There was a time when serious people took Uri Geller seriously

Picking up from here.

One key element most 21st Century articles on Uri Geller miss is just how much belief in Geller had become respectable by 1973. Researchers and sober intellectuals were treating his supposed powers as a valid area of scientific inquiry. Word of successful RCTs was getting out. Papers were being submitted to major journals. 

When you hear about winning the battle against the debunkers, remember that Randi and company took Geller from this to punch line in the space of three or four years. The "mystifier" continued to make money, but his critics had discredited not only him but, to a large degree, the entire field of para-psychology. 

From NATURE Volume 246  12/7/1973 [emphasis and, yes, double emphasis added.]

It needs to be said, however, that not everyone is convinced that Mr Geller is other than a great illusionist and that there seems to be somewhat more scepticism in Israel and the United States than has yet developed in Britain. For a fairly cool assessment Time of March 12, 1973, should be read. Nevertheless he has clearly created a prima facie case for further investigation and it is to be hoped that the proposal by the New Scientist that he submit to examination by its panel will be taken up, even though he has already been examined extensively by a team at Stanford Research Institute. 

...

The second challenge to scientists will arise if investigations continue to turn up signs of psycho-kinetic powers, and with the present evidence this certainly cannot be ruled out. It would then be urgently necessary for the scientific community to come to terms with something totally beyond its powers of explanation-indeed something which in a religious context would be called a miracle. Just as the public wants scientists to validate Mr Geller, it would also want them to explain him and, however awkward this question may be, it should not be avoided. If Mr Geller indeed possesses extraordinary abilities it is immaterial whether he is an isolated unrepeatable phenomenon or whether a large number of people can be taught the skills, and it is immaterial that he manifests the abilities in ways up to now better known to music-hall illusionists than to scientific investigators. The challenge would still exist-that well established scientific laws as apparent to laymen as to scientists are not inviolate under the influence of some presumed mental process. 

It is difficult to see how research into the causes of such extraordinary happenings could proceed. One suspects that any approach which involved extensive instrumentation would end unsuccessfully. Technology has an unerring ability to suppress human skills. [The idea that true psychics might be unable to function as well in clinical settings was one of the standard excuses used by Geller supporters to explain away failure. It's a bit surprising seeing it used in a Nature editorial -- MP] Nevertheless a boost for psychical research would be very welcome. There are too many loose ends lying around for comfort, and psychical research has not yet been able to shake off its mildly eccentric character and its ability to attract fierce criticism.