davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (05/24/85)
In article <611@digi-g.UUCP> brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) writes: > >Sure. The same way Uri Geller (remember him?) used to bend spoons. >Fraudulently. Any professional magicians present? > >Merlyn Leroy, > who can bend his mind with a fork. 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. He was giving a talk in Houston and agreed to come to Austin to be interviewed. My friends drove him here from Houston (140 miles) and decided to eat at their favorite Mexican place (La Tapatia for those here in Austin.) The waitress led them to the table and left. Quite unexpectedly, one of my friends noticed that his fork in the table in front of him was MOVING! It was bending slowly to an acute angle. He made a yelp and commented on what was going on. Then the person accross from him noticed that his fork was bending as well. The waitress soon came back in - saw the bent forks and started apologizing while picking them up saying she was sorry she didn't notice the silverware was bad before she showed them the table. One of my friends quickly grabbed his fork and asked her if he could keep it. She relented (and probably thought he was nuts.) 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. He certainly wasn't handling the forks while they were bending as any magician would have to do. Also a magician could not make the forks keep bending while not under some constant pressure. Fork substitution is a remote possibility but its hard to believe he goes around with all these forks hidden in his pants. 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. 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. 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 theAstodome 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. Substitution before the event is the only way a magician could have accomp- lished the same thing. (Nobody seemed to have examined the key before it was presented.) 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 ) somehow switched it with the real thing. 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. 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. 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. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismon how they think Uri could have aco "close your eyes and mind but it won't go away"
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/26/85)
James Randi has a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who demonstrates a "psychic" phenomenon that Randi cannot duplicate by using good old-fashioned chicanery. If Uri Geller could actually do the things he claimed, don't you think he would have snarfed the ten grand by now?
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/04/85)
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. 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: "Quite unexpectedly, one of my friends noticed that his fork in the table in front of him was MOVING! It was bending slowly to an acute angle. He made a yelp and commented on what was going on. Then the person accross from him noticed that his fork was bending as well." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The most effective way of shoplifting, I have been led to understand, does not involve concealing the item. Rather, the thief simply picks up the item in his hand or under his arm and walks out of the store without paying. The reason it is effective is that people are watching for the illusion on the wrong level, looking for people who might have concealed goods. Similar techniques are employed all the time by prestidigitators. 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. > 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? > 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. 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. > 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. > 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. > 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? 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. > 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.... > 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. 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.) (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.) (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.) > 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. 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? > 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. 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. > 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? > 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. > 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!"
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (06/04/85)
In article <3759@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >James Randi has a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who demonstrates >a "psychic" phenomenon that Randi cannot duplicate by using good >old-fashioned chicanery. > >If Uri Geller could actually do the things he claimed, don't you >think he would have snarfed the ten grand by now? I think the situation is a lot more complex than this. First Uri claims not to exactly control what's going on. He often has people hold things in their hand while he holds his over theirs. Most of the time nothing happens. But when something does it may be one of several things and he seems not to know what to expect. Example: several times he had my friend Kathern hold various objects in her hand (this was at her and her husband's apartment.) For about and hour of this nothing happened at all. Then her husband, Ray, noticed that one of the pieces of turquoise she held earlier and had since laid down was an ugly shade of dark blue. Notice that this was seen after it had been put down and Uri (if he was a good magician) could have possibly handled it without their realizing. The question is what could he have done to have caused the change? The turquoise was Indian jewelry (a man's neck piece) positioned in silver and quite expensive. The two were quite upset when it dawned on them that they just had an expensive item destroyed, although the circumstances would be something unique to tell grandchildren. Unlike the other events I gave earlier concerning Uri, I know nothing about turquoise and there may be some easy way that a chemical could cause discoloration and thus an easy fake to be had. So, the first problem is Uri's taking a test and failing would not necessarily disprove anything unless a lengthy and drawn out series of experiments were to be done - something I doubt either Randi or Uri would put up with. The second problem is deciding what constitutes proof of a paranormal event. If Uri cannot control exactly what happens how do you test for a range of unexpected events and conclusively prove it was paranormal. S.R.I tried keeping a video camera on him for a long length of time but "things" only happened when the camera was not pointing directly at them (such as objects moving by themselves or seemingly teleported from one side of the room to another.) To Randi this is proof of fraud since the events, if real, should happen regardless of where the camera is pointing. But the shoe can be put on the other foot. I have yet to hear of Randi or any other magician making forks and spoons bend the way Uri does. It's one thing to claim that Uri is using tricks for everything he does, but quite another to find that the bending exhibited has yet to shown by a magician. (Randi has many times shown metal bent covertly but NEVER has shown metal objects given to him by someone else [a non-plant in the audience of course] curling up and twisting the way Uri's effects do.) BTW a little sidetrack here on Randi. Well known for his anti-paranormal stance I was quite shocked 2 years ago to see him publish a book on "Testing Your ESP." It had the standard ESP card deck (circles, squares, e.t.c) and had statistical information on how to evaluate card guessing as being statistically significant. I had heard he had found a child who seemed to demonstrate ESP ability at predicting the cards in his presence and he was weakly admitting that there may indeed something to all this ESP nonsense. The book would tend to confirm this since why bother if there is no ESP to start with. (Interestingly he had holes in his test procedure. For instance I think one of his procedures would possibly allow the subject to see the cards reflected in glasses if worn by the tester. This quite astonished me that he would have such a glaring goof.) Anyone know what his current attitude is? Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet "Film at 10:00" (We're on CDST)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/04/85)
> 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. > > > Professional magicians can do what Geller did easily. I know this because Thanks to Tim for an excellent presentation. I only want to add, as an amateur magician (and not a very good one, although I used to be paid for my performances when I was in practice), I have always been amazed at the ease with which simple chicanery can fool even sophisticated observers. Believe me, if you have never done this sort of thing, you have no idea of the wealth of absolutely simple, yet effective methods that are available. Professional integrity prevents my going into them here :-). By the way, speaking of professional integrity, most professional magicians consider that Uri's use of well-known stage techniques to fake "psychic" powers is a breach of professional ethics. ... > > 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. Not quite enough. One should point out that Targ and Puthoff are notorious for their inadequate controls in "Psychic Research". I also want to mention that natural scientists, in general, are among the easiest "marks" for a good magician. They may be expert in understanding natural phenomena, but their training doesn't prepare them for understanding magic tricks, which (as Tim pointed out) are based primarily on applied psychology. I personally would not trust the results of any laboratory experiments on psychic phenomena unless they had been done in the presence of a good magician. Few scientists have that background (one who does is the statistician Persei Diaconis. I believe he is at Berkeley). -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/04/85)
> for their inadequate controls in "Psychic Research". I also want to mention > that natural scientists, in general, are among the easiest "marks" for a > good magician. They may be expert in understanding natural phenomena, but > their training doesn't prepare them for understanding magic tricks, which > (as Tim pointed out) are based primarily on applied psychology. I Oops, I meant to say: > their training doesn't prepare them for detecting magic tricks, which ^^^^^^^^^ Sorry. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/04/85)
[] N.B. I have deleted the Indian discussion group from the header. I left net.religion in because it is all too appropriate. Tim Maroney and Bill Jefferys have given fairly complete replies to earlier articles on Geller. I have just a brief comment. > I have yet to hear of Randi or any other magician making forks > and spoons bend the way Uri does. It's one thing to claim that Uri is using > tricks for everything he does, but quite another to find that the bending > exhibited has yet to shown by a magician. (Randi has many times shown metal > bent covertly but NEVER has shown metal objects given to him by someone else > [a non-plant in the audience of course] curling up and twisting the way Uri's > effects do.) Randi can make people believe that they have seen just what they *believe* they have seen after watching Geller. That seems sufficient. > > BTW a little sidetrack here on Randi. Well known for his anti-paranormal > stance I was quite shocked 2 years ago to see him publish a book on "Testing > Your ESP." It had the standard ESP card deck (circles, squares, e.t.c) and > had statistical information on how to evaluate card guessing as being > statistically significant. I had heard he had found a child who seemed to > demonstrate ESP ability at predicting the cards in his presence and he was > weakly admitting that there may indeed something to all this ESP nonsense. > The book would tend to confirm this since why bother if there is no ESP to > start with. (Interestingly he had holes in his test procedure. For instance > I think one of his procedures would possibly allow the subject to see the > cards reflected in glasses if worn by the tester. This quite astonished me > that he would have such a glaring goof.) Anyone know what his current > attitude is? The purpose of publishing the book was to show people how easy it was to convince yourself of ESP *in the absence* of reasonable statistical evaluation of a test. I haven't heard of this business concerning the child and am quite skeptical. We've all heard such anecdotal evidence before, and (if one makes the effort) heard the followup explanation of fraud. Since he is a member of CSICOP I would expect that he'll eventually publish a report in the Skeptical Inquirer. > > Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet > "Film at 10:00" (We're on CDST) -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller) (06/05/85)
>Then her husband, Ray, noticed that one of the pieces of turquoise she held >earlier and had since laid down was an ugly shade of dark blue. Notice that >this was seen after it had been put down and Uri (if he was a good magician) >could have possibly handled it without their realizing. The question is >what could he have done to have caused the change? > >The turquoise was Indian jewelry (a man's neck piece) positioned in silver >and quite expensive. The two were quite upset when it dawned on them that >they just had an expensive item destroyed, although the circumstances would >be something unique to tell grandchildren. Unlike the other events I gave >earlier concerning Uri, I know nothing about turquoise and there may be some >easy way that a chemical could cause discoloration and thus an easy fake to >be had. Turquoise is quite porous and very easily discolored by dyes, oils (including those in human perspiration), and acids. Even plain water can cause temporary alteration in color. Depending on the quality of the turquoise, Geller may not have needed to even touch the stone; if her hands perspired, that by itself might be enough to cause temporary discoloration. -- John Miller (ecsvax!phco) Dept. of Pharmacology, Univ. of N.C.-Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 966-1153
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (06/06/85)
[] > The second problem is deciding what constitutes proof of a paranormal event. > If Uri cannot control exactly what happens how do you test for a range of > unexpected events and conclusively prove it was paranormal. S.R.I tried > keeping a video camera on him for a long length of time but "things" only > happened when the camera was not pointing directly at them (such as objects > moving by themselves or seemingly teleported from one side of the room to > another.) BROUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ARGH SNORT HAHAHAHAHAHAHA BROUHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHA SNIFF SNIFF GASP HEE HEE AHHHHHHHH ARGGHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GASP GASP GASP HAAAAAAaaaaa..... Isaac Dimitrovsky
guest@proper.UUCP (guest account) (06/07/85)
Summary:open mindedness is a good thing, eh? Expires: References: <470@nmtvax.UUCP> <1289@amdcad.UUCP> <1899@ut-sally.UUCP> <1903@ut-sally.UUCP> <1595@aecom.UUCP> <> Sender: Reply-To: guest@proper.UUCP (SnowFlake) F
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (06/07/85)
Well, I've just watched Tim and Dave discuss Uri Geller, and, at the end of it I'm no wiser than I was before. Neither, I should think, are they. You know, the one thing that puzzles me about all this is: why would anyone who could perform things like those that are claimed for and by Geller want (rationally) to defraud? Seems to me that even if the "happenings" were rare and unrepeatable, it shouldn't be *too* hard to investigate them, given *one* thing: that the investigation could be performed dispassionately. Tell me: is there no-one out there who can do even one tenth of those acts claimed for Geller, and who is egoless enough to go in to explore their ability honestly? and are there no investigators who are "scientific" (O disreputable word!) enough to collaborate in those investigations without needing to involve those investigations in clouds of public denunciation? If so, then the question of the existence and nature of "paranormal" events must remain merely a matter of opinion. BTW, normally I like and appreciate both Dave and Tim's postings. flamelessly, Kay. -- "In a world without rational structure, even the most bizarre events must eventually take place." -- Philip Avalon, "On the Resurrection of Reagan" ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/07/85)
> [] > > The second problem is deciding what constitutes proof of a paranormal event. > > If Uri cannot control exactly what happens how do you test for a range of > > unexpected events and conclusively prove it was paranormal. S.R.I tried > > keeping a video camera on him for a long length of time but "things" only > > happened when the camera was not pointing directly at them (such as objects > > moving by themselves or seemingly teleported from one side of the room to > > another.) > > BROUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA > ARGH SNORT HAHAHAHAHAHAHA BROUHAHAHAHA > HAHA HAHA > SNIFF SNIFF GASP > HEE HEE AHHHHHHHH > ARGGHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA > GASP GASP GASP HAAAAAAaaaaa..... > > Isaac Dimitrovsky I second that. :-) Padraig Houlahan. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/07/85)
In article <440@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >I think the situation is a lot more complex than this. > >First Uri claims not to exactly control what's going on. He often has people >hold things in their hand while he holds his over theirs. Most of the time >nothing happens. But when something does it may be one of several things and >he seems not to know what to expect. > This actually sounds like a very old type of trickery. In fact he could be combining two related srts of misdirection here. First, this could easily be a variant of the old "Change a trick in the middle if it doesn't work right" trick. That is it is a wonderful way of taking advantage of *whatever* happens and claiming he is responsible for it! This is why Randi *insist* upon stating ahead of time what one is going to do. Secondly, this is a good way of excusing failures, if it doesn't work just claim "I have no real control", and to add credibility to this pretend to be surprised by what happens when the trick actually works(I mean why should I believe *anything* Uri says since he is a proven faker.) And you are trying to use this sort of garbage as evidence in *favor* of Uri Geller! >So, the first problem is Uri's taking a test and failing would not necessarily >disprove anything unless a lengthy and drawn out series of experiments were to >be done - something I doubt either Randi or Uri would put up with. > Oh, I think Randi would put up with almost any properly designed experiment, even if it required numerous tests. But it would have to be set up very rigorously, so that th e statistical results would be meaningful. It is very easy to misuse statistics if you are not properly trained in interprating such evidence. >The second problem is deciding what constitutes proof of a paranormal event. >If Uri cannot control exactly what happens how do you test for a range of >unexpected events and conclusively prove it was paranormal. > It is called statistics, and given the motivation it should be possible to devise a statistically valid test for variable PSI phenonema, but it *must* have adequate controls and a very large sample size, at the very least. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen