What might have been the trick?

Carn

Graduate Poster
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,340
Assuming the following report is correct, what tricks might have been used?

"I have personally put Geller to the test in front of witnesses, two of whom were extremely skeptical engineers. Geller bent a sturdy, stainless-steel spoon which one of our group had purloined from the Avanti Restaurant in Scottsdale, Arizona only a few hours beforehand. While he bent the spoon, I watched him from behind, out of his sight, my eyes a foot away. Seven others watched from a position in front of him. He did this in the lobby of the Phoenix Convention Center, not on stage where lighting and access could be controlled. When finished he returned the spoon, which our most skeptical engineer immediately examined for signs of heating at the bend, or an acid, or signs of metal fatigue.

The spoon bent only about 20 degrees, upward. Geller promised to do a better job later, if we could wait, claiming that it was difficult to work in the Convention Center, He went off to meet with some people. Our skeptical engineer controlled the spoon in Geller's absence.

When Mr. Geller returned we all went outside, about 50 feet from the building. He stopped beneath a light pole, clearly illuminated by the bright light of a 5000w sodium vapor lamp.

By the way, Geller is an informal sort. He was wearing tight Levi jeans (I read the label while behind him) and a tightly fitting yellow polo shirt which could not have concealed a cigarette. No capes, no shirt-sleeves, no big pockets, no stage, no props, and no restrictions on his audience. He did not object when again I moved behind him to watch his hands from a foot way, at eye level, under very bright illumination. Only then did our skeptic return the spoon to Geller.

Geller simply took it without engaging in any conversation, flourishes, or unnecessary body movements of the sort that magicians employ for distraction. He did not rub it against his clothing or body. When I parked myself behind him he did not reposition himself so as to block my view.

Geller's technique was to hold the spoon inverted with the thumb and two fingers of his left hand, and gently rub the back of the handle with the index finger of his right hand at the point where he wanted it to bend. This time, he chose a point about a half inch higher on the handle, past the first bend. The bending began sooner than before, and occurred more rapidly, moving (again, contrary to the force of gravity) to a nearly vertical position in about 15 seconds.

Geller immediately returned the spoon for inspection. No heat, no acid residue, no signs of metal fatigue. "

What comes to my mind is "I will show even greater bending power in a few hours, but i have to first meet some people. Where can i shop strong magnets and tape in this town?"

But i think it might have been something else. Any ideas?

And are there any manuals online, how to perform such tricks?
 
If you want to perform it, I recommend buying a DVD called Psychokinetic Silverware. Perhaps others have better suggestions. Psychokinetic Silverware is by Banachek (magician, skeptic and I think he runs the million dollar challenge). I won't find or link to any free online sources if the aim is to find out how to perform it. Sorry. But people have made their own guides for free online and I'm sure you could find them...

Here is a sample of the performance in Psychokinetic Silverware.


But recounted experiences, especially of magic tricks, are very unreliable. There's more going on than spectators realise. I strongly doubt that it is an accurate representation of what happened.
 
Last edited:
The trick is obvious: The assumption is wrong.

You mean the report is deliberatly wrong or that it is wrong, because the "witness" was unable to correctly report due to misperception, false memory or something else?

Do you think, that if the report were true, no trick could have been used and supernatural causes would be the only explanation?
 
The report is either wrong or incomplete. Why it's wrong is open to speculation.

Supernatural causes are not a reasonable explanation because supernatural causes have never been shown to exist in the first place.

An anecdote like this, without evidence, is practically useless.
 
It's probably wrong due to misdirection and incorrect recollections.

If the report is true, the most likely explanation is that he is a good magician. Supernatural causes are far less likely.

Here's what a good magician can do with cutlery bending.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity are you referring to Uri Gellar? James Randi has some youtube videos all about debunking him if your're interested.
 
Out of curiosity are you referring to Uri Gellar? James Randi has some youtube videos all about debunking him if your're interested.

I know that.

I am specifically curious, whether in case the report is accurate regarding the senses of the "witness" (not necessarily his conclusions, e.g. "which could not have concealed a cigarette." is a conclusion about what Geller might or might not have hidden beneath his clothing, while "He was wearing tight Levi jeans (I read the label while behind him) and a tightly fitting yellow polo shirt " is what the "witness" perceived.) there would still be enough room for trickery and what trickery that might be.

Magnets might be possible, it was steel and with preparation time he could have hid them under his clothesso, that it is not visibl. But i do not think magnets alone would be strong enough.
 
A lot of the details are irrelevant. Like tight clothes have nothing to do with it. And magnets aren't used. Cutlery can be bent with ones hands or other body parts, using the correct methods, and the bend can be easily disguised.
 
I know that.

I am specifically curious, whether in case the report is accurate regarding the senses of the "witness" (not necessarily his conclusions, e.g. "which could not have concealed a cigarette." is a conclusion about what Geller might or might not have hidden beneath his clothing, while "He was wearing tight Levi jeans (I read the label while behind him) and a tightly fitting yellow polo shirt " is what the "witness" perceived.) there would still be enough room for trickery and what trickery that might be.

Magnets might be possible, it was steel and with preparation time he could have hid them under his clothesso, that it is not visibl. But i do not think magnets alone would be strong enough.

Do you think Uri might have kept a stash of various types of cutlery in his room, pre-weakened?

Then all he needed to do was palm the original one and use the substitute pre-weakened lookalike spoon when he took them outside.

May not be what happened, he might be really magic...
 
There are a few things that strike me as curious:

1 Acid. The 'very sceptical engineers' examined for acid. Now, there are acids that can weaken stainless steel, but you don't want to hold those in your hand. This compels me to believe that those engineers were perhaps not as competent as the narrative implies.

2 Beneath a " 5000w sodium vapor lamp" on a lamp post. Sodium vapor lamps are very efficient, and a 5000w version (if such exist) could light up a stadium, all by itself. The wattage aside, sodium lamps give off a fairly narrow-band yellow light, and are not really very effective for any detail examination. They are only suited as flood-lights.

3 Under a sodium lamp, the yellow T-shirt would have an almost blinding hue, again not productive for detail examination.

4 Magnets. I understand that magnets is your (Carn) suggestion, so it is irrelevant for the story, but magnets are not very effective on stainless alloys, and it would not be possible to bend a spoon with a magnet you could carry around, let alone conceal.

What I am saying is not that the account is fraudulent, just that there is very likely far more room for trickery than implied. The witnesses were not as competent (or sceptical) as implied, the conditions for observation were not as revealing as it seems.

Remember, that this is Uri Geller's normal settings for his performances: Smart, tight-fitting clothes, people all around, no frills or apparent diversions. He just does his trick.

SO, whatever his trick is (I'm not a magician, so I wouldn't know), he simply did his trick. Other magicians have duplicated the trick, so it is definitely doable.

One likely diversion was taking them out in the dark street, under a single light that must have cast deep shadows, with a number of spectators that he could overview, and away from possible cameras.

Hans
 
If I were able to have an "omniscient" point of view on the event, the error I would expect to find is that they controlled for elaborate trickery but failed to account for simpler approaches.

This, if nothing else, is why I think stage magicians are so qualified to evaluate claimed abilities. They're aware that people tend to overlook the obvious and overthink the trick.
 
It's been a long time for Uri Geller, shilling the same act over and over again. I would have to assume he's gotten quite good at it by now. If you are going to try to debunk someone like that, you really need to A. Set up a proper experiment under controlled circumstances... something Uri has always avoided. B. Get actual experts to observe, not just engineers but magicians and other professional "liars". :)

I know this next bit is not a formal refutation of Uri's "abilities", but it does seem to address a few points in my opinion... and it's funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSk2GWWWCJs
 
The report is either wrong or incomplete. Why it's wrong is open to speculation.

Supernatural causes are not a reasonable explanation because supernatural causes have never been shown to exist in the first place.

An anecdote like this, without evidence, is practically useless.


I totally agree. Randi has an account in his book The Truth About Uri Geller that illustrates the witness phenomenon. A man fervently described an escape stunt he had seen years earlier to Randi. Randi responded that the trick could not have been performed in the manner described. The man vehomently disagreed until Randi pointed out that the escape artist the man had seen was, in fact, Randi himself.

I have witnessed this myself. As an amateur magician, I have listened to people describe a trick I have performed to someone else. Their description is not accurate, as it is colored by their perception. Keep in mind that the entire purpose of a trick is to deceive. It is supposed to fool you.
 
Also there's the phenomenon that the person telling the story wants other people to be amazed also, and will unconsciously invent details that preclude the other person's speculations--even perhaps after the fact.

"Was he in a well lit area?"
(in reality, not having paid attention to the lighting)
"yeah! You could see him clearly!"
 
I've been a semi-pro magician for several decades. I can assure you that it is not reasonable to assume the report is correct.
I'll add to that. It's just like it's not reasonable to assume other reports are correct. Any skeptic should be able to recognise the fallibility of perception and recollection.

In unrelated news, here's a little card trick:
 
The trick is that the witness got played. I find it very difficult to believe that s/he kept their eyes on Geller's hands the entire time. While s/he was looking at Geller's tight jeans, Geller was putting a bend in the spoon.

Magicians have a knack for confusing the hell out of their audience and Geller's no exception.

Also, the account is suspect from the get-go. A competent engineer (as someone has already pointed out) would not have suspected acid or magnets. And why the same spoon? How hard is it to score a spoon that they had to keep using the same one?
 

Back
Top Bottom