Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: randi.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to randi.org.

Comments · 356

  1. Geller on Carson ... by RavinDave · · Score: 1 · on Uri Geller sues Nintendo's Pokemon

    I have a distinct memory of that Johnny Carson show, but it went down a bit differently than you recall. First, you must recall that Carson was an amateur magician. Carson had contacted none other than James Randi and (together) they devised a series of demos to fairly test Geller's psychic abilities. Nothing was rigged, per se ... a real psychic would have had no trouble, but Geller fell flat on his face after each of his stock tricks failed to come off. One particular example leaps to mind: Geller was presented with a series of empty 35mm(?) film cannisters. One contained an object. Geller was supposed to identify which. Randi had taped the bottom of the cannisters to the desk, so that Geller could not "accidently" bump them during the course of his spiel. Of course, he fell flat, begged off for some anemic reason, and Carson went to a commercial. When they came back, the band was playing and Uri was clapping wildly and stomping his foot, apparently
    enjoying the music. But it was pretty obvious to everyone in the know that he was merely trying to jiggle those damn cannisters -- ! What a riot. Carson was deadpan and totally neutral to Geller's antics throughout, which made Geller look even more foolish.

  2. This is old hat for Geller by kzinti · · Score: 4 · on Uri Geller sues Nintendo's Pokemon

    Uri Geller has a long history of filing lawsuits against anyone who criticize him, debunk him, or even just incorrectly describe his past. Witness, for example, his various suits against James "Amazing" Randi, who published The Truth About Uri Geller . I don't recall all the details of Geller's suits against Randi, but you can probably find more info at randi.org. Fortunately, Randi is a bulldog who doesn't let Geller intimidate him. The long and the short of it is that Geller is a fraud and will sue anyone who dares to say so.

    --Jim

  3. James Randi, scientific method & flying reindeer by dsplat · · Score: 1 · on The Physics of Christmas

    Years ago, I read a hilarious artical by James Randi explaining the scientific method might be used to test the hypothesis that some reindeer can fly. The only thing I can't remember for sure is where I saw it. I thought I found it on hi web site, but it doesn't seem to be there now. Is there a copy online? A link to it would be quite appropriate to this discussion.

  4. Re:Explanation of The Force is A Farce by Seumas · · Score: 1 · on Episode II Rumours
    You're mystified by Yogic Flying? My ten year-old brother can 'fly' better than any student of the Maharish Yogi (a man himself claiming to fly across the room and levitate, yet never having displayed it).

    The Yogic Flying school is another shot at making a buck off the transendental rubes prone to flights-of-fancy.

    If folding your legs and hopping around a wrestling-mat like a decapitated goat is flying, then a wet-dream makes me John Holmes.

    A better place to fisit would be the James Randi Institute. He offers more than a million dollars to anyone who can prove what they claim.
    ---
    seumas.com

  5. Re:BTW, that site is off topic by braindamage.org · · Score: 1 · on First cloned human embryo revealed

    That site had nothing to do with creation or God. It had to do with people saying that they had supernatural abilities, UFOs, and such stuff as that. The topic here is that creation can be proven through science.

    That site ( randi.org) is "on topic" (or as on topic as any of this) because he applies real science (as in "the scientific method", not guys in white lab coats) to psychics other various pseudo-science. Most people have no idea what science IS. Go learn.

  6. Re:F=ma -- There is a huge difference! by braindamage.org · · Score: 1 · on First cloned human embryo revealed

    Ok, let me enlighten you. Force=mass*acceleration right? That has been taught in physics classes as truth. Why? Because it has been proven? No, it has not been proven. However, they can not disprove it and it is right in every case they have tried therefore they accept it as truth.

    F=MA can be TESTED repeatedly and used to accurately predict the future! Can this also be said of Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter? NO! This is a critical difference of faith, F=MA is more of an expectation that the universe will continue to operate as we have observed it millions of times before. Believing in Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter requires FAITH in the accuracy of some book or somebody's imagination. If I doubt the physics book I can quickly set up a little experiment here to verify that F=MA appears correct, can you do the same for Noah's arc?

    By the way, I think that F=MA may have been PROVEN slightly incorrect. (I could be wrong, I don't remember all of the ramifications of relativity). Much of Newtonian physics has been shown to be just an approximation of reality, although a very good one for people, cars, and other objects that are not traveling anywhere near the speed of light.

    You should check out the writing of James Randi at http://randi.org to help sort out the difference between science and, well, not-science.