The Truth About Uri Geller

by James Randi

  Aside from reading through the closed hunting case of a watch, this Spaniard lays claim to visually penetrating metal when in the form of a box. It is true the box must be of convenient form and unpainted. Argamasilla carries two types of boxes, one made of solid silver, represented by illustration Figure 1, the top or lid of which is hinged to the back wall and secured at front by two hinged hasps, but it will be noticed that one of these hasps is engaged by a “turn buckle,” “B,” while the other one is fitted to a projecting “staple” “C,” to accommodate a small padlock. The underside of lid “A” is provided with a flange at the two ends and along the entire length of the front edge, and this flange serves to intensify the mystery, as it apparently renders surreptitious opening, revealing a view of interior, impossible.

  The other type of box is represented by Figure 2, three walls of which are crowned with horizontal flanges in conjunction with lug strips on each end wall under flanges, constituting a runway for a sliding lid.

  The front wall is minus such flange, but, centrally situated; it has a flange lug bent at right angles and projecting upward. The sliding lid has a similar lug and both are pierced to accommodate a small padlock.

  This box is of sheet iron, or “steel,” and since the visual performance is supposed to take place as a result of penetration through the metallic lid, to demonstrate economically, the one box is made to serve the purpose with lids of copper, zinc, tin and iron.

  The watch: any hunting case watch borrowed from a spectator serves the purpose. There is no special preparation to make. It is only necessary that the hands be so shifted as to disguise the correct time and to prove the genuineness of the reading. So the Spaniard’s method of procedure is simply to ask for a hunting case watch, with a request that the setting of the hands be done optionally with the holder. While this is being done, he proceeds to blindfold his own eyes with his own handkerchief, which has been already prepared by folding, and as this lies across his left hand he adjusts two wads of cotton batting, ostensibly pads for each eye, and at once applies the bandage to his eyes and ties it at the back of his head. He is now ready to receive the watch in his right hand, face up, but case closed. He disclaims power to look through the works of a watch and, therefore, logically requires the face to be on the uppermost side. He receives the watch, holds it gingerly in a horizontal position between the index finger and thumb for a moment or two, then raises the hand, with watch between the same fingers, to such position that the watch is vertical and at a height about to his chin. After a moment he lowers the hand with a sweep, and in so doing lowers the watch to a horizontal position in the palm of his hand with the stem head resting against the ball or root thumb, and the hinge of the case against the ring and second fingers; simultaneously he exerts sufficient pressure by the ball of the thumb to spring open the case, which is covered and guarded by the flexed fingers. The watch case is opened but a trifle, perhaps one-half to three-quarters of an inch, and a quick glance is sufficient for the reading, and this made possible since the watch is held so low that a downward glance on the line of the cheeks, beneath the handkerchief, gives a perfect line of vision. This is facilitated by the cotton pads previously referred to, which when applied, rest on the brows, rather than directly over the eyes. Also “knitting the brow” and raising again, rides the handkerchief up and opens a line of vision, in which case the watch is seen with the greatest ease.

  I have seen this man place his left hand to forehead and by so doing almost imperceptibly raise the handkerchief to improve his downward line of vision.

  A glance having been gotten at the watch, and the time noted, pressure by the ball of the thumb and at the same time, the fingers, press the lid closed. By this combined movement the watch is noiselessly closed; and, this accomplished, the watch is again raised vertically before the eyes and maneuvered back and forth as though endeavoring to get to a certain focus. As the watch is raised to the last position, it is caused to lie flat on the open palm so that it may be visibly observed to be closed. This whole maneuver is so natural that suspicion is warded off and the back of the hand toward observers forms a perfect screen when the watch case is open.

  This last maneuver is simply acting, and during the time consumed by it the Spaniard snakes mental calculation for the “lapse” of time, and so, seemingly, tells the time as he sees (?) it just a moment before it is opened for comparison. For example, if the exact time is twenty-two minutes to ten at the moment be actually sees the face of the watch, he stalls by maneuvering and at the psychological moment declares the time as twenty minutes to ten and, though he might be thirty seconds out of the way, it is not of sufficient importance to note.

  A personal trial of this experiment will convince the reader of the ease with which it can be accomplished.

  I have had several sittings with Argamasilla, and at one of them I handed him a watch that was itself tricky to open. Consequently, he failed to tell the time by that watch. At another time, at the Newspaper Feature Syndicate office, 241 West 58th Street, I had the opportunity to stand at his extreme left side and from that position “I positively saw him open and close the watch.” Of course he did not know of my vantage point because of his blindfold, as I looked over his left shoulder.It is a rule with this man to stand back in a corner close to a window, for the beneficial play of light, also so that no one of the observers may get behind him, but my favorable opportunity clinched my suspicion.

  This man is a very clever manipulator, and he acts his part in such manner as to insure misdirection.

  Since witnessing his performance I have presented the watch trick and so far no one has been able to detect the movement unless knowing beforehand the trick of opening and closing the watch.

  The handling of the boxes varies considerably from that of the watch—but that too, will be made clear by accompanying illustrations.

  Giving first attention to the silver box: A printed card or small slip of paper with writing, is placed in the box, lid closed and locked with one small padlock and the second hasp secured by the turn buckle. The operator holds the closed box by a hand clinching each end and in his maneuvering, twisting and slightly swinging the box from side to side, he manages to drop the left hand and by the aid of the thumb lifts up the lid at the left corner. See Figure 3. Just before raising the lid and during manipulation he manages to release the turn buckle so the hasp slips free.

  The right hand is so placed as to expose that end of the box, at times by merely balancing the box on the finger ends. A firmer grip, when required, is obtained as shown in Figure 3. In course of maneuvering, the card is brought to a favorable position for reading by successive joltings of the box, the left end being lowered and turned away from observers. The fact that the box is opened is unobserved by them.

  The view shown in Figure 3, is as seen by the operator himself. The audience, or observers, see the back of the box and its end only as held or poised on the fingers of the right hand. The box is also held at such an angle that the observers do not get a view of the top of it.

  It should be noted that Argamasilla always chooses a position with the light behind himself, and such that observers are always “in front,” facing him. He very adroitly guards against observers being at his side or behind him.

  The box with sliding lid is handled differently, necessarily so, because of its particular form of construction. The casual observer on first examination, being unfamiliar with the mode of handling, is unprepared for a critical examination; consequently he does not notice that the metal of the lid is quite flexible and that the running grooves at the ends of the box are so free as to afford sufficient play by raising the lid—just a trifle, but “every little helps.”

  The runner flanges around three edges of the lid, and the projection lugs for attaching a padlock, would seem proof positive against the possibility of a trick, but the innocent observer has failed to note the fact that the bow, or shackle, is elongated a trifle, perpendicularly. It looks innocent enoug
h when seen in its normal position (Figure 2, A), but that innocence is soon dissipated when viewed as shown at “B”. This opening is made possible by the fact that the front edge of the lid projects a fraction of an inch beyond the front wall of the box, which affords a purchase for the left thumb without resorting to pressure on the lugs. The flexibility of metal and slight play in the runners makes the opening possible (Figure 2, B, is slightly erroneous in drawing. The horizontal edge could slant slightly downward both ways from the lug converging at the ends of box where held by the running grooves.)

  The box is held practically the same as the silver box; reading of the card is made possible by variable deflection of light rays, and by proper manipulation of angles the eye has a range of practically the full bottom of box from front to back walls, the card being kept in left-hand corner of box. By turning the box upside-down it is an easy matter to slide the card out of the box enough for reading, and even at that it can be obscured from observation by the onlooker by the angularity in position of holding the box.

  Figure 4 represents a Park & Tilford Nut and Fruit box made of tin; its lid has vertical flanges to fit into the box on all but the hinge side, and inBy successive joltings of the box, the card is sometimes brought to a vertical position against the back of the box (Figure 7).

  In lieu of a lock, the lid is held in place by an elastic band. This box is covered on all sides with colors from black to gold, the mass of color being black. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the ban Argamasilla puts on painted metal, he did accept this box for a test, and safely so, because a casual examination shows the lid securely hinged, but the means of holding the lid closed is so “elastic” that the manipulation made necessary became identical with that for the silver box. However, Argamasilla took precautions to turn the box upside-down to facilitate reading, as shown in Figure 5. Under these conditions the possibility of reading is made perfectly clear by Figure 6 and by Figure 7, which represent the silver box minus trimmings (Drawing slightly exaggerated as to distance opened.)

  Figures 8 and 9 are boxes made of tin, unpainted, for testing Argamasilla’s power for reading through metal. The square box was wired with two strands of copper wire soldered to the bottom of the box and twisted on top. The round box was simply bolted shut by a clamp bolt passing through the vertical axis of the box, soldered on the underside of the bottom, and the lid locked in place by a thumb nut. Insomuch as there was no possible flexibility to the lid of either box, Argamasilla failed by refusal to make a test in both instances, as undoubtedly he would have done with all the other boxes, if subterfuges and trick appliances had not been resorted to.

  So said Houdini more than fifty years ago concerning one of the “phenomena” of his day. Now, I am not saying—nor should the reader infer—that Geller is using a box of his own design or construction, nor that he uses the same routine as described above. But a bit of research has shown me that any metal file-box I can purchase is capable of being used in much the same way. Study the illustrations (Figure 10) and you will see that, held in a similar manner, a regular card box can be levered open easily with one thumb and that a glance at the far corner of the box will reveal the uppermost face of the die. Figure 11 is taken from very close to the box, peeking through the small crack; this is a position that Geller could have easily attained if he could have handled the box at all—such as to shake it. But we are told in the “SRI Report” that the box was shaken “by one of the experimenters.” We assume that Geller was not, then, allowed to touch the box. Any reasonable procedure would require this simple precaution, would it not?

  So, to prove the possibility that Geller was able to do the old Argamasilla “peeking-into-the-metal-box” trick we need an indication that Geller was allowed to handle the box. Let’s look back into the description again.

  We have been told that “one of the experimenters” shook the box to tumble the die. Is it reasonable to assume that if Targ or Puthoff shook the box, the face uppermost would be unknown to Uri? Of course! Then additional shaking by Uri could not in any way affect the outcome, especially if he declared that he had to hold it to “feel for it,” since we recognize that these “sensitive” persons must be allowed to develop certain liaison between the hardware and their super-senses.

  Martin Gardner, a writer for Scientific American, and I, cogitating upon this matter for some time, and being unable to get a straight answer from the experimenters, decided that they would easily accept Uri’s shaking the box at some point or other. And further inquiry directed at “Skip” Wilhelm, former Time magazine correspondent, verified that he was told by Targ and Puthoff that Uri had been allowed to shake up the die after one of them had done so! But why did they report that he “was not allowed to touch the box”? The reason is not hard to find, and it depends upon a semantic judgment.

  Consider the “key-bending” trick Uri does so often. Since I have been doing it too, as part of my “in person” routine, I have verified that people seeing the trick can easily be talked into declaring that it bent “while it was in my own hand!” Many times I’ve done the trick and heard the witness turn to a friend and say, “He bent it without even touching it!”—and mean this sincerely. And, taken generally, their statement is not a lie. It is merely incorrect. In the same way, the experimenters’ claim that Uri “never touched it” can be translated into, “Uri never touched it in such away that he could have seen inside, to the best of our judgment.” For I assure you, I cannot bend a key while you hold it, though I sure as hell can give the impression that I’ve done just that; so can Uri. So the spectator’s statement to the key trick is not a lie; it is merely insufficient.

  Is this the way that Uri did it in the eight-in-a-row success with the die in the box? We will probably never know. For their own reasons, SRI is not answering any questions on the subject. But bring into consideration this additional fact: We are not told whether, as is quite possible, Targ was the one who so carefully monitored Geller during the test. If this is so, we must consider the fact that Targ is extremely nearsighted and wears very heavy glasses. Therefore, under those circumstances, Geller could easily have gotten away with a quick peek inside.

  FIGURE 10. A metal file-box, such as Geller used in the SRI tests, can easily be opened momentarily, just enough to peek at the die, as Argamasilla did to fool the experts in Houdini’s day. Photograph courtesy of Dennis Medina.

  FIGURE 11. Close-up of the box as seen a few inches from the eye. It would be so held if placed against the forehead “to aid in concentration.” Photograph courtesy of Dennis Medina.

  Consider this: Very simple precautions would have sufficed to make this test into a truly scientific one. First, use a metal box with a lock on it. Second, do not allow Geller to touch, handle, move, shake, or in any way come in contact with the box. They insist upon having a positively declared, written guess of the uppermost face of the die made and witnessed before the lock is undone and the die seen.

  And therein lies another interesting point. Just how did Geller “call” the face of the die? Three different versions exist. In one, we are told that he “announced” the guess. In another, he “drew the face of the die”; and in still another, he “wrote down” the guess. Just how did he do it? Or does anyone know? Or remember? Or care?

  The evidence for Geller’s success at the “die-guessing” trick is just so sketchy, so contradictory, and so badly reported that no conclusion can be arrived at other than that the experiment was no experiment at all, but the usual do-it-my-way Geller demonstration of chicanery.

  And finally, as if there were not enough doubts about the procedure used to conduct this “test,” Time’s Wilhelm has reported that the set of tries with the die actually consisted of many hundreds of throws, the object being to get a run of consecutive wins. Doesn’t it appear that Geller would be apt to get onto the protocol used in the test by this time? He was well experienced by the time he was able to start on his “miracle run. ”Though we have far more striking simila
rities to make between Geller and other long-gone deceivers of the past in subsequent pages, the parallel between the Spanish Peeker and the Israeli Wonder makes interesting food for further thought.

  THE OLD BROKEN-WATCH TRICK REVEALED

  If you are desirous of obtaining a great name, of becoming the founder of a sect or establishment, be completely mad; but be sure that your madness corresponds with the turn and temper of the age. Have in your madness reason enough to guide your extravagances; do not forget to be excessively opinionated and obstinate. It is certainly possible you may get hanged; but if you escape you will have altars erected to you.

  —Voltaire

  On the evening of Friday, May 16, 1975,1 found the perfect opportunity for testing a theory that I had held for some time concerning the “wonders” that Geller had obtained by remote control via radio and television broadcasts. Radio station WMCA, in New York City, far from being inactive after midnight, features six hours of the Long John Nebel/Candy Jones Show. John has been a close friend of mine for many years, and I cannot count the number of hours we have faced each other across microphones. I spoke with him about an experiment, and he agreed to cooperate.