en era aa ene Ce A professional magician, Rolf Mayr, drew our attention to. a 33-year-old Swiss designer, Silvio, (he wanted to hide his studies of this that i have scen, Eval teitiase eee . skeptic, but he admits that “Girard is. quite the best | have ever only Approved For ReleHee 200 /03107 °sC1A-ROPER AAT HPROERBRABOT-S € is performance. In a most welcome collaboration with this . nagician we started an investigation of Silvio’s metal-bending abilities with the intention of documenting his performances by filras and videotapes. We brought along a professional camera- man and provided spoons and forks that we had examined and marked. Our first success came in December 1974. Silvio held the abject between his index finger and thumb at its thinnest part; from time to time he held the thumb of his left hand over the fingers of his right hand. Without the spoon’s being rubbed, the scoop of the spoon bent with a bending radius of over 70 degrees. In this first sitting, Silvio bent five spoons, breaking. two of them; he also bent a massive fork in an upward direction, as had intended. We feel that our collaboration with the professional ma- gician is a very favorable condition for obtaining results which ought to convince even professional skeptics. We hope that the secular controversy between parapsychologists and magicians can one day be transformed into the kind of cooperation we are achieving in our Berne experiments. (148) ° Data with Geller as subject and magicians as experimenters are documented. Arthur Zorka of the Occult Investigations Committee of the Atlanta Society of Magicians reports: The tesis took place in a room which contained no mirrors, no windows, and one door, by which we entered. The door was locked behind us. Mr. Dickson (also a member of the com- mittee), Mr. Geller, and I sat facing each other. No one else was present or in the near vicinity of the testing area. es The first test involved Uri Geller’s attempt to bend a fork # thich t provided. The fork was made of forged steel, with a “nylon reinforced handle. | specifically selected this fork be- cause of its extreme resistance to physical stress. | placed the. fork into Mr. Geller’s outstretched left hand. His fingers curled around it, and in moments, without the fork leaving my sight for even an instant, it literally exploded, sending fragments of the handle across the room. (149) Magician Leo Leslie reports: After his-demonstration of telepathy Geller tried psycho- kinesis. A nickel-plated, enameled key was given to Geller. He asked the journalist who.was present to hold the key between two fingers. Geller then rubbed ita couple of times, very lightly, with his forefinger. “I can’t do it,” he suddenly said. ‘‘You have done something to this key. | cannot get in contact with the metal.” | immediately suspected that Geller probably uses a chemical to soften metal, and that with the coating on the key he felt defeated. | took the key from the journalist and studied it closely. But while { sat looking at the key the enamal suddenly started to crack, and a second later strips of the nickel plating curled up like small banana peels, while the key actually started to bend in my hand. (150) There are critics who are beginning to look more favorably at some of the PKMB research. Concerning Jean-Pierre Girard and his investigator C. Crussard, Joseph Hanlon wrote: Crussard involved a magician at an early stage—the French illusionist Ranky has issued a public statement saying: that in the tests he watched, he could not see how Girard could have used tricks. And his involvement more recently of Randi, .. probably the best spoon-bender in the magic business, con- tinues to show that these experiments are on a much higher level. Chris Evans commented: "I was impressed by their Experiments with people are very hard to do and require years of skill and patience. It does not help, then, that most parascientists are physical scientists with little or no behavior- ‘al science background. Their initial tests are often laughably sloppy. They think, for example, that if they crowd enough observers into a room then everything will be OK, when Geller proved it much easier to cheat in those circumstances. Yet, the past four years have seen a major improvement in experimental techniques; one-way glass, tight controis of materials, and even controls of the experimenters. And we have seen recently the archest of sceptics agree with one of the strongest proponents on protocol. We seem to be rapidly approaching a definition of the dragons to be slain. Sadly, as conditions get tighter, the phenomena seem to disappear. But if parascience has so far produced precious little; neither has the much better funded cancer research. And there is a curious similarity between the faetrile and para- science controversies—both rest on anecdotal data that do not stand up to traditional scientific scrutiny. Could it be that our science is wrong—that some things are only amenable to uncheckable. personal report? To accept that would be as revolutionary to science as the Protestant reformation was to Rome or the inevitable socialist revolution to Britain. Clearly a lot of people think that such as overthrow of science is called for. But if they do, then there is little point in, at the same time, trying to enter the inner circle of institutional science. (153) This brings us back to a phenomenon observed in the data on PKMB. It seems as though certain kinds of controls can be inhibitory to the manifestation of PKMB effects and parapsy- chologists have gone as far as labelling-it “the shyness effect.” The team of Hasted, Bohm, Bastin and O'Regan addressed this topic well in their NATURE paper: We have come to realize that in this domain the experi- mental situation is different in certain crucial ways from that which has been common in scientific experimentation. This is because the phenomena under investigation have to be pro- duced from the minds of one or more of those who participate. Relationships among the participants therefore play a much more essential role than is usual in traditional scientific fields. One of the first things that reveals itself as one observes is that psycholkinetic phenomena cannot in general be produced unless all who participate are in a relaxed state. A state o! tension, fear, hostility, on the part of any of those present generally communicates itself.to the whole group. The entire process goes most easily when all those present actively want things to work well. In addition, matters seem to de greatly facilitated when the experimental arrangement is aesthetically or imaginatively appealing to the person with apparent psycho- kinetic powers. We have found also that it is generally difficult to produce a predetermined set of phenomena. Although this may some- times be done, what happens is often surprising and unex: ‘pected. We have observed that the, alempt to cancentrate strongly in order to obtain a desired result (the bending of ¢ piece of metal, for example) tends to interfere with the relaxec state of mind needed to produce such phenomena. Thus, if any of those who participate ina physica! experi ment are tense and hostile, and do not really want the experiment to work, the chances of success are greatly dimin hon eha ved EN Helga 2009 /05107:.GiA-RDPSeeo7BaROOZ0001300T1.8" experimental setuy manner-—quite different from any other so-called scientific - often helps to maintain interest and enthusiasm, whereas at \ :
t attitude that consistently tends to damp these latter ts evidently detrimental to the whole enterprise. In the study-of psycho- ENCIGen ally, YOUN UTE SHdbes & Cid dUUCTISUN HECtiH -with everybody who claims to exercise occult powers, whic " ABHEVEH GL RElGaMe 20g TONIOY CI ATRD P96 HIZB BQO SQUAT EO Bne un ine pnt wor produces these phenomena is not an instrument ora machine. Any attempt to treat him as such will almost certainly lead to failure. Rather, as-indicated earlier, he must be cansidered to be one of the group, actively cooperating in the experiment, and nota ‘subject’ whose behaviour is to be observed ‘from the _ outside’ in as cold and impersonal manner as possible. And concerning the involvement of magicians they continue; - It has been our observation, however, that magicians are often hostile to the whole purpose of this sort of investigation, so that they tend to bring about an atmosphere of tension in which little or nothing can be done. (154) ‘This factor of experimental conditions is also noted by Joseph Hanlon: . --One of the potential difficulties. of parapsychological investigation is the sensitivity of the whole phenomenon, and the inability of even “good’’ subjects to perform ander many: seemingly reasonable, controlled conditions. If one accepts the existence of parapsychological abilities, this is not surprising. One would, presumably, be dealing with_a talent like musical ability, and it would be not unreasonable ‘to find a skilled violinist, for example, being adversely influenced by playing before a group of people he knew to be hostile critics. Also, because we are dealing with “mental energies”, .it is not unreasonable to suppose that a confirmed critic could use his psychological powers to block those of the sensitive. Thus, the phenomenon will require somewhat different procedures than other forms of research. Some concessions will have to be made to keep the subject happy and com- fortable, for example. (155) ; Indeed, it is clearto see that setting up experimental controls «without reference to this fact may lead toa lack of positive results. It is perhaps clearer to see the point if one makes analogy to intuitve or non-rational psychological functions such as ro- mance, “Psychic powers, too, tend to emerge spontaneously, if at all, so that it has been about as much use asking a man to exhibit them ina laboratory as it would to ask him to fall in love at first sight with the lab. assistant.” (156) . 1.do not defend or deny ESP or other parapsychic phe- nomena. ! offer an analogy. In the past | have written some poems of quite good quality. Whole poems or the major part of them have seemed to be deliverances of a subconscious region of the mind. They came spontaneously as though they wrote themselves. A skeptic could say: “This is nonsense. | cannot believe it unless Hoffmann writes a genuine poem under carefully con- trolled conditions.” Under such conditions | would be seated under observa- tion by psychologists. Instruments would be fastened to me to i record blood pressure, cephalic electric waves, cardiographic [ pulsations, and maybe other recordings. Then | would be told: i “We are realy now. Write a poem.” Under such conditions | would not be able to write any- thing but some exasperated cusswords. Consequently | would have been proved a fake and a fraud. (157) ' TV THE DEEPER ISSUES 4 ii) PKAAB IN PERSPECTIVE When the phenomenon of PKMB is considered in terms of practical relevance, aside irom philosophical implications for the never do more than extract small talk from his contacts in Greai Beyond. ‘‘Tell Aunt Edie to be sure to wear her we vests in this cold weather,”” and so on. Uri fiddles around s cutlery and trinkets and the rest. As a good Israeli he ought t out there by the canal twisting the barrels of the Arab gun that they fire backwards. (178) In a letter to NEW SCIENTIST we have: Sir,—When he heard that Uri Geller’s accomplishm were to be examined by a panel selected by NEW SCIENT John Wade, a distinguished member of the inner council of Magicians’ Circle said to me: ‘What a number of us would to know is not how Geller bends forks and keys and things, why?” (179) Author John White makes an apparent point: ~ His psychic functioning has so far not been put to ber -ciat use for-humans, Uri has not, to my knowledge, he: anyone or relieved human suffering. He hasn’t used his ability to straighten bent forks. (After all, who needs bent fo (180) He has perhaps suggested a possibility. Perhaps if abilities are useable, they may be useful on biological syste Psychic healing is also a considered possibility in parapsy: logy. : Looking back over the data and the controversy, we | voluminous evidence suggesting the validity of PKMB, we seem to have equally voluminous evidence denying it. 4 parapsychologists feel that the data is at least leaning in fav PKMB. John Beloff and Charles Tart who are well-respected ir field comment respectively: Let us start with the question that must be asked of e paranormal claim, namely, the question of authenticity. Tc reviewer, at least, the Geller case has long since passec point where it is sensible to doubt that Gelier posse ‘paranormal powers except, that is, in the purely theore sense in which al! psi phenomena are open to doubt. If ask justify such a statement, my first impulse would be to repl) no one in the world could be that clever! However, | re. that this intuitive judgment is scarely going to satisfy skeptics. [he case for regarding the specific ‘Geller effect authentic (i.e., the paranormal bending of metal objects) st me as even more indisputable if only because here there a many independent witnésses. (181) Whether Geller is “pure,” as some believe, or wheth: uses conjuring sometimes but occasionally shows parano abilities, as many parapsychologists now believe, is of consequence. More than 500 methodologically tight, ex mental studies that show various paranormai effects alr exist, none of them depends on the ability of Geller, wl probably only a passing fad. The known physical laws indeed appear to bend s: times and the implications of such paranormal effects fa understanding of ourselves and the universe may be enor Geller has drawn enough attention to the paranormal t some very bright scientists interested. Uf it takes key spoon-bending to get us started on a large-scale scie investigation of the paranormal, the career of Uri Geller have served a useful purpose. (162) What is more interesting however, is that a few of the c pardipprovedRonRetéase 2001/03/07" 7 OlAARDPS6£C07T88ROOZ0N04GO01 TsBvorthy of study. Jo have viewed this whole affair in a refreshingly lighthearted way: Hanlon, who remains skeptical of PKMB, still has written: 40 *
eel strongly that the rem science may well.come not from expensive research by huge - -tcamA pproveddhob Release 2004/08/07'4-01A-RDP96:00TE8ROC20004 BOOP xG ductive, and anti- . and small teams into the interaction of people and themselves »- and their surroundings. . Through biofeedback, we now have. control over our ~ badies of a sort that not so long ago was almost universally agreed to be impossible. Negative ions in the air seem of.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. (183) And sober critic Ray Hyman has written of the paranormal: Parapsychologists are doing much more sophisticated research than many critics and indifferent scientists realize; and if nonparapsychologists took the time to read the current parapsychological journals, most of them would discover that the field contains a solid core of. dedicated, serious, and competent experimenters. Furthermore, it is difficult to read through this literature without coming to-the conclusion that “something” is there. (184) , Perhaps the best stance one can take towards the issue of PKMB and its controversy is at least one that is not closed. Editorials in two of the most distinguished scientific journals have encouraged openness to the field, and perhaps it isithe safest stance. In NATURE is printed: LO, The parasciences may not yet have unearthed much for which there is a cast-iron case for scientific explanation, but there is ample material crying out for verification, and: the _ lessons learned over the last few years should have improved techniques and procedures for getting to the heart of the . deception/reality question. Now, surely, is thetime for scientists n large numbers to take a more practical interest in these “obstinate issues. If we fat! to do so, parascience will recede further into the mystic’s world and will take with it much of the public’s sympathy. Investigation in the para-world is neither easy nor always agreeable. Public interest, however, dernands, rightly or wrongly, that scientists come to grips with the propositions being made. And if scientists won't come in-with rational attitudes and, where necessary, rational explanations, they can hardly be surprised if the forces of irrationalism take over. (185) And in NEW SCIENTIST we have: _ The temptation is always to be negative, to dismiss bizarre notions as impossible and unexamined evidence as inade- _quate. And researchers who have once invested valued time in a fruitless pursuit of bent cutlery or empathetic tomatoes can become even mare haughty than. those who have never been ’ blooded in these woolly areas. Patience and persistence form a better stance. Science must remain apen to strange possibilities, even when they come from. the most unlikely quarters. Scientists must remain cool, and committed to determined proselytising on behalf of Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : .CIA- RDP96- 00788R002000130011. s 61 tion and sloppiness are vital in examining heterodoxy. impat- pathetic to the spirit of science. (186) IV. DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. We must consider how best to proceed further. Perhaps continued validation of PKMB is not the most productive. Speak- ing to the pro/con controversy Author Hastings writes: These two pusitions have given rise to a controversy with attacks, charges, and countercharges. The issue is the nature of Geller’s abilities. 1s he a trickster using magic?.Is he a genuine psychic? {s he a person with some real psychic ability and wha also uses deception when he wishes or has to? i think it will prove better not to draw any of those conclusions, or any conclusions at all on that level. It is too late for that. The argument over Geller has become a Gordian knot, in a rope that we do not need. (187) Parapsychologists Ted Bastin and Charles Honorton have offered us what may be the optimium approach to PKMB. Bastin writes: t think that, at the present montent, it is a good thing for at least some investigators of the paranormal, with material naw coming to hand in an unprecedented volume, to aim to get information about the regularities and shapes that are discern- ible in the material, rather than endlessly to repeat proofs of their existence. One important way to demonstrate the exist- ence of a field is to map it out. (188) Honorton writes: : There are those who believe that satisfactory explanation of the anomalies studied in parapsychology will require major modifications in scientific theory. This is debatable. What is not debatable is that the anomalies will remain anomalaus so long as attention is maintained on ‘‘conclusive proof’ of the claims of flamboyant psychic superstars, rather than the systematic delineation of positive attributes and necessary conditions for the phenomena in less spectacular but more cooperative subjects. (189) However, this reviewer has preferred this eloquent express- jon by a philosopher: Research into the paranormal is hogged down. in the boring question of whether it exists to the exclusion of the question of what it is. Neither does this remark prejudge the former question, for if it does not exist then it will prove impossible to say what it is and we answer the boring questior by our failure to answer the interesting one. This | submit is z better method. (190) - c MR. SAT BIR SINGH KHALSA, graduate student in neurophysivlogy at the Uni versity of Toronto who at my request in 1976 became involved in the meticulous an time consuming task of further reviewing the diverse literature ua this topic. Hi tireless dedication to this difficult project has provided much vatuable informatio: and he has gained my deep respect. i