.<59
Appro^fj F=.Qx Be!e^s,e.2QOO/0S/J
i
M
',
i t r{
li
U.*.
Volume 251
October 18, 1974
CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
We
publish
this
week
a
paper
by
Drs
R.
Targ
and H
Puthoff (page
602) which
is bound
to create something
of
a
stir
in
the
scientific community. The claim
is made
that
information
can
be
transferred
by
some
channel
whose
characteristics appear
to
fall
“outside
the
range
of known
perceptual
modalities”.
Or, more
bluntly, some
people can
read
thouehts
or
see
things
remotely.
Such
a claim
is,
of course, bound
to
be
greeted
with
a
preconditioned
reaction amongst many
scientists. To some
it
simply
confirms
what
they
have
always
known
or
believed. To
others
it
is
beyond
the
laws
of
science
and
therefore
necessarily
unacceptable.
But
to
a
few
though
perhaps
to more
than
is
realised—the
questions
are
still
unanswered, and any
evidence
of
high
quality
is worth
a
critical
examination.
,
The
issue,
then,
is whether
the
evidence
is
of
sufficient
quality
to be taken
seriously.
In
trying
to answer
this, we
have been
fortunate
in having
the
help of
three
indepen-
dent
referees who have done
their utmost to see
the papei
as
a
potentially
important
scientific
communication
and
not
as
a
challenge
to
or
confirmation
of
prejudices. We
thank them for the considerable
effort they have
put
in
to
helping
us, and we also thank Dr Christopher Evans of the
National Physical Laboratory whose continued advice on the
subject
is
reflected
in
the
content
of
this
leading
article.
A
general
indication
of
the
referees’ comments may be
helpful
to readers
in reaching
their own assessment
of
the
paper. Of
the
three,
one
believed we
should
not
publish,
one
did
not
feel
strongly
either way
and
the
third
was
guardedly
in favour of publication. We
first summarise the
arguments against
the
paper.
(1)
There was
agreement
that
the
paper was weak
in
design and
presentation,
to the extent that
details given
as
to the precise way
in which the experiment was carried out
were
disconcertingly
vague.
'I he
referees
felt
that
insuf-
ficient account
had been taken
of the
established method-
ology
of
experimental
psychology
and
that
in
the
form
originally
submitted
the
paper
would
be
unlikely
to
be
accepted
for publication in
a psychological journal on
these
grounds alone. Two
referees also
felt
that the authors had
not
taken
into
account
the
lessons
learnt
in
the
past
b>
parapsychologists
researching
this
tricky
and
complicated
area.
(2)
The three
referees were
particularly
critical
of
the
method
of
target
selection
used,
pointing
out
that
the
choice of a
target by “opening
a dictionary
at random”
is
a naive, vague and unnecessarily controversial
a pp
i ouch
to
randomisation.
Parapsychologists
have
long
rejected
such
methods
of
target
selection
and,
as
one
referee
put
it,
weaknesses
of
this
kind
reveal
“a
lack
of
skill
in
their
experiments, which might have caused them to make some
ether mistake which
is
less evident from
their
writing”.
(3)
All the referees
felt that the details given
of various
safeguards
and
precautions
introduced
against
the
pos-
sibility
ofj
one
or
oliicr roT
the
subjects
.t«of
(to
use
one
phrase).
This
in
itself
might
be
sufficient
to
raise
doubt
that
the
experiments
have
demonstrated
trie
existence
of
a new channel
of communication which does
not involve the use
of the
senses.
.
(4)
Two of the referees
felt that
it was a
pity
that
trie
paper,
instead
of
concentrating
in
detail
and
with
meti-
culous
care
on
one
particular
approach
to
extra-sensory
phenomena,
produced
a
mixture
of
different
experiments,
using
different
subjects
in
unconnected
circumstances and
with” only a tenuous overall theme. At the
best these weie
more
“a
series
of
pilot
studies
.
.
.
than
a
repoit
oi
a
completed experiment”.
On
their own
these
highly
critical comments
could
hi
grounds
for
rejection
of
the
paper,
but
it
was
felt
that
other points needed to be taken into account before
a tunn
decision
could
be
made.
(1)
Despite
its shortcomings, the paper
is presented as
a
scientific
document
by
two
qualified
scientists,
writing
from
a
major
research
establishment ^umUx_wiL'Ljhi^
unqualified backin§_of _the_ .reward^. in^ijule
. itself
.
(2
)
The
authors
have
clearly
attempted
to
msesUgwiw
under
laboratory
conditions
phenomena
which,
while
highly
implausible
to
many
scientists,
would
nevertne.ess
seem
to
be
worthy
of
investigation
even
if. m
the
final
analysis,
negative
findings are
revealed.
If
scientists dispute
and 'debate
the
reality
of
extra-sensory
perception,
then
the
subject
is
dearly
a
matter
for
scientific
strap,
and
reportage.
.
.
,
.
.
O)
Very
considerable
advance
publicity
it
is
lau
io
SilV
not
cinerated
bv
the
authors
or
their, institutc-hus
preceded "the
presentation
of
this
report. Asa
result many
scientists and
very
large numbers
of
non-scientists
believe,
as
the
result
of
anecdote
and
hearsay,
that
the
Stanfoio
Research
Institute (SRI) was engaged
in
a major
research
programme
into
para psychological
matters
and
had
even
been
the scene
of
a
remarkable breakthrough
in
this
field.
The
publication
of
this
paper,
with
its muted
claims, sug-
gestions of a limited research programme, and modest data,
is. we believe, likely to nut the whole matter
in more reason-
able perspective.
'
,
f
(U)
The claims that have been made by. or on behalt
O',
one' of the
subjects, Mr
Uri
Cieller, have been
hailed pub-
licly
as indicating
total acceptance by
the SRI
of
al.ecedlv
sensational
powers and may
also
perhaps now
be
seen
in
true perspective.
It must be a matter of interest,
to scientists
to
note
that,
contrary
to
very
widespread
rumour,
the
paper
does
not
present
any
evidence
whatsoever
tor
G oiler's
alleged
abilities
to
bend
metal
rods
by
stroking
them,
influence magnets
at
a
distance, make watches stop
or start by some psychokinetic
force and so on. The pu
u-
eation
of
the
paper would
be
justified
on
the
grounds
Oi
allowing
scientists
the opportunity
to discriminate between
the
cautious,
limited
and
still
highly
debatable
experi-
mental
data, and
extravagant
rumour,
fed
in
recent
nays
bv
inaccurate attempts
in some newspapers at precognition
of
the contents of
the
paper.
( 5)
Two
or the
referees
also
felt
that
the paper
shot. td
be
published because
it would allow parapsychologists, arm
all
other
scientists
interested
in
researching
this
ar^uat
..
.uaiity _of _the_, Stanford
research
ana
.urology.
/
,r/-
560
*
‘Approved For Release 200Q/08/1Q'
(f.) Nature, although seen by some
as one of
flic w&ncrs
most
respected
journals cannot
afford
to
live on
respect-
ability. Wc believe that our readers expect us to be a home
for the occasional ‘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
in
the
' 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 have
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
difficult
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 seal 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. 25!
October
IS
1974
C\&^$PMM7&7mm2QQQ2Q(12te7rc
amongst
some
to
repeat
the experiments
with
even more
caution.
To
this end the New Scientist does a service by publishing
this week
the
results
of
Dr
Joe
Hanlon’s own
investiga-
tions
into
a
wide
range
of
phenomena
surrounding
Mr
Geller.
If the subject
is to be
investigated further—and no
scientist
is
likely
to accept more than
that
the SRI experi-
ments provide
a prirna facie case for more
investigations
the
experimental
technique
will
have
to
take
account
of
Dr Hanlon’s strictures, those of our own referees and 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 w icliei
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 way
that
scientists
arc
expected
to
work,
and so there
is always a danger that the investigator, swept
up
in
the
confusion
that
surrounds
many
experiments,
abandons his
initial intentions in order to go along with his
subject’s desires.
If 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
ot
performance by the
first group. Only by increasing austerity
of approach by
scientists
will
there be any major progress
in
this
field.
or those in peril on the factory floor
In
titfs^article Peter
J. Smith argues
that a
gtxgter commitment
(in deed
as
well
(byword)
to
community
science
by
the
Scientific
Establish-
ment might hclpHhe world of science
regain some
of
tnt\jtublic respect
it
has lost.
The question of who speak\or should
speak, on behalf of the
scientific com-
munity has been debated on many oc-
casions, most often without resultNQm
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
the
title
hints,
the
object
of
Socialist
Worker
is
nothing
less than
the com-
plete overthrow of the capitalist system:
and one
of the ways
of achieving
this
aim,
it seems,
is to give strident publi-
city
to
defects
in
the
capitalist-indus-
trial system. 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 humanb
tarian
society.
For what
clearly
emerges
f rojxf the
rhetoric of the pamphlet
in question
is
a^picture
of men and
wprrfen
reacting
in sbme bewildermeMMo the long-term
ill
efrcgts
of
a
rcdmological
activity.
The
chiH. copsdquence
is,
of
course,
asbestosis-^p
killing
disease
acquired
when
they
feel
so
moved.
The
one
famous occasion on which a near con-
by
breattiing\m
asbestos
fibies.
I he
sensus
was
reached
was
when
the
bulk/m
the
pamphlet
is
devoted
to
scientific community saw
itself
put
at
risk
financially by
the Rothschild
pro-
posals.
Then
individuals
and
instipR
tions
miraculously
found
a
common
cause
of self-preservation.
/
But when
it comes to the^defence of
less
privileged groups
inis
quite
a
dif-
ferent
story;
the
voipe
of
the
British
scientific community
is
seldom
to
be
heard, vvhelherXaking a moral
stance,
exerting Inmtffnitarian pressure, supply-
ing
expertise or even simply providing
information. A
good
case
in
point
is
provided
by
a
new
Socialist
Worker
cpke
histories
of
't’nen
to whom
asbes-
fosis
has
come
as\i
shock
after
a
decade or so
in the industry. But more
instructively,
there
is als\a
short
ac-
ccount
of the
fight
for
saf&D’
put up
by a small group of the 7/162XRasgow
insulation
workers’
branch
oN*
the
Transport and General Workers Unimi
against the
obstruction
of the asbester
companies,
the
indifference
of
politi-
cians,
the
weakness
of
the
Factory
Inspectorate,
the
silence
of much
of
the
press,
the
impotence
of
health
authorities, the equivocal official stance
asbestos
workers
themselves.
)
And
there
is
certainly
something
to
fight
about.
According
tg^Patrick
Kinnersly (The Hazards ofjVork: How
to
Fight
Them,
IffiiUx'Tress,
1973),
asbestosis
is takinepn
increasing
toll.
are
known
tohavc
died
in
1965,
107
in
1970/cind
113
in
1971.
The
number oPnew
cases
diagnosed
rose
from
R!2
in
1965
to
153
in
1970.
M.ofeover,
asbestosis
is
only
one
of
e
asbestos-induced
diseases.
Lung
cancer
appears
to
require
a
smaller
exposure
to
asbestos.
There
is
also
another
form
of
cancer
known
as
mesothelioma
which
involves
growths
in the linings of the lungs and stomach.
Almost
all
mesotheliomas
are
caused
by
asbestos:
but
no
one
knows
how
many workers
in
Britain
are
killed by
them,
partly because they take so long
to develop and
partly because they are
not
always
identified. The TUC
Cen-
tenary Institute of Occupational Health
has suggested
that, 30 years
after
first
exposure,
about
one
in
200
will
be
found
to
have
died
of
mesothelioma:
but
Dr
Irving
J.
SelikofF
of
Mount
Sinai
Hospital
in
New
York
is
ap-
parently
more
pessimistic.
He
has
recently
been
quoted
as
saying
that,
for every
100,000 workers enu-r.ng
the
.
ibestos
industry
under
the
saiety
standards
obtaining
in
the
L ruled
Stat^ as
recently
as
1971.
be
would
expect\20,000
to
die
of
lung_ -ma r.
7,000
ot\ mesothelioma
and
'.000
o.
lflffl9i4lu7tosis.
602
Nature
Vol. 251
October
18 1974
Wilkie
University
College
London,
Gower Street,
London WC1E 6BT, UK
Received December
3,
1973;
revised June
4,
1974.
I
Bridgman,
P. W„
The
Nature
of
Thermodynamics
,
116
(Harvard
University
Press,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
Everett!
D.
EL, Chemical
Thermodynamics
,
216
(Longman,
London,
1971).
3 Logon, A.
C., Nature ,
244, 431
(1973).
Wilkie, D.
R., Nature
,
242, 606
(1973).
5 Wilkie, D.
R., Nature
,
245, 457
(1973).
Butler,
J.
A.
V.,
Chemical
Thermodynamics ,
fourth
ed.
(Macmillan,
1955).
,
.
,
r
n89
,n
7 Carnot,
S.,
Reflections
on
the
motive power
of
fire
(1824),
translation (Dover, New York,
1960).
Planck, M„
Treatise
on
Thermodynamics,
thirdI
ed.,
trans
from seventh German
ed.,
1922 (Dover, New Yoik,
1958).
Joule,
J.
P., Phil. Mag.,
Series
4,
5,
(1853).
10 Maxwell,
J.
C., Theory of Heat,
fifth ed., chapter XII (Long-
mans Green, London,
1877).
II Thomson, W„
Phil. Mag..
Series
4,
5,
102 (1853)
13 Guggenheim,
E.
A., Thermodynamics,
third
ed. (North
Hol-
land, Amsterdam,
1957).
13 Keenan,
J. H„ and Hatsopoulos, G. N„ Principles of General
Thermodynamics (Wiley, New York,
1965).
14 Gouy
M.,
J. de Phys.,
2'
serie,
t.VIII (Novembre
1889).
18 Thomson, W„
Phil. Mag.,
Series
4,
4, 304 (1852); corrections
in
ibid,
5,
viii.
Approved For Release .2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024r7k.
•Legon
jJoSes,
as
a
challenge,
the
problem
of
obtaining
*
.
work from
the
mixing
of two
ideal
gases
in
an
isolated
Department of Physiology
system
of
constant
total volume.
It
is elementary
that
if
the mixture
is
allowed
to form by merely withdrawing
a
partition
between
the
gases we
have
a
good
example
of
a
completely
irreversible
process
with
maximal
entropy
creation (+11.53
J K'
if we
started with
1 mol
of each
at 300 K) and no performance or storage of work. On the
other
hand,
by
introducing
into
the
system
a
suitable
machine,
the uniform
mixture
could
be
allowed
to form
in such a way that a weight within the system was
raised.
(The machine described by Planck
(ref.
8, page 219) may
be
readily
adapted
for
this
purpose.) At
the
end
of
the
latter mixing process the isolated system would accordingly
contain more mechanical energy than
it
did
at
the
begin-
ning. From the
First Law
it
follows that
the system must
necessarily contain less thermal energy; that
is,
its tempera-
ture
must
have
fallen.
In
the
limit,
w'here
the
mixing
was
reversible,
the maximum
possible
work
would
have
been performed and
transferred
to
the
weight
(2,769
J
if
the
gases
were
monatomic)
and
the
temperature
would
have
fallen
to
189
K.
In
this
reversible
case
the
change
in entropy
arising from mixing (+11.53
J K
l
)
is
exactly
counterbalanced by
that
attributable
to cooling
(— 11.53
J
K
_1):no entropy
is created.
At this point
it might be objected that the change in the
gases
is
not
exactly
the
same
as
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 conducted
in
such
a. way
that
a weight
is
lifted then
all
the
other bodies
involved
cannot possibly end up
in
the same
state
as
if
the weight
had not been
lifted.
Failure
to
apply
to
nonisothermal
systems. Legon
ex-
presses
doubts
about
the
validity
of
the
equation
for
entropy
creation
(refs
and
4)
save
for
“the
trivial
case for which
the temperature
To
of the environment
is
equal
to the temperature T of the system throughout
the
process”
. On what grounds are these doubts based?
Legon
does
not
discuss,
let
alone
dismiss,
any
of
the
sources
quoted
in my
article
. Other relevant sources which should
be considered are Keenan and Hatsopoulos" and the classic
accounts
by
Maxwell"
and
by
Gouy
.
Legon’s
quotation from Planck
(ref.
8,
page
104)
con-
cerning
“dissipated
energy”
deserves
close
consideration.
It
seems
to
state
that
the maximum
work
is
a
definite
quantity only
for isothermal
processes.
If
true
this would
directly
contradict
the
views
of
Thomson
(later
Lord
Kelvin) “On
a
universal tendency
in Nature
to
the
dissi-
pation of mechanical energy”. On pages 113-117 of
ref.
8,
however, Planck discusses
his own statement
(ref.
8, page
104) and we see that there
is
in fact no contradiction. What
Planck demonstrates
is that although the change
in Helm-
holtz free energy, — dA = —d(U— TS), measures w«u under
isothermal
conditions,
it
cannot
conveniently
be
used
to determine
>v,„ar under nonisothermal conditions because
the term S d T that then appears
is frequently indeterminate.
The same
point
has
already
been made
in
a
footnote
by
Gouy
(ref.
15,
page
506) who had
also
given
the
correct
equation
for
determining w n ,ax under
nonisothermal
con-
ditions.
Accordingly
I
find no substance
in Legon’s objec-
tions
under
this
heading.
If
it
is thought
that there
is conflict between the ‘work’
view of thermodynamics and
the ‘entropy’ view
it
is high
time
that
the
idea
was
abandoned.
The
two
views
are
different,
but
symmetrical,
aspects
of
the
same
reality.
Spontaneous
processes
of
all
kinds
fall somewhere
within
the
pattern
shown
in
Table
1,
their
position
depending
on
th
of
w<
Information transmission under
conditions of sensory shielding
We present
results of experiments suggesting the existence of
one or more perceptual modalities through which individuals
obtain
information
about
their
environment,
although
this
information
is not presented to any known sense. The
litera-
ture 1 " 3 and our
observations
lead
us
to
conclude
that such
abilities can be studied under laboratory conditions.
We have investigated the ability of certain people to describe
graphical material or remote scenes shielded against ordinary
perception. In addition, we performed pilot studies to determine
if elcctroenccphalographic (EEG)
recordings
might
indicate
perception of remote happenings even in the absence of correct
overt responses.
We concentrated on what we consider
to be our primary
responsibility—to
resolve
under
conditions
as unambiguous
as possible the basic issue of whether a certain class of para-
normal
perception phenomena
exists. So we conducted
our
experiments with
sufficient
control,
utilising
visual,
acoustic
and electrical shielding, to ensure that all conventional paths of
sensory input were blocked. At
all times we took measures to
prevent
sensory
leakage and
to
prevent
deception,
whether
intentional or unintentional.
Our goal
is not just
to catalogue interesting events, but
to
uncover patterns of cause-effect relationships that lend them-
selves
to
analysis and
hypothesis
in
the
forms
with
which
we arc familiar
in
scientitic study. The results presemed here
constitute a
first step towards that goal; we have established
under known conditions a data base from which departures as a
function of physical and psychological variables can be studied
in future work.
REMOTE PERCEPTION OF GRAPHIC MATERIAL
First, we
conducted
experiments
with Mr
Uri
Gcllcr
in
which we examined
his ability, while located
in an electrically
shielded room,
to reproduce target
pictures drawn by experi-
menters
located
at
remote
locations.
Second,
v.e
conducted
double-blind
experiments
with Mr
Pat
Price,
in
which
v>c
603
Nature
Vol. 251 October 18 1974
Jiminary
perceive wfi
,er a remote hg
whether a
subject
could
perceive
the
presence of the
light,
even if only at a noncognitive level of awareness.
In
preliminary
testing
Geller
apparently demonstrated an
ability to reproduce simple pictures (line drawings) which had
been drawn and placed
in opaque sealed envelopes which he
was not permitted to handle. But since each of the targets was
known to at least one experimenter
in the room with Geller,
it was not possible on the basis of the preliminary testing to
discriminate
between
Geller's
direct
perception
of envelope
contents and
perception through some mechanism involving
the experimenters, whether paranormal or subliminal.
So we examined the phenomenon under conditions designed
to eliminate
all conventional information channels,
overt or
subliminal. Geller was separated from both the target material
and anyone knowledgeable of the material, as in the experiments
of ref. 4.
In the first part of the study a series of
1 3 separate drawing
experiments were
carried
out
over
days. No experiments
are deleted from
the
results
presented
here.
At
the
beginning
of
the
experiment
either
Geller
or
the
experimenters entered a shielded room so that from that time
forward
Geller was
at
all
times
visually,
acoustically and
electrically shielded from personnel and material
at the target
location. Only
following
Geller's
isolation from
the
experi-
menters was a target chosen and drawn, a procedure designed
to eliminate pre-experiment cueing. Furthermore, to eliminate
the possibility of pre-experiment target forcing, Geller was kept
ignorant
as
to the identity of the person selecting the target
and as to the method of target selection. This was accomplished
by the use of three
different techniques:
(1) pseudo-random
technique of opening a dictionary arbitrarily and choosing the
first word that could be drawn (Experiments 1-4); (2) targets,
blind to experimenters and subject, prepared independently by
(following
o
.
-
Alters during
the course of the experiment (Experiments 5-7, 11-13); and (3)
arbitrary selection from a target pool decided upon in advance
of daily experimentation and designed to provide data concern-
ing information content for use in testing specific hypotheses
(Experiments 8-10).
Geller’s task was to reproduce with pen
on
paper the
line drawing
generated
at
the
target
location.
Following a period of effort ranging from a few minutes to
half an hour, Geller either passed (when he did not
fee! con-
fident) or indicated he was ready to submit a drawing to the
experimenters, in which case the drawing was collected before
Geller was permitted to see the target.
To prevent sensory cueing of the target information, Experiments
1 through 10 were carried out using a shielded room in SRI s facility
for EEG
research. The acoustic and
visual
isolation
is
provided
by a double-walled steel room, locked by means of an inner and
outer door, each of which is secured with a refrigerator-type locking
mechanism.
Following
target
selection
when
Geller
was
inside
the room, a one-way audio monitor, operating only trom the inside
to the outside, was activated to monitor Geller during his eftorts.
The target picture was never discussed by the experimenters after the
picture was drawn and brought
near
the
shielded room.
In cur
detailed examination of the shielded room and the protocol used m
these experiments, no sensory leakage has been found.
The conditions and results for the 10 experiments carried out m the
shielded room are displayed in Table
1 and Fig.
1. Ail experiments
except 4 and 5, were conducted with Geller inside the shielded room.
In Experiments
4 and
5,
the procedure was
reversed. For
those
experiments in which Geller was inside the shielded room, the target
location was in an adjacent room at a distance of about 4 m, except
for Experiments
3 and 8, in which the target locations were, respec-
tively, an office at a distance of 475 m and a room at a distance of
about 7 m.
A response was obtained in all experiments except Numbers
5-7. In Experiment 5, the person-to-person link was eliminated
by
arranging
for a
scientist
outside
the
usual
experimental
group to draw a
picture, lock
it
in the shielded room before
Geller’s arrival at SRI, and leave the area. Geller was then led
Approved
Nature
Vol. 751
October
18 1974
Experiment
Date
(month, day, year)
8/4/73
8/4/73
8/5/73
8/5/73
8/6/73
8/7/73
8/7/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
8/9/73
8/10/73
8/10/73
Geller Location
Shielded room 1*
Shielded room
Shielded room
Room adjacent to
shielded room
Room adjacent to
shielded room
Shielded room
Shielded room
Shielded room
Shielded room
Shielded room
Shielded room 2%
Shielded room 2
Shielded room 2
Target Location
Adjacent room (4.1 m)t
Adjacent room (4.1 m)
Office (475 m)
Shielded room
(3.2 m)
Shielded room
(3.2 m)
Adjacent room (4.1 m)
Adjacent room (4.1 m)
Remote room (6.75 m)
Adjacent room (4.1 m)
Adjacent room (4.1 m)
Computer (54 m)
Computer (54 m)
Computer (54 m)
Target
Figure
Firecracker
Grapes
Devil
Solar system
Rabbit
Tree
Envelope
Camel
Bridge
Seagull
Kite (computer CRT)
Church (computer memory)
Arrow through heart
(computer CRT, zero
intensity)
la
1 b
1 c
Id
No drawing
No drawing
No drawing
le
1 /
1 8
2a
2b
2c
*EEG Facility shielded room (see text).
fPerceiver-target distances measured in metres.
JSRI 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 w'ith this subject.
Experiments 6 and 7 were carried out while we attempted to
record Geller’s EEC during
his efforts to perceive the target
pictures. The target pictures were, respectively, a tree and an
envelope. 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 11 through 13 were carried out in SRI s Engin-
eering 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 m 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
1 GHz. For magnetic fields
the attenuation
is 68 dB at
15 kHz and decreases to
3 dB
at
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 program. 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 = 3x 10‘ 7
.
A second series of experiments was carried out to determine
whether
direct
perception
of envelope contents was
possible
without some person knowing of the target picture.
One hundred target pictures of everyday objects were drawn
envelopes
containing
black
cardboard. The hundred
targets
were divided randomly into groups of 20 for use m 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 o
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 ot lus
drawings could reasonably be associated with two
of the
daily targets. On the third day, two of his drawings were very
close
replications
of two
of that
day’s
target
pictures.
Ihe
drawings resulting from this experiment do not depart signific-
antly from what would be expected by chance.
In a simpler experiment Geller was successful m obtaining
information under conditions in which no persons were know-
ledgeable of the
target. A double-blind experiment was
per-
formed in which a single 3/4 inch die was placed in a 3 x 4 x
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 diflering non-
significantly from chance. The orientation of the die within the
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 10H
.
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
t
c
ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal
bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory wc have
not been able to combine such observations with adequate!)
controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support
ttie
paranormal hypothesis.
REMOTE VIEWING OF NATURAL TARGETS
A study by Osis5 led us to determine whether a sui .a
^ ^
describe randomly chosen
geographical
sues
iocateu
>
J-
One hundred target pictures of everyday objects were arawn
oesuu*.
d
create
by an Approved
605
Nature. Vol. 251 October 18
1974
out with
Price, a former California police commissioner and
of the target cool, which were used witho
city councilman, consisted of a series of double-blind, demon-
slration-of-ability
tests
involving
local
targets
in
the
San
sumiuii-ui-u
,
tests
involving
local
targets
in
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 long time are more potent targets for paranormal
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-existing targets.
In each of nine experiments 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, was asked to describe this remote location, as
w'ell as whatever activities might be going on there.
Several
descriptions
yielded
significantly
correct data
per-
taining to and descriptive of the target location.
In the experiments a
set of tw'elve
target
locations
clearly
differentiated from each other and within 30 min driving time
from 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
ini _ wv
vl „ 1>v„,vw
....
„
.
as
to
the
contents of the target pool, which were used without rcplace-
m
An cxperimenter was closeted with Price at SRI
to wait 30 min to
be°in
the
narrative
description
of the remote
location. The SRi
locations from which the subject viewed the remote locations con-
sisted of an outdoor park (Experiments
1,
2),
the
double-walled
cooper-screen Faraday cage discussed earlier (Experiments
3. 4. and
6-9) and an office (Experiment 5). A second experimenter would men
obtain
a target location from the Division Director from a
set cf
travelling orders previously prepared and randomised by the Director
and kept under his control. The target demarcation team (two
to
four SRI experimenters) then proceeded
directly to
the
target by
automobile without communicating with the subject or experimenter
remaining behind. Since the experimenter remaining with the subject
at SRI was in ignorance both as to the particular target and as to
the target pool, he was free to question Price to
clarity
his cesciip-
tions. The demarcation team then remained
at
the
target sue
tor
30 min after the 30 min allotted for travel, During the observation
period, the remote-viewing 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,
colout,
ambience and
activity, sometimes in great detail, indicated the
functioning of a remote perceptual ability. But the desciiptions
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
Isii k.'
u
t
cm3 raw i n g stored in
£06
Nature
Vol. 251 October
IS
1974
•^^AppFQVcd--FerRoloa3C-20QO/08/10
: C IA RDP96 OO787ReQ02OOO9OO24-7-—
7>tjle 2
Distribution of correct selections by judges A, B, C, D, and E in remote viewing experiments
Description* chosen by judges
Places visited by judges
Hoover Tower
ABCDE
ABC
D
D
Baylands Nature Preserve
Radio Telescope
E
ACD
ABDE
BE
Redwood City Marina
CD
E
dce
Bridge Toll Plaza
B
A
ABD
Drive-In Theatre
Arts and Crafts Garden Plaza
Church
CE
C
C
ABCE
AB
Rinconada Park
D
E
AB
Of the 45 selection'* 15 judges, 9 choices), 24 were correct. Bold type indicates the description chosen most often for each place visited. Correct
choices lie on the mam diagonal. The number of correct matches by Judges A through E is 7, 6,
5,
3, and
3, respectively. The expected number
of correct matches from the five judges was five; in the experiment 24 such matches were obtained. The a priori probability of such an occurrence
by chance, conservatively assuming assignment without replacement on the part of the judges, is P
--= 8 .
1 0
.
not otherwise associated with the research. The judges were
ashed to match
the nine locations, which they independently
visited, against the lyped manuscripts of the tape-recorded nar-
ratives' of the remote viewer. The transcripts were unlabelled
iind presented in random order. The judges were asked to find a
narrative which they would consider the best match for each
6f the places they visited. A given narrative could be assigned
to more than one target location. A correct match requires that
the transcript of a given date be associated with the target of
that date. Table 2 shows the distribution of the judges’ choices.
Among all possible analyses, the most conservative
is a per-
mutation analysis of the plurality vote of the judges’ selections
assuming assignment without replacement, an approach
inde-
pendent of the number of judges. By plurality vote, six of the
nine descriptions and locations were correctly matched. Under
the null hypothesis (no remote viewing and a random selection
of descriptions without replacement),
this outcome has an a
priori probability of P = 5.6 x
10" 4
, since, among all possible
permutations of the integers one through nine, the probability
of six or more being in their natural position in the list has that
value.
Therefore,
although
Price’s
descriptions
contain
in-
accuracies
the descriptions are sufficiently accurate
to. permit
the judges' to
dill'crontiate among the various
targets to the
degree indicated.
KEG EXPERIMENTS
Ati
experiment
was
undertaken
to
determine
whether
a
physiological measure such as EEG activity could be used as an
indicator
of
information
transmission
between
an
isolated
subject and a remote stimulus. We hypothesised that perception
Bould be indicated by such a measure even in the absence of
Verbal or other overt indicators. 6,7
.
It was assumed that the application of remote stimuli would
r&sult in responses similar to those obtained under conditions
8f direct stimulation. For example, when normal subjects are
stimulated with a Hashing light, their EEG
typically shows a
decrease in the amplitude of the resting rhythm and a driving
‘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
1 m in front of the
sender was used to present Hash trains of 10 s duration. The receiver’s
EEG
activity from the
occipital region
(Oz),
referenced
to
linked
mastoid.s, 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 w ith 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
f.p.s.,
all randomly intermixed, deter-
mined by entries from a table of random numbers. Each of the trials
generated an
1 l-s EEG epoch. The last 4 s of the epoch was selected
for analysis to minimise the desynchronising action of the warning
cue. This 4-s segment was subjected to Fourier analysis on a LINC 8
computer.
Spectrum analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving in any receiver,
although
in
control
runs
the
receivers
did
exhibit
driving 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 from 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 analysis.
Of our six subjects, H. H. had 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
j brain waves at the frequency of the flashes 6
. We hypothe-
ifced'that if we stimulated one subject in this manner (a sender),
the EEG of another subject in a remote room with no flash
present
(a receiver), might show changes in alpha
(9-1 1 Hz)
activity, and possibly EEG driving similar to that of the sender.
We informed our subject that at certain times a light was to
be flashed in a sender’s eyes in a distant room, and if the subject
perceived that event, consciously or unconsciously,
it might be
Widcnt from changes
in
his EEG
output. The
receiver was
seated
in
the
visually
opaque,
acoustically
and
electrically
shielded double-walled
steel room previously
described. The
render was seated in a room about 7 m from the receiver.
To
find
subjects who were
responsive
to such
a
remote
stimulus
we
initially worked with four female and two male
vni.miwr ciiNecH
all of whom
believed
that success
in
the
Flash
Frequency
Sender
Average Power
Peak Power
J.L.
94.8
84.1
76.8
357.7
329.2
289.6
R.T.
41.3
45.5
37.0
160.7
161.0
125.0
No sender
(subject
informed)
25.1
35.7
28.2
87.5
95.7
81.7
J.L.
54.2
55.3
44.8
191.4
170.5
149.3
J.L.
56.8
50.9
32.8
240.6
178.0
104.6
R.T.
39.8
24.9
30.3
145.2
74.2
122.1
No sender
(subject
not
86.0
53.0
52.1
318.1
180.6
202.3
informed)
Averages
56.8
49.9
43.1
214.5
169.8
153.5
-12% —24 %(/><0.04)
%— 28 %(P<0.03)
ciA-KUPafeutwsyaMWflanew
OMi
Nature VoL 251
October
18 1974
of^hc sevefi experimental sets are aiven in Table
3. The power
measures wApproved eftp r. Release t2Q0fQ/Q8/10
seven peak power measures and
in
six out of seven average
power measures. Note also
the reduced
effect
in
the case
in
which
the subject was informed
that no sender was
present
(Run
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 two-tailed
t approximation to the nonparametric randomi-
sation test 9 was applied to the data from all sets, which included two
sessions in which the sender was removed. Average power on trials
associated with the occurrence of 16 f.p.s. was significantly less than
when
there were no
flashes
it = 2.09,
d.f. =
118,
jP < 0.04
>. The
second measure, peak power, w as also significantly less in the 16 f.p.s.
conditions than in the null condition
( t = 2.16. d.f. =
118, P
<
0.033.
The average response in the 6 f.p.s. condition was in the same direc-
tion as that associated w ith 16 f.p.s., but the effect was not statistically
significant.
Spectrum analyses of control recordings made from saline with a
12 kfi resistance
in place of the subject with and without the addi-
tion of a
10 Hz, 50 gV
test
signal applied to the saline solution,
revealed no indications of flash frequencies, nor perturbations of the
10 Hz signal. These controls suggest that the results were not due to
system
artefacts. Further
tests
also gave no evidence 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 one-way telegraphic communication.
An analysis of these guesses has shown them to be
at chance,
in-
dicating the absence of any supraliminal 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. IT)
acting as receiver, showing amplitude changes
in the 9-11 Hz
band as a function of strobe frequency. Three cases: 0, 6, and 16
f.p.s. (12 trial averages).
CONCLUSION
From these experiments we conclude that:
• Achannel 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.
©While 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 the perception is generally
below an individual's level of awareness,
it
is repressed or not
noticed. For example, two of our subjects (il.
1 I. and P. P.) had
not considered themselves to have unusual perceptual
ability
before their participation in these experiments.
Our observation of the phenomena leads us to conclude that
experiments in the area of so-called paranormal phenomena can
: CUA«RC>R96-0O7&7eR(>(K)2OQO90O24L7h:
t
other
laboratories
will
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).
.
t
2 Soak
S., and Bateman,
F., Modern Experiments
in Telepathy
(Faber and Faber, London,
1954).
Vasilliev, L.
L., Experiments
in Mental Suggestion (ISMI Pub-
lications, Hampshire, England,
1963).
4 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).
7 Dean,
E.
D.,
hit.
J.
Neuropsychiatry, 2 (1966).
Hill, D., and Parr, G., Electroencephalography
: A Symposium
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' 1
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 2
.
Prominent among such models
is the complex system with
random interactions, studied in various forms by Gardner and
Ashby 3 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. Thus, 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
in all Tspecies. That is, the number N, in the /th species obeys
dNt/dt = N,
(b ,
-1- Zj a,j NJ),
All
birth
rates
b t
were
taken
as
1, and
the
self-regulating
coefficients a lt as — 1. The feasibility requirement was that the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
•VaY-
t
V’
*
*
itMidnGIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
128 Long Acre, London WC2E 9QH
Telephone: 01-836 2468
Cables: Newscient London VVC2
Telex: 27253
'
Subscription inquiries: 01-242 4477
17 October 1974
Volume 64
Number 91 9
Editor: Dr Bernard Dixon
Deputy Editor (Science): Dr Peter Stubbs
Deputy Editor (Technology): Nicholas Valery
Managing Editor: Richard
f-ifield
Scicnca Policy Editor: Dr Martin Sherwood
Science Editor: Dr Roger Lewin
Assistant Science Editor: Dr Robert Walgate
Social Editor: Inn Low
Technology Editor: Michael Kenward
Technology Policy Editor: Dr Joseph Hanlon
Technology News Editor: Lawrence McGinty
Art Editor: Margaret Webb
Assistant Art Editor: Alan Middleton
Artists: Neil Hyslop, Michael Peyton
Monitor
165
Technology review
186
Energy file
198
Feedback
299
Westminster scene
202
New York view
202
Paris notebook
203
EEC notebook
203
Venture
204
Pig-ignorant
2C5
A groundling’s notebook
205
Tantalizer
206
Letters
212
Grimbledon Down
212
Ariadne
252
US Editor: Graham Chedd
72 Addington Rd, Brookline,
Massachusetts 02146
Consultants
Biochemistry: Dr Robert Freedman
Computers: Medley Voysey
Education: John Delin
Environment: Jon Tinker
Marine: Tony Loftas
Psychology: Dr Nick Humphrey
Soviet Science: Dr Sarah White
Telecommunications: Ron Brown
Advertieement manager
: Roy Edwards
Advisory Panel
Dr Monty Finniston FRS
Sir William Glanviile KRS
Dr Basil Mason FRS
Professor Sir Michael Swann FRS
Comment
Dr Roger Lewin, Adrian Hope, Dr Michael Schwab
163
Uri Geller and Science
A New Scientist special investigation
by Dr Joseph Hanlon
170
Generalisations
Professor Guy Ourisson talks to
Dr Martin Sherwood
ISO
Kow safe are North Sea platforms?
Keith Attfield
Is the North Sea bubble bursting ?
Lawrence McGinty
192
195
Review
Professor Leslie Audits, u r Man© Boas Hall, Dr Andrew Millet,
Dr Martin Sherwood, Dr Clive Wood, David Dickson,
Dr William N. Beesley, Lawrence McGinty, et Al
PUBLISHED WEEKLY
Publisher's subscription rate, Inland: £10-80
Overseas surface mail: £11-95
USA end Caracu (dirlreirjhl) 5-27-50
Back nun-hviS (cash v/ilh order) Op
In cl u dir 0 postage Irom
I PC Magazines Ltd,
66-69 Great Queen Street, London WC2E 5DD
Registered at The Post Office as a newspaper
end printed in England
2nd class postage paid et Jamaica NY. 11431
Airfreight
rs.nd mailing in the USA by
Publications Expediting Inc*, 200 M^eacham
Avenue,
Elmont*
C IPC Magazines
OVERSEAS ADVERTISEMENTS REPRESENTATIVES
USA: Jobscn. Jordan, Harrison A Schulz Inc., 57 Tost Street
Suite 712 -715 , Sf.n Francisco, Celiternta Sm<-
(4151 392-G794, and 1SC1 West E'ohth Street, Los Angeles, California 8U057 (2.o) 483-85.>0
wmifmi' SUufcei Associates Inc. 230 Park Avenue. New York, NY 10017 (212) 685-7542
CANADA: Clement Dick, Chimney Copse, RR No 1, Churchill, Ontario, Canada. (70S) 456 2541
JAPAN: Internationa! Media Representatives Ltd. 1, Shiba-Kotobiracho. Mmaioku.
Tokyo, Japan. Tel: 502*0656, Telex: 2*2633
WC2E 5QH.
New Scientist
17 October 1974
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-Rppft6-00787R000200Q90024.7
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 Andrija Puharich—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
when he appeared on the Dimbleby Talk-In on BBC tele-
vision,
where
he
reproduced
a
drawing
in
a
sealed
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
by both Taylor and Watson—and said he was anxious to
participate in research with British scientists.
Geller was a sensation on British television, generating
far more interest than he had in appearances on national
television in the US. And science was an important part
of this—if Geller had simply appeared as a magician, 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 parasychology questionnaire, vol 57, p 209), the
editor of New 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
CIA^^§^787R0Qp2.0pO90024-7
.
.
,
_
(Tellers interest m British science remained
high. By
171
New -Scientist Ajb0ffe^d9Por Release 2000/08/10
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
3 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.”
But only a few days after 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, Geller had already backed out of several other sets
of tests. And on 5 May 1974, on the New York television
show Mid-Day Live on WNEW-TV, his view of scientists
had
changed
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
who 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 felt .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
misgivings 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
agreement,
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.
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
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 into the interaction of people and themselves and
their surroundings.
Through biofeedback, we now have control over em-
bodies of a sort that not so long ago was almost univer-
sally agreed to be impossible. Negative ions in the air seem
to affect 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 energy physics,
has become corporate and unimaginative. Finally, the con-
tinuing
squeeze on
science funding puts
the
attention
more on the scientist who can work on a shoestring rather
. than the one who cannot get the money
to go
to
still
higher energies 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 responsible for
securing our
first (highly favourable) report*on the SRI
research on
Geller more than
a year
ago. And
I was
particularly pleased that New Scientist agreed to conduct
tests, and that Geller agreed.
I began to collect material 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 spoke with critics and believers, talked with
many scientists and other trained observers who had seen
Geller work, spoke with the SRI scientists and saw some
of their videotapes, and watched many tapes of Uri’s tele-
vision appearances. 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
The New Scientist investigation
Like witnesses to a motor accident, people who have seen Uri bend a spoon or do a drawing by telepathy
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
Heirloom
spoons,
expensive
jewellery,
fancy
watches,
and even
a
piece
of
a
meteorite—often
among
their
owners’
most
prized
possessions—are
now
irreparably
broken.
But
their
owners
point
to
them
with
pride,
not
anger,
because
they
were
destroyed
by
Uri
Geller.
This amazing young Israeli
is claimed
to
have
the
most
phenomenal
psychic
powers
the world has
ever
seen. Even
some scientists say he can break spoons
by
mental
powers
without
touching
them,
read
minds,
and
make
objects
appear
and
disappear. The
man
who
brought
him tApprca/ediRnr Released
wrote
the
book
Uri
(published
earlier
Puharich,
says
Geller has accomplished
the task which eluded the alchemists
turned
lead
to gold—and
that he com-
municates with
flying
saucers and
tele-
ports objects thousands of miles by the
power of his mind.
. The whole phenomenon
is dominated
by
Geller’s own
personality. He exudes
sincerity and a
childlike innocence and
desire
to
please
which
makes
people
reaily want
to
like and believe
in
him.
This is reinforced by a high failure rate,
what seems to be a constant fear that he
will not be able to do what he
is trying,
and genuine pleasure when he does suc-
ceed. And he
is
a
consummate
show-
fame, money,
and women and
that he
can be childish, petulant, and extremely
difficult to work with.
It
is these
latter
characteristics
that
caused
ex-astronaut
Dr
Edgar
Mitchell,
who
was
Geller’s
original funding source and
a
co-experi-
menter on Geller at SRI, to fall out with
Geller
last
year.
Nevertheless,
Mitchell
and
others
who
have
experienced
his
whims
still believe he
is one of the most
important psychics
of our time.
Another
aspect
of the Geller
person-
ality
is
his
hyperactivity
and
constant
motion.
In
small
groups,
either
of
the
press or
friends, he
flits from one task
to
another,
usually
giving up
the
first
hand, even
his supporters like Puharich
bent before anyone realises just what
is
-
-
’
r*
v
v/a ^ UUJ UUV
Cll J J CO JUCH
» T II Ut
this year
by W.
H.
Allen), Dr Andrija
admit
that
his main
goals
in
life
are
happening and Geller reads the contents
dxMMki&SiiSWWififiiii
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002(Jty08S5l9^7 17 0ctober 1974
-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 Geiler's
appearance on the
Dimbleby Talk-In brought
him to the attention of
the British public
of
sealed
envelopes
which,
after
he
failed
to
read them
before,
were
left
lying around unguarded.
This means that people often disagree
on
just what
they have
seen, and no
demonstration
is totally convincing. The
belief of most of Geiler’s
supporters
is
built on a long series of demonstrations,
none of which
is watertight, but which
together
they
find
give
a
convincing
picture. For most people, there are one
or
two
clinching
events,
although
the
clincher
for one person may be
totally
unacceptable to another.
John White, Ed Mitchell’s assistant at
his Institute of Noetic Sciences, in Palo
Alto, California, told me in January of a
Geller
test
at SRI
using
a bimorph—
a
brass
strip with
special
coatings which
gives a signal in proportion to any bend-
ing. The strip was clamped in a vice and
Geller was to bend it without touching
it.
According to
White,
suddenly one end
of
the bar began
to
disappear and
re-
appear
on
a
lower
level.
Geller
had
clearly
dematerialised
part
of
the bar
and
rematerialised
it
elsewhere, White
said. But Dr Hal
Puthoff,
one
of
the
experimenters, found
it not particularly
convincing
and
described
it
somewhat
differently. According
to Puthoif, Geller
had tried to bend the bar unsuccessfully
on
one
day
and
then
returned
to
try
again the next. Early in the test, a piece
of
the
bar
suddenly
appeared
on
the
table, although the signal from the bar
did not change. Puthoff does not take
it
too serio'
possible for someone to have broken off
a
piece
between
tests
and
it
not
be
noticed—the equipment was rezeroed in
the morning and the film resolution was
not good enough to measure the length
of the bar. And there
is no evidence of
it actually disappearing and reappearing
—on the
film,
it
is just suddenly there,
he said.
Yet
Puthoff
believes
implicitly
in
Geller. One
of
the
events
which
con-
vinced him occurred when he was driving
down a motorway with Geller in the car.
Puthoff
said
he
queried
Geller
about
flying saucers, and Geller said he would
prove he got his power from them and
promptly stopped the car without touch-
ing anything.
Reporting what you see
Another problem
is that even
experi-
enced
reporters
tend
to misreport
just
what has happened. Bryan
Silcock, the
science
correspondent
of
the
Sunday
Times, reported on Sunday 25 November
last
year:
“In
a
taxi
on
the
way
to
London airport yesterday Uri Geller bent
the
very
tough key
to my
office desk
without even touching
it. The key was
lying
flat
in
the palm of photographer
Bryan
V,'barton’s hand at the lime.’’
But
the
next
Sunday,
December,
Silcock admitted error on the two most
critical
points:
Geller had handled
the
key,
and
it
was
in
fact
concealed
in
Wharton’s hands when
it was supposed
* ml
Qili-nrt- wrnte"
“T
ing carefully about what happened I am
forced to admit to myself that some kind
of trickery would have been possible
.
.
.
Geller examined the key, then passed
it
to
.
.
. Wharton who held it between the
palms
of
his
hands.
Geller
held
his
hands over Wharton’s for a few seconds
.
.
. and sure enough the key turned out
to be bent through an angle of about 10
degrees.
.
.
. Geller might have distracted
our attention when he first had the key,
bent
it, and put it into Bryan Wharton’s
hands already bent.”
Journalists
are
not
alone
in
having
this
problem—trained
scientists
do
as
well. Geller and Puharicb gave a demon-
stration at Bell Laboratories, New Jersey,
one of the world’s top research centres,
on 8 June, 1973 . Geller
did one
of
liis
favourite
tests:
reproducing
a
drawing
in an envelope. He always stresses that
the envelope
is sealed and that he has
never seen the drawing before. The Bell
report, by Charles Davidson, says “two
sealed envelopes were brought” and goes
on to report Geiler’s accurate reproduc-
tion
of the
drawing. But the man who
actually
brought
the
envelopes,
F.
Richard Moore, told me in January that
in fact the drawings were put into large
clasp envelopes which were not
sealed
Further, Moore
admitted,
the drawings
were
done
at
short
notice,
at
Geiler’s
request, while Geller supposedly was on
the telephone
in
the next
office.
Thus,
Geller could have used any
of
several
magicians’
tricks—including
surrepti-
tiously
watching
the
drawings
being
made,
or
opening
the
envelopes
and
OO020O@9002^a7ings.
But
the
Beil
reportimplies that neither was possible.
For me,
the most
dramatic example
:
. -'i
jJew
Scientist
dentist
1A^6V^3
4For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200Q90024-
„
„„
+Vi»
wav thav did ”
normal
explanation
was
t
of
a
magidan’s ^chmque ws^ ^
Jelle/S
SUpporters
argue
that
he
is
thrfr own descriotion.
Mike Douglas s
o\ ^ Qctoher
] ast year,
young and simply not yet in
full control
work
*
participants and probably
of
his
powers,
and
thus
cannot make
in which
the
participants
events happen on command or precisely
173
in wincn me
-
a
millions of viewers were convinced they
Zw Geller bend a
nail on
television.
I
watched a videotape of the show, and this
ij What
I saw: There were several nails
on a table in front of Geller. He picked
one up with his right hand and gave it to
Mike
Douglas,
who
examined
it
and
showed on close-up that
it was, indeed,
straight. Next, Geller picked up another
nail with his left hand and held it by the
bottom. With his right hand he took the
nail back from Douglas and held
it,
as
well, by the bottom. Then he turned to
guest Tony Curtis and asked him to hold
the top of both. Still holding both by the
bottom, Geller rubbed the
nails. Finally
he told Curtis to take the nail from his
(Geller’s)
right hand—the one we saw
to be
straight on
close np—and put
it
down.
Still
holding
the bottom
of
the
left
hand
nail,
Geller
continued
to
stroke, never showing the bottom. Slowly
he lowered his finger to expose a slight
bend very close to the
tip. Despite
all of
the show of checking to see that a nail
was
straight, the
audience,
Curtis, and
Douglas never saw the
tip
of the
nail
until Geller
said
it was bent. Thus, we
have no evidence that the nail was not
already bent,
perhaps before
the show
began, by non-paranormal means.
Magic sour grapes?
Is the diversion and confusion
of
ob-
servers
accidental?
Many
magicians
argue that
it
is quite intentional, and is
precisely what they do all the time when
they perform. Magician James Randi, a
persistent Geller
critic, said he talked to
stagehands after the Mike Douglas show
and that they told him that Geller speci-
fied that they should buy a box
of ten-
penny nails and that he also asked them
to wrap some
in a bundle with tape an
hour
before
the
show.
Geller
walks
around the studio a lot before the show,
Randi said, and
it would have been easy
for Geller to take his own pre-bent ten-
penny nail out of his pocket and put
it
into
the
bundle
when
no
one
would
notice.
But
the magic community,
with few
exceptions, is strongly opposed to Geller,
arguing that he
is a magician too, but is
earning
far more money by claiming to
be something more.
Professional
magi-
cians
have
a
vested
interest,
however,
and have
earned considerable
publicity
and
money
in
their own
attempts
to
demonstrate—apparently highly success-
fully
in some
cases—that
they
can
do
what Geller does. Finally, the magicians
note that
Geller has
failed to perform
when
large numbers
of
magicians
are
watching, or on TV when magicians help
set the
conditions, and
has consistently
refused
to
participate
in
any
scientific
experiment
(such
as New
Scientist s)
that involves a magician.
Nevertheless,
as
Geller
himself
said
(WNEW-TV,
New
where he wants. And they point
to
his
high failure rate as being proof of this
if he
were
a
magician,
they
say,
he
would always succeed on cue.
Further, they argue that if one believes
that the power of the mind can do such
things,
then the power
of other minds
should be able to block these events. Thus
magicians and others who
are working
strongly against Geller will always make
it impossible for him to perform simply
by blocking him. Mitchell
is “convinced
that
the
negative
thought
energies
of
severe
sceptics and
critics do
inter! ere
with
the
process
you
are
trying
to
measure”
and
thus
such
people
should
be banned from the room during scien-
tific tests.
Why assume the paranormal?
One
of
the
early
choices
someone
studying
Geller must make
is whether
to assume a normal or paranormal hypo-
thesis.
Geller
is
extremely
personable
and most people, including myself,
can-
not help
liking him. And when he per-
forms,
he
really makes
you
want
to
believe in him. Combined with the ram-
pant confusion that surrounds the Geller
tornado wherever he works (which can
mean no one ever sees an entire event),
it
is
extremely
easy
to
slip
without
realising
it into the acceptance of para-
normal
explanations. One
of my many
surprises was how
easily some
.trained
scientists
are
drawn
into
acceptance,
and then how each event adds to what
becomes a strong belief in Geller.
But
scientists
should
be
guided,
at
least in formal experiments, by Occam’s
Razor:
that
one
should
not
assume
a
more
complex
hypothesis
until
it
is
absolutely
necessary,
simpler
explana-
tions having failed.
With Geller, this means that scientists
must
first
convince
themselves
that
events
cannot be
explained by
a
com-
bination of magic and psychology before
they postulate a paranormal explanation..
This
need
not
imply
fraud—people
communicate far more than they realise
by subtle looks, gestures, tone of voice,
and so on. In the case of recent reports
in Britain of children bending forks and
spoons,
they may
exert more
pressure
than
they
realise
while
stroking
the
object.
I
investigated
a
large
number
ot
. Geller
events
with
Occam
in
mind,
I
found
it extremely
difficult
to
go back
and find
out
just what happened
in
a
Geller
event, because
of
the previously
mentioned problem
of
getting
accurate
descriptions
of
the.
event.
But
I have
been able to gain an approximate picture
of what happened
in many
of them. In
a
surprising
number,
the
normal
ex-
planation
was
actually
more
plausible
than the paranormal, and the paranormal
was
accepted
only because
the
witness
rantained
in
their own description.
One
example
is
the
case
of
Geller
teleporting Puharich’s camera case from
New
York
to
Israel,
which
Pnbarich
quotes in his book Uri and which is often
cited
by
Geller
supporters.
When
Puharich explained
it to me in January,
despite his own belief, a normal explana-
tion became
obvious.
“I had about 120
kg
of
equipment
that
I was
taking
to
Israel so I left
all of the excess baggage
behind. And one
of the things
I didn’t
bring was my camera case for my super
8 camera with which
I document a
lot
of my work. One day Uri and
I were at
the Dead Sea and
I complained to him
that one
of the dumb things
I did was
leave this camera
case, which
is brown,
locked
in a special closet
I have
in my
house
for my
equipment.
About
five
hours later he called me up—we’d come
back
to Tel Aviv and he’d gone
to
hii
apartment
and
I’d
gone
to my
hotel.
And he said ‘You know you were talking
about a camera case—there is something
on my bed here—you think
ifs_ yours?’
So I described it to him and I said ‘Took
inside,
’cause
I’ve
ripped
out some
of
the
inside’ and sure enough
it was my
camera
case.”
Puharich
then
went
to
Geller’s
apartment
and
identified
the
case as his. “To my knowledge, there
is
no way it could have gotten there except
by teleportation
6000
miles.” A
sceptic
might think it more plausible that Geller
simply went to a camera shop, bought a
case,
and
then marked
it
according
to
Puharich’s own description on tire phone.
Another
similar
description
appeared
in the 12 June, 1972 issue of the German
newspaper
Bild-Miinchen.
Reporters
took
Geller
to
a
cable
car which
runs
up the Chiemgau mountains, and asked
him
to
stop
the
car. "At noon the
un-
canny one
[Geller] boarded a cable car
gondola
for
the
first
time
in
his
life,
‘I don’t think it can be done’, he repeated.
The gondola was suspended in the
air.
Uri
Geller
noticed
a
control
panel
on
the
door
which
governed
the
steering
mechanism.
Suddenly,
he
erred
out, 1
think
I can bring
it
off!’
”. Then Geller
bounded around
the
car
doing varrous
tricks,
and
periodically
changed
the
direction of the cable car.
Bending keys by hand?
Some people, however, have seen and
accepted
a
normal
rather
than
para-
normal explanation. Bob McAlister, who
produces
the
programme
Wonderama
for WNEW-TV in New York, told about
one
incident
when
Geller
was
there.
Geller asked
for
a key, and McAlister
gave him
one. “We were
in
an
alcove
outside
the
control
room
and
Geller
said
‘Let’s
get
out
of
here’. He
held
the key up
so
I could
see
it,
then
he
turned
his
back
and
as
he
opened
a
door the key went
in
front of
his body
'
right down by the groin and
the
other
hand came
to
that position
as he was
walking
through
the
door.
He
im-
mediately
said
‘Do
you
want
to
hold
hold
it’
Vo k
MiS WO
«uM
ZllZSl commi 1
ecT
to
Gelie r*
In
toe key; that’s
all
right,
I’ll
ho,
be
dup’icated
0>&&IAiR©FS6 J0€7871^00200090G24<i7
“ e ”“2
doesnThave
0 ^VETan tSl did
it the
event
did
not
even
realise
that
toe
only shown* one comer
of
the
key.
fe&aac*
v
..a,.' isaaiiiia. f
New Scientist
17 October 1974
174
p—aswftre,? r;
'•?«?? t?2^|
,
He
then wc^liW9^4F^ffiReteas0 2000/0|/t€^t^^l^^87^(^(|^p|^i^ TV," however,
of
people, McAlister
said, and^put ^the
. ._,
....
-v--
*•>> \
and lend strong support to his comment.
Film magazines contain
ten minutes
of
film, but a standard sound tape runs 20
, oi
people,
j-.aw
kev
in
someone’s hand
and
bent
it*
But presumably,
McAlister, commented,
he had
actually bent
it while going out
the door.
_
,
_
Thames
Television
Producer
Terry
Dixon
told me
about
filming
Geller
in
New
York
in
December
1973.
Dixon
said that each member of the crew did
a drawing and
that
the drawings were
sealed,
first
in
a white
envelope,
then
a
brown
one,
in
San
Francisco
two
weeks before the crew
arrived m New
York to talk to Geller. Each crew mem-
ber
had
also
signed
the
envelope.
In
Geller’s
flat,
Uri was
given
the
dozen
sealed envelopes and he handled them
one
at
a
time,
according
to Dixon. At
this
point both cameraman Mike
Fash,
and
assistant cameraman Peter George,
however, noted that Fash’s envelope had
fallen
on
the
floor
and
both
said,
in-
dependently,
that
Geller would do
that
drawing. Eventually, Geller said that he
needed a long rest, and Dixon suggested
they moye to one
of the Thames
hotel
rooms. Geller agreed and suggested they
take
only
three
envelopes,
which
he
picked
(drawings by Fash, George, and
Dixon).
Geller
suggested
that
they he
sealed together, but there was no
Sello-
tape
immediately
available,
so
the
en-
velopes were passed
to one
of
Geller’s
assistants,
Melanie Toyofuku, who had
them
out
of
sight
of the Thames crew
for more than 10 minutes, according
to
Dixon. She had more than enough time
to use any
of the
magician’s
tricks
to
see
inside
(rubbing
alcohol
on
the
envelopes
to make
them
transparent,
holding them up to a strong light, open-
ing
just a corner
so
that a
small
light
can be put
inside,
or even opening and
resealing the envelopes, among
others).
At the hotel room,
Geller succeeded in
drawing a combination of Dixon’s draw-
ing (a three-dimensional box) and Fash’s
(a dice).
Tightening the conditions
One
thing
characterises
all
of
these
examples:
Geller
did
not
do
his
feat
in the simple, immediate way
in which
it
is
usually
reported.
Instead,
he
succeeded
only
after unconscious
help
from
a
participant
or
after
taking
an
extra
step
which
could
be
used by
a
magician
in
a
similar
circumstance.
In
other
words,
for
whatever
reason,
Geller worked in such a way as to make
the
normal
explanation
seem
more
likely
than
the
paranormal.
Uri’s
sup-
porters,
of
course,
will
say
that
these
are
all
accidents
or
coincidences, and
that he does not use
the
opportunities
they offer for tricks. To test this theory,
it is worth looking at what has happened
in those cases where the conditions were
made tight enough that Geller could not
have
resorted
to
such
tricks.
Perhaps
not
surprisingly,
he does
not
perform
very well.
One
of
Geller’s
standard
feats
is to
have
an
object
put
into
one
of
ten
light aluminium 35 mm film cans, Geller
then
select*
n.i eht _emr>tv leans, .one, at_a
time, and
fti
' 7
TtJ,
-U>
•
>-/
i
..\
r s
object. On the Merv
Griffin show on US
TV, Geller did the trick successfully, but
some
people
thought they
saw
Geller
jarring the table so that the cans would
shake
and
he
could
tell
which
was
heaviest. On the Johnny Carson Tonight
show
on
August,
1973,
therefore,
special
precautions
were
taken
and
Geller
was
not
permitted
to
get
near
enough
to
the table
to
jar
it or touch
the cans. He failed.
On
the AM New York
show,
they
went
a
step
further
and
used heavy
film cans that could not he jarred. But
Geller
went
further
as
well. Magician
Felix
Greenfield
reported
that
one
of
the
staff
rang him
shortly
before
the
show was
to go on
at 7 am to say that
when she arrived at 5.50 am Geller was
already there, and insisted that he watch
while
she
put the 'objects
in
the
cans
and wrapped tape around them. Green-
field told her that Geller would probably
remember how the target can be taped
and suggested she retape them. She did
and Geller failed.
The
Thames TV
crew
found
that
Geller
could
do
the
film can trick
for
them when
someone, was
present who
knew which
can
contained
the
object,
but not
otherwise,
which suggested
to
them
that
Geller
looked
for
their
reactions
Bob
McAlister
of WNEW
told
of
some, of the special precautions he took
for
another
Geller
event.
“Geller
said
he
wanted
to
try
something
big
like
stopping an escalator, and he suggested
Bloomingdales
[department
store].
But
our news department suggested Gimbles
because they had worked with the public
relations department there before. Geller
seemed
quite
upset
and
disappeared,
saying
‘I’ve got
to make a ’phone
call’.
When
I got
to
Gimbles,
I
talked
to
a
guard who told me that you can throw
a switch on any floor to stop an escala-
tor.
On
my
advice
they
stationed
a
guard
at
the
switch
at each
escalator
landing.
Geller
did
not
stop
the
escalator.”
Did they see Geller cheat?
At
least
five
people
claim
to
have
seen
Geller
actually
cheat.
This
is
a
difficult area, because
if we cannot trust
the reports of observers who say Geller
does
miracles, why should we
give any
more
credence
to
those
who
say
he
cheated? At least some of the examples,
however,
seem
to
have
supporting
evidence.
Perhaps the strongest case
is that of
Thames sound
recorder Sandy McCrae,
television
on
15 January
ment, Geller replied
nuylAnRD1^64Otl^87RQ0(^Odt9OO24-
minutes. Thus
it
is normal
practice
to
leave the sound tape running while
the.
film magazines
are reloaded. According
to McCrae,
while the cameramen were
diverted reloading film, Geller attempted
to
divert
everyone
else’s
attention
by
referring them back to
a
fork he had
already
broken.
But
McCrae
did
not
turn
to
the broken
fork,
and
said
he
actually saw Geller bend—by hand, not
psychic powers—the large spoon. Geller
then called
attention to the bent spoon
and filming immediately resumed.
Support
for
McCrae’s
story
comes
from producer Terry DLxon, who noted
that McCrae had been a strong believer
in
Geller and before
this
incident was
convinced
that
Geller
was
genuine.
Dixon also noted that Uri and his assp-
riates were
“obsessively”
interested
in
the equipment,
particularly how long
it
took to reload a film magazine. “No one
ever asked questions like that before.”
•
Ray Hyman,
a
psychology
professor
at the University of Oregon, was called
in to see Geller at SRI by a government
agency
to whom
Russell Targ and Dr
Hal
Putlioff
had
applied
for
funding.
One of Uri’s demonstrations for Hyman
at SRI
in December
1972 was
to have
someone else in the room write down a
number on the pad and then he, Geller,
would guess
it. "As he wrote, Uri made
a show
of
covering
his
eyes
with
his
hands. From my
side,
I
could
see
his
eyes
through
his
hands.
Also,
I
could
easily
see, from George’s arm
motions,
that he had written the number
10.”
Hyman
also
told
a
story,
confirmed
to me by one of the others present (who
requested not to be identified), about a
Geller prediction. At 4 pm Geller decided
he was “burned out” and decided to go
home. About a half hour later he
sud-
denly reappeared, warning one of those
present not to
fly back
to Washington,
DC
as
planned. He
said
that
during
lunch he had had a premonition about
a plane crashing. But someone decided
to
call
a
newspaper,
and
found
that
there had indeed already been a plane
crash in Washington around lunch time,
and the report would have been on the
news
stands and
radio during the
half
hour Uri was away.
Finally, three people report that they
saw Geller cheat when he performed at
the New York
offices of Time magazine
in March
1973. These
are perhaps
the
weakest cases because Time
is strongly
opposed
to
Geller.
Charles
Reynolds,
picture
editor
of Popular Photography,
and
magician
James
Randi,
both
say
they saw Geller bend a key in his hand
after having attempted
to
divert every-
one’s attention by asking for a beer can
opener. And Rita Quinn, a researcher
in
the picture department who was anxious
to
believe
in
Geller,
saw
him
peek
between
gaps
in
his
fingers
during
a
picture drawing
test.
When
asked
on
television
(Mid-Day
Live, 3 May, 1974) about Randi’s
state-
ment, Geller replied simply
“I am sure
175
New 'scientist lAp^v^For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002000900;
Through a lenscap darkly
One of Uri’s more dramatic feats
is
to apparently project his ^ageontofi
film even though the camera has
a
lenscap
taped ^ V7orid ^2 December
jmneared 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 S'e photographer who took our cover picture. But be may Remade,
mistakef and the US magazine Popular Photography
(June 1974) was able
to suggest a distinctly non-paranormal explanation.
„
.
The°photo
(Figure
1)
was taken
“through
the taped on
lenscap ^
of
a
Pentax Equipped with a 17 mm Takumar extreme wide-angle
Asheye
lens.
Thenhotowas 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.
j
Figure
Photo Uri took of himself "through taped-on
lenscap" of Yale Joel's Pentax
;
\
.!
’
Wl
•
•
•
.
-
: f
il-v'
o'
.
Jfr
,
Js,
frgh
:
‘•t-
=
•
'
' v7
re-:- 'filwl:
Figure 3
...
it was taken by holding the lenscap just a bit
away from the camera
«S>p -"P
;-;v aSSES****-
A
Figure 2
Photo of Seth Joel looks remarkably like Uri’s,
but
.
.
.
f
,
.
' •7’:
. >-
•' 4
•• ?>“
•
5;
^WS^***^
fc
Figure 4
Picture of Seth Joel taken with 50mm lens.
Is this what Un 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
S 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 finge
holding
the
lenscap.
Figure
3 shows how
the
picture
of ^hv.as
ke
although Popular Photography found
that one person
could
do
it
without
^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
with a 50-mm lens on the Pentax instead of the
Fisheye. No sharp circle, no
ApprovedfiFf©^ Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090024-7
i
<iff»'iTniinnwri
i^jr-rlrrTrnmritHtmtTnr-i—'
1^^
New Scientist
17 October 1974
176'
Transatlantic telepathy
Approved For Release 2000/08/10.
: CIA-RDP9
rf6-J07^^ftC^PA^9iQM“7Then Young
if tAlonathv
minutes
Getter
said
I
_
ge
repUed
described Gcller drawing “a fat sausage
tlie time three pictures
. Wlison rep
with>
at
the
rear ,
a
part
that
comes
“can
you
tell
us
what
the
th
ar
?> ;
d
d looks 1!ke
sayj an elephant’s
iust
in
case
one
of.tnem
maraud.
-
-
’•«*---•
J
-
»
_
«I1 ,-in f-iCxC
Investigating
the
Geller phenomenon
second-hand
is
all
well
and
good,
but
the
strongest
impressions
necessarily
come from personal contact with Un.
I
have seen Uri work twice, once as part
of
a
transatlantic
telepathy experiment
conducted
by
the
Sunday
Mirror
(10
December,
1973)
and
the
other m
the
Montcalm
Hotel,
London
(19
June,
1974)
In the Mirror
test, Geller was in New
York, connected
to the Mirror
office in
London
by
transatlantic
telephone.
In
the
Mirror
office
were
Clifford
Davis,
the Mirror TV editor who arranged the
test;
Professor
Arthur
Ellison
of
City
University and chairman
of
the execu-
tive
committee
of
the
Society
for
Psychical
Research;
Dr
Christopher
Evans of the New Scientist panel;Ronme
Bedford, Mirror
science
editor;
Patricia
O’Flanagan
and
myself
from
New
Scientist;
the
Thames TV
crew;
and
about
a
dozen
spectators.
Yasha Katz
of
Geller’s
staff,
and
Sidney
Young,
from
the
Mirror,
were
with
Geller
in
New York. The
attempt
lasted
. nearly
two
hours,
and
covered
a
variety
of
tests.
Katz
listened
on
the New York
end
of
the
telephone
and
later
told
New Scientist
(during one of
his meet-
ings
to
discuss
our
experiments),
that
Geller’s
biggest
success
was
seeing
a
photograph
of
a
car.
•/
• Y
- y "
V"
Geller
declined and more long
silences
followed. Finally, at 20 minutes Un said
he
could
not
do
it. But
Ellison
said:
“Would
you
like
to
tell
us
anything
about the patterns you were getting
in
your mind when we
were
all
concen-
trating on the picture?”
Geller
replied
that
he
had
drawn
three
different
sets
of
things.
First,
“three
people
appeared
in
my
mind
with
something
white
underneath
Second,
“something
long”.
Ellison
im-
mediately
replied
“that
sounds
likely,
it could be described as something long
.
Then Geller said
it was like an animal
a dog or a horse
standing
sideways.
With no further encouragement
at this
point, he moved on to the third drawing
which
he
described
as
something
triangular with a semi-circle coming out
of the
left side—“a mountain,
sort
of,
with something coming, out”. Finally, he
said he had words in his mind: “pattern,
horse,
animal,
dog,
dog, dog”.
Although this drew no encouragement
from
Ellison, he continued to press the
dog—asking
if there was
a photo
of
a
dog
somewhere
in
the
room.
There
wasn’t. Only the “something long” had
drawn a positive response from
Ellison.
Next
Geller
said
that
of
the
three
impressions
the
“biggest one” was the
—\
- ;vs
:
-.'C
UUITir
~
v
>
foot, then goes
along toward the
front
and
becomes
a
sort
oF
a
breast”.
Ellison
laughed
and
gave
a
negative
response.
Geller
then
announced
that
he was finished, and asked Ellison what
the photo
was.
Ellison
said
it was
a
police
car, and
Geller
then
claimed
to
have
written
down
the word
“car”
even
though
he
had not mentioned
it
before
with
the
list
of
words
in
his
mind.
Later,
he
claimed to have written down the word
“car” twice.
To
me,
at
least,
this was
hardly
a
success. Guided by
Ellison, he
drew
a
shape that could have been an animal,
a
car,
a
table,
a
hill,
or
almost
any-
thing.
Later
in
the
nearly
two-hour
telephone
call,
however,
Geller
made
remarks
like
“I am happy
I
got
the
drawing”.
.
When I asked him afterwards, Ellison
answered immediately
that
Geller had,
indeed,
gotten
the
car. He
called the
test “remarkable” and noted that Geller
“didn’t say a cup or a tree or a human
being”.
Actually,
of
course,
Geller
did
mention
people and
his drawing could
have been
a
cup—it was Young who
said
it might be
a
pig
or
a
car. But
most
important,
Ellison seems
to have
been
totally
oblivious
to the amount of
i vliM y
;
I
-
C-4
.
'
'
«•-
S
-
v -?' -
- •* .-
•
.
k;.;- •:>
;r;>
v
-
-
-
-
•
-
'<4- '“*
' *,
W-
\Z-
:-;4"
v/H
Photo which Uri Seller
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’Flanagan
had provided a
set
of
sealed envelopes
containing simple photographs which no
one but
she had
seen. When
Uri was
already on the telephone, she gave me
the sealed envelopes and
I selected one,
which turned out to contain a photo
of-
a
police car and
a policeman. Professor
Ellison was
on
the London
end
of
the
'phone
and concentrated on
the
photo,
attempting
to transmit
it
to
Geller. We
could
all see and hear
Ellison and hear
Geller.
The
photo
transmission
experiment
primarily
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
describe what he was
drawing.
It
could
be
“a
car or
a
pig”,
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
of
a. car or a pig—not wheels, not legs,
M^0^mi:.CIA-RDP96-007£
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 he
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
acepted that nothing
YE 'the
test
failed.