One Trick Phoney

[Roger M.]

No P.T., I'm not at all implying anything at all related to "how great he is", only that folks willingness to participate in long threads with Geller as the primary topic continue to keep Geller relevant.

Note that, by definition, "relevance" doesn't imply that somebody is either good at what they do, or particularly ethical ... only that the topic under discussion (Geller in this case) has a bearing upon, or is somehow connected with the discussion at hand.

Geller is not a fellow whose work I'm at all interested in, but I do admire his ability to keep the name "Uri Geller" constantly in play, something he's managed to do now for many decades.

[P.T.Widdle]

Tom,

I don't see where "most investigated" robs the word, "psychic" of its meaning. He is not using that preface as a subtle wink, but as a boast.

Brad,

I don't see how you can parse that tweet as anything other than what it really is - a promotion of remote viewing as a real, and verifiable means to locate missing people. Can you "see" other magicians doing that?

As far as know, no one has given a TED talk who claims supernatural powers.

Roger,

FISM is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.
Genii is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.

That fact we magicians debate this relevance should be applauded not frowned upon.

[Tom Moore]

I don't see where "most investigated" robs the word, "psychic" of its meaning. He is not using that preface as a subtle wink, but as a boast.

It doesn't

But you said that on his profile he was claiming "he is psychic" when actually that's not what his twitter profile says. It says something that grammatically and contextually is different (similar and open to misinterpretation - that's not contested) that you are reading and interpreting differently to the actual words used. It's something he does a lot, it's something magicians use a lot; why shouldn't the presenter of a huge mega successful magic show who is an expert at clever use of language in EXACTLY the way that magicians try to use it be invited to appear at a magic convention to give a lecture on this and the self promotion & publicity skills he has honed?

[Brad Henderson]

see Widdle. that's where your moral position falls apart. They may not claim supernatural powers, but they use lies to 'prove' ideas that may or may not be true.

there is a magician on a science show who uses a magic trick to 'prove' how one can read people to determine if they are lying.

Can people read people to determine if they are lying? maybe.

but certainly one isn't doing that while glimpsing the backs of marked papers.

Some magicians use tricks to 'prove' how we can influence people's choices with words choice, etc.

Can people influence people with word choices? maybe. To the degree Given in the demonstration offered as proof - unlikely.

But we know these people. We like these people. We're happy they are getting air time. If we criticize THESE people we are told it is sour grapes.

again, the issue isn't misinformation or lying, it's your personal disgust with what they are misinforming or lying about.

[mrnikko]

In a just world Uri would be rotting in a prison cell. Claiming supernatural powers should get you a prison sentence.

[mrnikko]

[censored] uri and [censored] magicians that support him. I now realize that I have dedicated far too much time to an art filled with amoral liars and frauds. [censored] magic.

[Brad Henderson]

priests and religions claim supernatural powers are at work through them - should they be in prison?

Why should we condemn those who merely claim super natural abilities but idolize those who steal money by cheating at cards or perpetrating con games?

[Dustin Stinett]

FISM is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.
Genii is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.

James Randi has kept Uri Geller relevant among the general public for decades.

[mrnikko]

priests and religions claim supernatural powers are at work through them - should they be in prison?

Why should we condemn those who merely claim super natural abilities but idolize those who steal money by cheating at cards or perpetrating con games?

Yes

I don't idolize card cheats. I know it's commonplace to do so but that doesn't make it right.

[Joe Mckay]

I agree with Brad. And think he makes good points that should be addressed directly. So in case anyone wants to responds to what I say, I think it is more important that Brad's points are addressed first.

I should add that the harm caused by "psychics" is pretty minor. Incompetent financial advisors (ie the majority of them) cause far more harm.

In the case of Uri Gellar he doesn't seem to have ever done anyone any serious harm. Here in the UK - nobody takes him seriously. He just churns out cheap PR stunts every couple of years as he tried to take credit for some unexpected event.

I think there is something a bit autistic about those magicians who devote themselves to exposing the likes of Uri Gellar. Ironically they would have been better off ignoring him. But as it is - it feels like a lot of energy devoted to achieving very little.

You may as well go round the world exposing that Santa Claus is not real. It is just a non-issue.

[Bill Marquardt]

Santa Claus is real. I read it in The Sun. Newspapers don't lie.

[P.T.Widdle]

"THERE ARE NO RULES!"

I agree with Brad...the harm caused by "psychics" is pretty minor.
It is just a non-issue.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... fraud.html

[Tim Ellis]

I think there is something a bit autistic about those magicians who devote themselves to exposing the likes of Uri Gellar.

Well spotted Joe, I am on the autistic spectrum. I wonder whether I should be offended by your insenstive observation.

To Brad and the others who are using the argument "BUT OTHER MAGICIANS ARE LYING TOO SO DON'T PICK ON URI".... I take issues with those people as well.

Magicians who claim awards they have never won
Magicians who claim their powers are genuine
Magicians who buy Merlin Awards for the PR
Magicians who teach super memory but use stacked deck demonstrations as examples
Magicians who expose magic secrets to the public
Magicians who use their skills to cheat in card games
Magicians who use their skills to give palm readings and act as mediums
Magicians who use camera effects in order to create magic on TV


Yes, I have issues with all of these guys...

But that is not what we are talking about here.. we are discussing the fact that FISM is honoring URI GELLER by booking him as a headline guest at FISM (and my "psychic powers" tell me part of his deal involves them giving him some kind of award too)

Even if you ignore facts that he still claims he is a psychic with genuine powers (evidence from 2000 in The Guardian, and more recently in other press articles) though he uses trickery to bend spoons (evidence in the recent iPhone 6 video)

Even if you ignore the facts that he has gone beyond the generally accepted moral boundaries of using his (non-existent) powers to tell a family their kidnapped daughter was alive AFTER she had already been murdered (then later tried to brush it off in the press as him being successful "in a way"

Even if you ignore the scientific community that wasted so much money "testing" him and his "powers" as a result of them taking him at his word.

Even if you ignore the fact that he committed fraud by taking money from Zanex in exchange for a "power" that he knew he didn't have

Even if you ignore all of those things... one of the most frowned upon things in our industry are magicians who take a lousy review and chop it up to try to make it look good.


"That was the best example of a terrible magic show I have ever seen. Don't see it because it sucks!"

becomes

"That was the best... magicshow I have ever seen. See it!"

Nobody has addressed the way Uri has used Randi's condemnation of him as a glowing review simply by omitting most of it.

Or, are we expected to applaud him for his cunning use of marketing, the way he has made lemonade out of lemons?!


The ART of magic is to create the illusion of genuine magic just as the ART of acting is to create the illusion of a real person.

A great actor will convince you that his is Hamlet for the duration of the play. But if he continues to play the role off stage and insisting he really is Hamlet and offering you a dodgy looking drivers license with PRINCE OF DENMARK printed on it... maybe you'd suspect there was something wrong with this person...


It's easy to brush off criticism of Geller by saying we are jealous because he does what we are afraid off and presents magic as real... he does what is EASY.

A friend of mine does a mind reading/mentalism show and was going nowhere fast (he was competent but not engaging or likeable). So he started offering it to the new age community as a display of genuine psychic powers. They lapped it up and his lack of presentation became an asset. Now he charges them top dollar for private readings and has more than quadrupled his income from shows. Is he a "marketing genius" like Geller??? No. He simply made the decision to lie to the public about what his show really was.

The same applies to the manufacturers of an Erctile Disfunction nasal spray http://www.smh.com.au/business/erectile-nasal-spray-simply-didnt-work-20130319-2gdm8.html They made millions of dollars over about ten years or so selling a product they KNEW didn't work. Should we applaud them for their ingenuity? They didn't "hurt" anyone.. just took a few dollars from "gullible" people who were willing to believe.... just like Geller.

How about Dr Oz? "America's Doctor" has millions of fans, he recently helped two car crash victims so he's a good guy... but despite his brilliant marketing and ability to thrive on controversy (like Geller) he promotes and sells "medicines" that he KNOWS don't work. Do the medical community invite him to headline their conferences so they can "learn from him"? No. They ostracise him and continue to try to drum him out of their community because his mere existence is doing damage to their industry's reputation. "Who's really harmed by Dr Oz?" asks CNN two weeks ago? http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/27/opinions/vox-dr-oz-critics/ The same question can be asked of Uri Geller and, I suspect, it would get the same answers.

[Tim Ellis]

For those unfamiliar with Dr Oz...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU

[Joe Mckay]

Dr Oz is a joke. I agree completely. I saw a recent episode where he was trying to shame men into thinking fat women are beautiful. Whatever, brah.

As for the other stuff. You make some good points. I am no fan of Uri Gellar. I just feel he is targeted way more than any other magician (who commit the other sins you list).

And after a while - you just have to shrug your shoulders and say good luck to Uri. He is a complete fraud but at the same time - of all the tragedies in the world, worrying about the fate of dumb people with a need to believe in nonsense is pretty low down on my list.

The world is full of BS (such as male circumcision in the US - to give one example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng) and becoming that bothered about the exploits of Uri Gellar is literally a waste of time. It just feels dumb to give him the courtesy of taking him that seriously. Indifference is the best weapon against a publicity hound.

With that said - it is probably a mistake for FISM to lend legitimacy to Uri Gellar. Since he has spent his career choosing not to define himself as a magician. So - I give you props for that.

Still - I bet the majority of people at FISM (as with the GENII convention) feel that a lot can be learned from Uri Gellar. And so - even then - having him at the convention is still in the interests of most of the attendees looking to learn from somebody with a unique history in show business. He is also a talented magician. His focus on visual effects and the elimination of silly procedures puts him in line with the ideas espoused by the likes of Derren Brown. His single minded focus on effects which are simple, visual and direct was ahead of his time.

Uri's moment in the sun has passed. In the 70's - a lot of naive people may have believed he had real powers. But not any more. The simple passage of time has done more than anything else to make his bogus claims seem laughable and irrelevant. At least here in the UK - he is just a figure of fun. Who lazy journalists publicize from time to time when they cannot find anything else to put in their newspapers.

[Brad Henderson]

priests and religions claim supernatural powers are at work through them - should they be in prison?

Why should we condemn those who merely claim super natural abilities but idolize those who steal money by cheating at cards or perpetrating con games?

Yes

I don't idolize card cheats. I know it's commonplace to do so but that doesn't make it right.

your profile lists your favorite magician as Tommy wonder. Wonder incorporated and built on tne work of Vernon. Vernon's entire artistic lookout was informed by lessons learned studying card cheats and expert at the card table.

the entirety of modern magic thinking descends from those who are crooks and thieves.

gooba gabba gooba gabba

[Brad Henderson]

The oz/uri comparison is ridiculous. The responsibilities of a professional doctor and a professional artists are different.

and while an actor may reasonably divest himself of his character off stage, uri is not a professional actor. HE is the art piece.

art has no rules.

[Brad Henderson]

FISM is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.
Genii is keeping Geller relevant in the magic community.

James Randi has kept Uri Geller relevant among the general public for decades.

and - or is it that Geller has kept randi relevant among the General public for decades?

[Joe Mckay]

That is a very good point.

James Randi has fed off Uri Gellar's success. They have being good for each other as far as publicity goes. James Randi is a cool guy - I am not saying he is cynical in his work debunking Uri Gellar. I just think that their rivalry has benefited them both.

[Tim Ellis]

gooba gabba gooba gabba

That's the clearest argument you've put forward so far

[Tim Ellis]

Uri is an artist... really?

He is creating the illusion of being genuinely psychic is he?


So that means all the shopping mall psychics are artists too?

[Brad Henderson]

nope.

you have a very narrow view of art.

the world is bigger than you want it to be.

thankfully

[P.T.Widdle]

Randi had nothing to do with Geller appearing at FISM.
Randi had nothing to do with Geller appearing at the Genii convention.
Randi had nothing to do with Geller injecting himself into the Malaysian plane disaster.

etc, etc.

In a very non-artistic effort, however, Randi DID help with the conviction of James McCormick.

[P.T.Widdle]

Brad, were the Malaysian plane tweets art? Kind of like an Andy Kaufman thing?

[Dustin Stinett]

Randi had nothing to do with Geller appearing at FISM.
Randi had nothing to do with Geller appearing at the Genii convention.

FISM and Genii had nothing to do with Randi's obsession with Uri Geller, including writing a book that is still in print and available through Amazon. If you cannot see the public relationship that has existed between Randi and Geller over the last forty years--a relationship that has kept them both in the public eye, and long before Geller appeared at any magician's conventions--you are either being willfully ignorant or you are just plain deluding yourself into believing that it is just some magicians that are keeping Geller "relevant."

It fair to say that it has been his continued relevance--arguably supported by that Randi/Geller relationship--that led to Geller appearing at these magician's conventions and on several televised magic shows. So guess what: It can be said that Randi likely did have something to do with Geller appearing at these events.

[P.T.Widdle]

That's really stretching it Dustin.

And are you suggesting it would have been better not to have confronted Geller at all, and allowed him carte blanche to deceive individuals, government agencies, scientists, etc.? Does that also hold true for others, say, James McCormick?

[Steve Bryant]

I find it really hard to feel sorry for scientists who are fooled by a guy who can bend spoons with mind rays.

[Dustin Stinett]

That's really stretching it Dustin.

Strong argument. Next time just say, "Nuh-uh."

And are you suggesting it would have been better not to have confronted Geller at all, and allowed him carte blanche to deceive individuals, government agencies, scientists, etc.? Does that also hold true for others, say, James McCormick?

I have no idea how, given what I wrote, you can arrive at that conclusion. Apparently the best you can do is "nuh-uh."

I am so done with this and your horse-beating. You are more boring than this thread.
(I know, "Nuh-uh!)

[P.T.Widdle]

Steve, I suggest you watch the Randi-Swiss interview from a few years back (or read Randi's book) to get a perspective on how that happened. And also take a look at what Margery did, while you're at it.

You may have no sympathies for victims of psychics, but that doesn't mean what they do isn't sleazy.

-----------

Another point, Dustin - I would argue that Randi performed a valuable public service by taking on Geller, despite the added publicity it gave him. Randi's efforts exposed Geller as a phony to the public. Without that exposure, Geller might have gone on to any number of nefarious and morally suspect activities, such as forming a cult. Take a look at Geller's web page -it's not hard to see that without the exposures, he could easily be a religious figure.

If Geller is to remain a "joke", as Joe says he is perceived to be (in England at least), FISM and Genii aren't helping matters. They're giving him an "out" of celebrated legitimacy, whereas Geller should rightfully be an embarrassing footnote in magic history.

[Joe Mckay]

I still think Gellar is notable in the history of magic as a performer.

He was mining an aesthetic that would only later be explored by the likes of David Blaine and Derren Brown. To the educated magician there is something to be learned from his work. Karl Fulves has written a couple of books exploring his work and it seems clear that he admires his approach to creating effects that feel as real as possible. That comes through to me despite the fact that Fulves using a slightly crude pseudonym to try and mock Gellar.

Another mentalist who was thinking along similar lines same around this time was David Hoy. As Uri Gellar has opened up to the world of magic and dropped some of his BS - I think it is reasonable for magicians to try and analyze his thinking like they would any other successful performer. Gellar was ahead of his time in many ways. If anyone else in magic had tried to sell what they were doing as "real" - they would have been laughed out of sight. Uri was one of the few people with the vision and skill to fully commit to that path. And until David Blaine and Derren Brown came along - we didn't really see anyone else in magic pay attention to such issues.

I can understand the need to expose such nonsense. But as magicians we should try and learn from the mixture of talent and vision it took for Uri to pull off what he did. There is something to be learned from that. And I don't begrudge the efforts of GENII and FISM to try and explore that a little more.

Of course we could just have another lecture from a card guy teaching his favourite way to do a double lift instead. If you don't want to corrupt magic by having such nefarious characters involved.

That is just my take. I don't see magicians as having to be either for or against Uri Gellar. Some of us can think Gellar is a bit of a moron whilst still thinking there is a lot to be learned from his unique career.

[Brad Henderson]

That's really stretching it Dustin.

And are you suggesting it would have been better not to have confronted Geller at all, and allowed him carte blanche to deceive individuals, government agencies, scientists, etc.? Does that also hold true for others, say, James McCormick?

actually, had Randi not created a drama out of it, the man who bent metal may have amounted to nothing more than a novelty.

think of it as a nuanced version of Streisand effect.

but let's be objective: Randi failed. He didn't purge the world of Geller, he made him a star. people still believe in him.

it's funny, when magicians find something like hobson's act offensive, others (like a notable project alpha member) defend him on the grounds that he is a successful, working magician.

Well, if success is the measure of correctness (as posited by some in the Randi camp) then Uri wins.

thanks Randi!!!

[Brad Henderson]

dr oz's authority rests on his title of doctor. We put our faith in him because he has studied how to cure people.

Uri's authority rests on his ability to bend metal. If someone choses to turn to him for drilling advice, plane locating services, or personal advice based on twisty spoons should we blame Uri for their inability to make an intelligent choice?

[Bill Mullins]

I would argue that Randi performed a valuable public service by taking on Geller, despite the added publicity it gave him. Randi's efforts exposed Geller as a phony to the public. Without that exposure, Geller might have gone on to any number of nefarious and morally suspect activities, such as forming a cult.

Be careful not to give sole credit to Randi, here. Ray Hyman was an early skeptic of Geller (he was involved in reviewing the SRI tests). Martin Gardner and Karl Fulves (see "Uriah Fuller") were early debunkers. Also Milbourne Christopher. Johnny Carson allowed Geller to show himself powerless to millions of viewers, as did "Sixty Minutes". Time (3/12/1973) tells us that Israeli psychologists and scientists from Hebrew University were duplicating by conventional means and explaining away Geller's effects as far back as 1970.

We may remember Randi best because he was the most vocal of Geller's critics, but is that the main (only?) reason we remember Randi? We know Randi far better as a skeptic than as an escape artist now. And his public career as a skeptic started when he hitched his star to Geller, over 40 years ago. The question "Did Randi benefit himself more than he hurt Geller?" is hard to answer.

[Max Maven]

Karl Fulves has written a couple of books exploring his work and it seems clear that he admires his approach to creating effects that feel as real as possible. That comes through to me despite the fact that Fulves using a slightly crude pseudonym to try and mock Gellar.

The "Uriah Fuller" books were published by Karl Fulves, but written by Martin Gardner.

The old line is, "I don't care what they say about this, as long as they spell my name right." By that standard, Uri has apparently failed, at least among magicians. Many of the posts in this thread refer to "Gellar" -- but it's spelled Geller.

[P.T.Widdle]

Be careful not to give sole credit to Randi, here. Ray Hyman was an early skeptic of Geller (he was involved in reviewing the SRI tests). Martin Gardner and Karl Fulves (see "Uriah Fuller") were early debunkers. Also Milbourne Christopher. Johnny Carson allowed Geller to show himself powerless to millions of viewers, as did "Sixty Minutes". Time (3/12/1973) tells us that Israeli psychologists and scientists from Hebrew University were duplicating by conventional means and explaining away Geller's effects as far back as 1970.

Wonderful! Let's also praise these individuals and organizations for their skeptic work regarding Geller. Where are
today's examples? Randi's JREF organization is one. Brown, Penn & Teller are others. But some influential magicians and magic organizations seem to want to re-write magic history, painting Geller as, "people important in magic that have influenced and shaped the performing arts in America during the 20th century." His name shone next to world-class figures such as Harry Houdini, Howard Thurston, Joseph Dunninger, Annemann Theodore, Al Baker, the Blackstone, Channing Pollock, René Lavand, Doug Henning, Siegfried & Roy, Lance Burton, etc."

http://www.diarioveloz.com/notas/143922 ... igo-iii#bc

Randi is characterized as having "hitched his star" to Geller, but that cynical view diminishes his very uncynical work helping to stop frauds and dangerous crooks (James McCormick).
In addition, as much as magicians praise Geller's performance skills (if they're so great, then he didn't need Randi, right?), we overlook Randi's wonderful ability to connect with the public (his humor, beard, eyebrows).

PS - Thank you Max Maven for reading this thread (and hopefully not finding it "boring.")

[P.T.Widdle]

New performer at FISM 2015!

[Dustin Stinett]

The only reason I read this thread is that I have to. It's part of my job otherwise I would have ignored it a long time ago. (I have to make sure that no one gets libeled--including Geller.)

Yes, Mr. Widdle, I find it boring because of you. You keep saying the same thing over and over, only using different words. But the message is exactly the same. If you think that you are making a different argument (including the last two times you have beat on this horse), you are in fact deluding yourself.

You also keep missing the multiple points made by others in this thread. That's because of blind fury. The only thing that will stop you is to have everyone here give up and say that you are right.

Randi says that he wants people to avoid anything he deems superstitious because it will keep them from "living emotional lives." I find it interesting that his fans get so emotional about this issue.

I have tried--twice--to get you to understand something. I am going to try a third and final time. I'll try to keep it in short bullet points so perhaps you will allow just some of it to sink in.

When Uri Geller appears at a magic convention, he is tacitly admitting that he is associated with magic and magicians.

You disregard this argument, but you are wrong and I can prove it.

When was the last time you saw Kreskin at a magic convention or on the cover of a magic magazine? That would be never.

The reason why is that he does not want to be associated with magic and magicians.

(I know this for an absolute fact because he personally told me so back in the 1980s when I helped bankroll his performance at a local theater; I had tried to get an interview with him for Magic Manuscript.)

Genii and FISM are not "honoring" him. They are, in a way, exposing him. But you, Randi, Penn & Teller, et al refuse to see this--again, because of blind fury--and more importantly use these appearances against Geller.

As long as Geller associates with magicians, he is admitting that he is of them. And as long as his major detractors fail--and it is a failure on a large scale--to use this against him (and attack the presenters), I think he will continue to appear.

No one is saying he is a saint (certainly not me). In fact, everyone here admits he's nothing more than a magician. As such, the fact is that magicians can learn something from him since he is a master showman. The only difference is how we choose to use that information. (If he was actually a "psychic," what could a lowly magician possibly learn from him?)

The way you and the et al gang prefer to use that information is to attack the presenters. I've said it before and I will say it again: that is stupid.

This is the third time I've had to repeat all this for you, but unlike you I hate repeating myself. So it will be the last time I say it. I'm sure you will find that a relief. I'd be happy if you would pay us all the same courtesy.

[AJM]

My simple point is that he's not even a magician.

[Jonathan Townsend]

My simple point is that he's not even a magician.

He says he has powers. The spoon bends. He says - proof of powers. Hence ... magician.

[JHostler]

Going back a few decades...

When magicians did their thing, I typically just wanted to know how.

When Geller did his thing, I wanted to believe. I wanted it to be real. And I made myself see that spoon bend.

You [not you, Jon!] may not see something to be admired in that. I do.