mechanics (7) and might be termed ‘mentally induced tunnel efiect . CAlpproved:PorREemasy 2001/03/07 SCIA- RDP96-00788R002000130011-5 force field acting on the metal. _ The detailed structure of the surface of action is a kind of ‘ ain of rainfall’, enveloping certain lattice points and causing the onset of loop dislocations. However, these produce hardening and not softening of the metal, and we recall that there is good evidence, both in early observations and in unpublished observa- tions of Crussard and Bouvaist, of temporary and permanent softening, sometimes so extremee that it has been referred to as ‘plasticization’ of the metal before fracture. If we hypothesise that the surface of action is sometimes - capable of specific action at grain boundaries (taking on a kind of irregular honeycomb configuration), then a softening mechanism similar to the well-known quasi-viscous creep becomes possible. In this high temperature process extremely thin layers of atoms at the grain boundaries actually liquefy; but in the paranormal plasticization the temperature rise is unobservable, thus implying extreme specificity of the action, which would have to ensure that only a minute proportion of the atoms ever reached the high temperature phase. Electron micrographic evidence for the lique- faction has been obtained by Crussard and Bouvaist in the paranormal! permanent softening process. The direction of work in progress is to test the hypotheses that the dynamic strain signals correspond in number and strength to the density of dislocations produced in the lattice, and to the degree of liquefaction at the grain boundaries. We are grateful to the New Horizons Research Foundation, and to the Society for Psychic Research for financial support of these studies. i } i | i } | I : J@& NB. HASTED, Ph. D. Professor of Experimental Physics; * Head, Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, England. Pioneered research in opening up the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum in communications, specialized training in chemistry, Author of books on atomic collisions, and on dielactrics, and many professional! papers, including MY GELLER NOTEBOOKS (to be published). 0 See ey pe eer mae rr te Trt TO eT * Aluminum with small proportions of copperand magnesium, heat treated in a specified! manner, for use in supersonic aircraft REFERENCES en ne aw eg et 1. J.B. Hasted, ‘An Experimental Study of the Validity of Meta!-Bending Phenomena’. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Voi. 48, No. 770, 1976. pp. 365-383. 2. J.B. Hasted, “Physical Aspects of Paranormal Metal-Bending”’. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 49, No. 773, 1977. pp. 583-607. 3. }.B. Hasted, “Paranormal Metal-Gending’’. in course of publication in New Horizons (1978). “Features of Paranormal Metal-Bending” in Wourse of publication in Zeit. fur Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie. (1978) ioe ott sme ed tee ee te eS 4. P. Barnes, |.W. Jeffery, O. Batemen, T. Gate, T. Southern, Birbeck College, University of London, private cornmunication, 1974, FC OE TRS ETE NS SE TERE ERE 6. j.B. | Hasted in The Geller Papers. Ed. Charles Panati, Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston. a ae 1976, pp. 183-196, 197-212. Approved For 0 7. EP, wigta emarks on the Mind- Release vA 01/03/07 > CIA- -RDP96- 0 788R0020001 3001 1 “5 UL}. Good, Heinemann, London, 1961. Symetres and Reflections, Indiana University Vi cies ammuces uabitece cree din orttnee «Hines nol bem ine mesa ngs scant Press, Bloomington, 1967. : One of Peter's Scukptures * . Reb oo ta ea pecan Jeti tu te engin o's
_ Actually, the first observable thing that ever happer me wasn’t cracking or bending an object, it was movir ‘Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :. CIA-RDP96-007888002000430014 kBppened by coinciden The Metal-Bending Controversy in Literature and Lab by SAT BIR SINGH KHALSA 1. INTRODUCTION f]. THE DATA ON PKMB i) Uri Geller a) Anecdotal Observations . b) Controlled Observations ii) Other Individuals Manifesting PKMB a) Anecdotal Observations b) Controlled Observations IH. THE DISCUSSION OF THE DATA ON PKMB i) The Criticisms ii) The Defense IV. THE DEEPER ISSUES i) PKMB In Perspective ii) Directions For The Future t. INTRODUCTION Since a large segment of the published literature on psycho- kinetic metal-bending (PKMB) concems itself with Uri Geller, the first to “demonstrate” it, it is convenient to consider his material separately in section Il - The Data on PKMB. The majority of the PKMB data has been reported in non-technical journals and is of an anecdotal nature; the attempts at controlled observations are therefore considered separately. Discussion of the data involves issues which, for the most part, are common to both Geller and the other individuals manifesting PKMB and are considered as a whole, with presentation of the pro and con approaches respect- ively. The final section will examine the overall approach to the PKMB phenomenon, the controversy generated, and some of the conclusions arrived at. The goal of this review is to acquaint the reader with the literature and so consists largely of extracts taken directly from it; it is hoped that this will allow the reader to come away with more of a first-hand experience of the issue. i. THE DATA ON PKMB i) URE GELLER a) Anecdotal Material ‘ PKMB first came to attention via Uri Geller whose stage performances of his ability in Israel began his rise to worldwide rAAPPRQVCCe Ors including clairvoyance and precognition, but it was the novelty of PKIAB which drew attention. In a 1973 interview he tells us: PASE 2004/03 /07s¢- CLASRDPI6-0078BRO0 200073004 school, when | was about seven years old. In class | noticed that my watch would show a dif hour than what it really was, which began to happen frequently. | complained to my mother about the wrist being broken; she examined it and said that it kept goo for her, But it continued to happen, so one day in class I off and held it in my hands, watching it very closely. | be notice that the hands would change their positions instantaneously - very fast - like dematerializing from on to another. When I tried the same thing alone, outside of c wouldn’t happen; so | realized | had to be in class - a people - for it to happen. Not long after that, the wristband bent and broke. Th actually the first time | became aware of something be _ and breaking near me. (1) And then from his autobiography, MY STORY: 1 soon began to notice other things besides the ha watches moving and bending, which made me feel more freak. One time my mother had made some mushroom There was good white bread with the soup, and I dipp bread into it and ate. Then J started eating the soup w ~ spoon: I’m left-handed, so ! held the spoon in my left hai took several sips of the soup..My mother was standing kitchen stove. | was lifting a full spoonful up to my mouth, suddenly the bowl of the spoon bent down and spilled hx into my lap. Then the bow! of the spoon itself fell off. Iv there holding on to the handle. (2) Geller has had a passion to perform his talents and his pe ances soon drew attention of the local media, of which h As far as my performances in Israel are concerned, ! hundred shows and got “nearly all positive reaction fre press, although ! was never checked in the laboratorie scientists. Israel is a small place and by that time everyone had seen me. But then a very negative article out accusing me of using laser beams to bend and break that | had pliers, mirrors, and springs hidden on r However, the material on Geller from his time in I fragmentary at best, and it was not until parapsych Andrija Puharich met Geller and brought him to the States that the published literature on Geller became inous. o« . Nowa celebrity, he demonstrated off stage for scienti journalists which effort has resulted ina large number o dotal reports. The classical anecdote of PKMB is one wherein Gelle. strokes a key or spoon and it then is observed to benc occasion to fracture. More convincing are those instance: PKMB was reported without physical contact, and exam this will be presented. Alan Vaughan writes cf his exp with Geller and the editor of “PSYCHIC” magazine: Taking a hotel room key, Bolen first attempted to be manual means. He succeeded only in raising a blood He handed it to Geller who, holding it by the handle, hz to me. I grasped the key by the large end and put my ath on top. Geller put his hand lightly on top of mine. He ask my hands felt any sensation, but they did not. Then he as to look at it. It was bent about 30 degrees and was still bending as | watched. The whole procedure was wit Bolen. (45) Even more extraordinary was a filmed (movie) exp yen he was visiting G Ossining, New York. Bolen first tested a fork to see iv i bend easily manually, but it did nqt. J heh Geller took
and Bolen began to film Geller’s actions. “Uri was moving’his boy, with a new toy. He played it like an accordian for a few left thu : t i f th “seconds then yo-yocd it_up and down four or five times lof thapproved Fer Ri Base SOO TEST: GIA-R 007 88RN020001 BOQ Feel coi! dropped off “ ras becoming soft and that it was beginning to bend. 1 zoomed € on his hands and the fork. | asked him to open his fingers to reveal the area. As he did, the prong part began falling away slowly, as though the metal had become plastic where he had held it. It then came completely apart, with the prong part falling down, but as it fell it drew away a short threadlike piece of metal. }examined both pieces of the fork at the break, which looked as though it had melted apart. Uri did not seem to feel any heat. He was excited and | was excited at having captured this on film, apparently for the first time. It was a heady experience.” In another experiment, Bolen filmed Geller bend- ing a key... (46) Physicist Wilbur Franklin reported: Dr. Edgar Mitchell and | first observed Geller fracture a ring, after which the ting continued to bend by itself as | observed it lying on the table beside me, on August 25, 1972, in the home of the venerable psi researcher, Dr. Andrija Puharich. . Parapsychologist Stanley Krippner observed Geller in one of his performances and wrote: - a While a member of the audience grasped the earpiece of a pair of glasses loaned to Geller by another spectator, Geller held the volunteer’s hand. | was sitting in the front of the room; as far as | could see, Geller did not touch the earpiece itself. ‘Soon, the other earpiece began to bend as if tremendous heat was being applied. The volunteer removed her hand from the earpiece and the bending continued over the next few minutes, even though neither Geller nor the volunteer was touching the pair of glasses. (48) in & ‘1ENCE NEWS” we have the report: thumb and forefinger. The key began to bend-too slightly to be perceptible - after Geller rubbed it lightly with one finger. The key was then placed on the desk and it continued to bend slowly for several minutes until it reached about a 20-degree angle. There was no obvious way the key | supplied could have been switched, Geller had no chance (by slight of hand or other trickery) to bend the key by force. And he didn’t have a laser up his sleeve, as some have. suggested. (49) “teleportation” or “dematerialization” phenomena, However we shall confine ourselves to PKMB, save for this report by physicist Thomas Coohill in the company of 2 other physicists, among others: We did not ask Geller to bend anything for us at lunch, nor did he suggest that he do so. However, after we had easten Geller and | went into my living room and began talking about caving (spelunking). After about a minute we both heard a metallic “clink’’: it sounded as though something metallic was dropped on a solid floor. Looking around, | saw a spoon lying behind my desk. It was bent. As [held it in my hand and called the other people into the room, the spoon suddenly began to bend in another plane (at a right angle to the handle ... ). It seemed as if the spoon were : observed by all present. (50) | Anather report reads: € aller doesn’t necessarily do what you ask him to do, but Be can handle curve balls nicely - he likes the challenge. Among other things, | took him a slinky (a spring steel coil that kids walk down steps) with the idea that he should try to Occasionally, Geller has also been the apparent cause of i [ t ‘During. the interview, | held a heavy key between my - onto the floor-all this right before my (and a friend's) eyes. Did Geller have a chance to get at this ahead of time? No, that’s the point of bringing a “curveball” device. He doesn’t know what you've brought; can’t prepare duplicates, or otherwise tamper with the “props” as Johnny Carson calls them. 1 showed Charlie Reynolds (a Geller critic) another of the curve balls | had thrown Geller - a set.of ceramic magnets. Geller had made a crack through one of them and then made half of the broken magnet disappear. Reynolds broke one of the other magnets by hand. It took two distinct movements and made a less jagged break: this had also been my experience. Reynolds’ response was that he'd like me to arrange a meeting with Geller. Unfortunately, Reynolds had already accused Geller of fraud at the TIME demonstration upon which. TIME partly based its scathing March 12, 1973 story. So Geller wanted nothing to do with Reynolds. (51) Acommon characteristic of Geller’s attempts at PKMB is that he is often unsuccessful, although it is difficult to judge how often from the literature, since the media prefers to report only successes. A brief reference to this is given by Dr. Joseph Hanton, after a sitting with Geller and Dr. Bernard Dixon: i gave Uri my housekey, which he worked with unsuccess- fully. _ Dixon commented afterwards that he was struck by the extent to which Geller stressed his failures - constantly saying he did not think he could do it and telling us stories about his failures on TV and elsewhere. Indeed, he talked far more about failures than successes. (52) A typical failure of PKMB was reported by Dr. Eldon Byrd: The first thing | had Geller do was handle the block. (A metal alloy called nitinol). | told hin that t wanted to see if he could alter the block’s hardness. Also, | asked him if he would try to alter the magnetic properties of the material. He said he would try to do both. - He handled the block for some time. Finally, he said he thought he would not be able to do anything to it because he somehow did not have a “feel’’ for the material. In a last attempt to influence the block, he asked for a piece of metal of any kind, and a brass plate was given to him. He placed the block on the plate and held his hand over it. Several times he pressed dowh on the block, but gave up, saying that he did not think he would be able to affect the material. (53) Claims that Geller cheats (uses non-psychic abilities) are not restricted to his time in Israel. 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? (56) b) Controlled Observations 4 There are indeed critics who would argue that there have been no properly controlled experiments run with Uri Geller, but for the purposes of this review we shall consider those tests where investigators made serious attempts at controlled obser- vation orwhere they have claimed them to be controlled. One of _ inkpprovet For ReTeHse’ ANOTIOUNT “CTA-KI YEH O/HEROR ABIDE SOUT having pubishedt i UNIVERSE). Of course, Geller did not such thing. He was like a NATURE the results of ESP tests with Geller, -
One of their tests involved Uri's efforts to affect the weight entire scale with weight was covered by a glass bell jar to eliminate the possiblity of deflection by air currents. The entire experiment was filmed. The first part of our protocol involved tapping the bell jar; next tapping the table on which the apparatus rested; then kicking the table; and finally jumping on the floor, with a record made on strip chart of what these artifacts looked like. In this experiment Geller’s efforts resulted in deflections correponding to weight gains and losses on the order of one gram, well out of the noise level. The signals he produced were single-sided pulses of about one-fifth-second duration, unlike the artifacts, which resulted in two-sided ocsilations that slowly died out. In tests following this experimental run, a magnet was brought near the apparatus, static electricity was discharged against the apparatus, and controlled runs of day- long operation were obtained. In no case were artifacts ob- tained that resembled the effects that occurred during Geller’s efforts, nor could anyone else duplicate the effects. We have no ready hypothesis on how these: signals might have been produced. (74) Dr. John Taylor in England has reported a test which al- though he feels cannot be regarded as “absolutely fraud proof”, avoids a number of possible fraudulent techniques available to ARPREOY! Geller. Geller stroked the upper surface of a strip of metal which was screwed down to the top of a letter balance. The pressure he was applying could be monitored directly by the balance dial (accurate to 7 grams) as well as measured automatically by a shielded metal plate placed vertically above the metal top of the balance and connected to a quadrant electrometer (sensitive to 5 oz.). A bending of 10° occurred in one session, which | closely observed, during which no pressure greater than 10 grams was applied. In any case the bend was upwards. This experiment is presently being repeated with videotape. (75) Parapsychologist and magician William Cox is confident of his test for PKMB with Geller. He reported in the JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY: My hope was to witness static PK under what could be considered adequate safeguards. Being a magician myself, unknown to: Geller, | also wished to allow opportunity for - trickery in the event Geller intended to employ such means... For the first test we used a flat steel key of the safety-deposit box type, untoothed and much too hard to bend by hand. | intentionally allowed Geller to handly it, whereupon he asked if | did not have an ordinary key instead. | said ‘No,’ and he replied, “Well, iil try to do something with this one.” He laid my key ona glass coffee table in front of the couch on which he was sitting, and we both noted its absolute flatness upon the glass. | was seated at one end of the coffee table. | placed my right forefinger lightly on the larger end of the key, and Geller gently stroked the remainder with his right forefinger. The key began to bend slowly at a point just beyond my finger, stopping at above 6°. Any pressure he might have applied would have been against the direction of bend. | removed my finger and gt him rock the bent key upon the glass table. I then placed a small mirror in the palm of my left hand and held it under the glass of the table so that | could have a clear view of the under side of the key. | then returned the key to its 0. r RRedease: to a total of 12%°. His stroking was light, since it did not cause the key to rock beneath my forefinger. All of this took approxi- 1/0.3/0% + GIAyRDP9I6 -00788RO020001S003 1S _ mately a minute. The key was about 15 inches from my e “Ager red by HP OF RERASE 200 T0310 rs Ae , A*RD P9 6-5 7 SBIROO ZOHO SUG #455 , ohsical memory fo! shape in which it formed at the time of manufacture.” Geller tested for PKMB with nitinol wire by Eldon Byrd and he write his second session with Geller: The diameter of the wire was about 0.5 mm. One 7 was used as a control and was not taken to Connecticut. A tape recordings were made during all observations. t held one of the other pieces by both ends as | previously done and Geller stroked it as before. A kink form took a second piece of wire, held it by one end, and € stroked it unilaterally. It, too, developed a kink. The third of wire was given to Geller to do with as he pleased. He rol between his thumb and forefinger and it kinked shary Geller had clearly influenced the alloy nitinol in a unusual way: it was as if the kinks he produced had act been manufactured into the wires, even though it had conclusively determined before any experimentation the permanent configuration of the wires was that of straight No explanation has been given by nitinol experts, who been consulted as to how kinks could have been fo without using high temperatures and mechanical stress. chanically produced kinks in nitinol leave obvious mar’ the surface of the wire. Geller-formed kinks do not. Byrd concludes: All of the bends that Geller had produced thus for an wire have been permanent deformation - the wires cz crumpled or twisted into any shape by hand, ‘but on | heated to a temperature of about 210°F. all the wires ret the shape Geller had imposed upon them. How did Geller achieve such results? At the pre have no scientific explanation for what happened during testing periods. | can say that the possibility of fraud on Ge part can be virtually ruled out. (77) A team of scientists in England consisting of John Ha David Bohm, Edward Bastin and Brendan O’Regan observe following phenomenon: The plasticization, by handling, of about 2 cm of the of a stainles steel teaspoon (phenomenon 7) took place course of informal conversation around a desk. The teas which had previously been handled and bent through thirty degrees by a child who also displays PK ability, wa: by Mr. Geller for a few seconds, when the center be floppy: Awitness was able to take from Mr. Geller the twe of the spoon in either hand while the center was still pla was then handled very much asa heated glass tube is wh bent to a desired angle in the laboratory. In this we plasticity could be clearly verified by movement of the hz the witness. The witness attempted to set the spoon at an angle, and to put it down on the table; it retained itself piece on the table for a few minutes, but due, presuma thinning of the neck by the flow of metal, its strength v small that a slight disturbance fractured it. The weight the fractured spoon was almost within the estimated ¢ mental! error. Electron micrographs of this fracture are preparation; the procedures used are similar to those t another study of a similar fracture obtained in the exper of Professor J.G. Taylor. (78) John Hasted reported a PKMB test attended by physici Sarfatti: Geller likes to have such specimens on a metal plat sheet of stecl was laid on the table, and the following se on it: 1. Two key rings with keys attached to them. 2. Four loose latchkeys. . »