Truzzi on Randi & Geller

[Lucianarchy]

^ Thank you. This is the reason Lucian has been getting to me, because he always clearly states that no one can prove him/Uri/ anyone doing something supernatural wrong, when it is their responsibility to prove themselves right. This is why Mr. Randi has this website, offering his million dollars. And this is also why vaious deluded people will not accept his offer, because they think the same exact way.

Talk your way out of that, my friend.

EDIT: About Steve's post, to Lucianarchy.

Did you even read it?!

"Dr. Franklin concludes that it would be difficult, even under the best laboratory conditions, to produce such totally different fractures at sites so close to one another."

 

[Disbeliever]

If the article is in fact truly emulating a scientific procedure (which I seriously doubt) how do you account for the almost inane amount of times Uri has cheated under various "experiments", and the evidence to provide his trickery is succinct?

EDIT: Because of the poster's line over his quote, it appeared to be his signature.

 

[kookbreaker]

"Dr. Franklin concludes that it would be difficult, even under the best laboratory conditions, to produce such totally different fractures at sites so close to one another."

"Professor Wilbur Franklin, a Matallurgist at Kent State University, who had declared strong support of Geller's abilities before meeting me and seeing sevearl demonstrations of psychic tricks - including spoon bending and key-bending- reversed his opinion of the famous "platinum ring fracture" and finally decided that it was, as others had known all along, simply a bad barzing job."

James Randi, The Truth about Uri Geller p. 3

"A hasty electron microscope test proves little. A tragic demonstration of this occurred in 1972, when Will Franklin, a professor at Kent State University, reported that a ring Geller had allegedly bent psychically showed "unusual fracture surfaces" when examined under an electron microscope. These "provided evidence that a paranormal influence function was probably operative." Five years later Franklin publicly confessed he'd misinterpreted the test results; the fracture surfaces on the ring were easily explained. (He persisted in the belief that other items had been bent psychokinetically.)"

Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope

 

[Disbeliever]

^ And even if that scientific "study" was acceptable (which it so obviously isn't), why then would Uri not accept Randi's challenge?

 

[CFLarsen]

Five years later Franklin publicly confessed he'd misinterpreted the test results; the fracture surfaces on the ring were easily explained.

And yet another paranormal claim goes down the drain....

Lucianarchy, did you know about this?

What do you think about it?

(He persisted in the belief that other items had been bent psychokinetically.)"

Yeah, well....it is tough to give up your beliefs....

 

[kookbreaker]

Incidently, the admission came in a letter from Franklin to The Humanist magazine. Sept/Oct, 1977

 

[CFLarsen]

Incidently, the admission came in a letter from Franklin to The Humanist magazine. Sept/Oct, 1977

More than 26 years ago? I am not surprised to see a retraction this old, yet the claim being recycled more than a quarter of a century later.

Just shows how the mind of believers work.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

 

[Disbeliever]

You'd expect as much, since nearly all of said claims posted here by Lucian are being displayed on Geller's website.

And he's not biased at all....

 

[SteveGrenard]

Its a partial retraction about one small part of the experiment. The rest stands.
Its weird why Franklin would publish a correction in a secular humanist publication now aint it? I think some more research is in order.

 

[Disbeliever]

A small refraction that easily explained the fractures.

I'd say it doesn't stand very well after that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Its a partial retraction about one small part of the experiment. The rest stands.

Frankling admits that he misinterpresed the test results. How can you possibly call the test results "a small part of the experiment"??

The experiment in itself is evidence of the phenomenon?

It would not be the first time we have seen this.

Its weird why Franklin would publish a correction in a secular humanist publication now aint it? I think some more research is in order.

What do you mean by this? Why do you cast doubt on a publication that does not believe in a divine being?

 

[T'ai Chi]

What do you mean by this? Why do you cast doubt on a publication that does not believe in a divine being?

You believe publications can believe??

 

[SteveGrenard]

quote:Originally posted by CFLarsen

What do you mean by this? Why do you cast doubt on a publication that does not believe in a divine being?



TaiChi: You believe publications can believe??


Er, yeah, publications do not believe in a divine being. I would agree with that
TC. But I think he was referring to the fact that I said the publication was a secular humanist publication. What I clearly did not say is that secular humanists are ALL atheists. They may be but there is nothing, I am told, in secular humanism that requires followers of the cult of secular humanism to be atheists. Many believe in divine beings or other deities.
What I found weird and still do is that a journal devoted to secular humanist philosophy would be the only place this scientist would decide to publish a correction or re-assesment of a metallurgical procedure.

But what I may not have mentioned, and this has nothing to do with religion, is that the cult of secular humanism is embraced by the leadership of CSICOP such as Paul Kurtz and he goes to great lengths to prosletyize their tenets. But I still do not see their relationship to debunking Uri Geller or re-assesing scientific procedures designed to provide evidence supporting Geller's claims. That's whats weird.

 

[CFLarsen]

You believe publications can believe??

...that supports a belief...

Er, yeah, publications do not believe in a divine being. I would agree with that
TC. But I think he was referring to the fact that I said the publication was a secular humanist publication. What I clearly did not say is that secular humanists are ALL atheists. They may be but there is nothing, I am told, in secular humanism that requires followers of the cult of secular humanism to be atheists. Many believe in divine beings or other deities.

What is so "cult"ish about secular humanism?

What I found weird and still do is that a journal devoted to secular humanist philosophy would be the only place this scientist would decide to publish a correction or re-assesment of a metallurgical procedure.

Surely you are jesting.

But what I may not have mentioned, and this has nothing to do with religion, is that the cult of secular humanism is embraced by the leadership of CSICOP such as Paul Kurtz and he goes to great lengths to prosletyize their tenets. But I still do not see their relationship to debunking Uri Geller or re-assesing scientific procedures designed to provide evidence supporting Geller's claims. That's whats weird.

What is not weird is your incessant desire to slam those you disagree with. You never waste an opportunity to throw in a demeaning jab at people you hate.