(Close Window)
Topic: An Australian Skeptic member of this forum???
Message: Posted by: Sensio (Nov 12, 2005 01:42PM)
I was surfing the net and found this link about Lynne Kelly who is a member of our forum:

The Skeptic Tank - Cold Reading - Richard Saunders and Lynne Kelly

http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/index.html

I just wanted to inform our community about this.

aware
Message: Posted by: hkwiles (Nov 12, 2005 02:37PM)
So what ?

Howard
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Nov 12, 2005 03:40PM)
Who cares?
Message: Posted by: chmara (Nov 12, 2005 05:45PM)
I am a skeptic and an athiest. Does that make any difference to my audience who wants to be entertained by the power of the mind?

In fact, I would venture you would find many skeptics who know mentalism beyond Penn & Teller, Randi, Jami Ian Swiss, and others who wiould prefer not to accept being taken to the gates and stoned by the Christian right (or any funda-mentalist) as an occupational hazard.

Skeptics question - and do not necessarily expose entertainment methods -- or accept our entertainment "miracles" on faith.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 12, 2005 05:52PM)
I do!

Exposure of real work is just that.

Why don't they go after real con's?

Mmmmmm afraid I would say.
Possibly just not smart enough.
(I truly belive this)

Jack

Catch me if you can!
Dying now.
Oh what fun!
Message: Posted by: Mike Baxter (Nov 12, 2005 06:08PM)
Well, I enjoyed listening to it - Thanks for the link.

Seems to me that Lynne just verbalizes one of the many points of view we have here on the forum. Lucky to have this discussion freedom aren't we.
Message: Posted by: 7th_Son (Nov 12, 2005 07:00PM)
Being a skeptic is fine, being an exposer is not.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Nov 12, 2005 10:00PM)
Well, I'm not sure we can blanketly say "being an exposer is not [fine]". Arguably, Houdini did a service to the world by exposing fake mediums. I have trouble with the exposing faith healers, and their ilk. I would never expose an entertainment, but a con is fairly and reasonably exposed.

John
Message: Posted by: MrHyde (Nov 12, 2005 10:26PM)
Lynne explains what magic she would and wouldn't expose and her thinking on these issues in a thread at this Australian online magic forum.

http://www.themagicstore.com.au/forum/

I think you need to register to view the Mentalism section.

aware, I think you'll find there are many skeptics registered here,
some more skeptical than others.

:)
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 13, 2005 06:08AM)
I am a skeptic but have a problem with exposure.

Jack

H.O.A-X
Message: Posted by: RJE (Nov 13, 2005 08:14AM)
I am a proud owner of a copy of Lynne Kelly's book "The Skeptic's Guide to the PARANORMAL." It's a good read.

If you would like to read a little about the history and exposure of 'psychics and mediums' then try, "The Indescribable Phenomenon," "The Darkened Room, Women, Power, and Spiritualism in Late Victorian England," "Miracle Mongers and their Methods," "The Table-Rappers, The Victorians and the Occult," or "The Life and Many Deaths of Harry Houdini," to name but a few.

Skeptics expose the fake, not the entertainer.

All the best,

Rob
Message: Posted by: Seth speaks (Nov 13, 2005 01:14PM)
Even in the short time that I have known her, I can attest that Lynne Kelly is one of the most amazing people in my circle of friends. She is a wonderful person with a brain that simply stuns me. Her accomplishments are truly inspiring, including being a teacher, published novelist, science writer, performer, and intuitive reader (and creator of the in-depth Tauromancy system). In addition, she is one of the most personable people I've had the pleasure to meet. She is absolutely NOT an exposer, and deeply respects and treasures both magic and mentalism. Being a skeptic, or having a general, open-minded discussion of cold reading does not constitute exposure, notwithstanding any claims of the magical McCarthy Committee. Lynne is very open about her views, and is a credit to the field of mentalism.

Seth
Message: Posted by: 7th_Son (Nov 13, 2005 05:38PM)
[quote]
Skeptics expose the fake, not the entertainer.
[/quote]

Yes, but fakes and entertainers use the same techniques.

When magicians object to exposure, they object to the exposure of magical techniques to non-magicians.

Why don't we give Lynn the benefit of the doubt.

Lynn, have you ever exposed magical techniques to non-magicians?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Nov 13, 2005 06:41PM)
I like some of those programs. Thanks for the link!
Message: Posted by: Seth speaks (Nov 13, 2005 08:36PM)
[quote]

Lynn, have you ever exposed magical techniques to non-magicians?

[/quote]

I'm sure she would answer you politely and honestly, because she is a good person -- but why even ask the question? Why does Lynne deserve to be asked that question in a public forum like this? Has she done anything except honor magic, and contribute positively to this group? Being a skeptic does not mean she has to publicly account for herself.

The HUAC used to ask citizens questions like that all the time. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist? We have pictures of you eating lunch with a Communist. Are you a homosexual?" The question itself is simply a form of intimidation, and I strongly doubt you have any real basis to attack Lynne with it.

This thread was started by someone who felt the need to warn us that <gasp!> one of our members doesn't believe in the paranormal, and discussed it on the radio. If you listen to the show, you'll find she is open, curious, and welcoming toward those who don't share her views. Also, unlike many skeptics, she deeply values the process of "psychic" reading.

But I'll answer the question. My mom plays Bridge a lot, and I once taught her a card trick. She has amazed her friends with it. I am an EXPOSER!! I exposed a magical technique to a non-magician. Shut me away, revoke my magic license, and have me disemboweled!

Seth
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 14, 2005 12:27AM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-12 20:00, 7th_Son wrote:
Being a skeptic is fine, being an exposer is not.

[/quote]
From what I've seen, [b]some[/b] skeptics expose people who claim paranormal powers but actually use tricks (like Houdini did, as was mentioned above). I've never heard of skeptics exposing magicians and mentalists. There's far more exposure here than at, say, the JREF (James Randi Educational Forum).

It seems to me that the majority of exposure is by magicians.
Message: Posted by: Nir Dahan (Nov 14, 2005 05:24AM)
[quote]
It seems to me that the majority of exposure is by magicians.
[/quote]

how true!

people still don't realize magic is about secrets and entertainment. A lot of the entertainment part comes from the mystery.
You see magicians explain their (and others') secrets in a blink just because the guy who sits with them, who they just met, said he is a magician...

There are also many, many beginner magicians who just expose their tricks after they are done, just to show how cool it was.

Guys, you will be much more appreciated if you tell nothing, but don't underestimate your audience and claim for real powers.

N.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 14, 2005 06:37PM)
[quote]There are also many, many beginner magicians who just expose their tricks after they are done, just to show how cool it was. [/quote]

Many intermediate and advanced magicians often expose secrets as well.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 14, 2005 07:04PM)
The JREF might not expose much but the cult leader sure has!

As well as demeaning our work and that of magicians.

Jack

H.O.A_X

I am making comment on Randi and not Lynne.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 14, 2005 07:15PM)
What do you mean by cult--are you calling JREF a cult?

Would you mind specifying how JREF and/or Randi has demeaned the work of magicians?

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Nov 14, 2005 08:02PM)
Jack, are you serious, or is this just another attempt to use Randi's fame to increase your own?

John
Message: Posted by: hkwiles (Nov 15, 2005 09:18AM)
I have just recently responded to an e-mail from Lynne regarding my method for Val Andrews Book Test, which she uses in her Lectures...a very nice lady indeed.
Mentalists must be the most Paranoid species on the planet ! lighten up guys..its a very small minority that are interested in what you do or "claim" to do.

Howard
Message: Posted by: Graymatter_Fireworks (Nov 15, 2005 10:06AM)
The double standards and ambiguous definitions set for exposure in our art are really curious.

It seems to me that personal bias and the individual in question really cloud the subject as each case is treated differently. I¡¯m not sure if that is good or not. Many people accused of exposing have had ¡°good intentions¡± for the general public. It is interesting to see the myriad of exposers in our world and how each is treated differently.

I think it often weakens people¡¯s arguments.

-Brandon
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 15, 2005 10:19AM)
John,

Unfortunately Randi has very little fame outside of magic and skeptic circles.
The general public has no current memory of him.

So he is of no real world value to me except as a bit of color on my web site.
Or to discuss here on occasion
As I have said before he is fun to play with.

But I am serious about his public exposures doing harm to magic and mentalists.
How many times I have heard the guy say "It's just a simple magicians trick" during an exposure of some sort.
(There are no simple tricks just simple mind performers.)

Why do mentalists issue declaimers during their shows?

Theatrically it is idiotic.


But misguided performers do give the disclaimer because they would not want to upset the skeptics.

What load in my opinion.


Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: hkwiles (Nov 15, 2005 10:19AM)
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html

Howard
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 15, 2005 12:31PM)
[quote]How many times I have heard the guy say "It's just a simple magicians trick" during an exposure of some sort.
(There are no simple tricks just simple mind performers.)[/quote]
Randi has used words like these when describing Uri Geller and others who claim paranormal powers. I don't think he means that to disparage magicians at all, but to point out that what Geller does is a trick, not actual PK power. The truth is, spoonbending [b]is[/b] a simple trick (although it is quite difficult to bend spoons [b]well[/b]--in a compelling, convincing way). Randi used to be a professional magician and I doubt that he has any intention of disparaging the art. What I believe Randi is saying, is "Geller is not a paranormalist doing real miracles. He is doing a magician's trick which requires no special powers."

I disagree that there are no simple tricks. Ted Lesley's "Spectator as Mindreader," for example, is extremely easy to do and also happens to be a great effect. Again, I'm saying the mechanics of the trick is easy (and that's what Randi meant by "simple magician's trick"); it's not easy to be an effective performer. Also, I seem to remember some popular magic DVD titles that have "easy to master" in the title.
Message: Posted by: Magical Lady (Nov 15, 2005 05:46PM)
I am DELIGHTED to say that I too am a friend of Lynne Kelly. She is - as Seth quite rightly says - an AMAZING woman! She is INCREDIBLY intelligent and could - with respect - probably wipe the floor with a great number of us here on the Café with her in depth and diverse knowledge! She is perhaps one of the most intelligent people I have the pleasure to know.

Picture if you will, say....a nuclear physicist? (not that she is one, but Im sure she could be!) who teaches, is a published author (fiction and non-fiction)lectures, runs an online school for gifted students, gives radio interviews,looks after a family and a home, and who has ALSO taken up magic - and you will be touching the very TIP of who Lynne is!

There are many MANY sides to Lynne, and I am sure she would be the first to agree that on occasion SOME of the things she is involved in MAY seem to conflict with one another? BUT - let me tell you - even if they MIGHT do in another person - they certainly don't in Lynne!

Lynne is PASSIONATE about magic!! More passionate in fact than a great many. In between attending lectures and meetings at her own local clubs, she writes just the most amazing emails which OOOOOZE her love of the subject!

Any worries about Lynne? Absolutely NONE!! Lynne would NEVER do anything to harm magic - she loves it FAR TOO MUCH to do that!

(I will email her and tell her this thread is on the site when I sign off here - I feel SURE that she will respond herself - then you will see and hear her passion and - I am sure - any doubts/concerns will be more than allayed!)

Best

ML x
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 15, 2005 06:45PM)
Jim spoon bending was not a magicians trick.
(It took magicians to turn it into a trick).

Check out the metal bending vids for proof of my piont.
So Randi was not telling the truth when he said that.

Plain and simple a lie.

He was as bad as the guy he was exposing.

Randi was running the effect and Geller down.

Jack


H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: Lynne Kelly (Nov 15, 2005 07:17PM)
Thanks Magical Lady for alerting me to this thread and your kind words. Thanks to the others who have expressed a variety of opinions on what I do. Particularly, thanks Rob, Seth and Howard. I will be incorporating Howard's advice in the next version of the Val Andrews Book Test I develop. Val, himself, has been a delight to deal with.

Hearing opinions on both sides is of great value to me as I continue to weigh up the ethics of being a skeptic and magician. My main career is as an educator who specialises in extending high ability students in mathematics and science. So there are three sides to this particular fence I try to sit on.

To me a skeptic is someone who loves reality and just wants to believe in things which are real. So I write books to express my awe of reality and science. The next is for adults on crocodiles. Then I get a year or two immersed in spiders! I came to much of skepticism through teaching physics and challenging media reports which claimed 'to defy the known laws of physics'. If they do so - then let's find out about them and update the 'known laws'. If they don't, let's not downgrade a subject I adore and work hard to enthuse my students about. So my first loyalty - as every parent out there would expect of me - is to my students.

I came across cold reading first through our high school psychology curriculum, where it is taught as part of the examinable syllabus on Barnum statements. Short of banning standard education curriculum here, you can't eliminate that 'exposure'. Having done hunderds of readings, I can assure you that a superficial knowledge of cold reading will not affect, even slightly, the impact of a good reading.

As for exposing magic tricks, I have done that only in The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal, and only to the extent in which I was able to find those things widely written about for the lay reader in skeptical literature already. I even regret some of that, but it was done a few years ago and I made what I thought was the right decision then. I still don't know what is absoutely right in this area. A discussion such as this helps refine my views. I do **NOT** explain those things in my lectures or performances. There I very much use the 'replicate' is all you need to do. I replicate, perform, entertain and educate. The education aspects of the lectures tend to be modelling spontaneous human combustion, UFO sightings and dowsing - nothing to do with magic.

When I get to the psychic part of those lectures, it is all performance without explanation. That gives texture to the 90 minute lecture. Some science, some emotional stuff, some pure mentalism performance. A 90 minute lecture, usually done for teenagers, needs variety and texture!

I love magic. I also love reality but I hate the exploitation of trusting / gullible / vulnerable people like me who are very easy to decieve and rip-off financially and emotionally. I have been exploited too often to not do all I can to stop that happening to others. Good magicians do not exploit - they are performers and entertainers.

Education, skepticism and magic is rarely a conflict - the line is clear. Where the line becomes blurred in the past I feel I have erred on the side of skepticism, and now would probably err on the side of magic. When I am perfect I will let you know. I still have a fair way to go.

I never thought my small role way down here in Australia would rank a thread on the Magic Café. I am honoured!! Thank you, aware.

cheers,

Lynne
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Nov 15, 2005 07:53PM)
"Unfortunately Randi has very little fame outside of magic and skeptic circles.
The general public has no current memory of him. "

Hmm. I googled "James Randi" and got "about 2,210,000" hits. "J ack Galloway" got 676; most of them seem to be postings at the Magic Café. "jimclass" got 170. "Jim Callahan" + "paranormalist" at least got over a thousand.

Looks to me as though Randi has a bit more of the public's eye, but nice try.

Oh, and by the way, note what Randi wrote in the introduction to his book [i]Conjuring[/i]:

"It has been a rather tiresome custom, in other histories of this subject, for the author to reveal some of the major secrets of the conjuring profession in order to make the book more attractive to the buyer. I have chosen to break this tradition, believing that the personalities, the events, and the growth of the art should provide entertainment enough to the reader."

Of course all these facts come from "my reality" :rolleyes:

John
Message: Posted by: hkwiles (Nov 16, 2005 03:19AM)
Hi Lynne..good comments..however...I don't see why you feel you have to justify your actions /beliefs..least of all on this insignificant forum.

cheers and beers
Howard
p.s just PM'd Seth about my current "predicament" ask nicely and he will tell all.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 16, 2005 11:12AM)
John,

My intent is not to be confrontational.
But your answer makes no point in reference to mine.

I have been making the effort to be direct and stay on topic in all of my postings.

You are inferring that I said that I was better known than Randi.
However I never stated or inferred such a thing.
I stand by my comment I believe my point was made quite clearly.

Second the internet is a library of sorts it does not show the current general publics knowledge of a personality.
Possibly you did not realize this.
Read my post for my point is clear on this also.

The end of your posting read to me like an example of the cult like behavior that some members engage in.
Thank you for offering an example.

You show them the truth about something and they try to switch the subject.
I believe it has to do with consistency of behavior.

We were discussing skeptics and exposure and the damage some of them have done.
I offered an example of an outright lie and you try and switch the topic.

I might point out that no matter what James wrote it does not change the reality of what he did and does.

How do you feel about the lie?
Is it alright to lie to make people believe you?


Jack

H.O.A_X

By the way you missed searching for my broadcasting of a person dying live on the internet a few years back.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 16, 2005 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-15 19:45, J ack Galloway wrote:
Jim spoon bending was not a magicians trick.
(It took magicians to turn it into a trick).

Check out the metal bending vids for proof of my piont.
So Randi was not telling the truth when he said that.

Plain and simple a lie.

He was as bad as the guy he was exposing.

Randi was running the effect and Geller down.

Jack


H.O.A_X

[/quote]

If Geller's spoonbending wasn't a magician's trick, what was it? Real PK?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Nov 16, 2005 12:44PM)
Jack.

I do not wish a flame war. [i]You[/i] brought Randi into the discussion only to dismiss him. I question 1) your motivation for bringing Randi (yet again) into a discussion about someone else, and 2) the veracity of your claim that Randi is unimportant in some way.

I'm not sure what "cult-like behaviour" you are referring to. Apparently it has something to do with doubting that Uri Geller can bend metal with his mind. Curious.

John
Message: Posted by: Sensio (Nov 16, 2005 01:07PM)
If you love mentalism and you love this forum too, I would like to kindly ask you to dismiss and ignore all BS that obtains easy, free and strong advertisement to specific members of this forum.
Don't engage into their game. P L E A S E
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Nov 16, 2005 01:41PM)
Aware,

I believe your post is directed at me. Point taken.

John
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 16, 2005 01:55PM)
Jim,

Geller was not doing a magicians trick.
It was easy for Skeptics to claim he was.

But that was not the truth.

Jack


H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: GusVanNostrum (Nov 16, 2005 01:58PM)
[quote]
Geller was not doing a magicians trick.
[/quote]

And according to your definition, he was _not_ a magician, right?

All right. He was performing a mentalist effect, then.
Message: Posted by: Sensio (Nov 16, 2005 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-16 14:41, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Aware,

I believe your post is directed at me. Point taken.

John
[/quote]

Dear John,

the post is directed to anyone that gives life to specific persons who seek to make publicity through this very serious forum. I too am tempted to respond to such posts but I try to avoid it...

It is not personal at all - it is directed at me as well...

Hope you understand my point

rgds
aware
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 16, 2005 03:48PM)
My point is that it was his effect. (Gellers)

It was no ones but Gellers at that point.

The Skeptic in question was not stating the truth.

No one ever called him on it.
He was giving a false explanation.

That is the truth.

It is my belief that if you are going to be destroying people because of their actions you should be held to the same standard.

And if not why not?

That is the point I am making.

Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 16, 2005 04:07PM)
I am finding it interesting that we can take apart spychics but to write about pro-skeptics is an off limits topic.

Very strange,

Jack
Message: Posted by: hkwiles (Nov 16, 2005 05:01PM)
"Take apart spy chics" ..is that what James Bond does..LoL

sorry Jack couldn't resist

Howard
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 16, 2005 05:34PM)
Jack:

Are you saying that Geller was truthful when he said he was bending spoons with his mind (or other paranormal means)?

Also, how do you know Randi was "lying" about what Geller was doing? Do you believe Geller used paranormal power for his spoonbending?
Message: Posted by: Magical Lady (Nov 16, 2005 06:06PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-16 04:19, hkwiles wrote:
Hi Lynne..good comments..however...I don't see why you feel you have to justify your actions /beliefs..least of all on this insignificant forum.

cheers and beers
Howard
p.s just PM'd Seth about my current "predicament" ask nicely and he will tell all.
[/quote]

Now you KNOW that we are ALL going to want to know now!!! Poor Seth - he'll be inundated with emails asking nicely...:)

Best
ML x
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 16, 2005 07:46PM)
Howard I think that may possibly you are correct.

Much more interesting I would think.

Jack
Message: Posted by: travisb (Nov 16, 2005 09:19PM)
[quote]On 2005-11-16 16:48, J ack Galloway wrote:

My point is that it was his effect. (Gellers)

It was no ones but Gellers at that point.[/quote]

Semantics. If I come up with a trick nobody's done before, it's still a trick. If someone famous (or semi-famous to a miniscule portion of the population—with a brief period of greater fame many years ago) calls it a simple "magician's trick" then I might feel annoyed, but if it's a trick it's a trick, no?

If you claim to have real powers I think you pretty much have to live with the fact that people are going to try and show that you don't. Why whine about it? It's nothing new. Just get on with it. It's part of the show.

-Travis
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 05:27AM)
I can agree with you.

But you are missing my piont a bit.

If the guy exposing is not telling the truth why is he not examined as criticaly?

See some of these guys take some of the pro-skeptics to be honest searchers of the truth. They don't consider that they are running a bit of a swindle themselfs.

I simply was using one simple and well known example to prove my side that is all.

Best Wishes,

Jack

Geller dug his ditch so he can stand in it.
Message: Posted by: Ian Rowland (Nov 17, 2005 06:13AM)
[quote]You are inferring that I said that I was better known than Randi.
However I never stated or inferred such a thing.[/quote]
You know how this board is all about 'magicians helping magicians', right? Okay, well, in a friendly and supportive way, let me give you some helpful advice. You might want to look up the meaning of 'infer' and 'imply'. Any dictionary will do. Dictionaries are cheap. Just like your jibes about James Randi.
Message: Posted by: Josh Zandman (Nov 17, 2005 06:37AM)
Lynne, I would love to read the next version of the Val Andrews Book Test. you seem like a great person - keep doing what you do :)
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 08:03AM)
Thank you for concern and help Ian.

I will look into this.

A question.
If a dictionary is cheap does that make the content of the book cheap?

In the same way my comments may at first glance look cheap but in content they are not.

Best Wishes,

Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 12:07PM)
[quote]The Skeptic in question was not stating the truth. [/quote]

May I humbly suggest that you might not want to accuse people of lying if you don't have evidence, or even a coherent allegation? If you have evidence that Randi was lying about Geller, please spell it out in a clear, specific way.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 12:18PM)
Look Jim, I have made it clear.

It was not a magicians trick and is not simple.

I think I have made this quite clear.

What part of this is not easily understood?

Was it a truthfull statement?
No it was not.

Jack
Message: Posted by: GusVanNostrum (Nov 17, 2005 12:31PM)
And so has the dance started again.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-17 13:18, J ack Galloway wrote:
Look Jim, I have made it clear.

It was not a magicians trick and is not simple.

I think I have made this quite clear.

What part of this is not easily understood?

Was it a truthfull statement?
No it was not.

Jack
[/quote]

You've made it quite clear that you [b]believe[/b] Randi was lying about Geller. However, you have not provided evidence to support that allegation.

I don't believe that you answered this question, which I asked earlier on this thread:

Are you saying that Geller was truthful when he said he was bending spoons with his mind (or other paranormal means)?
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 04:24PM)
Jim,

I am not making any comment on Geller.

The spoon effect was not a simple magicians trick at that time.

No one had seen it except for Geller doing it.

So how could it be a simple magicians trick or an old magicians trick.

I do hope this made my comment clearer.

It was not a truthfull statement now or then.

Jack
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 04:40PM)
[quote]The spoon effect was not a simple magicians trick at that time.[/quote]

Why won't you answer the question I keep asking--[b]what was it then[/b]? As far as I can tell, it was either a trick (which I'm pretty sure has been established) or a supernatural act. Please tell me if you think Geller bent spoons via supernatural means. Yes or no? If no, and it wasn't a trick, what was it?

[quote]No one had seen it except for Geller doing it.[/quote]

Huh? No one had seen it except the millions of viewers who watched Geller on TV.

[quote]So how could it be a simple magicians trick or an old magicians trick. [/quote]Easy. He did what mentalists do when they want to bend a spoon. As I said, he has been caught doing this by several different people, even on camera (I think). If he's not using a trick to bend the metal, why can't he do it in full view of the audience, without turning around or covering the spoon, or moving it around. How about he just puts the spoon on a table and bends it without touching it?
Message: Posted by: Indyfan (Nov 17, 2005 04:56PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-15 11:19, J ack Galloway wrote:

Unfortunately Randi has very little fame outside of magic and skeptic circles.
The general public has no current memory of him.

But I am serious about his public exposures doing harm to magic and mentalists.
Jack

H.O.A_X
[/quote]

Jack,

You need to re-read & re-think some of the things you write, because the more you write, the more you begin to contradict yourself, which lessens your credibility.

You ARE entertaining.......I'll give you that.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 05:01PM)
Jim,

I think we have a communication problem.

Is your position that Randi was speaking the truth?

Do you belive that Geller had stolen an effect from magicians and was presnting it as real?

I would like to confirm this befor responding further.

Jack
Message: Posted by: Thomas Rudolfo (Nov 17, 2005 05:02PM)
Well, I don't really want to take part in this discussion since ther are many points where Jack and others are correct but also many points that are very hard to verify now.

But I do know that there are sources and I talked to old magicians years ago who mentioned that in the 50ies there were some so called psychics in Europe who did spoon bending like geller. They did see it. BUt in those days media (TV etc.) couldn't be compared to those in the 70ies and theses so called psychics didn't do it for show reasons.

ANother point is that Geller indeed was the first who wanted to make this public and cleverly used the media possible in those days and up today he is a great showman regarding audience management.

So IMO it doesn't matter if Randis comments are truth or not. He showed that it is possible to bend spoons though he mentioned that he doesn't possess special powers. And in exposing some methods he just brought up first sceptics that if he could do it than Geller also coud have done it that way. That was all that Randi wanted to show IMO.

But of course nowaday most of the poeple know that Geller really hasn't these powers. If one man really would have these powers the world would have changed.
Especially since ther are recent geller-shows where in slow motion you can detect method of the breaking spoon and even the bending method.

So I made the experience that the reaction from lay audience has changed a bit when I discussed Geller-Shows with them. IN the 70ies there really was the discussion about CAN THIS GUY HAVE THESE POWERS. Today, beeing more aware of many things they say DID YOU SEE HOW CLEVER HE DOES AND HOW HE CAN INFLUENCE AN AUDIENCE IN BELIEVEING THIS.

So they are aware, also because of many literature and DVD on spoon bending, that he doesn't have such powers.
So IMO this topic is similar to the moon landing. Even if there is proof about this, there always will be people who doubt anything. But that's OK since we all are thinking inidivuals and everybody has the right to free opinion. But that's the reason why this thread will go on forever without bringin new points up.

Greetings
Thomas
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 05:04PM)
Indy,

I was making comment in the second half about the guys past creating what we deal with now.


Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 05:16PM)
On 2005-11-17 18:01, J ack Galloway wrote:


"I think we have a communication problem."

Me too.

"Is your position that Randi was speaking the truth?"

Yes.

"Do you belive that Geller had stolen an effect from magicians and was presnting it as real?"

No. I don't recall hearing anyone accuse Geller of stealing the effect. Doing a trick and presenting it as supernatural? Yes.


-Jim
Message: Posted by: Thomas Rudolfo (Nov 17, 2005 05:30PM)
Jim,

[quote]
"Do you belive that Geller had stolen an effect from magicians and was presnting it as real?"

No. I don't recall hearing anyone accuse Geller of stealing the effect. Doing a trick and presenting it as supernatural? Yes.
[/quote]

Good post. IMO this few lines bring up the whole point. I just want ot add one more to this. I once saw an interview with Geller dated back to the late 70ies. In this he was asked where he has the powers and knowledge from that he can bend spoons. Gellers answer was that he saw and learned these mental abilities from some psychics of the 50ies and he trained his abilities until he was able to use this powers.

So IMO in this case Geller even didn't lie. He was referring to so called psychics and took their methods of bending spoons and made it public to sell it as real powers. He just didn't mention that this were methods to fake spoon bending.
And in those days Geller has sucess with this and I congratulat him on this.

But even he knew that there will be times when people will be more aware of certain things and will reveal methods on bending spoons. So Randi was the first who did this before big auditorium.

So again Jim is absolutely correct with the lines I quoted above. And as I mentioned in my post above there is nothing more to say to this since all other points just are hard to verify and there always will be a difference. So this is a deadlock situation.

Greetings
THomas
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 05:34PM)
Well we have now found were our problem is I hope.

My comments on this thread are about Randi not speaking the truth.

Not about Gellers actions.

But the truth is that it was not a magicians trick or mentalists trick.
Randi was in my opinion fabricating to make his piont stronger.

And if he did it at that time does it not call into question his other actions.

He is a pro-skeptic and I believe open to the same examination as those he exposes/investigates.

What do you think?


Jack
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 05:46PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-17 18:34, J ack Galloway wrote:
Well we have now found were our problem is I hope.

My comments on this thread are about Randi not speaking the truth.

Not about Gellers actions.

But the truth is that it was not a magicians trick or mentalists trick.
Randi was in my opinion fabricating to make his piont stronger.

And if he did it at that time does it not call into question his other actions.

He is a pro-skeptic and I believe open to the same examination as those he exposes/investigates.

What do you think?


Jack
[/quote]
I agree that a skeptic should be subjected to the same scrutiny as anyone else. I've heard Randi dissed at the Café many times, but I've never heard any concrete examples of wrongdoing by him with evidence (He's been called a fraud here, but I've yet to see any evidence to back that up).

How do you know that what Geller was doing was not a magician's trick? He has been seen physically bending the spoon. That's what magicians and mentalists do when they bend spoons. Therefore, Randi was telling the truth.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 17, 2005 06:43PM)
No not then Jim.

That is my piont.

Jack

You know I am glad I use a differnt name here. If not all of this would be much more confusing.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 07:05PM)
By "no not then" you mean that Randi wasn't lying about Geller, right? That's your piont?
Message: Posted by: travisb (Nov 17, 2005 07:20PM)
Jack, why are you hung up on this whole "magician's trick" thing? I tried addressing this, but I'm not sure that you understood, so I'll try again.

I haven't seen Randi talking about Geller, so I don't know what he meant when he referred to Geller's spoon bending as a "magician's trick." It seems to me that you believe that by calling it a "magician's trick" he was implying that it was a trick invented by magicians before Geller ever used it. If this is what Randi meant, then I suppose he could have been lying—although that would depend on the history of spoon bending, a subject with which I am unfamiliar).

Others think that Randi called Geller's spoon bending a "magician's trick" not to imply that it was an already existing trick, but to clarify that a method was being used that was not "supernatural" in nature. (And please, [i]please[/i] let's not get into the whole "if it's possible then it can't be supernatural" thing, as it's a pointless semantic argument. Much like this one...) The important part of the quote is the word "trick," not the word "magician." Calling it a [i]magician's[/i] trick makes clearer the nature of the method being used (of course, calling something a "simple magician's trick" is also a put down).

Is this clear to you? If so, perhaps you could explain why you favour the first interpretation of the quote. If it's not clear then I suggest, as I have before, some English classes, since your reading comprehension does not appear to be all that strong.

-Travis
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 17, 2005 07:34PM)
From the [url=http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Geller,%20Uri.html]horse's mouth[/url].

James Randi:

"In Israel, where the public was not quite as susceptible as in America, Geller was accused by a complaintant of doing tricks when he had promised to do genuine psychic feats. The Israeli court assessed him costs, and the price of the plaintiff's ticket was refunded to him.
But it was the newest marvel that he later performed——seeming to bend and break metal objects by mind power——that made all the news. That, it seemed, was original with him, unlike the other rather standard routines. However, in 1968 a conjuring magazine available in Israel published the instructions for a spoon trick that was indistinguishable from the Geller demonstration.
Insisting that his demonstrations were the real thing, in 1974 Uri Geller traveled the world with his story of having been given his powers through a distant planet called Hoova in another star system, and a UFO called “IS” or “Intelligence in the Sky.”

"Uri Geller may have psychic powers by means of which he can bend spoons; if so, he appears to be doing it the hard way."
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 18, 2005 10:33AM)
Jim,

Intersting a magazine with no name.

Geller was evidently the only subscriber.

And no one but Geller ever made use of the effect including the writer or originator of the effect.

Also Gellers "effect" pre-dates the cited artical in the mythical magazine.

Strange Randi would not have shown that as proof. I think that would have been far more convincing don't you?

Jack
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 18, 2005 05:41PM)
Jack:

I'll bet you $100 that the magazine is not "mythical," but actually exists.

Randi said that Geller likely used a trick to bend spoons, not paranormal powers. You say that's a lie, yet you refuse to say whether you believe that Geller used trickery or paranormal powers. That's the key point of the alleged lie. You're claim holds no water.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 18, 2005 05:57PM)
Jim

Are you truly this blind?

Or just faking?

I am having a hard time beleiving a magician or mentalist cannot understand my position.

Man you are starting to read like a cult member.

Do you realy swallow all of the crap on that site?

Really? Do you think the guy is clean?

Just asking for I find your defense of one who is a memeber here and unwilling to defend hinself a puzzle.

Jack

Jim if you are a JREF drone please let me know for I will waste no further time on you.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 18, 2005 06:22PM)
[quote]I am having a hard time beleiving a magician or mentalist cannot understand my position. [/quote]

To clarify, please tell me if you think Geller used paranormal powers to bend spoons, or some kind of trick (physically bending the spoon with his hands; using misdirection or other deception to hide it). I've asked you this repeatedly on this thread and you've evaded the question. It's a simple question. Or perhaps there's a third option I haven't mentioned; if so, please specify.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from hurling unsubstantiated insults and innuendos.

-Jim
Message: Posted by: edh (Nov 18, 2005 07:29PM)
Jim, I have read some of this guys posts and he never answers any questions. He talks in circles. To me he is just annoying. Why bother with him?
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 18, 2005 07:38PM)
Not hurling yet.
(A joke)

Just looking for an answer.

Really Jim I will call you and talk about this.
(Possibly we can spare the others here having to deal with our written duleing if we do).

If you PM me with your number I will call tomorrow before noon.
(Or call me if you prefer tomorrow my number is 843 525 6638).

I am not mad just confused.
I understand that this sort of written debate can look egdy in the written form.

I am sorry if what I wrote read that way.

There is a third option that I will be glad to talk about.

Best Wishes,

Jim aka Jack Galloway
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 18, 2005 07:41PM)
EDH,

Why becouse I am a fun guy.

Are you?

Hey noticd you are a musician also.
One of my idols is Les Paul.

Jack

Catch me if you can.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 18, 2005 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2005-11-18 20:29, edh wrote:
Jim, I have read some of this guys posts and he never answers any questions. He talks in circles. To me he is just annoying. Why bother with him?
[/quote]

A very good question that might require professional treatment.

Jack:

I'd prefer not to discuss this on the phone, in fact I don't need to discuss this anymore at all. If you'd like to post your reply to my simple question, please do it here. If not, let's agree to disagree and move on.
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 19, 2005 07:18AM)
That will be ok with me Jim.

Since I do not belive it has anything to do with the topic.

I will tell you that I think Geller was good at what he did.
And I know he was caught a few times.

But I also know that the pro-skeptics still cannot duplicate everthing he has done.

I know this to.
I cannot duplicate what Geller did.
That is truth.

Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: Steve Knight (Nov 19, 2005 03:35PM)
Jimtron, about the nameless magazine in which Geller's effect supposedly appears; Both myself and the late Marchello Truzzi contacted Randi (more than once)in an attempt to get the details but Randi never replied. However it actually seems as if this claim first saw the light of day in T.A. Waters's Encyclopedia where he mentions Geller's claim to fame being the bending and breaking of cutlery and notes that a similar effect appeared in ABRA in 1968. Waters only says the effect was similar and doesn't say whether it involved bending or breaking. Randi is equally unclear on this point but claims the effect was identical to Geller's. He also seems to be claiming that ABRA was available in Israel in 1968. I don't know for sure but I imagine it was only available by subscription from the publishers in England or via a foreign magic dealer perhaps. You would have thought that if an effect identical to Geller's had appeared in one of the most widely read magic magazines just five years before Geller's debut then it would have been discovered early on and mentioned at every opportunity.
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 19, 2005 03:55PM)
Steve:

I don't know the history of Geller very well; you seem to know more than I. I never meant to argue that Geller didn't originate his own presentation of spoon bending; I don't know if he did or he didn't. My point for quoting the info about 11 posts up: that apparently an Israeli court found (before Randi, I think) that Geller was not using psychic power as claimed, but rather tricks. Also, I thought it was notable that Geller apparently claimed that he was an interplanetary traveler.

As for the magazine article, it appears that none of us have definitive information (a copy of the spoonbending article, or evidence that it was available in Israel). I'm planning on checking Randi's book on Geller to see if he has a source for this.

Does anyone here believe that Geller can bend spoons using supernatural power (as opposed to natural power--bending the spoon with his hands in a concealed way)?
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Nov 19, 2005 04:23PM)
Hi,

Just to get back on topic - since I know a few members in the PEA who are members of CSICOP... it gets down to how you respect people's ahrd work and disrespect chalatans. Someone mentioned that it is crazy for a mentalist to give a disclaimer - it all depends on the essence of the act. If Uri wants to say he got his powers from little green men - OK - but then people will be after the truth. Check out Chuck Hickok's approach - disclaimer at the end of a show. Nice subtle touches. As for the original person who Aware pointed out - bravo for her! As a fellow educator in the medical field, I use mentalism and magic as well without ever having to expose methods - but use effects for illustrating points. Now, Cold Reading - how can anyone argue there are a lot of people ripping money away from people... go read the amazing book if Ian Rowland's... the classic work IMHO.

Anyway - hi! I'm a new member. Glad to meet you all. I'll go post a bio at the other forum site in the near future.

All the best,

Bruce
Message: Posted by: jimtron (Nov 19, 2005 05:47PM)
Bruce:

Welcome. The lighting in your avatar photo makes you look a bit fiendish!

I have Rowland's cold reading book, but I'm not sure what you meant by:

[quote]Now, Cold Reading - how can anyone argue there are a lot of people ripping money away from people... go read the amazing book if Ian Rowland's... the classic work IMHO. [/quote]

Are you saying that people are not getting ripped off? Or are? Are you referring to psychic readers?

thanks,

Jim
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 20, 2005 03:49PM)
Jim, I would suggest you look at Steves site on Geller. I would also suggest you don't take Ransi's word for it.
That would be like taking Gellers word for it.

Bruce, In the medical field I would say there are more people ripping off the public than there are cold readers in the world.

Heck I would venture to say that just in one state more medical swindlers run their cons than people taken by cold readers in the US.

But as I pionted out before pro-skeptics seem to rail against those who cannot or will not fight back.

I stand by my post that a disclaimer is theatricaly an inept thing to do.
Be it at the beginning or end.

I also think it is one of the things brought about by pro-skeptics.

Being a skeptic I have chosen to be skeptical of pro-skeptics and their actions.

Jack

H.O.A_X
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Nov 20, 2005 07:13PM)
Hi Jim!

I was refering to the cool way Ian's book is written i.e. "this things will helps omeone see if Cold Reading is in effect versus true psychic powers..." and that if they are swindeling someone, techniques to expose the situation... however, I think CR as entertainment is endorsed by all - I think it revolves around the power any mentalism can have on a person and what a person does with it.

Hey Jack, I agree there are a bunch of rotten apples in the medical field - not sure %wise if they outnumber % of coldreaders :)... but then again, in any profession, there are people ripping off people. I think it again revolves around the ethics and moral code of the reader using the skills. As Hickok would say "There are no absolutes!"

I will say again - a disclaimer only makes sense if it fits thematically with the premise of the performance and what the entertainer is trying to demonstrate. Again, there are so many types of disclaimers... it again goes with what are the objectives and goals the person is trying to achieve. I personally use one (which again doesn't mean I think everyone should) for certain contexts where I want to make sure no one actually beleives I have powers - as again, the stuff we can do can fry minds... in a different venue I use a different disclaimer that leaves things vague until the end. Etc.

As for CSICOP - I think, as some members have said, that they go after exploiters more than entertainers. Marc Salem hasn't been harassed now, has he? Nor Andy Nyman! Why, they cloak things in disclaimers that use double speak anyway :)...
Message: Posted by: J ack Galloway (Nov 20, 2005 07:51PM)
Bruce,

Nice to meet you good answer/post.

Thanks,

Jack

H.O.A_X