In the March/April 1990 issue of 'The British and Irish Skeptic' reader David Hawkins expressed his failure to see why so many magicians wish to play the role of skeptic and doubter over the feats of Uri Geller. He went on to state that magicians are supposed to create wonder and enchantment, not destroy it, and ended by saying 'Long may he (Geller) continue'. I thought that this philosophy begged for a greater response than that of Steve Donnelly in his 'Hits and Misses' column of the same issue.
I would find it most re-assuring to think that 'so many magicians' are skeptical of Geller, the phrase 'so many' suggesting to me that a large proportion may be so inclined; but I wonder just how many are expressing any such doubts. When Geller first came on the scene James Randi was castigated by magicians for being so openly critical of Geller. They considered him to be a fellow conjuror and thought it unethical to make anti-psychic statements to the public. As time went on some conjurors joined with Randi because they could finally see that Geller was making claims far beyond those of a magician - and the hype was being believed. But still there must have been many conjurors who wished Geller success on the grounds that anyone who is gullible enough to believe such stuff deserves all they get.
But Geller's reception at the magician's conference in Brighton suggests that magicians are either over-polite or, on the whole, they accept Geller as one of them. Indeed, I heard reports of the Brighton episode in which magicians thought that even Geller was saying just that. Some chance! If Geller ever admitted to being simply a conjuror all of those mining companies which he claims have paid him millions of pounds or dollars would sue for the return of their money. Magicians who support Geller are either believers or they are unaware of the ramifications and consequences of his being a magician.
Creating wonder and enchantment is somewhat overstating the conjuror's craft. Children do experience wonder and enchantment at a magician's tricks, but any sensible person eventually learns that they are watching an actor playing the part of a conjuror; they are being entertained - no more, no less! Those who continue to think otherwise are likely to take any entertainment seriously and may even send presents to soap opera characters. Should this be encouraged? I think not.
To me, one of the great mysteries in this saga is David Berglas's friendship with Geller. I understand from magician Ian Adair that they and their families visit each other's homes. Many readers will be unaware and perhaps surprised that David has been very sympathetic to Geller for some time. (I am unaware of the press 'so often....portraying them as bitter enemies' as Mr. Hawkins claims.) In an article he wrote for 'Psychic News' ('Magicians are the most narrow-minded people in the world' December 13 1986) before the friendship developed, David confirmed an earlier interview which had appeared in the 'Sunday Express' on May 4th 1986:
'....if he (Geller) is a genuine psychic, and genuinely does what he claims to do by the methods he claims to use, then he is the only person in the world who can do it.
'Uri is the only one to have demonstrated consistently. He is a phenomenon, and we must respect that.
'If on the other hand, he is a magician, trickster, or a conman, he is also phenomenal - the best there has ever been. So whichever way you want to look at him, we must respect him as one or the other.
'Although I have my theories on some of the things he does, I am not prepared to announce which I consider him to be.'
The 'Sunday Express' article had simply quoted David: 'What I say is, if he is a magician then he is phenomenal, but if genuine then he is the only man who can do it.'
I really cannot make sense of these statements. If Geller proved beyond doubt that he is genuine then that would only add credence to other metal benders' claims, not detract from them. What about the consistency of other 'metal benders', like Jean-Pierre Girard in France, Silvio in Switzerland, and Masuaki Kiyota in America and Japan? What about James Randi's consistent demonstrations? Does David call Randi a phenomenon? And as a magical enthusiast (I don't call myself a magician) I have strong objections to any suggestion that Geller is a great conjuror. I can think of him as a simple opportunist. Not everyone who tells jokes is a comedian, and not everyone who does tricks is a magician. And respect for a conman? Perish the thought.
Considering David's open sympathy to psychics and friendship with Geller isn't it strange that after so much time we haven't heard from him that he has witnessed metal-bending under proper observing conditions? What an opportunity! If it was you in his position, wouldn't you plead on bended knees for Geller to demonstrate such a unique phenomenon? Eighteen months ago I asked David if Geller had done any metal bending for him. It seems as though he hasn't, for David avoided the question, asking me instead if I was suggesting that Geller couldn't do so. Doesn't all this tell you much about Geller's claimed abilities?