"Lovci na poltergeiste", ki jih navajaš, so de facto šarlatani. Znanstveniki, ki jih navaja Geller, so bodisi naivneži, bodisi slabi eksperimentatorji. Še enkrat samo zate, zeleni spranec:nitsnls napisal/-a:Motore, do your homework.
Ti veš koliko znanstvenikov je omenjenih v tem poročilu in njih boš ti imenoval za šarlatane
Critics of this testing include psychologists Dr. David Marks and Dr. Richard Kammann, who published a description of how Geller could have cheated in an informal test of his so-called psychic powers in 1977.Their 1978 article in Nature and 1980 book The Psychology of the Psychic (2nd ed. 2000) described how a normal explanation was possible for Geller's alleged powers of telepathy. Marks and Kammann found evidence that while at SRI Geller was allowed to peek through a hole in the laboratory wall separating Geller from the drawings he was being invited to reproduce. The drawings he was asked to reproduce were placed on a wall opposite the peep hole which the investigators Targ and Puthoff had stuffed with cotton gauze. In addition to this error, the investigators had also allowed Geller access to a two-way intercom enabling Geller to listen to the investigators' conversation during the time when they were choosing and/or displaying the target drawings. These basic errors indicate the high importance of ensuring that psychologists, magicians or other people with an in-depth knowledge of perception, who are trained in methods for blocking sensory cues, be present during the testing of psychics.
Geller is notoriously litigious [tipično za šarlatana], and has on many occasions attempted to use this study (considered flawed at best by experts on magic and pathological science) as a cudgel in court against his opponents, particularly against Randi.[4] Despite this, Geller typically loses in court battles
