Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

Uri Geller apologizes for Pokemon lawsuit

Recommended Posts

 
quiXilver

How does one remain civil and on topic with a topic such as this... i wonder.

 

oh wait... i get it...

 

*leaves silently :P

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ant0n

That individual has never been my cup of tea (with no spoon).

Edited by ant0n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

And Israel apologises for Uri Geller.

 

I guess he does have a purpose as showing how easy it is to fool even quite intelligent folks with some truly naff tricks and fakery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Wearer of Hats

To be fair - the Japanese name of the Mon was a direct reference to his name and he was covered in what could easily be interpreted as Nazi imagery (the lightning bolt SS of rhe SS).  
Ican see how he might get antsy at the allusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trihalo42

For those who missed it, Geller was part of some declassified CIA documents released under a Freedom of Information act. Was in the news for about a week. Do a search for CIA declassified Uri Geller, it's on the cia.gov site. They did testing in a controlled laboratory setting and stated, "As a result of Geller's success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner." Skeptics will likely say it's propaganda to scare the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
11 hours ago, Trihalo42 said:

For those who missed it, Geller was part of some declassified CIA documents released under a Freedom of Information act. Was in the news for about a week. Do a search for CIA declassified Uri Geller, it's on the cia.gov site. They did testing in a controlled laboratory setting and stated, "As a result of Geller's success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner." Skeptics will likely say it's propaganda to scare the Russians.

Geller's fans still clinging to the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
11 hours ago, Trihalo42 said:

They did testing in a controlled laboratory setting

They did no such thing

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/09/cia-uri-geller-video/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
17 hours ago, Trihalo42 said:

For those who missed it

Yup, that would be ME.  And given that I took a great deal of interest in researching Geller's claims many years back, I'm surprised I missed anything - I did see some CIA documents...

Quote

Geller was part of some declassified CIA documents released under a Freedom of Information act. Was in the news for about a week. Do a search for CIA declassified Uri Geller, it's on the cia.gov site.

Umm, NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.  If we do that you'll just claim "oh no, that's not the one, look harder".  We weren't born yesterday..

So you will either provide a link, or admit you are working on your memory.  One or the other.

Quote

They did testing in a controlled laboratory setting and stated, "As a result of Geller's success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner." Skeptics will likely say it's propaganda to scare the Russians.

Who, exactly said that?  An expert on magic tricks?  A CIA operative?  Someone who wrote a letter to the CIA?  Someone familiar with REAL 'controls' and how to stop cheating?

If it's a test 'result', is all the data included, including all the misses?  Is the methodology fully explained and does it match the documents/data/stats?

 

Without a source that we can look at, you can handwave all you like and it is WORTHLESS.  So CITE your claim, and let's look at it.

THEN and only then, we can assess the validity.  And yes, you're absolutely right, it might have just been propaganda - I'll show you how you can tell, if you don't know.  It's actually pretty easy. Plus you'll learn about terms like "cherry-picking", and also learn about proper controls and the importance of keeping all records of the full dataset, so any wild claims can be properly examined.

 

 

And here's a hint - run for it, as I actually do know what you are referring to, and it dismally fails almost all of the above.

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.