CHARMAINE Is a psychic and a certified medium who has studied and
been Involved In the scientific aspects of supernatural happenings. She is a professional writer and Is dedicated to exposing the unscrupulous charlatans or psychic phenomena.
By Charmaine
Uri Geller-watchers agree on one thing: He's a handsome dude who's loaded with charm. His authenticity as a psychic, however, will be argued to the point of fisticuffs. And Uri Will laugh all the way to the bank.
Believers talk about "the Geller effect": Uri's ostensible abilities to bend metals and fix broken watches by paranormal means. In this reporter's opinion, "the Geller effect" is an almost overwhelming personal magnetism that touches most people who come near Geller. And he uses this potent force as an artist uses his colors. It causes otherwise careful scientific observers to see what he wants them to see and nothing else. It creates an atmosphere in which people want to be his friend. It increases the likelihood of his success by eliciting delighted cooperation. Audiences work with him so that when he bends a fork or gets a clock going, they are as pleased as punch. Nobody asks how he does it. And when he goofs, they help him pretend it didn't happen.
PARANORMAL ABILITIES
This kind of "magic" (and probably other kinds) is at work whenever Geller makes a public appearance to demonstrate his "paranormal abilities" as entertainment. Considerable hard evidence seems to indicate he does all right when he's under "scientific observation," as well.
Ray Hyman. writing on "The Geller Papers: Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller," edited by Charles Panati in the book, "The Zetetic," says' that Geller doesn't necessarily bend the laws of nature; rather, possibly he bends the judgments of otherwise competent scientists. Hyman points out that of the 23 papers in that book (which is supposed to comprise the best scientific evidence for Geller's authenticity), 18 were informal, uncontrolled, and otherwise (scientifically) invalid "studies." Of the others, only one paper — "Information Transmission Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding" (testing Geller for telepathic abilities only), by Drs. Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ of Stanford — was published in a scientific journal. Of it Hyman says: "... the paper was not published in 'Nature' because of its scientific qualities, but but in spite of the lack of such qualities."
Geller spent much more time with the Stanford researchers than he did with all others combined. Many d i f f e r e n t experiments were conducted. Yet the only ones the highly respected Drs. Puthoff and Targ reported on were the telepathic tests. And curiously, according to these same researchers, practically anybody can do as well as Geller telepathically!
Further, it's disturbing to note that not enough was done at Stanford to insure against fraud, even though, in the book's preface, Panati states that in investigating Geller, "scientists" (he didn't say who or where) took exhaustive precautions. (It should be noted that no fraud prevention criteria have ever been established in psychic research. Isn't it logical that such anti-fraud criteria should be created as a basic test tool and used consistently?)
SCRUTINY WAS SLOPPY
Stanford's scrutiny, says Hyman, was sloppy. Apparently, nobody searched Geller for magnets. X-rayed him, etc. And that book is supposed to present the best evidence. Hyman pulverizes it!
On June 11,1976, a subcommittee of the Fellows of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal issued an invitation to Geller "to participate in carefully controlled experiments" to test his claims. This invitation appeared in "The Humanist," July-August, 1976. It stated that should Geller not reply within 45 days, that would be deemed a refusal. No reply arrived, but they're still hoping.
In St. Louis in June 1976, at an ESP workshop, I watched Uri Geller do his thing — blackboard reading while "blindfolded." watch repairing, metal bending. The audience joyously chanted with him, coached him with blackboard information. This, of course, was not intended to be anything but entertainment; nobody suggested it had any scientific value. Immediately afterward, I had two well-known observers tape record their comments for me. One saw Geller as authentic enough to "stake my reputation on." The other blasted him as an audacious phony, and (in his opinion) worse, an amateur "who could stand a few basic lessons in stage magic." And so it goes. Believers believe, no matter what, and critics can't swear he's not "for real."
Capsule: Fraud or genuine, Uri Geller is fascinating, and for sheer audience appeal, he's incomparable. He's more than worth the admission price. And that is what it's all about, isn't it?
This article contains copyrighted material that has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching and/or research. I believe that use of this material is covered under the terms of "fair use". If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes other than that provided by law, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.