# Cecils stance on Geller. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [May 13, 2002, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873 "2002-05-13T19:46:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/21 "2002-05-14T21:17:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wyldkard \* > [S]ince debunkers for all their theories have yet to catch the guy in the act. Stage magicians routinely manage to do close-up or mentalist magic without anybody catching them out. That they can do so is pretty much the entire point of what they’re doing. Then there’s the issue of the Gotcha! tape. This was a regular item on the (mercifully now defunct) BBC light entertainment programme _Noel’s House Party_ in which celebrities were caught in a practical joke while being filmed with hidden cameras. In Geller’s case, he was filmed doing his usual things - guessing a drawing and spoon bending - to a woman (actually an actress) in a restaurent. Many people concluded from the footage that Geller was cheating. You’d probably like a link to the footage, but, for whatever reasons, it appears that all websites that have carried it have ceased to do so after hearing from Geller’s lawyers. There’s a certain amount of disconnected discussion about it on Usenet, but the nearest I can find to a website covering it is this Broadcasting Complaints Commission [ruling](http://www.openmedia.co.uk/newpage14.htm) which is partially to do with his objections to the reuse of the footage in a documentary. To quote > [@](#): > > Mr Geller said that Mr Randi had suggested in the programme that, in an extract from Noel’s House Party, Mr Geller had been using a conjuring method known as the ‘peek’ (i.e. looking through the fingers which appeared to be covering the eyes). He complained that, had the full extract been shown, it would have been clear that this was not the case… Channel Four said that the extract from Noel’s House Party had suggested that Mr Geller may have been using the technique described by Mr Randi as the ‘peek’. They said that the extract had clearly shown Mr Geller turning towards the person making the drawing before the drawing had been completed and hidden from view. They denied that the full recording of the item contradicted Mr Randi’s assertion… The Commission viewed a recording of the programme as broadcast and read a transcript. It also viewed recordings of the extracts from Noel’s House Party and the Andrew Neil Show. The commission held a hearing attended by Mr Geller and his representatives and representatives of Channel Four, accompanied by Mr Cody and Mr Britland of Open Media and Dr Blackmore… The Commission does not consider that the full extract from the edition of Noel’s House Party which was used in the programme made it clear that Mr Geller was not using the ‘peek’. The Commission rejected Geller’s complaint. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/22 "2002-05-14T23:07:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Laughs at the silly people!_ > > Ok guys, no problem I’m sure it all makes sense for you… > > \*pats them on their head And here we see the standard tactic of someone who has nothing useful to say. After your arguments have been soundly refuted, act like you don’t care and walk away. Much like Pee Wee Herman after he gets thrown from his bike. “I meant to do that!” Yeah, we’re impressed. Ugly ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/23 "2002-05-16T09:27:22Z")
Wyldkard said: > [@](#): > > Yay so you talked to some debunking stage magicians who enjoy picking on Geller. I love this characterization. Poor Uri Geller just trying to make an honest [cough] living bending spoons, and those mean stage magicians are constantly picking on him. :rolleyes: Geller puts himself out there as having psychic powers. Not in giving a good show, but in actually having mystical abilities. It’s only fair to ask him to prove it. Now if he doesn’t want to prove it, that’s his choice, but then he really shouldn’t be able to complain when people choose to label him a fraud. Unfortunately, Geller is very litigious. For instance, he has sued James Randi numerous times in numerous courts for various reasons. All but one suit were ruled in Randi’s favor, and no monetary judgments have been paid by Geller. One suit was awarded to Geller, with no monetary judgment. That’s why people refuting Geller use such equivocal language, like Randi’s favorite, “If he’s using psychic powers, he’s doing it the hard way.” That’s called _lawyer protection_. > [@](#): > > That is however off my point that Cecil should have more respect for the variety of a Magicians tricks of the trade. Oh please. Where does Cecil come down on magicians? He’s answering the question. He was asked how Geller does it, and answered “probably with his hands” (paraphrased). That’s hardly disparaging to magicians. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t see a whole lot of point in berating Cecils attempt to personally debunk some poster’s “Geller experience” (though some of his explanations like the one about Geller snapping the key in half with his foot in a sidewalk crack while no-one noticed seems LESS plausible than PK given the degree of exertion he would probably have have to apply-sorry Cecil) seems like a bit of a waste of time to me given that at this point it seems to me that all statements of “proof” and professional “debunking” aren’t much more usefull than than a childs name calling match. Well, it is rather difficult to give a precise explanation of an event that you only have a verbal description of after the fact by someone who believed the effect. Stage magicians can give convincing effects and fool whole audiences, even up close sleight of hand can fool crowds, yet that doesn’t mean they do have any special powers. They’re just good at the performance. So the fact that someone didn’t see how Geller did it doesn’t mean he _didn’t_ cheat. As for the possible explanations offered that you reject out of hand, how are they less believable than _psychic powers_? The fact that the observer doesn’t report them as happening only means Geller was good at misdirection, that he didn’t remember seeing them, not that they didn’t happen that way. Sure, it’s speculation, but good speculation based on experience and inside knowledge of the craft. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in situations like this. > [@](#): > > On the other hand discussions of how PK and other such phenomenon can be possible … , assuming the presupposition of their existance is at least an interesting and rewarding … bit of mental exersise. And I have a lot of fun discussing _Star Wars_ with my friends. > [@](#): > > Maybe the prizemoney wasn’t worth as much as what he feels he can get through Lawsuits. This Geller fellow sounds like a very practical man… 🙂 Ha! He hasn’t gotten **any** money out of the lawsuits, (and also hasn’t paid the judgments against him), whereas the prize money is over 1 Million Dollars. But the only catch is he actually has to be psychic to collect. > [@](#): > > Besides how is his “logic” of defining himself as psychic to his audience by demonstrating to that same audience what he is representing as a “psychic phenomna” … more threatening to the lot of you SR’s than your average stage Mentalist who says “I’m psychic because I can read your mind.”. Assuming they put on a good performance of either genuine Telepathy or something which looks like it, their doesn’t seem to be much difference in terms of results other than scale. First, most stage Mentalists admit they’re using trickery, and not psychic powers. It’s a matter of authenticity. Geller claims to have psychic powers, and claims to have demonstrated them scientifically. But in fact he has not demonstrated them scientifically. He doesn’t perform his tricks under controlled situations. For the SRI tests that are so lauded, he didn’t do any of them during the actual controlled situations, but then was wild with effects when not under controlled observation. That was good enough to fool the scientists. Anyway, you said you wanted to get back to the point of your OP. That seems to be that Cecil was too heavy handed and said “Geller did his tricks this way”, not “Geller _probably_ did his tricks this way”. Not having read the books cited, I can’t answer how well Randi and Harris observed Geller’s acts. I will point out, though, that if someone were to watch his performance and notice sleight of hand (by the characteristics of the movements, which conjurers become familiar with), then stating the probably qualifier is only lawyer protection. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/24 "2002-05-16T17:42:24Z")
For the car keys, if you don’t believe the sidewalk crack explanation, how about this? Geller keeps on his person somewhere (in his pockets, up his sleeves, whatever) a variety of broken car keys, from a variety of models. He’s broken them weeks earlier, in the privacy of his own home, so he can use whatever methods he likes, even something that’ll look weird in an electron micrograph. Then, if _and only if_ he sees that his mark is driving a car similar to one he’s got a key for, he uses some standard sleight of hand to swap the intact key for a similar-looking broken one. This is also consistent with Geller looking over a variety of objects before deciding on one he likes: He needs to find something which he’s pre-broken. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/25 "2002-05-21T21:44:01Z")
And let us not forget that, before Uri Geller became a professional “psychic”, he **was** a stage magician himself! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/26 "2002-05-23T15:45:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Wyldkard \* > \*\* > No disprespect intended, given that establishment science currently has no relevant instrumentation that they’re willing to use to explore the matter, who the f_ck cares what their stance on matters which are out of their league such as (apparently) this one (since debunkers for all their theories have yet to catch the guy in the act). > \*\* Sorry for joining so late. You don’t say as much W, but I infer this: you think that “established” science has some vested interest against possible demonstrations of “psi” phenomena. Do you have any idea how wrong that is? Any scientist who demonstrated PK (or whatever effects) would expect to win a Nobel prize and have their name immortalized along with Newton, and Einstein et al. Geller is a fake (but of course), and a bad fake at that, he is hardly worth the thread-space, BUT, his insistence on the reality of PK et al (and his assertion that he is living proof of such) is pernicious and destructive, it’s not even entertainment, just pure sickenining ignorance sold on a (bendy) stick. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/27 "2002-05-24T04:33:37Z")
And, **wyldcard** , your continual references to science not being qualified to comment on the non-existence of PK because they do not have instruments to measure PK is more than a little tiresome. Science also has no instruments to count the number of angels on the head of the average pin, measure the breadth of the horn of the unicorn in my back garden, or taste the green cheese the moon is made out of. **Wyldcard’s Law** : “anything proposed by anybody exists unless science can make an instrument to detect it and get a zero reading.” [Pats Wyldcard on the head condescendingly] ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/28 "2002-05-24T05:50:22Z")
Oh my gosh, I’m so embarrassed. [slaps own forehead] I just remembered. I **do** have a PK-o-meter! I built the damn thing a year or two ago then clean forgot about it! Here it is! [produces with a drumroll a black box with a needle gauge and rotating knob on front, aerial on top and gold letters saying “PK-o-meter 2000” on top.] Now I took this baby to several PK conventions, and a couple of Uri Geller performances and you know what? The needle never moved. Not even a bit. Not even with the dial turned up to “11” and the aerial fully extended. And I swear to you, straight out, this thing **is** a fully functioning PK detector. No, really. It is. I swear. So there you have it. No PK is involved in Geller’s performances. It’s scientifically proven by my instrument here. What’s that you say, **wyldcard**? There are alternate explanations such as that my PK-o-meter is not effective, and [harumph!] it may even be a fake, you say? I hope you’ve got good lawyers, buddy, you’ll be hearing from mine, for sure. And besides which just because there is a _mere possibility_ that something is fake doesn’t mean that it is. I mean, do you or for that matter the whole scientific community have a fake-PK-o-meter-meter to measure whether my PK-o-meter is working or not? No, I thought not. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![Balor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@Balor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balor)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/29 "2002-05-24T08:04:52Z")
Nice one, Princhester. A good judo argument - use the opponent’s own thrust to knock him over. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/30 "2002-05-24T13:09:00Z")
Kudos, **Princhester**. Though, sadly, it looks as if **Wyldcard** has left the building. ---
**Author:** ![jonk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jonk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonk)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873/31 "2002-05-24T18:01:34Z")
The post by Irishman contains the salient point: when Geller has tried to perform under controlled conditions, he has failed, witness his unsuccessful appearance on the Johnny Carson Show where two magicians set up the test protocols. The SRI experiments were set up by scientists who were simply unaware of the variables needing attention. Just a you’d want a biologist to set up protocols for a biology experimernt, you need a skilled magician if you a possible set of variables includes stage magic. Ph.D.s are not immune from hubris. Given that magicians can duplicate by physical means virtually everything Geller does under the conditions that he does them and that Geller cannot duplicate them under conditions where these variables are controlled leads one to the most probable and parsimonious conclusion: Geller performs these feats by utilization of one of the controlled variables. Does it prove it? No–science doesn’t work that way. It only leads us to the most probable explanation and places the weight of evidence to the contrary on those who would invoke another mechanism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-stance-on-geller/108873.md?page=1)