[0]There was a brief article [1] from Reuters on Monday that gave me a little chuckle. Debunked fraud* Uri Geller claims to have information from a high-level government source that Saddam Hussein was captured by the United States military only with aid from a psychic:
"You remember when they found Saddam Hussein in Iraq? A soldier walked over to a rock, lifted it and then found a trap-door and found him in there," Geller told Reuters.
"Well, I know that that soldier walked over to that rock because he got information from a 'remote viewer' from the United States."
Geller claims to have worked for the CIA during the Cold War. Now we do know that the CIA, and certain Generals [2], took credulity to new levels by repeatedly funding so-called 'remote viewing [3]' programs, straight through to the 1990s. And indeed Uri Geller was able to con two Stanford Research Institute researchers, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff into believing that Geller had incredible (and ain't that the right word) psychic powers. Of course, James Randi, the magician who became rather famous after proving Geller a fraud on The Tonight Show has called Targ and Puthoff the "Laurel and Hardy of psi [4]". Whether or not Geller was employed by the CIA however is simply unknowable. It's not as if we can ask the CIA, right? Official secrecy aside, would you admit to having been taken in by Geller?
Frankly, I'm as astounded as Randi that after all these years anyone still takes Geller seriously. Geller's claims as reported by the Reuters reporter are typical in that he never says anything verifiable, and he's been proven to be a fraud multiple times. Nevertheless, I'm still amused whenever I see Geller making another outrageous statement. I just wish people would stop giving him money, or at least start giving me money. Now, hold your spoon up to the monitor...
*I originally wrote 'discredited psychic' but I think that gives people like Geller too much credit, and it helps perpetuate the notion that there actually are such supernatural powers. What do you think? Is 'debunked fraud' the better term? What phrase would you use?
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14] | 
[15]