Uri Geller claims he was shown evidence of aliens at US Gov facility

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Man, one time he said he wasn’t feeling it. So what. 

If you have actually read the material on Uri you'd know he pulls this 'I can't do it' frequently.  In looking into the details behind some of the quotes you uncritically copy and pasted from Uri's site there are numerous references to this tactic:  Uri 'tries' but gives up and says he can't do it, scientists relent and loosen controls and/or are distracted because he's constantly flitting about, and then returns to some of these failed attempts and completes them. 

From https://books.google.com/books?id=W4_tDVYfHcEC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=uri+new+scientist&source=bl&ots=-FpljI_QR3&sig=ACfU3U1mem4CrutoFoB2SHMP4LJvtEQeDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjayqHO5bXzAhXO854KHfLMAEEQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=uri new scientist&f=false page 180:

Quote

SRI has filmed or videotaped many Geller tests.  The tapes show that Geller constantly bounces up and down, touching everything in sight and running his hands through his hair.  In the middle of a test, he frequently jumps up and flits about the room, stopping the test dead.  Just as suddenly, he will go back to the test - or to a different one he abandoned earlier.  He frequently asks for objects, often from outside the test room, to give him moral support: press clippings from past triumphs, pieces of metal, coins, etc.  He draws technicians and other observers into the experiment by asking them to help him concentrate, or to get other objects, or to pick a number.

Geller also tries to convince people that things happened differently than they did.  In one I watched, he tried to say he had not 'passed' when he had, in fact, done so.  In another he said that something was bent when it really wasn't.  Also Geller constantly needs reinforcement.  He frequently stops and says "I can't do it", thus putting experimenters in the position of repeatedly telling him that he really can, and thus possibly convincing themselves in the process.

In other words, typical magician misdirection stuff, and hahaha absolutely not a controlled experiment.  It's too bad Randi emotionally triggers you so severely, you could learn a lot of pretty basic things about skepticism from him, he covered this stuff long ago.

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, Timothy said:

But your ‘normal’ efforts usually include not trying to verify any details?

Please let me know of the specific SRI literature you’re alluding to which contains the ‘controlled conditions’.

Investigating the paranormal

Remote Perception at Stanford Research Institute

Paranormal studies

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If you have actually read the material on Uri you'd know he pulls this 'I can't do it' frequently.  In looking into the details behind some of the quotes you uncritically copy and pasted from Uri's site there are numerous references to this tactic:  Uri 'tries' but gives up and says he can't do it, scientists relent and loosen controls and/or are distracted because he's constantly flitting about, and then returns to some of these failed attempts and completes them. 

From https://books.google.com/books?id=W4_tDVYfHcEC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=uri+new+scientist&source=bl&ots=-FpljI_QR3&sig=ACfU3U1mem4CrutoFoB2SHMP4LJvtEQeDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjayqHO5bXzAhXO854KHfLMAEEQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=uri new scientist&f=false page 180:

In other words, typical magician misdirection stuff, and hahaha absolutely not a controlled experiment.  It's too bad Randi emotionally triggers you so severely, you could learn a lot of pretty basic things about skepticism from him, he covered this stuff long ago.

Always seemed reasonable to me that these unfathomably difficult psychic feats can not always be successfully demonstrated spontaneously. But they have occurred under enough controlled conditions to make me a believer including results that can not be duplicated even allowing magician tricks.

It is my goal to be honest with myself.

“Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific explanation as to how he did this.” (This is the first research related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility to have been released for publication by the US Department of Defence).
Eldon Byrd (US Naval Surface Weapons Centre, Maryland – U.S.A.)

Edited October 6, 2021 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Always seemed reasonable to me that these unfathomably difficult psychic feats can not always be successfully demonstrated spontaneously.

Always seemed more reasonable to me that something that can't actually be done would be accompanied by excuses like the above.  The issue isn't just that he can't ever demonstrate anything spontaneously under controlled conditions, that doesn't explain what I just quoted about how spastic he is and how much he tries to distract and break controls, which is exactly the behavior we'd expect from a faker.

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

But they have occurred under enough controlled conditions to make me a believer including results that can not be duplicated even allowing magician tricks.

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you have zero clue whether these experiments were controlled or not and what has occurred and what hasn't.  I bothered to take one of your quotes concerning Targ and look into and of course there is no indication that there were really much in the way of controls at all, so there isn't really much basis for your conclusions. What little can be found on Byrd isn't exactly coming across as 'impartial scientist' either, apparently in 1986 he was running metal bending workshops for the Science of Mind Church and other activities like firewalking. 

[papageorge1]

52 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Always seemed more reasonable to me that something that can't actually be done would be accompanied by excuses like the above.  The issue isn't just that he can't ever demonstrate anything spontaneously under controlled conditions, that doesn't explain what I just quoted about how spastic he is and how much he tries to distract and break controls, which is exactly the behavior we'd expect from a faker.

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you have zero clue whether these experiments were controlled or not and what has occurred and what hasn't.  I bothered to take one of your quotes concerning Targ and look into and of course there is no indication that there were really much in the way of controls at all, so there isn't really much basis for your conclusions. What little can be found on Byrd isn't exactly coming across as 'impartial scientist' either, apparently in 1986 he was running metal bending workshops for the Science of Mind Church and other activities like firewalking. 

Certainly one can obfuscate every single example into infinity until such tactics become see-through. I can cast anyone in a suspicious light if I put in my mind to it.  But after enough examples? Presenting more evidence would certainly produce more obfuscations. If you think all the investigators are incompetent or intentional frauds and the scientific findings in error then so be it.

At some point debating becomes no longer helpful. We each have to be honest with ourselves. My position has been clearly stated already. And I believe there are those attached to an anti-paranormal mindset that is never-say-die. 'Why that is' is to me is now the more interesting discussion (honestly). 

Edited October 6, 2021 by papageorge1

[Timothy]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Investigating the paranormal

Remote Perception at Stanford Research Institute

Paranormal studies

Do you see any issues with this link you have provided?

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Do you see any issues with this link you have provided?

I would stake my reputation on them!

[Golden Duck]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I would stake my reputation on them!

Why not?  They certainly maintain your reputation.

[Timothy]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I would stake my reputation on them!

*it!

It was a single link.

And it is okay if you are comfortable to stake your reputation on it, but that’s just admitting your bias and critical thinking issues.