New
Scientist
17 October
1974
' STJS SSMM&MSfa
and
draw
objects
quickly—thus
the
simple
flower.
•
•• /
..
More
important,
however,
was
Bernard’s
observation
that
after
each
drawing, we
would
carefully
hide
the
drawing, but
then
Geller would
ask us
to draw the picture
again
in
our mind.
“I
found
I
was
making
slight
head
movements,
tracing
the
shape
of
the
drawing.
I
tried
not
to,
but
found
it
difficult
if
I
was
really
concentrating
hard
and
tracing
the
shape
as
Uri
suggested. Watching Joe Hanlon
I noted
the same effect.”
Looking
at my
drawing and
Geller’s
efforts
and
explanations,
it
seems
that
Bernard's hypothesis holds up
well. The
head
motions
for a
flower would be
a
large
circle,
several
short
back
and
forth
motions
(petals)
and
one
long
curving
up
and
down
motion
(the
stem). This
is precisely what Uri drew
in
his
first
two
attempts
(2
and
3)
exhibiting
the
fact
that
it
is
difficult
to
tell
from
head
motions
precisely
where
on
the
circle
the
other
lines
should
go.
Dropping
the
long
up
and
down
motion,
and
putting
the
short
motions
all on the top, seems to suggest
mm
bumps
and
guessed
at
the
face.
Be-
cause "of
the
haste
with
which
I drew
the
picture,
lie
could
be
sure
that
it
was one of the common ones.
Not an experiment
My
investigation
of
Geller
has
been
surprising to me in two important ways:
first, that every Geller event that I could
investigate
in
detail
had
a normal
ex-
planation
that was more probable than
the
paranormal
one;
and
second,
the
really strong desire of people to suspend
disbelief and accept Geller. On the latter
point,
I
must
admit
that
I,
too,
was
strongly
taken
with
Geller,
and
that
I
•could
not
help
liking
him
and
being
swept
up
by
his
enthusiasm—despite
the fact that
I was looking for
tricks.
Many
people
believe
implicitly
in
Geller—often
based
on
a
very
few
demonstrations of his powers, swept on
by
their own
desire
to
believe and by
the force of Geller’s personality. Indeed,
some supposedly objective scientists now
talk of the “Geller effect” as a fact.
But
as Uri himself told me, “a
stage
mum ^^stSfunde’; 5
my conditions”. Only controlled scientific
tests
will
tell
whether
Geller
actually
has paranormal powers.
But we can
use
our
experiep.ee with
.
Geller
the
performer
to
help
develop T
and
evaluate
tests with
Geller
the
ex-
perimental
subject. And
if there
is any
.
lesson
to be
learned,
it
is that Occam’s
Razor
must
be
our
guide—we
must
v
reject
all normal explanations before we
consider
the paranormal
ones.
A
In
some
cases,
normal
explanations
wfuld not mean that Geller
is
ciieating.
:
It
is
possible,
at
least,
for someone
to
reproduce drawings watching a nodding
head
without
realising
quite how
it
is
happening. But we must also accept the
fact—made
all
the
more
difficult
by
Geller’s
likeability—that
a
normal
ex-
planation
for
key
bending must
imply,
fraud. And
on
the
evidence
of
Uri’s
performances,
this
possibility
must
be A
seriously
considered.
So
far,
there
is
only
one
published
result
of
scientific
tests with
Geller. InV
the
next
section,
I
have
tried
to
look
at
these
experiments
in
the
light
of
.
what
I
have
found
out
about
Geller
•
as
a performer.
.
'
Did SRI “validato” Uri Geller? After months of experiments, in a paper this week in Nature SRI reports the
only two sets of tests
it considers successful—one of telepathy and the other of clairvoyance.
Although the authors state that Geller bent many pieces of metal, he never did so under experimental
conditions. The paper fails to show that many of the same difficulties of Geller’s public performances
occurred in the lab, too. Nor does the paper note that by using an ingenious device invented by his mentor
Dr Andrija Puharich, Geller could have done both successful tests by non-paranormal means
The investigators
Stanford
Research
Institute,
in
Menlo
Park,
California,
is
.the
site
of the
only
attempt
at
controlled
scientific
tests
.of
Uri
Geller.
SRI
was
originally
estab-
lished
by
Stanford
University
to
do
military research. After student protests
in
the
1960s,
it was nominally
split
off
from the university. Since then, military
funding.has decreased and SRI has done
increasing amounts
of commercial
con-
tract
research.
The
Geller
study
has
been
dene by
Dr Hal Puthoff and
Russell
Targ. Both
are
laser
physicists
with
a
continuing
interest
in
psychic
phenomena
who
joined
SRI
primarily
to
do
psychic
re-
search
(although when funding
is short
they
do
return
to
laser work).
Puthoff
is 33 years
old and
joined SRI
in
1371.
De
is
the
author
of
a
laser
textbook,
r unda.neiKals
of
Quantum
Electronics
Targ
has
been
president
of
the
Para-
and biofeedback techniques,
it “may be
(John
Wiley
d:
Sons,
1969),
and
holds
psychology
Research
Group
of
Palo
possible
to
teach
and
enhance
BSP
patents
for
a
tunable Raman
laser and
Alto,
and
invented
an
“ESP
Teaching
phenomena”
(Parapsychology
Review,
ctner
optical devices.
Machine”.
In
a
paper
to
the
IEEE
July-August
1972,
p
9).
Targ
is
40 years
old ana
joined SRI
(Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronic
Together, Targ
and
Puthoff
have
in-
•
in
1972
after
ten
years
at
Sylvania,
Engineers)
International Symposium on
vestigated
several
subjects
in
addition
where
he
worked
on
gas
lasers
and
Information Theory
in January 1972,
lie
to Geller. Initial funding for tne protect
invented
a
+mfrKBPWm78mWO7Q(mOQQ0Wy
report
that
New sceririsAppcowed Bor Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10020-3
179
:
they bad an $80 000
grant from NASA
(National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Ad-
ministration),
apparently
relating
to
Targ's ESP
teaching machine. But
they
remain
chronically
short
of
money.
Funding
for
the
Geller work
has come
primarily
from
wealthy
individuals
particularly from Judith Skutch, a weal-
thy Geller supporter in New York, and Dr
Edgar
Mitchell.
Ex-astronaut
Mitchell
conducted 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
lS-month
period
beginning
in
November
1972.
Mitchell
and
another
Geller supporter, Dr Wilbur Franklin
of
Kent
State
University,
assisted
in
the
first
series
of
tests.
The
clairvoyance
experiment
with
a
die reported
in
the
SRI paper, published this week in Nature
t'vol
251,
p
602),
comes
from
this
set
of tests. (Copies of the
IS October issue
of
Nature
are
available
for
45p
from
Macmillan Journals. 4 Little Essex Street,
London 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 1973. 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
location-
Only
following
Gelleris
isola-
Tion
from
the
experimenters
was
a
target
chosen
and
drawn,
a
procedure
designed
to
eliminate
pre-experiment
cueing.
Furthermore,
to
eliminate
the
possibility
of
pre-experiment
target
forcing.
Geller was kept ignorant
as
to
the
identity
of the person selecting the
target
and
as
to
the method
of
target
selection,” Targ and Puthoff report in the
paper.
Altogether.
trials
were
conducted
(see
Table).
For
virtually
every
trial,
the
conditions
were
changed—often
several
conditions were changed
at
the
same
time—so
that
it
is
difficult
to
correlate his successes and failures with
different conditions.
In
four
cases
(1-4)
the
targets
were
chosen
by
putting
an
index
card
into
a
dictionary to pick
a page, then
open-
ing
it and drawing the
first word on the
upper left that “could be drawn”. Three
targets
(3-10)
were
chosen
from
an
already
prepared
target
pock
Three
(5-7)
were
targets
"Mind
to
experi-
menters and subject, prepared independ-
ently
by
SRI
scientists
outside
’.he
experimental
group
following
Gellcr’s
isolator.''—Geller
declined
to
attemot
any of these three. Finally, three targets
ili-15;
were
chosen
by
computer
laboratory
j.ersonne!
and
drawn
on
a
cathode -^ppr(j)^£|if-o¥;Re1^r§e
is pnntan'yHr lest
or
telepathy,
as
in
all
cas-es someone knew what the draw-
ing was.
Li
three
cases, however
(5,
12,
Geller picture drawing test at SRI
Trial
Geller
location
Target
location
Target
Outcome
.
SI
SI
SI
C
Picture from dictionary
A
,
Firecracker
A
Grapes
B
Devil
Si
Solar system
poor
good
poor
good
C
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Picture prepared by, outsider
SI
Rabbit
A
Tree
A
Envelope
Picture chosen from target pool
D
Camel
A
Bridge
A
Seagull
pass
pass
pass
good
fair
good
S2
S2
S2
Picture drawn on computer ert
E
Kile
Q°°d
E
Church
poor
E
Arrow through heart
fair
Locations:
•
SI
: double walled steel room
-'
S2: double walled copper screen Faraday cage
A: adjacent room 4-1 m from SI
'
B: office 475 m from SI
.
.
...
C: room just outside SI
'
D: room 6-75 m from SI
E: computer room 54 m from S2
-
Outcomes:
.
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,
tne
drawings seem
to be based on a verbal
description
of the target drawing,,
rather than either the target word or the target drawing.
Good: good
pictorial
representation
of
a
word
or Phrase
which
would
describe the
entire target
picture.
Trial
is
a bunch
of 24 grapes
(wo.
.
gr-anes) and the Geller drawing precisely
fits that description. Trial 4 inciuC-S
the' sun,
earth,
saturn,
two
other
circles, and
the
words
solar sy-em
.
Geller has drawn, in a totally different arrangement, the sun, saturn, several
circles, and what appear
to be
satellites. Both could be
described
verbail
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
Las a
large
flying
bird and
a
small
bird on the ground.
Geller’s drawing
has
a
large
and
small
bird. The
birds
do
not
resemble
each
otner,
but both
drawings are described well by “large bird with small bird under
it
. Tnal
1.1
is
a
kite, which
Geller has drawn. The two
are
about as
dissimilar
«iS
'
two line drawings of a kite could be.
Fair:
pictorial representation of some of the words which would describe
the target picture. Trial
13, for example,
is an arrow through a heart._Ge.ler
has drawn an arrow inside a box. Again, the target and Geller s drawing -re
dissimilar, despite the
fact that they describe the same word
arrow
.
Poor:
pictorial
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 “noisemaker” and
includes
a drum ana
v>oras
like “noise" and "pow”.
Special notes;
target
in shielded room with no one there to view
it
6, 7—attempted
to make EEG
record
of
Geller, which
failed because “he
aUCIL'piLU
IU
.-UUISG
J
—
J
,*
found
it difficult to hold adequately
still for good EEG records
picture displayed on
front
of cathode ray tube display
screen
memory
no picture-
picture displayed on
lront
or cainoue ray
luue uisjna^
leu
'
New Scientist
17 October
1 974
:
•
Mo m 0’s" ""*
•d La
mg
Pr> .0
is»/
H'
I*
“It
has
been
widely
reported
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 SPiI 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
d3y
and
all
the
other
metal, including 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
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.
f cr-T
(Mi
X'A
V^ -Tb
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
tsveezers,
but
even
Targ
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.
accidentally,' G
Approyed For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00|787MU7atM^^xperiments
to
a degree
of chaos where he
feels com-
and
13),
the
picture
was
not
actually
being viewed by anyone
at the time of
the
test.
In
all
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
grapes.
Perhaps the most striking factor which
runs
through
all
pictures,
however,
• is that Uri seems to be drawing neither
the target word nor the target drawing.
He appears
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
no
one
can
know
by
normal
means.
Qeller succeeded
once
and
failed
once.
-1
In
the
second
test
reported
in
the
BRI
paper,
also
conducted
in
August
1973,
an
SRI
artist
drew
100
target
pictures
of
everyday
objects
and
other
SRI
personnel
sealed
them
with
black
cardboard
in envelopes and then
sealed
the
envelopes
in
other
envelopes.
Five
targets were drawn from
the puol each
cay.
Each
day
Geller
attempted
draw-
ings of everyday objects, hut only rarely
came
close
to
the
target
picture. “The
drawings resulting from
this experiment
do
not
depart
significantly
from
what
would be expected by chance”.
{
In
the
third
test
in
the' Slil
paper,
conducted
b
‘
November
or
December
1972,
Uri
succeeded spectacularly well. A
in dice
was placed in a steel
file card box
(3 in
X
in X
in). The box was shaken
and 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?
Welcome to the circus
A
dry
scientific
paper
can
never
capture
the
feeling
of
an
experiment.
In
this
case,
the
Targ-Put'noff
paper
totally
fails
to communicate
the
circus
Mint-
cm rrm inHoH
nil
c*f‘
tin-*
Approved"for Seldase i^ciod/db/OfTCIA
riSS-ObTS7 Riottoto 01
fortable
and
we
feel
uncomfortable. 7 --
Then he bends something.”
.. Wr
SKI
has
filmed
or
videotaped
many
Geller
tests. The tapes show that Geller
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
flits,
.-
about the room, stopping
the
test
dead..';
'
Just as suddenly,
lie will go back to the
;
test—or to a different one he abandoned
earlier. He
frequently asks
for
objects,
•
ort.cn
from
outside
the
test
room,
to
give him moral support: press
clippings
from
past
triumphs,
pieces
of
metal,
coins, etc. And
lie 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
differently
than 7
,
they
did.
In
one
tape
I
watched,
ha
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 “I can’t do
it”, thus put-
ting
the
experimenters
in
the
position
of repeatedly
telling him that he
really,
can, and thus possibly convincing them-,.,
selves in the process.
Mitchell commented
that
“Hal' [Put-
hoff]
and Russ
[Targ]
were
so
eagar
to keep Geller around
that they worked
themselves
into
a box
by
meeting
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 strong
believer.
.
in Geller’s
abilities who was present
for
many of the tests—admitted that during
the
tests
they
should
have
demanded
“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
to work.
It becomes
distracting and he.
uses
it,
riot
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
lie seemed
highly
sceptical
of
some
ot
Goiter's
metal
bending
attempts.
But
whether
their
vigilance
against
cheating
was
rigorous enough
is open to dispute.
If
Geller
is
cheating,
he
is
probably
using
sophisticated
magic
and
psycho-
logical
trickery.
But
the SRI team
has
professional
uumicinn.
two
amateur
ic*u
1(1 lieu
lil
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: ClA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10020.-3
17 October
197-1
•
'
•
•New Scientist
, 17 October 1974
,:.-
;
magicians,
an
SRI
staff
member
not
connected
with
the
project,' and
Targ
himself, who noted he had "done
tricks
and
been
paid
for
it".
But
Targ
has
very
poor
eyesight,
holding
tilings
just
a few inches from his eyes to sec
detail,
so
it
is not
clear how much
he
could
catch.
Targ
is
also
sometimes
sur-
prisingly trusting: in one instance during
a
magnetometer
experiment
he
asked
Geller" about
a
black mark on
his
skin
and
Geller
said
it
was
a
scar;
Targ
accepted
without
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
conies from
a US
govern-
ment
funding
agency.
Targ
and
Put-
hoff
had
applied
for
money
and
he
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
psychic
phenomena,
is
anxious
to
be-
lieve, and should have been sympathetic
to
SRI.
By
his
own
admission,
he
watched
whatever the
SRI team
chose
to show him. But he concluded that the
“controls
arc
sloppy
and
inadequate
.
He
also
remarked
that
when
he
sug-
gested
tighter
controls,
"Targ
said
•bullshit”’.
One
of
the
potential
difficulties
of
parapsychological
investigation
is
the
sensitivity
of
the
whole
phenomenon,
and the inability of even “good” subjects
to
perform
under
many
seemingly
reasonable,
controlled
conditions.
If one
accepts
the
existence
of
parapsycholo-
gical
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
unreason-
able
to suppose
that
a
confirmed
critic yV
could
use
tiis
psychological
powers
to
block
those
of
the
sensitive.
.
•
Thus,
the
phenomenon
will
require
somewhat
ditTcrent
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: Has SKI
gone loo far in
this direction?
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
cn
our
..
better but more
sceptical
investigators
.
was
really
in
a
fou!
mood
about
the
whole
thing, we just banned him from
the
room. And
we
could
get
results
then,
while
when
he
was
there we
;
couldn’t,"
according
to
Mitchell,
lie
•
Uri on. film
.
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
a seminar report than a formal paper,
it
gives
seme
insight
into
the
SRI
researchers.
(The
film
is
entitled
“'Experiments
with
Uri
Geller”
and
can
be
rented
only by
“universities
and
scientific research organisations”
from
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
Engineering
Division.
The
film shows
five
tests
that
the
SRI team then considered acceptable
(but
only-
one
of
the
five was
con-
sidered
acceptable
by
the
time
the
paper was submitted
to Nature). The
first test shown
is a telepathy
(mind
reading)
experiment
using
picture
drawing.
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
closer
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 that cor.tams anobiect.
The crmsAppjgQVfidiiFQriiRelfta:
film
cans.
Using
a
cardboard
box
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
.
psychokinesis
(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,
“are
apparently
due
to
Geller’s
efforts. They
are
single-sided
signals,
"
one
corresponding
to
a
1500
mg
weight
decrease,
the
other
corres-
ponding
to
an
800 mg
weight
in-
crease.
.
.
. We have no ready hypo-
thesis
on how
these
signals
might
have been produced”.
Next,
Geller
is
shown
actually
“influencing”
a
Bell
magnetometer.
Moving
his hands around the probe,
be
apparently
causes
a
iu:i
scale
defection
cf
0-3
gauss.
Finally, the film shows two unsatis-
factory
events.
First, Geller
is shown
deflecting
a
compass
needle.
Next,
he
is
sqen
apparently
bending
a
stainless
steel
spoon, but this
is also
Also
shown
are
two
bent
rings
“measured
to
require
150
pounds
force to bend them” and which
were
in
Geller’s
band
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
Geiler
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 deflecting 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
break in the film and then the spoon
never leaves
Gellcr’s hand until
it
is
shown to be bent—as usual,
it appears
to have bent during a break
in
film-
ing.
If, as the team claims, SRI filmed
Geller virtually continuously, why did
this film have to contain wliat seemed
the weakest examples of each test?
But
it may be the bent rings which
make
the
film
most
suspect.
I have
already noted the virtual impossmihty
of
toiling
just
when
Goih-r
berms
something.
Therefore,
the
dogtiiut.ic
assertion
that
“these
rings
were m
Gcller’s
hand
at
the
time
they
were
bent”,
without
any
film
d°cu-
'Sc, ’ToTSt
SMST dri'rA
w= Kg*