e: aes sos . "Ket ‘ScentisApptowed For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110020-3 they hed an §50000 grant from NASA (National Acronautics and Space Ad- nunistration), apparently relating to Yerg’s ESP teaching machine. But they remain chronically short of money. — Funding for the Geller work has come primarily from wealthy individuals— particutariy from Judith Skutch, a weal- thy Geller supporter in New York, and Dr Edgar Stckell. Ex-astronaut Mitchell coaducted an unauthorised ESP experi- ment in space in February 1971 and two years ago set up his Institute of Noetic Sciences in Palo Alto to encourage psychic research. Geller has been to SRI several times over an 18-month period beginning in Novernber 1972. Mitchell and another Geller supporter, Dr Wilbur Franklin of Kent State University, assisted in the first series of testis. The clairvoyance experiment with a die reported in the SRI paper, published this week in Nature (vol 251, p 602), comes from this set of tests. (Capies of the 15 October issue of Nature are available for 45p from MacmMan Journals, 4 Little Essex Street, Loncen WC2.) The paper The SRI paper reports on three tests with Geller, as well as several tests with other subjects. In the first in August 1975, Uri was asked to reproduce target pictures drawn by experimenters at other locations. “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, acousti- cally, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at the target locatien. Only following Geller’s isola- ‘don from the enperimenters was a terget chosen and drawn, a procedure cesigned to eliminate pre-experiment cueing. Furthermore, to eliminate the possibiity of pre-experiment target forcing. Geller was kept ignorant as to the iéentitw of the person selecting the target and 4s to the method of target selection,’ Terg and Puthoff report in the paper. Altegether. 13 trials were conducted (see Table}. For virtually every trial, the conditions: were changed—often several conGitions were changed at the saime time—so that it is difficult to correlete his successes and failures with cifferent conditions. In feur cases (1-4) the targets were chosen by putting an index card into 2 dictionary io pick a pege, then open- ing it and drawing the first word on the upper Jert that ‘could be drawn”. Three tergets (8-16) were chosen from = an zireacy prepared tarye: pocl Three (5-7) were ‘tergets “ou i éentiv by SMT scientists outsice the experimental group following Gelier’s isglation’--Geller declined to attemot zeny of these threc. Fically, three targets (11-15; were chosen by computer leboretory personnel and drawn on a a 7h all cases sormmecne knew what the draw- ing was. In three cases, however (5, 12, Corns) Geller picture drawing test at SRI Trial ~~ Geller. Target Target _ Outcome ; location location . ’ : Picture from dictionary . wets ‘A Sts. of. AL Firecracker poor 2. S1 : AU Grapes “ " y  good 3 S1 B ; . Devil en poor | 4 cS Solar system ; good Picture prepared by outsider : Cc S1 ' Rabbit . . pass Si A. Tree "pass Si A Envelope pass Picture chosen from target pool : 8 St ; D Camel - . good. 9 Si A Bridge ; fair 10 $1 A Seagull good Picture drawn on computer crt . 11 $2 E Kite good 12 S82 E Church : poor 13 $2 E Arrow through heart fair Locations: - 7 S1: double walled steel room $2: double walled copper screen Faraday cage A: adjacent room 4-1 m from S1 , : office 475 mfrom Si. : room just outside Si :room 6-75 m from S14 mond ® : computer room 54 m from S2 Qutcomes: Pass means Geller did not do a drawing. Other evaluations are by the author (JH) based on drawings published with the Nature paper. In general, the drawings seem to be based on a verbal description of the target drawing, rather than cither the target word or the target drawing. Good: good pictorial representation of a word or phrase which would describe the entire target picture. Trial 2 is a bunch of 24 grapes (word: grapes) and the Geller drawing precisely fits that description. Trial 4 inciudes tke sun, earth, saturn, two other circles, and the words “solar system”. Geller has drawn, in a totally different arrangement, the sun, saturn, several circles, and what appear to be satellites. Both could be described verbaily as “solar system” or “sun and planets”. Trial 8 is a drawing which could — be either a horse or a camel and Geller has drawn a horse. Trial 10 has a large flying bird and a smal} bird on the ground. Geller’s drawing has a large and small bird, The birds do not resemble each other, but both drawings are described well by “large bird with small bird under it”. Trial 11 is a kite, which Geiler ras drawn. The two are about as dissimilar as two line drawings of a kite could be. . ; 2th oe Fair: pictorial representation of some of the words which would describe the target picture. Trial 15, for example, is an arrow through a heart. Geller has drawn en arrow inside a box. Again, the target and Geller’s drawing are dissimilar, despite the fact that they describe the same word “arrow”. Poor: pictoriat representation of a few words which might be used to describe the target picture. In trial 1, the dictionary word was firecracker, and the drawing is a simple firecracker with-a lit fuse. Geller’s response appears to be to the word “nojisemaker” and includes a drum and words like “noise” and “pow”. Sreciel notes: 5—target in shiclded room with no one there to view it 6, 7—attermpted to make EEG record of Geller, which failed because “he found it @ifficult to hold adequately still for good EEG records” li—picture displayed on front of cathode ray tube display screen eee aA proved F A Nc eas (087 * wIA- 39 -0l s§60700110020-3.. . , Apptoved For Release 2b00/b8I07 ? CA-ROPSE-GO7BZROGOZON TIO020-8, no picture picture drawn on secre
ss p. “no one can know f pend 4, whe Ne metal “tt has been widely réported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypo- thesis,” Targ and Puthoff declare in the paper ‘published this week in Nature. ; Indeed, the SRI team spent most of its time on metal bending—by far the most spectacular Geller feat— and considerably less time on the per- ception tests finally published. In one test which I saw the video- tape of, Uri was asked to bend a carefully checked metal bar. He was unsuccessful, and asked for something else. The SRI team provided a special checked spoon. Next he asked for more metal round him for inspiration, and that was supplied. Finally he gave up, but the spoon was set up for the next day and all the other metal, jacluding the original bar, just dumped in the corner of the room. The next day, he started on the spoon, and again asked for more metal. The original bar was among . and 15), the picture was not actually being viewed by anyone at the time of the test. In ali ten cases where Uri did a drawing, it had some connection to the target and in some cases Uri’s picture was extremely good—for example, when the target drawing was a bunch of 24 grapes, Uri also drew a bunch of 24 grapes. Perhaps the most striking factor which runs through al) 10 pictures, however, -is that Uri seems to be drawing neither the target word nor the target drawing. He appeers to base his drawing on the words which would be used to describe the target drawing. Clairvoyance The other two tests reported in the SRI paper are of clairvoyance—seeing something in a closed container which Geller succeeded once and failed once. In the second test reported ir the RI paper, also conducted in August 1975, an SRI artist drew 100 target pictures of everyday objects and other Shi personnel sealed them with black ~~ cardbozrd in envelopes and then sealed the envelopes in other envelopes. Five ‘\ targets were crawo from the nuol ececl dey. Fach cay Geller attempted draw. ings of everyday objects, but only rarely came close to the target picture. ‘The crawings resulting From this experiment go not depart significantly from what would be expected by chance”. { In the third test in the SRT paper, conducted b pp y aproved For Release? 2000TOBIOT : Wig]. by normal means. ° the extra collection, and Uri switched quickly back to that. But as only the spoon had been set up and checked, there was no way to see that Uri or someone else had not taken the bar— or any of the other metal—out of the room overnight, bent it, and brought it back in the morning. . peer P enw fe ene prow eo, weal cca et a Later Uri moved on to still other pieces of metal in the pile. Finally he selected a pair of tweezers which no one had paid attention to because of the concentration on the spoon and bar. Finally, he broke the tweezers, but even Yarg considered it all so suspicious that it was not included in the paper. The possibility of sleight of hand—in this and all other metal tests with Uri—was too great even for SRI. ; November or December 1972, Uri “succeeded spectacularly well. A 5; in dice was placed in a steel file card box (3 in xX 4 in X 5 in). The box was shaken aud put on the table, and Uri drew a picture of the uppermost dice face. Then the box was opened. The experiment — was performed 10 times, with Uri being correct eight times and passing twice. Unlike the telepathy test, the conditions were not varied—the dice and the box apparently remained the same. Targ and Puthoff conclude: “A channel exists whereby ‘information about a re- mote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality.” In these experiments, they write, ‘we concentrated on what we con- sidered to be our primary respon- sibility—-to resolve under conditions as _ unambiguous as possible the basic issue of whether a certain class of paranormal perception phenomena exists.” They con- tinue that “at all times we took measures to prevent sensory leakage and to pre- vent deception.” But were Targ and Puthoff vigilant enough, and have they really shown unambiguously that paranormal ‘percep- tion exists? Welcorns to the circus A dry scientific paper can never capture the feeling of an experiment. In this case, the Targ-Putholff paper totally fails to cornmiunicate the circus atmosnhera that currannded all of the CIA- RDP96-0 a7RABBZORA RUHR ccteels _ test—or to a different one he abandoned ® New Scientist 17 October 1974 a degree of chaos where he feels com: fortable and we feel uncomfortable. Then he bends something.” SRI has filmed or videotaped many Geller tests. The tapes show that Gelley constantly bounces up and down, touch- ing everything in sight and running his hands through his hair. In the middle of a test, he frequently jumps up and fits about the room, stopping the test dead, Just as suddenly, he will go back to the = earlier, He frequently asks for cbjects,-.. often from outside the test room, to give him moral support: press clippings’:- from past triumphs, pieces of metal, coins, etc. And he will discuss at length | what objects to choose and where to | put them. He draws technicians and” | other observers into the experiment by -. asking them to help him concentrate, or, to get other objects, or to pick a number, Geller also tries to convince people that things happened Cifferently than. they did. In one tape I watched, he ° tried to say he had not “passed” when he had, in fact, done so. In another, °° he said that something was bent when it really wasn’t. Also, Geller constantly - needs reinforcement. He frequently stops and says “J can’t do it”, thus put- | ting the experimenters in the position © of repeatedly telling him that he really can, and thus possibly convincing theme. . seives in the process. we Mitchell commented that “Hal’ [Put hoff} and Russ [{Targ] were so eag to keep Geller around that they war od | themselves into a box by mesting his .. every whim. If he threatened to walk ° off they would relent and do what he : wanted. Of course, they lost control of the situation and it got worse and worse. and worse.” Mitchell—a stroug believer... in Geller’s abilities who was present for many of the tests—admitted that during - the tests they should have Geman dled “that he curb his impulsiveness, that... he should not touch equipment, that he‘. keep his hands properly in view of the’ camera at all times, and that he cut - down his chatter when we were trying 2 to work. It becomes distracting and he. uses it, not consciously to distract, but ° to create a climate of too much noise and muss and bustle.” There are also long periods when he. does nothing but stand and concentrate. A single test can take several hours of .! alternating excitement and boredom. The- vigilance “of the experimenters is sure | ‘to flag during that time. ‘Assume he will cheat The experimenters are conscious of — the possibility of dishonesty. “I feel confident that Geller will cheat if given a chance,” Targ told me, and he seemed highly sceptical of seme of Ceiler’s metal bending cttermmpis. But whether their vigilance against cheating was - rigorous encugh is open to dispute. If Geller is cheating, he is probably using sophisticated tnagic and psycho- logical trickery. jut the SRI team has yirgician. mever called in a professionai Sroved Fér Rélddse S0Od/0B0?° CIAO PURO YE7ROVUTOOT ODZT-ge 2 siatear
a New Scientist it ctover 197 - magicans, an SRI staf member not connected with tke project; and Targ himself, who noted he had “done tricks and been paid for it", But Targ bas very poor eyesight, holding things just a few inches from his eyes to sec detail, so it is not clear how much he could c2tch. Targ is also sometimes sur- prisingiy trusting: in one instance during a megnetometer experiment he asked Geller about a black mark on his skin ad Geller. said it was a scar; Targ accepted witbout checking although he could not have possibly known if Geller was telling the truth. One outside observer who is highly critical of the controls applied by Targ . and Puthoff comes from a US govern- ment funding agency. Targ and Put- hoff had applied for money and be was sent to SRI to evaluate the work. Thus, one would expect the SRI team to have put on the best possible performance. A reliable source reports that this official is quite interested in roved For Reléase 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00070011 0020-3 psychic phenomena, is anxious to be- Heve, and should have been sympathetic to SKIL By his own admission, he watched whatever the SRI team chose to show him. But he concluded that the “controls are sloppy and inadequate”. Ye also remarked that when he sug- mested tighter controls, “Targ said ‘bullshit’ a . One of the potential diflicultics of parapsychological investigation is the sensitivity of the whole phenomenon, and the inability of even “good” subjects to perform under many reasonable, controlled conditions. If one accepts the existence of parapsycholo- gical abilities, this is not surprising. One would, presumably, be dealing with a talent Hke musica) ability, and it would be not unreasonable to find a skilled violinist, for example, being adversely infuenced by playing before a group . of people he knew to be hostile critics. Also, because we are dealing with “mental energies”, it is not unreason- seemingly — er able to suppose that a confirmed critic could use his psychological powers t block those of the sensitive. . °° oo Thus, the phenomenon will require somewhat different procedures than other forms of research. Some con- cessions will have to be made to keep the subject happy and comfortable, for example. The real question is: Mas SRI gone too far in this direction? °.° 4. Screening participants Typical of the difficulties of this sort of research is that all those who aid |. the investigators are, to some measure - at least, pre-selected for their receptive: "= ness to Geller. “We reached the point | that on a particular day, if one of our... better, but more sceptical investigators «-. was really in a foul mood about the + whole thing, we just banned him from-~ - the room. And we could get results then, while when he couldn't,” He: was there wes” according to Mitchell. = one + , Urion tim More than a year ago SRI produced a film of Uri Geller’s first set of tests there (in November = and _ December 1972), Although more like 2 seminar report than a formal paper, it gives some insight into the SAI researchers. (The film is entitled “Experiments with Uri Geller” and can be rented only by “universities end scientific research organisations” fram Mitchell's Institute of Noetic Sciences. 575 Middlefield Road, Palo ° alto). The narrator is Bonnar Cox, executive director “of the SRI In- formation Science and Engincering Division. The film shows five tests that the SRI team then considered acceptable (but only one of the Ove was con- sidered acceptable by the time the paper was submitted to Nature). The frst test shown is a telepathy (mind reeding) experiment using picture crawing. Fifteen simple drawings were made and sealed in envelopes which were themselves sealed in other envelopes (double sealing). The en- velopes were locked in a safe and drawn out at random for each test. _ The researcher then would open the envelope outside the experimental room, look at the picture, reseal the envelope and enter the experimental room. While he thought of the picture Geller would draw it. Each drawing seemed quite close to the target. but perhaps cleser to a verbal descrip- tion of the target than to the target itself. Next, the film shows a clairvoyance test in which Geller selects the one can out of 10 tbat eat 5 al preva ‘Form The cans film cans. Using a cardboard box sigs large enough to hold three rows of four such cans, they are placed with the middle two positions left vacant. In each case, a person referred to as a “randomiser” enters the room, arranges the cans, and leaves before Geller enters. Geller. instructs the experimenters to remove empty cans one at a time. In the film, he success- fully finds a can containing room temperature water and one contain- ing a steel ball. In a similar test, a dice is placed in a metal box and shaken. Geller then guesses that the top face is a four, which is correct. There are also two experiments in. psy chokinesis (PK). In one, a one gramme weight is placed on an elec- trical balance and covered by an aluminium film can, and then the apparatus covered by a glass cylin- der. A chart is then shown with two peaks, which, according to the film, “sre apparently due to Geller’s ejiorts. They are single-sided signals, one corresponding to a 1500 mg weight decrease, the other corres- ronding to an 800 mg weizht iu- crease... . We have no ready hypo- thesis on how these signals might have been produced”. Next, Geller is shown actually ‘Gnfluencing’ a Bell magnetometer. Moving his hands around the probe, - pe apparenily causes a ful 3 defection cf 3+5 gauss. Finally, the film shows two unsatis- factory events. First, Geller is shown deficcting; a compass needle. Next, he js seen apparently bending a stainless steel spoon, but this is also scaie in physical contact with @ spoon. Also shown are two bent rings ‘measured to require 150 pounds force to bend them” and which “were in Geller’s hand at the time. they were bent”. The most striking aspect of the film is that the really dramatic events all happen off camera. The first draw- ing that Geller does on the film is “the most off-target of the drawings he did?, Although-the film says that the dice experiment was done success- fully eight times, the only test shown in the film is one in which Geller finally “passed”; that is, even though he guessed the number he asked that it not be taken into account because he was not confident. In the test with the one gramme weight, Geller is never actually shown defiecting the scale—all the film shows is Geller working unsuccessfully with the balance, and then a trace of another (apparently unfilmed) successful test. During the spoon bending, there is a reak in the film and then the spoon never leaves Geller’s hand until it is shown to be bent—as usual, it eppears to have bent during a break io film- ing. If, as the team claims, SRI fimed Geller virtually continuously, why aid this Alm have to contain what seemed the weakest examples of each test? But it may be the bent rings which make the film most suspect. I have aircedy noted the virtual ImpossiDilt ot tiling just when Gener something. Therefore, the dogmatic assertion that “these rings were in Geller’s hand at the time they were bent”, without any film docu- mentation offered, seems more likely se 2000/08 /0F's ClAYRDP96100787R0007 orriogena than a
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 came 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 erea— _ a motorway toll booth, a drive-in movie, a marina, ete. 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 6 and 7 of Price’s descriptions as correct, while two others picked only S. 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 magnetometer which works by 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 simiiar 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 2oy knowledge. Then, without going tear any of the equipment, for short ‘times he both increased and decreased the period of the signal. Dr Arthur Hebard, who designed the equipment, and who suggested that Puthoff bring 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 decerihine anything’, wT oO - nm pare and Pee Goscription was “derbies: the sort of thing any poctic layman would use to describe any piece of scientific equipment. On the perturbation of the detector output, Hebard made two interesting coraments. First, just that sort of per- turdation often occurs wheit ollie? people —who share the helium supply a : > also using their Approved arkelease Swann there, tells a © 2000/08/07 cCIAsRDRI6-00787RG0D ZOO 40020eertine oo he cps TABRIBVEd Por Reteas simply by fiddling with the dials on the recorder. Hebard is convinced, how- - ever, that Swann did perturb the output without touching the recorder. But as often happeris, his version of the story tells more than he realises. He said - that there were several people in the room and that they steod talking for about 40 minutes. Swann, he said, stood close to the chart recorder looking at it intently for 20 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 cn - 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 Puthof included. First, future funding clearly depends on snccess—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. Thus 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 15 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 diffcult 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 and the researchers. Whereas the 13 drawings in the tele- pathy test are described as the “entire set of consecutive experiments’, this js mot the cace with tne clairvevsnce test waich Geller failed—his attempt to draw the contents of sealed envelopes. The targets were drawn by an SRI artist at the request of a third SRI researcher who worked with Targ and Putho for a short tirne in Aucust 1973. As Targ and Puthoff report in the paper, New Scientist 17 October 1974. apparently able to see inside the box containing the die. an Tone But the paper does not report a: curious incident which occurred at the™ end of the third day of the test. After’ 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 nile 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 pie. 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? eee 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” Gefine in this situation, but it must take into account anything that can be done with the assistance of Dr Andrija - Puharich. Sot ah 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 Vin his hair or in a wristwatch which he presses against his chin to hear. 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. mos ote There are two small pieces of evidence | that give some credence to this suggese =" tion. The most obvious is that all of -, Uri’s drawings are representations of... words which would describe the target ° drawing, and thus are consistent with . radio communication. The second occurred e in January when Pubarich 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 amunst radio transmission by wort a with shielded rcoms 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 Coliexe, Londen. ning wrote P2NCOAB IZ. CHACREPHOANTS7 ROQO7OOT 0020-8! ree, shied