ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 59,205
- Location
- Eblana
He's been here 35 years. I wonder what's brought this on?
Maybe hes just retiring to Israel.
He's been here 35 years. I wonder what's brought this on?
Maybe he's starting to run out of money.Maybe hes just retiring to Israel.
Speaking at the launch on Monday, Mr Geller said: “I bought this sculpture to remind people Uri Geller used to walk along this path....I hear Taylor Swift wants to buy my house, where is she?”
Uri's parting gift to the UK is one of the ugliest sculptures I've ever seen. Also it doesn't have planning permission. I see Uri hasn't lost his habit of talking about himself in the third person or his habit of dropping celebrity names:
I doubt Uri's short of a bob or two. Judging by his website he's still busy enough. He's even got some kind of TV show in which he wanders around the world looking for the next Uri Geller. Personally I can't get annoyed about the guy - he's just too entertaining!
Geller had originally planned to transport the statue home in a net attached to a helicopter, in true King Kong style, but due to safety concerns, this will no longer be permitted.
At first I thought that sculpture looked vaguely ovarian, which was puzzling, but then I realized it might represent a bent spoon. Sort of. Still hard on the eyes though.
OK, I'm waiting... *takes big breath and holds it*Geller said that he became convinced of the existence of the lost treasure during his one and only visit to the island in 2010, in which he paced the 100-yard-long island with dowsing rods. ...
More attention seeking guff from Geller.
Uri Geller Plans to Excavate the Ancient "Egyptian" Treasure of Fictitious Princess Scota on a Scottish Island He Owns ...
A lot depends, weirdly enough, on the mating habits of seabirds and whether Geller might disturb them.
- he makes stuff up all the time.All of which overlooks the pesky facts that:
Point of information from the blog post:-
A lot depends, weirdly enough, on the mating habits of seabirds and whether Geller might disturb them.
Nothing weird about that. Trampling over and digging up nesting birds is not cool. Or allowed.
I wonder at what point in a charlatan's life they wake up with the revelation that half of the population is under average intelligence and then smacking a fist into an open palm say to themselves "Boy I'm going to rip those bastards off!"
Interesting you should say that. Away for the weekend a few months ago, I bought a daft magazine to read in the tent. "Spirit and Destiny" or similar. There was an article in it headlined to the effect that Geller was employed by some governments agency (CIA I think) to psychically spy for them. I think this was even on the cover. Now at this point I am forced to admit I bought the magazine again the following month. Inside I spotted a teeny tiny paragraph that this claim had been made in "error". Hmm, whose error I wonder? And how far did that headline spread to people who will never see the retraction?An initial widely-splashed claim of intended action gets you far more publicity than the eventual news tidbit announcing you won't be doing it - especially if the intention is thwarted by a third party so as to absolve you of all blame.
Geller could well be banking on this ...
He's actually a very good charlatan. And likeable too.I wonder at what point in a charlatan's life they wake up with the revelation that half of the population is under average intelligence and then smacking a fist into an open palm say to themselves "Boy I'm going to rip those bastards off!"
The film appears to be on YouTube, but I don't know if I should link to it or not.Interesting, one of Ken Russell's final projects was a movie puff piece based on Geller called Bender - sorry, Mindbender which I've never seen but is meant to be stupendously ridiculous. This doc sounds slightly more sensible.
The film appears to be on YouTube, but I don't know if I should link to it or not.
... There was an article in it headlined to the effect that Geller was employed by some governments agency (CIA I think) to psychically spy for them. I think this was even on the cover. Now at this point I am forced to admit I bought the magazine again the following month. Inside I spotted a teeny tiny paragraph that this claim had been made in "error". Hmm, whose error I wonder? And how far did that headline spread to people who will never see the retraction?