ON THE ISSUE OF URI GELLER AND HIS CLAIMS
by William E. Cox, The Institute for Parapsychology, Foundation
for Research on the Nature of Man, Durham, North Carolina.
This paper is a follow-up to the previous article by the same
author. In it, Cox presents a more detailed and thoughtful discussion
of Geller's talents and personality; Cox also suggests fruitful
routes for future research. Can Geller, for instance, heal wounds
that have been intentionally inflicted on laboratory mice? Can
Geller affect the growth rate of plants? (Researchers working
with other subjects have reported such phenomena. See Bernard
Grad, "Some biological effects of the 'laying on of hands'.
A review of experiments with animals and plants," Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 50, 1965,
95-127.) And can Geller, by his mere presence, transmit a temporary
paranormal ability to a person physically near him - a phenomenon,
if it exists, that parapsychologists call telergy?
Published for the first time, with the permission of the
author.
WHEN ONE CONSIDERS the effects reportedly produced by Uri Geller,
there are a number of factors, both pro and con, that seem to
stand out. It may be helpful for any future study if these are
brought together in brief outline.
First, there is the fact that in GESP, just as in his PK efforts
at metal bending, etc., Geller appears quite gifted. His clairvoyant
drawings have been demonstrated to about the same high degree
of significance as has been shown in past experience with selected
psychic sensitives This parallel excellence in both physical and
mental psi domains supports the view that favors the existence
of a basic relation, and interaction, between these two traditionally
distinct divisions. It is interesting to note that a number of
other sensitives have also displayed both mental and physical
psi phenomena.
Some Proposals,
One thing that is needed now is a study to determine the limiting
factors in Geller's psi capacities. The scope of his ability
should be examined, using not only metals (as has been done),
but film and the possible movement or levitation of selected objects,
and by investigating other effects that Geller has not yet displayed
(such as healing, which, for example, could be tried out on laboratory
mice).
One effect Geller does claim to have, but one that occurs so
infrequently that no bounds of credibility can be established,
[The nature of these bounds is a question to be pursued, granted
one gains Geller's cooperation and understanding.] is the acceleration
of plant growth and plant withering.
The only effect of Geller's that is quite novel in the history
of psi phenomena appears to be his bending of metal. (In the case
of a steel key bent by Geller while the key was under my direct
control, it was later determined that a pressure of forty pounds
at the point of the bend was required to cause such a deformation;
or 100 pounds beneath my finger, that is, near the actual key-end
fulcrum, could have caused the bend. But I felt no increase
in upward pressure throughout the test.)[ See the previous paper
by W. E. Cox for a description of the test.]
Another important route that should be pursued with Geller, both
in ESP and PK, is "telergy," that is, the telepathic
transmitting of a psi percept to other persons - such as clairvoyant
card-hitting suddenly manifesting itself in the investigator.
Unlike some practitioners discussed in the literature, Geller
may not know if he can do this except during television performances.
The latter example, assuming that some of the reports concerning
it are reliable, is itself another Geller innovation because it
involves PK rather than GESP.
Fraud
Perusal of available literature on the scientific study of Geller
has shown that investigators confined their attention mainly to
the question of how fraud conceivably might have been employed,
and presumed it on slight evidence (some quite absurd), excluding
much analytical scrutiny. Perhaps this is because physics researchers,
teachers, and writers seem, to date, to have taken a greater interest
in Geller than have parapsychologists. It also may be one of
the reasons why he has been both disillusioned and, in my opinion,
underinvestigated.
A helpful means of partially settling the question of fraud and
deception would be a study of the video-tape records that have
been made of the efforts of skilled magicians in competition with
Geller on television - provided Geller's performance, which a
magician replicates, is included in the sequence (inserted from
earlier films or, preferably, conducted on the same occasion).
The chief value of video sequences, I believe, is not just certification,
nor is it the providing of means for subsequent scrutiny, by skeptics,
of Geller's every move and manipulation. Its value is that it
would allow for a comparison of manipulations. Superiority of
one over others is not difficult to detect if they are seen together.
To the question, "Will there be a distinct difference in
the outward appearance if Geller uses psi and a magician uses
sleights?" the answer is exceedingly likely to be yes. Take
ESP drawings, for example: if only ESP is involved, Geller here
could (and he does) draw his design in advance of the opening
of a sealed target design, and be carefully filmed as he does
so. The magician seen replicating that specific effect a few
moments later cannot allow actual film coverage of his own drawing
(unless he bribes the investigator and camera technicians), and
would be forced to conceal from others and from camera the face
of his drawing board until shortly after the hidden target has
been exposed for checkup. (Note: There are means of invisibly
copying a target. If there were not, he would fail to score a
hit at all.)
When the magician, alone, has used the technique of concealing
the drawing board, it may be deemed impressive evidence against
Geller's claims "to do the same thing" paranormally.
When, however, both performers are seen, the fraudulent means
of the magician probably will differ so distinctly from Geller's
as to be easily distinguished as inferior; nor, in this situation,
is any training in sleight of hand very necessary to spot the
differences.
In the several competitive TV demonstrations I have watched,
the magician was excelled by Geller. The demonstrations included
metal bendings. Here the most significant of several differences,
which seemed implicit to me, was that the magician was more concerned
than Geller about knowing (probably in advance) exactly what was
to be bent.
Another good example of a conspicuous difference between the
"skill" of Geller and that of magicians happens to lie
in the abnormal movements of watch hands. I have seen magicians
Kreskin and the Amazing Randi on television hold a borrowed watch,
point to the time, turn it over, return it to the owner while
making some patter, then successfully "command" the
hands to move. In both cases there was clear opportunity for
them surreptitiously to twist the winding crown and push it back
in from the setting position to which it could have been pulled
at the moment they received it. This is so crude, since it is
patently the only practical means, that almost any viewer could
figure how it was done; and accordingly the trick has literally
died aborning among Geller's imitators.
If, however, at Geller's hands, this "trick" has become
a classic
(and he has, as often as not, refrained from touching watches),
then there obviously are very good odds that this is not simply
because he is a more adroit magician.
It is not possible to answer the question of whether Geller has
ever resorted to trickery. There are precedents for this among
known psi sensitives in the past. My own negative opinion is
only deductive: why would he use such sleights for unique effects
that are not easy to palm off without skill - a skill he is not
reliably known to have learned, accusations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Even if rumors to this effect, which stem from early stage appearances,
were substantiated, they would have no specific bearing on whether
he did or did not use deceit on a given occasion. If it should
develop that on some occasion he is indeed caught doing so, one
need only recall that there are various precedents; such human
tendencies exist, however unfortunately. Hence, "Once a
fraud, always a fraud" may be inaccurate and a wasteful theory.
Magicians in particular can be as rigidly prejudiced against
ESP and PK, and just as unwilling to refrain from holding any
opinion, as were the clergy when, for example, Galileo tried to
convince them that the sun was the real center of our universe.
There are two attitudes strongly held by an inordinate number
of magicians, as I have said in a paper on the subject. ["Parapsychology
and Magicians," W. E. Cox, Parapsychology Review, Vol. 5,
No. 3, May-June, 1974.] One is expressed in their derisive reaction
- "What's the gimmick?" - when a paranormal claim (such
as Geller's) is called to their attention. The other, a fairly
pervasive attitude (though often concealed) manifests itself in
the "I can, you can't" syndrome. Perhaps, however,
the second of the two is also held by most ESP sensitives as well,
including Geller.
Other Observations
There still remain some dichotomies, and one cited here may be
useful. If Geller is competent at ESP and PK, and therein certified
to the degrees claimed, why is there so seldom any evidence for
his claim of the passage of matter through matter? Enough of
this has been reported by Geller to be tantalizing, ["A Brief
Outline of the Psi Phenomena Reportedly Effected by Uri Geller,"
W. E. Cox, Feb. 1974. Unpublished. Case Nos. 29, 34, and 36.]
but it has been done so, nearly always, unexpectedly or informally
and cannot, therefore, be considered as adequately and reliably
witnessed. Furthermore, Geller now has the pair of unlinked rings,
made of unseamed leathers, that he gladly accepted from me nearly
a year ago. He conceded that the value of linking them permanently,
without damage, would exceed that of any other matter-through-matter
effect; but to date I have heard nothing more about the rings.
The psychological requirements for the production of psi effects
are known to be very delicate, and particularly so for the production
of comparatively strong psi evidence. Accordingly, there is no
element of surprise in the fact that Uri Geller is relatively
ineffective in the presence of magicians, if they are known to
him to be such. At times, too, he has been very hesitant about
honoring requests from organized or ad hoc research groups,
being naturally concerned about the possibility of failure and
its imagined effects. On the occasion when I myself examined
his physical claims in a private demonstration, Geller had not
been told that I was either an amateur magician or associated
with the Institute for Parapsychology, but only that I had a special
interest in the physical branch of psychical research; and he
gave no reason to think he suspected either of my associations
(notwithstanding his apparent mind-reading abilities).
In due time, the suggestions in this paper will perhaps be added
to those of other investigators, and the necessary arrangements
made for a more intensive study of this exceptionally gifted individual,
Uri Geller. If he is not, in fact, possessed of inordinate psi
capacities, then he is unquestionably more expert a magician than
any professional twice his age - if my experience during four
decades in the fields of both magic and parapsychology is any
criterion.
Back to books list.
Back to main index.
Back to Uri Geller's home page.