URI GELLER'S METAL PHENOMENA: AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT
by A. R. G. Owen, Ph.D., Executive Director,
New Horizons Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario.
A. R. G. Owen has been a lecturer in mathematics at the University
of Bristol, England, and Head of the Department of Genetics at
Cambridge University, England. He has published more than twenty
papers on mathematics, genetics, and parapsychological research.
Currently, Dr. Owen is Vice-President and Executive Director
of the New Horizons Research Foundation in Canada, an organization
that performs parapsychological research.
The reader will understand, from this paper, that Dr. Owen's
observations of Geller were obtained under less than desirable
conditions: in a television studio before a live audience. This
is not to say that Owen was deceived or that Geller accomplished
his feats through legerdemain. Rather, these words of caution
are given only to make it clear that Owen's report on Geller does
not constitute proof of paranormal happenings. As is true of
the other informal reports contained in this book, Owen's paper
appears here because he is a respected scientist who is completely
convinced of the genuineness of Geller's talents.
Published in New Horizons journal, vol. 1, No. 4, July
1974.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to report observations of Mr. Uri
Geller's metal-
bending and -breaking phenomena made by myself and others on the
afternoon of Friday, March 8, 1974. The conditions in which these
phenomena occurred were such as to convince the audience that
these phenomena were paranormal and totally genuine. This, by
itself, is well worth putting on record. However, there are certain
additional circumstances, which, so far as I and my wife (Iris
Owen) were concerned, had the effect of making Uri's presentation
not merely a convincing demonstration, but also an experiment
with a considerable degree of control. To put the matter simply:
in the event, out of the large number of metal objects present
in the room, it so happened that the objects - a fork and two
keys - that were bent or divided were ones that my wife and I
had brought to the studio. As will be explained, we knew their
condition right up to the moment when Uri's presentation commenced.
The nature of the objects was also so highly individual that
there was no possibility of anyone's having substituted like,
but prepared, objects for them without the substitution having
been subsequently detected. Thus, from the viewpoint of my wife
and myself the presentation constituted an experiment in which
beyond reasonable doubt Mr. Geller's metal phenomena were genuine
and paranormal. Having reached this conclusion, we feel it to
be our duty to say so, both in fairness to Mr. Geller and because
what we have to say may be of value to those serious students
of paranormal phenomena who will place some reliance on our opinion.
The progress of parapsychology has, I believe, often been retarded
by the failure of responsible investigators sometimes to report
what they have found.
The Background to the Presentation
Mr. Geller arrived in Toronto about Tuesday, March 5. It had been
previously agreed with Miss Joan Schafer, producer of several
programs for CITY-TV (Channel 79), that, if possible, he would
record an interview that would be broadcast in due course. In
the event, Uri's schedule in Toronto proved to be a heavy one.
Finally, however, he agreed to the interview, provided that there
was only a small audience, which should include the "Philip"
group, [The "Philip" group is a collection of eight
people who have trained themselves over a number of years jointly
to produce psychokinetic phenomena. In 1975, after hearing of
the exploits of Uri Geller, they added metal-bending to their
PK repertoire. For further information see: New Horizons Journal
Vol. 1. No. 3, Jan. 1974; Vol. 2, No. 1, Apr. 1975.] of whose
work in producing physical phenomena (see Owen and Sparrow, 1974)
he had learned, and in which he expressed great interest. It had
further been agreed by Joan Schafer that the Toronto Society for
Psychical Research should advise on how the interview and any
experiment or demonstration should be set up.
I should explain that prior to this I had seen no demonstrations
of metal-
bending phenomena by Uri either alive or recorded except the bending
of a spoon shown in a film made at the Stanford Research Institute.
However, I had formed an estimate of Uri based on informative
articles such as those of Alan Vaughan (1974), the direct testimony
of investigators who had experienced his phenomena at very close
quarters, and finally from a television interview by Miss Pat
Murphy of Toronto CTV, broadcast live on the morning of March
7. Though I had not yet met him in person, I gained the impression
that Uri is an honest and sincere person, and that his phenomena
were quite likely to be paranormal and genuine. Indeed, the oddities
and vagaries of some of the phenomena and the way in which they
were manifested were in themselves exceptionally convincing, as
these peculiarities entirely fitted the general picture of paranormal
phenomena that I had built up over the years.
In a discussion with Joan Schafer and Pat Murphy (who was to
conduct the interview) I therefore impressed on them my conviction
that Uri's phenomena might well be totally genuine. It was agreed,
therefore, that the presentation should be conducted entirely
as a sympathetic interview, without overtly expressed hostility
(and, so far as could be managed, without suppressed hostility,
because, as I pointed out, Uri could possibly sense our thoughts).
The aim would be primarily to let Uri talk about his phenomena
and how they seemed to him both in their mode of occurrence and
in their possible significance. This alone would be thoroughly
worthwhile. However, we also thought it likely that in a genuinely
friendly atmosphere Uri might well successfully demonstrate some
of his phenomena. It was agreed that members of the audience
should bring their own metal objects and that during the
interview these should lie on a low table in front of Uri and
Pat Murphy, in full view of the audience.
The Experimental Material
About 3:00 P.M. on Friday, March 8, my wife and I and five members
of the Philip group, with two other members of the Toronto S.P.R.,
convened at CITY-TV studio. The audience was otherwise made up
of some friends of Uri and some friends of Joan Schafer. On arrival
I met Uri in the corridor and introduced myself briefly to him.
He asked me to collect together plenty of "stuff" for
him to work on, and to ask the audience to be actively "willing"
for things to happen so that good phenomena would result. I looked
through my own pockets and found some extra keys, while Uri went
down to the make-up room. He passed through the basement cafe
where the audience was congregated, and briefly said hello to
them, and again asked them to actively "will" him to
succeed.
The objects I had collected previously had been handed to Miss
Valerie Elia of CITY-TV, who had put them with the other material
brought by the audience on a bronze tray, which was resting on
a low glass-topped table on the dais in front of the two chairs
in which Uri and Pat Murphy would be seated during the interview.
I deposited the extra keys on it; there were already about twenty
metal articles and a few watches. The metal objects were some
nails and large screws, spoons and knives, forks, car keys and
door keys. I verified that all the objects I had brought (which
will be specified later) were there. Also, I spent a few moments
handling every object and verified that, so far as could be disclosed
by visual inspection and application of moderate manual pressure,
each object was a normal one of its type, not made of especially
soft metal. It seemed clear to me that none of them had been
prepared by cutting and rejoining with soft metal, glue, or pliable
material.
Though I was not continuously in the studio thereafter I did,
in fact, visit it several times while the studio was being made
ready and the lights and cameras positioned. (Needless to say,
during this period technical crews were in the studio all the
time, and the focus of attention was the dais - so it would have
been impossible for anyone to do anything to the objects on the
tray without being observed.) Each time I came in I went to the
tray and verified by a coup d'oeil that the objects were
the same ones I had last seen. Finally, about two minutes before
Uri and Pat Murphy took their places on the dais, I made a last
inspection, confirming the objects were the same ones I had looked
at originally. Meanwhile, Mrs. Adrienne Henwood had talked to
Uri, who asked her to get still more material. She went to the
basement and commandeered a further batch of house and car keys
from the Philip group. Returning to the studio, she dropped this
material on the tray and took her place in the studio audience
only a matter of seconds before recording started. Uri and Pat
had taken their places on the platform only a short time before.
The tray on its table was at all times in the full view of the
audience (and also of the TV cameras when they were on wide angle).
After my final inspection I had kept the tray under continuous
observation and saw that none of the objects had subsequently
been handled by Uri or Pat or anyone else.
The Phenomena
Until the first commercial break, the interview concerned itself
with mental phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). It included
an illustration of Uri's ESP ability, which Uri stressed was only
an illustration, not a rigorous experiment.
During the first commercial, matters began to take a different
turn. My wife, who was sitting with Mrs. Sparrow and Bernice
Mandryk on the top row of the set of wooden terraces provided
for the accommodation of the audience, opened her purse and inspected
her bunch of six keys of various kinds. Previously they had all
been inspected by herself, Mrs. Henwood, Mrs. Sparrow, and Bernice
Mandryk, and declared normal; this was in the basement after Uri
had gone up to the studio. Though my wife and Uri might have
passed one another in the studio while he and the audience were
getting to their respective stations, there was certainly no further
conversation or physical contact between them. She did not open
her purse until the first break. To her surprise one of the six
keys was noticeably bent at a point about a quarter of an inch
from the haft. This key was of the Yale type and was stamped
"Reilly's Lock Corp. Ltd. Toronto." The angle of bending
appeared to me to be about twenty-five degrees of arc. The key
(which was not removed from the bunch) was inspected by myself,
Iris, Mrs. Sparrow, and Bernice. We called out to Uri, who asked
that it be brought down to him. He looked at it, held it in front
of the cameras, then tossed the whole bunch of keys to a point
on the carpeted floor about four feet away from him, and said,
"Let's look at it again later." It should be reiterated
that this was the only occasion on which he had touched or even
seen this key.
When the interview was resumed, Uri discussed his ability to
rehabilitate broken watches. He picked out two "fob,"
or "turnip," watches (which Pat confirmed were not working),
placed them on the table top, and made about two passes over them
with his hands. Pat testified to the fact that they immediately
started ticking. I mention this for interest only, as the matter
was not investigated in depth.
Uri next talked about his metal-bending ability. He casually
picked up and replaced several of the spoons and forks on the
tray. Finally, he selected a fork about seven inches in length.
He asked Pat to hold it in such a way that the whole of the stem
would be visible to the audience and cameras. This was achieved
by Pat's holding the blade part of the fork between her thumb
and forefinger, these digits being in contact with the outermost
prongs of the fork. The blade was thus broadside to these fingers.
The fork was oriented broadside to the audience. Then Uri, using
the tips of the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, gently
"massaged" a section of the stem of the fork, the traverse
of his fingertips being about three quarters of an inch. The
portion of the stem that he stroked was situated just below the
blade. It was the part narrowest in width. However (as we ascertained
later), the thickness was the same as that of the rest
of the stem, which in this respect was uniform throughout its
length. Uri first said that he thought nothing was going to happen.
Then he smiled and nodded and said, "It's going" (or
words to that effect). With the thumb and finger of his right
hand he held the bottom of the stem and gently waggled it. The
stem moved relative to the blade (which Pat kept immobile), thus
showing the audience that the section he was stroking had lost
its rigidity. So that this could be seen more clearly Uri asked
Pat to present the profile of the fork to the audience. Then,
holding the narrow portion of the stem in the thumb and finger
of his right hand and the end of the stem with his left thumb
and finger, with what appeared to be minimal effort he waggled
the stem to and fro, the blade being kept immobile. The total
angle traversed between extreme positions appeared to me to exceed
forty degrees. After five or six wagglings he released the bottom
of the stem and pushed it lightly with his fingertip. The stem
suddenly parted at a point in the portion that Uri had stroked,
and fell to the floor of the dais. Uri picked it up and handed
the two parts to Pat Murphy. When the applause had subsided she
read the inscription on the stem; it said "Koba, Stainless,
Japan." It was at this stage that I reaised the fork was
one that I myself had brought from home.
The day previous to the interview I had taken this fork, together
with two others (of dull gray metal not matching the first one
and stamped "1847 Rogers Bros., I.S.") from the kitchen
cutlery, also two old spoons. I supplemented this collection
of expendable material with a couple of long steel screws and
some derelict watches. Oddly enough, I did not notice that among
the forks of various vintages we had a second "Koba"
fork - the exact mate of the one that Uri had divided. I discovered
this only on returning home with my material, which I had recovered
from the tray the moment that the recording ceased. I was pleased
that the divided fork had a mate because it affords a good comparison
of the "before and after" states of the object. I need
hardly point out that the "Koba" forks are somewhat
out of date and so are relatively individual objects. Even if,
for the sake of argument, it were supposed that despite the considerable
evidence to the contrary Uri had substituted a prepared "Koba"
fork for the one on the tray, the odds against his selecting one
by chance for this purpose are astronomically large. A severe
critic might argue that conceivably Uri knew by extrasensory perception
that a "Koba" fork would be there and obtained one by
teleportation; but this would be a rather self-defeating criticism.
After his success with the fork, Uri noticed two keys on the tray.
These I immediately recognized because they were not on a key
ring but were tied by string to a buff-colored cardboard label.
These keys were, in fact, unique. They were both of the long
variety stamped "YALE, The Yale and Towne Mfg. Co., Made
in England." One of them was stamped "RKC 25A 13."
It was a Fellow's key of Trinity College, Cambridge, issued to
me many years before. The number 13 was its own individual number
and is registered as issued to: me personally. The other key
is also a unique object. It formerly opened a door in the Department
of Genetics, Cambridge, and bore the individual number 6 as well
as a type number, 8150. The label bore an annotation in my handwriting
done in (now rather faded) blue ink: "T.C.C. Gen. Cambridge
U.K." Remarking that these seemed an interesting pair of
keys, Uri picked them up by the label without touching the keys
themselves. It was then noticed that the Genetics Department
key was in process of bending. This was actually seen by the
audience and by the TV cameras in close-up. Uri supported this
key with a finger of his other hand. It continued to bend and
finally stopped at about fifteen degrees of are. (See Plates 49
and 50.)
By now we had reached the second commercial break. Uri suggested
that the bunch of keys, including the bent: Reilly key, be put,
together with other material that the audience still had in its
pockets, in a pile at the back of the audience. This was done;
the pile was made on the back seat between Mrs. Sparrow and me.
Uri then answered three questions put by members of the audience.
Then he suggested that the pile be looked at. It was discovered
that only the top half of the Reilly key was still attached to
the bunch. The blade had separated from it, the metal being divided
at a point close to the original bend, an operation that normally
would require either a hacksaw or a cold chisel and mallet. The
blade was found among the other keys in the pile.
Remarks
When the fork and the Reilly key were examined, it was noted that
they were divided at their narrowest points, which suggests that
the paranormal forces responsible tend to be applied in conformity
with a principle of least effort.
The selection of our own fork can doubtless be put down to chance.
The pair of Cambridge keys were eye-catching and it may well
be that Uri picked them out just because they looked interesting.
It is just conceivable that Uri chose these objects intuitively.
I was certainly concerned that the interview should constitute
what, for me, would be a good experiment,
After the recording Uri talked to various members of the audience.
He said to Iris that it was she who had (paranormally) bent and
broken the Reilly key. This is indeed possible, though mysterious,
because similar events, reported from England, suggest that Uri
can temporarily endow other people with the metalbending ability.
Among the items on the tray was an old-fashioned teaspoon contributed
by Mrs. Sparrow. It was of a very standard design and previously
had nested in perfect congruity with a spoon of similar vintage.
When Mrs. Sparrow retrieved it, it appeared normal, but back
at home, after a period of an hour or so, it was visibly bent.
When inspected later it was still more curved. When the process
terminated there was a gap of half an inch between the middle
of this spoon and its mate when they were in juxtaposition. (See
Plate 51.)
REFERENCES
Owen, Iris M. and Margaret H. Sparrow, "Generation of paranormal
physical phenomena in connection with an imaginary communicator,"
New Horizons Journal, 1, No. 3, 6-18, 1974.
Vaughan, Alan, "The phenomena of Uri Geller," Psychic,
4, No. 5, June, 13-18, 1973.
Back to books list.
Back to main index.
Back to Uri Geller's home page.