If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   We can pretty much all agree on Harry Houdini being a badass, but how badass was he?   (cracked.com) divider line 48
    More: Cool, Harry Houdini, sea monsters, badass, average wage, Christian Bale, stuntman, Boston Harbor  
•       •       •

8963 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Feb 2013 at 4:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-03 12:48:52 PM
Wow. Never thought "arsonist" would be on that list. Wild times back then.
 
2013-02-03 01:06:06 PM
Love the caption on the last pic.
 
2013-02-03 01:07:08 PM
Harry Houdini once shot a man for snoring too loud...after porking Mrs. Houdini...
 
2013-02-03 02:53:31 PM
Houdini was the first person to pilot an airplane across Australia.
 
2013-02-03 04:01:31 PM
Houdini was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris

/Chuck Norris
 
2013-02-03 04:21:34 PM
houdini sucked dick before it was gay to do so
 
2013-02-03 04:39:49 PM
I know it's only a list of three, but it still fails when it doesn't mention his work kicking the asses of mediums and similar frauds.  Dude got pissed about them after his mother died.
 
2013-02-03 04:43:26 PM
He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic
 
2013-02-03 04:50:01 PM
Badass?  Didn't he die from a punch to the stomach?
 
2013-02-03 04:51:36 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: houdini sucked dick before it was gay to do so


According to your father?
 
2013-02-03 04:57:13 PM

Last Man on Earth: I know it's only a list of three, but it still fails when it doesn't mention his work kicking the asses of mediums and similar frauds.  Dude got pissed about them after his mother died.


Supposedly true story. The wife if Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to prove to Houdini that she was a gifted medium and could summon the summon the spirit of his dead mother. For the sake of his friendship with Arthur, he indulged her and participated in a seance. It lasted until Mrs Doyle stated channeling dead Momma Houdini, speaking to him from beyond the grave. Houdini angrily announced that his German mother didn't speak a word of English and stormed out.
 
2013-02-03 05:05:02 PM

RoyHobbs22: Badass?  Didn't he die from a punch to the stomach?


yes...professional boxers have died from hits to the abdomen.
 
2013-02-03 05:13:32 PM

ajgeek: Wow. Never thought "arsonist" would be on that list. Wild times back then.


Pretty much makes Criss Angel and David Blaine seem positively farking pedestrian, huh?
 
2013-02-03 05:23:49 PM
Bit of a cheapshot at Ryan Dunn at the end, but he sorta deserves it, the drunk driving fark
 
2013-02-03 05:31:01 PM
He was badass enough for Harry Dresden to be named after him.

And that is badass <i>enough</i>.
 
2013-02-03 05:32:15 PM
stupid fancy-pants new post editing window not accepting html... *grumble*
 
2013-02-03 05:37:45 PM
Pffft.I once saw David Copperfield pull Siegfried outta Roy.
 
2013-02-03 05:46:18 PM
wasn't her one of the first people to fly a plane in Australia without falling out?
 
2013-02-03 05:48:12 PM
I'm not sure I'd call suckling at your moms tit into your and adolescence "badass"

/oh, you meant the tricks? yeah, they were cool
 
2013-02-03 05:53:26 PM

RoyHobbs22: Badass?  Didn't he die from a punch to the stomach?


Most people with an inflamed appendix just double over and go to the hospital.  He went to a fan and said, "Sure, hit it, its cool."
 
2013-02-03 06:16:04 PM
because as we all know, the very best magic involves jail and male nudity

LOL.
 
2013-02-03 06:25:25 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Houdini was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris

/Chuck Norris


Chuck Norris is a conservative, bible-beating fundamentalist Christian and is not worthy of any of the badassery of that stupid farking meme.
 
2013-02-03 06:27:19 PM

propasaurus: Houdini was the first person to pilot an airplane across Australia.


No he was not.  He flew the first controlled plane in Australia.  In 1910.

Charles Kingsford Smith was the first to fly trans Australia, trans Tasman and trans Pacific.  He was also the first to fly from Sydney to London.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-03 06:33:29 PM
He was also a spy. He gathered intel on Germany while on tour there before WWI.
 
2013-02-03 07:16:24 PM

Jumpin Jbot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Houdini was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris

/Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is a conservative, bible-beating fundamentalist Christian and is not worthy of any of the badassery of that stupid farking meme.


I hope that whole "roundhouse to the face" thing works out for you.
 
2013-02-03 07:27:57 PM

Revenge of the Muttonstache: Jumpin Jbot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Houdini was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris

/Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is a conservative, bible-beating fundamentalist Christian and is not worthy of any of the badassery of that stupid farking meme.

I hope that whole "roundhouse to the face" thing works out for you.


I ain't worried about a "roundhouse to the face" from a 72 year old Chuck Norris.
 
2013-02-03 08:01:08 PM

propasaurus: Revenge of the Muttonstache: Jumpin Jbot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Houdini was Chuck Norris before Chuck Norris was Chuck Norris

/Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is a conservative, bible-beating fundamentalist Christian and is not worthy of any of the badassery of that stupid farking meme.

I hope that whole "roundhouse to the face" thing works out for you.

I ain't worried about a "roundhouse to the face" from a 72 year old Chuck Norris.


More like a PORTERHOUSE amirite?

Im sorry.  That was not funny.  I've been drinking Jager all night and the cheese thread made me think of food.
 
2013-02-03 08:54:04 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: houdini sucked dick before it was gay to do so


Yet another thing Hitler ruined for the rest of us.
 
2013-02-03 08:58:32 PM
I actually respect the fact that he took his work seriously enough to assault imitators.

No one has that kind of ethic anymore.
 
2013-02-03 09:14:58 PM
Rosabel, believe. Biatch.
 
2013-02-03 10:11:26 PM

Last Man on Earth: I know it's only a list of three, but it still fails when it doesn't mention his work kicking the asses of mediums and similar frauds.  Dude got pissed about them after his mother died.


He apparently left a code word with his wife before he died so that if any mediums (media) claimed to contact him, she could prove they were frauds.
 
2013-02-03 10:31:01 PM

Deadwing: Last Man on Earth: I know it's only a list of three, but it still fails when it doesn't mention his work kicking the asses of mediums and similar frauds.  Dude got pissed about them after his mother died.

He apparently left a code word with his wife before he died so that if any mediums (media) claimed to contact him, she could prove they were frauds.


Ditto.
 
2013-02-03 10:45:36 PM

kg2095: Deadwing: Last Man on Earth: I know it's only a list of three, but it still fails when it doesn't mention his work kicking the asses of mediums and similar frauds.  Dude got pissed about them after his mother died.

He apparently left a code word with his wife before he died so that if any mediums (media) claimed to contact him, she could prove they were frauds.

Ditto.


blogs.centrictv.com

Sees what you did there.
 
2013-02-04 01:30:41 AM

TimeCubeFan: He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic


The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist. You have to be open-minded as a scientist, but also accept the facts as they stand.

His handling of Gary Schwartz' Afterlife Experiments seemed to showcase this pretty well, and that whole "$1 Million Challenge" was just f'king stupid. Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of cold reader frauds out there, but the (potentially) real mediums deserve some further experimentation and study. You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.
 
2013-02-04 02:35:25 AM

blue_2501: TimeCubeFan: He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic

The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist. You have to be open-minded as a scientist, but also accept the facts as they stand.

His handling of Gary Schwartz' Afterlife Experiments seemed to showcase this pretty well, and that whole "$1 Million Challenge" was just f'king stupid. Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of cold reader frauds out there, but the (potentially) real mediums deserve some further experimentation and study. You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.


Butthurt much, cultist?
 
2013-02-04 03:13:16 AM

blue_2501: An atheist BELIEVES


...and you've lost all credibility.
 
2013-02-04 06:01:22 AM

blue_2501: but the (potentially) real mediums


The mediums aren't the ones communicating with the dead. It's actually aliens, who have analyzed the DNA from outerspace and then communicate this to the mediums. The aliens get a kickback and also get nude pictures of the mediums' daughters. It's hardly a commendable industry.
 
2013-02-04 09:04:38 AM

RoyHobbs22: Badass?  Didn't he die from a punch to the stomach?


from what i remember, he allowed people to punch him in the stomach (you can see in the pics that he was actually pretty jacked).  The problem was that the guy punched him in the stomach before he was ready and ruptured his spleen or something.  Big difference between being punched in the stomach when your muscles are flexed and when they are not.
 
2013-02-04 09:30:37 AM
blue_2501:  An atheist BELIEVES KNOWS that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist.

FTFY
 
2013-02-04 10:24:28 AM

blue_2501: TimeCubeFan: He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic

The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist. You have to be open-minded as a scientist, but also accept the facts as they stand.

His handling of Gary Schwartz' Afterlife Experiments seemed to showcase this pretty well, and that whole "$1 Million Challenge" was just f'king stupid. Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of cold reader frauds out there, but the (potentially) real mediums deserve some further experimentation and study. You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.


No, it's not very astounding because there are ways to pull the trick during the time no one is looking. And it is a trick, because it is what whores do for money.
 
2013-02-04 10:24:57 AM
How bad ass is Harry Houdini? He debunked Ghost finders/whisperers/searchers and ghost talkers (i.e. cold readers) like John Grey before they were even born.
 
2013-02-04 10:26:32 AM

blue_2501: TimeCubeFan: He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic

The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist. You have to be open-minded as a scientist, but also accept the facts as they stand.

His handling of Gary Schwartz' Afterlife Experiments seemed to showcase this pretty well, and that whole "$1 Million Challenge" was just f'king stupid. Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of cold reader frauds out there, but the (potentially) real mediums deserve some further experimentation and study. You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.


You realize that the psychic and the JREF work together on designing the experiment.  It's not the JREF saying 'this is the only proof we'll accept'.  The experiment is designed around what the medium claims to be his/her gift.  Each test is individually designed.  The do have some standard test they use for standard claims like dowsing.

The psychic agrees to the experiment before they begin.
 
2013-02-04 10:42:17 AM

rdalton: blue_2501: TimeCubeFan: He was the original James Randi, and I am a fan of both.

/skeptic

The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist. You have to be open-minded as a scientist, but also accept the facts as they stand.

His handling of Gary Schwartz' Afterlife Experiments seemed to showcase this pretty well, and that whole "$1 Million Challenge" was just f'king stupid. Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of cold reader frauds out there, but the (potentially) real mediums deserve some further experimentation and study. You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.

You realize that the psychic and the JREF work together on designing the experiment.  It's not the JREF saying 'this is the only proof we'll accept'.  The experiment is designed around what the medium claims to be his/her gift.  Each test is individually designed.  The do have some standard test they use for standard claims like dowsing.

The psychic agrees to the experiment before they begin.


The usual bs I hear is that there are dozens of "true" psychics, you've never heard of them but they won't accept such conditions.... Like schmendrick the magician they just say "magic do as you will" and it works every time... Except when naysayers are around harshing the good waves.
 
2013-02-04 11:17:38 AM

stridergold: blue_2501:  An atheist BELIEVES KNOWS that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist.

FTFY


Probably a side conversation, but how can you KNOW no gods exist without evidence?  It's just as looney as "knowing" gods do exist.  Even if you bring together all of the knowledge of mankind down on the existence of the natural universe without gods, then the possibly of god just hides in the gaps of our knowledge.  For example, humans understand the nature of space, so god is no longer in the sky (as we previously believed).  The idea of a creator can jump from shadow to shadow as we "shine the light of science" to the nature of the universe, but you cannot PROVE that god doesn't exist.  Thus, you cannot KNOW that god doesn't exist.  The only thing you can know is that god doesn't exist in the areas of science we have thoroughly explored.

Fano: No, it's not very astounding because there are ways to pull the trick during the time no one is looking. And it is a trick, because it is what whores do for money.


Like how?  I understand how cold and hot reading goes, but how would you pull this one off?  Hell, all of the cold readers Gary approached said "WTF?  I can't possibly do that." when he showed them videos of the mediums doing their work in pre-experiments.
 
2013-02-04 11:38:34 AM

rdalton: You realize that the psychic and the JREF work together on designing the experiment.  It's not the JREF saying 'this is the only proof we'll accept'.  The experiment is designed around what the medium claims to be his/her gift.  Each test is individually designed.  The do have some standard test they use for standard claims like dowsing.

The psychic agrees to the experiment before they begin.


Yeah, and I have a $1 million dollar bridge to sell you.  The money end of the deal exposes the bias.  Already JREF has a vested interest in NOT rewarding $1 Million dollars to the psychic who "wins".  Science is not about winning or losing or prize rewards.

Hell, calling yourself a "skeptic" and not a "scientist" exposes the bias.  It's like pretending a pessimist is actually a realist.  The work needs more research and experiments, but not under that level of bias.
 
2013-02-04 11:39:54 AM

blue_2501: stridergold: blue_2501:  An atheist BELIEVES KNOWS that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist.

FTFY

Probably a side conversation, but how can you KNOW no gods exist without evidence?  It's just as looney as "knowing" gods do exist.  Even if you bring together all of the knowledge of mankind down on the existence of the natural universe without gods, then the possibly of god just hides in the gaps of our knowledge.  For example, humans understand the nature of space, so god is no longer in the sky (as we previously believed).  The idea of a creator can jump from shadow to shadow as we "shine the light of science" to the nature of the universe, but you cannot PROVE that god doesn't exist.  Thus, you cannot KNOW that god doesn't exist.  The only thing you can know is that god doesn't exist in the areas of science we have thoroughly explored.

Fano: No, it's not very astounding because there are ways to pull the trick during the time no one is looking. And it is a trick, because it is what whores do for money.

Like how?  I understand how cold and hot reading goes, but how would you pull this one off?  Hell, all of the cold readers Gary approached said "WTF?  I can't possibly do that." when he showed them videos of the mediums doing their work in pre-experiments.


If there is any time they are unobserved, that's where the magic happens. That's why Randi's approach is to start from the principle of "it's a trick." Fictional example: Columbo episode with the Uri Gellar stand in. Clever solution. But if you don't have an agreed on playing field there is no way to discern what the trick may be.
 
2013-02-04 01:42:12 PM

blue_2501: rdalton: You realize that the psychic and the JREF work together on designing the experiment.  It's not the JREF saying 'this is the only proof we'll accept'.  The experiment is designed around what the medium claims to be his/her gift.  Each test is individually designed.  The do have some standard test they use for standard claims like dowsing.

The psychic agrees to the experiment before they begin.

Yeah, and I have a $1 million dollar bridge to sell you.  The money end of the deal exposes the bias.  Already JREF has a vested interest in NOT rewarding $1 Million dollars to the psychic who "wins".  Science is not about winning or losing or prize rewards.

Hell, calling yourself a "skeptic" and not a "scientist" exposes the bias.  It's like pretending a pessimist is actually a realist.  The work needs more research and experiments, but not under that level of bias.


Wow.  Several things.......
1)  The million dollars is an insurance stype policy.  They pay a flat rate per year for the money to be available.  It doesn't matter to Randi if it gets awarded.
2)  The money is offered to pay psychics for their time.  Since many psychics seem to charge a lot of money, the prize has to be high enough to get them to participate.  (You know, kind of like DARPA does)
3)  Science may not be about winning or losing but research sure is.
4)  A skeptic and a scientist are different 'job descriptions'.  A scientist is working to gain/prove/develop new knowledge.   A skeptic tries to filter out bad assumptions and invalid proof.  Think of the difference between an author and an editor.
5)  If a psychic cared about science, they would enter and win the million so scientists could start research on an apparently unknown branch of knowledge.  This would be of great benefit to mankind.  By arranging a mutually acceptable and fair test of their abilities, they could advance humankind.   Why are psychics and spiritualists so selfish they won't help humanity?!?
 
2013-02-04 03:29:49 PM

blue_2501: The problem with James Randi is that he's as fanatical that he's right about everything as some of the people he tries to de-fraud. It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't believe in anything either way. An atheist BELIEVES that no gods exist, just as strongly as a theist believes that a god does exist.


Four sentences, three completely false statements.

blue_2501: Nobody is going to willingly walk into a biased trap like that.


Yes, a controlled environment using reputable experimental methodologies <i>would</i> be a trap for a psychic.

blue_2501: You can't tell me that multiple mediums giving out exceptional details for ten minutes in a double-blind experiment before the medium even hears anything about/from the person isn't an astounding set of data that deserves more attention.


If only to demonstrate how invalid their experimental methodology was. It's always valuable to critique experiments which are obviously bad on their face.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report