Uri Geller claims he helped Boris win

[Piney]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I tested Uri myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key.

Professor Helmut Hoffmann. Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria.

So why didn't he publish a study? 

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/staff/helmuthhoffmann/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/research-units/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/publications/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/projects/

There is no mention of Geller in his entire research history.

[qxcontinuum]

Someone hurry up and hold Trump accountable...

[papageorge1]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's not called expert testimony, it's called vested interest, as he is after all the President of the Austrian Society for Parapsychology and Frontiers of Science isn't he. 

Just like you're protecting a vested interest, trying to convince people you use reason, when you don't. You ignore all helmuts peers, superiors and successors in the field of science to champion his kooky parapsychology conclusions. You look for fringe failures much harder than you look at the subjects you are supposedly representing.

Have you seen a challenge of his metallurgical findings? Or against the other scientists saying essentially the same thing; that this mentally bent metal is bending in ways different from all known methods.

I am only hearing the vehement emotions of determined skeptics which is what is to be expected.

I believe mentally produced metal bending does happen at times and science just doesn't understand it. Some people vehemently don't like us 'wacko' types claiming real evidence that this is more than nonsense.

Other magicians, such as James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn’t a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick. But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn’t a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren’t trying to trick anybody. They were just little kids having a good time.

Michael Crichton (Acclaimed Author (Jurassic Park, etc.))

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Have you seen a challenge of his metallurgical findings?

You have yet to provide any. What are these findings exactly?

All you did was copy and paste testimonials from Uri Geller's website.

 

 

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Papa I am not going to let you off the hook so easily and accept that as an answer.  Yes indeed there are skeptics, and nasty fearful ones too. Yet, we area curious lot.  If there was physical documentation of something unique, it would be a very big deal skeptics or not. 

What are you expecting to happen. There are many things science does not understand yet. This one (anomalous metal bending) has apparently gotten lost to great popular attention in both the public and metallurgical field because of the shouts of scoffers and the assumption that metal bending is already exposed hooey. There are actually a few scientists interested in this stuff and receive much disrespect. You want to claim that all scientists are just interested people with no emotional prejudice against these silly paranormal claims. It is what it is in 2019. 

Other magicians, such as James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn’t a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick. But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn’t a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren’t trying to trick anybody. They were just little kids having a good time.

Michael Crichton (Acclaimed Author (Jurassic Park, etc.))

Edited December 21, 2019 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

So why didn't he publish a study? 

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/staff/helmuthhoffmann/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/research-units/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/publications/

https://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/projects/

There is no mention of Geller in his entire research history.

I'm sure he can answer that question for you or, more likely, straighten out your perhaps misunderstanding.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by papageorge1

[Piney]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm sure he can answer that question for you or, more likely, straighten out your perhaps misunderstanding.

I could probably toss my Museum of New York weight around and ask him. But I will get the same response from you that I did when I contacted Dr. Mary Jesse. You'll accuse me of lying.

But meanwhile the burden of proof is on you to find a statement from Prof. Hoffmann that is not on Geller's website to prove he's not lying.

As for the other three you named. They are dead and their publishing-research history is almost non-existent too. 

[RoofGardener]

On 12/20/2019 at 3:29 PM, third_eye said:

"magician"

~

Moron ! 

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

I could probably toss my Museum of New York weight around and ask him. But I will get the same response from you that I did when I contacted Dr. Mary Jesse. You'll accuse me of lying.

But meanwhile the burden of proof is on you to find a statement from Prof. Hoffmann that is not on Geller's website to prove he's not lying.

As for the other three you named. They are dead and their publishing-research history is almost non-existent too. 

I think Uri Geller should stick to bending metal objects, with his hands. The guy is fraud, a hoaxer, and his abilities are laughable. 

However, I do think there is something to papas meter, did you know he is plugged in, to 220 volts?

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, Piney said:

I could probably toss my Museum of New York weight around and ask him. But I will get the same response from you that I did when I contacted Dr. Mary Jesse. You'll accuse me of lying.

But meanwhile the burden of proof is on you to find a statement from Prof. Hoffmann that is not on Geller's website to prove he's not lying.

As for the other three you named. They are dead and their publishing-research history is almost non-existent too. 

I own no burden of proof. I present quotes in good faith and do not have the time and energy or need the impossible job of proving anything to determined antagonists.

 

We each must judge ourselves on how fair we are with the full body of evidence and argumentation. 

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

However, I do think there is something to papas meter, did you know he is plugged in, to 220 volts?

Same voltage Pence uses to try to burn the homosexual out of himself. But it's really all about the amps. 

[Piney]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

I own no burden of proof. I present quotes in good faith and do not have the time and energy or need the impossible job of proving anything to determined antagonists.

[Stiff]

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here you go Piney, you can borrow this...

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

49 minutes ago, Piney said:

Same voltage Pence uses to try to burn the homosexual out of himself. But it's really all about the amps. 

Yea it is certainly all about amps, I wonder where he connects the electrodes. Anyone what to guess?

Oh and by the way did you see my thread on the current legalized use of Marijuana in the US?

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

There are actually a few scientists interested in this stuff and receive much disrespect. You want to claim that all scientists are just interested people with no emotional prejudice against these silly paranormal claims. It is what it is in 2019. 

Hi papa.  I know scientists are people that do also have personal biases.  I know that scoffing does happen.

Here is my sticking point.   These supposed scientists make airy claims like    "This looks like nothing I have ever seen seen."  or "something paranormal must be involved."

Well papa, how did they arrive at that conclusion?  The must have looked at the specimen right?    If you are going to analyze a bend, you cut sections from it, polish them and look at them under a microscope to see the grain structure.   Just about all of the microscopes used in labs these days have a digital camera built in.  Before that we had to take film photographs with a camera. 

Either way, you have pictures in regular light, sometimes with polarized light to see the individual metal grains.  If they are unusual enough to make a comment, then you could attach the pictures you took  so that everybody could see what you are talking about.

 

[papageorge1]

17 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Hi papa.  I know scientists are people that do also have personal biases.  I know that scoffing does happen.

Here is my sticking point.   These supposed scientists make airy claims like    "This looks like nothing I have ever seen seen."  or "something paranormal must be involved."

Well papa, how did they arrive at that conclusion?  The must have looked at the specimen right?    If you are going to analyze a bend, you cut sections from it, polish them and look at them under a microscope to see the grain structure.   Just about all of the microscopes used in labs these days have a digital camera built in.  Before that we had to take film photographs with a camera. 

Either way, you have pictures in regular light, sometimes with polarized light to see the individual metal grains.  If they are unusual enough to make a comment, then you could attach the pictures you took  so that everybody could see what you are talking about.

 

Who is saying he has or hasn’t done all that and even much more? Who on this thread has done a full and unbiased study of this issue?

My only involvement was presenting his layman’s takeaway quote. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by papageorge1

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Who is saying he has or hasn’t done all that and even much more? Who on this thread has done a full and unbiased study of this issue?

My only involvement was presenting his layman’s takeaway quote. 

Hi papa, do you know if there is more data?

I am not wishing to jump down your throat or belittle you, probably feels like it though. 

Did you take the layman's takeaway quote at face value?  

Well thanks for the posting.  

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I own no burden of proof. I present quotes in good faith and do not have the time and energy or need the impossible job of proving anything to determined antagonists.

Yes. You completely own a burden of proof. You presented biased testimonials from Uri Geller's website. Why the good faith without actually looking at their findings? Haven't you claimed to always take all of the information into consideration? Do you really think that is intelligent to believe random unsourced quotes?

You never have the time or energy to back up anything you claim. It is disgusting. All you want to know is if it agrees with your preconceived notions. 

Nobody is asking you for proof that Geller is the real deal. We are asking for proof that these supposed studies ever happened in the first place. Where are the studies? Were they in a properly controlled environment? The who, what, where and when are extremely important in determining if the studies are valid. Why haven't they been scrutinized in the last 30 years?

Your obfuscation is beyond unreasonable. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by onlookerofmayhem

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Hi papa, do you know if there is more data?

I am not wishing to jump down your throat or belittle you, probably feels like it though. 

Did you take the layman's takeaway quote at face value?  

Well thanks for the posting.  

I do not accept quotes at face value but give them their due consideration. I am not qualified to prove or claim proof of this quote.

This is just one piece I consider in my overall evaluation of the subject.

Also another poster showed his involvement in paranormal organizations. Usually there are events that truly motivate and spur one to not stay on the sidelines.

 

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Yes. You completely own a burden of proof. You presented biased testimonials from Uri Geller's website. Why the good faith without actually looking at their findings? Haven't you claimed to always take all of the information into consideration? Do you really think that is intelligent to believe random unsourced quotes?

You never have the time or energy to back up anything you claim. It is disgusting. All you want to know is if it agrees with your preconceived notions. 

Nobody is asking you for proof that Geller is the real deal. We are asking for proof that these supposed studies ever happened in the first place. Where are the studies? Were they in a properly controlled environment? The who, what, where and when are extremely important in determining if the studies are valid. Why haven't they been scrutinized in the last 30 years?

Your obfuscation is beyond unreasonable. 

See my immediately preceding reply to tatetopa

I also, as shown earlier, consider layman’s takeaways from other scientists saying much the same thing.

Edited December 21, 2019 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

14 hours ago, Timothy said:

****ing hell mate, provide actual evidence for once. 

Are you expecting a Christmas miracle?

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I do not accept quotes at face value but give them their due consideration. I am not qualified to prove or claim proof of this quote.

You gave 0 considerations to any of the quotes you posted. They agree with your conclusions. That's it. Now you're just assuming they must have done this or that : 

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Have you seen a challenge of his metallurgical findings? Or against the other scientists saying essentially the same thing; that this mentally bent metal is bending in ways different from all known methods.

No. Where are his findings? It seems you haven't even found them. How are you determining that his findings were valid in the first place? What other scientists have come to the same conclusions in their studies? Where are those studies?

They are utterly biased as they come straight from Geller's website. Unsourced and not linked to any additional information. 

Do you not see the contradictions that arise when you post a bunch of testimonials and then say you have no qualifications to determine the validity of said quotes? What exactly are you taking into consideration then? That they said what you already have determined to be true?

They are worth nothing if they can't be backed up with the studies that are referred to in them.

And then you send everyone else on a wild goose chase to verify what YOU posted? 

You are a hypocrite. You complain that us skeptics will just jump on some antiparanormal website to provide a counter to your "arguments." You fail to provide anything. 

All you have done here is exactly what you have denounced, jump on Geller's site and copy/pasted these unverified testimonials. And then tell us to go figure out if they are true or have any value.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by onlookerofmayhem

[papageorge1]

31 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

You gave 0 considerations to any of the quotes you posted. They agree with your conclusions. That's it. Now you're just assuming they must have done this or that : 

No. Where are his findings? It seems you haven't even found them. How are you determining that his findings were valid in the first place? What other scientists have come to the same conclusions in their studies? Where are those studies?

They are utterly biased as they come straight from Geller's website. Unsourced and not linked to any additional information. 

Do you not see the contradictions that arise when you post a bunch of testimonials and then say you have no qualifications to determine the validity of said quotes? What exactly are you taking into consideration then? That they said what you already have determined to be true?

They are worth nothing if they can't be backed up with the studies that are referred to in them.

And then you send everyone else on a wild goose chase to verify what YOU posted? 

You are a hypocrite. You complain that us skeptics will just jump on some antiparanormal website to provide a counter to your "arguments." You fail to provide anything. 

All you have done here is exactly what you have denounced, jump on Geller's site and copy/pasted these unverified testimonials. And then tell us to go figure out if they are true or have any value.

 

 

Nobody has the time to research everything.

These quotes are food for thought and I strongly suspect accurately quoted. From the accumulated witnesses I’ve read, I have to strongly believe psychic metal bending does sometimes happen although it amazes my mind too.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Have you seen a challenge of his metallurgical findings?

I haven't seen metallurgical findings to challenge. Posters keep asking for a paper that doesn't seem to have distance and you keep dodging them acting persecuted.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Or against the other scientists saying essentially the same thing; that this mentally bent metal is bending in ways different from all known methods.

I've seen some fringe opinions on Geller's website. Thats about the sum of it.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am only hearing the vehement emotions of determined skeptics which is what is to be expected.

As is your response as a blinkered ignorant view. Posters have offered demonstrative videos of the method, and even Geller cheating on camera

 You could not look more biased right now if you tried 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe mentally produced metal bending does happen at times and science just doesn't understand it.

As Ive said before. I don't care what you believe. I doubt anyone does. You have proven yourself to be an enemy of reason and as credulous as they come. You have no right commenting on science as you have shown you do not understand it and undermine it with deliberate ignorance.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Some people vehemently don't like us 'wacko' types claiming real evidence that this is more than nonsense.

Does anyone like a charlatan or a fool claiming to be a genius? Pity is extended to a certain point but deliberate ignorance deserves no respect.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Other magicians, such as James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn’t a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick. But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn’t a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren’t trying to trick anybody. They were just little kids having a good time.

Michael Crichton (Acclaimed Author (Jurassic Park, etc.))

 

A novel writer now. You're a walking facepalm, you know that?

You really don't research your information do you. This guy has an imagination and uses it. He also calls removal of tonsils and adenoids, radical mastectomies, coronary bypass surgery and intensive care examples of our modem superstition. He calls medical research into this alleged modern superstition a problem. He has also claimed that Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel are frauds who presented false data.

His grip on reality challenges yours. No wonder you gravitate towards him.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Who is saying he has or hasn’t done all that and even much more? Who on this thread has done a full and unbiased study of this issue?

My only involvement was presenting his layman’s takeaway quote. 

And what value does that have?

None at all.

That's pure self validation. Not discussion.