Merged Uri Geller on UK TV again

I didn't watch the documentary but by the sounds of it there wasn't a single skeptical voice raised during the course of the entire documentary. Now correct me if I'm wrong but if you're making a documentary about an individual for an impartial broadcasting corporation, surely a wikipedia search is the least one can do! Let alone quality investigation and fact checking.
 
Conveniently Uri Geller spent most of the documentary saying that his lips were sealed, or he was unable to confirm or deny any involvement in psychic spying for the military or intelligence agencies.

The funniest bit for me was when Uri produced a gold coloured stone that was handed to him by John Lennon. The stone was allegedly given to Lennon by an alien. Uri refuses to get it tested has he doesn’t want to find out that it was made in Taiwan. :)

The premise of the documentary was that Uri’s parlour tricks were a cover for more ‘top secret’ experiments and spy missions. The claims were backed by people such as Dr.Kit Green and physicist’s Hal Putoff and Russell Targ. The documentary showed archive footage recorded at Stanford Research Institute and the various double blind experiments that were done with URI in the 70s.

Conveniently there was no skeptics interviewed as part of the documentary to question the claims made in the film. :)
 
c4llum said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong but if you're making a documentary about an individual for an impartial broadcasting corporation, surely a wikipedia search is the least one can do! Let alone quality investigation and fact checking.
Click to expand...

I don't think the BBC is obligated to broadcast the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's not the way it works.

For the most part I think the BBC is a good deal, offering a wealth of TV, radio and Internet content. I am a little annoyed at being forced to pay for it, but not enough to storm Parliament brandishing an ill-conceived declaration of independence.

But then, I've been in the UK long enough now to have developed moderate levels of tutting. I'm not quite up to British levels of tuttery, of course. But I do find even modest tutting under one's breath is remarkably therapeutic.

What was the question again?
 
Ladewig said:
... My issue is with him claiming to be successful while working as a psychic spy e.g. using his special mind power to prevent WW III or using mind power to erase a computer floppy disk in a briefcase a few feet away...
Click to expand...

I noted that he was very careful not to directly claim success for any of these things. He only said that he tried to do them. For example, with erasing floppy disks, he said he sat in a nearby seat thinking 'Erase, erase', etc. When the interviewer asked him how he knew he'd been successful he said that they continued asking him to do stuff for them (I don't think he even said 'because', so it could be said he didn't actually answer the question at all).

When asked about 'secret' stuff, such as knocking out radar, he would only say what other people said about it, claiming he couldn't say himself.
 
George said:
So I'm the only one who thinks this is the BBC at it's finest? It was a setup he was made to look a proper twat from scene one and fared no better as the final credits rolled. A good clue was the background music, Was it 'Man From Uncle' or some other obvious piss take.
This was an elaborate poe, a satire. Wasn't it???
Click to expand...

People who know him as a fraud might think so, but large numbers who don't and have limited critical thinking skills are likely to find this kind of 'documentary' convincing - particularly as it's on the BBC. Does it matter? hard to say.
 
Conveniently Uri Geller spent most of the documentary saying that his lips were sealed, or he was unable to confirm or deny any involvement in psychic spying for the military or intelligence agencies.

The funniest bit for me was when Uri produced a gold coloured stone that was handed to him by John Lennon. The stone was allegedly given to Lennon by an alien. Uri refuses to get it tested has he doesn’t want to find out that it was made in Taiwan. :)

The premise of the documentary was that Uri’s parlour tricks were a cover for more ‘top secret’ experiments and spy missions. The claims were backed by people such as Dr.Kit Green and physicist’s Hal Putoff and Russell Targ. The documentary showed archive footage recorded at Stanford Research Institute and the various double blind experiments that were done with URI in the 70s.

Conveniently there was no skeptics interviewed as part of the documentary to question the claims made in the film.
 
One of the frustrating things about the show was that it is actually an interesting subject matter worthy of investigation & documentary i.e did intelligence agencies try unorthodox methods to gather information? Why they did it and what was being said behind closed doors by various officials at the time etc.

But where were the talking heads telling the viewer that once they looked into the matter more deeply they discovered no evidence for these claimed abilities? Where was the Tonight Show clip of Geller being stumped when the simplest of controls was put in place? I mean they even had some stock footage of Geller on a few American talk shows at the start of the programme. There’s no way the programme makers could not have known about the skeptical view of Geller so to present it in the way they did just beggars belief.
 
We know that both the US and the Soviets spent a lot of time and money looking into the use of paranormal spies.
Back in the seventies and early 80s, at the height of the Cold War, and also the height of nonsensical belief in such things... It's kind of surprising that they wouldn't.
After all, wouldn't it be great?

No difficult recruiting of in-place spies, no expensive surveillance equipment, no double agents... Just sit in a room and peer through all the enemy's secrets!

However, both sides abandoned these efforts after many dubious programs and declared them "unproductive". No one knows how much money was spent...
And it's so easy for con-men like Geller to say he was part of it....Secret, you know. Hell, he might well have been looked at, and since he was dealing with "intelligence" types instead of skeptics and conjurors...I imagine they were as easy to fool as were noted physicists.
 
Bikewer said:
We know that both the US and the Soviets spent a lot of time and money looking into the use of paranormal spies.
Back in the seventies and early 80s, at the height of the Cold War, and also the height of nonsensical belief in such things... It's kind of surprising that they wouldn't.
After all, wouldn't it be great?

No difficult recruiting of in-place spies, no expensive surveillance equipment, no double agents... Just sit in a room and peer through all the enemy's secrets!

However, both sides abandoned these efforts after many dubious programs and declared them "unproductive". No one knows how much money was spent...
And it's so easy for con-men like Geller to say he was part of it....Secret, you know. Hell, he might well have been looked at, and since he was dealing with "intelligence" types instead of skeptics and conjurors...I imagine they were as easy to fool as were noted physicists.
Click to expand...

I'll take your claim that during the cold war the two superpowers tried to use 'paranormal' spies on face value. But even if they did, the BBC could have at least explored that from a skeptical point of view.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The producers are Vikram Teja Jayanti (director) and Bruce Burgess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Burgess
Click to expand...

M'kay, so Burgess has followed prior form:
Burgess directed the documentary Dreamland, an alleged exposé of the secret Pentagon facility known as Area 51, that was described as an example of uncritical reporting:
"...infuriating nonsense to mark the 50th anniversary of the crash at Roswell, New Mexico. The usual suspects are rounded up to tow their party lines (Stanton Friedman, Bob Lazar, et al.) and producer/director/would be intrepid presenter Bruce Burgess does absolutely nothing to question what he's being told or even point out the idiocy of some of the arguments.
Click to expand...
 
But even if they did, the BBC could have at least explored that from a skeptical point of view.
Click to expand...
Well, it isn't actualy a BBC made show, it's from an independant.
 
Ladewig said:
My point wasn't to dismiss his claims of being paid to work as a psychic spy - I can easily believe that happened. My issue is with him claiming to be successful while working as a psychic spy e.g. using his special mind power to prevent WW III or using mind power to erase a computer floppy disk in a briefcase a few feet away. That is ********* and he is a wanker for claiming it. Or top put a finer point on it - he is a wanker for doing it during the 1980s and not doing it now to save lives.
Click to expand...


I don’t disagree with you. The problem is that we can’t distinguish between several possibilities.

(a) Geller is a con man, making it up as fast as he can. He’s a reasonably average stage (and small group) entertainer who has hit on a method of making big bucks by creating a fantasy world which may – or may not – involve “military intelligence” (an oxymoron) agencies of various nations. He has managed to convince large numbers of people that this is real. In this he is no different from the Sylvia Brownes, Colin Frys and Sally Morgans of this world. Those agencies refuse to confirm or deny this, probably because they don’t know what the hell he is dribbling on about. And anyway, confusion is good for the soul.

(b) Various “intelligence” (as above) agencies have homed in on his alleged “powers” and hyped them out of all recognition, for reasons best known to themselves – some of which may be to confuse an apparent enemy. Which may be another (hostile?) state – eg Russia – , or the military (or other) department down the corridor. (Never underestimate the vicious [I accidentally {?} wrote viscous – both words apply] interdepartmental feuding in the Civil Service of any country).

Other reasons may be [fill in your paranoid fantasy/reality of choice].

(c) Various “intelligence” (ditto) agencies actually believe that Geller has these powers and have convinced themselves that they are getting valuable information. The usual methods by which they have apply. I wouldn't discount this: ignorance knows no bounds.

(d) Geller actually does have these “powers”.

(e) None, some, and/or all of these.

In true Bayesian manner, I would not allocate a probability of zero to (d): merely a vanishingly small one.

In short, and after due deliberation, I think it was a poe - and a good one at that.

Incidentally, sorry about my grammatical and other errors in my last post. Twas late at night!
 
Last edited:
thenigotoffthebus said:
On BBC2 in the UK right now. Anyone else watching this? Seems like really bad journalism so far. Billed as "documentary exploring Uri Geller's life as a psychic spy" Its being presented in a totally uncritical manner basically giving the impression that Geller's parlour tricks were genuine psychic abilities.
Click to expand...

Prior to this show, he appeared on what I thought was a good if not sometimes quirky political programme called 'This Week'.

I sent them a message explaining my annoyance that he was allowed on this show, his aim being basically to advertise this show.

If you are able, watch the last segment on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0378xjy/This_Week_18_07_2013/ - 36:36

The man makes me so angry!

He would not even predict the final question...

Arggggg! :mad:
 
Well I've lodged a complaint about the show alleging dumbing down and uncritically promoting Geller.
 
The BBC is a shell of its former self, or at least of its former reputation. I could practically write the dismissive reply you'll get. Heard it all before. They are all that's wonderful and their critics are small-minded idiots who don't understand that.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The BBC is a shell of its former self, or at least of its former reputation. I could practically write the dismissive reply you'll get. Heard it all before. They are all that's wonderful and their critics are small-minded idiots who don't understand that.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Probably, but if no-one complains then they can claim 100% satisfaction with the programme.
 
Rolfe said:
The BBC is a shell of its former self, or at least of its former reputation. I could practically write the dismissive reply you'll get. Heard it all before. They are all that's wonderful and their critics are small-minded idiots who don't understand that.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Good call, fobbed off.......

Beeb Complaints said:
Uri Geller is a well-known and controversial figure and his claims have been documented and challenged on many occasions. This programme set out to examine a very specific aspect of Geller’s life – his apparent involvement in covert operations for various intelligence agencies over a number of years. It was never intended as a rigorous investigation into his alleged abilities, as this has been covered several times in the past.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that it didn't examine his apparent involvement, merely stated his claims and sought out supporting evidence while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
 
Beeb Complaints said:
Uri Geller is a well-known and controversial figure and his claims have been documented and challenged on many occasions. This programme set out to examine a very specific aspect of Geller’s life – his apparent involvement in covert operations for various intelligence agencies over a number of years. It was never intended as a rigorous investigation into his alleged abilities, as this has been covered several times in the past.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has. It was discovered that he doesn't have any.
As such, why make a program allowing him to promote his ridiculous fantasies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom