Page 2 of 2

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 8:54 am
by P.T.Widdle
Tom Moore wrote: It does a huge disservice to all sides to lump uri (who's placed himself firmly in the entertainment world for the last 30 years) in with the people who are exploiting death and misery for pure financial gain.

You're right. Geller merely exploits death and misery for pure publicity (see his Tweets about Indonesian plane crash)

Some magicians, like Richard, see that ugly plane stunt as merely a distasteful aberration, comparing it to Penn and Teller's pistol trick. It's a matter of opinion. I see it as much worse, along the lines of what Sally Morgan is doing.

Tom, you say Geller has, "placed himself firmly in the entertainment world for the last 30 years," but have a look at his website as compared to say, David Copperfield. Despite his wink and nods to being a "mystifier," he still clearly presents himself as having genuine psychic powers, indeed, enough so to think that he could corral his devotees into remote viewing the location of a missing plane.

From his website: "I am a believer...there are certain energy things that are outside of the norm ”- Clint Eastwood. And so on.

On the website there is also a lame "recommendation" from Copperfield. Disappointingly, it recalls the "debate" Howard Thurston had with Margery. Like Thurston, maybe Copperfield doesn't want to alienate potential customers.

Why does Geller need to have it both ways? And why do magicians afford him that luxury? Like Randi and Penn & Teller, I'm calling a spade a spade. Let him come clean once and for all, not slyly at a magic convention, but publicly on Oprah. Apologize for claiming he ever had psychic powers, and vow to entertain from now on as a magician. Sure, many would still believe in his psychic abilities, but he would be doing the right thing.

It's interesting that everyone has their own line of ethics and morality when it comes to this sort of thing. Tom, you seem to draw a line at people who "exploit death and misery for financial gain." And you have your own definition of that, which I assume includes the magician Sally Morgan.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 10:30 am
by Tom Moore
Please don't take something someone else has said, twist it around, stretch it a bit and then attribute it to me.

Has he done things for publicity i wouldn't do, yes, but so have 101 other people; i refer you to Sky TV's live rummaging through the suitcases from the recent ukraine crash as just one example of the hundreds of people and organisations who've exploited terrible situations for publicity/ratings or self aggrandisement.

I've looked through his website, can you point me to some specific examples as all i can find are dozens of wishy-washy statements along the lines of those i've already mentioned (we're capable of more than we think, the mind is amazing, etc) and other than in the biography sections he's very very careful to use words like "mystifyer" and "entertainer" - even "paranormal" which is an entirely correct use of the word.

In fact lets throw this right open, can you provide me with (verified, reputable) links to anywhere where he has called himself "psycic" and said he's using "psycic powers" - again he often uses words like "paranormal" and "power of the mind" in interviews but i'm struggling to find (in an admittedly quick google) examples of him claiming what you seem to think he's claimed.

I'm also even more confused now about what you want him to do, you say you want him to "come clean" (which i'd argue he's already done many times over, even his own website lists all the magic awards he's been given) but then also say that even if he did many would still think he has psycic powers so it would be an entirely pointless exercise?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 11:16 am
by NCMarsh
your position only encourages people to take the path you abhor. The first step an artist takes is often to explore that which they are told they shouldn't.

Brad is not alone in this feeling. It is a cliche because it is true: people remember how you made them feel long after they've forgotten what you said.

The following is about the relative effectiveness of the rhetoric on both sides, not the moral validity of either side's position:

Here was my experience: I was born after the spoon bending craze and never knew Geller through pop culture (save the recent reality TV series). I knew of Geller through disapproving accounts in magic books and the work of James Randi. I had read decades of magicians condemning this man and surely he must be awful. I watched the re-runs of Geller's "failure" on Carson with a self-satisfied grin -- the lying a**hole had been put in his place...

Into a room of hundreds of people who had a strongly negative perception of him, walks Geller with a genuine, warm smile. He gives a great talk that was more relevant to my professional development as an entertainer than anything I've seen at a magician's event. His stagecraft, material, genuine warmth -- he takes an audience that was ready to hate him and turned many of us into fans.

I saw something I hadn't before -- that this was a guy who "went viral" long before the internet was in household use. He turned a simple stunt with a spoon into an international sensation.

But more to it: he came from nothing and built a massive career from imagination, being different, understanding what audiences wanted, and hustle. That combination of hard work and performing brilliance is a solid model for anyone in this crazy business, and we can all learn from him.

There's this strain in some magicians' narratives about Geller that he is successful because he is a "fraud." The inference leans toward "if I were sleazy enough to go to the dark side, I -- too -- could have that success; but I'm a better person." It is, to use Steven Pressfield's great term from The War of Art resistance that is speaking.

Through the whole talk, he spoke with kindness about Randi and his detractors. Who can know how genuine it actually is (it felt that way) but it was a huge advantage -- you have one side (at times) screaming that he's the devil, and the other saying "I love you." It doesn't make him right, but it makes it hard for the skeptic's message to be heard. There's the "let's taste forbidden fruit" factor Brad identifies; but there is also the position when someone has been built up as evil, that when you look into their eyes and see a person who cares for others and works hard -- it's hard to buy into the rest of it.

Hitler's name was mentioned above -- I'll throw out another name as a comparison of tactics, NOT a comparison of the moral positions of the groups mentioned.

I think that one (of admittedly many other) factors in swinging the pendulum of popular opinion rapidly towards marriage equality was Westboro Baptist Church. We saw a small, angry group attacking another group with vitriol -- and suddenly homophobia went from seeming cool to being ugly. We wanted to protect the people being insulted by these outrageous a-holes.

That's the tactical challenge the skeptical movement faces in these conversations. Are they about how wicked Geller is? Or is the message about the power of reason? One definitely pulls focus from the other...



Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 11:51 am
by P.T.Widdle
Tom, at least you and I can agree in our abhorrence of Sally Morgan, yes? Good.

Like Richard and others, you seem to think Gellar's recent plane stunt is merely in the realm of distasteful publicity. You further minimize it with the old, "He's not the only one who does it" argument. That's a pretty low ethical bar to give for any human being, let alone "the greatest living close-up magician of the 20th century."
We just simply disagree as to the level of moral turpitude of that act.

Gellar is so slippery with how he describes who he is and what his "powers" are, that it is impossible to attribute anything definitive about him. You think "paranormal" is OK?
Definition of paranormal: "denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding." The synonym is psychic.

Check out the wikipedia entry on him. He's clearly struggling with identity issues, making contradictory statements all over the place. As Richard says, he flat out rejects the magician label publicly, but doesn't want to be seen as "supernatural" either. Honestly, though, do you really think anyone (besides some magicians) will come away from his website without the impression that Geller believes he has non-scientifically explained powers? It's all over the website. It's the crux of his persona.

Gellar has not come clean. He still claims to have non-scientifically explained "powers." Only now he has the adoration of envious magicians, wowed by his fame and wealth, who willingly look past this uncomfortable fact to place him on a pedestal as one of their own.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 12:14 pm
by Brad Henderson
Widdle - where is your condemnation of Richard Webster who sells tools for people to perform psychic readings and parties and men like Richard Osterlind who has worked with him or Joe Stevens who sells his products.

What about a pyre for Marc Salem who has used tricks (direct methods ) on television claiming one they are evidence of non trick based phenomena? Or guys like jo. Stetson and Doc Hilford who each perform psychic readings for paying customers?

You seem keen to attack the big guy but are silent when your war path runs the risk of rubbing friends of friends the wrong way.

Gutless much?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 12:33 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
It was the "paranormal services" finding water, oil ... for money that raised some hackles. Not sure anyone's decrying claims about indulging vain and vague experiences of "mystery" or a power to bend cutlery.

There's something about alternating between claims that an approach is pointless and being obstinate in ones position that makes such dialogs chaotic and attractive while not being mere quibbles.

Even if harmlessly self deceptive it's the trickery which fascinates. Explain how it makes sense and I'd lose all interest.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 1:42 pm
by MManchester
Nathan, I can find no indication that you've published anything. At the very least, I hope
you're considering it. Your eloquence compels you to extend your literary contribution to
magic beyond forum posts.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 2:12 pm
by P.T.Widdle
Nathan, I appreciate your plea for love and understanding in a debate (although I wouldn't exactly characterize Geller's lawsuits against Randi as an "I love you" attitude).
You are perfectly welcome to overlook Geller's choice of being a psychic/paranormal in favor of his "hustle," "hard work" and "performing brilliance" - traits that you seem to find more inspiring than honesty and ethics.

Brad, you're resorting to the "he's not the only one who does it " argument. Fine, those other guys need a moral compass check as well.

If you want to characterize me as some moral zealot on a high horse for questioning the ethics of Uri Geller (and the acceptance/celebration of him from magicians), you're free to do so. I stand in good company with Randi and Penn & Teller. Abuse them as you see fit.

Returning to Sally Morgan, I again express my admiration for the gentleman who is bravely (and peacefully) handing out fliers at her shows. Mock him and his efforts as you see fit.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 2:20 pm
by Brad Henderson
It's not the "He's not the only one" argument. It's the "You have no idea what you are talking about" argument with a "Here is why your approach will never work" kicker.

And we know you love Randi and Penn and teller. What a wonderful art we would have if only everyone did and believed everything these three people do and believe. Yes. Wonderful.

Again, how about you spend less time telling US what to do and walk the walk yourself. Put your career on the line. Show us good can come from your approach.

Those of us who have seen this show when it first aired know that it doesn't work - at least not the way your hero Randi played it.

You clearly believe it does. Show us.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 3:27 pm
by P.T.Widdle
Brad Henderson wrote: Those of us who have seen this show when it first aired know that it doesn't work - at least not the way your hero Randi played it. .

It doesn't work? Then listen to this recent interview with Randi. His efforts have made, and continue to make a difference. He really is a national treasure (and even more so in the magic world), and I think it's criminal how little respect and thanks he gets on this forum, not to mention the zero coverage of this new movie about him. ... ocumentary

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 5:44 pm
by Brad Henderson
I see three churches in my neighborhood. The new age section of my local book store is well stocked. In the past two weeks I have seen advertisements for tarot reading and energy healing for three different venues. And you still feel the need to condemn Gellar because too many people still support him. QED buddy. Randi failed. The entire skeptic movement made the wrong choice to take an aggressive campaign of ridicule and derision. They knew science, but they didn't know people.

And what exactly has Randi done for magic? Beyond bis appearance on happy Days or watching a young escape artist from a hospital bed on an TV special, I can't think of any influence he has had - beyond becoming hero to number of zealots who have taken the name of skeptic without ever once evaluating their positions skeptically. (And you might want to be careful when placing Randi on a moral high ground. That accolade may come to bite you in the bottom if you ask some people about the man.) his assertion that people depend on him for his opinions is only a tad cultish. But, whatever.

And the new age book stores remain stocked. Tarot readers read. Benny Hinn heals. And Gellar remains a thorn in your side.

So, did he help, or ensure nothing changed?

Evidence points to the latter. but as a skeptic I look at evidence.

Tell us PT, what does the believer see?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 5:52 pm
by Chris Aguilar

I'm really looking forward to that documentary.

Even at six years of age, my little daughter has a real burning interest in knowing how things work, what happens behind the scenes, etc. When she's a few years older, I look forward to showing her the following, which I suspect she will enjoy as much I have.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 6:11 pm
by Dustin Stinett
I wonder what James Randi would be doing (and have been doing over the last several decades) had there been no Uri Geller, no psychics, no mediums, and no religions.

Just a thought.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 6:18 pm
by Brad Henderson
He has made an awful lot of money on gellar's back. Wouldn't the moral thing be to give it back?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 7:53 pm
by P.T.Widdle
Brad Henderson wrote: you might want to be careful when placing Randi on a moral high ground. That accolade may come to bite you in the bottom if you ask some people about the man.

Brad, if you have some dark revelations about Randi, go ahead and illuminate us instead of making coy references about his reputation.

Dustin Stinett wrote:I wonder what James Randi would be doing (and have been doing over the last several decades) had there been no Uri Geller, no psychics, no mediums, and no religions.

So the co-editor of Genii shows no respect whatsoever to James Randi by dismissing his entire career as a magician and psychic investigator. Your disappointing and childish "thought" is as ridiculous as my asking where Geller would be now if there were no spoons.
Any article I've ever seen about Geller also mentions Randi. One could easily say the Tonight Show appearance was a turning point for both of their careers. So there's a symbiotic relationship. Move on.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 8:07 pm
by Jeffrey Korst
P.T.Widdle wrote: Move on.

Now there's an idea . . .

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 8:40 pm
by Dustin Stinett
Wow, talk about hitting a nerve.

I did not dismiss Randi's career as a magician. And I did (and do) not disrespect his second career as a professional skeptic. James Randi personally taught me how to bend keys. He has helped me in the past on a few articles. My "thought" was nothing more than a rhetorical exercise; a simple "what if?"

Your suggestion that theirs is a "symbiotic relationship" is a good one, and a proper response to my "thought," versus the rather personal, and snide, one you chose to make.

Just because I do not bow at the alter of The Amazing Randi in no way means that I dislike or have no respect for him. Yes, I openly question the wisdom of some of his tactics (as well as those of his acolytes). I find them often clouded by the same kind of zealous adherence to their agenda that they claim cripples their opposition. The only difference is the agenda.

Now, I suppose, that legitimate observation/opinion will be labeled disrespectful as well. It seems to me that you are less pissed off about what you perceive as a lack of debunking on the part of magicians than you are that I, Richard Kaufman, and Genii do not turn cartwheels every time James Randi speaks. I cannot help you with that.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 9:22 pm
by Richard Kaufman
When I put Geller on the cover of Genii, I received one complaint: a letter from James Randi.

As to the insinuation Brad made, it cannot be stated in print because Randi has not been charged or convicted of a crime, and therefore a lawsuit would most certainly follow because the rumors are heinous indeed. Their exact nature will remain unwritten here out of legal necessity.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 9:41 pm
by P.T.Widdle
Dustin, without your subsequent context, I do think your "what if" statement comes off as disrespectful and, sorry, a bit silly as well. No disrespect to you :)

I also have a rhetorical exercise. If Geller never appeared at the Genii Bash, leading to Randi not talking to Richard, would Genii have called him up to do an article about the forthcoming movie? If everybody was on speaking terms it seems like the movie would merit a piece about it (possibly even a cover?) instead of just a review of the DVD when it comes out. Given Randi's stature and career, I don't believe that is a "bow at the alter" type proposition, is it?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 9:46 pm
by P.T.Widdle
Richard Kaufman wrote:When I put Geller on the cover of Genii, I received one complaint: a letter from James Randi.

I would love to see that letter.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 9:55 pm
by Dustin Stinett
Well, this answer is really going to set you off: Generally I try not to answer rhetorical questions. But as a journalist I have been known to ask them. (In this case, I cannot even attempt an answer as it is for Richard, not me.)

Of course, if my rhetorical exercise is "silly," than so is yours. And so is John Lennon's "Imagine."

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 10:04 pm
by Richard Kaufman
Widdle, what are you talking about? I don't recall Randi writng anything to me about Geller's appearance at the Genii Bash.

Even if he did, why would I avoid writing about a movie (I assume you mean the documentary about Randi) in Genii just because he didn't agree with something I did?

I have my own reasons for not covering it, none of which can be stated here.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 10:29 pm
by Dustin Stinett
Richard, he is recalling a previous thread (now locked) where we had a similar debate. I lumped ALL of the "primary" Geller debunkers into one group. But, in an early post, I pointed out the various times this group have gone after individuals for "supporting" Geller versus going after Geller and using things like he appeared on a magic show (using a magic prop), he received a magician's award, and he appeared at magician conventions (etc. etc.).

It's my fault; I can see how he conflated these events into a singular attitude regarding the (specific) relationship between you and Randi.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 27th, 2014, 11:35 pm
by Richard Kaufman
What a load of hooey.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 8:33 am
by P.T.Widdle
If you step back you can see why a reader (and Randi fan) might be puzzled as to why there has been no coverage of the documentary, a fairly large event in the small world of magic. Without explanations, one is left to hypothesize, so I naturally assumed it was because it had something to do with Geller's appearance at the Bash, being on the cover, etc. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to come to that conclusion, given the information presented.
Richard, I am heartened that a disagreement with Randi would not prevent you from covering the film. Now we (or some of us at least) are left to ponder what the actual reasons are that cannot be stated here. Again I am left to hypothesize that they have something to do with the "heinous" rumors that are apparently out there.


Given the topic of this thread, I would like to again express my admiration for Mark Tilbrook. It appears he has received letters of apology from his abusers: ... ess-month/

Happy Psychic Awareness Month!

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 9:14 am
by cardmaster
Here is something that might interest you especially if you believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe it myself but here it is for what it is worth. Someone I know who is very well known in the magic world told me that a friend of his overheard a telephone conversation between Randi and Geller many years ago. It seemed that they were in cahoots with each other and were arranging all sorts of confrontations and fake debunking together. As I say, I find it very hard to believe but who knows? Perhaps they did do this at one time but it all fell apart and they went back to feuding with each other.

I shall, however, make a psychic prediction of my own. I believe that sooner or later they will actually reconcile. I like both of them a lot and think they are both master showmen.

I do respect and indeed admire Mr Widdle for his zeal and persistence in putting forward his point of view against the tide. He more or less seems to be the only one that looks at things this way and it must take a bit of gumption to persist alone on this forum with his point of view.

I really do not think one can expect Geller to come out openly now and say that he is a fake. After all many lay people believe in him and would be gravely disappointed and upset and would be very unhappy and even traumatised over the matter. It would do more harm than good. I believe that with the benefit of hindsight he may well have done things differently when he first started. He is doing what he can by hinting to magicians that he knows that they know and that there is a tacit understanding of what has been going on. And I think that is all you can expect of him at this stage.

He is actually following the old policy of the Piddingtons nowadays of "You Be the Judges" and I think that is all that you can expect of him. He really can't go any further than that even if he wanted to.

It is not always productive to go in too strong as a mentalist as it attracts too much heat. Alan Alan told me that Maurice Fogel was "a broken man" after he was exposed in the People newspaper with the help of busybody magicians.

As for Sally Morgan I think her relatives handled the whole thing very badly. The best thing to do with sceptics that hand out flyers is to smile sweetly at them and perhaps buy them a cup of coffee. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the event and in fact creates a bit of a buzz. The only people that should be irritated by the flyers are the cleaners who have to pick them up off the ground. Londoners (I think this incident happened in London) are not the most conscientious people where litter is concerned.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 10:20 am
by Brad Henderson
Widdle. You leap to conclusions without basis easily, sure you aren't a new age guru yourself? There are many reasons a magazine might chose to not cover a story, including but not limited to coverage by other similar media outlets or plans for covering stories which the editor feels holds greater interests. Who knows, after Genii bash and the Geller cover story, maybe it is Randi who wants not to be covered? So many possibilities. But like a good "skeptic" I see you have your mind made up already.

Tell me, why do you think - as a magician - that Randi deserves our accolades and respect? josh jay and jay sankey have had far greater influence on magic today than Randi. What has he done as a magician to warrant such devotion?

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 10:50 am
by Dustin Stinett
Comparing Randi to Josh Jay is absurd. You cannot compare generations like that. Who had more impact on golf? Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods? No expert in the field would accept the premise of that question because it is ridiculous and impossible to compare. So Brad, I would expect you to know better in ours.

Randi had a marked influence on a generation of magicians and escape artists. Is his influence greater than some of his contemporaries (like Mark Wilson)? No, but it also cannot be ignored. And his influence on escapology is greater than most of his contemporaries.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 11:44 am
by NCMarsh
Nathan, I appreciate your plea for love and understanding in a debate

It wasn't a plea for love and understanding; it was pointing out that whatever the validity of your points may be, the way you communicate them hurts your message and makes it far less likely to be adopted.

The tendency of the scientifically minded is to believe that being right is enough to win a debate. It isn't.

Rationally minded people, by and large, suck at selling their ideas to the whole brain of the public -- and this suckiness has concrete consequences in the real world when it comes to keeping science in the classroom, responding to climate change, getting kids vaccinated, responding to Ebola hysteria; all of which are massively more important than one entertainer. But the same tone deafness and inability to communicate in context that we see here infects that public debate.


Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 12:27 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
Dustin Stinett wrote:Comparing Randi to Josh Jay is absurd.
[] Who had more impact on golf? Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods? ...

? both people - most likely meaningless to most. same for the other guys, whatever golf is.

Check your presuppositions and then ask how much ridicule you need.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 28th, 2014, 2:27 pm
by Brad Henderson

I was taking a jab at Widdle but with a point. Widdle is attempting to position Randi as important or relevant to contemporary discussion without any thing to back that up beyond his love and adoration personally. There are many reasons someone would be relevant, even if one may personally not value those reasons or feel they are misdirected. But they are still reasons.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 2:41 am
by NCMarsh
Re: Heinous rumors; I don't think they are what Brad is referring to.

Also, a little googling shows that -- while it is the sort of thing where all the coverage is weighted toward one side or another -- there has not been an actual victim coming forward to make accusations, Randi has a reasonable explanation, and the only people spreading the rumor (so far as I've seen) are those with a very clear agenda against Randi. One of the emails spreading this apparently talks of how a Randi associate worked with a publishing company that printed material about "children's sexual encounters with adults." The book they were talking about was titled "Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults: A Scientific Study" -- and the fact that it was so willfully mis-represented is a clear sign of an agenda.

Because these kinds of crimes are so horrific, and rightly inspire loathing and hatred of the offenders, we need to be even more careful about labeling anyone. It's an easy way to get revenge at someone you're angry at, and the fact that it is all third person with no alleged victim ever coming forward means there is -- at this point -- no reason to believe the rumors.

Richard had asked that these not be discussed because of libel concerns -- totally get it (and of course delete this if you don't want it up), but I think the real threat to Randi's reputation would be to allow the incorrect suggestion that there was evidence of evil to marinate. It deserves to be brought to the light because there's no there, there.



Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 8:53 am
by P.T.Widdle
NC Marsh, a well-stated and much appreciated statement regarding Randi.

NCMarsh wrote:Re: Heinous rumors; I don't think they are what Brad is referring to.

I certainly hope not, because based on the available facts and information, it would be a slimy and improper thing to reference.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 9:01 am
by Jonathan Townsend
It's the "investigation" or oil/water finding services that crosses a moral line.

As to "psychic" (subjective) versus "objective" models... that was pretty well settled by the early twentieth century by Freud, Shannon, Godel, ... what we have is subjective experience, language and some pretty good models. Magic is a great reminder that what we perceive is not exactly the same as what we imagine.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 12:28 pm
by mrgoat
Jonathan Townsend wrote:Godel

I've been waiting for him.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 1:45 pm
by AJM
Oh yes, that play - where nothing happens TWICE.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: October 30th, 2014, 1:53 pm
by Jonathan Townsend
AJM wrote:Oh yes, that play - where nothing happens TWICE.

Lucky tells it like it is - in English translated from French as written by a Brit.

Thoughts of an undecidable card assembled bit by bit - and a nod to H. Sawa for his item in the book that can be shown as different cards ...

Okay back to telling people that one kind of vanity about our world is better than another.

Re: Psychics Buster

Posted: November 2nd, 2014, 3:09 pm
by TheLovelyDebbie
Hi, just noticed in the TV Listings for tonight on BBC4 (sorry to everyone outside the UK) as part of the Storyville strand a Documentary called "Exposed, magicians, psychics and frauds" featuring James Randi's attempts to debunk various faith healers, psychics and his rivalry with Uri Geller 9.00 pm tonight Sunday 2nd November