-"App 0101; 0 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 Volume 251 October J8, 1974 (to itse 1- one phrase). T This in l I itself inight be sufficien' to .2- i raise doubt ~.AA th, demonstrat~,d HIVeSCU t, -it the experiments have existence ns fa r i'll 0 r 11 11 a of a new channel of communication which does not involve the use of the senses. 1 (4) Two OF the referees felt that it was a pity that the Wr publish this week a paper by Drs paper, instead R. Targ and H. of concentrating in do.Lffl and with meli- PUthOff (page 602) which is bound CUIOUS care to create something of on one particular approach to extra-SCII,~Or% a stir in the scientific community. phenomena, The claim is made that produced a rniXtUre or different experliticnis. information can be transfcrred bv using different sorne channel whose subjects it-, Unconnected circumstances ~ukd characteristics appear to fall "Outsidewith only the range of known a tCllUOLIS overall theme. Ar tile best these ~~re perceptual modalities". Or, more more "a bluntly, some people can series of pilot studies . . . than a report o, a read thoughts or see thing s reniotely. completed experin-tent". Such a Clainl is, Of Course, bound On their to be ueeted with a own these higIiIN critical comments could h~, preconditioned reaction amomist manygrounds scientists. To some for rejection of tile paper, but it was felt th,J it simply conflirms vhat thev have other points al,,~aNs known or needed to be taken into account before it fmal behe,.ed. To others it is be\olid decision the laws of science and could he made. necessarily umicceptable. But to I ) Despite a few-though its shorLcoi-nings, the pap~_-r is presented as a perhaps to more than is realised-thescientific questions are still document h\ two qUali(lCd scientists, writing unanswered, and any c%idence of highfrom it quality is worth a major research establishment a liv ""ith 0)c critical exarriiiat;on. unCJUaJihCd backing of tile rOSCal-Ch iuslitlu,~ itself. 'o investi,! then, is "hctht~r the evidence is of sufficient ithors have Tile issue, c ~ucly attcimptec I -,I!., (f~ I (JUdlity to he taken SC1711JUSIN1. under laboratory Irt trying to answer this, we conditions p! i i o, ri i e n a~,N hi c h, ~~ hi le have been fortcnatc in having the highly implausible help of thr~-c indepen- to rnan~ scientms, \%ould ne\ert-cless &nt referees vho have clone their seem to utmost to see the paper be woril-ty of inNestigation ever. if, ;n tile final as ~1 POW11tiallY illipOrtalit, scientificanalysis,, communication and negatke findings are rCVCLdCd. If SCIentiStS d"~p"'C not as a challenge to or confirinationand debate of pre judices. We the reality of cxtra-sensol-N, pel-cclilion, thor, thank them for the considerable effortthe SUhJeCt thev hake Put in to is clearly a matter for- scientifi,,: ~tu~!,, "I'd helping US, and we also thank Dr reportage. Christopher E~ans of the National Physical I aboratory whose (3) Very continued ',1d\ ice on the considerable ad,~ance publicity -it is f,~:r 'o subject is reflected in the content sav ilot of this leading article. _,,~ncratcJ bv tile MllhOri 01- their ilWitU1C----h,1S A general indication o1 tile referees'Preceded comments niaY be the presentation of thin. report. A,, a result Inarly h0prLd to readers in reaching their scientists own assessment of the and VCrV lal-Ve HUl11hCT--~ Of' non-scientists beli,~vc, Paper. Or the three, tine believtcl as the result we should not publish, Of Unc(:UOLC and hcar~za\, thot the St,oifoid one did not feel strong lZesearch ,1y either way and the third NNas Institute (SRI) ~Na,, ~~ng-aged in a maior fesearch guardedly in faVOU)- of publication.programme We first SUMmarise the into paraps~,Jloiooical matters an(! had c%en arguments against the paper. been the s,.enc of a rcnmr~,:ible breaN1-thF0Li4,,h in this flield. (1) There was agreement that the The publication paper was ,veak in of this panel, with its 11)Llt,~d ~~Iaims, su- design and prewntation, to the extentgestiors that details given as of a limited rc,carzh progninitne, iind rnodest clata, to the precise way in which the experimentis, we bclic,~e. was carried Out likely to DUt the whole [natter in more reason- were disconcertin'Ply vague. The able pcrspcctiNe. referees felt that insuf- ficient aCCOUnt had been taken of (4) The the established inethod- clairns that hd%e been made bv, or on behalf of, ology of experimental psychology (-)lie of and that in the forin the SUNMS, NIr UFi CiCHCr, have bc,~'li hlailcd Pill)- originally submitted the paper wouldlie(\, as be unlikely to be indicating total a,~ceptance hy the SRI of al!eg~,dly accepted for publication in a psychologicalin journal On these sen"'atiolia) powers and maN also perhal-,, now be seen grounds alone. T\No referees also , felt that the authors had true perspective, It Must be a niatter Of jlltCreSt to scientists not taken into account tht lessons to note learnt in the past bN that, contrary to %ery viclecprcad rumour, the parapsychologists researching this paper does tricky and complicated not pre~.,en(. an\ evidence "hatsoever for 4 Fea. Geller's alloged abilities to bend metal rods bN1 stromna (2) The 1hree referees were particularlythem, innuence critical or the ma2ncts at a distance, make x~atches stop method Of target selection used, or start pointing out that th,, b\ sorne p,,vchokinctic force nrid, so on. The pul-ili- choice of it target by "opening a Cation Of dictionary at randorn" N the Paper would he iLkStified on the grourids of a naive, vague and unnecessaffly allo%~ing controversial approach to scientists the oppurtunit 'v to discriniinat-2 bol,,wlen landoillisation. Parap~~chologi~~-s tile CatlliOUS, have long rejected such limited and -still hitzhly debatable, 0_xperi- n1ethods of target scl&tion and, immtal clatd, a~ one referee put it, and extravagant rumour, fed in r-ccm da,:s, %,~caknesses of this kind rc\eal b\ inaccurate "a lack ol skill in t1wir jittempts in sonic newspapers at preco.,.,,nitloll -XV1~6mcnts, Miich might ha\e causedOf the coritcnts thein to iniikc sonic of th~: r,oper, (Aher mist;ike which is ie%~ evident(,~) T,.%() frorn !lwir or the ` ref~~rces also felt thaL thC paper should 1`101,11~ lie puhlished (1) All the referees felt that the bvcause dcuiil~ uiv,n of va it ,\ould allow aroll saregMards and precautioni introducedall oilier at-,Zlinst the po,,- scieritist~ interestcd in researching, thik ar,~uabl,' sibil;1V ()r, f I'll, LLL__(Luajit%. 0, the st~nford i CCsCai-L41 vnd A' '01 "c ,.~ C1 P * 04 10 0 k w . -7 Ot 0 . l cj~ HI Ll 74URY60020,00900244 olo.", . _ O) 0 the stl)]Ccrt" c t , 1 19 Approved For Release 2099/081119s: Nature, although seen by sorne as one o ic w Most respected journals cannot afford to live on respect- ability. We believe that Our readers expect us to be a horne for the oc,~_,,~~ional 'high-risk' type of paper. This is hardly to assert that we regularly fly in the face of referees' recom- mendations (we always consider the possibility of publishing, as in this case, a summary of their objections). It is to say that the unusual must now and then be allowed a toe-hold ill tile' literature, sometimes to flourish, more often to be forgotten within a year or two. The critical comments above were sent to the authors who have modified their manuscript in response to them. We have also corresponded informally with the authors on one or two issues such as whether the targets could ha~c been forced by standard magical tricks, and are convinced that this is not the case. As a result of these exchanges and the above considerations we have decided to publish in the belief, that, however flawed the experimental pro- cedure and however diflicult the process of distilling the essence of a complex series of events into a scientific manuscript, it was on balance preferable to publish and maybe stimulate and advance the controversy rather than keep it out of circulation for a further period, Publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of receiving a sea] of approval from the establishment: rather it is the serving of notice on the community that there is something worthy of their attention and scrutiny. And this Nature Vol. 251 October 18 1974 CIA -t RPP,904087t R000200,090024',7r, mo,ost some to repeat the experiments with even more caLitiOll. To this end the New Scientist does a service by publishing this week the results of Dr Joe Hanlon's own investigo- tions into a wide range of phenomena surrounding Mr Geller. If the subject is to be investigated fUrthel-alld 110 scientist is likely to accept more than that the Sl~l experi- ments provide -,I prima facie case for more imestigilLiolIS- the experimental technique will have to take account of Dr Hanlon's strictures, those of our own referees end those, doubtless, of others who will be looking for alternative explanations. Perhaps the most important issue raised by the circum- stances surrounding the publication of this paper is Ahether science has yet developed the competence to confront claims of the paranormal. Supposedly paranormal events frequently cannot be investigated in the calm, controlled and meticulous Wily that scientists are expected to work, and so there is always a danger that tht., irl\estigator, swept up in the confusion that surrounds many experiments, abandons his initial intentions in order to go along with his Subject's desires. It- may be that all experiments of this sort should be exactly prescribed beforehand by one group, done by another unassociated group and evaluated in terms of performance by the first group. Only by increasing austerity of approach by scientists will there be any major progress in this field. or those M peril On thu^ factory floor Irti tli~s article Peter J, Smith argues a that ~a~er, conzinitinent (in deed as we c1 wor~l) to community sciencell by t e Scientific Establisl;- ment inight help lie world of science regain some of th mblic respect it has lost, TiiE question of who spea , or should speak, on behalf of the scion ' c com- munity has been debated or). ma oc- casions, most often without result. ii the face of it, such lack of resolutio is hardly unexpected, for scientists and scientific institutions are not noted for their ready ability to achieve con- sensus. Yet there is no doubt that they can put up a pretty collective front when they feel so moved. The one - famous occasion on which a near con sensus was reached was when the scientific community saw itself put at risk financially by the Rothschild pro- posals. Then individuals and ilistit - tions miraculously found a con on cause of self-preservation. But when it conies to th5Aefence of less privileged groups Iit is~' quite a dif- ferent story; the vo~j of the British scientific cormiiur~ity is seldom to be heard, whedier Caking a moral stance, xerting hu7ni arian pressure, suppl,~ lig expe sc r even simply providing ,,,rt so 0 in ozri, tion good case in point is the title hints, the object of Socialist Worker is nothing less than the corn- plctc overthrow of the capitalist system, and one of the ways of achieving this airn, it seems, is to give strident publi- city to defects in the capital ist-ind us- trial syste'm. Fortunately, one can easily avoid a sharp turn to the left and still admit that what some British Workers have been subjected to in the name of asbestos production is beyond the limit of acceptability in a huniani- tarian society. For what clearly emerges fro the lietoric of the pamphlet in stion is icture of men and r on reacting in s lie bewildermen long-term ,~Ao tic i1 of as of a t- inological activity. Tile chie C~P&6quence is, of Course, ,sMNLV~~l __ _illing disc- ase acquired . bre bing in asbestos fibres. The b~ bulk f the p- iphlet is devoted to C, e histories of on to whom asbes- tosis has conic as shock after a decade or so in the in stry. But more instructively, there is als a short ac- ccount of the fight for sa y put up by a small group of the 7/162 ilasgow insulation workers' branch o' the Transport and General Workers Ui ion ag-ainst the obstruction of the ashest co'nipanies, the indifference of politi- cians, the weakness of the Factory Inspectorate, the silence of much of the prc~s, the impotence of health r ided by a iie%v Socialist Worker authorities, the equivocal officia( stance MpI s~j 1 1 1 6~4s6but. not filar f§AOt240P 007-87R0,0020M- s asbestos workers themselves. And there is certainly son-!~Hling to fight aboul. According t4,4-1atrick Kinnersly (Tile Hazards f 0 _k: ff"v' to Fighi Tile""' , I'l L't o~ ~r,ss' 1973), asbestosis is tak ing ~ increasing toll: ir i" 64 Lire known have died in 1965, fila, 107 in 1970 -nd 113 in 1971. The a n d 3 ~70 nt.irnbel",~> new cases diagnosed rose ca, new d from ~92 in 1965 to 153 in 1970. 'N, f~llver, asbestosis is only one of e asbestos-induced diseases. Lung cancer appears to require a ' snialler exposure to asbestos. There is also another form of cancer known as inesotheliorna which involves growths in the linings of the lungs and stomach. Almost all mesotheliomas are caused hv asbestos: but no one knows how many workers in Britain are killed by them, partly because they take so long to develop and pardy because they are not always identified. The TUC Con- tenarv Institute Of Occupational Health has suggested that, 30 years after first exposure, about one in 200 %611 be found to hake dick] of nieso(hclionl~': but Dr Irving J. Selikoff ol \JOL111t Sinai Hospital in New York is aV1 parently more pessimistic. He 1-s recently been quoted as ,a\irq~ lhat, 'cend, 've for every 100,000 workers entcl-riv the j -hestos industry tinder the 1-IfOV _,tos he dards obtain -, in tile Urited sta d"d, ing Stat as recently as 1971, lie, \%otild expect '10,000 to dic (if luf)v -MCCF. L 7,000 o ~,mcsothcliorrw 111d _,,000 Of 0()() o (IM, 1AIL71o"Is. 602 Nature Vol. 251 October i'8 1974 0 'A proved.F. ase,, 00 -RDP96-00787ROO0200090024r7k. W11,K1E Pr Reltq ~ CIA 10 e a en Le o cs a e 119 3 P 1 1 Department of Physiology, 11, n o s , . C em 0 pro g , g work from the mixing of two ideal gases in an isolated system of constant total volume. University College London, It is elementary that if the mixture is allowed to form by Gower Street, merely withdrav.-ing a partition between the gases we have London WCIE 6BT, UK a good example of a completely irreversible process Received December 3, 1973; revised with maximal entropy June 4, 1974. creation (+ 11.53 J K` if we started with I mol of each P. W., Tile Nature of Therniodynrinics, 116 Bridgman age of work. On the at 300 K) and no performance or stor,, (Flarvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, other hand, by introducing into the 1943). system a suitable inachine, the uniform mixture could Everett, D. Fl., Chemical Thermodynamics, be allowed to form 216 (Longman, in such a way that a weight within London, 1971). the system was raised. (The machine described by Planck 3 LcLon, A. C., Maitre' '144, 431 (ref. 8, page 219) may (1973). , W~I 242 606 (1973) D R N i . be readily adapted for this purpose.)aturl At the end of the k . ., e, , Wilkie, D. R., Nature, 245, 457 (1973). latter mixing process the isolated Butler, J. A. V., Chemical Thermodynamics, system would accordingly faiirth ed. contain more mechanical energy than (Macmillan, 1955). it did at the begin- ower of fire (1824) otiv i e R i C S ning. From the First Law it follows l that the system must ons oil t m , arnot, e p eflect ., New York, 1960). translation (Dover necessarily contain less thermal , energy~ that is, its tempera- ' Planck, M., Treatise oil Thermodynamics, third ed., trans. ture must have fallen. In the limit,from seventh German ed., 1922 ?Dover, where the mixing New York, 1958). was reversible, the maximum Nssible ' Joule, J. P., Phil. Mag., Series work would have 4, 5, 1 (1853). been performed and transferred to Maxwell, J. C., Theory of fIcat, fifth the weight (2,769 J if ed., chapter XII (Long- mans Green, London, 1877). the gases were monatomic) and the Thomson, W., Phil. Alag- Series 4, temperature would 5, 102 (1853). have fallen to 189 K. In this reversibleGuggenheim, E. A., Thermodynamics, case the change third ed. (North liol- in entropy arising from mixing (+11.53land, Amsterdam, 1957). J K-') is exactly counterbalanced by that attributableKeenan, J. H., and liatsopoulos, G. to cooling (-11.53 J N., Principles of General Thermodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1965). K-'):no entropy is created * . seric, t.VllI (Novembre 1889). Gouy, M., J. (le Phys., 2 At this poin-t it might be objected Thomson, W., Phil. Mag,, Series 4, that the change in the 4, 304 (1852); corrections gases is not exactly the same as in ibid, 5, viii. if they had mixed irreversibly, because their thermal energy and temperature have decreased. This is a simple consequence of the First Law which applies equally no matter whether one is considering an isolated system, a non-isolated one or the whole Universe. If a change is conductedInformation transmission under in such a. way that a weight is lifted then all conditions of sensory shielding the other bodies involved Co ~ cannot possibly end up in the same state as if the weight had not been lifted. WE present results of experiments suggesting the existence of WE Failure to apply to nonisothernial one or more perceptual modalities systems. Legon ex- through which individuals presses doubts about the validity obtain information about their environment, of the equation for although this entropy creation. (refs 3 and 4) information is not presented to any save for "the trivial known sense. The litera- case for which the temperature T, turel-3 and our observations lead of the environment is us to conclude that such equal to the temperature T of the abilities can be studied Linder laboratory system throughout the conditions. process"'. On what grounds are theseWe have investigated the ability of doubts based? Legon certain people to describe does not discuss, let alone dismiss,graphical material or remote scenes any of the sources shicided against ordinary quoted in my article'. Other relevantperception. In addition, we performed sources which should pilot studies to determine be considered are Keenan and Hatsopoulos"if elect rocnccphal ogra phic (EEG) and the classic recordings might indicate accounts by Maxwell" and by Goity". perception of remote happenings even in the absence of correct Legon's quotation from Planck (ref. overt responses. 8, page 104) con- cerning "dissipated energy" deservesWe concentrated on what we consider close consideration. to be our primary It seems to state that the maximum responsibility-to resolve under conditions work is a definite as unambiguous quantity only for isothermal processes.as possible the basic issue of whether If true this would a certain class of para- directly contradict the views of normal perception phenomena exists. Thomson" (later Lord So we conducted our Kelvin) "On a universal tendency experiments with sufficient control, in Nature to the dissi- utilising visual, acoustic pation of mechanical energy". On and electrical shielding, to ensure pages 113-117 of ref. 8, that all conventional paths of however, Planck discusses his own sensory input were blocked. At all statement (ref. 8, page times we took measures to 104) and we see that there is in prevent sensory leakage and to prevent fact no contradiction. What deception, whether Planck demonstrates is that althoughintentional or unintentional. the change in Helm- holtz free energy, -dA=-d(U-TS), Our goal is not just to catalogue measures under interesting events, but to isothermal conditions, it cannot uncover patterns of cause--effect conveniently be used relationships that lend them- to determine ivi,iaz under nonisothermalselves to analysis and hypothesis conditions because in the forms with which The term S dT that then appears is we are familiar in scientific study. frequently indeterminate. The results presented here The same point has already been madeconstitute a first step to,.tards in a footnote by that goal: we have established Gouy (ref. 15, page 506) who had under known conditions a data base also given the correct from which departures as a equation for determining iviiiax function of physical and psychological under nonisothermal con- variables can be studied ditions. Accordingly I find no substancein future work. in Legon's objec- tions under this heading. If it is thought that there is conflictREMOTE PERCEPTION OF GRAPHIC NIATEPIAL between the 'work' View of thermodynamics and the 'entropy'First, we conducted experiments with view it is hiiih Mr Uri Geller in time that the idea was abandoned. which we examined his ability, while The two views are located in an electrically different, but symmetrical, aspects shielded room, to reproduce target of the same reality. pictures drawn by e\r)cri- Spontaneous processes of all kinds menters located at remote locations. fall sonicv,-here within Second, v~c conducted the pittern shown in Table 1, their double-blind exivrinients with Mr position depending Pitt Price, in %,-hich ~,%c on th efflcic%~ 7c mach, usc~d r measured his ability to describe remote ti6c extraction owdoor scenes inanv "'Approc 0 1 c I ' 4 9 r Ke '69'se 60 8/10 i CI A RD of w - : 0 Pie- L,ctc PVormOQ7i&7-ROOa2OeoeGo24i.7colik Nature Vol. 251 October 18 1974 603 MJDary s ? (following G 1~ 'w' 6 QPM C 1 & fA Mw T # # t O g 9 " " OWN A " ~ 1 i ers during t n a J t a is 7 S e e g s t J s perceive 9Q o e drmln 6 whether a subject could perceive the presencethe course of the experiment (Experiments of the light, 5-7, 11-13); and (3) even if only at a DOMO-nitiVC level of arbitrary selection from a target awareness. pool decided upon in advance 0 In preliminary testing Geller apparently of daily experimentation and designed demonstrated an to provide data concern- ' ability to reproduce simple pictures (lineeci-fic hypotheses drawings) which had ing information content for use in testing sp been drawn and placed in opaque sealcd (Experiments 8-10). Geller's task envelopes which he was to reproduce with pen was not permitted to handle. But since on paper the line drawing generated each of the targets was at the target location. known to at least one experimenter in Following a period of effort ranging the room with Geller, from a few minutes to it was not possible on the basis of the half an hour, Geller cither passed preliminary testing to (when he did not feel con- discriminate between Geller's direct perceptionfident) or indicated he was ready of envelope to submit a drawing to the contents and perception through Some mechanismexperimenters, in which case the involving drawing was collected before the experimenters, whether paranormal Geller was permitted to see the target. or subliminal. So we examined the phenomenon under conditionsTo prevent sensory cueing of the designed target information, Experiments to eliminate all conventional informationI through 10 were carried out using channels, overt or a shielded room in SRI's facility subliminal. Geller was separated from for EEG research. The acou,,tic and both the target material visual isolation is provided by a double-walled steel room, locked by means of an inner and and anyone knowledgeable of the material,outer door, each of which is secured as in the experiments with a refrigerator-type locking of ref. 4. mechanism. Following target selection when Geller was inside In the first part of the study a series the room, a one-way audio monitor, of 13 separate drawing operating only from the inside experiments were carried out over 7 days.to the outside, was activated to No experiments monitor Geller during his efforts. The target picture was never discussed by the experimenters after the are deleted from the results presented picture was drawn and brought near here. the shielded room. In our At the beginning of the experiment eitherdetailed examination of the shielded Geller or the room and the protocol used in experimenters entered a shielded room these experiments, no sensory leakage so that from that time has been found. ' forward Geller was at all times visually for the 10 experiments carried out acoustically and in the The conditions and results , shielded room are displayed in Table electrically shielded from personnel and I and Fig. 1. All experiments material at the target except 4 and 5, were conducted with Geller inside the shielded room. location. Only following Geller's isolationIn Experiments 4 and 5, the procedure from the experi- was reversed. For those menters was a target chosen and drawn, experiments in which Geller was inside a procedure designed the shielded room, the target to eliminate pre-experiment cueing. Furthermore,location was in an adjacent room to eliminate at a distance of about 4 m, except for Experiments 3 and 8, in which the target locations were, respec the possibility of pre-experiment target tively, an office at a distance of forcing, Geller was kept 475 m and a room at a distance of ignorant as to the identity of the personabout 7 m. selecting the target and as to the method of target selection.A response was obtained in all experiments This was accomplished except Numbers by the use of three difTerent techniques:5-7. In Experiment 5, the pers on-t (1) pseudo-random o- person link was eliminated technique of opening a dictionary arbitrarilyby arranging for a scientist outside and choosing the the usual experimental first word that could be drawn (Experimentsgroiip to draw a picture, lock it 1-4); (2) targets, in the shielded room before blind to experimenters and subject, preparedGeller's arrival at SRI, and leave independently by the area, Geller was then led TARGET RESPONSE I RESPONSE 2 -Tr TARGET RESPONSE d TARGET b V RESPONSE TARGET P'g 05 RESPONSE I Js TARGET RESPONSE TARGET RESPONSE f C RESPONSE 2 RESPONSE 3 TARGET RESPONSE 9 U Approved FoWeTeds8c' 60'01'0 8116 10690024-7 604 Nature Vol. 251 October 18 1974 A - 9AG d Fo r U01 R000200 pp. ove eteas IV A787 090024-7 7,1111111J111''mote perception oTg lri,~,MQ Experiment Date Geller Location Target Location Target Figure (month, day, year) 1 814/73 Shielded Adjacent room Firecracker la room 1* ~4.1 ni)t 2 8/4173 Shielded Adjacent room Grapes lb room I (4.1 m) 3 8/5/73 Shielded Oflice (475 m) Devil 1e room I 4 8/5/73 Room adjacent Shielded roorn Solar system Id to I shielded (3.2 m) 5 816173 room 1 Shielded room Rabbit No drawing Room adjacent I to shielded (3.2 m) 6 8/7/73 room 1 Adjacent room Tree No drawing Shielded (4.1 m) room I 7 8/7/73 Shielded Adjacent room Envelope No drawing room I (4.1 in) 8 8/8/73 Shielded Remote room (6.75Camel le room I m) 9 8/8/73 Shielded Adjacent room Bridge if room I (4.1 m) 10 8/8/73 Shielded Adjacent room Seagull Ig room I (4.1 m) 11 8/9/73 Shielded Computer (54 Kite (computer 2a room 2+' m) CRT) 12 8/10/73 Shielded Computer (54 Church (computer2b room 2 in) memory) 13 8/10173 Shielded Computer (54 Arrow through 2c room 2 in) heart (computer CRT, zero intensity) EEG Facility shielded room (see text). tPerceiver-target distances measured in metres. t SRI Radio Systems Laboratory shielded room (see text). by the experimenters to the shielded room and asked to draw the picture located inside the room. He said that he got no clear impression and therefore did not submit a drawing. The elimina- tion of the person-to-person link was examined further in the second series of experiments with this subject. Experiments 6 and 7 were carried out while we attempted to record Geller's EEG during his efforts to perceive the target pictures. The ta'Tget pictures were, respectively, a tree and an cnvelope. He found it difficult to hold adequately still for good EEG records, said that he experienced difficulty in getting impressions of the targets and again submitted no drawings. Experiments I I through 13 were carried out in SRI's Engin- cering Building, to make use of the computer facilities available there. For these experimenters, Geller was secured in a double- walled, copper-screen Faraday cage 54 im down the hall and around the corner from the computer room. The Faraday cage provides 120 dB attenuation for plane wave radio frequency radiation over a range of 15 kHz to I GHz. For magnetic fields the attenuation is 68 dB at 15 kHz and decreases to 3 dB at 60 Hz. Following Geller's isolation, the targets for these experiments were chosen by computer laboratory personnel not otherwise associated with either the experiment or Geller, and the experimenters and subject were kept blind as to the contents of the target pool. For Experiment 11, a picture of a kite was drawn on the face of a cathode ray tube display screen, driven by the computer's graphics prograrn. For Experiment 12, a picture of a church was drawn and stored in the memory of the computer. In Experiment 13, the target drawing, an arrow through a heart (Fig. 2c), was drawn on the face of the cathode ray tube and then the display intensity was turned off so that no picture was visible. To obtain an independent evaluation of the correlation be- tween target and response data, the experimenters submitted the data for judging on a 'blind' basis by two SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the research. For the 10 cases in which Geller provided a response, the judges were asked to match the response data with the corresponding target data (without replacement). In those cases in which Geller made more than one drawing as his response to the target, all the drawings were combined as a set for judging. The two judges each matched the target data to the response data with no error. For either judge such a correspondence has an a priori probability, under the null hypothesis of no in- formation channel, of P = (10!)-1 ~ 3 x 10". envelopes containing black cardboard. The hundred targets were divided randomly into groups of 20 for use in each of the three days' experiments. On each of the three days of these experiments, Geller passed. That is, he declined to associate any envelope with a drawing that he made, expressing dissatisfaction with the existence of such a large target pool. On each day he made approximately 12 recognisable drawings, which he felt were associated with the entire target pool of 100. On each of the three days, two of his drawings could reasonably be associated with two of the 20 daily targets. On the third day, two of his drawings were very close replications of two of that day's target pictures. The drawings resulting from this experiment do not depart signific- antly from what would be expected by chance, in a simpler experiment Geller was successful in obtaining information Linder conditions in which no persons were know- ledgeable of the target. A double-blind experiment was per- formed in which a single 3/14 inch die was placed in a 3 X 4 x 5 inch steel box. The box was then Vigorously shaken by one of the experimenters and placed on the table, a technique found in control runs to produce a distribution of die faces differing non- significantly from chance. The orientation of the die within tile box was unknown to the experimenters at that time. Geller would then write down which die face was uppermost. The target pool was known, but the targets were individually pre- pared in a manner blind to all persons involved in the experi- ment. This experiment was performed ten times, with Geller passing twice and giving a response eight times. In the eight times in which he gave a response, he was correct each time. The distribution of responses consisted of three 2s, one 4, two 5s, and two 6s. The probability of this occurring by chance is approximately one in 103. In certain situations significant information transmission can take place under shielded conditions, Factors which appear to be important and therefore candidates for future investigation include whether the subject knows the set of targets in the target pool, the actual number of targets in the target pool at any given time, and whether the target is known by any of the experimenters. It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Althoulgh metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, %%c have not been able to combine such observations ~%iih adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis. it buwnu series oi experiments was carneci out to ticLummic whether direct perception of envelope contents was possible REMOTE VIEWING OF NATURAL TARGIA's withobt some person knowing of the target Picture. A study by Osis' led w, to determine Miethcr is sut'.10:t 0_)uild One hundred target pictures of everyday objects were drawn describe randomly chosen gcographical sites I(XILWI; ~c%vlj' by an Approved fear Rel0a"120OW08M i~~rcalcd Nature. Vol. 251 Oclober 18 1974 605 Ar%proved For Rel~a~p 2000/08/10 IA~IfZ appropr7ale means (remote viewing . is experiment carrielp MJMQ90024-71ild , to the out with Price, a former California police commissioner and city councilman, consisted of a series of double-blind, demori- stration-of-ability tests involving local targets in the San Francisco Bay area which could be documented by several inde- pendent judges. We planned the experiment considering that natural geographical places or man-made sites that have existed for a lon.g time are more potent targets for paranornial perception experiments than are artificial targets prepared in the laboratory. This is based on subject opinions that the use of artificial targets involves a 'trivialisation of the ability' as com- pared with natural pre-exist7ng targets. In each of nine experi .ments involving Price as subject and SRI experimenters as a target demarcation team, a remote location was chosen in a double-blind protocol. Price, who remained at SRI, ~N as asked to describe this remote location, as well as whatever activities might be going on there. Several descriptions yielded signilicantly correct data per- taining to and descriptive of the target location. In the experiments a set of twelve target locations clearly differentiated from each other and within 30 min driving time frorn SRI had been chosen from a target-rich environment (more than 100 targets of the type used. in the experimental series) prior to the experimental series by an individual in SRI manage- ment, the director of the Information Science and Engineering Division, not otherwise associated with the experiment. Both contents of the target pool, which were used without replace- ment. An experimenter %vas closeted A ith Price at SRI to wait 30 min to begin the riarrati%e description of the remote location. -file S I . r~j locations from which the subject viewed the remote locatiOns c(,I,- sisted of an Outdoor park (Experinlents 1, 2), the doubfe-%%alled copper-screen Faraday cage discussed earlier (Experiments 3. -1, arld 6-9), and an office (Experiment 5). A second experimenter would ! i,,erl obtain a target location from the Division Director from a se~ of travelling orders previously prepared and randomised by the Direc_~r and kept under his control. The tar-et demarcation team (t),%o to four SRI experimenters) then proceeded directly to the target b% automobile without communicating xilh the subject or experimenter remaining behind. Since the experimenter remaining with the suoJect at SRI was in ignorance both as to the particular target and as to the target pool, lie was free to question Price to clarify his desciip- tions. 'The demarcation team then remained at the target site for 30 min after the 30 min allotted for travel. During the ob~er,,ilion period, the remote-vie\Ning subject would describe his impressions of the target site into a tape recorder. A comparison was then made when the demarcation team returned. Price's ability to describe correctly buildings, docks, roads. gardens and so on, including structural materials, colour, ambience and activity, sometimes in great detail, indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability. But the descriptions contained inaccuracies as well as correct statements, To obtain a numerical evaluation of the accuracy of the remote viewing experiment, the experimental results were subjected to inde- pendent judging on a blind basis by five SRI scientists who were .......... TARGET TARGET RESPONSE a RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2 TARGET RESPONSE 1 C ,Flq b, computer drav, ing 0 F!Ap"LnCp 5t fed in e by r bb&T61a 1198&24-7 606 Nature Yol. 251 October IS 1974 _1 ed For Re'ease 20 108110 : G! A R-DP96 00787ROO0200090024 7 - -Apprev 3 pble 2 Distribution of correct selections by judges A, B, C, D, and E in remote viewing experiments ,~ chosell by judges Places visited by judges Descriptiori . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hoover Tower I ABCDE D ' Baylands Naturc 2 ABC - D Prc,,crve E D Radio Tclcscr,,~~ 3 ACD BE . 4 CD ABDE E Redwood City ~vlarma Bridge Tofl Pla- 5 ABD DCE Drive-In Thealre 6 B A C E Arts and Craft', 7 ABCE (jalticil. Plaza Church 8 C AB Rinconada Park 9 CE AB Of the 45 sclcctioll'~ (5 judges, 9 choices), 24 were correct. Bold type indicates the description chosen most often for each place visited. Correct choices lie on tl1c r1lam diagonal. The number of correct matches by Judges A through E is 7, 6, 5, 3, and 3, respectively. The expected number of correct matclin f, (lin the fivejudges was five-, in the experiment 24 such matches were obtained. The a priori probabili' by cjiarice, conservatively assuming assignment without replacement on the part of t e tv of such an occurrence 11 judges, is P = ~. 10-10. 1 iiot otherwise assOCiated with the research. The judges were a.sked to match tile fline locations, which they independently visited, agaiw~t t he I yped manuscripts of the tape-recorded nar- ratives of the Tenlt)te viewer. The transcripts were unlabelled and presented ill r,,11,dorri order. The judges were asked to find a narrative which tllcy would consider the best match for each 'of the places they visited. A given narrative could be assigne io more than olle (~ll get location. A correct match requires that the transcript of it Oven date be associated with the targ t of that date. Tit.blc 2 shows the distribution of the judges' choices. Among all possible analyses, the most conservative is a per- ~Tiutation analysis ofthe plurality vote of the judges' selections assuming assignnicilt without replacement, an approach inde- ilen'dent of the llul,,l)cr of judges. By plurality vote, six of the Itid locations were correctly matched. Under nine description,, z sis (no remote viewing and a random selection the null hypothc 0.f descriptions w1thout replacement), this outcome has an a pri.ori probability 141' = 5.6 x 10-4, since, among all possible permutations oI, tile integers one through nine, the probability bf six or more j)cilig in their natural position in the list has that v6dule_. Therefore, although Price's descriptions contain in- twcuia6icsl tile desci iptions arc sutficiently accurate to, permit rentiate among the various targets to the ihe judges to dill-c degree- indicated. JPEG EXPE11IMENTS t was undertaken to determine whether a An experinlen ca Illea, -e such as EEG activity could be used as an bfi~m6logi sl~i Irdicator of infol-Ination transmission between an isolated subject and it relljoic stimulus. We hypothesised that perception Ebu.ld be indicatetl by such a measure even in the absence of .7 lal or other 0vcl t indicators.6 . ,\11 - ~ (liat the application of remote stimuli would was assLllllCd KWt in responseS similar to those obtained under conditions StdiV6et St'illUllation. For example, when normal subjects are r,,- - stimulated with it llashing light, their EEG typically shows a bec'rease in tile aMplitude, of the resting rhythm and a driving bf the brain wave', Ot the frequency of the flashes'. We hypothe- si§ed that if we stilludated one subject in this manner (a sender), the EEG of 1110ther subject in a remote room with no flash r7- --- .. .. 0, might show changes in alpha (9-11 Hz) present (a recelve activity, and possibly EEG driving similar to that of the sender. I- We filformcd our iubject that at certain times a light was to beIflashed in it selldcr's eyes in a distant room, and if the subj .ect !perceived that evellt, consciously or unconsciously, it might be ~evldent from cha"Fcs in his EEG output. The receiver was seated in tile vi.,,11.illy opaque, acoustically and electrically shielded double-~%allcd steel room Previously described. The sender wasseated it, a room about 7 m front tile receiver. To find subJect' who were responsive to such a remote Nve illitiallY worked with four feinale and two male voluritcerAtill; all of whom believed that success in the Q. , .,L:%- - -vedgEerJRa1aases20=Q&/-40d: ppr6, receivers'. The senders were either other subjects or the experimenters. We decided beforehand to run one or two sessions of 36 trials each with each subject in this selection procedure, and to do a more extensive study with any subject whose results were positive. A Grass PS-2 photostimulator placed about I m in front of the sender wasused to present flash trains of 10 s duration. The receiver's EEG activitv from the occipital legion (Oz), referenced to linked mastoids, was amplified with a Grass 5P-1 preamplifier and associated driver amplifier with a bandpass of 1-120 Hz. The EEG data were recorded on magnetic tape with an Ampex SP 300 recorder. On each trial, a tone burst of fixed frequency was presented to both sender and receiver and was followed in one second by either a 10 s train of flashes or a null flash interval presented to the sender. Thirty- six such trials were given in an experimental session, consisting of 12 null trials-no flashes following the tone-12 trials of flashes at 6 f.p.s. and 12 trials of flashes at 16 f.p.s., all randomly intermixed, deter- mined by entries from a table of random numbe - rs. Each of the trials generated all I I -s EEG epoch. The last 4 s of the epoch was selected for analysis to minimise the desynchronising action of the waming cue. This 4-s segment was subjected to Fourier analysis on a 1,11,4C 8 computer. Spectrum analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving in any receiver, although in control runs the receivers did exhibit driviiw when physically stimulated with the flashes. But of the six subjects'StUdied initially, one subject (H. H.) showed a consistent alpha blocking effect. We therefore undertook further study with this subject. Data front seven sets of 36 trials each were collected from this subject on three separate days. This comprises all the data collected to date with this subject under the test conditions described above. The alpha band was identified from average spectra, then scores of average power and peak power were obtained from individual trials and subjected to statistical anahsis. Of our six subjects, H. H. ~ad by far the most monochromatic EEG spectrum. Figure 3 shows an overlay of the three averaged spectra from one of this subject's 36-trial runs, displaying changes in her alpha. activity for the three stimulus conditions. Mean values for the average power and peak power for each Table 3 EEG data for H.H. showing average power and peak power in the 9-11 Hz band, as a function of flash frequency and sender Flash Frequency0 6 16 0 6 16 SenderAverage Pe ak Power Power J. 94.884.176.8 357.7329.2289.6 L. R.T. 41.345.537.0 160.7161.0125.0 No sender (subject informed)25.135.728.2 87.5 95.781.7 J. 54.255.344.8 191.4170.5149.3 L. J. 56.850.932.8 240.6178.0104.6 L. R.T. 39.824.930.3 145.274.2122.1 No sender (subject not 86.053.052.1 318.1180.6202.3 informed) Averages 56.8 49.9 43.1 214.5 169.8 153.5 -- 12 % - 24 %(P < 0.04) - 21 Y. - 28 %(p < 0.03) CIA-R 87RAMP, =92V Nature Vol. 251 Ociober 18 JW4 seven experitnental sets are given in Table 3. The power measures NvA0preved6Fr.9.r Release t20M.08II10 seven peak- power measures and in six out of seven average power measures. Note also tile reduced effect in tile case in which the subject was informed that no sender was present (RLlri 3). It seems that overall alpha production was reduced for this run in conjunction With the subject's expressed appre- hension about conducting the experiment without a sender. This is in contrast to the case (Run 7) in which. the subject was not informed. Siegel's tNv,o-tailed I approximation to the nonparametric randomi- sation test' %vas applied to the data from all sets, ~%hich inClUded two sessions in Nkhich the sender \\as rcnio\ed. A,~erage power on trials associated with the occurrence of 16 f.p.s. vas si.gnificantly less than %,.~hcn there were no flashes (t ~ 2.09, d.f. = 118, P<0.04). The second measure, peak pov~cr. ~Nas also significantly less in the'16 f.p.s. conditions that) in the ntill condition (t = 2.16. d.f. ~ 118, P<0.03). The average response in the 6 f.p.s. condition ~~as in tile same direc- tion as that associated with 16 f.p.s., but the cifect was not statistically significant. Spectrum analyses of control recordings made front saline with a 12 kQ resistance in Place Of the SLIb -iM k~ith and without tile addi- tion of a 10 Hz, 50 itV test signal applied to the saline SOILItion, revealed no indications of flash ~reqLlcncies, nor PertUrbations of tile 10 11z signal. These controls suggest that the results ~,Nere not due to system artcfacts. Further tests also gave no e\idence of radio fre- quency energy associated with the stimUlUS. Subjects were asked to indicate their Conscious assessment for each trial as to which stimulus was generated. They made their guesses known to the experimenter via oric-,,kay telegraphic communication. An analysis of these guesses has shown them to be at chance, in- dicating the absence of any supralirninal cueing, so arousal as evid- enced by significant alpha blocking Occurred only at the noncognitive level of awareness. We hypothesise that the protocol described here may prove to be useful as a screening procedure for latent remote perceptual ability in the general population. Fig. 3 Occipital EEG spectra, 0-20 Hz, for one subject (H. 14.) acting as receiver, showing amplitude changes in the 9-11 Ilz band as a function of strobe frequency. Three cases: 0, 6, and 16 f.p.s. (12 trial averages). CONCLUSION From these experirrients we conclude that: 40A.channel exists whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality. *As with all biological systems, the information channel appears to be imperfect, containing noise along with the signal. OWhile a quantitative signal-to-noise ratio in the information- theoretical sense cannot as yet be determined, the results of our experiments indicate that the functioning is at the level Of useful information transfer. It may be that remote perceptual ability is widely distributed in the general Population, but because tile perceptiort is generally below an indiVidt,1,41'S level of awareness, it is repressed or not noticed. For example, two of our subjects (11. 11. and P. 1'.) had not considered themselves to have unusual perceptual ability before their participation in these experiments. Our observation of the phenomena leads Lis to conclude (flat Approved For Release 2000/08/10 bu i di~;" ts in the area of so-called paranormal phenomena. can n&-00-7&7cRW020ooma24L7hat other laboratories "ill initiate additional research to attempt to replicate these findings. This research was sponsored by The Foundation for Parasen- sory Investigation, New York City. We thank Mrs Judith Skutch, Dr Edgar D. Mitchell of the Institute of Noetic Sciences-as well as our SRI associates, Mr Bonnar Cox, Mr Earle Jones and Dr Dean Brown-for support and encouragement. Constructive suggestions by Mrs Jean Mayo, Dr Charles Tart, University of California, and Dr Robert Ornstein and Dr David Galin of the Langley Porter Neuro- psychiatric Institute are acknowledged. RuSSELL TARG HAROLD PUTHOFF Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California 94025 Received March 11; revised July 8, 1974. Pratt, J., Rhine, J. B., Stuart, C., and Greenwood, J., Extra Sensory Perception after Sixty Years (Henry Holt, New York, 1940). Soal, S., and Bateman, F., Modern Experiments in Telepathy (Faber and Faber, London, 1954). ' Vasilliev, L. L., Experintents in Mental Suggestion (ISMI Pub- lications, Hampshire, England, 1963). ' Musso, J. R., and Granero, M., J. Parapsychology, 37, 13-37 (1973). ' Osis, K., ASPR Newsletter, No. 14 (1972). ' Tart, C. T., Physiological Correlates of Psi Cognition, Int. J. Parapsychology, V, No. 4 (1963). ' Dean, E. D., [tit. J. Nettropsychiatry, 2 (1966). ' Hill, D., and Parr, G., Elect ro"encephalography : A S-vinposiurn on its Various Aspects (Macmillan, New York, 1963). Siegel, S., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 152-156 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956). The stability of a feasible random ecosystem THE weight of the evidence, and the beliefs of most biologists, seem to support the view' that ecosystems tend. to be more stable, the larger the number of interacting species they con- tain. It is puzzling, therefore, that a variety of mathematical models of complex ecosystems appear to give the contrary answer: that complexity makes for instability'. Prominent among such models is the complex system with random interactions, studied in various forms by Gardner and Ashby' and May4; but their results cannot be applied as they stand to ecological systems. In an ecosystem, the interacting variables are species populations (or species biomass) which cannot take on negative values. Th'us, for example, the equili- brium, population values must be positive, and it is convenient to denote this necessary property of an ecosystem model by saying that it must be 'feasible'. The work referred to imposed no such constraint on equili- brium populations in the samples considered. It is of some interest, therefore, to examine the stability of a random model capable of representing ecosystems, by imposing the restriction that the sample be feasible. I report here the results of computer calculations on such a model. The interaction equations were of the well-known quasi-linear type, in which the rate of fractional increase of a species population is a linear function of the current populations inall Tspecies. That is, the number N, in the ith species obeys dNIdt ~- A, (b, + Ej atj Nj). All birth rates It, were taken as 1, and the self-regulating coefficients a,, as --I. The feasibility requirement was That the CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 I IZ IV Ill I.') HZ q4eagg MpjpgglQi~,,CIA-RD096-00787ROO02-00090024-7 77,77, - - -'4 128 Long Acre, London WC2E 9QH Telephone: 01-B36 2468 Cables: Newscient London WC2 Telex: 27253 17 October 1974 Volume 64 Number 919 subscription inquiries: 01-242 4477 Editor, Dr Bernard Dixon Oepu~y Ecitor (Science)- Dr Peter Stubbs 0,?puty Editor (Technology): Nicholas Val6ry Menaging Editor. Richard Fifield Scienca Policy Editor: Dr Martin Sherwood Science Editor: Dr Roger Lewin Assistant Science Editor: Dr Robert Walgate Social Editor: lan Low Technology Editor: Michael Kenward Technology Policy Editor: or Joseph Hanlon Technology News Editor.- Lawrence McGinty Art Editor: Margaiet Webb Assistant Art Editor: Alan Middleton Artists- Neil Hyslop, Michael Peyton US Editor: Graham Chedd 12 Addington Rd, Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 Consultants Biochemistry- or Robert Freedman Compute,s: Hedley Voysey Eclucztion: John Delin Environment: Jon T;nRer Marine: Tony Loitas Psychology: Dr Nick Humphrey Soviet Sc`ence: Dr Sarah White Teleco-nanunications: Ron Brown Advertirement manager : Roy Edwards Advls6ry Panel Dr Monty Finniston FRS Sir William Glanville FRS Dr Basil h1lason FRS . - Professor Sir Michael Swann FRS Monitor Technology review Energy file Feedback Westminster scene New York view Paris notebook EEC notebook Venture Pig-ignorant A groun0ng's notebook Tantalizer Letters Grimbledon Down Ariadne Comment Dr Roger Lewin, Adrian Hope, Dr Mich?el Schwab Uri Geller and Science A New Scientist special investigation by Dr Joseph Hanlon 170 165 186 198 200 202 202 203 203 201, 205 205 2 06 212 2 12 252 163 Generalisations, Professor Guy Ourisson talks to Dr Martin Sherwood 190 How safe are North Sea piatforms? Keith Attfield 192 Is the North Sea bubble bursting ? Lawrence McGinty 195 Review Professor Leslie Audus, Dr Marie Boas Hall, Dr Andrew Milier, Dr Martin Sherwood, Dr Clive Wood, David Dickson, Dr William N, Beesley, Lawrence McGin'ty, et Al 207 PUBLISHED WEEKLY OVERSEAS ADVFRTISEMENTS REPRESENTATIVES Publisher's subscription rate, Inland: E10-80 Overseas surface mail: Zil-95 USA end (,!;r1r67r;i) 3 Sack numt,-, v,jt-j Ord. 4, P Inclu~,,ir,g ro-,t?,ge lrom ]PC Maoazine% Ltd, 6G-53 Cre 2t Queen Street. London WC2E 5DD RegisfEred t The Po~;t OFice as a newspaper and print 0d in En,;Iand 2nd cla-; svostaDe paid at Jamnicl NY. 11431 AlrlieEvht rind mailing in the USA by Pubficet;ons Cxpediting Inc,. 200 F&ZILhani Avenue, Elrn:int, jll~~veaFor Releas 0 IPC Maonzines Lt&. `1974 USA; Jobson, Jordan, Harrison & SchUft Inc., 57 Post Street. Suite M-715, San Francisco, Calilofnie. S4104. U15) 2492-6794, and ISl West E;ghth Street, Los Angeles. Czhfornia 9,)057 (2113) 483-81530 bast ',',;d Wost, Williant. F. Strube 6L 1~.Isociatez Inc. 21-0 Peak Avenue. New York, NY 100,17 (212) 6~35-~;'Q CANADA: Clement Dick, Chimney Copse, RR No 1. Churchill, Ontario, Canada. (706) 456 2341 JAPAN: International Media Representatives Ltd. 1, Shiba-Kotobiracho. Minaloku. Tokyo, Japan. Tel: 5024M. Tciex: 2,2633 tip -;tg jp. ii~,R . KIXQM+ L le to New Scientist 17 October 1-974 ADDrovea i-or Keiease zu t: L-7 is Uri Geller the world's most gifted psychic, capable of bending metal without touching -it and discovering the contents of closed boxes with incredible accuracy? Or is he the biggest hoaxer of our time, able to convince trained scientists that they saw things which never actually happened ? This week, Nature publishes the first scientific paper on Geller-a report on tests at the Stanford Research Institute. And in this special issue of New Scientist, Dr Joseph Hanlon reports on both our own investigation and the SRI paper Geller and New Scientist Uri Geller was first brought from Israel by a scientist Dr A~idrija PuhaHch-and has given demonstrations at the Bell Laboratories, New Jersey; the Goddard Space Flight Center, California; Birkbeck College, London; and other research centres. New Scientist first reported on Geller two years ago (vol 56, P 360) and more than a year ago (vol 59, p .95) reported on early results from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Geller first came to national attention in Britain on 23 Nevember !1973 4 -In on BBC tele- when he appeared on the Dimbleby Talk where he reproduced a drawing in a sealed vi envelope, bent a fork,. and apparently started a dud watch. Two scientists, Professor John Taylor and Dr Lyall Watson, appeared on the programme with him. Geller stressed that he baffled the scientists-a point supported W by both Taylor and Watson-and said he was anxious to V, participate in research with British scientists. Geller was a sensation on British television, generating 01 far more interest than he had in appearances on national q television in the US. And science was an important part of this-if Geller had simply appeared as a inagician, he would have attracted much less attention. Yet Geller had indeed baffled the scientists, and.it was at least possible that he had powers previously unknown to science. For this reason, New Scientist took the unusual step of setting up its own small research panel and on 26 Novem- ber invited Geller to participate in experiments. (New Scientist, vol 60, p 603). We told Geller that the committee would consist of a member of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), a research psychologist, the editor and one other representative of New Scientist, an independent journalist with a major newspaper, and a professional magician. Geller - accepted our invitation quickly, in a letter on 3 December. Although our initial letter to Geller did not actually name the members of the committee, they had already been chosen and were Denys Parsons of the SPR, psychologist Dr.Christopher Evans of the National Physical Laboratory (who was responsible for the New Scientist parasycholo.gy questionnaire, vol 57, p 209), the editor of Now Scientist Dr Bernard Dixon (a biologist), Dr Joseph Hanlon (a physicist), international magician David Berglas, and Alan Brien of the Sunday Times. We later added a statistician, Professor D. J. Finney of the University of Edinburgh, and a forensic scientist, Dr Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA4RgT 00090024-7 elg"787RO%93 crest in ri ish science remained high. By s In I .Ne .v ~S6entist. ffi~prbW&Pbr Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 171 the time Geller accepted our. offer, he was back in New York. But we met several times with an associate,'Yasha Katz, in December and set up a meeting with Geller for 8 February.to discuss the experiments. And on "Seeing is believing", a documentary on Thames Television in London on 15 January, Geller declared "when I am doing enough experiments with scientists, this disbelief will drop off ." Bul only a few daysafter they arrived back in Britain, Katz reported that Geller had received a bomb threat and cancelled the New. Scientist meeting and some, but not all, of Geller's remaining performances. Time passed, and Geller's attitude clearly changed. Katz said the New Scientist tests would have to be delayed,. although he assured us that Geller had not dropped out. By then, how- ever, GePer had already backed out of several other sets of tests- And on 3 May 1974, on the New York television show 'Mid-Day Live on VR~EW-TV, his view of scientists had chan,:red to: "the Stanford Research Institute has validated the work I have done with them for a year." Finally, in June Geller told us on the telephone from New York that "I have changed my mind.... Right now I don't have the feeling to work with your people." In preparation for the New Scientist experiments we studied the Geller phenomenon extensively. Dr Joseph Hanlon went to the US for three weeks in January to talk to the SRI researchers and a large number of other people Nvho had dealt with Geller, in an effort to design effective experiments. This report is based primarily on his investi- gation, but we have not published it until now because it was f elt.that in fairness to both SRI and Geller, the SRI team should have a chance first to report on their research in a formal journal. Nature publishes the SRI report,this week despite strong mis.orivin '-,s about both the experimental technique and the results, and that journal is certain to be criticised by some scientists who will argue that publication gives Nature's stamp of approval to the results. But publication does not imply a.crreement, and Nature should indeed be con- gratulated for exposing the paper. to intelligent discussion by the scientific community. What follows here is New Scientist's attempt, based on its own investigation and on the only scientific evidence available so far, to draw its own conclusions about Uri Geller. The author comments Because this is largely a report of my personal investiga- tion of the Geller phenomenon, it is important to make clear my own attitude and biases. I feel strongly that the next interesting breakthrough in science may well come not from expensive research by huge teams in physics and biology, but from research by individuals and small teams intco' the interaction of people and themselves and their surrounliin.,aps. Throug ii biofeedback, we now have control over our bodies of a sort that not so long ago was almost univer- sally a reed --Co be impossible. Negative ions in the air seem to affe~ct our attitudes. And so on. In the past few years, these areas and others such as parapsychology' have become less the province of hopeful amateurs and more the area of trained scientists. At the same time. big science, particularly my own field of high enertgy physics, has become corporate and unimaginative. Finally, th e con. tinuing squeeze on science fundin-- puts the attention more on the scientist who can work o"'n a shoestring rather than the one who cannot get the money to cgo'~to still higher energ es looking for the quark. Thus the appearance of Uri Geller and the interest of two scientists at a primarily military research organisa- tion, SRI, sparked my own interest. I was remonsitle for securing our first (highly favourable) report-on the SRI research on Geller more than a year acro. And I was paxticularly pleased that New Scientist agr"eed to conduct tests, and 'that Geller agreed. I began to collect mat~e'rial relevant to experiments with Uri, and in January I went to the US so that I would have a background picture before we talked to him in February. I sopoke with critics and believers, talked with many scientists and other trained observerswho had seen Geller work, spoke with the SRI scientists and saw some of their videotapes, and watched many taDes of Uri's tele- vision appea-rances. Most of the people talked to me as a researcher and not a journalist. But what I found greatly surprised me, and now that Uri has withdrawn from the proposed New Scientist investigation, I think it important to present this material to put the SRI report in context. Joseph Hanlon ft The New Sciefitist i1*,%1%VW&%sti-rffation Like witnesses to a motor accident, people who have seen Uri bond a spoon or do a drawing by felepathy tell widely differing stories about the same event. And explanations range from the obvious to the impossible, depending on just what the observers thought they saw The believers Puharicb, says Geller has fame, money, and women accomplished and that be the task which eluded the can be childish, petulant, i alchemists- and extremely He turned lead to gold-and difficult to worl, Nvith. rloorn spoons, that he com- It is the~,e latter expensive jewellery, ~~ f municates with flying saucerscharacteristics that caused watches, and tele- ex-astronaut and even a piece o1 a meteorite-often ports objects thousands Dr Edgar Mitchell, who among their of miles by the was Geller's owners' most prized power of his mind. original funding source Possessions-are and a co-experi- now irreparably . The whole phenomenon is menter on Geller at SRI broken. dominated to fall out %~ritb But their owners point to by Geller's own personality., them with Ile exudes ' pride, Geller last year. Nevertheless not anger, 1NUtchell because sincerity and a childlike 1 they were innocence and , destroyed and others who have experienced by Uri his Gel!er. desire to please which makeswhims still believe he people is one of +~e most This arn3zing really want to like and important psychics of'our youncr believe in him. tinne. Israeli is claimed to have This is reinforccd by a Amother aspect of the t e most high failure rate, Geller person- phenomenal psychic powers the what seems to be a constantality is his hyperactivity world has fear that he and constant ever seen. Even some scientists will not be able to do whatmotion. In small groups say he he is tryin,ey, either of the can break spoons by mental and genuine pleasure when , Powers he does suc- press or friends without he flits from one task touching them, read ceed. And he is a consummate, minds, show- to another, usually giving and make up the first objects appear and man V* r -tiaie -am d. si.LrW disappear. to it 12ter The man who a "INW, "L We brought so 4sdT&,AC"iVA07 him t(Apprumach17 dd Tor Rele l su wrote the Uri (publishedband, even his supporters en book ] earlier like Puharich y bent before anyone realises just what is this year admit that his main goals happening and Geller reads by NV. in life are the contents 11. Allen), Dr Andrija 1-7~. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-007~7ROO026ft9bb"17 17 October 1974. ,_21~ Uri Geller attempts to bend a journalist's key held by David Dimbleby at a press conference at the BBC Lime Grove (London) studios on 22 November 1973, the day before Geller's appearance on the Dimbleby Talk-in brought him to the attention of the British public of sealed noticed-the of trickery envelopes equipment would have which, was been possible after rezeroed ... he in failed the Geller examined to read morning the key, them and then passed before, the it were film left resolution was lying not to ... . Wharton around good who held unguarded. enough it between to the measure the length This of palms of his means the hands. Geller that bar. held his people And often there disagree is no evidence of on just it hands over what actually Wharton's they disappearing for a few have and seconds seen, reappearing and no demonstration -on . . . and is totally the sure enough convincing. film, the key turned The it out is just suddenly -there, belief he to be bent of most said. through an of Geller's angle of supporters about 10 is built Yet degrees.... on a Puthoff Geller might long believes have distracted series implicitly of demonstrations, in none Geller. our attention of -which One when he first is watertight, of had the key, but the which events wh;ch con- together vinced bent it, and they him put it into find occur-red Bryan Wharton's give when a convincing he was driving picture. down hands already For a bent." most motorway people, with there Geller are in one the car. or two Puthoff Journalists clinching said are not alone events, he in having although queried the Geller about clincher flying this problem-trained for saucers, scientists one and do as person Geller may said be totally he would unacceptable prove well. Geller to another. he and Puharich got gave a demon- his power from them and John promptly stration at White, stoRped Bell Laboratories, Ed Mitchell's the NewJersey, assistant car at iAthout touch- his Institute ing one of the of Noetic anything. world's top Sciences, research in Palo centres, Alto, on 8 June, California, 1973. Geller told did one of me in his January of a Geller favourite test tests: reproducing at SRI a drawing using a bimorph-a brass Reporting in an envelope. strip what He always with you stresses special see that coatings which gives the envelope a signal is sealed in proportion and that to any he has bend- ing. Another never seen The problem the drawing strip is before. The was that Bell clamped even in a experi- vice and Geller enced report, by was reporters Charles Davidson, to bend tend says "two it witbout to touching misreport it. just According what sealed envelopes to White, has were brought" suddenly happened. and goes one Bryan end Silcock, the of the science on to report bar correspondent Geller's began of accurate to disappear the reproduc- and Sunday re- appear Times, tion of the on a reported drawing. lower on But the man level. Sunday who Geller 25 had November clearly last actually brought dematerialised year: the envelopes, part "In F. of the a bar taxi on the way to and rematerialised London Richard Moore, it elsewhere, airport told me in White yesterday Jafiuary Uri that Geller bent said. the in fact the But very drawings Dr Hal tough were put Puthoff, key into large one to of the my office desk exper-imenters, without clasp envelopes found even which were it not touching not sealed particularly it. The key was convincing lying Further, Moore and flat admitted, described in the drawinzs it somewhat the palm of photographer differently. Bryan were done According Wharton's at short to Putholf, hand notice, at Geller at Gellcr'- the time." had tried But req' uest, to bend the while Geller the next supposedly bar Sunday, was on unsuccessfully 2 December, on one Silcock the telephone day admitted in the next and error office. Thus, then on returned the to try two most again critical Geller could the points: have used next. Geller any of several Early had in the handled test, the a piece of the key, magicians' bar and trick-s-including suddenly, it surrepti- appeared was on the in fact concealed in table, Wharton's tiously watching although hands the drawings the when being signal it from was the supposed bar did not nge. Putho to 11 nt. Silcock made, or opening C es t ' -wrote: "I am stifl the envelopes O o ' u" and ' k at it ' tooseriolW-W L 2zoi 01707ROCO-2000 (ardi& eta o,GlsCiAliRDP964 C()ra ?Pings. But c e ~ the Bell s . possible ing I at neither was for carefully am report imp possible. someone about ies at to have what broken happened off a piece forced For me, the between to inost dramatic tests admit example and to Jt not myself be that some kind 173 AW06VA4F R l or ease 2000/08/10 0787ROO0 e : CIA-RDP96-0 0OQ90024-7 of -a magician's technique . ,3 was on the way they did." normal exp anation was contained in Nlike Douglas show on the Geller's supporters argue their own description. CBS TV net- that he is work in the US on 29 Octoberyoung and simply not yet One example is the case of last year, in full control Geller ii, %,-Lich the participantsof his powers, ind thus teleporting Puharich's camera and probably ca, nuot make case from miLlions of vieN~vers were events happen on command New York to Israel, which Pubarich convinced they or precisely saw Geller bend a nail on where he wants. And they quotes in his book Uri and television. I point to his which is of ten v, atched a videotape of high failure rate as beingcited by Geller supporters. the show, and this proof of this- ~~Ien is what I saw: There were if he were a magician, Puharich explained it to me several nails they say, he in January , on a table in front of Geller.would always succeed on despite his own belief, a normal He picked cue. explana- ore up with his right hand Further, they argue that tion became obvious. "I had and gave it to if one believes about 120 Nlike Douglas, who examinedthat the power of the mindk9 of equipment that I was it and can do such taking to showed on close-up that things, then the power Israel so I left all of the it was, indeed, of other minds excess baggage straight. Next, Geller pickedshould be able to block behind. And one of the.things up another these events. Thus I didn't nail with his left hand magicians and others who bring was my camera case for and held it by the are working my super bottom. With his right handstrongly against Geller 8 camera with which I document he took the will always make a lot nail bark from Dourflas it impossible for him to of my work. One day 'Uri and and held it, as perform simply I were at ' Then he turned to by blocking him. Mitchell the Dead Sea and I complained we]), by the bottom. is "convinced to him guest Tony Curtis and askedthat the necative thought that one of the dumb things him to hold energies of I did was the top of both. Still holdina,severe sceptics and criticsleave this camera case, which both -by the do interfere is brown, bottom, Geller rubbed till with the process you are locked in a special closet nails. Finally trying to I have in my he told Curtis to take the measure" and thus such house for my equipment. About nail from his people should five (Geller's) right hand-the be banned from the room hours later he called me up-we'd one we saw during scien- come to be straight on close tific tests. back to Tel Aviv and he'd gone up-and put it to h-i down. Still holding the apartmerit and I'd gone to bottom of the my hotel. left hand nail, Geller continued And he said 'You know you were to tall-drig stroke, never showing the about a camera case-there is bottom. Slowly soinerhing be lowered his finger to Why assume the paranormal?on my bed here-you think it's expose a slight yours?' bend very close to the tip. So I described it to him and Despite all of I said 'Look the show of checking to One of the early choices inside, 'cause I've ripped see that a nail someone out some of was straight, the audience,studying Geller must make the inside' and sure enough Curtis, a-ad is whether it was mv Douglas never saw the tip to assume a normal or paranormalcamera case." Puharich then of the nail hypo- went to until Geller said it was thesis. Geller is extremelyGeller's apartment and identified bent. Thus, we personable the have no evidence that the and most people, includingcase as his. "To my knowledge, nail was not myself, can- there is ' already bent, perhaps beforenot help liking him. And no way it could have gotten the show when he per- th ere except began, by non-paranormal forms, he really makes by telerortation 6000 miles." means. you want to A sceptic believe in him. Combined might think it more plausible with the ram- that Gellex- pant confusion that surroundssimply went to a camera shop, the Geller bought a tornado wherever he works case, and then marked it according (which can to Magic sour grapes? mean no one ever sees an Puharich's own description entire event), on the phone. it is extremely easy to Another similar description slip without appeared Is the diversion and confusionrealising it into the acceptancein the 12 June, 1972 issue of ob- of para- of the Gernian servers accidental? Many normal explanations. One newspaper Bild-MUnchen. Reporters magicians of my many argue that it is quite intentional,surprises'was how easily took Geller -to a cable car and is some trained which runs precisely what they do all scientists are drawn into up the Chiemgau mountains, the timewhen acceptance, and asked they perform. Magician Jamesand then how each event him to stop the car. "At noon Randi, a adds to what the un- persistent Geller critic, becomes a strong belief canny one [Gefflerl boarded said he talked to in Geller. a cable car stagehands after the Mike But scientists should be gondola for the first time Douglas show guided, at in his life, and that they told him thatleast in formal experiments,'I don't think it can be done', Geller speci- by Occam's he np-eated- fied that they should.buy Razor: that one should The gondola was suspended in a box of ten- not assume a the air. penny nails and that he more complex hypothesis Uri Geller noticed a control also asked them until it is panel on to wrap some in a bundle absolutely necessary, simplerthe door which governed the with tape an explana. steering ' hour before the show. Gellertions having failed.. mechanism. Suddenly, he cried walks out, q around the studio a lot . With Geller, this means think I can bring it off!' before the show, that scientists ". T'hen Geller Rand! said, and it would must first convince themselvesbounded around the car doiny have been easy that various for Geller to take his own events cannot be explainedtricks, and periodically clian'ged pre-bent ten- by a com- the penny nail out of his pocketbination of magic and psychologydirection of the cable car and put A before . into the bundle when no they postulate a paranormal one would explanation.. notice. This need not imply fraud-people But the magic community, communicate far more than with few they realise exceptions, is strongly by subtle looks, gestures,Sending keys by hand? opposed to Geller, tone of voice, arguing that he is a magicianand so on. In the case too, but is of recent reports earnina far more money by in Britain of children Some people, however, have claiming to bending forks and seen and be something more. Professionalspoons, they may exert accepted a normal rather than magi- more pressure para- cians have a vested interest,than they realise while normal explanation. Bob McAlister, however, stroking the who and have earned considerableobject. produces the programme Wonderama publicity and money in their own attemptsI investigated a large for WNTEW-TV in New York, told to number of about demons-trate-apparently Geller events with Occam one incident when Geller was highly success- in mind. I there. fully in some case&--that found it extremely diffi Geller asked for a key, and they can do cult to go back 'Mc.Uster what Geller does. Finally, and find out just what gave him one. "We were in an the magicians happened in a alcove note that Geller has failedGeller event, because of outside the control room and to perform the previously Geller when large numbers of magiciansmentioned problem of gettingsaid 'Let's get out of here'. are accurate He held watchin" or on TV when mariciansdescriptions of the event.the key up so I could see it, belp But I have then lie set the coaditions, and been able to gain an approximateturned his back and as lie has consistuntly picture opened -a refused to participate in of what happened in many door the key went in front any scientific of them. In of lils body experiment (such as New a surprising number, the right down by the groin and Scientist's) normal ex- the other that involves a magician. planation was actually hand came to that position more plausible as he v.-as Nevertheless, as Geller than the paranormal, and walking through the door. lie himself said the parinormal im- on Mid-Day Live (WNEW-TV, was accepted only because mediately said 'Do you want New the witness to hold York, 3 May, v Ula- wa n I mmitted to Geller. In the key, that's all right, I'll hold it'- be duplicated *Pr*WW5b9ewas 81400)4~'CdA4R4DPW 1 0 - 87 ' 07 ~OOI.D20009002*7 And he was n v doesn event did not even realiseon y sliomng one comer of the t have to mean that I did that the key." it the 174 New Scientist 17 October 1974 details of the He' theq w.AW9VA0nF%Q;h RejaasO 2000/0 I ADF-F96- 87RO902000 incident were NPReRn TV, however, of people, McAlister said, and put the and lend strong support to his comment. key in someone's hand and "'bent" it. But presumably, McAlister commented, Film magazines contain ten minutes of he had actually bent it while going out film, but a standard sound tape runs 20 the door. minutes. Thus it is normal practice to y leave the sound tape running while the Thames Television Producer Terr 14A Dixon told me about filming Gel r in film magazines are reloaded. According I e to McCrae, while the cameramen were ~.OrI New York in December 1973. Dixon said that each member of the crew did diverted reloading film, Geller attempted -t everyone else's attention by a drawing and that the drawings were to divei seated, first in a white envelope, then referring them back to a fork he had a brown one, in San Francisco two already broken. But McCrae did not weeks before the crew arrived in New object. On the Merv Griffin show on US turn to the broken fork, and said he York to talk to Geller. Each crew mem- TV, Geller did the trick successfully, but actually sa'w Geller bend-by hand, not some people thought they saw Geller psychic powers-the large spoon. Geller ber had also signed the envelope. Tn jarring the table so that the cans would then called attention to the bent spoon Geller's flat, Uri was given the dozen shake and he could tell which was and filming immediately resumed. sealed envelopes and he handled them heaviest. On the Johnny Carson Tonight one at a time, according to Dixon. At show on 1 August, 1973, therefore, Support for McCrae's story comes this point both cameraman Mike Fash, special precautions were taken and from producer Terry Dixon, who noted and assistant cameraman Peter George, Geller was not permitted to get near that McCrae had been a strong believer however, noted that Fash's envelope had enough to the table to jar it or touch in Geller and before this incident was fallen on the floor and both said, in- the cans. He failed. convinced that Geller was genuine. dependently, that Geller would do that On the AM New York show, they Dixon also noted that Uri and his asso- drawing. Eventually, Geller said that he went a step further and used heavy ciates were "obsessively" interested in needed a long rest, and Dixon suggested film cans that could not be jarred. But the equipment, particularly how long it they move to one of the Thames hotel Geller went further as well. Magician took to reload a film magazine. "No one rooms. Gellef avreed and suggested they Felix Greenfield reported that one of ever asked questions like that before." take only three envelopes, which he the staff rang him shortly before the Ray Hyman, a psychology professor picked (drawings by Fash, George, and show. was to go on at 7 am to say that at the University of Oregon, was called Dixon). Geller suggested that they be when she arrived at 5.50 am Geller was in to see Geller at SRI by a government sealed together, but there was no Sello- already there, and insisted that he watch agency to whom Russell Targ and Dr tape immediately available, so the en- while she put the 'objects in the cans Hal Puthoff had applied for funding. velopes were passed to one of Geller's and wrapped tape around them. Green- One of Uri's demonstrations 1or Hyman assistants, Melanie Toyofuku, who had field told her that Geller would probably at SRI in December 1972 was to have them out of sight of the Thames crew remember how the target can be taped someone else in the room write down a for more than 10 minutes, according to and suggested she retape them. She did number on the pad and then he, Geller, Dixon. She had more than enough time and Geller failed. would guess it. "As he wrote, Uri made to use any of the magician's tricks to The Thames TV crew found that a show of covering his eyes with his see inside (rubbing alcohol on the Geller could do the film can trick for hands. From my side, I could see his envelopes to make them transparent, them when someone was present who eyes through his hands. Also, I could holding them up to a strong light, open- u~ knew which can contained the object, easily see, from George's arm motions, ing i st a corner so that a small light but not otherwise, which suggested to that he had written the number 10." can be put inside, or even opening and them that Geller looked for their Hyman also told a story, confirmed resealing the envelopes, among others). reactions. to me by one of the others pvesent (who At the hotel room, Geller succeeded in Bob McAlister of WNEW told of requested not to be identifled), about a drawing a combination of Dixon's draw- some of the special precautions he took Geller prediction. At 4 pm Geller decided ing (a three-dimensional box) and Fash's for another Geller event. "Geller said he was "burned out" and decided to go (a dice). he wanted to try something big like home. About a half hour later he sud- stopping an escalator, and he suggested denly reappeared, warning one of those Bloomingdales [department store]. But present not to fly back to Washington, Tightening the conditions our news department suggested Gimbles DC as planned. He said that during because they had worked with the public lunch he had had a pr~emonition about One thing characterises all of these relations department there before. Geller a plane crashing. But someone decided examplesd Geller did not do his feat seemed quite upset and disappeared, to call a newspaper, and found that in the simple, immediate way in which saying 'I've got to make a 'phone call'. there had indeed already been a plane it is usually reported. Instead, he When I got to- Gimbles, I talked to a crash in Washington around lunch time, succeeded only after unconscious help guard who told me that you can throw and the report would have been on the from a participant or after taking an a switch on any floor to stop an escala- news stands and radio during the half extra step which could be used by a tor. On my advice they stationed a hour Uri was away. magician in a similar circumstance. In guard at the switch at each escalator Finally, three people report that they other words, for whatever reason, landing. Geller did not stop the saw Geller cheat when heperformed at Geller worked in such a way as to make escalator." the New York offices of Time magazine the normal explanation seem more in March 1973. These are perhaps the likely than the paranormal. Uri's sup- weakest cases because Time is strongly porters, of course, will say that these Did they see Geller cheat? opposed to Geller. Charles Reynolds, are all accidents or coincidences, and picture editor of Popular Photography, that he does not use the opportunities At least five people claim to have and magician James Randi, both say they offer for tricks. To test this theory, seen Geller actually cheat. This is a they saw Geller bend a key in his band it is worth looking at what has happened difficult area, because if we cannot trust after having attempted to divert every- in those cases where the conditions were the reports of observers who say Geller one's attention by asking for a beer can made tight enotigh that Geller coffld not does miracles, why should we give any opener. And Rita Quinn, a researcher in have resorted to such tricks. Perhaps more credence to those who say lie the picture department who was anxious not surprisingly, he does not perform cheated? At least some of the examples, to believe in Geller, saw him peek very well. however, seem to have supporting between gaps in his fingers during a One of Geller's standard feats is to evidence. picture drawing test. . have an object put into one of ten Perhaps the strongest case is that of When asked on television (Mid-Day light aluminium 35mm film cans, Geller Thames sound recorder Sandy McCrae, Live, 3 May, 1974) about Randi's state utel v* 'o 15 J then sclec t t 4 Geller replied simply "I am sure ,,,dJsJ)rk&156 anuarv ment time, and U&MAte ge 29W6J Aft 40MMIWOM0024-7 _N.ew Sd'entist lA9pftV&d4For Release 2000/0811 .0: CIA-RDP96-00787 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 appeared in several places, including the News of the World (2 December, 1973). Geller also projected his image through the lenscap of Yale Joel, the ex-Life photographer who took our cover picture. But be may have made a mistake, and the US magazine Popular Photography (June 1974) was able to suggest a distinctly non-paranorrnal explanation. The photo (Figure 1) was taken "through the taped on lenscap" of a Pentax equipped with a 17 mm Takumar extreme wide-angle "fisheye" lens. The pbooto 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. Figure 1 Photo Uri took of himself "through taped-on lenscap" of Yale Joel's Pentax re ~ 4 L J Figure 2 Photo of Seth Joel looks remarkably like Uri's, but... Figure 4 Picture of Seth Joel taken with 50mm lens. Is this what U,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. The sharp circle is the lens cap and the bumps the thumb and finger holding the lenscap. Figure 3 shows how the picture of Seth was tall~en, although Popular Photography found that one person could do it without help. Geller apparently knows a lot about cameras, but did he outsmart himself on this one? Popular Photography suggests that what he expected was Figure 4. This is a picture of Seth taken in precisely the same way, only i -mm lens on the Pentax instead of the fisheye. No sharp circle, no 'th a 50 AP P rovedfwiFer-Re lease 2000108/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 175 Figure3 ..it was taken by holding the lenscapjust a bit away from the camera 176' Now Scientist 17 October Approved For Release 2000/08/10 1974 M R - RE. i~6 " ;907q71RQq?pMQQZ4;-7The id "I i Y un i l1 G , r Transatlantic telepathy r o m g nutes e er sa am ge . the time three pictures". described Geller drawing Ellison replied "a fat sausage o Investigating the Geller phenomenon4.can you tell us what with, at the rear, a p the three are, art that comes second-hand is all well and just in case one of. them down and looks like, say, good, but matches?" an elephant's the strongest impressions Geller declined and more foot, then goes along toward necessarily long silences the front come from personal contact followed. Finally, at 20 and becomes a sort of a brcast". with Uri. I minutes Uri said have seen Uri Work twice, he could not do it. But Ellison laughed and gave once as part Ellison said: a negative of a transatlantic telepathy "Would you like to tell response. Geller then announced experiment us anything that conducted by the Sunday Mirrorabout the patterns you he was finished, and asked (10 were getting in Ellison what December, 1973) and the otheryour mind when we were the photo was. in the all concen- 'Montcalm Hotel, London (19 trating on the picture?" Ellison said it was a police June, car, and 1974). Geller replied that he Geller then claimed to have had drawn written In the 'Mirror test, Geller three different sets of down the word "car" even was in New things. First, though he York, connected to the Mirror"three people appeared had not mentioned it before office in in my mind with the London by transatlantic telephone.with something white underneath"list of words in his mind. In Later, he the Mirror office were CliffordSecond, "something long". claimed to have written down Davis, Ellison im- the word the Mirror TV editor who arrangedmediately replied "that "car" twice. the sounds likely, test; Professor Arthur Ellisonit could be described as To me, at least, this was of City something long". hardly a University and chairman of Then Geller said it was success. Guided by Ellison, the execu- like an animal he drew a tive committee of the Society-a dog or a horse standingshape that could have been for sideways. an ani in'al, Psychical Research; Dr ChristopherWith no further encouragementa car, a table, a hill, or at this almost any- Evans of the New Scientist point, he moved on to the thing. Later in the nearly pancl;Ronnie third drawing two-hour Bedford, Mirror science editor;-which he described as telephone call, however, Patricia something Geller made O'Flanagan and myself from triangular with a semi-circleremarks like "I am happy New coming out I got the Scientist; the Thames TV crew;of the left s1de--Pa mountain,drawing". and sort of, about a dozen spectators. with something coming out".When I asked him afterwards, Yasha Katz Finally, he Ellison of Geller's staff, and Sidneysaid he had words in his answered immediately that Young, mind: "pattern, Geller had, from the Mirror, were with horse, animal, dog, dog, indeed, gotten the car. He Geller in dog". called the New York. The attempt lasted Although this drew no encouragementtest "remarkable" and noted nearly that Geller hvo hours, and covered a varietyfrom Ellison, he continued"didn't say a cup or a tree of to press the or a human tests. Katz listened on the dog-asking if there was being". Actually, of course, New York a photo of a Geller did end of the telephone and laterdog somewhere in the room.mention people and his drawing told There could New Scientist (during one wasn't. Only the "somethinghave been a cup-it was Young of his meet- long" had who ings to discuss our experiments)drawn a positive response said it might be a Pig or that from Ellison. a car. But Geller's biggest success was Next Geller said that of most important, Ellison seems seeing a the three to have photograph of a car. impressions the "biggest been totally oblivious to one" was the the amount of -q 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. At my request, Patricia O'Flan-igan had provided a set of sealed envelopes containing simple photographs which no one but she bad seen. When Uri was already on the telephone, she gave me the sealed envelopes arid I selected one, which turned out to contain a photo of a police car and a policeman. Professor Ellison was on the Loadon end of the .phone and concentrated an the photo, attempting to transmit it to Geller. We could all see and hear Ellison and hear Geller. The photo transmission experiment took 33 m . - in CV9 44 V14 primari 064d 1y IVACO couragement from Ellison. At seven second-an "object that was wide, long, and bright in colour". "Very good," replied Ellison. Geller then went through another series of words--table, flower, telephone-which drew no support from Ellison. Then, 28 minutes into the test, Geller began drawing and Sidney Young came - on the 'phone to doscribe what he was drawing. It could bc "a car or a pi,cy", Young said, which drew,a favourable response from Ellison. Then Young said it looked "like a child's wooden toy- the sort of thing you get from Czecho- . slovakia where it is just a semblance f __"t ',vheels, not legs, se ~'.CIA-RDP96-0078714 Ellison responded "very good, we can 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 that fie has succeeded, even up to the 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 red that notlittig 1vW011Pft is I ~ f the test failed. Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 177 Ney, Sciedtist 17 October 1974 Uri bends my key-and rips his trousers My second chance to watch Uri work was 19 June when editor Dr Bernard Dixon and I met with Uri in the lobby of ti-le 1.1oritcalm, Hotel, London, for more than an hour. We sat in a secluded corner of the lobby and chatted for a long time. Then Cri offered to try some of his skills I k'. for us. Ile tried to reproduce pictures W4. which Dixon and I drew but eventually passed" (lie said he saw nothing clear on his "mental screen") each time, Next 4 AA he suggested lie try bending metal. I Z, gave Uri my housekey, which he worked ,.%ith unsuccessfully. W Dixon commented afterwards that he tent to wbich Geller the ex was struck b,% V.ressed his failures---constantly saying be did not think he could do it and telling us stories about his failures on TV a-nd elsewhere. Indeed, he talked far . ...... V11 more about failures than successes. The effect. of course, is to make everyone 8TOUnd 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. \.oting that it was often easier to bend an object when it was near other metal, L he rubbed the key against an upended metal floor ashtray and other metal objects. Even with just the three of But I can offer an explanation that I Faces and flowers us, a high degree of chaos prevailed- at one point I was sent looking find more plausible than previously un- for identified mental forces. First, it should After the key bend, Uri again tried metal and at another looking for a pad. be noted that keys are surprisingly easy telepathy. After a couple of unsuccess- Hotel staff who passed-who by now seemed to bend, particularly for a person like ful attempts-as before he always en used to the events--added, Geller with strong hands. Few of us passed never showing a final draAing comm ts. But still nothing unusual ever try it, however, and we assume it despite' attempts on his part-lie finally' happened. . is difficult. did one drawing. I drew a simple flower Finally Uri suggested we move into the But anyone, including me, can bend (1), Uri made two attempts (2 and 3) corner and sit do,Nm on a sofa a key on the edge of a chair. Sitting in which he rejected, and then said that behind a low coffee table. Bernard a chair with your legs slightly spread, 1. had drawn a, face (4). It is, as he Dixon was sent to fetch Geller's jacket. Geller sat reach down to the bottom of the chair noted, not too far off because it does down first and I walked seat and you will feel part of the around the table and was just sittin have a basic circle with lines coming 9 chair frame. Holding the head of the out from it. The final drawing (5) is down; Bernard was walking across with key in both hands, put the point on the his explanation-that he drew a circle Geller's jacket. Thus neither of u's was top of the frame and press down. You with bumps and then guessed at the watching Geller closely. Suddenly Geller will be surprised bow easily the key - eyes and then the rest of the face. lurched forward, spreading his legs so bends. With practice, you can do this Uri's relative lack of success, his own, rapidly that he split his trousers. His with it quick, casual movement in which explanation of how he did the draN%ing,. bands were doAm in front of him. you pull the' chair forward towards a and some observations by Bernard After joMng about the ripped trousers, table. he held the key from the point end, Dixon allowed us to piece together To me, the most plausible hypothesis afterwards a non-paranormal hypothesis enclosing most of it in his hand, and is that knowing neither Bernard nor I for this effort as well. First, it should continued his efforts to make it bend. were concentrating at that moment, Uri be noted that in the early attempts Geller's hand was slightly arched, how- put the key on the - metal rail at the which Uri passed, we had time to tbink ever, and I could see clearly that front of the sofa (his hands were in and were drawing relatively unusual the key was already slightly bent. the right place) and then sudderly slid figures such as a complex for'N- and an Suddenly he said it was bending, and forward. Because the coffee table was integral sign. But by the time Geller slowlY moved his hand down the key too close to the sofa, be had to spread to expose the bend. The bend was not his legs quickly, splitting his trousers. large and he put the 'key on the coff ee 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- He rePealed many times that it JI was still 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 2 Wgber Off the table than it had been the first. tim AS far Picture drawing tbst at Montcalm Hotel, London, 19 June 1974. however, th;kpproig~d.kigcocur0e"tpee'ose 200~0/8/10 CIA-RDR96WOUM000200M rimadetwo than When I first saw it in his band. I atternpts(2and3) beforesettling on M3~(4~He explained cannot actually say that I saw Uri (5) that he had drawn the circle and hair and then guessed at U." )", - --------- ~1 -- I lha nvp~ qniq rptzf nf thp fnna 178 New Scientist 17 October 1974 1 . Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 ' attempt, we had little a face with hair. And Uri demonstrations not an experiment" time himself noted i Ynade an left with him and I had that lie was sure about because to think of the circle and "what I do on the stage is under and draw objects quickly-thusbumps and guessed at the my conditions". the face. Be- Only controlled scientific simple flower. cause'of the haste with tests will which I drew tell whether Geller actually More linportant, however,the picture, he could be has paranormal was sure that it powers. Bernard's observation was one of the common oues.But we that after each can use our experience with drawing, we would carefully Geller hide the the performer to help develop drawing, but then Geller and evaluate would ask us tests with Geller the ex- to draw the picture againNot an experiment perimental in our mind. subject. And if there is any "I found I was making lesson slight head to be learned, it is that Occam's moveruents, tracing the My investigation of Geller Razor must shape of the has been be our guide-we must drawing. I tried not to, surprising to me in two reject but found it important ways: all normal explanations before we difficult if I was ieallyfirst, that every Geller consider concentrating event that I could the paranormal ones. hard and tracing the shapeinvestigate in detail had In some as Uri a normal ex- cases, normal explanations suggested. Watching Joe planation that was more would not Hanlon I noted probable than mean that Geller is cheating. the same effect." the paranormal one; and It is possible, second, the at least, for someone to Looking at my drawing really strong desire of reproduce and Geller's people to suspend drawings watching a nodding efforts and explanations,disbelief and accept Geller.head without it seems that On the latter realising quite how it is Bernard's hypothesis holdspoint, I must admit that happening. up well. The 1, too, was But we must also accept the head motions for 'a flowerstrongly taken with Geller,fact-made would be a and that I all the more difficult by large circle, several Tould not help liking him Geller's short back and and being likeability-that a normal ex- forth motions (petals) swept up by his enthusiasm-despiteplanation and one long for key bending must imply curving up and down motionthe fact that I was lookingfraud. (the for tricks. And on the evidence of Uri's stem). This is precisely Many people believe implicitlyperformances, what Uri drew in this possibility must be in his first two attemptsGeller-often based on a seriously (2 and 3) very few considered. exhibiting the fact that demonstrations of his powers,So far, it is difficult swept on there is only one published to tell from head motionsby their own desire to believeresult precisely and by of scientific tests with Geller. In where on the circle the the force of Geller's personality.the next other lines Indeed, section, I have tried to look should go. Dropping the some supposedly objective at these long up and scientists no%v experiments in the light of down motion, and putting talk of the "Geller effect"what I the short as a fact. have found out about Geller motions all on the top, But as Uri himself told as a performer. seems to suggest me, "a stage 0m 1^ Do% Th "St an ford Rese arch 11--,1stitvU11tV#% a -fi N60 Z 1 .4 1 V Did SRI "validate" Uri Geller? After months of experiments, in a paper this week in Nature SRI reports the only two sets of tests it considers successful-one of telepathy and the other of clairvoyance. Although the authors state that Geller bent many pieces of metal, he never did so under experimental conditions. The paper fails to show that many of the same difficulties of Geller's public performances occurred in the lab, too. Nor does the paper note that by using an ingenious device invented by his mentor Dr Andrija Puharich, Geller could have done both successful tests by non-paranormai means The investigators *"AQ Stanford Research 'Institute, in Menlo Park, California, is the site of the only X-. attempt at controlled scientific tests of Uri Geller. SRI was originally estab- lished by Stanford University to do military research. After student protests in the 1960s, it was nominally split off from the university. Since then, military funding -has decreased and SRI has done increasing amounts of commercial con- tract research. The Geller study has been done by Dr Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ. Both are laser physicists with a continuing Ai interest in psychic phenomena who joined SRI primarily to do psychic re search (although when funding is short they do return to laser work). Puthoff is 38 years old and joined SRI in 1971. Ile is tlie author of a laser texLbnok, Fundamentals of Quanturn Electronics Targ has been president of the Para- and biofeedback techniques, it "may be (John Wiley & Sons, 1969), and holds psychology Research Group of Palo possible to teach and enhance ESP patents for a tunable Raman laser and Alto, and invented an "ESP Teaching phenomena" (Parapsychology Review, other optical devices. Machine?'. In a paper to the IEEE July-August 1972, p 9). Targ is 40 years old and, joined SRI (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Together, Targ and Puthoff have in- in 1972 af t ten it S valia, En "ineers) International Symposium on vestigated several subjects in addition where lie APWQV&r0V Ale easi O&tG~,orClAiRDPNzQO'787ROOG?GqOMO L for the project invented a tunable plasma oscillator. reported evidence that via the machine came fora an They report that New S'd, endst #WqyejJ-Ror Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7 they bad an q0 000 grant from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration), apparently relating to farg's ESP teaching machine. But they remain chronically short of money. Funding for the Geller work has come primarily from wealthy individual--- particularly from Judith Skutch, a weal- thy Geller supporter in -New York, and Dr agar Mitchell. Ex-astronaut Mitchell conducted an unautborised ESP experi- ment in space in February 1971 and two years ago set up his lns~itute of Noetic Sciences in Palo Alto to, encourage psychic research. Geller has been to SRI several times over an 18-month period beginning in November 1972. Mitchell and another Geller supporter, Dr Wilbur Franklin of Kent State University, assisted in the finst series of tests. The clairvoyance expenment %%ith a die reported in the SRI paper, published this week in Nature (vol 251, p 602). comes from this set of tests. (Copies of the 18 October issue of Nature are available for 45p from Macmillan Journals, 4 Little Essex Street, London. AVC-2.) The paper The SRI paper reports on three tests with Geller. as well as several teats with other subjects. In the first in August 1975, Uri was asked to reproduce target pictures drawn by experimenters at other locations. "At & beginning of the c_xperiment either Geller or the experimenters entered a shielded room so that from that time forward Geller was at all times visually, acousti- cally, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at the target location. Only foUo%vincf Geller's isola- 'lion from the experimenters was a target chosen and dravm, a procedure designed to eliminate pre-experiment cueims. Fur-thermore, to eliminate the possibility of pre-experiment target forcin.g. Geller was kept ignorant as to the ir-entity of the person selecting the target and as to the method of target selection," Targ and Puthoff report in the paper. Altogether. 13 trials were conducted (see Table). For virtually every trial, the conditions were changed-often several conditions were changed at the saire time-so that it is difficult to correlate his succe-sses and failures with different conditions. In four cases (1-4) the targets were chosen by putting an index card into a dictionary to pick a page, then open in,-r it and draMng the first word on the upper left that "could be drawn". Three targets, (8-10) were chosen from an zIrtady prepared targe, v Three pocl. (5-7) ;,here tdrgets "t),ind to experi- inenten~ and 5ubject, prepared independ. eutly by SRI scientists outside the experimental group follo%ving Geller's isolation"---Geller declined to attempt anv of these three. Final]),, three targets Gi-lS) weie cho-%n by computer laboratory personnel and drawn on a cathode raA ?(3 ,~dlifiW'Pqr-IR-ekilse is primarily est of telepathy, as in all ca-ses sorneone knew what the draw- in.iz was. In three cases, however (5, 12, Geller picture drawing test at SRI Trial Geller Target Target Outcome location location Picture from dictionary 1 si A Firecracker poor 2 si A Grapes good 3 Sl B Devil poor 4 C. S1 Solar system --good Picture prepared by outsider 5 C S1 Rabbit pass 6 s1 A Tree pass 7 S1 A Envelope pass Picture chosen from target pool 8 S11 D Camel good 9 S1 A Bridge fair 10 S1 A Seagull good Picture drawn on computer crt 11 S2 E Kite good 12 S2 E Church poor 13 S2 Arrow through heart fair Locations: SI: double waited steel room S2: double walled copper screen Faraday cage A: adjacent room 4.1 m from S1 B: office 475 m from S1 C: room justcutside S1 D: room 6-75 rn from S1 E: computer room 54 m from S2 Outcomes: Pass means Geller did not do a drawing. Other evaluations are by the author (JH) based on drawings published vrith the Nature paper. In general, the drawings seem to be based on a verbal description of the target drai6ig, rather than either the target word or the target drawing. Good: good pictorial representation of a word or phrase which would describe the entire target picture. Trial 2 is a bunch of 24 grapes (word: grapes) and the Geller drawing precisely fits that description. Trial 4 includes the sun, earth, saturn, two other circles, and the words "solar systern". Geller has drawn, in a totally different arrangement, the sun, saturn, several circles, and what appear to be satellites. Both could be described verbally as "solar system" or "sun and planets". Trial 8 is a drawing which could be either a horse or a camel and Geller has drawn a horse. Trial 10 has a large flying bird and a small bird on the ground. Geller's drawing has a large and small bird. The birds do not resemble each other, but both drawings are described well by "large bird with small bird under it". Trial 3.1 is a kite, which Geller bas dravvn. The two are about as dissimilar as two line drawings of a kite could be. Fair: pictorial represerftation of some of the words which would describe the target pict'ure. Trial 13, for example, is an arrow through a heart. Geller has drawn an arrow inside a box. Again, the target and Geller's drawing are dissimilar, despite the fact that they describe the same word "arrow". Poor: pictorial representation of a few words which might be used to describe the target picture. In trial 1, the dictionary word was firecracker, and the drawing is a simple firecracker with a lit fuse. Geller's response appears to be to the word "noisemaker" and includes a drum and words ike "noise" and "pow". Special notes: 5--target in shielded room with no one there to vie 'w it 6, 7-attem.pted to make EEG record of Geller, which failed because "he - found it difficult to hold adequately still for good EEG records" 11-picture displayed on front of cathode ray tube display screen 7' . stared in comDuter memory 0 4a U e I ft QQ9QQ24e7no picture. I-picture drawn 1 t Avoroved No metal ben'ding "It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bead metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypo- thesis," Taro., and Puthoff declare in the paper published this week in IN ature. Indeed, the SRI team spent most of its time on metal bending-by far the most spectacular Geller feat- and considerably less time on the per- ception tests finally published. In one test which I saw the video- tape of, Uri was asked to bend a carefully checked metal bar. Ile was Unsuccessful, and asked for something else. The SRI team provided a special checked spoon. Next he asked for more metal round him for inspiration, and that was supplied. Finally he gave up, but the spoon was set up for the next day and all the other metal, including the original bar, just dumDed in the corner of the room. T~e next day, he started on the spoon, and again asked for more metal. The original bar was among the extra collection, and Uri switched quickly back to that. But as only the spoon had been set up and checked, there was no way to see that Uri or someone else had not taken the bar _' or any of the other metal-out of the room overnight, bent it, and brought it back in the morning. I -1 -, "-, "e. W'.4" -- Later Uri moved on to still other pieces of metal in the pile. Finally he selected a pair of tweezers which no one had paid attention to because of the concentration on the spoon and bar. Finally, he broke the tweezers, but even Targ considered it all so suspicious that it was not included in the paper. The possibility of sleight of hand-in this and all other metal tests with Uri-was too great even for SRI. and 13), the picture was not actually being viewed by anyone at the time of the test. In all ten cases where Uri did a drawing, it had some connection to the tar.a,et and in some cases T-Tri's picture was extremely good-for example, when the target dravAng was a bunch of 24 grapes, Uri also drew a bunch of 24 grapes. Perhaps the most striking factor which runs through all 10 pictures, however, -is that Uri seems to be drawing neither the target word nor the target drawing. He appears to base his drawing on the words which would be used to describe the target drawing. Clairvoyance The other two tests reported in the SRI paper are of clairvoyance-seeing something in a closed container which no one can know by normal means. r ucceeded once and failed once. A An thse second test reported in th6 RI paper, also conducted in August k73, an SRI artist drew - 100 target pictures of everyday objects and other SRI personnel sealed them with black cardboard in envelopes and then sealed November or December 1972, Uri succeeded spectacularly well. A 34 in dice was placed in a steel file card box (3 in X 4 in X 5 in). The box was shaken and put on the table, and Uri drew a picture of the uppermost dice face. Then the box wa~ opened. The experiment was performed 10 times, with Uri being correct eight times and passing twice. Unlike the telepathy test, the conditions were riot varied-the dice and the box apparently remained the same. Targ and Puthoff conclude: "A channel exists whereby 'information about a re- mote -location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality." in these experiments, they write, "we concentrated on what we con- sidered to be our primary respon- sibility-to resolve under conditions as unambiguous as possible the basic issue of whether a certain class of paranormal perception phenomena exists." They con- tinue that "at all times we took measures to prevent sensory leakage and to pre- vent deception." But were Targ and Puthoff vigilant enough, and bave they really shown unambiguously that paranormal percep- tion exists? New Scientist 17 October 1974 10fcMWNYAVUVVVW4,ot accidentally, Geller manipulates the experiments to a degree of chaos where he feels com- fortable and we feel uncomfortable. Then he bends something." SRI has filmed or videotaped many Geller tests. The tapes show that Gellev constantly bounces up and down, touch- ing everything in sight and running his hands throuah his hair. In the middle of a test, he frequently jumps up and flits about the room, stopping the test dead. Just as suddenly, he will go back to the test-or to a different one he abandoned earlier. He frequently asks for objects, often from outside the test room, to give him moral support: press clippings from past triumphs, pieces of metal, coins, etc. And lie will discuss at length at objects to choose and where to wh put them. He draws technicians and other observers into the experiment by asking them to help him concentrate, or to get other objects, or to pick a number. Geller also tries to convince people that things happened differently than they did. In one tape I watched, he tried to say he had not "Passed" when he had, in fact, done so. In another, he said that something was bent when it really wasn't. Also, Geller constantly needs reinforcement. Ile frequently stops and says "I can't do it", thus put- ting the experimenters in the position of repeatedly telling him that he really can, and thus possibly convincing them- selves in the process. Mitchell commented that "Hal" [Put- hoff] and Russ [Targ] were so eager to keep Geller around that they worked themselves into a box by meeting his every whim. If he threatened to walk off they would relent and do what be wanted. Of course, they lost control of the situation and it got worse and worse and worse." Mitchell-a strong believer in Geller's abilities who was present for many of the tcsts~--admitted that durina, the tests they should have demanded "that he curb his impulsiveness, that he should not touch equipment, that he keep his hands proper-ly in view of the camera at all times, and that he cut down his chatter when we were trying to work. It becomes distracting and he uses it, not consciously to distract, but to create a climate of too 'much noise and muss and bustle," There are also long periods when he does nothing but stand and concentrate. A single test can take several hours of alternating excitement and boredom. The vigilance of the experimenters is sure to flag during that time. Assume he will cheat -The experimenters are conscious of the possibility of- dishonesty. "I feel confident that Geller will cheat if given the envelopes in other envelopes. Five a chance," Targ told me, and lie seemed targets were dravm from the pool each highly sceptical of some ot G 6 1 e r's day. Each. (lay Geller attempted draw- Welcome to the circus metal bending attempts. But whether ings of everyday objects, but only rarely - their vigilance against cheating was came close to the target picture. "The A dry scientific paper can never rigorous enough is open to dispute. drawin.-s resulting from this experiment capture the feeling of an experiment. If Geller is cheating, he is probably do not depart significantly froin what In this case, the Targ-Putboff paper using sophisticated magic and psycho- e"" would be expected by ance". totally fails to communicate the circus logical trickery. But the SRI team has In the t "J dag -tbn~ conducted YhOwd, 191"le, row-Ro on two aniateur Appro ve 181 New Sdo-ritist 1 r q9f4or Rele~ ,tc,b, ase 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787-ROO0200090024-7 magicians, an SRI staff member not connected with the project, and Targ himself, who noted he had "done tricks and been paid for it". But Targ has very poor eyesight, holding things just a few inches from his eyes to see detail, so it is not clear ho%v much he could catch. Targ is also sometimes sur- prisingly trusting: in one instance during a magnetonieter experiment he asked Geller about a black mark on his skin and (seller said it was a scar; Targ accepted witbout checking although he conld not have possibly known if Geller was telling the truth, One outside observer who is highly critical of the controls applied by Targ and Puthoff comes from a US govern- ment funding agency. Targ and Put- hoff bad applied for money and he was sent to SRI to evaluate the work. Thus, one would expect the SRI team to have put on the best possible performance. A reliable source reports that this official is quite interested in psychic phenomena, is anxious to be- lieve, and should have been sympathetic to SRI. By his own admission, lie watched whatever the SRI team chose to show him. But he concluded that the "controls are sloppy and inadequate". He also remarked that when he sug- gested tighter controls, "Targ said 'bullshit'". One of the potential difficulties of parapsychological investigation is the sensitivity of the whole phenomenon, and the inability of even "good" subjects to perform under many seemingly reasonable, controlled conditions. If one accepts the existence of parapsycholo- gical abilities, this is not surprising. One would, presumably, be dealing with a talent like musical ability, and it would be not unreasonable to find a skilled violinist, for example, being adversely influenced by playing before a group of people he knew to be hostile critics. Also, because we are dealing with "mental energies", it is not unreason- able to suppose that a confirmed critic could use his psychological powers to block those of the sensitive. Thus, the phenomenon will require somewhat different procedures than other forms of research. Some con- cessions will have to be made to keep the subject happy and comfortable, for example. The real question is: Has SRI gone too far in this direction? Scre .ening participants Typical of the difficulties of 'this sort of research is that all those who aid the investigators are, to some measure at least, pre-selected for their receptive- ness to Geller. "We reached the point that on a particular day, if one of our better but more sceptical investigators was really in a foul mood about the whole thing, we just banned him from the room. And we could get results then, while when he was there we couldn't," according to Mitchell. He Uri on film 'More than a year ago SRI produced a film of Uri Geller's first set of tests there (in November and December 1972). Although more like a seminar report than a forinal paper, it gives some insight into the SRI researchers. (The film is entitled "Experiments with Uri Geller" and can be rented only by "universities ;and scientific research organisations" from Mitchell's Institute of Noetic Sciences. 575 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto). The narrator is Bormar Cox, executive director "of the SRI In- formation Science and Engineering Division. The film shows five tests that the SRI team then considered acceptable (but only one of the five was con- sidered acceptable by the time the paper was submitted to Nature). The first test sboi%m is a telepathy (mind reading) experiment using picture drawing. Fifteen simple drawings ,were made and sealed in envelopes which were themselves sealed in other envelopes (double sealing). The en- velopes were locked in a 6fe and drawn out at random for each test. The researcher then would open the envelope outside the experimental room, look at the picture, reseal the envelope and enter the experimental roorn. lQile lie thought of the picture Geller would draw it. Each drawing seemed quite close to the tanlet, but perhaps closer to a verbal descrip- tion of the target than to the target itself. Next, the film shows a clairvoyance test in which Geller selects the one large enough to hold three row's of four such cans, they are placed with the middle two positions left vacant. In each case, a person referred to as a "randomiser" enters the room, arranges the cans, and leaves before Geller enters. Geller- instructs the experimenters to remove empty cans one at a time. In the film, he *uccess- fully finds a can containing room temperature water and one contain- ing a steel ball. lit a similar test, a dice is placed in a metal box and shaken. Geller then guesses that the top face is a four, which is correct. There are also two experiments in psychokinesis (PK). In one, a one gramme weight is placed on in elec- trical balance and covered by an alurninium film can, and then the apparatus covered by a glass cylin- der. A chart is then shown with two peaks, which, according to the film, "are apparently due to Geller's efforts. They are single-sided signals, oiie corresponding to a 1500 mg weight decrease, the other corres- ponding to an 800 mg weight in- crease. . . . We have no ready hypo- thesis on how these signals might have been produced". Next, Geller is shown actually "influencing" a Bell inagnetometer. Moving his hands around the probe, lie apparently causes a full scale deflection of 0-3 gauss. Finally, the film shows two unsatis- factory events. First, Geller is sbown deflecting a compass needle. Next, he is sQen apparently bending a Also shown are two bent rings 'measured to require 150 pounds force to bend them" and which "were in Geller's band at the time they were bent". The most striking aspect of the film is that the really dramatic events all happen off camera. The first draw- ing that Geller does on the film is "the most off-target of the dra-Mrigs he did". Although-the film says that the dice experiment was done success- fully eight times,,the only test shown in the film is one in which Geller finally "passed!'; that is, even though he guessed the number he asked that it not be taken into account because he was not confident. In the test with the one grgmme weight, Geller is never actually shown deflecting the scale-all the film shows is Geller working unsuccessfully with the balance, and then a trace of another (apparently unfilmed) successful test. During the spoon bending, there is a break in the film and then the spoon never leaves Geller's hand until it is shown to be bent-as usual, it appears to have bent during a break in film- ing. If, as the team claims, SRI filmed Geller virtually continuously, why did this film have to contain What seemed the weakest examples of each test? But it may be the bent rings which make the film most suspect. I have already noted the virtual impossibility of telling just when Geller bends something. Therefore, the dogmatic assertion that "these rings were in Geller's hand at the time they were bent", without any filpi docu- can ouL of 10 that contains an object. stainless steel spoon, but this is also mentation offered, seems more likely ThecAPPVGVedirmorift%4~ 200(W,Jy_ca. to reflect sloppy observation than film cans. Using a cardboard in coaUMAAMIU~W. 8 7 ROGWO OW02411ti0n- ox New Scientist 17 October 1974 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO02000 -7 0024 ? . explains it by saying that perturbation could have , this shows been made 1 This is, in itse f, interesting as he was "how important the individualsimply by fiddling with apparently able to see thought the dials on inside the box process is". The less charitablethe recorder. Hebard is containing the die. might convinced, how- suggest that Geller was unwillingever, that Swann did perturbBut the pap(~r does not to the output report a per-form before someone who without touchiag the recorder.curious incident which was more But as occur-red at the watchful than usual. often happens, his versionend of the third day of of the story the test. After, Another example of this sort tells more than he reallses.the formal test had been of He said abandoned, it choice came up in a discussionthat there were several was decided to loosen of ex- people in the the precautions periments with Pat Price, room and that they stood and try again with six also published talking for drawings. This in tb~: SRI paper. In the about 40 minutes. Swann, time the drawings were test, one of he said, stood left lying about the investigators went to close to the chart recorderthe room so that it was a randomly looking at possible to selected place in the Palo it Wtently for 20 minutes remove a drawing from Altc area- before any- the rile without ~ motorway toll booth, a drive-inthing happened. Hebard anyone noticing, and Geller movie, is sure that was per- ~ marina, etc. Thirty minutesSwann did not touch the mitted to leave the room, after he recorder, but which he did started, Price would dictate in a crowded room Nvith three times. This time, into a tape people talking, Geller had no recorder a description of who can concentrate on trouble with the clairvoyance where he any sin.gle test, and thought the investigator was.object for 20 minutes and succeeded in drawing one Transcripts be sure it is of the pic- of the nine descriptions werenot touched? Hebard also tures. Commented the third given to added a point researcher: five judges who were asked that neither Swann nor "I'm convinced he cheated." to correlate Puthoff men- If he could them with personal knowledge tioned-they came back the do this test under loose of the next day conditions but nime locations but with no with fewer people around not under tight conditions, knowledge of and Swann is this not wbich descriptions Price saidfailed to have any effect.worth a mention in the were of paper? which trips. There is a wide One also has the comment diversity, of Ray with two judges picking 6 Hyman-the Oregon University and 7 of psy- Price's descriptions as correct,chology %professor, magician,Looking in Uri's mouth while and con- two others picked only 3. firmed sceptic about psychic When asked phenomena. about the diversity, Targ Hyman observed a day of The final question that said that it SRI tests on must be simply showed that they had Geller in November 1972 answered is how the SRI to be and concluded paper stacks more careful in picking judgesthat "they don't know how up against Occam's Razor-is because to observe. there a some judges were not good Targ and PuthofF recountedplausible normal method at doing incidents by which correlations! we just saw in completely Geller could have done the reverse his two success- order, making them miracles".ful tests at SRI? Plausibility,is hard to Finally, there are two define i[i this situation, problems that but it must take Good observers? apply to all scientists, into account anything Targ and Puthoff that can be done included. First, future with the assistance of funding clearly Dr Andrija By far the most important depends on success-there-isPuliarich. component no'money of the validity of the SRI available to prove that As the box on the next paper is the subjects of their page shows, investigators' abilities as choice have no psychic Puliarich is a medical observers. Two ability. Second, electronics expert incidents suggest that althoughthe mystique of the hard-headedwho developed a radio Targ scientist receiver which and- Puthoff may be competentobjectively searching for can be hidden in a tooth. laser truth bears It must there- physicists, they are less little relationship to fore be considered plausible successful in reality; in the real that Uri has this radcally different area.world of science most peoplea miniature radio receiver In particu- are trying concealed on lar, their desire to believe to prove the truth of a his person. Even if it may cloud hypothesis to is not hidden in their discrimination. which they are already his teeth, it could easily committed. Thus be hidden.,in Perhaps the most telling eventit is hardly surprising his hair or- in a wristwatch is Hal to find that Targ which he Puthoff taking Ingo Swann-an and Puthoff are strongly presses against his chin experi- committed to to hear. The mental subject not described Geller and seem genuinely possibilities are limitless, in the to believe in especially if Nature paper-to the quark his abilities (although Uri is not carefully searched. detector Targ seems more Because at Stanford University early cautious about Geller's Uri constantly runs his in 1973. metal bending). hands, through The quark detector is a highlyTarg has worked in the his hair and across his sensitive parapsychology face, no one magnetome-ler which works area on and off for 15 would notice him listening by looking years. Puthoff to his Dick at the decay of a magnetic has gone through encounterTracy wrist radio-nor, field. This groups and because of the is shown on a -chart recorderother West Coast fads, direct nerve stimulation, by a and is now a would anyone periodic function. Puthoff Scientologist (as is Ingo else hear it. and Swann Swann). In independently told me roughlyan area where observation There are two small pieces simi'ar is difficult of evidence stories* Puthoff took Swann anyway, have the SRI investigatorsthat give some credence to the quark to this sugges- detector, where Swann describedtaken enough precautions tion. The most obvious in to ensure that is that all of some detail the inside of their natural desire to Uri's drawings are representations the detector, see Geller succeed of of which he could not possiblydoes not cause them to words which would describe have had unconsciously the target any knowledge. Then, without make errors or misinterpretdrawing, and thus are going the data consistent Nvith near any of the equipment, to Geller's benefit? radio communication. The for short second occurred times he both increased and in January when Puharich decreased was telling the period of the signal. me that in any test Uri should be Dr Arthur Hebard, who designedOmitting a success "properly examined" for the hidden devices. equipment, and who suggested But then he suddenly adaed: that "But I Puthoff bring Swann there, One test with Geller that know Uri will not submit tells a is omitted to excessive somewhat ~~~ffers~o . Ile from the paper throws someexamination like total dismisses interesting body X-radiation". - the descrf light both on Geller and In other words, Uri will ption of the inside of the the researchers. not permit the detector by saying that SwannWhereas the 13 drawings only test for a Puliarich was in the tele- implanted radio "talking in such poetic termspathy test are described receiver. that he as the "entire could have been describing set of consecutive experiments",To some measure, SRI has anvthing". this is protected T'he description was "doublet,-,~k"not the case with the clairvoyancea-ainst radio transmission and test by working the sort of thing any poetic which Geller failed-his with shielded rooms ior laymaa attempt to the picture would use to describe any draw the contents of sealeddrawing tests. But have piece of envelopes. they succeeded- The tarctets were drawn or is it possible to penetrate scientific equipment. by an SRI the room 0 On the perturbation of the artist at the request of to a radio? detector a third SRI output, Hebard made two interestingresearcher who worked withTo answer this question, Targ and I consulted comments. First, just that Puthoff for a short time Robert King, a senior sort of per- in August 1973. lecturer at turbation #tVV4raWQhhMT14W#aJ8e20VAR Pi AdTmh A14ndon. -WE-6-STia~r the helium supplyKing wrote are also G61 %-VW-RW*00A2+1/ all three 'shielded using their equipment. Second,test to see inside any rooms in the College's the of the envelopes. Electrical Engin- Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO020009002.4-7 183 x,-.w scientist 17 October 1974 cering Department. King was dogmatic: "I could get information into any shielded room." The reason, he ex- plained. is that shielded rooms are simph not designed to protect against secretive attempts to get Information through. The SRI paper gives only vague information on the room in which'imost of the tests were done (SI in the Table, p 179)-it says only that it is "a double- walled steel room, locked by means of an inner and outer door". The second rooni (S2 in the Table, p 179) is a "double-walled, copper-screen Faraday cage" which "pro- vides 120 dB attenuation for plane wave radio frequency radiation over a range of 15 KlIz to I GHz. For magnetic fields the attenuation is 68 dB at 15 KI-Tz and decreases to 3 dB at 60 Hz." King said that this is typical of screen- ing for shielded rooms, and provides the key to getting data inside in this case- Attenuation drops off very rapidly at the very small wavelengths about I GlIz, lie said, so that mIcrov;aves of 10 GHz or more provide a good possibility. Hearing with.a tooth The dream of spy writers, a radio receiver that can be concealed in a tooth. actually exists and was in- vented by Andrija Henry Puharich -the man v,-ho fouid Geller in Israel ~nd brought him to the US. Pubarich is a wealthy 56-year-old 'MD who holds 56 patents, primarily in medical electronics. Since 1960 his inventions have related primarily to hearing aids for people N%ith nerve deafness. But Puharich's hearing aid is a unique device which stimulates cer- 11ain facial nerves just as tM organ of Corti stimulates auditory nervps, and the person can actually hear normallv without using his or her e.ars at all. The facial hearing system will Nvork N%ith nerves on the face and neck, on the tongue, and in the sinuses, Puharich claims. But for cosmetic reasons. the nerves in a 11-drig tooth are best. "The invention comprises an element applied to a viable tooth, for receiving electromagnetic signals at radio frequeni:_~. and a transducer element coupled v.1th a receiving element and with live nerve endings of the tooth for converting the electromagnetic signals to electric signals at audio frequency, and im- parting the electrical signals to the rerve endings of the tooth for trans- mission to the brain," according to US Patent 2 995 CM issued 8 August, 1961. Normally, the user would carry a small transmitter in his pocket which would pick up sounds and transmit them to the tooth. But Puharich and co-inventor Joseph Lawrence noted in US Patent 3 267 931, issued 23 August, 1966, that the device "may, of course, be adapted for longer range transmission of radio frequency signals". Although the device will receive radio signals directly, it works best with an amplifier. In the initial patent, this amplifier is relatively large, concealed in two false teeth next to the viable one with the implant (Figure 2). But by 1964, &/ FigL]re 2 Signals can be transmitted from a radio to a (eceiverlamplifier hidden in two false teeth, and then passed on to an adjoining viable tooth as in Figure 1. Drawing from US Patent 2995663 Figure 3 By 1964, Puharlch had improved the amplifier so that it could be mounted on the back of the toolh. In this drawing, the amplifier "is greatly exaggerated in size to facilitate description" and would, in fact, be hidden under the tooth cap. The amplifier has a terminal on the left which must be touched with the tongue to complete the circuit. Drawing from US Patent a 156 787 has the interesting side effect that amplification only works when the tongue is' pressed against the tooth, and thus the wearer can listen selec- tively and be undisturbed lky radio signals at other times. In another version of the device, described in the 1966 patent. an electrode "about the size of a penny which is covered on its operative surface with a thin film of Mylar" could be pressed against the skin in "one of several identifiable areas of the head. and neck" to stimulate facial nerves and produce the same effect of bearing. The electrode is connected to a receiver similar to the one mounted in the tooth. The feedback circuit is completed by a connection to any point on the body. For example, a quite small device held in the hand could be pressed against the face. Mon-W Puharich had modified the amplifier ctif cir~&itry (US Patent 3 156 787) to R e 1~er crystal be mounted on the one tooth. The Nerve diawing (Figure 3) "is greatly exaggerated in size to facilitate ,r Dental description. . . . The entire assembly pulp advantageously is of waf er-thin t ~o`ns*truction, be unobtrusively Ficure I Puharich tooth radio receiver. Signals are received by the gold filling, converled to electric signals in the audio -f-equency range by the rectifier crystal, en.d imparted d:rc-ct!v !o the nerve 4 Dirt tInc~nUlft, ' V- d1FWp,,K61r ease so as to concealed with the cap. . . . It is contemplated that the various com- ponents of the system of the inven- tion may be further reduced to micro-miniature proportions, thrLiigh the use of so-called 'thin film' circuit fabrication techniques". The amplification in the 1964 and 1966 patents is provided by a feed- back loop within the mouth, using either two different teeth (Figure 4 from the 1966 patent) or the tongue pressed against an exposed terminal the tooth (left of - 266& itto' SP cMQRDR96-0*7E mptirier RA Clete&, r put T~~ F~odback coupling Figure 4 An alternative amplifier system uses two teeth. Based on 7ROOM009002VI 931 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00'787ROO01TOO090V~2437 October 1974 Geller performs at Birkbeck Uri Geller has worked with one group of scientists in Britain. On 21 and 22 June, 1974, he did a set of tests in the office of Professor John Hasted at Birkbeck Collecre, London University. Also present were Professor David Bohm, Dr Ted Bastin (a friend of Andrija Puharich and a strong Geller supporter, who first introduced Uri to New Scientist in 1972), Brendon O'Re.gan (another Geller proponent who wrote the first New Scientist report on Gelier at SRI), theoretical physicist Dr Jack -Siirfatt, authors Axthur Koestler and Arthur C. Clarke, and several other people. In an unpublished paper, Hasted reports that Geller bent four keys and a I cm. molybdenum disc 0-32 nim. thic],, affected a Geiger counter, and deflected a compass needle while at the same time producing a pulse on a ma.anetometer. Hasted concludes that "these observations are consistent with the hypothesis that Mr Geller could by concentration produce occasional and rather un- predictable pulses of electromotive force". As usual, they are also consistent with non-paranormal explanations. Indeed, the whole set of tests seems no better controlled than the typical Geller show. In a telephone interview last month, Bohm told me that "unfortunately there were a lot of people in the room", and that "as far as the key bendin.g is concerned, we had much better conditions in his hotel room (in February 1974] where it was much quieter". "I can't assure that there were no tricks, and no one there could," Bohm added. "Geller works in a very high state of excitement which communicates to the experi- menters, and that makes it hard to keep your mind on what is happening." According to the Hasted paper, Geller bent four brass Yale keys through angles of between 101 and 40'. "In all cases the bending took a time of the order of minutes to complete," Hasted noted. With that much time, any good magician could have bent the keys no matter how closely the observers thought they were watching-with the chaos that must have reigned in the office, it should have been trivially easy. The bent disc was one of ten metal objects. "Mr Geller was not asked specifically to bend this specimen rather than others on the table". As I noted in the box on page 180, SRI observed a similar event and even videotaped it, yet they rejected it because of the possibility of slei~ght- of-hand. The Geiger counter was connected to an amplifier and a chart recorder, and "during a total period of about 10 minutes eight pulses of duration of the order of a second were recorded. . . . However, the loudspeaker clicking, which was recorded on magnetic tape, did not always accelerate during the chart recorded pulses, nor did a second Geiger counter record click consistently". To me, this is more consistent 'with Uri or one of his supporters bumping the chart recorder or fiddling with a knob on the amplifier than with any paranormal event. As; for deflectin.-r the comDass needle, the best comment is that made in the SRI film of Geller: "we found later that these types of [compass needle] deflections could be produced by a small piece of metal, so small in fact that they could not be detected by a magnetometer". Bohm stresses that to perform, Uri must be in the right state of mind. "My attitude is that whatever he requires, we must accept." For example, "considering the sort of person Geller is, you couldn't search him it would put him off ". Bohm also noted that Geller "tends to get discouraged by complicated set-ups. We had some set-ups that would have given stronger proof, but he was never in the right state of mind". Microwaves have one important prop- erty: they are reflected by Metal. Thus, microwaves are often used with wave- guides--long metal boxes which will carry the microwaves virtually without loss around tortuous routes. The air conditioning system probably used in SRI buildin-s would make an especially good waveguide-a transmitter placed anywhere in the air conditioning would transmit to all linked offices. Naturally, air conditioning ducts entering a shielded room have special baffles to screE m out radio waves-but these are highly in- effective in the microwave range. On the other hand, microwave transmitting equipment can be miniaturised and draw very little power. A microwave transmitter for this sort of purpose nced be no bi-er than a cigarette pack . And even though Puharich in his patents talks about his tooth receiver working in the M11z range, it should work just as well in the G1lz range. In the configura- tion Nybere the tongue is part of the amplifier, Geller would evea be able to Win it on and off at will, and thus not be affected by possible continuing trans- missions. How would such a radio be used? Perhaps the simplest way would be to use it to bug the room in which the target pictuAVpPvoVW.FbrR-eTe4.,;e and Puthoff e're so anxious to please Uri that they would not have quibbled with a request from Uri to descTibe the F-7 W77111 1 -7 ql. R~ -A -x _111~11 ~fl ~Z- picture out loud after they drew it- after all, as they say in their paper, the shielded room provided "acoustic isola- tion". Another choice would involve Shipi Strang, Uri's inseparable companion. According to Pubarich in his book Uri, Geller first met Shipi in 1967 when Uri was serving as a counsellor at a summer ", APIVI~TNTIP7RMO#M974--s.7 VaerpintTVilp with both Shipi and Shipi's sister Hannah, and Uri and Shipi soon became constant companions. It was Ship! who first convinced Uri to perform, according to Puharich. And Shipi went iNrith Uri to the US. Although Targ and Puthoff do not mention it at all in their paper, Shipi was constantly under foot during the tests-at least sometimes accompany- ing the experimenters during actual Shipi could easily have experiments. signalled Uri in code with a transmitter hidden in his pocket, for example. The SRI paper also notes that " the picture as drawn and brought near the shielded W room" which suggests that Shipi might have had other chances to see it as well. In the chaos of the computer room for tests 11 to 13, Shipi would hardly have been noticed while the picture was being decided on and drawn. The SRf data shows some support for this sort of hypothesis--when the drawings were under the control of an outsider who would be less likely to accede to Geller's requests and the presence of Shipi, Uri failed (Trials 5, 6, and 7). Even if this particular tecl--nique will not work, Puhariclt could surely findl a simple way. Four other possibilities came to mind'in discussions with King: 1) Higher frequency microwaves would pass through the cracks between the steel plates and around th6 door. that the space ir would provide a particularly good waveguide. With a transmitter- anywhere in the room ~e~~ F~dentjgt 17 October 1974 185 . . Approved For Release 2000108110 : CIA-RDP9e6ct-rOa,078TF d.wectly outside the shielded room, if Uri's request came via Sp t R 0 WW09W-7 did call in signals would penetrate in this way. Puharich would be sure to obey. Thus, magician James Randi to help set the 2) To get electricity into a shielded Puharich need not be a party to a wide- experimental conditions.) And IMitchell room (for lights) without any radio tran- spread and continuing fraud to have told me that Geller "broke several sients, the normal procedure is to put helped Uri in this way. engagements" at SRI and that be did a steel plate (usually the room wall) I have no proof that Uri did do his not seem to want to do any more there between two sides of a transformer. The drawings in this way. But it fits the even though "we've got funding for it 60 Hz magnetic field penetrates, whereas data at least as well as the Targ-Puthoff if he will work under conditions accep- radio fields would not (this is supported paranormal explanation. By Occam's table to us." Uri, it seems, will work by the fact that the copper screened Razor it is only necessary to show that only with scientists such as those at room shows only a 3 dB loss to mag- plausible normal explanations have not Birkbeck who seem loth to set any netic fields at 60 lIz). Therefore, King been excluded. To be sure, by what conditions at all. suggests low frequency magnetic induc- might be considered a reverse Occam's Thus, it appears that the paper pub- tion transmission of data. Frequencies Razor, it must also be shown that the lished this week may be the closest to of 5-10 Hz should pass through double route to the normal explanation is not hard scientific evidence we will get, and steel plates without unacceptable losses. more complex than simply accepting it must be unusually closely scrutinised. The transmitter coil could be concealed the paranormal. But Puliarich takes the It seems clear that no matter how good in a briefcase left sitting next to the plausible virtually into the realm of they are as laser physicists, Russell wall of the shielded room. Geller would science fiction. Targ and Dr Hal Puthoff are no match have a coil of Aire (for an aerial) under for Uri Geller. There is too much his belt or even hidden behind his evidence that they missed out on impor- teeth, and would stand close to the inner Conclusion tant points. And their experiments fail wall. During a 30 minutes test, large the Occam's Razor test-they did not amounts of information could be trans- The ultimate test of any scientific exclude non-paranormal forms of infor- n-Litted by simple code. research, 'including the SRI work with mation transfer that,based on Puha-rich*s 5) If SRI has not properly shielded Uri, is the ability of other scientists to background, must be considered highly the mains current supply to the room, independently- reproduce the results. As possible. it would be possible to send radio Uri himself said on a Thames TV docu- I do not question the integrity of the signals along the mains (just this system mentary on 15 January: "When I am SRI researchers. But science is filled is used for internal radio systems In doing enough experiments with scien- with examples of scientists--often in universities, hospitals, and the like). tists, the disbelief will drop off." But large numbers-seeing what they want This could be done Nvith a transmitter there is a real danger this will not to see rather than what is there. Canals smaller than a cigarette pack plugged -.happen-that Uri will consider the on Mars, polywater, and the supposed into any outlet in the building. Geller publication of the SRI paper to be all double mass peak of the A, particle are would simply touch an electric wire the scientific validation he needs. Uri just three examples. Several magicians inside the cage and his body would act has backed out on a written commitment have told me that scientists are good as an aerial for the tooth radio. to work with the New Scientist. He audiences because they are so eavily 4) There is an intercom connecting backed out on a verbal commitment to fooled. My investigations of the Geller the inside of the cage with the outside. work with the Maimonides Medical phenomenon support this. The SRI paper This could be like a telephone and have Centre Division of Parapsychology and simply does not stand up agaInst the a filter to cut out everything above 3 Paraphysics in Brooklyn, New York. mass of circumstantial evidence that K.Hz- But if it does not, it too could be (The Maimonides team is highly sympa- Uri Geller is simply a good magician. used to carry radio signals into the room with the transmitter simply clipped onto the communications wire. The preceding discussion applies only to the extremely difficult' problem of the shielded room. The other successful test o -guessing the dfe-r -an be much more easily solved by radio. Mr Hubert Caddy 4 4 of the International Magic Studio, London, tells me that for several years it has been possible to buy a dice for about CSO which radios which face is up! It would not have been too difficult for L Tri to have given SRI a normal die that looked like the radio die, let them mark the normal die as they wanted, and then simply mark 'the radio (he in the same way and switch. Natu,rally, this all depends on the co-operation of Puharich in perpetrating A. k", fraud- Wby would he do so? In his book Uri, Pubarich reports that ex-tra-terres- trial powers called Hoova speak to him A through a voice called Spectra, and have done so for longer than he has known Uri. Uri's power, be says, comes from Hoova. To have any hope of having this report accepted, Puliarich needs Uri's Fuct,'-Ss. If Uri came to Puliarich and -,aid "Aaldrija, I heye 1,3.IoNvil you for a y ear now and never once have I cheated You. Now they are asking me to do things I may not always be able to do, but if I fail no one will believe in Hoova. You are a great inventor-giye me something to hel me jug oncr- in. a istile." In iixppi~ymrrco At" tease 2000408/10 CIA-RPP, ~%,!00787 often hearing the voice of Spectra, and 9 la Approved For Release.J000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787PAGO200090024-7 SGIA PARTICIPANTS TED BASTIN, Cambridge Language Rcscar6 Cambridge, England C. T. K. CIrARr, Madras Christian College Madras, India 0. COSTA DF BEAUREGARD, Institut Henri F Paris, France GERALD FEINDERG, Columbia University New York, U.S.A. V. A, FIRsoFF, Royal Astronomical Society London, England HAROLD PUTHOFF, Stanford Research Institt Menlo Park, California, U.S.A. HELMUT SCHMIDT, The Institute for Parapsychology Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. Russm,L TARG, Stanford Research Institute Menlo Park, California, U.S.A. RVAN HARRIS WALKER, Ballistic Research Laboratories Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,' J. H. M. WHITEMAN, University of Cape T( Cape'Fown, South Africa OBSERVERS ARTnUR KorSTLrR, London5 England EMILIO SrRvADio, Rome,'Italy CHARLES PANATx, New York, U.S.A. PARAPSYCHOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. EILEEN COLY-PreSident ALLAN ANGOFF-Chairman Domestic and International Programs ROBERT R. CoLy-Administrative Secretary &L 1NFERENCE Swifterfand 1974 rysics ILOGY PARAPSYCHOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. 29 Wesf 57fh Sfreef, Now York, N. Y. 10019 Approved For Release 2000108/10 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090024-7