 50% and towards 100%, I think that
a
> certain consensus can be "deduced".
Errata: Can I say, "induction"? Obviously not!
Mike Combs
> The question was (following Atkinson but in my own words)
> have any magicians (or any chemist for that matter) found a
> compound which will not only soften a metal but cause it to
> warp, whilst untouched, in the manner that spoons have been
> observed to do after receiving the so-called Geller treatment?
That's one question. Here's mine: Have any of these observers of this "after
bending" effect measured it with a compass or other tool, or is this merely
the visual impression they came away with? If the latter, then maybe the
first question is beside the point.
We don't typically manage to advance scientific knowledge without scientific
measurements.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, where's the moonbase? Where're the Eagles? What a rip...
Avital Pilpel
<snip>
The main point that you are missing is that so-called "after bending
effect" does not actually occur.
The spoon does not REALLY "bend while untouched", and more than a woman is
really sawed in two in the famous trick.
It is an *illusion*, created in various ways, by the magician performing
the trick. Read "Dominion"'s post, for example, for two or three ways to
achieve just that - an illusion and make people SWEAR the spoon "kept
bending in their hands" without anybody touching it.
This is all Geller is doing - and it is a mightly unimpressive trick,
frankly, to anybody who actually knows anything about magic.
To ask people to find a way to ACTUALLY bend spoons without touching them
or else admit Geller is "psychic" is like asking people to find a way to
ACTUALLY cut a woman in two and put her back together or else admit that
anybody who does this trick and claim he keeps the woman alive due to
"psychic power" is really psychic.
Avital Pilpel
George Black
>George Black wrote:
>>
>> In article <38594d63....@news.pdq.net>, dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
>> >real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
>> >somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
>> >pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
>> >assume that he cheats always.
>>
>> nail bending renewed my faith in sceptical views.
>
>Oh, but did he PROVE that he can bend a spoon with his hands???
>
His system worked for me :-)))
Dan Pressnell
> The spoon does not REALLY "bend while untouched", and more than a woman is
> really sawed in two in the famous trick.
PSF WARNING!
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> sobriety. I can also safely say that Uri Geller can't bend metal
> without touching it. Believe it. Why if Geller could bend metal
> without touching it, why then I would have to wonder if he was really
> psychic!
Have you seen Richard Feynman's account of his encounter with Uri? His
son put a thin piece of copper wire in a test tube and brought it along
to be bent, but Uri ignored it.
Why? Who knows. Maybe Uri didn't have the power at that time. But
then again, when he carried a spoon into the bathroom with him, being
alone with it, he found the ability to bend the spoon.
Dan
Dominion
wrote:
>
>This is all Geller is doing - and it is a mightly unimpressive trick,
>frankly, to anybody who actually knows anything about magic.
True...the act was a loser.
When I first became aware of the fact that Uri was nothing more than a
clever magician I put together an act that pretty much did everything
he did. At the time I was very heavy into mentalism and Uri was being
touted as a powerful psychic. In addition to the regular mental act I
was doing at the time, I also threw in metal bending, reading a sealed
envelop and, fixing and advancing watches. Unless the crowd had
actually seen Geller, they did not seem to really get the metal
bending. Of course I was not claiming to be a powerful psychic so
maybe that was what made the difference.
Not only was the act a bomb, but Geller himself was never very good at
it. The times that I have seen him work I have seen the work of a lazy
magician. Geller had it great. If he thought you were watching him he
just laid back and told you that he did not feel he could do it. He
did not care if it took him an hour to get you to look away. He hardly
bothered to hide the moves, to me, they were very obvious. At the time
this really bothered me. I had worked very hard to make my act smooth.
I could bend a key right under your nose and you would have never seen
what I did. Uri was just plain lazy. It was bad enough he was claiming
powers we knew he did not have. To be so bad at it was really an
insult! <G>
>To ask people to find a way to ACTUALLY bend spoons without touching them
>or else admit Geller is "psychic" is like asking people to find a way to
>ACTUALLY cut a woman in two and put her back together or else admit that
>anybody who does this trick and claim he keeps the woman alive due to
>"psychic power" is really psychic.
I can absolutely perform exactly like I saw Geller perform. You remind
me of the time that Jule Eisenbud demanded that Randi do
"thoughtography" by stripping naked, getting dressed in an ape suit,
get stinkin' drunk on whiskey and being locked in a cage. Why? Because
he claimed that it was the way Ted Serios performed. No mention of the
"gizmo" that Ted liked to use. No mention of the incredibly sloppy
controls on Jule's experiments (controls so bad that one investigator
was able to switch film cans right under Jule's nose), just this
bizarre claim that Ted Serios was able to produce images on film by
the power of his mind, while both nude and dressed in a monkey suit,
locked in a cage sinkin' drunk.
I can safely say that without his "gizmo" Ted Serios could not put a
thing on film. Regardless of how he was dressed or his state of
sobriety. I can also safely say that Uri Geller can't bend metal
without touching it. Believe it. Why if Geller could bend metal
without touching it, why then I would have to wonder if he was really
psychic!
--
Dominion
--
"I hate quotations."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Dina O'Grogan
"BlueAce69" <Blue...@NOSPAMdisinfo.net> wrote:
[---]
> > (Yes, Mrs So-and-so seems to have been cheating on those occasions when
> > someone turned up the gaslight: but how about all those *other*
> seances?...)
> >
> > ~D~
>
It's fun readin' accounts of the early days --- I'm away from my library, but
Trevor Hall and Ruth Brandon are two names that occur to me as having turned
out decentish books...
~D~
[---]
altheim
Zugzwang <zugzwang...@null.net.invalid> wrote:
> Randi, in his book, "The Magic of Uri Geller", discounts the idea of
> chemicals which soften metals for bending. Anything that could do so
> would be extremly caustic and dangerous to handle. There do exist
> chemical means to make certain metals "hot" via a chemical reaction,
> and they, too, are dangerous tricks to play.
>[snips]
>
> 1. It is extremely simple to bend a spoon with the hands.
>
OK so now we have that cleared up what do we have left?
I don't think that mechanically bent spoons could possibly go on
bending and as you, Dominion et al have said, any further "bending"
would be accomplished by sleight of hand. Unfortunately this doesn't
explain all the many cases where bending has been observed while a
spoon (or whatever) lay untouched on a table (I took a look at the
website mentioned by Mr Atkinson and found dozens of statements
to that effect).
--
altheim
altheim
Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>
> Snip
>
> >I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
>
> What is this about "Randi's chemically softened spoons"? Are you
> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
> others use them?
No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
bending'.
--
altheim
altheim
> > > John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> > > >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> > > >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> > > >
> > [snip]
> > > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> > >
> > > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> > > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
> > >
> > > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
> > >
> > I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> > spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> > bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> > chemically softened metals would lose it.
>
> spoons" business?
>
No. The question was about 'after bending'.
--
altheim
BlueAce69
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote in message
news:385B012A...@ns.vvm.com...
> Dominion wrote:
>
> > sobriety. I can also safely say that Uri Geller can't bend metal
> > without touching it. Believe it. Why if Geller could bend metal
> > without touching it, why then I would have to wonder if he was really
> > psychic!
>
> son put a thin piece of copper wire in a test tube and brought it along
> to be bent, but Uri ignored it.
>
> Why? Who knows. Maybe Uri didn't have the power at that time. But
I don't think I really want to know how Uri bent that particular spoon.
BlueAce69
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.991217...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu...
Yep, I guess it's eternal. Here's a pretty good link that I'm sure many have
seen.
Dominion
wrote:
>
>Zugzwang <zugzwang...@null.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Randi, in his book, "The Magic of Uri Geller", discounts the idea of
>> chemicals which soften metals for bending. Anything that could do so
>> would be extremly caustic and dangerous to handle. There do exist
>> chemical means to make certain metals "hot" via a chemical reaction,
>> and they, too, are dangerous tricks to play.
>>[snips]
>>
>> 1. It is extremely simple to bend a spoon with the hands.
>>
>OK so now we have that cleared up what do we have left?
What we have left is the fact that Mr. Geller uses simple slight of
hand to accomplish his metal bending.
>I don't think that mechanically bent spoons could possibly go on
>bending and as you, Dominion et al have said, any further "bending"
>would be accomplished by sleight of hand. Unfortunately this doesn't
>explain all the many cases where bending has been observed while a
>spoon (or whatever) lay untouched on a table (I took a look at the
>website mentioned by Mr Atkinson and found dozens of statements
>to that effect).
And every statement on that website is not to be trusted.
You apparently have no idea how easy it is for a person to bend a
piece of metal while making it look like he has not touched it. Only a
matter of seconds. Hell I was able to rebend the key in the act of
putting it back on the table. I would not call attention to the key,
simply drop it on the table. 98% of the time someone else noticed the
key bent more and would call attention to it. The result is statements
that the key went on bending without my touching it. In my description
of the "advancing the watch" stunt, it is obvious that I had to touch
the watch in order to pull out the stem. Yet every person (and I mean
this, without exception) would state that I never touched the watch.
The "continuing bend" stunt is just that. A stunt. And not a very good
one at that. Don't take my word for it. Use my descriptions and learn
the trick. A weeks worth of practice should enable you to do the
basics. Then go do it for some friends. Listen to them describe your
act to other people. You will see exactly what I am talking about.
The whole point of a magic act is to make it look real. A good
magician knows that audience members will misremember their act,
usually making it seem more impossible than it really is. A reaction
to the fact that they have been fooled. I have heard a person describe
a trick that I had done, insisting on conditions and actions that I
KNEW did not exist. Truly if I had done the trick in the way described
I WOULD have been a miracle worker. Since we know that people do this,
a good magician does things in his act to deliberately lead people to
mis-remember the act in his favor. Believe me, Uri is an expert when
it comes to such psychological ploys.
More important than this, I can prove easily what I have claimed these
last few days. Mr. Geller is a cheat. Nothing more. I have seen him
use slight of hand numerous times, both live and on videotape and TV.
Because I have seen the man cheat, I need not take seriously the claim
that the metal kept on bending. If people said that it kept bending, I
cannot be sure the metal really kept bending or if the people just
missed Uri cheating. Since I have plenty of evidence that he cheats,
and none at all that he is real, I am pretty safe to discount all
reports of the continuing bending of metal in his presence.
--
Dominion
--
"The religion that is afraid of science dishoners God and commits
suicide."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Dominion
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>Dominion wrote:
>
>> sobriety. I can also safely say that Uri Geller can't bend metal
>> without touching it. Believe it. Why if Geller could bend metal
>> without touching it, why then I would have to wonder if he was really
>> psychic!
>
>Have you seen Richard Feynman's account of his encounter with Uri? His
>son put a thin piece of copper wire in a test tube and brought it along
>to be bent, but Uri ignored it.
>
>Why? Who knows. Maybe Uri didn't have the power at that time. But
>then again, when he carried a spoon into the bathroom with him, being
>alone with it, he found the ability to bend the spoon.
Well it is much more impressive to bend that huge spoon. I mean, it
had so much MORE metal than a little piece of copper wire. <G>
--
Dominion
--
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports
say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like
you make."
-- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of
starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
Dominion
wrote:
>
>Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
>> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> >I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
>> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
>> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
>> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
>>
>> What is this about "Randi's chemically softened spoons"? Are you
>> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
>> others use them?
>
>No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
>mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
>bending'.
Of course you don't think it is worth mentioning. If we mention it we
might actually cause doubt as to the reality of Uri Geller's amazing
power of mind over metal.
Lets lay the cards on the table. There ain't no such chemical that can
be used to soften metal that would be safe for a human to handle. I
defy you to find such a chemical. If in fact you DO find such a
chemical I hereby promise to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams.
We have a name for the "chemical theory of soft metal" in magic. We
call it a red herring.
I have listed several methods of producing a continuing bend in keys,
spoons and nails. Could Uri have used any of these methods to produce
the same illusion? If not, please explain why.
--
Dominion
--
"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Mississippi
has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. Therefore ...
in the Old Silurian Period the Mississippi River was upward of one
million three hundred thousand miles long ... seven hundred and
forty-two years from now the Mississippi will be only a mile and
three-quarters long. ... There is something ascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling
investment of fact."
--Mark Twain
PZ Myers
dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:36:10 -0600, Dan Pressnell
><dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>
>>Dominion wrote:
>>
>>> sobriety. I can also safely say that Uri Geller can't bend metal
>>> without touching it. Believe it. Why if Geller could bend metal
>>> without touching it, why then I would have to wonder if he was really
>>> psychic!
>>
>>Have you seen Richard Feynman's account of his encounter with Uri? His
>>son put a thin piece of copper wire in a test tube and brought it along
>>to be bent, but Uri ignored it.
>>
>>Why? Who knows. Maybe Uri didn't have the power at that time. But
>>then again, when he carried a spoon into the bathroom with him, being
>>alone with it, he found the ability to bend the spoon.
>
>Well it is much more impressive to bend that huge spoon. I mean, it
>had so much MORE metal than a little piece of copper wire. <G>
>
Hey, maybe the parabolic shape of the bowl is required to focus
paranormal powers...that would explain why it is spoons, not forks
or pieces of wire, or anything useful.
--
PZ Myers
Dominion
wrote:
>
YOU are the one that asked if there were any chemist or magicians out
there that could name such a chemical. YOU are the one that decided to
trot out this red herring, not us.
I am a magician. Since you asked I will tell you again. There ain't no
such chemical. Geller, Randi and I accomplished the "after bending"
the same way, mechanically, with old fashion slight of hand and
misdirection.
I am really curious as to why you seem that my methods are not worth
discussing as far as the "after bending" stunt goes. Would you like to
tell me exactly why you think it is not worth discussing?
Dominion
No doubt. I remember thinking when I first heard of Mr Geller that it
would be far more useful for him to bend the wings of fighter planes
or the fins of nuclear missiles. But no such luck.
Does anyone remember when Uri said he was going to make the hands of
Big Ben stop? Or that he was going to materialize a a piece of space
equipment left on the moon? Well he never did any of that stuff, just
stuff any magician could do. I wonder why that is?
--
Dominion
--
Bad spellers of the world UNTIE!
Jim Phillips
>
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, altheim wrote:
> > >
> > > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> > > > John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> > > > >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> > > > >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> > > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> > > >
> > > > I saw a fellow on TV bend a spoon. It was so floppy that I am sure
> > > > it would have kept bending after he set it down.
> > > >
> > > > His name was The Amazing Randi, or something like that.
> > > >
> > > Yeah yeah! now you've got the sarcasm out of your system
> > > I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> > > spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> > > bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> > > chemically softened metals would lose it.
> >
> > Could you give me more details on this "chemically softened
> > spoons" business?
> >
> No. The question was about 'after bending'.
If you can't tell me more about the "chemically softened spoons"
business, can you at least tell me where you heard about it so I can look
into it myself? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't
actually back up?
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
Let's have a Patrick Swayze Christmas!
Avital Pilpel
> I would like to Inform everyone in this group that
> their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
> called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
Humph. When I met Uri Geller two months ago, he claimed to have been
drafted into the mossad as a 10-year old, to have had parachuted out of
airplanes twice a week for two years in the Israeli paratroopers, and to
have caused world peace.
I'm won't be at all surprised if he would now claim to have been a Rabbi
as well.
Avital Pilpel
Mike Hutchinson
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>
>Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
>> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
>> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
>> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
>>
>> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
>> others use them?
>
>No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
>mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
>bending'.
I wondered whether you had any firm evidence for your claim. You don't.
Which doesn't surprise me. You used a strawman argument of the sort
which Uri will use. When asked about skeptics' views he throws in a
whole gamut of strawmen, saying that skeptics have said that he had a
radio in his tooth, a laser in his belt, and used chemicals.
Well, I don't know of any informed skeptic who has said any of those
things. The skeptics I know denounce such claims and explain Uri's
tricks in much the same way that Dominion has done.
The 'after bending' can be attributed to a number of things:
1) Suggesting to people that the metal is still bending. I've known Uri
do that a number of times even though the metal hasn't appeared to be
bending at all. I also remember Randi making that suggestion on a radio
programme in Bristol, UK, back in 1977. The host of the programme
confirmed that a key was still bending. Of course it wasn't.
2) Moving the object (spoon, fork, or key) so that it appears to be
moving. The best way to describe the move is to think of the movement of
a lever. For example, if a bowl of a spoon is at 30 degrees to the floor
and the handle also at 30 degrees, the bowl is SLOWLY moved parallel to
the floor while the handle moves to 60 degrees. This may not sound
convincing, but I can assure you it works.
3) By picking up and bending the object while people are distracted.
This can be done by the performer or by an accomplice. I once saw Randi
in a boardroom at the Daily Telegraph in London with maybe eight to
twelve people around him. He put the bent spoon onto a table. A few
moments later the spoon was bent considerably more than when he had
originally placed it down. It didn't bend on its own, although it
APPEARED to have done so.
With examples like those, no good evidence that Uri has ever bent even a
paper clip with psychic powers, and has been seen to bend things
physically, I do not accept that a paranormal explanation is necessary
for after bending.
--
Mike Hutchinson
Co-author of 'Bizarre Beliefs' (with 'Guardian' columnist Simon Hoggart)
See http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk
Please remove "no.rubbish" from reply to address
zanagj...@my-deja.com
their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
Deepak Chopra is the author of nineteen books which have been
translated into thirty languages, including PBS specials based on
The Way of the Wizard. I personally bought a few books of Deepak Chopra
after watching him in PBS, and it is really enjoyable for me to watch
and read, I am also listening one of his audio book called;
The Seven Spiritual Laws for Parents, and it is exctremely great.
In California Deepak Choppra has his own healing Center and thats were
lot of people go to be healed with a positive energy, I was aspecially
there and I have meet a lot of friends that have been touched with
a lot of positive energies. Coming back again to
Uri's new book of Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic will be
published on March 2000, I can't wait to get a copy of this new book
and if you need some more Informations please visite Uri's web page at
http://www.UriGeller.com or at amazon.com
Thank you for reading this Information and if some one has any questions
you can e-mail me at zgje...@cnmnetwork.com
All the best from my heart.
Zana Gjergji
All Star-Cosmetics Manager
Nordstrom in California
zanagj...@my-deja.com
Matt Kriebel
dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net wrote:
> Does anyone remember when Uri said he was going to make the hands of
> Big Ben stop?
Actaully, what happened is that Big Ben stopped one day and Geller called
a press conference to 'apologize' that his telekinetic power went amok and
caused it. Never mind that Big Ben stops a few times a year...
> Or that he was going to materialize a a piece of space
> equipment left on the moon? Well he never did any of that stuff, just
> stuff any magician could do. I wonder why that is?
Cause he's a real *bad* psychic 90% of the time. The other 10% he cheats.
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
See this .sig! Loathe this .sig! Hate this .sig!
Matt Kriebel
Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > Could you give me more details on this "chemically softened
> > > spoons" business?
> > >
> > No. The question was about 'after bending'.
>
> If you can't tell me more about the "chemically softened spoons"
> business, can you at least tell me where you heard about it so I can look
> into it myself? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't
> actually back up?
I think I can shed a bit of light here.
'Chemical bending' is a true example of 'psuedo-skepticism'. PS in this
case is not the usual "I'll call skeptics I don't like psuedo-skeptics"
that has been pounded ad nauseum around these parts. In this case it is
its real roots: Bad attempts to explain things.
I never really thought it could happen for real, but I've now heard people
who aren't so educated, yet don't beleive in psychics try to explain
things without considering the possibility that they were fooled. Anyone
with any science background knows that no such chemical exists, but some
folks may shoot from the hip and figure that some chemical was the
culprit. True Psuedo-skepticism is not uncommon, but you won't see it too
much in ap. In spiteof what some crybabuies may claim.
Sometimes psuedo-skeptic claims may be exaggerated or made out of thin
air. Geller often claimed that his detractors were saying he used a laser
in his belt-buckle and then proceeded to mock them for such an idea. Of
course, no one has yet been able to find exactly *who* made this claim,
but with it geller has tried to lump his more accurate oppononets with
these silly ideas.
As for 'after-bending' it is simple matter of innacurate human perception,
not reaveling the whole bend before dropping it, and perhaps a tad of
suggestion on the benders part. All of these are simple magician's tools.
Mel Wilson
>> their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
>> called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
>drafted into the mossad as a 10-year old, to have had parachuted out of
>airplanes twice a week for two years in the Israeli paratroopers, and to
>have caused world peace.
>I'm won't be at all surprised if he would now claim to have been a Rabbi
>as well.
An episode of Fashion Television would have us believe that Shmuley
Boteach is a genuine rabbi, who goes to fashion shows and has rabbinical
conversations and arguments with models and designers and fashion
pundits.
My working hypothesis is that mooshing him together with UG and DC is
meant as a joke, but then again ...
Regards. Mel.
Cyberia
Thanks for this excellent sarcasm. You actually sounded serious.
--------------
See Ya !
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hello...... Is this thing on ?
<zanagj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:83hgue$e5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I would like to Inform everyone in this group that
> their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
> called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
mike
altheim wrote in message ...
>
>No. The question was about 'after bending'.
>
>--
>altheim
>
Atheim, you have not even shown that such an "afterbending" effect even
exists. You have been given numerous explinations as to how it may *appear*
there is an "afterbending" effect, but there is no evidence showing that the
spoons or keys that Geller bends do indeed continue to bend *on their own*
when he stops touching them. Do you have any such evidence, aside from your
own proclomations that it exists?
mike
Robert Templeton
"mike" <Noma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:385d2...@news1.prserv.net...
And all you must do, altheim, is produce a video tape of such a thing
occuring in the direct vicinity of Mr. Geller. Is there one? If not, then
all of your blustering claims are hearsay and not admissible as evidence.
And then your entire inquiry would be pointless.
Robert Templeton
John Benneth
In the post below, Dominion makes the argument, that because a man cheats once,
he will cheat always. But I'm not so sure this is true.
Robert Nelson was a magician who made a study of psychics and wrote a book on
cold reading. And one of the effects he noted was that as you practice this
rather deceptive art form, you may well indeed find your actual psychic abilities
increasing, and that you will indeed have intuitive flashes about people.
In fact, I just recently read a report of this from a fake psychic trained
by Ray Hyman for a Penn and Teller special. She reported suddenly having a flash
that a woman she was doing a reading for was a nurse, and it turned out to be
true.
So this seems to be coming in shades and degree, not the black and white as
it has been stated. As I understand it, Geller's admitted to using tricks, but
only for the stage. Reportedly when being tested, he claims he doesn't use
tricks.
So how much of this is real? Well, what do we mean by real? Once you know
the method, there is no mystery. So is mystification the only gauge of what is a
trick? I believe we have psychic abilities, and I believe I understand the
process somewhat on a "physical" or scientific basis. Does that make me a fraud?
I've certainly been called one. And Randi has labeled me insane for presenting
proof for subtle energy phenomenon, but has also insisted he doesn't believe I'm
either fraud or charlatan..
Can one be both?
It doesn't seem like the mentally incompetent would have the ability to
present a complex canard, such as proof for homeopathy, but then again, madmen
seem to be always plotting to overtake the world, and this is no small feat, and
I once knew a retarded magician who performed with dirty ropes and a ragged
coat..
In fact, I think most magicians suffer from a bit of retardation . . . and
Randi, a homosexual high school drop out, a twice convicted libeler, doesn't
impress me as being all that stable, either. Just read the man rant.
And I must confess, that ever since I applied for Randi's Psychic Challenge
to prove homeopathy, and seen how bogus his investigation of me was, it has made
me skeptical of his investigation of others, and made me wonder if Randi did
indeed debunk Geller.
Most of this "debunking" seems to default to personal attacks. Randi
reportedly has stated to Geller, in person, how much he hates him. So I don't see
much objectivity to what we get from Randi, or what we hear from the scoffer's
who pretend to be skeptics, and if you've read any of my previous posts, you'll
see some evidence for my position.
There's a particular stage hypnosis effect designed for magicians which
insures that one gets the desired results from the subjects brought on stage,
being that hypnosis doesn't always work within the demands of entertainment.
Geller's an entertainer . . or was . . and his objective was to entertain
us. When we sit down to watch Geller, or any admitted illusionist, we agree to be
mystified. So what is it that Randi and these other wanna bees are really
accusing Geller of that they themselves aren't doing?
Does personally attacking Geller help us to understand what it is he is
doing? Not at all. It seems only to shed light on the attacker's lack of
investigative finesse. The best confessions from Geller have been presented to
those who have approached him kindly. Confession is the bottom line of
abjuration, and you can't get a valid confession by beating it out of someone,
just as you can't evoke the subtle energy effects by trashing the process of
their evocation.
Do you see where this is going? Randi, or anyone, won't get the truth out of
any person by attacking them a priori. And here he is, regarded by many, as a
leader in investigating subtle energy phenomena! How can you perceive subtle
effects in the heat of pre-made angry accusations?
Look, even if Geller is psychic, he may still have to resort to trickery in
order to fulfill the demands of the ticket price. You don't have to be honest to
have extraordinary abilities, and you don't have to be sane to be right about
some particular point . . . .
So I don't see how we can accept Dominion's claim that once a cheat always
a cheat on everything we perceive. I believe that Geller probably does indeed
have extraordinary psychic abilities, and that he does use deception in his act.
As much as I respect Dominion's reported abilities as a magician, I am
compelled to note that once we turn his logic back on him, his own credibility
dissolves away, too. After all, he's an admitted deceiver, so what are we to
believe from him if we accept his argument? I prefer to think that he is an
honest and talented man who knows how to deceive.
We all have our moments, you know . . .
John Benneth
Dominion wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:45:36 -0500, "mike" <Noma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Dominion wrote in message <3858e5ca....@news.pdq.net>...
> >>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:19:46 +0000, John Atkinson
> >><j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >>I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
> >>on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> >>considered a total fraud.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Dominion
> >>--
> >
> >Thank you for that very informative post Dominion, though in all deference
> >to Geller (and I loath to give the man any deference at all) if he has used
> >slight of hand even once, though the evidence shows he has used it many,
> >many, many times, the most we can truly say is that it casts serious doubt
> >on his claim of psychic powers. It does not *prove* that he is a total
> >fraud, but it increases the odds dramatically. Especially since he has not
> >been able to perform, to any credulous person's satisfaction, any kind of
> >unambiguous, non-prestedigitory (is that a word?) psychic feat.
> >I think that you have also touched on a very important point, most of the
> >posts to this thread have not even addressed the issue of whether this
> >"after-bending effect" is real at all. You have explained how such an effect
> >can be accomplished by non-psychic means (and all one need do is watch one
> >of Geller's performances to see that is exactly what he is doing). Atheim
> >and others proposing that such an effect is genuinely psychic have not
> >presented any evidence to bolster their opinion. All they have offered is
> >the assumption that the effect is indeed psychic, which doesn't make for
> >much of an argument.
>
> I am glad you enjoyed the information. I have been following this
> thread with interest, wondering if anyone would get down to the "nuts
> and bolts" of metala bending. This information is not secret, anyone
> with an ability to read between lines can get most of these methods in
> the book "The Magic of Uri Geller" by the esteemed Mr James Randi. I
> know, I did it when I was in high school. Other slights I picked up
> watching Mr Geller himself. In case of emergency I even have a few
> tricks left up my sleeve thanks to "Confessions of a Psychic" by Uriah
> (sp?) Fuller, a nom de plume for Martin Gardner if I remember
> correctly.
>
> However I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that
> catching Uri cheating once means only that he was only cheating that
> once. What is the old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me
> twice, shame on me"?
>
> Once a "psychic" is caught using slight of hand, then EVERYTHING
> he/she does becomes suspect. As a magician I know better than most
> just how hard it is to catch someone doing slight of hand. Even when I
> know what slights are being used it can be hard for me to see the
> move. I have seen Al Goshman a couple of times. I can do his whole
> routine, I know every one of the moves. But even with my advanced
> knowledge of slight of hand, I don't always see what he does. I have
> to infer it from the movement of his hands. Hell I have even
> experienced the same illusions that regular people do when watching a
> trick. I remember seeing Paul Shelinder (sp?) at a magic lecture once.
> He was doing a "coin thru the table" routine that consisted of him
> putting four coins thru a solid table, one at a time. With the last
> coin, he told a person from the audience to yell stop. When the person
> did, Paul "threw" the coin at the table. To this day I swear I saw the
> coin bounce on the table and vanish and I can assure you, knowing the
> method that he used, there was no way I saw what I think I saw. :)
>
> When I see a psychic using trickery to accomplish his "psychic" feats
> I MUST assume that on the times that people say he did not use
> trickery that he was simply not caught. Not that he has actually done
> something psychic. I think this is the correct attitude to have.
>
> Some years ago I read a paper from John Beloff called "Once a Cheat,
> Always a Cheat? Eusapia Palladino Revisited". It was a most particular
> plea for people to put aside the fact that Eusapia Palladino was
> caught cheating numerous times. His claim is that just because she was
> caught cheating on those occasions, it does not mean that she did so
> on every occasion. Sorry but no. All it means is that she was not
> caught cheating on those times she was not caught cheating. What was
> her excuse? Well I will be darned, it is the same excuse that
> apologist for Geller uses. She felt pressure to perform and so not to
> disappoint all those nice men, she cheated. I don't buy it from her
> and I surely don't buy it from Geller since you would think that he
> would have at least learned from her mistake and never never use
> slight of hand.
>
> Forgive me for using your post to flesh this idea out a bit. I do
> realize that you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Geller is
> real sometimes and not real others. :) I realize that I have been
> somewhat preaching to the choir. I want people to start *thinking* for
> pete's sake. If Geller cheated just once, then from then on you must
> assume that he cheats always.
>
> --
> Dominion
> --
>
> "Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
> reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against
> which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily
> in high schools."
> -- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary
> rocket work.
mike
John Benneth wrote in message <385D513E...@cyberhighway.net>...
>I certainly appreciate Dominion's posts here, and I've learned a lot from
them.
Wow, for once I agree with you John.
>In the post below, Dominion makes the argument, that because a man cheats
once,
>he will cheat always. But I'm not so sure this is true.
I don't think that was his argument exactly. Rather, he was saying that if a
man cheats once, we should consider any further claims of his as suspect.
> Robert Nelson was a magician who made a study of psychics and wrote a
book on
>cold reading. And one of the effects he noted was that as you practice this
>rather deceptive art form, you may well indeed find your actual psychic
abilities
>increasing, and that you will indeed have intuitive flashes about people.
> In fact, I just recently read a report of this from a fake psychic
trained
>by Ray Hyman for a Penn and Teller special. She reported suddenly having a
flash
>that a woman she was doing a reading for was a nurse, and it turned out to
be
>true.
I saw that too. She said she got lucky once, and that it did not prove
anything. She was bound to get a few dead-on lucky hits eventually.
> So this seems to be coming in shades and degree, not the black and
white as
>it has been stated. As I understand it, Geller's admitted to using tricks,
but
>only for the stage. Reportedly when being tested, he claims he doesn't use
>tricks.
Why would he need to use tricks for the stage? And why should we believe
that he doesn't use them when being tested?
> So how much of this is real? Well, what do we mean by real?
Uhhh, someone actually having psychic powers...?
Once you know
>the method, there is no mystery. So is mystification the only gauge of what
is a
>trick?
No. A trick is when you state or imply that you are doing something by a
particular method, when in actuallity you are doing it by another method, or
just making it appear as if you are dong it. I don't know what definition of
"trick" you had in mind.
I believe we have psychic abilities, and I believe I understand the
>process somewhat on a "physical" or scientific basis. Does that make me a
fraud?
No, but unless you have some credible evidence to support your beliefs,
theire is no reason we should believe you.
>I've certainly been called one. And Randi has labeled me insane for
presenting
>proof for subtle energy phenomenon, but has also insisted he doesn't
believe I'm
>either fraud or charlatan..
> Can one be both?
This belongs in another thread.
> It doesn't seem like the mentally incompetent would have the ability
to
>present a complex canard, such as proof for homeopathy, but then again,
madmen
>seem to be always plotting to overtake the world, and this is no small
feat, and
>I once knew a retarded magician who performed with dirty ropes and a ragged
>coat..
This belongs in another thread.
> In fact, I think most magicians suffer from a bit of retardation . . .
and
>Randi, a homosexual high school drop out, a twice convicted libeler,
doesn't
>impress me as being all that stable, either. Just read the man rant.
This definitely belong in another thread, titled "ad hominem blathering."
> And I must confess, that ever since I applied for Randi's Psychic
Challenge
>to prove homeopathy, and seen how bogus his investigation of me was, it has
made
>me skeptical of his investigation of others, and made me wonder if Randi
did
>indeed debunk Geller.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> Most of this "debunking" seems to default to personal attacks.
Any examples of this?
Randi
>reportedly has stated to Geller, in person, how much he hates him.
That has nothing to do with whether Randi did indeed debunk of Geller.
So I don't see
>much objectivity to what we get from Randi,
One doesn't need to be objective to expose frauds or spot a charlitan.
or what we hear from the scoffer's
>who pretend to be skeptics, and if you've read any of my previous posts,
you'll
>see some evidence for my position.
None worth considering seriously.
> There's a particular stage hypnosis effect designed for magicians
which
>insures that one gets the desired results from the subjects brought on
stage,
>being that hypnosis doesn't always work within the demands of
entertainment.
I don't know what this nonsense has to do with anything.
> Geller's an entertainer . . or was . . and his objective was to
entertain
>us. When we sit down to watch Geller, or any admitted illusionist, we agree
to be
>mystified.
Geller is not an "admitted illusionist," he STILL claims to have psychic
powers. Was he only trying to "entertain" those who think his teddy bear
line or his "crystals" really can help heal the sick?
So what is it that Randi and these other wanna bees are really
>accusing Geller of that they themselves aren't doing?
Uhh, deceiving the public?
> Does personally attacking Geller help us to understand what it is he
is
>doing? Not at all. It seems only to shed light on the attacker's lack of
>investigative finesse. The best confessions from Geller have been presented
to
>those who have approached him kindly. Confession is the bottom line of
>abjuration, and you can't get a valid confession by beating it out of
someone,
>just as you can't evoke the subtle energy effects by trashing the process
of
>their evocation.
Yeah, Geller will confess to not being psychic if we only "ask him nicely."
Sure.
> Do you see where this is going? Randi, or anyone, won't get the truth
out of
>any person by attacking them a priori. And here he is, regarded by many, as
a
>leader in investigating subtle energy phenomena! How can you perceive
subtle
>effects in the heat of pre-made angry accusations.
> Look, even if Geller is psychic, he may still have to resort to
trickery in
>order to fulfill the demands of the ticket price.
Then he shouldn't be charging so much.
You don't have to be honest to
>have extraordinary abilities, and you don't have to be sane to be right
about
>some particular point . . . .
> So I don't see how we can accept Dominion's claim that once a cheat
always
>a cheat on everything we perceive. I believe that Geller probably does
indeed
>have extraordinary psychic abilities, and that he does use deception in his
act.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> As much as I respect Dominion's reported abilities as a magician, I am
>compelled to note that once we turn his logic back on him, his own
credibility
>dissolves away, too. After all, he's an admitted deceiver, so what are we
to
>believe from him if we accept his argument?
This statement is idiotic. That's like saying that actors cannot be trusted
because they "deceive us" whenever they take the role of someone they're
not.
mike
Jake
look at computer screens. Try to shorten your posts if you want someone to
pay attention to what you say. I would be happy to read it, but my eyes get
heavy after some time.
Jake
Dan Pressnell
>
> I didn't take the time to read your post, for I absolutely despise having to
> look at computer screens. Try to shorten your posts if you want someone to
> pay attention to what you say. I would be happy to read it, but my eyes get
> heavy after some time.
To sum it up, he said Uri Geller might only cheat when his psyshic
powers fail him.
Dan
Rev. Mykeru
Dan Pressnell wrote:
> Jake wrote:
> >
> > I didn't take the time to read your post, for I absolutely despise having to
> > look at computer screens. Try to shorten your posts if you want someone to
> > pay attention to what you say. I would be happy to read it, but my eyes get
> > heavy after some time.
>
> To sum it up, he said Uri Geller might only cheat when his psyshic
> powers fail him.
>
> Dan
Makes sense that Uri will cheat when he is lacking in paranormal powers. What they
don't tell you is that this constitutes 100% of the time.
--
Slack,
Rev. Mykeru Lop-lop
Subgenius. Dada. Hack. Primate.
Philosopher. Agitator. Emu.
Smart ass. Ontological Box Lunch.
Fish Slapper of Normals.
" '...any inanity spouted by a SubGenius at any
given time automatically becomes part of orthodox
SubGenius Liturgy.' It is one of the single greatest
Tenets, for by its own very token one can also deny
it later."
http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p8.html
Rev. Mykeru
John Benneth wrote:
> I certainly appreciate Dominion's posts here, and I've learned a lot from them.
> In the post below, Dominion makes the argument, that because a man cheats once,
> he will cheat always. But I'm not so sure this is true.
I favor the argument that a man caught cheating is, well, cheating.
>
> Robert Nelson was a magician who made a study of psychics and wrote a book on
> cold reading. And one of the effects he noted was that as you practice this
> rather deceptive art form, you may well indeed find your actual psychic abilities
> increasing, and that you will indeed have intuitive flashes about people.
Or, rather, you may begin to convince even yourself that your bogus powers are real.
This may be due to a defense mechanism that wants to alleviate the guilt of knowingly
scamming people. See
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n01/confessions-of-a-tarot-card-reader.html
>
> In fact, I just recently read a report of this from a fake psychic trained
> by Ray Hyman for a Penn and Teller special. She reported suddenly having a flash
> that a woman she was doing a reading for was a nurse, and it turned out to be
> true.
Those white uniforms and shoes tend to flash, yes. I am sure we can pick up things
about people in their dress and manner that will tell us a lot about them. But
generalizing from experience does not imply paranormal power any more than knowing
where someone comes from by their accent is a "blue sense".
And, incidentally, anecdote is not evidence.
>
> So this seems to be coming in shades and degree, not the black and white as
> it has been stated. As I understand it, Geller's admitted to using tricks, but
> only for the stage. Reportedly when being tested, he claims he doesn't use
> tricks.
Why use tricks at all? And just to throw in Occam's Razor, if we know Geller uses
tricks isisn't it more parsimonious, all things being equal, to always assume he uses
tricks?
Of course, when being tested he may not use tricks because he can't get away with it.
He also demonstrates no paranormal power at all.
>
> So how much of this is real? Well, what do we mean by real?
Real, as opposed to bullshit.
> Once you know
> the method, there is no mystery. So is mystification the only gauge of what is a
> trick? I believe we have psychic abilities, and I believe I understand the
> process somewhat on a "physical" or scientific basis. Does that make me a fraud?
No, it makes you someone who has confused belief with knowledge.
>
> I've certainly been called one. And Randi has labeled me insane for presenting
> proof for subtle energy phenomenon, but has also insisted he doesn't believe I'm
> either fraud or charlatan..
He probably thinks you are deluded.
>
> Can one be both?
Fraud and charlatan are synonymous, so, yes.
>
> It doesn't seem like the mentally incompetent would have the ability to
> present a complex canard, such as proof for homeopathy, but then again, madmen
> seem to be always plotting to overtake the world,and this is no small feat, and
non-
> I once knew a retarded magician who performed with dirty ropes and a ragged
> coat..
Sequiter
>
> In fact, I think most magicians suffer from a bit of retardation . . . and
> Randi, a homosexual high school drop out, a twice convicted libeler, doesn't
> impress me as being all that stable, either. Just read the man rant.
The nice thing about having common sense is that one need not be educated and
straight to have it. Targ and Putoff sure were educated, straight and lacking in even
a smidge of it.
>
> And I must confess, that ever since I applied for Randi's Psychic Challenge
> to prove homeopathy, and seen how bogus his investigation of me was, it has made
> me skeptical of his investigation of others, and made me wonder if Randi did
> indeed debunk Geller.
Ahhhh......the motive. I dont know you from squat, but now I see...
>
> Most of this "debunking" seems to default to personal attacks.
Like calling someone a gay high school dropout retard?
> Randi
> reportedly has stated to Geller, in person, how much he hates him. So I don't see
> much objectivity to what we get from Randi, or what we hear from the scoffer's
> who pretend to be skeptics, and if you've read any of my previous posts, you'll
> see some evidence for my position.
Well, considering that Geller has been scamming people for years, I can sort of
understand feeling contempt for him.
>
> There's a particular stage hypnosis effect designed for magicians which
> insures that one gets the desired results from the subjects brought on stage,
> being that hypnosis doesn't always work within the demands of entertainment.
> Geller's an entertainer . . or was . . and his objective was to entertain
> us. When we sit down to watch Geller, or any admitted illusionist, we agree to be
> mystified. So what is it that Randi and these other wanna bees are really
> accusing Geller of that they themselves aren't doing?
Randi doesn't claim to be a psychic. He admits he uses tricks. He does not pretend to
be something he is not. Geller only admits it when he is caught red-handed.
>
> Does personally attacking Geller help us to understand what it is he is
> doing?
Calling someone a liar when they lie is not a personal attack. Calling someone a scam
artist when they are a scam artist is not a personal attack. Calling a fraud a fraud
is not a personal attack.
Maybe we should adopt a euphemism that is more to your liking. Perhaps we should call
Geller an "Integrity illusionist"
> Not at all. It seems only to shed light on the attacker's lack of
> investigative finesse.
You mean disclosing someone as a fraud shows a failing of their investigatory
technique? Hmmn, let's have tea. I'll invite the white rabbit.
> The best confessions from Geller have been presented to
> those who have approached him kindly. Confession is the bottom line of
> abjuration, and you can't get a valid confession by beating it out of someone,
> just as you can't evoke the subtle energy effects by trashing the process of
> their evocation.
I am sure that Geller was about to confess but those darn debunkers beat him to it. I
am sure he said "I will scam one more little out lady out of her social security
money and then, that's it, I'm confessing".
>
> Do you see where this is going?
In ever decreasing solipcistic circles right up your fundamental aperature.
> Randi, or anyone, won't get the truth out of
> any person by attacking them a priori.
Actually, he "attacked" Geller a posteriori, after he had shown that Geller was using
cheap tricks passed off as genuine paranormal power.
> And here he is, regarded by many, as a
> leader in investigating subtle energy phenomena! How can you perceive subtle
> effects in the heat of pre-made angry accusations?
I am glad the military gave up on psychic research. War makes for such bad vibes.
>
> Look, even if Geller is psychic,
Which he is not.
> he may still have to resort to trickery in
> order to fulfill the demands of the ticket price.
You mean, even if he is a psychic, he is just in it for the money?
> You don't have to be honest to
> have extraordinary abilities,
In other words, being caught cheating again and again in no way changes your opinion
about Geller's supposed "powers".
> and you don't have to be sane to be right about
> some particular point . . . .
But damn, it helps.
>
> So I don't see how we can accept Dominion's claim that once a cheat always
> a cheat on everything we perceive. I believe that Geller probably does indeed
> have extraordinary psychic abilities, and that he does use deception in his act.
In other words, the fact that Geller cheats, has been caught cheating, and can never
show any paranormal power under conditions where he cannot cheat in no way alters
your opinion about his paranormal powers.
>
> As much as I respect Dominion's reported abilities as a magician, I am
> compelled to note that once we turn his logic back on him, his own credibility
> dissolves away, too.
Well, we will see about that when it happens
> After all, he's an admitted deceiver,
No, magicians admit they do tricks. It is bad magicians that pretend to have psychic
powers that are the deceivers.
> so what are we to
> believe from him if we accept his argument?
That Geller is a fraud and his apologists are deluded nutters.
> I prefer to think that he is an
> honest and talented man who knows how to deceive.
> We all have our moments, you know . . .
Hail "Bob" and shovel the bullshit.
Cathy Credulous
<zanagj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83k7og$59m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart.
> Who looks inside, awakens. I believe that with MindPower we can all
> make our spirit dance. For decades Uri Geller has helped children and
> has donated money. In a special way Uri Geller has changed homeless
> children in to non homeless. All over the world and so many different
> people have been saved from his true powers.
> Also Uri has helped to raised donations in Kosovo, for more information
> please visite http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/afos.htm
> Uri is the Honorary Vice President of the Royal Berkshire Hospital for
> Children in Bristol, and of the Royal Berkshire Hospital close to his
> Thames-side mansion. Uri Geller is a God send.
How much is Uri being paid to play in the celebrity football match?
Do you know the percentage of the funds raised that will go to the
charities?
>
> Zana Gjergji
> All Star-Cosmetics Manager
> Nordstrom in California
Is Nordstrom participating in the fund raising event?
Cathy
zanagj...@my-deja.com
Who looks inside, awakens. I believe that with MindPower we can all
make our spirit dance. For decades Uri Geller has helped children and
has donated money. In a special way Uri Geller has changed homeless
children in to non homeless. All over the world and so many different
people have been saved from his true powers.
Also Uri has helped to raised donations in Kosovo, for more information
please visite http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/afos.htm
Uri is the Honorary Vice President of the Royal Berkshire Hospital for
Children in Bristol, and of the Royal Berkshire Hospital close to his
Thames-side mansion. Uri Geller is a God send.
Zana Gjergji
All Star-Cosmetics Manager
Nordstrom in California
Alan Morgan
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 zanagj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
>> called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
>
>drafted into the mossad as a 10-year old, to have had parachuted out of
>airplanes twice a week for two years in the Israeli paratroopers, and to
>have caused world peace.
I must have missed that last one. When did that happen?
Alan
altheim
Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
> >Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
> >> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
> >>
> >> Snip
> >>
> >> >I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> >> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> >> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> >> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
> >>
> >> What is this about "Randi's chemically softened spoons"? Are you
> >> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
> >> others use them?
> >
> >No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
> >mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
> >bending'.
>
> I wondered whether you had any firm evidence for your claim.
My claim?? Lets just straighten something out here Mike;
Someone else asked if any magicians had been able to copy
Geller's OSTENSIBLE ability to cause bending of a spoon to
continue after he had put the thing down. All I'm doing is try to
get people to address this question.
> You don't.
> Which doesn't surprise me. You used a strawman argument of the sort
> which Uri will use. When asked about skeptics' views he throws in a
> whole gamut of strawmen, saying that skeptics have said that he had a
> radio in his tooth, a laser in his belt, and used chemicals.
>
If skeptics have said those things it is hardly a strawman to
repeat them surely? But neither have I claimed anywhere
that chemicals have been used. I have heard, over a number
of years in various newsgroups, that chemicals could be used
to soften metal. One other contributor described a chemical
which could do this, but that its use would be highly dangerous.
I'm perfectly satisfied with this but it leaves open the question
as to how bending could continue after the object had been
laid down.
You go on to say:
> The 'after bending' can be attributed to a number of things:
>
> 1) Suggesting to people that the metal is still bending. I've known Uri
> do that a number of times even though the metal hasn't appeared to be
> bending at all. I also remember Randi making that suggestion on a radio
> programme in Bristol, UK, back in 1977. The host of the programme
> confirmed that a key was still bending. Of course it wasn't.
>
> 2) Moving the object (spoon, fork, or key) so that it appears to be
> moving. The best way to describe the move is to think of the movement of
> a lever. For example, if a bowl of a spoon is at 30 degrees to the floor
> and the handle also at 30 degrees, the bowl is SLOWLY moved parallel to
> the floor while the handle moves to 60 degrees. This may not sound
> convincing, but I can assure you it works.
>
> 3) By picking up and bending the object while people are distracted.
> This can be done by the performer or by an accomplice. I once saw Randi
> in a boardroom at the Daily Telegraph in London with maybe eight to
> twelve people around him. He put the bent spoon onto a table. A few
> moments later the spoon was bent considerably more than when he had
> originally placed it down. It didn't bend on its own, although it
> APPEARED to have done so.
>
But these all require the object to be handled by Geller again.
Some of the statements in the website Mr Atkinson mentioned
claimed the spoons continued to bend *after* he had put it down
and turned to do other things.
--
altheim
altheim
Dominion <dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net> wrote:
> "altheim" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
> >> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
> >>
> >> Snip
> >>
> >> >I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> >> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> >> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> >> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
> >>
> >> What is this about "Randi's chemically softened spoons"? Are you
> >> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
> >> others use them?
> >
> >No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
> >mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
> >bending'.
>
> might actually cause doubt as to the reality of Uri Geller's amazing
> power of mind over metal.
>
I must write really badly to cause such confusion. My apologies -
let me try again:
Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if a stage magician is to duplicate the
kind of after-bending which Mr Atkinson has described where the
spoons (ostensibly) continued to bend after they have been laid
down on the table and without resorting to psychological tricks like
'suggestion', then some king of chemical must be used. I'm satisfied
now that this has been ruled out. The other method - mechanical
bending - I thought not worth mentioning because it alone could
not accomplish after-bending.
I agree with you that Geller might be quite capable of stage trickery
and such psychological tricks as you have described.
It has been hard work fighting through the fog. I don't know how
Mr Atkinson feels about this but I'm happy now that the original
question has been answered:
Stage magicians cannot do after-bending.
--
altheim
altheim
Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, altheim wrote:
> > > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, altheim wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> > > > > John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> > > > > >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> > > > > >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > > > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > > > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> > > > I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> > > > spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> > > > bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> > > > chemically softened metals would lose it.
> > >
> > > spoons" business?
> > >
>
> business, can you at least tell me where you heard about it so I can look
> into it myself? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't
> actually back up?
>
mistake to talk about "chemically softened" spoons but I
don't think it was an unreasonable assumption to make
as the alternative - bending continuing after mechanical
bending - is far less likely.
--
altheim
altheim
<zanagj...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I would like to Inform everyone in this group that
> their will be a new book of Uri Geller and Shmuley Boteach
> called Confessions Of A Rabbi And A Psychic.
I do hope they make a movie of it. I love those old "Confessions"
films of the '70s. Tony Booth as the Rabbi maybe?
;-)
--
altheim
Peter Duffie
>[snip]
>
>I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
>on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
>considered a total fraud.
Perhaps Dominion would indicate to us one 'unambiguous' piece of evidence
that proves Geller has cheated. We should be discussing facts, not
suppositions.
Peter Duffie
Dan Pressnell
>
> Dominion wrote
> >[snip]
> >
> >I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of that
> >on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has to be
> >considered a total fraud.
>
> that proves Geller has cheated. We should be discussing facts, not
> suppositions.
Perhaps Geller should prove he has psychic abilities.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
I hope it has bikini babes in it.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> It has been hard work fighting through the fog. I don't know how
> Mr Atkinson feels about this but I'm happy now that the original
> question has been answered:
>
> Stage magicians cannot do after-bending.
And neither can Geller.
Dan
PZ Myers
<dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
And radioactive monsters, exploding heads, and lots of car chases? I
might go see it then.
--
PZ Myers
John Atkinson
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>
>Dominion <dominion@take_this_out.pdq.net> wrote:
>> "altheim" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >Mike Hutchinson <mi...@hutch.demon.no.rubbish.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>> >>
>> >> Snip
>> >>
>> >> >spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
>> >> >bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
>> >> >chemically softened metals would lose it.
>> >>
>> >> claiming that Randi uses chemically softened spoons or that he has said
>> >> others use them?
>> >
>> >No, that's just one method I've heard suggested - the other being
>> >mechanical which, I think, isn't worth mentioning in regard to 'after
>> >bending'.
>>
>> Of course you don't think it is worth mentioning. If we mention it we
>> might actually cause doubt as to the reality of Uri Geller's amazing
>> power of mind over metal.
>>
>
>I must write really badly to cause such confusion. My apologies -
>let me try again:
>
>Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if a stage magician is to duplicate the
>kind of after-bending which Mr Atkinson has described where the
>spoons (ostensibly) continued to bend after they have been laid
>down on the table and without resorting to psychological tricks like
>'suggestion', then some king of chemical must be used. I'm satisfied
>now that this has been ruled out. The other method - mechanical
>bending - I thought not worth mentioning because it alone could
>not accomplish after-bending.
>
>I agree with you that Geller might be quite capable of stage trickery
>and such psychological tricks as you have described.
>
>Mr Atkinson feels about this but I'm happy now that the original
>question has been answered:
>
>Stage magicians cannot do after-bending.
>
And I doubt if Uri Geller or anyone else can either.
I'd like to suggest this possibility; there is here something that
really could be tested in a laboratory. Or anywhere else.
Let's suppose the scientists sat Geller down with a pile of spoons
and told him he could bend them how he liked, by psychic means or
by physical force, and it didn't matter.
What would matter would be the 'after-effect', which could easily
be recorded on video after he'd put the spoon down on the table in
plain view.
As he's supposedly already done this in a large number of venues,
more than 60 at the latest count, I don't see why it shouldn't work
in front of a camera.
Have I just devised an experiment where Mr Geller can prove his
powers beyond doubt?
If Mr Geller feels he can't do this, I'd like to hear from him
directly as to why he can't.
>--
>altheim
>
>
>
--
John Atkinson
http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Email: j...@bigfoot.com
mike
altheim wrote in message ...
>Someone else asked if any magicians had been able to copy
>Geller's OSTENSIBLE ability to cause bending of a spoon to
>continue after he had put the thing down. All I'm doing is try to
>get people to address this question.
>
But that's the whole point. The question is moot. There is no evidence that
such an after-bending effect even exists. To try to come up with an
explination of how it exists (except how it may *seem* to be accomplished
through slright-of-hand) is silly and a waste of time.
mike
Zugzwang
<psy...@tesco.com> wrote:
> Dominion wrote
> >[snip]
> >
> >I appeal to your common sense (tho in truth I have seen little of
> that
> >on usenet). If Geller used slight of hand just once, then he has
> to be
> >considered a total fraud.
> evidence
> that proves Geller has cheated. We should be discussing facts, not
> suppositions.
Geller's manager admitted to cheating by Geller, and claims that Uri
did so because of the incredible pressure of being so damned psychic.
It's mentioned in Randi's book, "The Magic of Uri Geller". No, I'm not
able to cite the page and paragraph. Geller's not worth my time to look
it up.
Also in that book is the story of how Geller cheated when claming to
make a photograph appear on the film of a camera on which the lens cap
was "securely" taped. Clear, unambiguous evidence is there in the form
of a photograph clearly and unambiguously showing Uri himself in the
act of holding the lens cap in his fingers. He himself provided the
proof that he cheated, because he was ignorant of the depth-of-field of
the lens.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jim Phillips
>
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, altheim wrote:
> > > > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, altheim wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> > > > > > John Atkinson <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >One of the most fascinating aspects of Uri Geller's metal bending is
> > > > > > >the reported "after bending" that continues when Geller is out of
> > > > > > >contact with the metal spoon or key.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > [snips]
> > > > > > >Does anyone know if the various conjurors and mentalists who have
> > > > > > >replicated Geller's metal bendings have managed to include this
> > > > > > >extra effect in their demonstrations?
> [...]
> > > > > I can tell you I'm not so sure that Randi's chemically softened
> > > > > spoons would keep bending. The point about metallic "after
> > > > > bending" is that the spoon retained tensile cohesion whereas
> > > > > chemically softened metals would lose it.
> > > >
> > > > Could you give me more details on this "chemically softened
> > > > spoons" business?
> > > >
> > > No. The question was about 'after bending'.
> >
> > If you can't tell me more about the "chemically softened spoons"
> > business, can you at least tell me where you heard about it so I can look
> > into it myself? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't
> > actually back up?
> >
> This is not a claim but an assumption. Perhaps it was a
> mistake to talk about "chemically softened" spoons but I
> don't think it was an unreasonable assumption to make
> as the alternative - bending continuing after mechanical
> bending - is far less likely.
Here's a little hint: "chemically softened spoons" to those who
know about such things is like saying "invisible fairies" did it. IOW,
if you are going to propose a solution, at least try to make sure that
it's not absolute nonsense.
And why have you not considered the magician's explanation for
"bending continuing after mechanical bending", especially when some of
them can do it, too, via sleight of hand and optical illusion?
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
Let's have a Patrick Swayze Christmas!
Avital Pilpel
> > If you can't tell me more about the "chemically softened spoons"
> > business, can you at least tell me where you heard about it so I can look
> > into it myself? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't
> > actually back up?
> >
> This is not a claim but an assumption.
In other words, it's a claim without any evidence you just pulled out of
your ass...
Avital Pilpel
Avital Pilpel
> > 1) Suggesting to people that the metal is still bending. I've known Uri
> > do that a number of times even though the metal hasn't appeared to be
> > bending at all. I also remember Randi making that suggestion on a radio
> > programme in Bristol, UK, back in 1977. The host of the programme
> > confirmed that a key was still bending. Of course it wasn't.
> >
> > 2) Moving the object (spoon, fork, or key) so that it appears to be
> > moving. The best way to describe the move is to think of the movement of
> > a lever. For example, if a bowl of a spoon is at 30 degrees to the floor
> > and the handle also at 30 degrees, the bowl is SLOWLY moved parallel to
> > the floor while the handle moves to 60 degrees. This may not sound
> > convincing, but I can assure you it works.
> >
> > 3) By picking up and bending the object while people are distracted.
> > This can be done by the performer or by an accomplice. I once saw Randi
> > in a boardroom at the Daily Telegraph in London with maybe eight to
> > twelve people around him. He put the bent spoon onto a table. A few
> > moments later the spoon was bent considerably more than when he had
> > originally placed it down. It didn't bend on its own, although it
> > APPEARED to have done so.
> >
> But these all require the object to be handled by Geller again.
Which is exactly what he does, without people noticing.
It is not at all difficult, for even an amateur magician, to touch and
manipulate object with his or her hands while making the audience
convinced he "didn't touch" the objects.
Your claim that Uri doesn't really touch the spoon again is, simply,
wrong.
Avital Pilpel