Truzzi on Randi & Geller

[Lucianarchy]

I wasn't talking about Margolis. I was talking about Allan Slaigh. The person you mentioned.

Slaight is not only a skeptic, he is an expert in magic. He examined the spoon to make sure no trickery was involved. Just like Margolis' spoon, which he even bought himself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Slaight is not only a skeptic, he is an expert in magic. He examined the spoon to make sure no trickery was involved. Just like Margolis' spoon, which he even bought himself.

That's odd, because for such an expert in magic, Google seem to be blissfully unaware of his existence. In fact, the only hit that is relevant (out of a whopping 7!) is....you guessed it: From Uri Geller's own site!

Perhaps you can provide some more references for this "expert in magic"?

What happened with Slaight was exactly what happened when Niels Krøjgaard "bended" the spoon on Danish TV. Many, many thousands saw it, Lucianarchy.

I am still waiting for your explanation.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I am still waiting for your explanation.

I have given it. Slaight is a skeptic and expert in magic. He examined the spoon. It was not a trick spoon.

 

[Ed]

I am still waiting for your explanation.

HAHAHAAaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaa

Well, at least you won't get an unedited googol search

 

[Lucianarchy]

That's odd, because for such an expert in magic, Google seem to be blissfully unaware of his existence. In fact, the only hit that is relevant (out of a whopping 7!) is....you guessed it: From Uri Geller's own site!

Perhaps you can provide some more references for this "expert in magic"?

Sure. I do wonder about your research skills, Claus. It does explain your limited knowledge though.

"A Little Magic Helped

It's always surprising when Canadian history is described as dull, considering that the country has produced more than its share of colourful, dynamic iconoclasts; of these, Allan Slaight may safely count himself among the more prominent.
Slaight was born in 1931 in Galt, Ontario, only four years after the founding of the company that would one day become synonymous with his name. His first inclinations gave little or no clue with regard to his destiny as a radio tycoon for, in his early years, it looked as if he might have his heart set on becoming the next Harry Houdini.
As a young man, Slaight worked as a travelling magician throughout Western Canada. He never forgot his early profession, and, in 1989, published a book detailing the magic tricks of early 20th century illusionist Stewart James."

http://www.broadcastdialogue.com/article_view.asp?action=view&idnumber=366

 

[CFLarsen]

I have given it. Slaight is a skeptic and expert in magic. He examined the spoon. It was not a trick spoon.

But you started out with claiming that:

The fact remains, no one can actually do exactly what Uri does. As Peter Duffie says: "The very idea that one simply has to create a method that "resembles" the phenomenon = fraud, is totally silly. "

And then, you pointed to the example of Alan Slaight.

But the trick that Slaight witnessed, was also witnessed by many, many thousands on Danish TV, performed by a professional magician.

So, it is not a "fact" that "no one can actually do exactly what Uri does."

Does this make you change your opinion on Geller, Lucianarchy?

RE Slaight:

"Slaight was born in 1931 in Galt, Ontario, only four years after the founding of the company that would one day become synonymous with his name."
...
"As a young man, Slaight worked as a travelling magician throughout Western Canada."
...
"But another medium was clearly in his blood, and he was quick to discover his real passion - broadcasting.
He began his chosen career in 1948 as a news reporter/announcer with CHAB Moose Jaw, and his early public magic performances in 1948 in towns and villages in southern Saskatchewan served to help promote the station.
Says Slaight: 'In 1948, my dad, who then owned the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, and a friend in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, who owned a Prince Albert newspaper, got together and bought CHAB Moose Jaw. I'd never been inside a radio station before - it was on the fourth floor of the local hotel and I remember that I went there and met some of the people. I fell in love with radio and I've been in it ever since.'"

So, at the tender age of 17, he abandons the career as a magician and turns to broadcasting. And, at the tender age of 58, publishes a book on a magician.

Not exactly an "expert in magic", Lucianarchy. Or you could perhaps point to references where Slaight is mentioned not for his work in broadcasting, but in magic?

Do you think it is impossible for a magician to be fooled?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Not exactly an "expert in magic", Lucianarchy.

You may like to believe such a thing. However, a published, professional, travelling magician, is certainly expert in magic enough to detect trickery. But we are not just talking about one magician here anyway. David Blaine has observed him up close and stated that Uri's genuine. This is the point, Claus. Uri has simply not been debunked.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Or you could perhaps point to references where Slaight is mentioned not for his work in broadcasting, but in magic?

Sure. Again, I am amazed at you lack of research skills. And it does increasingly explain why you appear to know little on the subjects you engage in.

"The Chronicles took from 1978 to 1988 to complete, and during those ten years, some of the finest close-up magic in the period was explained in its pages. The work was drawn from magic's best:

Mike Skinner, Sam Schwartz, Edward Victor, Jacob Daley, Al Baker, George Sands, Tom Sellers, Jack Avis, Roy Walton, Cardini, Stewart Judah, The Amazing Randi, Derek Dingle, Allan Slaight, Alex Elmsley, Herb Zarrow, Frank Garcia, Martin Gardner, Francis Haxton, Gene Maze, Fr. Cyprian, Phil Goldstein, Tom Gagnon, Stewart James, Slydini, Dai Vernon, Gene Finnell, Jack Chanin, Ken Krenzel, John Cornelius, Jeff Busby, Sid Lorraine, Harvey Rosenthal, J. K. Hartman, Larry Jennings, S. Leo Horowitz, and many, many more . . . including Fulves himself."

http://www.empiremagic.com/docs/book19.html

Did you recognise any other fellow experts in magic there, Claus?

 

[Paladin]

The important question:

Who has the spoon?

Is it still available for inspection?

If not, why haven't these important artifacts been preserved? They are evidence of something incredible, yet even Uri treats them as mere nothings -- even to the point of gluing them to his car. There should be a Uri Geller Museum of the New Paradigm, where researchers can examine his artifacts in a true science environment. Instead, people seem to have walked off with valuable evidence, which is now sadly tainted and can't be relied upon.

Can anyone explain how to debunk an anecdote?

 

[Lucianarchy]

The important question:

Who has the spoon?

Is it still available for inspection?

If not, why haven't these important artifacts been preserved? They are evidence of something incredible, yet even Uri treats them as mere nothings -- even to the point of gluing them to his car. There should be a Uri Geller Museum of the New Paradigm, where researchers can examine his artifacts in a true science environment. Instead, people seem to have walked off with valuable evidence, which is now sadly tainted and can't be relied upon.

Can anyone explain how to debunk an anecdote?

Professor John Hasted (University of London):

"We possess four numbered and weighed brass Yale keys which were bent through angles of between 10 and 40 degrees under light stroking action by Mr. Geller. If, under symmetrical four-point loading, force pulses of the order of 500N (say 50Kgs of weight) had been applied to the keys, similar bends would have been produced. No loss of surface brightness or change of weight, within the supernatural error of 1mg was observed. Mr. Geller applied a light, stroking action between forefinger and thumb, or by forefinger, with key placed on the table. In all cases, several witnesses watched the entire operation intently from within 1 metre. In one case, the key was not stroked but was simply, held under a cold water tap. In all cases the bending took a time of the order of minutes to complete, and it usually appeared to continue for a short while after the stroking had been terminated. No physical, or chemical explanation of these phenomena is readily apparent. The mean grain size at the bent surface has been compared with that in unbent and mechanically bent specimens by x-ray reflection and electron micrograph. No significant change in grain orientation or size was noted."

Dr. Kit Pedler (Head of the Electron Microscopy Department, University of London):

"I have personally witnessed and experienced on two occasions the metal bending abilities of Uri Geller. These experiments were conducted under rigorous laboratory conditions. In these two experiments the thick steel rod I was holding and observing carefully bent, and continued to bend, in my own hand. One rod bent to 90 degrees during a period of approximately six minutes while I was holding it. The other steel rod bent after Uri Geller stroked it and continued bending on a glass table without anyone touching it. The steel rods were provided by myself. I consider the Geller effect to be a phenomenon which should be studied seriously by science."

Eldon Byrd (Former scientist at the American Naval Surface Weapons Center, Maryland, USA):

"The metal Uri bends is not subjected to force. I have seen the electron microscope photos of several items Uri has bent without force--the grain structure is very even; whereas, like items bent by force had a chaotic grain structure both at the margins and internally. I had a shadowgraph done of one of the Nitinol wires Uri touched while I was holding both ends. He altered the shape memory at the molecular level and caused it to go to an angle so acute that a similar piece broke when an attempt was made to bend it to such an acute angle. Also, an electron microscope photo of the wire at the bend revealed that stress marks were apparent along the wire due to the extrusion process by which the wire was made; however, there were no stress lines apparent longitudinally at the bend. A density analysis showed that the material in the wire was more dense on TOP of the bend where stretching should have occurred, not underneath as one would expect where compression occurred. I not only have seen many items continue to bend after Uri had touched them (mostly knife blades and forks that he had stroked with ONE finger); I have also had cutlery in my hand spontaneously bend and continue to bend over a five or six second period while Uri was across the room and had never interacted with the item."

http://www.demo.technocom.co.uk/hpnet/aftereffect.htm

 

[Lucianarchy]

Here's the Margolis account:

"[...] 'Would you like me to bend a spoon for you?' he said. We would, we confirmed. 'I'll go and get one,' he said.

At which point David produced one we had selected from home. It was an oversized teaspoon, chosen because it was thicker and heavier than most.

Uri steered us over to a radiator, saying it sometimes worked better if he was touching metal. He put his right hand on the radiator (which meant he couldn't use it to bend the spoon illicitly) and held the spoon half way down its handle between the thumb and forefinger of his left hand.

I was amused to note that nothing happened. Fifteen or 20 seconds passed, the four of us in a huddle. 'Look, it's bending,' Uri said. If it was, my children and I could not see it. 'David, hold out your hand,' Uri said. He placed the spoon flat on David's hand.

I dipped my head to see if there was a slight bend, which I could at least be polite about. Viewed side on, there was a barely perceptible warp of perhaps a few millimetres.

What must have been three seconds passed, but seemed like much longer. Then, like a miniature Loch Ness Monster arching its back upwards, a couple of centimetres south of the spoon's bowl spontaneously rose, until it was bent at a 90-degree angle and standing up from David's hand in an upside-down V. We gasped.

To see a spoon bend in Geller's hand, as everyone has on TV, is one thing. It could be a special spoon of some sort, he could be in collusion with the TV people, anything. But to watch your spoon bending and without Uri touching it at the time was disturbing.

I picked up the spoon to feel if it was warm, or had some caustic chemical on it. There was no chemical. I touched the bend point to my upper lip, a heat-sensitive spot. It was cold."
http://66.221.71.68/margolis.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

You may like to believe such a thing. However, a published, professional, travelling magician, is certainly expert in magic enough to detect trickery. But we are not just talking about one magician here anyway. David Blaine has observed him up close and stated that Uri's genuine.

A genuine...what? References? What is Blaine's opinion of Geller today? Has he changed his mind?

This is the point, Claus. Uri has simply not been debunked.

*BEEP*. Yes, he has. You keep ignoring the many, many thousands who saw Niels Krøjgaard perform Uri's trick on TV.

How do you explain that? It was the exact same trick, Lucianarchy: The cutlery kept on bending, with no touching whatsoever.

Sure. Again, I am amazed at you lack of research skills. And it does increasingly explain why you appear to know little on the subjects you engage in.

I was asking you for references. I am pleased to see you are finally beginning to this.

 

[Ladewig]

Lucianarchy-
Uri has simply not been debunked.

I'm unsure what your definition of debunked is, but if it involves photograaphic evidence of Uri cheating, then the June 1974 issue of Popular Photography is a good place to look.

On his website, Uri describes the article as showing that other people achieved a similar effect using trickery. His version of the magazine story leaves out that the magazine published photos of Uri cheating as he made images appear on unexposed film. He was not aware that the editors at the magazine had substituted a fisheye lens on the camera to show exactly what Uri was doing when he was alone and performing his slight of hand.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I'm unsure what your definition of debunked is, but if it involves photograaphic evidence of Uri cheating, then the June 1974 issue of Popular Photography is a good place to look.

On his website, Uri describes the article as showing that other people achieved a similar effect using trickery. His version of the magazine story leaves out that the magazine published photos of Uri cheating as he made images appear on unexposed film. He was not aware that the editors at the magazine had substituted a fisheye lens on the camera to show exactly what Uri was doing when he was alone and performing his slight of hand.

Frankly, given his personality, background and circumstances of his public profile, I'd be surprised to find out that he never cheated. This does not detract from the cases like Margolis, Slaight and many, many others.

Slaight is a magician mentioned alongside Randi in the literature of magic. Blaine, even more so. Margolis brought his own spoon... there are too many credible observations where cheating has been ruled out.

You could, of course, invoke a vast conspiracy of deception. Yet that alone would encompass a huge number of otherwise honest professionals, politicans, intelligence operatives, astronauts, etc,. and would be a phenomenal story in istself.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You keep ignoring the many, many thousands who saw Niels Krøjgaard perform Uri's trick on TV.

No I don't. Niels has to provide his own spoon for the AB effect. Uri does not need to. See Margolis.

 

[CFLarsen]

Frankly, given his personality, background and circumstances of his public profile, I'd be surprised to find out that he never cheated. This does not detract from the cases like Margolis, Slaight and many, many others.

So, how would you distinguish the cases of fraud from the cases of real paranormal abilities?

Slaight is a magician mentioned alongside Randi in the literature of magic. Blaine, even more so. Margolis brought his own spoon... there are too many credible observations where cheating has been ruled out.

Do you think a magician can be fooled?

You could, of course, invoke a vast conspiracy of deception. Yet that alone would encompass a huge number of otherwise honest professionals, politicans, intelligence operatives, astronauts, etc,. and would be a phenomenal story in istself.

Not at all. It would only require a few gullible people, as well as deliberate cheating from Geller's part.

No I don't. Niels has to provide his own spoon for the AB effect. Uri does not need to. See Margolis.

I am not talking about Margolis. I am talking about Slaight. Where did that spoon come from? Who brought it?

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Truzzi on Randi & Geller

Uri got in my car, pulled a spoon from the hotel from his pocket and asked me to examine it.

Ha! Not only is Uri a fraud and a liar, he's a thief as well.

 

[Zep]

Here's the Margolis account:

"[...] 'Would you like me to bend a spoon for you?' he said. We would, we confirmed. 'I'll go and get one,' he said.

At which point David produced one we had selected from home. It was an oversized teaspoon, chosen because it was thicker and heavier than most.

Uri steered us over to a radiator, saying it sometimes worked better if he was touching metal. He put his right hand on the radiator (which meant he couldn't use it to bend the spoon illicitly) and held the spoon half way down its handle between the thumb and forefinger of his left hand.

I was amused to note that nothing happened. Fifteen or 20 seconds passed, the four of us in a huddle. 'Look, it's bending,' Uri said. If it was, my children and I could not see it. 'David, hold out your hand,' Uri said. He placed the spoon flat on David's hand.

I dipped my head to see if there was a slight bend, which I could at least be polite about. Viewed side on, there was a barely perceptible warp of perhaps a few millimetres.

What must have been three seconds passed, but seemed like much longer. Then, like a miniature Loch Ness Monster arching its back upwards, a couple of centimetres south of the spoon's bowl spontaneously rose, until it was bent at a 90-degree angle and standing up from David's hand in an upside-down V. We gasped.

To see a spoon bend in Geller's hand, as everyone has on TV, is one thing. It could be a special spoon of some sort, he could be in collusion with the TV people, anything. But to watch your spoon bending and without Uri touching it at the time was disturbing.

I picked up the spoon to feel if it was warm, or had some caustic chemical on it. There was no chemical. I touched the bend point to my upper lip, a heat-sensitive spot. It was cold."
http://66.221.71.68/margolis.htm

Here is the point of deception, Lucianarchy. The spoon originally provided was out of Margolis's sight for a short period of time, on some silly pretext or other. And it simply gets substituted for a similar "trick" spoon.

Misdirection is Geller's favourite pastime...

 

[Paladin]

http://www.grand-illusions.com/spoon/nitinol.htm

It looks just like an ordinary teaspoon. You hand it to someone to stir their tea or coffee with, they go to stir their drink and get... the shock of their life. The minute the teaspoon enters the boiling liquid, it bends in the middle. The bending isn't gradual, it is almost violent. Nervous people get quite a shock!
. . .

How does it work? Well, part of the handle of the teaspoon is made of the metal alloy Nitinol, sometimes also called 'memory metal' or more properly Shape Memory Alloy (SMA). This memory effect was originally discovered in the 1930s, but Nitinol itself was only discovered in 1962.

Another possible -- even plausible -- explanation.

Yeah, yeah, we know...Uri bent nitinol for Eldon Byrd. After he was allowed to have a cube of a different metal, that is.

 

[Peter Morris]

Truzzi is dead?

How? When?

Why does his university still have contact details for him?
https://ucinfo.emich.edu/secure/Dir...type=FS&ID=25749&CFID=360133&CFTOKEN=66493303

(I was planning to write to him soon, what a shame)