"and sketching a near facsimile of a design, which had been selected at random from several in another room by an investigator, then enclosed in one envelope and sealed in a second before he came into the laboratory. The voice-over on a Stanford film report of these tests stresses that the design duplication feat is not to be considered “a laboratory experiment, since the activity is totally under Geller’s control.”
This remark from the text of the film does not refer to the tests with the sealed envelopes but to an impromptu “think of a number” type demonstration that Uri is shown performing at the start of the film. Christopher doesn’t state how the experiment with the envelopes was under Uri’s control, in full or in part.
"A later session had far different results. Having seen the Stanford Research Institute film of Geller successfully guessing eight times the top spots on a die, the writer brought his own box and his own die, and they never left his sight for even an instant. Eight times Uri tried; and eight times he failed."
Why does Christopher feel Uri failed on this occasion and not when he did this demonstration at SRI or when he allegedly performed this on T.V.? What method does Christopher think Uri used on those occasions if not the “peek” as suggested by Randi? The fact that Tobias supplied the “props” and kept his eye on them should have made no difference if Uri simply “peeks” by thumbing open the lid.
"A day later the Daily Mail quoted two experts. Dennis Constantine, president of the Council of Professional Photographers of Europe, said it was impossible to produce an exposure on film (p. 42) when a metal cap covered the camera lens. Reginald Mason, editor of Amateur Photographer, thought infrared light might have penetrated the opaque cover or possibly an exposed film had been in the camera."
Neither of these explanations seems credible under the circumstances, but Christopher lets them pass without comment.
"Analysed by the Federal Institute for Material-Testing in Berlin, Schreiber’s fork showed traces of a chemical at the breakage point."
Speaking of this event in a talk given to the Israeli Parapsychology Society, H.C. Berendt said,
“In the "Spiegel" report I found the stage-magicians observations about "forcing" and rubbing the fork more important than the report of the "Bundesanstalt fur Materialprufung", which was not able to demonstrate the use of mercury nitrate on the broken surface, but reached its conclusion only after a parallel experiment on the same fork.”
See Uri Geller - Pro and Con
"Some scientists and even a few laymen who have read modern conjuring books are flabbergasted when Uri holds a watch, stares at it – and it stops."
Uri Geller is noted for restarting "broken" timepieces and for causing watch hands to advance "psychically", but not for stopping them, at least not as part of his act, though he has sometimes taken credit for doing so, most notably in the case of Big Ben.