The Truth About Uri Geller

by James Randi

  12. CLAIMANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT HE/SHE DOES not POSSESS THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWERS. This will be a major consideration in accepting or rejecting claimants.

  Signed

  James Randi

  NOTARIZED:

  State of New Jersey

  Jane V. N. Conger

  County of Monmouth

  Signed before me this 18th of June, 1981

  And Geller has made no move to accept: Berglas in England is offering £5,000 for the same kind of proof, and has heard nothing. As of this writing,

  Geller has taken to performing “readings” for individuals for a fee of $200! Yet he has fortunes awaiting him if he will only submit to controlled tests with conjurors monitoring them!

  Uri, I assure you that not all the world consists of fools. I know that you and Shipi must giggle yourselves silly when you think of how easily those scientists and media people have been fooled by the simple rules you learned so well. But the vast majority of scientists, and now more and more of the media and the public, are becoming aware that the psychic superstar is depending increasingly on wild claims and hyperbole. The supporters are dropping off your slowing bandwagon. If you have read this book carefully, you’ll see that I have demonstrated: {a) that Geller’s supposed metal-bending abilities are merely tricks accomplished by sleight of hand, (b) that his claims of having been tested under rigorous scientific conditions are so much hot air, (c) that Geller’s “telepathic” abilities are demonstrated by tired old conjuring dodges that have been used for a century and which depend upon very loose control for their success, (d) that he has chosen to be tested by men of science who have already declared themselves believers in paranormal nonsense, (e) that he has made wild claims of wondrous accomplishments that never took place, if) that he has been charged through the courts, and a settlement was made,3 (g) that media of all kinds have consistently refused—with a few notable exceptions—to publish negative accounts of his work, believing that their consumers prefer to have fanciful myths to believe in, rather than the facts, (h) that members of the conjuring profession themselves have, on the whole, preferred to remain silent and allow Geller to perpetuate his wild claims, in spite of their obligation to give an accurate analysis to their public, (i) that leading scientists who have not been fooled by the Gellerites have chosen to maintain a “no-comment” attitude, believing themselves to be far above such carnival affairs, while other, lesser lights of science have taken full advantage of this silence to declare idiocies in the name of science, and (J) that Uri Geller has perpetrated a massive fraud in denying his background as a magician and in pretending divine and supernatural powers, when he is in fact performing simple and rather trivial tricks.

  Geller has announced that he will try to bring back the special lunar camera that Edgar Mitchell left on the moon—at an extravaganza to be held at the Houston Astrodome. I can’t wait. Meanwhile, back at the Stanford Research Institute, they report that the original drawings Geller made during their “cheat-proof’ tests are not now available. When a British television producer asked to see them, it was announced that they were “misplaced”! Dematerialized by a flying saucer, perhaps? Shades of Watergate—again!

  As Roger Rapoport wrote in Cosmopolitan, in June 1974: “. . . in an age when rock stars can barely carry a tune, when whores can become best-selling authors and movie actors get elected to national office, it seems only reasonable that an Israeli spoon-bender with one eye on Spectra and the other on the box office can make it as a psychic folk hero in this terrestrial world.” Yet columns in conjurors’ publications like Genii, Magick, and The Linking Ring continue even now to rail against such authors as this one who try to bring sanity to a public that deserves to know the truth. I have tried in this volume to do just that, and will defend my stand even if every conjuror in the business stands against me; I trust that this will not be the case.

  Uri Geller has said, to Stefan Kanfer of Time magazine; . . . Randi is jealous of me because I’m young and good-looking, and have nice wavy hair!” Well, I’m no longer as young as I’d prefer to be, and most of the hair has departed during the years, that’s true.

  But I sleep well, Uri.

  Stand now with thine enchantments, with the multitudes of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast labored from thy youth—Isaiah 47:12

  1 See the Appendix, letter from the Department of Defense.

  2 The Israeli psychologist and Geller’s former manager, respectively, who had commented upon Shipi’s signaling code.

  3 The plaintiff in this case had charged that Geller was doing tricks rather than performing paranormal feats, and the judge awarded the plaintiff the price he had paid for admission to Geller’s show. For purposes of clarity, here is the complete text of the July 1971 article as it appeared in the Jerusalem Post:

  LEGERDEMAIN RULED BREACH OF CONTRACT

  Beersheba—The Magistrate’s Court here yesterday upheld charges that Uri Geller, the self- proclaimed telepathist, was guilty of breach of contract in that he promised to perform feats of telepathy, parapsychology, hypnotism and telekinesis, while in fact he merely employed sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.

  Geller was ordered to foot court costs of £20 and to repay the plaintiff—Uri Goldstein, a mechanical engineering student at the University of the Negev—the £7.50 Goldstein had paid for a ticket to one of Geller’s performances.

  The court ruled with the plaintiff that Geller’s performance—in contrast to his advertised promises—constituted a breach of contract defined by the purchase of a ticket to the performance.

  OBJECTIONS TO THIS BOOK

  Shortly after The Magic of Uri Geller was released in 1975, the parapsychology journal Psychoenergetic Systems published a lengthy attempt at rebuttal by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of what they considered to be the major errors I had committed.

  Upon publication of this Targ and Puthoff blast, I immediately prepared a response. It was submitted to Fate magazine and to Psychoenergetic Systems—now defunct—but was refused. It never saw print.

  Following are the 24 points I make in this book that Targ and Puthoff contended and the “facts” as they see them, together with my comments, which have heretofore been denied publication.

  (1) Foreword by Jaroff (p. 15): Geller convinced executives and researchers at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). . . that he could (among other things) distort solid metallic objects.

  Fact: SRI’s position on Geller’s putative metal-bending ability is clearly stated in the researcher’s Nature publication: “It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis.” (Nature 252, No. 5476, pp. 602-607, October 18, 1974)

  My Response: Leon Jaroff penned that comment, not I. However, both he and I had good reason to believe that T and P were referring to metal-bending in their glowing December 1972 letter to Scientific American magazine. They had already told Professor Ray Hyman, sent by the Department of Defense to SRI to evaluate T and P’s claims about Geller and others, that Geller could bend metal paranormally without touching it. However, in denying that their comment to Scientific American referred to Geller, T and P get in even deeper trouble. They have revealed to us that they were writing about the infamous Magnetometer Experiment with Ingo Swann! This was probably the most messed-up pseudo-experiment that they ever did—incorrectly reported, badly run, loosely (if at all) controlled, and a general catastrophe. The fact that these scientists eventually reversed their opinions of Geller’s ability to bend metal—by any “psychic” means—does not excuse their wild claims about the “extraordinary” powers they said they had “carefully verified and well documented” from their “highly gifted subjects.”

  (2) Randi (p. 22): Few of the Geller experiments, esp
ecially the famous tests at SRI in which Geller performed apparent miracles of ESP, include in their reports the fact that one Shipi Shtrang, once claimed by Geller as his cousin and his brother, was present.

  Fact: During the SRI experimentation, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area, a pre-condition for experimentation adopted on the basis of advice by project consulting magicians.

  My response: I stand by that statement. No reports mentioned Shtrang. It matters little whether he was “in the target area.” I never said that he was! He was still there, and able to assist Geller. Verbal soft-shoe will not work.

  (3) Randi (p. 23): But scientists are loath to consult magicians.

  Fact: At SRI one of the two responsible investigators is an amateur magician with over twenty years experience, a Bay Area magician who specializes in exposing fraudulent poltergeist cases is a continuing consultant from the beginning of the project, and Milbourne Christopher, a world-renowned magician and critic of psychic phenomena, was brought in to critique video tape and film of the Geller work, and to suggest protocols for further experimentation.

  My response: (a) Arthur Hastings, the part-time magician referred to but not named here, told me that he gave T and P some rules to follow. They ignored them, and Geller insisted that Hastings not be allowed to witness the experiments. (b) Christopher, far from being asked to witness the tests, saw only selected film and tape at SRI months after Geller had left He has said that there was not enough detail in the record for him to tell anything about how the tricks might have been done. Certainly none of his suggestions were later followed by T and P, who seemed willing to listen—after the event—and then chose to ignore all advice.

  (4) Randi (p. 23): Even while the Stanford Research Institute was involved in testing the Israeli Wonder, I wrote offering my services and never received the courtesy of a reply.

  Fact: Randi’s letter, dated September 6, 1973, was months after completion of the SRI work with Geller.

  My response: There was more than one letter. None of them were answered.

  (5) Randi (p. 27): Then, too, there seems to be developing a public belief that science approves the trend toward parapsychological research and that most people believe in psychic marvels. It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists today have no interest, or belief, in these things.

  Fact: According to a recent survey reported by Chris Evans in New Scientist, pp. 209, January 25, 1973; “Parapsychology—What the Questionnaire Revealed,” 67 percent of nearly 1500 responding (the majority of whom are working scientists and technologists) considered ESP to be an established fact or a likely possibility, and 88 percent held the investigation of ESP to be a legitimate scientific undertaking.

  My response: I stand by this statement. Chris Evans’s test was not all that it might have been, and he admitted it. He failed to realize that (a) New Scientist is a popularized UK science magazine, read mostly by the informed layman, not full-time scientists, and (b) those who answer such polls tend to be believers, who are thus more heavily represented in the results. Other surveys have failed to support the New Scientist inquiry.

  (6) Randi (p. 43): Puthoff reprinted the Nature article without the page-and- a-half introduction! (Following paragraph implying editing out of material unfavorable to the paper.)

  Fact: Reprint of article to which Randi refers is the standard Nature reprint sent to authors. The so-called Introduction Randi claims is deleted refers to an editorial at the front of the magazine, several pages earlier. Nature reprints standardly do not carry editorials, letters to the editor, etc.

  My response: T and P had a responsibility to mention that editorial. It was an integral part, not of the scientific paper, but of the total picture Nature presented to its readers. Technically, T and P have a valid point; ethically, they do not. My statement is still true: Puthoff did not publish the embarrassing editorial.

  (7) Randi (p. 46): After reprinting Nature editorial Randi claims that he must give his own version of SRI paper, as SRI did not make paper available to him.

  Fact: SRI paper to which he refers was in same magazine as the editorial he reprinted, a few pages later ... a document in the public domain, available in any technical library, permission for the use of which is obtained from the magazine as was done for the editorial.

  My response: I was not aware the paper was “public domain.” I would rather have published the original. It was damning. I asked permission of SRI, but was never answered. That says something, I think.

  (8) Randi (p. 49): There was no way that I could get to see the SRI film. Only the elite of the world of science and journalism were invited (to the Columbia symposium).

  Fact: The Columbia symposium was widely known to be an open symposium to which any interested individual could come and for which no invitations were required.

  My response: Hearing of the film, I tried to contact Dr. Gerald Feinberg, at Columbia, who sponsored the showing. I was unable to do so, and was unaware that it was an open showing. In any case, I certainly was not invited, in spite of my known interest.

  (9) Randi (p. 49): Randi would have the reader believe that the compass sequence and spoon-bending sequence of the SRI film “Experiments with Uri Geller” are examples of where SRI scientists were taken in by magic tricks.

  Fact: With regard to the compass sequence the film narration states: “The following is an experiment which in retrospect we consider unsatisfactory as it didn’t meet our protocol standards. Here the task is to deflect the compass needle . . . However, according to our protocol, if we could in any way debunk the experiment and produce the effects by any other means, then that experiment was considered null and void even if there were no indications that anything untoward happened. In this case, we found later that these types of deflections could be produced by a small piece of metal, so small in fact that they could not be detected by the magnetometer. Therefore, even though we had no evidence of this, we still considered the experiment inconclusive and an unsatisfactory type of experiment altogether.”

  With regard to the spoon-bending sequence, the film states: “One of Geller’s main attributes that had been reported to us was that he was able to bend metal... In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so . . . [It] becomes clear in watching this film that simple photo interpretation is insufficient to determine whether the metal is bent by normal or paranormal means ... It is not clear whether the spoon is being bent because he has extraordinarily strong fingers and good control of micro-manipulatory movements, or whether, in fact, the spoon “turns to plastic” in his hands, as he claims.” (Text of narration of film “Experiments with Uri Geller,” shown at Columbia and elsewhere. Text released as part of SRI press release of March 6, 1973, accompanying Columbia presentation.)

  My response: Yes, the film contains a disclaimer. Then why, gentlemen, were these “inconclusive and . . . unsatisfactory” sequences included in a “scientific” film at a leading university in this official unveiling of the wonders of the Psychic World discovered at Stanford Research Institute, a leading center of scientific endeavor? To add glamour and to fluff up a very poor effort, obviously. The film belongs with the Mack Sennett epics.

  (10) Randi (p. 52): Shipi was there, according to Hanlon, “constantly underfoot” during the tests.

  Fact: Neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area during the tests. Hanlon’s allegations to the contrary were refuted in Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, p. 443, November 1974.

  My response: Again, I never said Shipi was “in the target area.” But he was there, underfoot, and so was his sister—a proven confederate, as is Shipi—throughout the tests. Why? Simply because Geller wanted it that way. The mouse was running the tests—again.

  (11) Randi (pp. 52-64): If you made an excuse to leave the room—and could have gotten just one quick glance at Shipi Shtrang, and he was trying to signal . . . A quick glance at this target might have give
n Shipi an impression of a horse . . . Such a response could result from a hand signal. . . This shape, which could have been transmitted by simple hand gestures or by a verbal clue . . . They might even have been watching Shipi by now . . . etc.

  Fact: As indicated above, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area, and Geller was never permitted to change his position (i.e., enter or leave experimental room) while an experiment was in progress.

  My response: Not so. The “experiments” with Geller were done largely over weekends, when SRI was deserted. Soft-drink and beer cans, food wrappers and scraps, incense sticks and general debris were evident after these sessions. I have been told that Geller did leave the “sealed room” during tests, and in the Faraday cage series he could see Shipi/Hannah clearly through the mesh walls.

  (12) Randi (p. 60): Captain Edgar Mitchell has said “I was there virtually all the time. I am a co-investigator on all that work . . . they were so eager to keep him (Geller) around that they worked themselves into a box by meeting his every whim . . .”