Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ talk about Uri Geller's powers

[ProfWag]

Your explanation did not work. The experimeter did not touch any of the other cans when
eliminating cans. The experiment was repeated with different targets a permenant magnet(
hence no movement to detect) and water. Geller still succeeded. Later, Geller was able to
pick out the correct can without there being any elimination of cans:

You don't have to touch the other cans Indigo. That's why they had them in the box. Any slight movement be it the table or the box will make the jar with the steel ball in it move. Try it yourself. I promise it'll work and you can then go out and impress your friends just like the old Mark Wilson Magic sets for kids!
If the jars were securely fastened to the table or if Puthoff was not touching the jars as Geller was directing him to move them, Uri would not have been able to do it. I promise you.

[really?]

Stop begging the question. Where is the evidence he cheated? How can you be so convinced
he has cheated without having any evidence for it? The truth is you want to beleive he cheated

A leopard does not change it's spots. The fact that he cheats presently does not mean he cheated in the past, but if he really has powers there's no need to cheat at all. Remember he now calls himself a mystifier and an entertainer.

The truth is you want to beleive he doesn't cheat

You are not a true skeptic.

[Indigo Child]

If the jars were securely fastened to the table or if Puthoff was not touching the jars as Geller was directing him to move them, Uri would not have been able to do it. I promise you.

Your explanation is still not working. None of the cans moved. They were taken out carefully by Puthoff one by one.

I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not, but are you missing the fact that the experiment was done with
dfferent target objects: a permenant magnet and water.

I also recently gave you new info that later Geler was able to pick out the can with the object in it straight away.

Please consider all the available evidence here.

[Indigo Child]

A leopard does not change it's spots. The fact that he cheats presently does not mean he cheated in the past, but if he really has powers there's no need to cheat at all. Remember he now calls himself a mystifier and an entertainer.

The truth is you want to beleive he doesn't cheat

You are not a true skeptic.

You have no conclusive proof Geller has cheated ever.

There is indeed one possible explanation for why Geller would cheat despite having powers. His
powers may not always be working effectively, which means his career as psychic which does public
demonstrations would be in trouble. Hence he may sometimes cheat.

Psychic abilities require completely relaxed conditions before they can be manifested. This is not
always possible when having to perform in front of others, especially skeptics, which can intefere
with the process.

Proof of fraud later on does not mean your entire past has been fraud. Uri Geller as a test subject
of a scientific experiment and Uri geller as a performer are different things.

[ProfWag]

You have no conclusive proof Geller has cheated ever.

Sure we do.

[Indigo Child]

Prowag, you made me laugh then. You say that scientifically controlled
experiments are not conclusive proof and complain when the "believers"
say any experiment is conclusive proof, but here you readily accept and
then tell us that these videos where Geller is allegedly bending spoons
is conclusive proof?

This is the difference between you and the professional skeptics at SRI.
They did not accept Geller's metal bending as conclusive, even the ring
which required 150lb force to bend it. Even despite the controls they had
where there is mirro above and below him and a camera filming from from
every angle. They did not accept it as conclusive because visual analysis could not
determine how they were being bent. On the other hand, you don't require any
such controls to confirm the counter-conclusion. For you just a slight movement
of his fingers is enough for you to say positively he bent it lol

And you claim not to be a pseudoskeptic?

[really?]

Prowag, you made me laugh then. You say that scientifically controlled
experiments are not conclusive proof and complain when the "believers"
say any experiment is conclusive proof, but here you readily accept and
then tell us that these videos where Geller is allegedly bending spoons
is conclusive proof?

This is the difference between you and the professional skeptics at SRI.
They did not accept Geller's metal bending as conclusive, even the ring
which required 150lb force to bend it. Even despite the controls they had
where there is mirro above and below him and a camera filming from from
every angle. They did not accept it as conclusive because visual analysis could not
determine how they were being bent. On the other hand, you don't require any
such controls to confirm the counter-conclusion. For you just a slight movement
of his fingers is enough for you to say positively he bent it lol

And you claim not to be a pseudoskeptic?

I don't understand you at all. You've defended Geller's claims of PK based upon your belief system aided by the scientific testing by Puthoff and Targ of Geller and now you are not defending them or Geller. You sound mixed up to me

[Indigo Child]

I don't understand you at all. You've defended Geller's claims of PK based upon your belief system aided by the scientific testing by Puthoff and Targ of Geller and now you are not defending them or Geller. You sound mixed up to me

[/quote]

I have no idea what you just said, and how you could derive that from my quote.

I have from the very start been defending Uri Geller as the test subject
of Puthoff and Targ and the results of their experiments.

I am not sure where you got the "now you are not defeding them or Geller" from.
How did you get the impression I am not defending them? It's pretty clear whose
side I am on here.

[ProfWag]

Prowag, you made me laugh then. You say that scientifically controlled
experiments are not conclusive proof and complain when the "believers"
say any experiment is conclusive proof, but here you readily accept and
then tell us that these videos where Geller is allegedly bending spoons
is conclusive proof?

I posted those videos strictly to counter your claim that Geller has never been caught cheating. I showed you he has. The videos I posted have nothing to do with the Stanford experiments. As you have alluded to yourself, even if he has been caught cheating doesn't mean he cheated at Stanford.

[really?]

I don't understand you at all. You've defended Geller's claims of PK based upon your belief system aided by the scientific testing by Puthoff and Targ of Geller and now you are not defending them or Geller. You sound mixed up to me

I have no idea what you just said, and how you could derive that from my quote.

I have from the very start been defending Uri Geller as the test subject
of Puthoff and Targ and the results of their experiments.

I am not sure where you got the "now you are not defeding them or Geller" from.
How did you get the impression I am not defending them? It's pretty clear whose
side I am on here.[/quote]

My confusion lays here. First you say this:

You say that scientifically controlled
experiments are not conclusive proof and complain when the "believers"
say any experiment is conclusive proof

Then you go on to say this:

They did not accept Geller's metal bending as conclusive, even the ring
which required 150lb force to bend it. Even despite the controls they had
where there is mirro above and below him and a camera filming from from
every angle. They did not accept it as conclusive because visual analysis could not
determine how they were being bent.

Yet you yourself accept their non acceptance as proof. So why do you vigorously accept as conclusive what neither Targ or Puthoff did ?

Another video of Geller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLXdLAzY ... re=related
If he had Pk power he'd say so if not he do just what nearly every magician does not to reveal and that's what he just did in the video. I've yet to see anyone bend metal without having to consistently maintain handling the metal object- Why ?

[Indigo Child]

I posted those videos strictly to counter your claim that Geller has never been caught cheating. I showed you he has. The videos I posted have nothing to do with the Stanford experiments. As you have alluded to yourself, even if he has been caught cheating doesn't mean he cheated at Stanford.

He has not actually been caught cheating in those videos. You are mixing speculation about
him cheating with actual proof he is cheating.

A simply visual analysis under non-controlled conditions is not enough to prove how he is
bending the spoon. The reason I pointed out that even Puthoff and Targ did not accept his
spoon and ring bending acts was because visual analysis could not prove how they were being
bent, even despite how controlled their conditions were. I personally would accept it, because
it would be impossible for him to create 150lb force to bend the ring from just his fingers. They
did not.

It is important to point out the double standard here in how you claim that Puthoff and Targ have
not been rigorous in their controls, when they fact they have, and even despite their controls
they did not accept the spoon and ring bending as confirmed. However, you have accepted an uncontrolled
television demonstration and speculation about him cheating as conclusive that he cheated. Come on,
can't you see why I find that funny?

[ProfWag]

Come on,
can't you see why I find that funny?

No, I can't. You said he's never been caught cheating and I provided the evidence to show you were wrong. Why can't you justs let others draw their own conclusions? I'm not here to change your mind.

[ProfWag]

A simply visual analysis under non-controlled conditions is not enough to prove how he is
bending the spoon. The reason I pointed out that even Puthoff and Targ did not accept his
spoon and ring bending acts was because visual analysis could not prove how they were being
bent, even despite how controlled their conditions were. I personally would accept it, because
it would be impossible for him to create 150lb force to bend the ring from just his fingers. They
did not.

You really should also point out that even Puthoff and Targ didn't conclude that what Uri did was paranormal. You are suggesting those experiments did when, in fact, they didn't even conclude that. Why are you so adamant that they did? If you are as suportive of their experiments as you appear to be, then you should at least agree with their findings.
"What we've demonstrated here are the experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not be interpreted as of psychic functioning." http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g5.htm

[Indigo Child]

No, I can't. You said he's never been caught cheating and I provided the evidence to show you were wrong. Why can't you justs let others draw their own conclusions? I'm not here to change your mind.

You have not shown me that he's been caught cheating. You are making the same mistake Randi made in his book on Uri Geller, he made a positive claim he was a fraud and he
was done for libel. You have shown me speculation that he's been caught cheating, not proof that he's been caught cheating. There is a world of difference between these two things.
The latter can get you sued if found to be false.

I still find it hilarious how you continue to insist that those videos where he is allegedly cheating are conclusive
but the controlled scientific experiments showing he is not cheating by SRI are insufficient haha.

The irony is killing me You have no desire to maintain logical consistency do you?

[Indigo Child]

You really should also point out that even Puthoff and Targ didn't conclude that what Uri did was paranormal. You are suggesting those experiments did when, in fact, they didn't even conclude that. Why are you so adamant that they did? If you are as suportive of their experiments as you appear to be, then you should at least agree with their findings.
"What we've demonstrated here are the experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not be interpreted as of psychic functioning." http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g5.htm

You are taking their words out of context here. They make it clear in both the transcribed report and the commentary in the videos that they have no working hypothesis
to explain how Geller is doing what he is doing. However, they are very clear that Geller has indeed been able to demonstrate his abilities. There are several hypothesis
that can be used to explain Geller abilities perhaps he has ultra sensitivity and can detect metal, water, perhaps he has x-ray eyes, perhaps he produces unusual magnetic fields,
perhaps he can receive brain wave signals, perhaps he has super-muscular strength in his fingers(they actually seriously considered this possibility) All of these incredibly far-fetched
alternative hypothesis are potential non-paranormal explanations. Hence their reluctance to admit that the experiments prove he has psychic powers.

However, the simplest explanation here is that he has psychic powers. Case closed.