• 132
,
New Scientist
17 October 1074 't
i*
1#? eltearse 2©0©/88*Q7 coCIAiRePSevOOTSyRQOO?©©!^!©©?^^,^!!:,?
* ”
n?
,
'
^
u I,
'^
s!,nP Jy ^ ™dUn S " ith
the
dials
on
apparently
able
to
see
ins?,
process
is
.
1 lie
less
charitable
rn rhr
ti,o
i
.
_fU
.
J
..
a
“ 1S1<
process
is”.
The
less
charitable
might
suggest
that
Geller
was
unwilling
to
perform before someone who was more
watchful than
usual.
;
Another
example
of
this
sort
of
choice
carue up
in
a
discussion
of
ex-
periments with Pat Price, also published
in
the SRI
paper.
In
the
test,
one
of
the
investigators
went
to
a
randomly
selected
place
in
the
Palo
Altc
area—
a motorway
toll booth, a
drive-in movie,
a marina,
etc.
Thirty minutes
after he
started, Price would
dictate
into
a tape
recorder
a
description
of
where
he
thought the investigator was. Transcripts
of
the
nine
descriptions were given
to
five judges who were asked to correlate
them
with
personal
knowledge
of
the
nine locations but with no knowledge of
which
descriptions
Price
said
were
of
which
trips.
There
is
a wide
diversity,
with
two
judges
picking
G and
of
Price’s
descriptions
as
correct,
while
two
otners
picked
only
o. When
asked
about
the
diversity,
Targ
said
that
it
simply
showed
that
they
had
to
be
more
careful
in picking judges because
some
judges
were
not
good
at
doing
correlations!
Good observers?
By far the most important component
of the
validity
of the SRI paper
is the
investigators’
abilities as observers. Two
incidents
suggest
that
although
Targ
and •.Puthoff
may
be
competent
laser
physicists,
they
are
less
successful
in
this
radically
different
area.
In
particu-
lar,
their
desire
to
believe may
cloud
their
discrimination.
Perhaps the most
telling event
is Hal
Puthoff
taking Ingo Swann—an
experi-
mental
subject
not
described
in
the
Nature
paper—to
the
quark
detector
at
Stanford
University
early
in
1973.
The quark detector
is a highly sensitive
magnetome+er
which
works bv
looking
at the decay
of a magnetic
field.
This
is
shown
on
a
'chart
recorder
by
a
periodic
function.
Puthoff
and Swann
independently
told me
roughly
similar
stories: Puthoff took Swann to the quark
detector,
where
Swann
described
in
some
detail the
inside
of
the
detector
of which he could not possibly have had
any
knowledge.
Then,
without
going
near
any
of
the
equipment,
for
short
times he both
increased and
decreased
the
period of the
signal.
U r Arthur Hebard, who designed the
equipment,
and
who
suggested
that
Puthoff
bring
Swann
there,
tells
a
somewhat
different
story . He
dismisses
the
description
of
the
inside
of
the
detector
by
saying
that
Swann
was
Talking
in
such
poetic
terms
that
he
could
have
been
describing
nnvp'iim”
The
description
was
“dcabistc::;”
and
the
sort
oi
thing
any
poetic
layman
v.ould.
use
to
describe
any
piece
of
scientific
equipment.
On
the
perturbation
of
the
detector
output,
Hebard
made
two
interesting
comments.
First,
just
lh a_t_ sort
of
per-
^H,U
).iV5.0_ol t.cn occurs when otii’cF people
who
share
the
heliu
using
th
the recorder. Hebard
is convinced, how-
ever, that Swann did perturb the output
without
touching
the
recorder.
But
as
often happens,
his
version
of the
story
tells
more
than
he
realises.
He
said
that
there were
several
people
in
the
room
and
that
they
stood
talking
for
about 40 minutes. Swann, he said, stood
close
to
the
chart
recorder
looking
at
it
intently
for
minutes
before
any-
thing
happened.
Hebard
is
sure
that
Swann
did not
touch
the
recorder,
but
in a crowded room with people
talking,
who
can
concentrate
on
any
single
object for 20 minutes and be sure
it
is
not touched? Hebard also added a point
that
neither
Swann
nor
Puthoff
men-
tioned—they
came
back
the
next
day
.
with
fewer
people
around
and Swann
failed
to have any
effect.
One
also
has
the
comment
of Ray
Hyman—the
Oregon
University
psy-
chology
professor,
magician,
and
con-
firmed sceptic about psychic phenomena.
Hyman observed
a day
of SRI
tests on
•
Geller
in November 1972 and concluded
that “they
don’t know how
to
observe.
Targ
and
Puthoff
recounted
incidents
we
just saw
in
completely the reverse
order, making them
miracles”.
Finally,
there
are two problems
that
apply to
all
scientists, Targ and Puthoff
included.
First,
future
funding
clearly
depends on
success—there' is no
' money
available to prove that subjects of their
choice have no
psychic
ability.
Second,
the mystique of the hard-headed scientist
objectively
searching
for
truth
bears
little relationship
to
reality';' in the
real
world
of science most people are trying
to
prove
the
truth
of
a
hypothesis
to
which they are already committed. Tlius
it
is hardly surprising
to find that Targ
and
Puthoff
are
strongly committed
to
Geller and seem genuinely to believe
in
his
abilities
(although Targ seems more
cautious about
Geller’s metal bending).
Targ has worked
in the parapsychology
area
on
and
off
for
years.
Puthoff
has gone through encounter groups and
other West
Coast
fads,
and
is now
a
Scientologist
(as
is. Ingo
Swann).
In
an
area where
observation
is
difficult
anyway,
have
the
SRI
investigators
taken enough precautions to ensure that
their natural desire to see Geller succeed
does
not
cause them
to
unconsciously
make
errors
or
misinterpret
the
data
to
Geller’s
benefit?
Omitting a success
One
test
with
Geller
that
is
omitted
from the paper throws some interesting
light both on Geller ana the researchers.
Whereas
the
drawings
in
the
tele-
pathy
test
are
described
as
the
“entire
set
of consecutive
experiments”,
this
is
not
the
care
with
tna
clairvoyance
test
wnich
Geller
failed—his
attempt
to
draw the contents
of sealed
envelopes.
The
targets
were
drawn
by
an
SRr
artist
at
the
request
of
a
third
SRI
researcher who worked
with Targ
and
Puthoff for a short time
in August 1973.
;•
,
,.
-
-
— »—
As targ and Puthoff report
in the paper,
«ir A<ppPO>ved
P
iOFnSeltllase
i
e
as he wash
— — de
the
box}
containing the
die.
-
But
the
paper
does
not
report'
a’*
curious
incident
which
occurred
at
the’
end
of the
third day of the
test. AtVr
the formal
test had been abandoned,
it,‘
:
was
decided
to
loosen
the
precautions-
and
try
again
with
six
drawings.
This
time the drawings were
left lying about
the
room
so
that
it
was
possible
to
remove a drawing from the
pile without
'’
anyone
noticing,
and
Geller
was
per-
mitted
to leave
the room, which he did
three
times.
This
time,
Geller had
no
'
:
trouble
with
the
clairvoyance
test, and
-'
succeeded
in
drawing
one
of
the
pic-
tures. Commented
the
third
researcher:
“I’m convinced he cheated.”
If he could
do
this
test
under
loose
conditions but
not
under
tight
conditions,
is
this
not
worth a mention in the paper?
Looking in Uri’s mouth.
The
final
question
that
must
be
answered
is how
the SRI paper
stacks
up
against
Occam’s Razor—is
there
a
plausible
normal
method
by
which'
Geller could have done
his two success-,
ful
tests
at SRI?
Plausibility, is hard
to
define
in this situation, but
it must take
into account anything that can be done
with
the
assistance
of
Dr
Andrija
Puharich.
•
As
the box on
the
next page
shows,
Puharich
is a medical electronics expert
who
developed
a
radio
receiver
which
can be hidden in a
tooth.
It must there-
fore be considered plausible that Uri has
a miniature radio receiver concealed on
his
person. Even
if
it
is not
hidden
in
his
teeth,
it
could
easily be hidden Jn
his
hair or in
a
wristwatch
which
he
presses
against
his
chin
to
he 3 r.
The
possibilities
are
limitless,
especially
if
Uri
is
not
carefully
searched. Because
Uri
constantly runs
his
hands- through
his
hair
and
across
his
face,
no
one
would
notice him
listening
to
his
Dick
.-
Tracy
wrist
radio—nor, because
of the
direct
nerve
stimulation, would anyone
else hear
it.
-.,
There are two small pieces of evidence
that give some credence to
this sugges-
:
tion.
The
most
obvious
is
that
ail
of-
Uri’s
drawings
are
representations
of
;
words which would
describe
the
target
drawing,
and
thus
are
consistent
with
radio communication. Thesecond occurred
:
in
January when
Puharich was
telling
me
that
in
any
test
Uri
should
be-
“properly examined” for hidden devices.
But
then
he
suddenly
adaed:
“But
I
know
Uri
will
not
submit
to
excessive
examination like total body X-radiation”.
In other words, Uri will not permit the
only test for a Puharich implanted radio
receiver.
To some measure, SRI has
protected
2£mnst
rridio
transmission
bv
working
with
shielded
rooms
for
the
picture
drawing tests. But have they succeeded;
or
is
it
possible
to
penetrate
the room
to a radio?
To
answer
this
question,
I
consulted
Robert
. King,
a
senior
lecturer
at
Imperial
Coiiege,
London.
King
wrote
/tOO2© -3'
lkree
shielded
bhfS "irT flic
College's
lilectric.il Engin-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 1 0020-3
Aew Scientist
17 October 1974
.
.
v.
,
>
coring Department. King was dogmatic:
“I
could
get
information
into
any
shielded
room.
-
'
The
reason,
he
ex-
plained.
is
that
shielded
rooms
arc
simply
not
designed
to
protect
against
secretive
attempts
to
get
information
through.
The
SRI
paper
gives
only
vague
information on the room in
which' most
of the
tests were done
(SI
in the Table,
p 179)— it says only that
it
is “a double-
walled steel room, locked by means of an
inner and outer door”. The second room
(S2 in the Table, p 179) is a"double-wa!led,
coppcr-scrcen Faraday cage” which “pro-
vides
120
d.B
attenuation
for
plane
wave
radio
frequency
radiation
over
a
range of 15 KHz to
1 GHz. For magnetic
fields the attenuation
is 63 dB at
15 Kllz'
:''
and decreases to 3 dB at CO Hz.”
y,:'
King said that this is typical of screen-.:
ing for shielded rooms, and provides the
key
to
getting data
inside
in
this
case,
'
Attenuation
drops
off
very
rapidly
at
the
very
small
wavelengths
about
(
GHz,
lie
said,
so that microwaves of
10',:.
GHz or more provide
a good
possibility.
Hearing with a tooth
The dream
of
spy
writers,
a
radio
receiver
that
can
be
concealed
in
a
tooth,
actually
exists
and
was
in-
vented
by
Andriia Henry
Puharich
—the man who found Geller in Israel
and brought him
to the US. Puharich
:s
a
wealthy
55-year-old MD
who
holds 56 patents, primarily in medical
e:ectromcs.
Since
I960
his inventions
have related primarily to hearing aids
for people
with nerve deafness.
But
Puharich's
hearing
aid
is
a
unique
device
which
stimulates
cer-
tain
facial
nerves
just
as
the
organ
of
Cord
stimulates
auditor}’
nervps,
and
the
person
can
actually
hear
normally
without
using
his
or
her
ears at
all. The facial hearing system
will work
with
nerves
on
the
face
and neck, on the tongue, and
in the
sinuses.
Puharich
claims.
But
for
cosmetic
reasons,
the
nerves
in
a
living
tooth
are
best.
“The
invention
comprises
an
element
applied
to
a
viable
tooth,
for
receiving
electromagnetic
signals
at radio frequency, and a transducer
element
coupled
with
a
receiving
element and with
live nerve endings
of
the
tooth
for
converting
the
electromagnetic
signals
to
electric
signals
at
audio
frequency,
and
im-
parting
the
electrical*
signals
to
the
nerve endings
of the tooth for trans-
mission
to
the
brain,”
according
to
US Patent 2 995 635 issued 8 August,
1961.
Go’s rn-i-c
Normally,
the user would
carry
a
small transmitter in
his pocket which
would
pick
up
sounds
and
transmit
them
to the
tooth. But Puharich and
co-inventor
Joseph
Lawrence
noted
in
US
Patent
3 2G7 931,
issued
August,
1966,
that
the
device “may,
of
course,
be
adapted
for
longer
range transmission of radio frequency
.
signals”.
Although
the
device
will
receive
radio
signals
directly,
it
works
best
.with
an
amplifier.
In
the
initial
patent,
this
amplifier
is
relatively
large,
concealed
in
two
false
teeth
next
to
the
viable
one
with
the
implant
(Figure
2).
But
by
1964,
Figure
Puharich tooth radio receiver.
S. ore's are received by the gold filing,
converted tc electric signals in the audio
<•ee.er.cy range bv the rectifier crystal,
c'.c imparted c
recti;, tc the nerve
eoc
r go of the
|;,.e tc-c’h. Orawirui from
us p e
Approved For Release
Figure 2
Signals can be transmitted
front a radio to a receiver/amplifier
hidden in two false teeth, and then
passed on to an adjoining viable tooth
as in Figure 1. Drawing from US Patent
2 995 063
Puharich had modified
the
amplifier
circuitry
(US
Patent
3 156 787)
to
be
mounted
on
the
one
tooth. The
drawing
(Figure
.
3)
“is
greatly
exaggerated
in
size
to
facilitate
description.
.
.
. The
entire assembly
.
.
. advantageously
is
of
wafer-thin
construction, so as to be unobtrusively
concealed
with
the
cap. ...
It
is
contemplated
that
the
various
com-
ponents
of
the system
of
the
inven-
tion
may
be
further
reduced,
to
micro-miniature
proportions,
through
the use of so-called
‘thin
film’
circuit
r a o :
: ct 1 1 c n
f c c“ r. lfp; c 3
.
The
amplifiers itn
in
the
1964 and
I960
patents
is
provided
by
a
feed-
back
loop
within
the
mouth,
using
either two
different
teeth
(Figure 4
from the I960 patent)
or
the. tongue
pressed
against an
exposed terminal
on
the.
hack
of
the
tooth
(left
of.
2000/0a/Q7.d ClAkF
Figure 3
By 1964, Puharich had
improved the amplifier so that
it could
be mounted on the back of the Icoth.
In this drawing, the amplifier "is greatly
exaggerated in size to facilitate
description” and would, in fact, be
hidden unde,- the tooth cap. The
amplifier has a terminal on the left
which must be touched with the tongue
to complete the circuit. Drawing
.
from US Patent 3 156 787
has
the
interesting
side
eiTect
that
amplification
only
works
when
the
tongue
is pressed
against
the
tooth,
and thus the wearer can listen
selec-
tively
and
he
undisturbed
by
radio
signals
at other times.
In
another
version
of
the
device,
described
in
the
1966
patent,
an
electrode “about the
size
of
a penny
which
is
covered
on
its
operative
surface
with
a
thin
film
of
Mylar”
could he pressed against the
skin
in
“one
of
several
identifiable
areas
of
the
head
and
neck”
to
stimulate
facial nerves
and produce
the
same
effect
of
hearing.
The
electrode
is
connected
to
a
receiver
similar
to
the
one mounted
in
the
tooth.
The'
feedback
circuit
is
completed
by
a
connection to any point on the body.
For
example,
a
quite
small
device
held
in
the
hand
could
he
pressed
against
the
face.
Figure 4
Ar, ailcrnntive amplifier
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00070011 002^-3
17 0clober 1974
Geller performs at Birkfaeck
Uri
Geller
has worked
with
one
group
of
scientists
in
Britain. On
21 and 22 June,
1974, he
did
a
set
of
tests
in the office of Professor John Hasted at Birkbeck College,
London
University.
Also
present were
Professor
David'
Bohm, Dr Ted Bastin
(a friend of Andrija Fuharich and
a
strong
Geller
supporter,
who
first
introduced
Uri
to
New Scientist
in 1972), Brendon O'Rcgan (another Geller
proponent who
wrote
the
first New
Scientist
report
on
Geller
at
SRI),
theoretical
physicist
Dr
Jack
Sarfatt,
authors Arthur Koestler and Arthur C. Clarke, and several
other people.
Ia
an
unpublished
paper, Hasted
reports
that
Geller
bent
four keys and
a
era molybdenum
disc 0-32 nun
thick
affected a Geiger counter, and deflected
a compass
needle while
at
the same
time producing
a
pulse
on
a
magnetometer. Hasted concludes
that “these observations
are
consistent
with
the
hypothesis
that Mr
Geller could
by
concentration
produce
occasional
and
rather
un-
predictable pulses
of electromotive
force”.
As usual, they are also consistent with non-paranormal
e.vp.anations.
Indeed,
the
whole
set
of
tests
seems
no
better
controlled
than
the
typical Geller show.
Ia
a
telephone
interview
last
month,
Bohni
told me
that
t> unfortunately
there
were
a
lot
of people
in
the
roo:?
j
3114
"as
^ar as
t ^le
bending
is concerned
wehad much
better
conditions
in
his
hotel
room
[in
rebruary
19/4]
where
it was much
quieter”.
I can t
assure
that
there were no
tricks,
arid no one
there could,
. Bohm added. “Geller works
in
a very high
Siate
of excitement
which
communicates
to
the
experi-
menters, and
that makes
it hard
to keep your mind on
v*’hai
is happening.”
.according
to the Hasted paper, Geller bent four brass
ime Keys througn
angles
of between
i0°
and 40°
“In
all cases the bending took a time of the order of minutes
to
complete,” Hasted
noted. With
that much
time
any
good magician could have bent the keys no matter how
closely
the
observers
thought
they
were watching—with
the chaos
that must have reigned
in the
office,
it' should
have been
trivially
easy.
The bent disc was one of ten metal objects. “Mr Geller
was not asked
specifically
to bend
this specimen
rather
than °!>^ on the
toblje”. As
I noted
in the box on pare
ISO, SRI observed a similar event and even videotaoed
it
yet they rejected
it because
of the
possibility
of
s'leraht-
of-hand.
The
Geiger
counter
was
connected
to
an
amplifier
and a chart iccorder, and “during a
total period of about
10 minutes
eight
pulses
of
duration
of
the
ord-r
o c
i
second
were
recorded.
.
.
.
However,
the
loudspeaker
clicking, which was recorded
on magnetic
tape
did not
always
accelerate
during the
chart recorded
pulses
nor
did
a
second
Geiger counter
record
dick
consistently”
To me,
this
is more
consistent
with
Uri
or
one
of
his*
supporters bumping
the
chart
recorder or
fiddlin'*
with
a knob on the amplifier than with any paranormal^event.
As for deflecting the comnass needle, the best comment
is
that made in the SRI
film
of
Geller: “we found
lat»r
that
these
types
of
[compass
needle]
deflections
could
be produced by
a small piece
of metal,
so
small
in
fact
that they could not be detected by a magnetometer”.
Bohm stresses that to perform, Uri must be in the right
state of mind. “My attitude
is that whatever he requires
we must
accept.” For example,
“considering the
sort
of
person
Geller
is, you
couldn’t search him—it would put
him
off”.
.
y
Bohm also noted that Geller “tends
to get discouraged
- by complicated
set-ups. We had some set-ups that would
have given stronger proof, but he was never in the right
state of mind”.
iklicrowaves
have
one
important
prop-
erty:
they are
reflected by metal. Thus,
microwaves
are
often
used
with
wave-
guides
long
metal
boxes
which
will
carry
the microwaves
virtually
without
loss
around
tortuous
routes.
The
air
conditioning
system
probably
used
in
SRI buildings would make an
especially
good
waveguide—a
transmitter
placed
anywhere in
the
air conditioning would
transmit
to
all linked
offices. Naturally,
air conditioning ducts entering a shielded
room have
special
baffles
to
screen out
radio, waves—but
these
are
highly
in-
effective
in
the
microwave
range".
On
the other hand, microwave transmitting
equipment
can
be
miniaturised
and
draw
very
little
power. A
microwave
transmitter for this sort of purpose need
be no Digger than
a cigarette pack. And
. even
though
Puharich
in
his
patents
talks
about
his
tooth
receiver working
in the MHz range,
it should work just as
well in the GIIz range. In the configura-
ti°n
where
the
tongue
is
part
of
the
amplmsr.
Geller would even be able
to
turn
it
on and
off
at
will, and
thus not
be affected by possible continuing trans-
missions.
How
would
such
a
radio
be
used?
Perhaps
the
simplest way would
be
to
use
it
to
bug
the
room
in
which
the
target
picture was
being
viewed.
Targ
and
Puthoff
were
so
anxious
to
nlcas*-
Ln
that
they ApipfOVedaForoRfite.
with
a
request fYorn Uri
to describe the
..V
V'V ; j
Y-*
X
\.V
• X'Z
*
\
v X' Vf.Kvs*
j
f-—
loaf.
picture
out
loud
after
they
drew
it
after
all, as they say in their paper, the
shu-ided room provided
"acoustic
isola-
tion".
Another
choice
would
involve
Shipi
Strang,
Uri's
inseparable
companion.
According
to Pnharich
in
his book
Uri,
Geller
first met Shipi
in
19G7 when
Uri'
was serving as a counsellor at a summer
jUi
. li'Jji,
illlU
UllU
Ui
illS
Hannah, and
Ui'i and Shipi soon became
constant companions.
It was
Shipi who
first convinced Uri to perform, accordin'*
to Puharich. And Shipi went with Uri
to
the US. Although Targ and
Puthoff do
not
mention
it
at
all
in
their
paper,
Shipi was
constantly under
foot during
the tests—at least sometimes accompany-
ing
the
experimenters
during
actual
experiments,
Shipi
could
easily
have
signalled Uri
in code with a transmitter
hidden
in
his
pocket,
for example. The
SRI paper
also notes that
“ the picture
was drawn and brought near the shielded
room” which
suggests that
Shipi might
have had other chances to see
it as well.
In
the chaos
of the computer room
for
tests
to
13, Shipi would hardly have
been noticed while the picture was being
decided
on
and
drawn. The
SRI
data
shows
some
support
for
this
sort
of
hypothesis—when
the
drawings
were
under
the
control
of
an
outsider who
would be less likely to accede to Gelier’s
requests and the presence
oF Shipi
Uri
failed
(Trials
5.
C, and
7).
Even
if
this
particular technique
will
not work,
Puharich
could
surely
find
a
simple
way.
Four
other
possibilities
came
to mind
in
discussions
with King:
1)
Higher
frequency
microwaves
would pass through
the
cracks between
B,c
,
steel
plates
and
around
the
door.
Indeed,
King
notes
Hint
ilie
space
RQO07OO1
t1OD2O ,13
lli ' (1
provide
a
particularly
good
waveguide.
With
a
transmitter
anywhere
in
the
room
..New. if gen'
Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10020-3
if Ctrl r*
7 J
,1
r
t r
• *
-
'
.
"
directly
outside
the
shielded
room,
signals would penetrate
in
this way.
.
2)
To
get
electricity
into,
a
shielded
room
(for lights) without any radio tran-
sients,
the normal procedure
is
to
put
a
steel
plate
(usually
the
room
wall)
between two sides of a transformer. The
60 Hz magnetic field penetrates, whereas
radio fields would not
(this
is supported
by
the
fact
that
the
copper
screened
room
shows
only
a
5 dB
loss
to
mag-
netic
fields
at
Hz). Therefore,
King
suggests
low* frequency magnetic induc-
tion^ transmission
of
data.
Frequencies
of
5-10 Hz should
pass through
double
steel plates
_ without unacceptable
losses.
The transmitter
coil could be concealed
in
a
briefcase
left
sitting
next
to
the
wall of the shielded room.
Geller would
have a coil of wire (for an aerial) under
his
belt
or
even
hidden
behind
his
teem, and would stand close to the inner
wall.
During
a
minutes
test,
large
amounts
of information could be
trans-
mitted by simple code.
3)
If SRI
has
not
properly
shielded
the mains
current
supply
to
the
room,
it
would
be
possible
to
send
radio
signals along the mains (just this system
is
used
for
internal
radio
svstems
in
universities,
hospitals,
and
the
like),
ibis
could be
done
with
a
transmitter
smaller than
a
cigarette
pack plugged
into
any
outlet
in
the
building.
Geller
*
would
simply
touch
an
electric
wire
inside the cage and
his body would
act
as an aerial for the tooth radio.
4)
. There,
is
an
intercom
connecting
the mside of the cage with the outside.
This could be like a telephone and have
a
filter
to
cut
out
everything
above
KHz. But
if
it does
not,
it too could be
used to carry- radio signals into the room
with the transmitter simply' clipped onto
the communications wire*
The preceding discussion
applies
only
to. the extremely difficult problem of the
shic-.ded room. The other successful test
t,uessmg the
die—can be much more
easily solved by radio. Mr Hubert Caddy
m
the
International
Magic
Studio,
London,
tells me that for several
y-ear
it
has been
possible
to buy
a
dice
for
cuout £30 which radios which face
is up!
It would not have been too
difficult for
Ln to have given SRI
a. normal die that
looked like the radio
die,
let them mark
t-.e normal die as they wanted, ana then
simply mark the radio
die
in
the same
way and switch.
Naturally,
this
all
depends
on
the
cooperation
of Puharich in perpetrating
fraud. M by. would he do so? In his book
Ln
Pufcanch
reports
that
ex-tra-terres-
tpal powers
called Hoova speak to him
tnrouga a voice called Spectra, and have
^.
? e
T
£
.0
., for
lon «er than he has known
Ln. Uns power, he
says, comes from
toova.
io have any hope of having this
report
accepted,
Puharich
needs
Uri’s
success.
If
Uri
cam?
to
Puhrrich
r-'l
ij5,
1 m
OtVjj
VOL!
year now and never once have
I cheated
cm
Now*
they
are
asking me
to
do
tmngs
I may not always be
able
to
do,
tut
if
I
fail
no
one
will
believe
in
Hoo-,a.
h on
are
a
great
inventor—give
if
Uri’s
request
came
via
Spectra,
Puharich would be sure
to
obey.
Thus,
Puharich need not be a party
to a wide-
spread
and
continuing
fraud
to
have
helped Uri
in
this way.
.
have no proof
that
Uri
did
do
his
drawings
in
this
way.
But
it
fits
the
data at least as well as the Targ-PuthofF
paranormal
explanation.
Dy
Occam’s
Razor
it
is only necessary
to show
that
plausible normal
explanations have not
been
excluded.
To
be
sure,
by-
what
might be
considered
a reverse Occam’s
Razor,
it must
also be shown
that
the
route
to
the normal
explanation
is not
more
complex
than
simply
accepting
the paranormal. But Puharich takes the
plausible
virtually
into
the
realm
of
science fiction.
Conclusion
The
ultimate
test
of
any
scientific
research,
including
the
SRI work
with
Uri,
is
the
ability
of other scientists
to
independently reproduce the
results. As
Uri himself said on
a Thames TV docu-
mentary
on
15 January:
“When
I am
doing
enough
experiments
with
scien-
tists,
the
disbelief
will
drop
off.”
But
there
is
a
real
danger
this
will
not
..happen—that
Uri
will
consider
the
publication
of
the SRI paper
to be
all
the
scientific
validation
he
needs.
Uri
has backed out on a written commitment
to
work
with
the New
Scientist. He
backed
out on
a
verbal commitment to
work
wkk
the
Maimonides
Medical
Centre
Division
of Parapsychology and
Paraphysics
in
Brooklyn/ New
York.
(The Maimonides team
is highly sympa-
165.
:
:
thetic
to
Geller,
but
it
did
call
in
magician
Janies
Kandi
to
help
set
the
•
experimental
conditions.) And
Mitchell
told
me
that
Geller
“broke
several
engagements’’
at SRI
and
that
he
did
not seem
to want to do any more
there'
even
though
“we’ve
got funding
for
it
if he
will work under conditions
accep-
table
to
us.”
Uri,
it
seems,
will work
only
with
scientists
such
as
those
at
i
Birkbeck
who
seem
loth
to
set
any
conditions
at
all.
Thus,
it
appears
that the paper pub-
hshed
this week may be the
closest
to
Imrd scientific evidence we will
get, and
/
it must
be unusually' closely scrutinised.
It seems clear that no matter how good
they
are
as
laser
physicists,
Russell
Targ and Dr Hal Puthoff are no match
for
Uri
Geller.
There
is
too
much
evidence that they missed out on impor-
tant
points. And
their experiments
fail
the
Occam s
Razor
test—they
did
not
exclude non-paranormal forms
of
infor-
mation transfer that, based on Puharich ’s-
background,
must be
considered
highly
possible.
I do not question the integrity
of the
'
SRI
researchers.
But
science
is
filled
.
,
with
examples
of
scientists—often
in
•
large numbers—seeing what
thev want
:
to see rather than what
is there. ’Canals
.
on
Mars,
polywatcr, and
the supposed
double mass peak of the A, particle are
just three
examples.
Several
magicians
;
have
told me
that
scientists
are
good
audiences
because
they
are
so
easily
.
fooled. My
investigations
of the
Geller
phenomenon support this. The SRI paper
simply
does
not
stand up
against
the
mass
of
circumstantial
evidence
that
Uri Geller
is simply a good magician.
-s-*^
pr
•
T-
i
<
' < \
i
:
‘
"v
i
' •'
V, /
•
r
'.f -*
i
;
>•
V
/
••
'IS
;
.* /
V
-j
.
t
. ^
—
r
.
-y?
V. “X._
*
.
x ° u
are
a
great inventor—give
" “
trifi
ii;
tease 2006/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00070011
often
bearing the
vo’ice
of Spectra, mM
[
‘
-t-
?
li
-• -ifj? -rt
a y