One Trick Phoney

[Tom Moore]

There's a lot of accusations here about him giving false hope / tricking the relatives of the malasia plane vanish - however after a burst of googling I cannot find anything at all other than the quotes that Tim mentions above or one of (thousands) of syndicated articles or social media comments that link back to the same common story. Since the comments he made are wishy-washy non commentary and not the claims people keep implying he made can someone link me to an actual verifiable source that he actually said/did more than this. There's a LOT of pundits, celebs and "experts" who said much more inflamatory things and outright deceptions on that one topic than i'm currently finding for him. Whilst I wouldn't have made any comment at all I can't see that the comment he did make was worth anywhere near the level of vitriol he's receiving for it.

Educate me...

[P.T.Widdle]

Whilst I wouldn't have made any comment at all I can't see that the comment he did make was worth anywhere near the level of vitriol he's receiving for it.

Why wouldn't you have made any comment at all? Is it because you know that based on your morals and ethics that it would be wrong?

The point is that he should have declined to participate in the first place. He said he was contacted by a top Malaysian government official, and that he gave them some information, but that information could not be made public (I believe that came from a radio interview he did). Then there were the very public tweets about remote viewing.

Is this the sort of thing that a "professional illusionist" does?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thanks guys, reminds me of the reason I enjoy reading old magazines - to ponder what the urgent news of the day then means in relation to today's world.

[Brad Henderson]

People keep bringing up all sorts of other subjects (card cheats, Barnum, Funeral directors [?!]) but the topic of discussion is Uri Geller.

It's important because it demonstrates our selective outrage. We are not making a moral argument when we condemn Geller, we are making one of taste.

He is a shameless publicity whore who will do ANYTHING to get his name in the media. (And he does it exceptionally well... but that doesn't make him a magician).

The same can be said of Criss Angel, Valentino, and a host of young media savvy magicians who are happy to sell out magic for their own self promotion. How many honors have we given Criss?

Can we learn how to be more effective magicians from him? If he has anything more to offer than "pretend what you do is real both on AND off stage" I would be very surprised.

Apparently one of the two of us has heard him speak and is operating beyond a position of 'guessing'. I learned more about presenting magic from Uri's talk than I did from any other presenter on the Genii convention stage, especially the noted skeptic who couldn't keep his audience interested. So, yes, he has a lot to teach. But that requires one being willing to listen and learn. And THAT requires being in the room before deciding to condemn him based on what you 'think'.

skeptics are funny people. They seem to have their mind made up without looking at the evidence. That doesn't seem right, does it?

[Tom Moore]

Why wouldn't you have made any comment at all? Is it because you know that based on your morals and ethics that it would be wrong?

The point is that he should have declined to participate in the first place. He said he was contacted by a top Malaysian government official, and that he gave them some information, but that information could not be made public (I believe that came from a radio interview he did). Then there were the very public tweets about remote viewing.

Is this the sort of thing that a "professional illusionist" does?

....and there's my point made. What you say/think he did and what he ACTUALLY did (according to all the googling i've been able to do so far) are very different. Google the actual tweets and it's a very wishy-washy statement asking his followers what they "think" happened and in a syndicated press interview about it he says

"...I have been asked by quite a substantial figure in Malaysia what my feelings are about this situation. It is my opinion that something happened to the pilot," he explained. "The pilot was either pushed into a situation to divert the plane by another force or he did it of his own accord."..."That is my opinion and it is only my opinion. It is what I had derived from my own personal intuitive feeling."

So it seems he's in an impossible place - no matter what he ACTUALLY says or does detractors spin his words and actions into completely different statements then berate him for it.

Before the mid 80's he jumped on to every crazy publicity stunt, high profile incident and made all sorts of fantastical claims about psychic powers to substantiate the lie/myth he'd created. Since then he's scaled back his claims to generic wishy-washy self-help stuff (your average Tv news anchor makes more crazy claims and outright lies daily) openly taken part in magic shows (he used to be on a weekly magic series with Arturo Brachetti & the Pendragons) and very very publicly supported and promoted magicians, illusionists and magic for close to 30 years. He's also peddled lots of trendy self-help / power of positive thinking nonsense and occasionally engaged in publicity stunts to promote brands and companies who have employed him for that purpose but as far as I can tell kept well away from the outright lies and falsehoods often attributed to him.

[P.T.Widdle]

From a radio interview:

"I believe in remote viewing. I know it works."
"I came to my own conclusion which I passed on to the right source in Malaysia."
"I know more information but I cannot reveal it."

From the tweets:
"Can you please try to 'see' where you believe the plane went down?"

This is sick, stupid stuff for a so-called "professional illusionist" to be doing. You can parse it any way you want, but he is STILL presenting himself has having supernatural abilities (it still says "psychic" on his Twitter profile).

And it's galling that FISM is supporting those claims, as Tim has previously noted, by presenting statements like this on their website:

"The world's most prestigious scientific magazine, Nature, published a paper on Uri's work at the Stanford Research Institute in the U.S.A - a unique endorsement, and an irrefutable proof that his skills are genuine."

[observer]

And it's galling that FISM is supporting those claims, as Tim has previously noted, by presenting statements like this on their website:

"The world's most prestigious scientific magazine, Nature, published a paper on Uri's work at the Stanford Research Institute in the U.S.A - a unique endorsement, and an irrefutable proof that his skills are genuine."

Well, remember, FISM is hyping FISM ("look at our amazing lineup!"). That Geller gets hyped too is just incidental.

If that's any consolation.

[Tim Ellis]

"The same can be said of Criss Angel, Valentino, and a host of young media savvy magicians who are happy to sell out magic for their own self promotion. How many honors have we given Criss?"

ummm... none. However, Criss has purchased quite a few from Tony Hassini - and what honors have the magic community EVER given Valentino??!!

Criss Angel and Valentino are, like Geller, shameless self promoters. However, even they don't tell their audiences their powers are real. (Even Calen Morelli conceded that his shot at fame - Magician tries to sell weed to cop - was a fake.)

Are we singling Geller out because he claims he is a psychic? He also claims he is an alien and was a spy for the CIA and Mossad. He makes a LOT of outrageous claims as well as manipulating the truth "I designed the logo for NSync".

I think you'll find that if FISM wanted to give an award to JOHN EDWARD or SYLVIA BROWNE for services to magic, a large portion of the magic community would be equally outraged. It's not about how lovely they are, how much they give to charity, how eloquently they speak or how much showmanship they possess... it's the fact that they are knowingly deceiving the public outside of the context of entertainment. They are telling the public THAT THEIR POWERS ARE REAL.


As for the Malaysian disaster and people saying Geller as put in a "no win situation"... he put HIMSELF in there. NOBODY asked his opinion. HE went to the media CLAIMING to have been asked to assist by a source he refused to name. If HE hadn't gone to the media he could have discreetly assisted if he really was asked but no, the whole point was not to actually help find the plane, but to turn the attention to brand Uri Geller.

[Brad Henderson]

I sat in the audiende and watched Criss Angel lauded at the WMS. The magic castle has given him an award i believe. He is featured in magic magazines and defended on forums. I can think of at least one known magic exposure who has graced the covers of at least one notable magic magazine.

Given the practices in our community, Using magic for one's own self promotion is hardly grounds to criticism Geller.

Re lying: Bob Lund said of the Calvert biography: "reads like a movie script. Yep, just like a movie script." Jimmy grippo I understand was fond with hyperbole as well. Heck, one now dead mentalist defended using fake credits in his promo material for lay people. It's all show biz, after all!

Your example re brown and Edwards is innacurate. Neither of these people are magicians. Uri is.

Show me where it is written, and where we have all agreed, that magicians must admit to being fakes?

You may be willing to censor an artist's options, I'm not.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... Your example re brown and Edwards is innacurate. Neither of these people are magicians. Uri is...

Oh? They perform the effect of telling people supernatural stuff. Where do you make a distinction?

@basic positions: The skeptic asks "what makes that in particular more useful than any other options?" The cynic asks "who benefits from that"? The pessimist asks "how much more is that going to cost"?

Or is it that the approved approach to claims of the supernatural involves rolling up ones sleeves and showing ones hands empty with fingers spread before opening up the paper on which is written...?

[P.T.Widdle]

Whether or not one labels Geller (or Edwards and Brown) as a magician is not the major point. This is:

they are knowingly deceiving the public outside of the context of entertainment. They are telling the public THAT THEIR POWERS ARE REAL.

and by the way,

"Geller is NOT a magician." - Jamy Ian Swiss

[Jonathan Townsend]

Whether or not one labels Geller (or Edwards and Brown) ... They are telling the public THAT THEIR POWERS ARE REAL.

Much simpler. So what's the difference between?

[P.T.Widdle]

Exactly. Why wouldn't Edwards or Brown also be invited to FISM?

[Brad Henderson]

"Geller is NOT a magician." - Jamie Ian Swiss

That's one person's opinion. But MY opinion is that asking Jamy Swiss's opinion of Geller is akin to asking Fox New's opinion on Obama.

but if I'm going to listen to someone about what a magician is or does, do I listen to the largely unknown guy whose audience's sat with their hands in their laps or the man who received a standing ovation and is known
all over the world for his demonstrations so powerful that people believe they might be real?

maybe Jamy's wrong.

a skeptic would consider that as an option.

and again, where is it written that a magician must admit he or she is a fake? You come off like a religious fundamentalist who insists we all live our lives accordiing to YOUR rules based on YOUR beliefs.

Sorry - not interested.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Exactly. Why wouldn't Edwards or Brown also be invited to FISM?

I'd ask them all about how they relate to their audiences and go about refining their performances.

[P.T.Widdle]

You're right, Brad. As far as magic is concerned, there are no rules per se (for copyright, behavior, exposure, etc.). We have only ethics.

Dictionary definition of ethics: "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior."

So, in reference to magic, would you prefer to amend your previous statement, "THERE ARE NO RULES!" to "THERE ARE NO ETHICS!"?

[vogler]

everyone in the magic community knows what Geller and Angel are. Self promoters and their have a huge talent.But Not in their art of course, but on the self promotion. Its pitty that the big audience has a bad taste.
But when magicians support this kind of magic, is a weird thing that I can't explain.

[Tim Ellis]

Hey Brad Henderson...

From URI GELLER in a letter in THE GUARDIAN http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/nov/08/guardianletters1 2000

Your Pass notes (November 6) imply I am a magician and conjuror - but that this cannot be stated outright because I am such a litigious fellow. I can say with absolute certainty I do not cheat. I am not a magician. I have been tested by some of the most eminent scientists in the most prestigious laboratories of the world, who wrote up their results in highly respected journals. Perhaps the gifted journalists who compile Pass notes were not aware of the wealth of scientific data, compiled by outstanding physicists such as the Nobel winner Brian Josephson at Cambridge and Professor John Hasted in London, which demonstrates metal-bending is a real phenomenon.

CAN WE BE ANY CLEARER???

[P.T.Widdle]

His Twitter profile:

"Uri Geller was born in Israel he is a mystifier and the most investigated Paranormalist, Psychic, Spoonbender, Phenomenon he is distantly related to Freud"

[Brad Henderson]

What does he mean by 'magician'? What does he mean by 'cheating'?

Does saying that something is not something make it not?

Criss Angel saying his show is #1 doesn't make it so.

But more importantly, his choice to present himself as real is a valid artistic one. Reality stars and TV personalities go to great lengths to craft fictitious off stage personas that compliment their onstage characters.

Again, our aversion isn't in the lie but in what he is choosing to lie about.

[Aaron Sterling]

when magicians support this kind of magic, is a weird thing that I can't explain.

It's a business decision, based on whether one's primary income comes from older magic amateurs, or from younger lay audiences.

Genii and FISM have decided to appeal to older amateurs -- for example, people who got into magic because they wanted to be Bret Maverick when they were kids. People with a respect for a nonconsensual relationship with the audience -- people who look up to hustlers, card cheats, etc.

By contrast, most people whose primary, or sole, income derives from performing for the lay public, know that the audience trend is for greater consensuality, not less. This is why Hobson (finally) gave up his yellowface routine, but it's a much broader audience trend than magic. It's why comedians don't tell rape jokes on college campuses, why Louis CK stopped using the word "f*ggot" in his standup, and so on. Younger paying audiences are less religious, more internet-sophisticated, and more concerned about preserving agency of audience volunteers.

That's why you see major performers so careful to construct a consensual relationship with the audience. The main theme of Derren Brown's Absolute Power, for example, was an attempt to answer the question: How can I provide a magical experience to the audience, even if they know I am not magical myself? That book is hard to find now, but if you're interested in that theme, Max Howard's Creating Theatrical Magic approaches the question in an impressive way, and I think the answer is very close to the answer Derren Brown arrived at, though Max Howard's approach is completely different. Penn and Teller also take great pains to build consensuality with their audiences. The list goes on.

Then there are a handful of performers who make money off of "consensual" nonconsent (like hypnosis shows). There's still a market for that, just as there's still a market for "f*ggot" jokes. But it's a waning market, not a growing one. Those performers might want to learn from Geller, because they're interested in becoming better manipulators. And perhaps they will improve. But that won't change the general demographic trend of greater audience interest in consensuality.

I really appreciate Tim Ellis's posts on this topic. Though Tom Moore's posts seem to be the most historically precise to me. Thank you, both.

As a final thought, the defense of nonconsent on this board helps answer a question I wondered about some time back, which was, Why do no women ever post here?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Using trickery to proffer evidence in support of magical thinking which applies outside the show proscenium arch: product versus lifestyle. The magician offers reminders that perceptions are limited and beliefs affect expectations.

...the general demographic trend of greater audience interest in consensuality...

I'm not sure I agree with that. See the recent novel "The Circle" for counterargument. There's some public mention of transparency yet in terms of function IMHO there's more defensive segmentation/privacy/identity. Less "try a view through their eyes" and more "brand identity". As evidence I proffer the phrase "the reports of X have" used in place of "X" for events and use of "tolerate" in place of "accept" (or even acknowledge).

In plaintext and newspeak,

JonT

[Jonathan Townsend]

What does he mean by 'magician'? What does he mean by 'cheating'? ...

I see what could be letters... could that be language? Is there some operational congruence between patterns of things (or behavior) and patterns in those symbols which could be letters?

Inquiring minds what to know,

ToJn

[Joe Mckay]

Aaron? Women don't post here because it is men because a far smaller proportion of women then man are seriously interested in magic.

Just as it is men who are make up the majority in fields like physics, mathematics, chess and train spotting.

It would be cool if this changes one day. But I suspect men and women tend to just have different interests in life.

It always amuses me that the one female in magic I really admire and think is a creative genius - was once a man.

[Richard Kaufman]

Genii and FISM have decided to appeal to older amateurs -- for example, people who got into magic because they wanted to be Bret Maverick when they were kids. People with a respect for a nonconsensual relationship with the audience -- people who look up to hustlers, card cheats, etc.

Thanks for painting us with such broad strokes. You're wrong.

[Brad Henderson]

Aron,

hit and run guerrilla magic. Mayne and carbonaro hidden camera shows. Viral videos of pranks and stunts ala the Carrie coffee shop or demon baby. calen's pot stunt. using magic as a vehicle to produce a 'reaction' which is then exploited by the magician.

Are you sure younger audiences are embracing consensual interactions?

I think you need a few more years of knowledge gained from being in the real world before you so quickly apply theories and ideas across such broad spectrums. It's not that the ideas you have read are wrong, they just don't apply as broadly as your limited esprrience would have you believe.

[AJM]

I don't know about any of this.

What I do know is that when I achieve my ambition of organising my own magic convention (working title 'MaJock Live') the first name on my guest list will be David Icke.

Should stir up a bit of a debate pre-event (plus he's much cheaper).

Incidentally, I've been trying to develop a new axiom but I'm having some difficulty finishing it off - any help would be much appreciated.

Uri Geller = David Icke
David Icke <> Magician

therefore (hope you're keeping up)

Uri Geller <> ???

I would welcome your thoughts as I feel I'm almost there.

When agonising over potential answers please do bear in mind that Mr Geller, as I pointed out earlier in this ever growing ethical debate, is apparently unable to do a bit of impromptu spoon bending when asked politely. A skill I've seen countess hacks perform convincingly in dealers rooms up and down the land.

I half expected an outrageous explanation as to why not other than 'I can't - erm, by the way, is that a British accent?'

Good night and God bless.

Andrew

[Tim Ellis]

What does he mean by 'magician'? What does he mean by 'cheating'?

Does saying that something is not something make it not?

Criss Angel saying his show is #1 doesn't make it so.

But more importantly, his choice to present himself as real is a valid artistic one. Reality stars and TV personalities go to great lengths to craft fictitious off stage personas that compliment their onstage characters.

Again, our aversion isn't in the lie but in what he is choosing to lie about.

Brad... your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker- even when Geller HIMSELF says he is not a magician you dispute it. Are you THAT eager to welcome him into the fold?

The letter that Geller wrote was in response to a writer saying:

Ah, yes. The world famous magician. Shush! The celebrated metal-bender is a "psychic". People who claim otherwise tend to hear from his lawyers.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/nov/06/features11.g2

To which his full response was

Your Pass notes (November 6) imply I am a magician and conjuror - but that this cannot be stated outright because I am such a litigious fellow. I can say with absolute certainty I do not cheat. I am not a magician. I have been tested by some of the most eminent scientists in the most prestigious laboratories of the world, who wrote up their results in highly respected journals. Perhaps the gifted journalists who compile Pass notes were not aware of the wealth of scientific data, compiled by outstanding physicists such as the Nobel winner Brian Josephson at Cambridge and Professor John Hasted in London, which demonstrates metal-bending is a real phenomenon.
You give your journalists a sniper's brief - operate from heavy cover, fire in short bursts, work anonymously. And you dare to accuse me of subterfuge. If there was a spoonful of courage in any of the sceptics on your staff - and I know many journalists affect to despise the paranormal - I would challenge her or him to an exchange of letters: since 130 years of outstanding scientific research is documented that indicates the existence of human psychic powers, how can you possess the arrogance to dismiss it all? Can one of your writers tell me that? I predict, however, that your snipers will prefer to skulk in safety.

The point being that, if you say Geller is a magician or achieves his feats by anything other than supernatural powers then he will sue you. (Or at least write a strongly worded letter to the paper).

However, he is happy to accept awards for "Services to magic" and headline Magic conventions (for a reasonable fee, of course).



This reminds me of Criss Angel being asked to do a "walk through" of a magic conventinn in Vegas several years back, as a lot of the junior magicians would love to have the chance to see him in the flesh. He was more than happy to do so, on the condition that the convention presented him with an award of some kind like.. say.. "Best Magic Show in Vegas"...

[Roger M.]

Geller is an entertainer who simply panders to his base, 85% of which is "psychic" in nature, and 15% "magic" in nature.

He also makes incredibly effective use of controversy as one of his primary marketing tools.

He is adept at keeping the focus on himself, ensuring that focus remains intense, and further that the spotlight doesn't ever shift too far away from his own little circle onstage.

Newsflash: It's all working very well.

[Tim Ellis]

your point being?

[Tim Ellis]

On the FISM website they have a quote from James Randi where it appears that Mr Randi is endorsing Geller

"The man is a natural magician. He does everything with great care, meticulous misdirection and flawless instinct. The nails are real, the keys are really borrowed, the envelopes are actually sealed, there are no stooges, there are no secret radio devices and there are no props from the magic catalogues. He is a consummate performer, and had he arrived in true colours as a conjurer, he'd have found no more ardent supporter than this magician."

I think this is a great example of how willing Geller, and his supporters, are to twist the truth.Here is the full quote which is the polar opposite of an endorsement

I HAVE resisted comment until now, but feel I must break silence to explain my stand on the Geller matter, particularly since the irresponsible comments of Mr. Peter B. Osborne in Abra 1454.

In the periodical 'Magick,' Mr. Bascombe Jones saw fit to accuse me of gross improprieties concerning exposures and stated that my campaign against Geller was the result of jealousy. This is hardly the case. If you will refer to Ali Bongo's comments of importance on Geller, you will see my stand almost exactly. I know a bit more about this young man than you chaps do over there; for one thing, he is intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so.

People like Geller give all of us in magic a black eye. He is in every respect a dangerous and insidious figure. I'll make no bones about it at all: I'm out to stop him at all costs, though it certainly will not be necessary to bring the conjuring profession down with him. I would expect that those in the magic field would share the responsibility for putting the man out of business.

As for 'exposures' - an article in a prominent magazine here had a full account of Kreskin's use of the clip-board, an explanation of the blindfold drive and mentions of the Corinda books and other secrets of our profession. Since my name was mentioned in close connection, the rash assumption was that I had provided this material. Not so. The author went to a New York magic store and asked advice, then was sold the implements and books over the counter just like anyone else who asks for them! The writer had no hand in any exposure whatsoever, and irresponsible statements to the contrary are unfair and defamatory.

Gentlemen, I am proud of the profession I follow. I am proud to know that I have been afforded a certain recognition in the field, particularly that I have been accepted into such important organizations as The Magic Circle. I know of no calling which depends so much upon mutual trust and faith as does ours, and I am not about to violate this dependancy. But when a self-styled wonder-worker comes upon the scene and declares that he has God-given supernatural powers, when this same man upsets the sanity of so many of our young people, and when he makes the world of science look ridiculous and precipitates actions that eventually will bring prominent men of medicine and science to disgrace and ridicule, I say that each and every one of us has the obligation to fight the charlatan.

A word of caution: do not assume that Geller uses standard conjuring methods to accomplish his chicanery. I have been able to solve his methods only by careful study of videotapes, interviews of persons personally involved, and by rejecting all involved physical explanations. The man is a natural magician. He does everything with great care, meticulous misdirection and flawless instinct. The nails are real, the keys are really borrowed, the envelopes are actually sealed, there are no stooges, there are no secret radio devices and there are no props from the magic catalogues. He is a consummate performer, and had he arrived in true colours as a conjurer, he'd have found no more ardent supporter than this magician.

Yes, Mr. Osborne, I am a professional magician. And I'm proud of it. Will you join me in defending the integrity of our profession?

[Jonathan Townsend]

... he is intending to enter the 'psychic healing' field 'soon' and when he starts into that racket, he can kill people. He is well on his way to becoming a religious figure, and he is ruthless in his methods to do so.

People like Geller give all of us in magic a black eye.

To what extent is magical thinking which extends beyond the time/place of the show ... religious?

[Tom Moore]

Out of curiosity Tim, do you have any references / links / proof of anything in the last 15-20 years - ie since he stopped publicly claiming genuine powers and started being the host/producer of one of the biggest TV magic show brands around?

I'm genuinely curious as to how many years you feel would have to elapse before you feel sufficient time has passed to forgive his previous wrongdoings and also how much of the negativity you attach to Geller (and FISM for now "supporting" him) should also attach to the other magicians and performers who have had their careers lauched (or massively boosted) because of him?

It would help us all greatly if you could define exactly where you perceive the line to be.

[Brad Henderson]

Definitions are important.

magic - the feelingful response resulting from experiencing that which one knows is impossible, undeniably, in their presence.

magician - someone who does magic.

Magic and magician have nothing to do with tricks and or methods. When one goes to the Dewey decimal system and looks up magic one does not get books on tricks.

Geller was accused of being a trickster, a conjuror. His defense is clear, he does not cheat. He is attempting to differentiate himself from 'conjurors'. He is maintaining his character. His character is not to be confused with common conjurors. He is defining magicians as people who cheat. And that is one aspect of many self proclaimed magicians, the one they seem to care about the most.

Edwards and brown fail to meet the definition of both impossible and undeniable. Predicting the future and making unverifiable claims of the past do not produce the same feelingful response. Telling people of what they think they may remember fails both the in the present and undeniable aspect. Giving people advice is a mundane task.

Bending metal and drawing duplications, however they may be produced, do achieve the condition of magic.

The problem is magicians give primacy to method, not feeling. This may be why most of Geller's detractors never manage to eek out a fraction of the impact he does.

But they know what magic is!!!!

apparently not.

Geller IS a magician based on the nature of the phenomena he produces. Method is irrelevant. The feelingful result does. Reporters may be forgiven for not recognizing this distinction. They have been taught what magic is by people who don't know themselves - deceptive party clowns and jugglers.

However, because Geller understands the feelingful nature of art, his character takes a particular stance on method to achieve his particular feelingful response. He must always deny the use of trickery.

And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Nowhere are we commanded to admit our fakery, to intentionally diminish the experience we give to our audiences. How callous of us to do that to them!

Magicians are afraid of magic, afraid of power. That's why we undercut our moments with stupid jokes, we position ourselves as glorified clowns for the mere amusement of those who might deign to grant us some attention.

Where exactly has that gotten us?

I'd rather have one real magician in the world who angers the wannabes than a dozen shallow tricksters dancing onstage like trained dogs.

We hate Geller not because of what he does, but because he reveals to us a painful truth we wish not to accept. Our own failure to understand what REAL magic is and can be.

[Roger M.]

your point being?

You, and everybody else participating in this thread are playing right into the hand that Geller wants you to play into.

What you're discussing is irrelevant, what is relevant is that you continue to discuss Geller.

Ultimately, it's just effective marketing to ones niche.

That folks are willing to get so wrapped up in the emotional hand-wringing of it all only makes Geller's efforts that much more effective.

YOU make him relevant to magicians.

[P.T.Widdle]

To what extent is magical thinking which extends beyond the time/place of the show ... religious?

When the "magical thinking" is presented as not as conjuring or mentalism, but as true supernatural powers.

he stopped publicly claiming genuine powers

He still says he's a psychic on his Twitter profile.

[P.T.Widdle]

We hate Geller not because of what he does, but because he reveals to us a painful truth we wish not to accept. Our own failure to understand what REAL magic is and can be.

"Can you please try to 'see' where you believe the plane went down?"

Yes, that's REAL magic! He's certainly not afraid to use the "power" that the rest of us "glorified clowns" shy away from.

-------

That folks are willing to get so wrapped up in the emotional hand-wringing of it all only makes Geller's efforts that much more effective.
YOU make him relevant to magicians.

He we go again with, "the more you talk about Geller, the more it proves how great he is" argument. Tell me, is that also the case for other controversial figures, or is it just for magic?

[Tom Moore]

He still says he's a psychic on his Twitter profile

No he doesn't - he say's that he's "the most investigated...psychic" which is a subtle but fundamental difference. Its these careful choices of language (which readers quickly misread and misremember) that a lot of magicians and mentalists now spend years agonising over and write books about in an effort to harness this phenomina in to something they can use in a conventional magic show with limited success. If nothing else the very fact that he can instinctively and consistently make statements which illicite a response different to the actual words used is something magicians could be harnessing and studying to improve their performances surely?

[Brad Henderson]

please try to see where the plane went down - exactly how is that different from what any of us we trying to do when that situation occured?

if a pilot tries to 'see', fair ball. If a pundit tries to 'see', fair ball. If I as an interested person tries to 'see', fair ball.

If Geller tells us to do what everyone else is already doing - the sky is falling.

[Brad Henderson]

Widdle, how do you feel about magicians who use tricks in TED talk or seminar contexts to prove points about communication, intuition, body language, nlp or whatever?

careful - some of the people who do that for big money are VERY well liked!

again - where does it say we must admit to trickery and diminish our audiences feelings?