He' then
went
into
a
room
with
a
lot
of
people, AA&
. _
.
key
in
someone's
hah
But
presumably,
Me.-
he had
actually bent
it while going out
the
door.
Thames
Television
Producer
Terry
Dixon
told me
about
filming
Geller
in
New
York
in
December
197.3.
Dixon
said
that each member of the crew did
a
drawing and
that
the drawings were
sealed,
first
in
a
white
envelope,
then
a
brown
one,
in
San
Francisco
two
weeks before
the crew
arrived
in New
York
to talk to Geller. Each crew mem-
ber
had
also
signed
the
envelope.
In
Geller's
fiat,
Uri
was
given
the
dozen
sealed
envelopes
and
he handled them
one
at
a
time,
according
to
Dixon. At
this
point
both cameraman Mike Fash,
and
assistant cameraman
Peter George,
however, noted that Fash’s envelope had
fallen
on
the
floor and
both
said,
in-
dependently,
that
Geller would do
that
drawing. Eventually, Geller said that he
needed a long rest, and Dixon suggested
they move
to one
of the Thames
hotel
rooms. Geller agreed and suggested they
take
only
three
envelopes,
which
he
picked
(drawings by Fash, George, and
Dixon).
Geller
suggested
that
they be
sealed together, but there was no Sello-
tape
immediately
available,
so
the
en-
velopes were passed
to one
of
Geller’s
assistants,
Melanie
Toyofuku, who had
them
out
of
sight
of the Thames crew
for more than
10 minutes, according
to
Dixon. She had more than enough time
to use any
of the
magician’s
tricks
to
see
inside
(rubbing
alcohol
on
the
envelopes
to
make
them
transparent,
holding them up to
a strong light, open-
ing
just
a corner
so
that
a small
light
can be put
inside,
or even opening and
resealing the envelopes, among others).
At
the
hotel room,
Geller succeeded in
drawing a combination of Dixon’s draw-
ing (a three-dimensional box) and Fash’s
(a dice).
Tightening the conditions
One
thing
characterises
all
of
these
examples:
Geller
did
not
do
his
feat
in
the
simple, immediate way
in which
it
is
usually
reported.
Instead,
he
succeeded
only
after
unconscious
help
from
a
participant
or' after
taking
an
extra
step
which
could
be
used
by
a
magician
in
a
similar circumstance.
In
other
words,
for
whatever
reason,
Geller worked in such a way as to make
the
normal
explanation
seem
more
likely
than
the
paranormal.
Uri’s
sup-
porters,
of
course,
will
say
that
these
are
all
accidents
or
coincidences, and
that he
does
not
use
the
opportunities
they
offer for tricks. To test this theory,
it
is worth looking at what has happened
in those cases where the conditions were
made
tight enough that Geller could
riot
have
resorted
to
such
tricks.
Perhaps
not
surprisingly,
iie
does
not
perform
very’
well.
One
of
Geller’s
standard
feats
is
to
have
an
object
put
into
one
of
ten
light aluminium 35 mm
film cans, Geller
then
selects eight empty
cans, one
at
a
spoon by hand. The
full
details
of
the
iveti- RO* Kfe,tease’ 2000/08/07 :CIA-RDP96.Q07 87ftO0,O7W1^Os3? n
how^r.
and
and
"benF
it.
i
_
.
*
-
cncTlena sTronir support to his comment.
:
.-Mister commented,
'
Film magazines contain
ten minutes
of
t
it while going out
[..
•
.
.
r-
; >'
film, hut a standard sound tape runs 20.
X-
-
1>
VI r*i
O Kr'
:
,
• V
y
Try
-.
•• rv
f
.tv
t
'-.'t
-'-•T*
*.
/
..
...
object. On
the Merv
Griffin show on US
TV, Geller did the trick successfully, but
some
people
thought
they
saw
Geller
jarring the table so that the cans would
shake
and
he
could
tell
which
was
heaviest. On the Johnny Carson Tonight
show
on
August,
1973,
therefore,
special
precautions
were
taken
and
Geller
was
not
permitted
to
get
near
enough
to
the
table
to
jar
it
or touch
the
cans. He
failed.
On
the AM New
York
show,
they
went
a
step
further
and
used
heavy
film
cans
that could not be jarred. But
Geller
went
further
as
well.
Magician
Felix
Greenfield
reported
that
one
of
the
staff
rang
him
shortly
before
the
show was
to go on
at 7 am
to say that
when she arrived at 5.50 am Geller was
already there, and insisted that he watch
while
she
put the
objects
in
the
cans
and wrapped
tape around them. Green-
field told her that Geller would probably
remember how the target can be taped
and suggested she retape them. She did
and Geller failed.
The
Thames TV
crew
found
that
Geller
could
do
the
film
can
trick
for
them when
someone was
present who
knew
which
can
contained
the
object,
but
not
otherwise,
which
suggested
to
them
that
Geller
looked
for
their
reactions.
Bob
McAlister
of WNEW
told
of
some, of the special precautions he took
for
another
Geller
event.
“Geller
said
he
wanted
to
try
something
big
like
stopping an
escalator, and he suggested
Bloomin*dales
[department
store].
But
our news department suggested Gimbles
because they had worked with the public
relations department there before. Geller
seemed
quite
upset
and
disappeared,
saying Tve
got
to make
a ’phone
call’.
When
I got
to
Gimbles,
I
talked
to
a
guard who
told me that you can throw
a switch on any floor to stop an escala-
tor.
On
my
advice
they
stationed
a
guard
at
the
switch
at each
escalator
landing.
Geller
did
not
stop
.the
escalator.”
Did they see Geiler cheat?
At
least
five
people
claim
to
have
seen
Geller
actually
cheat.
This
is
a
difficult area, because
if we cannot trust
the reports
of observers who say Geller
does
miracles, why
should we
give any
more
credence
to
those
who
say
he
cheated? At least some of the examples,
however,
seem
to
have
supporting
evidence.
Perhaps
the
strongest case
is
that
of
Thames sound
recorder Sandy McCrae,
who
said
on
television
on
15 January
film, but a standard sound tape runs 20
minutes. Thus
it
is normal
practice
to
leave the sound tape running while the
film magazines
are
reloaded. According
to McCrae,
while
the cameramen
were
diverted reloading film, Geller attempted
to
divert
everyone
clsc’s
attention
by
.
referring them hack
to
a
fork
lie had
already
broken.
But
McCrae
did
not..
turn
to
the
broken
fork,
and
said
he
actually saw Geller bend—by hand, not
pfsychlc powers—the large spoon. Geller
then
called
attention
to
the bent spoon
and filming immediately resumed.
Support
for
McCrae’s
story
comes
from producer Terry DLxon, who noted
that McCrae had been a strong believer
in
Geller and
before
this
incident was
convinced
that
Geller
was
genuine.
Dixon
also noted that Uri and
his
asso-
dates were
“obsessively”
interested
in
the equipment,
particularly how long
it
took to reload a film magazine. “No one
ever asked questions like that before.”
-
Ray
Hyman,
a
psychology
professor
at the University of Oregon, was
called
..
in to see Geller at SRI by a government
agency
to whom
Russell Targ and Dr
Hal
Puthoff
had
applied
for
funding.
One of Uri’s demonstrations -for Hyman
at SRI
in December
1972 was
to have
someone else in the room write down a
number on the pad and then
he, Geller,
would guess
it. “As he wrote, Uri made
a
show
of
covering
his
eyes
with
his
hands. From my
side,
I
could
see
his
eyes
through
his
hands.
Also,
-I
could
/
easily
see, from
George's arm
motions,
that he had
written the number
10.”
Hyman
also
told
a
story,
confirmed
to me by one of the others present (who
requested not to be identified), about a
Geller prediction. At 4 pm Geller decided
he was “burned out” and decided to go
.
home. About
a
half hour
later he sud-
denly reappeared, warning one of those
present
not
to
fly back
to Washington,
DC
as
planned.
He
said
that
during
lunch he had had a
premonition about
,
a plane
crashing. But someone decided
to
call
a
newspaper,
and
found
that
'
there had indeed already been
a
plane'?
crash
in Washington around lunch time,
.,
and the report would have been on the
news
stands and
radio during the
half;:
hour Uri was away.
Finally, three people report
that they ?
saw Geller cheat when he 'performed at
the New York
offices of Time magazine
in March
1973. These
are perhaps
the
weakest
cases because Time
is strongly
opposed
to
Geller.
Charles
Reynolds,
picture
editor
of
Popular
Photography,
and
magician
James
Rap.di,
both
say
they saw Geller bend
a key in
bis hand
after having attempted
to
divert
every-
one’s attention by asking for a beer can
opener. And Rita Quinn,
a rerea-chcr in
the picture department who was anxious
to
believe
in
Geller,
saw
him
peek
between
gaps
in
his
fingers
during
a
picture drawing
test.
When
asked
on
television
(Mid-Day
Five, 3 May,
1974)
about Randi's
state-
ment, Geller
replied simply
“I am
sure
time, and
linaily picks the one with the
that he saw Geller bend a
l arge kitchen
Ire
is.J.vini'”.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDre6-00787R&067dtf1 10020-3
•Sew
17 October 1974
;
’
'
ITS
v
Approved-for.Retease 2000/68/07
: C IA RDP96 00737R00Q7QQ44O.Q20-3.
Through a* lenscap darkly
One of Uri's more dramatic feats
is
to apparently
project
his image onto
a
film even though
the camera
has
a
lenscap
taped
on.
Such
pictures have
aPPfared
in several
places, including the News
of the World
(2 December.
1973). Geller also projected his image through the Icnscip of Yale Joel, the
ex-Lifc photographer who took our cover picture. But he may have made
a
•
mistake, aud the US magazine Popular Photography
(June
1974) was
able
to suggest a distinctly non-paranormal explanation.
The photo
(Figure
1)
was
taken
“through
the
taped on
lenscap”
of
a
Pmitax equipped with a 17 mm Takumar extreme wide-angle “fisHeye” lens.
The photo was
taken
in
Geller’s New York
apartment.
Joel
admits
that
Geller had the camera for several
minutes while he
(Joel)
was out of the
room, and so Uri might have been
able
to untape
the lenscap
I
--?
/
^
}
A V-v-
ii
-
V-
•
UVt
Figure
Photo Uri took of himself "through taped-on
.enscap” of Yale Joel’s Pentax
i -F
.
!
.
sitf3 ’
-h
-
•
: Y
;
i
:
i I:'
•
\
:
u.-.iil
.
, .w.
, 4
:
•
t
•
;
:
1.
--V:
-
.
. v-*~
•
•
tv
A*
•• «’„•
. .
- v~-
.v
v
:
-
\
*
r /•'
H
;
y*
y
cl
»‘C*
I
>
f
ju-
t
Sis
Y
:
:
•
•
•
•'-‘74
V
t- — it:;
g. i-W.. i4
rX-
.
-
^ .?-•
vYwV
.-
A v\jy
.
,1-7-2
.
--.
A v
'
' 'r'VY-,
"“-•- A
V
"
’-A,':
tjixU't
w
\
...
.
l'»j * J-*
•»
jJ
’ V:
.
; "/V-;. -V
A
'
: ^
\
r
~
*
.
.
f
•
.
••
- 7"
•
^
***.
'
”•* T:^|
Figure 3
...
it was taken by holding the lenscap just a
bit
away from the camera
>
/‘V
:
. j
-a. -ry**
:
.
.
-
. vk w:
Figure 2
Photo of Seth Joel looks remarkably liko Uri’s
but ...
...
j-,."
•
.
• *\
•'
j«y
: jV Til * J?. ’* -y- .,•
"
‘
~
jj
Figure 4
Picture of Seth Joel taken with 50mm lens.
Is this what U r
i intended?
But
it was
the sharp
circle
with
the bumps
that
lead Joel and Popular
Photography
to
their
answer. After some
experiments, Yale
Joel was
able
to Produce
a photo
of
his son Seth
(Figure
2)
that looks remarkably
like
Geller s. Hie sharp circle
is the lens cap and the bumps the thumb and finder
holuir.g
tiu .
muset'o.
Figure
shows how
the
picture
of
Seth was
taken
help
01 ' 1"
'
1>0pu!ar
I>I10t °Jraphy
found
that one
person
could
do
it
without
GeBer apparently knows a lot about cameras, but did he outsmart himself
on
this
one?
Jopular
Photography
suggests
that
what
he
expected
was
wPh
rln
h'V
S
P ' CtUrC
° f
S ‘:th
takei1
in
Precisely
the same way,
only
wnh
a oO-mm lens on
the Pentax instead
oi
the
fisheve. No sharp
circle
no
lingers.
*
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10020-3
J?G‘
jI
t
V^LlUliCi
J.3J i *
Tran s all
.Release
Investigating
the
Geller phenomenon
second-hand
is
nil
well
and
good,
but
the
strongest
impressions
necessarily
come from personal contact with
Uri.
I
have seen Uri work
twice, once as part
of
a
transatlantic
telepathy
experiment
conducted
by
the
Sunday
Mirror
(10
December,
1973) and
the
other
in
the
Montcalm
Hotel,
London
(19
June,
1974).
In the Mirror
test, Geller was in New
York, connected
to the Mirror
office
in
London
by
transatlantic
telephone.
In
the
Mirror
office
were
Clifford
Davis,
the Mirror TV editor who arranged the
test;
Professor
Arthur
Ellison
of
City
University and
chairman
of
the
execu-
tive
committee
of
the
Society
for
Psychical
Research;
Dr
Christopher
Evans of the New Scientist panel;Ronnie
Bedford, Mirror
science
editor;
Patricia
O'Flanagan
and
myself
from
New
Scientist;
the
Thames TV
crew;
and
about
a
dozen
spectators.
Yasha
Katz
of
Geller’s
staff,
and
Sidney
Young,
from
the
Mirror,
were
with
Geller
in
New York. The
attempt
lasted
nearly
two
hours,
and
covered
a
variety
of
tests.
Katz
listened
on
the New York
ecd
of
the
telephone
and
later
told
New Scientist
(during
one of
his
meet-
ings
to
discuss
our
experiments)
that
Geller’s
biggest
success
was
seeing
a
photograph
of
a
car.
“can
you
tell
us
what
the
three
are,
just
in
case
one
of. them
matches?"
Geller
declined and more long
silences
followed. Finally, at 20 minutes Uri said
he
could
not
do
it.
But
Ellison
said:
“Would
you
like
to
tell
us
anything
about the patterns you were getting
in
your
mind when we
were
all
concen-
trating on the picture?”
Geller
replied
that
he
had
drawn
three
different
sets
of
things.
First,
“three
people
appeared
in
my
mind
with
something
white
underneath”
Second,
“something
long".
Ellison
im-
mediately
replied
“that
sounds
likely,
it could be described as something long”.
Then
Geller said
it was
like an animal
—a
dog or
a
horse
standing
sideways.
With no further encouragement
at
this
point, be moved on to the third drawing
—which
he
described
as
something
triangular with a semi-circle coming out
of the
left
side—“a
mountain,
sort
of,
with something coming out”. Finally, he
said he had words in his mind: “pattern,
horse,
animal,
dog,
dog, dog”.
Although this drew no encouragement
from
Ellison, he continued to press
the
dog—asking
if there was a photo
of
a
dog'
somewhere
in
the
room.
There
wasn’t.
Only
the “something long” had
drawn
a positive response from
Ellison.
Next
Geller
said
that
of
the
three
impressions
the
“biggest one” was
the
Jk&ilk&
A'iS c£,ss”- Then Young
a
fat sausage
:yy
with,
at
the
rear,
a
part
that
comes
.
-
down and looks
like,
say, an
elephant’s
:'c
foot, then
goes
along toward
the
front
-
'
and
becomes
a
sort
of
a
breast”.,.:
Ellison
laughed
and
gave
a
negative
f
,
response.
Geller
then
announced
that
-
he was
finished, and asked Ellison what
f
the
photo
was.
Ellison
said
it was
a
police
car, and
Geller
then
claimed
to
have
written
f
down
tile word
“car”
even
though
he
had
not
mentioned
it
before
with
the
list
of
words
in
his
mind.
Later,
he
.
claimed
to have
written down
the word
.
“car”
twice.
•
.
'
To
me,
at
least,
this
was
hardly
a
success.
Guided by
Ellison,
he
drew
a
shape
that could have been an
animal,
a
car,
a
table,
a
hill,
or
almost
any-
i
;
thing.
Later
in
the
nearly
two-hour
telephone
call,
however,
Geller
made
remarks
like
“I am
happy
I
got
the
drawing”.
When
I asked him afterwards, Ellison
-
answered
immediately
that
Geller
had,
indeed,
gotten
the
car. He
called
the
test “remarkable” and noted that Geller
-
'
“didn’t say a cup or a
tree or a human,,...,
being”.
Actually,
of
course,
Geller
did
mention
people
and
his drawing
could
have been
a
cup— it
was
Young
who
:
said
it
might
be
a
pig
or
a
car. But
most
important,
Ellison seems
to
have
been
totally
oblivious
to the amount
of
Photo which Uri Geller
attempted to see in the
Mirror transatlantic
telepathy test,
10 December 1973
In
fact, the
event
was
not
so
clear'
cut.
A.t my request, Patricia O’Flanagan
had provided
a
set
of
sealed
envelopes
containing simple photographs which no
one
but
she had
seen. When
Uri
was
already on the
telephone, she gave me
the sealed envelopes and
I selected one,
v.hich turned out to contain
a photo
of-
a pc fee
car and
a policeman. Professor
second—an “object that was wide, long,
and
bright
in
colour”.
“Very
good,”
replied Ellison. Geller then went through
another
scries
of
words—table,
flower,
telephone—which drew no support from
Ellison.
Then, 20 minutes into the
test, Geller
began drawing and Sidney Young came
on
the ’phone
to
describe what he was
help
he gave
Geller
during
the
entire
time. He permitted
Geller
to
offer him
three basic shapes from which he chose
one,
then
guided
Geller
to
something
that was only vaguely
right, and
finally
accepted
Geller's statement that
it
was,’
indeed, correct. This
is a good example
of how
Geller
is
able
to draw
people
into helping him and wanting to believe
jo:i
enu
luo
phone
and
concentrated
on
the
photo,
attempting
to transmit
it
to
Geller. We
could
all see and hear
Ellison and hear
Geller.
The
photo
transmission
experiment
took
minutes—the
first
half
being
primarily
long
silences followed by
en-'
courageme
Tii \V i 11
CGijiti
iT
C Ll L
or
i*
»
Young
said,
which
drewy,a
favourable
response from Ellison. Then Y'oung said
it
looked
“like
a
child’s wooden
toy
the
sort
of
thing you
get from
Czecho-
slovakia
where
it
is
just
a
semblance
of
a car or
a
pig—not wheels,
not
legs,
sort
of rounded".
that
lie
has
succeeded,
even up
to
tse.
point of reporting an event that did not
happen.
Nothing
appeared
in
the
Sunday
Mirror about
the
trial, which
surprised
me as Geller was hot news at the
time.
Only
later
did
I
find
that
Geller
had
insisted and Davis accepted that nothing
ftpf5f©v§l(!f
sFior'Refea5e 2O0Oira8/O?^&lW->R©P«6-DO7^7ROtJO?(}O11
,0dl2d-3 thc
tcst
faiicd
New sdc.u 1 st^ f^^^ r Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 1 0020-3
Uri bends my key—and rips his trousers
.
second chance to watch Uri work
was
June when
editor Dr
Bernard
Dixon and
I met with
Uri
in
the lobby
of
the
Montcalm
Hotel,
London,
for
more
than
an
hour.
We
sat
in
a
secluded
corner
of
the
lobby and chatted
for a long time. Then
Uri
offered
to
try
some
of
his
skills
for
us. He
tried
to
reproduce
pictures
which Dixon and
I drew hut eventually
••passed" (he said he saw nothing clear on
his
"mental
screen”)
each
time.
Next
he
suggested
he
try bending
metal.
I
gave Uri my housekev, which he worked
with
unsuccessfully.
Dixon commented afterwards that he
was struck by the extent to which Geller
stressed
his
failures—constantly
saying
he
did
rot
think
he
could
do
it
and
telling
us
stcries
about
his
failures
on
TV and elsewhere. Indeed, he talked far
more about failures than successes. The
effect,
of
course,
is
to make
everyone
around
Geller
exceedingly
anxious
that
he should
succeed.
Geller suggested we move to the next
room—an
empty
dining
room
with
a
few
soft
chairs near
the
door. He
con-
tinued
to
attempt
to
bend
my
key.
Noting
that
it was
often easier to bend
an object when
it 'was near other metal,
he rubbed the key
against an upended
metal
floor
ashtray
and
other
metal
objects.
Even
with
just
the
three
of
us,
a high
degree
of chaos prevailed
at
one
point
I
was
sent
looking
for
metal and at another looking for a pad.
Hotel
staff
who
passed—who
by
now
seemed
used
to
the
events—-added
comments.
But
still
nothing
unusual
happened.
Finally
Uri
suggested we move
into
the
corner
and
sit
down
on
a
sofa
behind
a
low
coffee
table.
Bernard
Dixon was sent to
fetch
Gellcr’s jacket.
Geller
sat
down
first
and
I
walked
around
the
table
and was
just
sitting
down; Bernard was walking across with
Gellers jacket. Thus neither
of us was
watching Geller closely. Suddenly Geller
lurched
forward,
spreading
his
legs
so
rapidly
that he
split
his
trousers.
His
hands
were down
in
front
of
him.
After joking about the ripped trousers,
he
held
the
key
from
the
point
end,
enclosing most
of
it
in
his
hand,
and
continued
his
efforts
to make
it
bend.
Geiler's hand was
slightly
arched, how-
ever,
and
could
see
clearly
that
the
key
was
already
slightly
bent.
Suddenly
he
said
it was
bending,
and
slowly
moved
his
hand down
the
kev
to expose
the bend. The bend was
not
. large and he put the key on
the coffee
table
to show the bend—carefully
hold-
ing
it
in
a V position so that both ends
were
off the
table and
the bend
touch-
was
stid bending and
to prove
this he
put
it back down
on
the
table, now
in
an L
. position,
with an
entire
flat
side
touching
so
that
the
other
end
was
higher
off
the
table
than
it
had
been
the
first
time. As
far
as
I
could
however,
the
key
But
I
can
offer
an
explanation
that
I
find more plausible than
previously un-
identified mental forces.
First,
it should
be noted that keys are surprisingly easy
to
bend,
particularly
for
a
person
like
Geller
with
strong
hands.
Few
of
us
ever try
it, however, and we assume
it
is
difficult.
But
anyone,
including
me,
can bend
'
a key on the edge of a -chair.
Sitting
in
a
chair with your
legs
slightly
spread,
reach down
to
the bottom
of the chair
seat
and
you
will
feel
part
of
the
chair
frame.
Holding
the
head
of the
key in both hands, put the point on the
top
of the frame and press down. You
will
he
surprised how
easily
the
key
bends. With
practice,
you
can
do
this
with a quick, casual movement in which
you
pull
the' chair
forward- towards
a
table.
To me,
the most plausible hypothesis
is
that knowing neither Bernard
nor
I
were concentrating at that moment, Uri
put
the
key
on
the
metal
rail
at
the
front
of
the
sofa
(his
hands
were
in
the
right place) and then sudderly
slid
forward. Because
the
coffee
table
was
too close to the
sofa, he had
to spread
his
legs
quickly,
splitting
his
trousers.
Faces and flowers
-
"'Yd
After
the
key
bend,
Uri
again
tried
telepathy. After
a
couple
of
unsuccess-
ful
attempts—as
before
he
always
passed,
never shown g
a
final
drawing,
despite attempts on his part—he
finally'
did one drawing.
I drew a simple flower
(1), Uri made two attempts
(2 and 3)
which
he
rejected, and then
said
that
I had
drawn
a
face
(4).
It
is,
as he
noted,
not
too
far
off because
it
does
have
a
basic
circle
with
lines coming
out from
it. The
final
drawing
(5)
is
his
explanation—that he drew
a
circle
with
bumps
and
then
guessed
at
the
eyes and
then the
rest
of the
face.
\
Uri’s relative lack of success, his own
explanation of how he did the drawing,
and
some
observations
by
Bernard
Dixon
allowed
us
to
piece
together
afterwards a non-paranormal hypothesis
for
this
effort
as
well.
First,
it
should
be
noted
that
in
the
early
attempts
which Uri passed, we had time to think
and
were
drawing
relatively
unusual
figures such
as
a complex fork ana an
integral
sign.
But
by
the
time
Geller
(7)
u.u
u.;i
mue.
/vs
lar
as
-I
could
see,
/
Picture drav/ina test at Montcalm Hold, London, 19 June 1S74.
2000*8/07
:
i
dCtiMK
say
that
I saw
L‘ri
/
(5) that he had drawn the circle and hair and then guessed at
>cu
m_»
Key by non-paranormal means.
the eyes end rest of the fr.ee