davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (06/04/85)
In article <426@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Dave Trissel states: > >> Uri Geller has been known to fake things quite often. However, I would >> love to see a professional magician do what some friends of mine have seem >> him do. > >Frankly, Dave, I doubt that. Your message leads me to believe that you want >to believe in psychic powers; your uncritical acceptance of your friends' >story and your failure to research Geller's methods seems to indicate that >fairly strongly. Uncritical acceptance? Very few on the net would be interested in a 2,000 word essay on my questioning the several observers. Failure to research Geller's methods? Let's see how you come to this conclusion: > >Professional magicians can do what Geller did easily. I know this because >James Randi has written a book called "The Magic of Uri Geller" explaining >in precise detail how Uri does his tricks. This includes bending forks from >a distance, as you have described: ... Uh right. One fork bent over 180 degrees. If you think someone can "talk" a person into believing that they just saw a fork slowly bend into an angle of over 180 degrees within a foot of their eyes I've got a bridge for you to buy. Sorry but Randi's book dosn't quite explain what I'm talking about. I think the Great Randi snowed you a little. > >You see, a stage magician creates illusions. He does not simply cause >objects to do things one would not ordinarily believe they could do; he >deceives the mind of the spectator into believing something happened which >did not happen at all. One of the leading techniques of illusion is making >someone remember something differently from the way they saw it, whether >through verbal misdirection or other methods. [Enter sarcasm mode] Gee - you're right! Wow was I so naive! I'll know better next time. I never thought of that! E.t.c E.t.c [Exit sarcasm mode] >In short, what I am saying is that your friend did report that story to you >that way, but that is not the way it happened. No doubt Uri drew attention >to the fork initially and flattered your friend (people all like to believe >they have some special resonance with the psychic) by giving him the credit. Two of my friends there were amateur magicians, one quite practiced and quite a skeptical fellow too. I know him quite well and any smooth talking from Uri would have been a RED FLAG to this fellow. Of the people there that I know only one is the gullible "true believer" type. The others are quite level-headed and not so stupid as your position is forcing you to make them out to be. I wonder where you got the notion that "Uri drew attention to the fork initially." This is not how it happened. One of my friends noticed it himself. Where did you come up with your notion? (I know, Randi's book. Sorry, Tim, but the Amazing Randi wasn't there. [unless he teleported :-) ]) >This could be done verbally, but it wouldn't have to be; just a sudden >glance in the right direction will usually draw people's eyes where you want >them. Um right. Uri and his two friends sitting at the end of the table just made these people glance elsewhere while they replaced two straight forks with two severly bent forks from several seats away. And then they kept seeing forks bend and twist, arching somewhat off of the table, from 30 or so degrees to over 180 (for one fork) because Uri was yelling "look! They're bending!" Right. >Another of Uri's favorite lines is "Look, it's still bending": an >illusion that is very easy to create with a pre-bent utensil, as Randi >shows. Uri does indeed do this quite often. I figure he does it so that when very little bending does occur (or none) he can get the people to imagine that much more has actually happened. Increases the impact and can fool some people the same way Randi and others do. There isn't any doubt in my mind that Uri will resort to trickery if things don't "happen." Like I said before, his ego seems to demand it. >It is, finally, not very hard to make someone forget during what >exact period you were in a position to touch a fork: professional magicians >use misdirection techniques like this all the time. You can find >documentation, both that these are common techniques and that Uri uses them, >in Randi's book. Trouble is Uri and everyone else stayed in their seats. Most could watch the forks slowly bending from where they sat. The experience was so unusual that they didn't have the presence of mind to get out of their chairs and stand closer. (Of course this would work to a magician's advantage.) >The reason such a deception works is because people don't look for illusions >on that level. They think, as you did, that maybe he dropped a special >chemical on the fork, or some other mechanical contrivance. But the >illusion isn't happening in the physical world, it's happening in your head. >By looking in the world of matter, you miss the illusion completely; which, >of course, is precisely what the illusionist is after. If the forks bent "just a little" as you suggest then I would be perfectly happy to dismiss the entire event as illusion. But don't try to say that all these people actually thought they saw forks bend and contort over such wide angles when in reality the forks were already so bent. That's absurd. >Now that you understand stage magic a little better (if not, I recommend >Randi's book), I'm going to move on to your letter and show the many ways >in which you show that you want to believe in psychic powers. The reason >I'm pointing this out is that the myth of psychic powers is maintained by >people who wish to believe in psychic powers, and manage to convince other >like-minded people using fallacious arguments and demonstrations. Hopefully >at least one such person will read this and become more skeptical, and thus >I will have helped cut the monetary pipeline to cruel frauds like Geller. Sorry to ruin your show. But I have already pointed out some of the absurd assumptions you have to resort to in trying to deny events which don't fit into your little view of the universe. >> Now I presume Uri could have dropped some sort of chemical on the forks >> while he was passing by since no one was prepared to watch for any >> shenanigans. > >Here you ADMIT that there was no careful observation of the man! Yet this >doesn't faze you in the least. This is evidence of a strong desire to >believe, is it not? That's strange. Doesn't it prove just the opposite? If I was a naive "true believer" why would I have made the specific point that my friends weren't prepared at all times to see something paranormal? Why was I not afraid to admit the fact? The only alternative reason for your statement is that you think I am so dumb that I wouldn't realize that the lack of pre-observation would be a weakness. Sorry, but like a true scientist I try to examine all the facts. That means examining the hypothesis that Geller was faking it. Since I did not go into second-by-second detail it is interesting how you jumped to several ridiculous conclusions such as assuming that Uri or his co-horts were close enough to easily swap forks, or that those present were so naive that simple suggestion was all that was necessary to make forks seem to bend and contort right in front of people's eyes. One person in the group was an aerospace engineer. He should get quite a chuckle out of your posting. >> He certainly wasn't handling the forks while they were bending as any >> magician would have to do. > >You have no real knowledge of stage magic, yet you go around claiming that a >stage magician would have to do it a certain way, because this claim gives >you an excuse to believe in psychic powers. I assure you that stage >magicians can do things you wouldn't believe -- in fact, that's the point of >the profession. Your debunking is taking on the overtones of a religious fanatic. Now your position is forcing you make even more inaccurate statements. I practiced slight-of-hand magic from a very young age. I even built small stages and some elaborate props to give my free little magic shows to family and friends. I regularly watch the magicians on TV and very rarely fail to see through tricks the very first time they are presented. Your make-believe accusations are almost scary. It's as though one of those Identity Christians is again proclaiming that the holocaust was a myth. But like the Identity Christians it's quite easy to show your belief system up . for the flaws it has. Since you are so sure that I'm naive when it comes to magic tricks I challenge you to a test. Remember when the Statue of Liberty disappeared on TV some time ago? I presume that the "trick" behind it has not been revealed. I have not heard any plausible ways suggested from those around me. Yet a fairly easy way to do it occurred to me while I was watching it. If the method hasn't been let out and you haven't heard how it was done - let's see you suggest how you think it was done. I'll do the same and we'll see just who comes up with the easiest and simplest solution. Or, if that can't be done - we will both watch the next magic special on TV and simultaneously post our solutions to the tricks. (And no asking any magician friends for help. Dare you chance finding out I have the keener t. analytical mind when it comes to uncovering magic? What about some of Houdini's tricks which haven't been revealed? As a kid I figured out ways that some could have been done (like the milkcan filled with water escape.) >Further, you say "certainly" in reference to events that you did not >yourself witness and for which you have no evidence beyond your friends' >stories. Once again, we are led to the conclusion that you have an >emotional stake in believing in psychic powers. It is possible that I somewhat overstated things. If my friends weren't excellent observationist and aware of mis-direction and the like or I had not the chance to grill them over all of this I wouldn't have come accross as so sure. Do you think Randi can fool even amateure magicians? His misdirections rarely work on me and I haven't done magic in quite some time. I have very little emotion at stake. it seems easier to explain some things by hypothesizing that there may be something to it, then by trying to setup distorted imaginings trying to explain it away. I have reason to believe that *some* paranormal events are definitely true. I have had things happen to me which I would love to hear your explanation. Later I will detail just such an event. Your only recourse, like the Identity Christians, will be to totally deny what happened by whatever means you can cook up. In fact, I could make a parroting of what you will probably say, but instead I will just tell a few people here. I think I can read you like a book. We'll see. >> Also a magician could not make the forks keep bending while not under some >> constant pressure. > >See the above note. You are assuming way too much about how the deed was >done. You don't even know that the forks really bent while your friends >were watching; all you know is that they remember it that way, and, once >again, professional magicians deliberately mess with people's memories as >part of their illusions. [Yawn] Need I say "asserting something doesn't make itso"? You really need to read Rich Rosen's postings more often. >> Fork substitution is a remote possibility but its hard to believe he goes >> around with all these forks hidden in his pants. > >Y'know, I've never seen a restaurant that didn't have a ton of forks. Here >you are clearly making excuses (repeat after me, kids: "evidence of a desire >to believe"). Bending someone's fork while he isn't looking is a VERY easy >feat of misdirection, and as I mentioned it is fairly easy to create an >illusion of continuous bending in a pre-bent utensil. [Double Yawn] Need I say "asserting........ You reaslly need ..... >> Finally, I doubt if any chemist/physicist/scientist could show me a fork >> which after it leaves their presence would start bending a minute later and >> continue to bend for a time without any indication of acid, heat, or >> deformity to the lateral width (cross section) of the metal in the fork. >So what? So what? Uri has been purported to do this on many occasions. But I guess you can just sweep up under the rug as flawed data since its impossible anyway. Not even a teeny-tinie chance any of its real Tim? I would say there is a slim chance that there's nothing to Uri but fakery. Who has the more open mind? >In what way does that lend credence to the story? This is just >more gosh-wow-ism, designed to appeal to those who want to believe; it >contributes nothing to the evidence. I read one report where Randi invited over some scientist and did the fork bending trick. They were quite amazed. Trouble is, it was nothing like what happened at La Tapatia that night. Randi took the fork from the guy and asked the people to sit down at a table he had. While he was sitting down he naturally pulled his chair in by placing his hands down at his side. Of course, he was bending the fork by pressing it against the chair and nobody noticed this. He then layed the fork down and waited a short time later before he did the "look its bending act." Sure enough, the people were quite suprized and couldn't figure out quite how he did it. Trouble is, even though some of them were not sure whether or not they had seen the fork bend just a little after he pointed it out, none of them said that it had bent any great deal while they were looking at it. Natural small eye movements will make any object appear to be moving if you stare at it a while. (Suprize - I haven't read any of Randi's books and I know all of this. It's called common sense.) The fact that it's easy to fool people is not being disputed. But I don't think Randi's done the equivelent of what my friends saw. >> To make this more bizzare, that same evening Uri was caught putting a >> picture into an aquarium. He was going to claim he had materialized it, I >> suppose. His ego seems to demand that he be proving his powers to others, >> even if he needs to fake it. > >Again you are obviously making excuses for something you want to believe in. >The attitude of Gellerites toward the many instances in which he has been >caught cheating is completely absurd, the most ridiculous thing about the >whole charade. Apparently when he gets caught, he is cheating, but all the >other times he pulls off impossibilities, he is using psychic powers. >Right. Can you say "Only an extremely gullible person would believe that"? >I knew you could.... Could you say "Only an extremely gullible person would believe he is explain- ing this all away"? I knew you could.... >> There were several other things that happened which are just as bizzare. I >> will only mention one more I would like to see a magician do. As I said >> before Uri was giving a talk in Houston. It happened that the then Mayor of >> Houston decided on the spur of the moment to give a key-to-the-city to Uri. >> He was at his office when he decided this and had his aid bring one along as >> they were to meet Uri at the Astodome where the talk was scheduled. >> >> The mayor met Uri outside and told him he would receive the key-to-the-city. >> The key was in an elongated cardboard box with a clear plastic top. Uri >> told the mayor to put his hand over the box (it had not been opened yet) and >> then held his own hand over the mayor's. After a short time Uri told the >> mayor to remove his hand. The key was noticibly bent and everyone was quite >> shocked. Now your excuses go beyond any stretch of the imagination. What makes someone go to such lengths to invent scenarios? You are exhibiting the very problem you claim you are uncovering - and in full view of the net readership to boot. Look at the reality you now have to invent since you are forced to explain away things you know nothing about. Like the true religious believer you let no facts get in the way: >Bullshit. Where did you hear this story? You weren't within close >observational range, I assume, and neither were your friends. Something >like that may have happened, but you have presented no evidence for the >salient points, being: > >(1) Uri had no advance knowledge that he would receive the key. (From your >description, he was pretty friendly with the mayor and vice versa.) Uh right. Of course he knew the mayor of Austin and San Atonio and 200 other Texas cities too even though he had been in Texas for almost two days. Since my friends picked Uri up at the airport in Houston I guess you are arguing that Uri used telepathy to make friends with the Houston mayor. Yeh, thats it. That sure explains away how the mayor and him were real buddies. Since two of my friends took Uri back to Houston and stayed for part of his "lecture" as Uri called it it so happens they were with him when this all happened. There was a group of about 10 people present. (Gee, I guess that I'm not as dumb as you thought since I had investigated all of this . Sorry.) I love the way you use the phrase "I assume" and then continue as though you are talking absolute fact. How do you think I got such detailed information? >(2) The key was in a closed box with a clear plastic lid. (Seems pretty >chintzy for a key to the city, but I won't pick.) Finally, you make a statement of fact. Evidently large cities (you've heard of Houston haven't you?) keep tackey keys like this for handing out quite frequently. (Oops. There I go admitting that Uri could have planned the whole thing ahead of time. Oh stupid me. People may find out how naive I really am.) ((Double-Ooops. I forgot I wasn't supposed to be smart enough to realize that. It's all so simple now. Uri has Israeli spies steal keys- to-the-city for every city he visits and you know the Israeli government is masterful at faking documents and stuff. How stupid of me to not realize all of this. Gee, thanks for waking me up.)) >(3) Uri did not touch the key before the bending. (He has frequently been >observed before events using his charisma to get access to various parts of >the demonstration. One particularly useful trick is telling the secretary >he thinks she has psychic powers.) Um right. He loves 'em and leaves 'em and they don't know what hit them. Maybe he uses psychic powers to raise his ... [NO, I won't say it.] I can see it now. "Oh you're so pretty. Why don't you sneak into the mayor's office real quick and get me one of those key-to-the-city things? Oh I know you're making me so horney...Please hurry...I have to meet the Mayor in ten minutes..." Yeh, that must be what happens. Gee your explanations are starting to make real sense. Maybe I can start to deny the holocaust too. >> Substitution before the event is the only way a magician could have >> accomplished the same thing. > >AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! > >> (Nobody seemed to have examined the key before it was presented.) > >Boy, this is getting pretty repetitive. I'll say. >Did you see Geller on Carson? Carson used to be a stage magician himself, >and he made sure that all the ways a magician could do Geller's tricks were >prevented. (For instance, making sure that Geller couldn't shake the table >with the film cans on it by stomping -- though he tried.... It was >reportedly very funny watching him frantically stomping around on stage >during the commercial break....) Carson made sure that the set was >thoroughly inspected beforehand, and that Geller and assistants had no >access to it before taping. He gave Geller no opportunity for large-scale >misdirection. Guess what? Not a single trick worked! Hmm, these things >don't happen when someone is taking precautions against prestidigitation, >and happen freely when people aren't checking at all. Does that, by any >chance, suggest an alternative to psychic powers as an explanation? Yes I did see it. And Geller only quit after he did choose some of the cans to be disgarded. Not a very convincing demonstration for Uri by any means. The real question here is whether such events can occur UPON DEMAND. If such events do not, then only a very long series of experiments where nothing happens will disprove it. Investigating things which may not happen on demand is extremely difficult. But there's no need to go around shouting "They don't exist!" after reading one book with known inaccuracies. Try some research and see both sides of the issue. Did you see S.R.I.'s analysis of Randi's lies concerning the supposedly debunking done on their experiments. OF COURSE NOT. YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED. WHY, YOU KNOW THAT EVERYTHING URI DOES IS FAKE SO WHY BOTHER! Randi made several half-truths and mistatements about the series of experiments done with Uri. Really quite shocking. Randi had to prove that the S.R.I. scientist were duped, so he claimed sounds could go through to the room that Uri was in during the test and that radio contact was possible. Silly since Uri was some distance away from the crucial part of the double-blind experiment with one of the investigators present and being taped in a high-voltage cage which no radio signals could penetrate. Just like it's easy for "true believers" to ignore evidence to the contrary the "true skeptics" are no better. Come to think of it, Randi's ad hoc excuses sound quite like the fantasies you're putting out. I wonder why? Did you so gullibly read Randi's book like he was a Saint? >> I find it highly unlikely that Uri had any way of 1) knowing beforehand that >> he would have gotten the key 2) arranged to have a bent duplicate of the >> key-to-the-city made and 3) somehow switched it with the real thing. > >Oh, well, if you think it's unlikely it must not have happened. Surely your >opinions couldn't be shaped by pre-conceptions about psychic powers. Can you read English? Do you know what the phrase "highly unlikely" means. Do you know what the phrase "must not have happened" means? Your religious slip is showing. >Seriously, why don't you think he could have bent the key? What is this >"duplicate" stuff you keep bringing up with forks and keys? When you only >bring up unlikely alternatives to psychic powers and completely ignore >likely alternatives, I have to think that you probably are working from >conclusion to premise, not the other way around. He could have bent the key. But it is not readily apparent how. You provide no explanations, in fact you seem to invent things out of thin air and then say "Poof - it couldn't have happened so that's the answer." Just like the fundamentalist in net.origins. ("Evolution couldn't have happened so creationism must be true.") If you came up with realistic scenarios instead of half-baked things a child could think of this discussion might be worth some attention. But I think you have an emotional block. Uri's possible events THREATEN YOU IN THE EXTREME jus like evolution threatens the fundamentalist Christians. I think it would be exciting to find out that ALL of Ghellers stuff is tricks. He certainly seems to be doing something way above anything you have an explanation for. Want to try the Nitonol experiment? I thought not. Would Randi take the Nitonol test? GOSH NO. HE REFUSED. (Try to find that in his books.) He'll only take on things he can control and prepare in advance. Nitonol's just too tough for Randi. >> Obviously 3) is easy to do and 2) is not easy but possible if you have >> several days to prepare. Item 1) above is the real clincher since the mayor >> did not decide to do this until the last minute. > >Again, according to whom? Do you know for a fact that neither Geller nor >his assistants were at the mayor's office then? Do you know for a fact that >it was a spur-of-the-moment decision, and Uri hadn't set it up previously >by, say, remarking on another key he saw in the office? Do you know for a >fact that the key was kept separate from Geller and assistants for the >entire time between the mayor's decision and the mayor's noticing the key >was bent? I doubt you KNOW any of these things, though you do appear to >believe them uncritically from stories you have heard. How strange. Why >would someone believe such an outlandish story -- unless he wanted to? I can't believe this. Here again we have the "I doubt you KNOW any of these things" turning into the supposed fact that "you DON"T KNOW any of these things". Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Wrong. The event occurred when my friends took Uri to the Astrodome (thats a big stadium in Houston. Houston is a big city in Texas. I'll make simpler sentences, maybe you'll understand.) They were walking to the Astrodome when the Mayor and one of his staff met them and the incident occurred. My friend Ray is very quick witted and on the spot questioned the mayor. Like I said there was about 10 people in all in the group. Why did Ray question? Because Ray and several of my other friends did not know whether Uri was a fake or not. They already knew that many people claimed hes was nothing but a magician. During Uri's visit, they were aware that he may try to fake something out. That does NOT mean that Uri didn't pull some fast ones that they couldn't figure out. The mayor told the complete story of where the keys where kept, how he told his aid to retreave one and how it was all on the spur-of-the-moment. Since you don't believe this is possible, you will try any explanation to hand-wave it away. What's really funny is that your explanations come close to being just as absurd as the "absolute believer's" claim that everything Uri does is truely above-board and paranormal. >> Uri has bent some metal in a lab and the bend-point was examined with an >> electron microscope revealing a fracture which cannot normally be created. >> Of course scientist can be as fooled as anyone else. But a EM is a little >> harder to fool. I'll give more details if there is interest. > >As I recall, these experiments were done by Targ and Puthoff. Enough said. Whats wrong? The electron microscope not easy to refute? Doesn't Randi have any ready answers for you to spout? Yes, they are convinced that psychic stuff really occurs. I guess that means they are naive and/or lie when they do their experiments. S.R.I. documented even more lies and half-truths from the Amazing Randi. But we know he would never just "invent" stuff out of the blue either, don't we? And we know you don't either, don't we? >> Uri's a good showman and its easy to dismiss everything he does as fakery. >> But I think there is more to it than that. > >That's right, you do. And the reason is that you have a closed mind. No >one would believe in a "psychic" who was repeatedly caught cheating and who >was unable to perform under controls established by magicians. No one, that >is, except someone who has already made up his mind and shut it. >-=- >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking >ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim >CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" Well Tim you have a real dilemma now. I'm about to relate one of the few experiences I had which prove to me that paranormal stuff really goes on. It's interesting that you claim I have the closed mind. Lets see what fantasies you have to rely on to explain this away: I have a chemical engineer friend who graduated from U. of Fla. when I was working there. He got a job with Dow chemical and I just for fun tried to "tune-in" on anything about what his new house would be like and where in Baton Rouge he would live. He had never been there. I had only driven through the interstate there and had stopped for gas once (along the interstate.) He was going to let his wife have her pick of whatever house she wanted (within financial limits of course.) We agreed I would tell him only a portion of what I "got" so he couldn't sub-consciously communicate it to his wife. I had a dream of a 5 digit number and people lined up like houses on a street. I took this to be the house number and the relative position of Dave's new house on the block. That dream also had me making wide turns to get to his house. I interpreted that to mean the way the streets would have to be traversed. Strange be- cause there was nothing in front of his house in the dream, just a big black area. The two of us looked at a map of Baton Rouge. I pointed to two areas on the map and said I felt he would move to one of them. His wife was teaching school at the time and was not told this by him afterword. Later that evening I got another highly unlikely fact concerning the street name. I'll go into that later. A few days later I "picked up" the general layout of the house. Where the TV would be, the dining room table, carport, hallways e.t.c. and just wrote it down on a sheet of paper again without showing it to anyone. I was going to continue this but I'm going to call your bluff yet again. Since undoubtedly you will either claim that 1)I'm lieing or 2) the stuff I picked up was just average stuff and was stretched to fit the situation, lets see YOU guess the house number. And the layout of the house. Please include the position of the TV. I only missed on one major feature of the house, so please don't make any more mistakes than that. Oh, another thing you can claim is that we all had "retrograde" memory. That is, we just remembered the sequences of things backwards and there really was no mystery at all. (That wouldn't suprize me with what you've come up with earlier.) Trouble is, I will have the real-estate agent who sold them the house give you a ring. You see, my friend Dave told her that he had a friend that thought he knew even what the housenumber would be. She was taking him to pick her up to show them the house for the first time. He told the real-estate lady the number AND SHE FREAKED OUT. (You'll see why when I give you both mine and the actual number.) Come come, Tim. Give it a try. After, all, you know that your guesses will be just as good as mine. Let's see you show how my "tuning" in was just bullshit by doing the same. Got a good slide-rule? I'll bet all my patent money you'll find some excuse out of it. It's hard to believe you could be so stupid as to think I'm so stupid. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
ptb@ukc.UUCP (P.T.Breuer) (06/08/85)
In article <442@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >In article <426@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: (I'll spare you quotations from either article for reasons of space. Refer back to them when necessary.) DT's article 442 seems to have two main functions: (1) to supply evidence which he argues supports the existence of paranormal powers (in particular those of Uri Geller and - though the crucial information is being temporarily withheld for dramatic effect - DT himself). (2) to express annoyance at the style (and fact?) of TM's dismissal of his (DT's) original article on the subject. Regarding (2), I think TM's approach was justified given the information available to him from the original article. There are many people who will gullibly accept phenomena as paranormal when perfectly ordinary explanations are much more likely. If you claim you have examples of paranormal phenomena, the onus is very much on you to demonstrate that you're not such a person. Unless you take great care in presenting your evidence and arguing your case, you shouldn't be surprised if you're not taken seriously. Regarding (1), we certainly do get a fuller account in 442. The trouble with both the Uri stories is that they're (to us) second or third hand. We can't really analyse the possibilities. I can look for rational explanations for the reported events. But I'm bound to suspect that something important is being missed out from DT's portrayal; something which his friends didn't notice and which may not be easy to guess at from this distance. So I'm not convinced by them. I'd pay more attention to evidence which can properly be analysed: say a film of Uri bending forks. But, as far as I'm aware, when films do exist either nothing happens or magicians detect fraud. The same is true when decent scientific experiments are run. (Re nitinol: read the chapter on it in 'Science, Good, Bad and Bogus' by Martin Gardner, if you haven't already.) If Geller had paranormal powers, why isn't there one clear, non-anecdotal example of them in action? DT goes on to challenge TM to guess a number (and other things) which DT has previously guessed. This really is pointless. TM is very likely to be worse than DT at guessing this particular number, since DT has presumably chosen the particular incident to be one where his guess was very good. (In fact, the better TM's guess, the higher the probability that he has paranormal powers: so he really can't win this one.) Once DT tells us what actually happened, we can look at the probabilities. Predictable sceptics like me will demand that we try and estimate the number of cases where an astonishing coincidence didn't happen, either to DT or to other people. If anyone wants a test of their psychic power, they could try guessing at the sentence I just read. Or anything else they can pick up about me. The probabilities for this sort of thing are much more debatable than if I asked for a string of random numbers, but I suspect more people feel able to guess about words and people than numbers. I promise to report any surprising successes.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (06/08/85)
In article <5220@ukc.UUCP> ptb@ukc.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > ... The trouble >with both the Uri stories is that they're (to us) second or third hand. >We can't really analyse the possibilities. I can look for rational explanations >for the reported events. But I'm bound to suspect that something important is >being missed out from DT's portrayal; something which his friends didn't notice >and which may not be easy to guess at from this distance. ... Indeed, *none* of my friends that were there to this day feel (or have felt) that what happened is absolutely beyond fakery. The more incredible an event is that we witness the harder it is to accept the way we saw it to begin with. (To be precise - one thinks things very likely happened, the others are agnostic on the subject although open to the possibility that it could be genuine. Like I said, these were hard-nosed people - not the psychic true believers Tim had assumed.) As others have mentioned there are many reasons for NOT accepting the geller accounts. Unless one has good evidence to the contrary the assumption should be fraud. > ... But, as far as I'm aware, when films do exist >either nothing happens or magicians detect fraud. I have a images of just such a film where it is quite obvious that a fork is bending. The trouble is any such movie would be easy to fake even without special effect film techniques. Only such a film with reliable witnesses present and experimental conditions given would be worth examining. I am in the process of determining more background on the photos I have. > DT goes on to challenge TM to guess a number (and other things) which DT >has previously guessed. This really is pointless. TM is very likely to be worse >than DT at guessing this particular number, since DT has presumably chosen the >particular incident to be one where his guess was very good. The problem here is that I don't go around guessing future house numbers and trying to do ESP-type stuff. If I did then, as you suggest, my account would be meaningless. What makes it meaningfull is that during that time when I thought it would be fun to guess it is quite unexplainable why the "things" that popped into my mind should have been so accurate. They went far beyond what any amount of luck or coincidence could suggest. Since I have the events so well documented (I wrote things down with times and dates as they occurred) it's a little hard to put it off as misinterpreting things. The only recourse is that I am making the whole thing up, or there is some- thing going on in the universe which needs exploring. I don't see much middle ground. > ... Once DT tells us what actually happened, >we can look at the probabilities. Predictable sceptics like me will demand >that we try and estimate the number of cases where an astonishing coincidence >didn't happen, either to DT or to other people. There are two different types of events to look at. The first is the spontaneous event - "Me and person x happen to meet each other in New York." Here you would have to examine all the events in a persons life to try and determine how significant that event is with the thousands of non-meaningfull events which also occur. The second type is like mine - the times deliberate attempts are made to derive something through paranormal means. Since the number of times I have tried to "pick-up" information has been very few, just one dramatic success far beyond chance still outweighs the others. (However, the others have had their own significances as well.) > If anyone wants a test of their psychic power, they could try guessing >at the sentence I just read. Or anything else they can pick up about me. >The probabilities for this sort of thing are much more debatable than if >I asked for a string of random numbers, but I suspect more people feel able >to guess about words and people than numbers. I promise to report any >surprising successes. This brings up another problem with the whole paranormal thing. You are assuming that psychic power (or whatever is going on) is just turned on at will. In my case, I just had the feeling that I could do it. Why? I don't know. Oddly enough, just two weeks ago was one of those rare times I had "the feeling" that I knew something paranormal. I saw a picture in a magazine of someone and just "knew" that I was looking at a dead person. Sure enough, I found out the next day they were in a hospital and had just died (the next day.) It is very difficult to put any statistical value on how significant an event such as this really is. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill
tan@ihu1e.UUCP (exit) (06/10/85)
> This brings up another problem with the whole paranormal thing. You are > assuming that psychic power (or whatever is going on) is just turned on at > will. In my case, I just had the feeling that I could do it. Why? I don't > know. Oddly enough, just two weeks ago was one of those rare times I had > "the feeling" that I knew something paranormal. I saw a picture in a magazine > of someone and just "knew" that I was looking at a dead person. Sure enough, > I found out the next day they were in a hospital and had just died (the next > day.) It is very difficult to put any statistical value on how significant > an event such as this really is. > > Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill It's very easy to put a value on this event. ZERO. I'll believe it when you, or any other psychic, gets a feeling about the value of the stock market next month and makes millions of dollars. Or, a feeling who is going to win the fifth race at Belmont. The amount of self-delusion in your posting is incredible. Bill Tanenbaum -- Bill Tanenbaum AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville Ill.
presley@mhuxj.UUCP (Joe Presley) (06/11/85)
> ... I'll believe it when > you, or any other psychic, gets a feeling about the value of the stock > market next month and makes millions of dollars. Or, a feeling who is going > to win the fifth race at Belmont. ... I might add that if your claim to not using your "psychic" powers for profit is that it's crass to try to profit from your "gifts", you use it instead for good, like predicting (within a day or two and the location) when a major disaster will strike and warning people. So far we haven't seen anything from the so-called psychics except for vague predictions like "there will be a flood following a hurricane in Florida". If your powers are so useful, USE THEM FOR GOOD! -- Joe Presley (mhuxm!presley)
davet@oakhill.UUCP (06/13/85)
[...net.physics deleted from newsgroup list...] >>in article <476@ihu1e.UUCP> Bill Tanenbaum says: >> This brings up another problem with the whole paranormal thing. You are >> assuming that psychic power (or whatever is going on) is just turned on at >> will. ... > >It's very easy to put a value on this event. ZERO. I'll believe it when >you, or any other psychic, gets a feeling about the value of the stock >market next month and makes millions of dollars. Or, a feeling who is going >to win the fifth race at Belmont. The amount of self-delusion in your >posting is incredible. This brings up another problem with the whole paranormal thing. You are assuming that psychic power (or whatever is going on) is just turned on at will. I won't post this paragraph a third time. Obviously, you can't read. BTW, in the instance I mentioned the feeling that I was looking at a dead person was so strong I had to throw the magazine away. I have never had such a feeling before, it was as though I was looking at a rotting corpse. It's not possible to entirely rule out somehow overhearing information, such as being half-asleep with the TV news on. But as far as I can determine only the guy's close family knew what was going on at the time. I find it funny that some people feel so threatened about the possibility of ESP-like stuff going on in the universe. Disturbs their world model I guess. There's an interesting test which causes people like Bill to actually perform ESP when they think they are actually disproving it. It's pretty neat. More in a later posting. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/18/85)
In article <454@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >[...net.physics deleted from newsgroup list...] > >This brings up another problem with the whole paranormal thing. You are >assuming that psychic power (or whatever is going on) is just turned on at >will. > >BTW, in the instance I mentioned the feeling that I was looking at a dead >person was so strong I had to throw the magazine away. I have never had >such a feeling before, it was as though I was looking at a rotting corpse. > But this is still a *single* incident, in order to be valid as evidence something must occur repeatedly. This does *not* necessarily assume voluntary control. Try the following experiment: every time you get a strong feeling about something, write it down(including date, and *exactly* what feeling you had), then check again a week later to see if it turned out as expected. Mark each success and failure. After about a year see what the ratio of successes to failures is. A ratio of about 0.5 would likely be significant, tho it would be good to peruse journal to check for patterns in the results before making any final conclusion.. > >I find it funny that some people feel so threatened about the possibility >of ESP-like stuff going on in the universe. Disturbs their world model I >guess. > I am not threatened by it, in fact I would like telepathy to be real, it could solve so many communication problems, but the evidence just is not there. I would also like to see a mechanism proposed for these things that does not violate matter/energy conservation. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen