Approved For Release 2900/08/1 0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 ; ww III TASK 3; EXPERIMENTATION WITH URI GELLER The experiments conducted with Geller in November~December, 1972, fell into two broad categories: l. Perception experiments. in which he was asked to identify and draw the contents of opaque sealed envelopes, to identify a die face concealed in a metal box, and to find objects hidden in one of ten identical film cans. . 2. Experiments involving physical effects in which he was asked to interact with laboratory equipment by perturbing the experimental apparatus without physical contact. All experiments were monitored by simultaneous filming, video- taping, sound recording, and, where appropriate, laboratory instrumenta- tion. The experiments performed with Mr. Geller are summarized below in writing and a film covering the experimentation is in progress. A. Probability 1/6 Double-Blind Dice Box Experiment A double-blind experiment was performed in which a single die was placed in a closed metal box. The box was vigorously shaken by one of the experimenters and placed on a table. The orientation of the die inside the box was unknown to the experimenters at that time. Mr. Geller would then look at the box without touching it and call out which die face he believed was uppermost. He gave the correct answer each of 8 times the experiment was performed. The probability that this could have occurred by chance alone is approximately one in a million. The experiment was actually performed ten times, put on two occasions the subject said his perception was not clear and he was allowed to pass. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDBP96-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2900/08/1 0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 ww B. Probability 1/10 Hidden Object Experiment For this experiment ten identical aluminum film cans with stainless steel tops were placed in a row. An outside assistant not associated with the research would place the cans in a random position and put the target object into one of them. He would then put caps on all the cans and leave the experimental area, notifying the experimenters that the experiment was ready. The experimenters, who were not aware which can contained the object, would then enter the room with Geller (i.e., the experiment was carried out in a double~blind fashion). The subject would either pass his hand over the row of cans or simply look at them. He would then call out the cans he felt confident were empty, and the experimenter would remove them from the row. When only two or three cans remained, Geller would announce which one he thought contained the target object. He had no difficulty identifying the location of water, steel ball bearings and small magnets. This task was performed twelve times, without error, The probability that this could have occurred by chance alone is about one in a trillion. On two occasions he declined to answer. One of the targets that apparently “stumped” him was a paper-wrapped metal ball bearing. The other was a sugar cube, Cc. Picture Drawing Experiment In this experiment simple pictures were drawn on 3x5 file cards. The field of possibilities of target materials was at no time revealed to Mr. Geller. The pictures were put into double-sealed envelopes by an outside assistant not associated with the experiment Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q130001-3 and placed in a safe for which the experimenters did not have’ the combination. To conduct the experiment, the experimenters, two of which had to be present, were permitted to select an envelope at random from the safe, open it to identify the picture, seal it again and enter the experimental room. Geller made seven almost exact reproductions of the seven chosen target pictures, with no errors (see Fig. 5). Video and audio monitoring did not reveal any cueing possibilities. Figure 6 shows the results obtained when a drawing was brought in as a test by an outside consultant to a potential sponsor. The inspiration of the drawing was a magazine cartoon shown in the upper right. The drawing itself is shown in the upper left, and Geller's version is shown in the lower right. A double blind version of the drawing experiment is shown in Fig. 7 where an envelope chosen at random and unknown both to experimenter and Geller resulted in the reproduction shown. Two experiments to measure physical perturbation of laboratory apparatus were also carried out. One of these involved apparently exerting a force on a laboratory balance, and the other was the generation of an apparent magnetic field recorded by a magnetometer. Both of these experiments were performed several times with results improving with repetition, showing apparent evidence of learning taking place. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 12
Approved For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000109180001-3 dD. Laboratory Balance A precision laboratory balance measuring weights from one milligram to fifty grams was placed under a bell jar. This balance, made by Scientech Corp., Boulder, Colorado, generated an electrical output voltage in proportion to the force applied to it. The balance had a one~gram mass placed on its pan before it was covered with a bell jar. A chart recorder then continuously monitored the force applied to the pan of the balance. On several occasions the subject caused the balance to respond as though a force were applied to the pan. This was evidenced by a corresponding displacement shown by the chart recorder. These displacements increased from 50 - 1500 milligrams and were significantly different in signature from those that could be produced by striking the bell jar or the table or jumping on the floor, as indicated in Fig. 8. Efforts on our part to debunk the experiment by the use of magnets or discharge of static electricity against parts of the apparatus were unsuccessful. Also, day-long control runs with no effort on Geller's part failed to reveal noise or artifacts resembling the signals produced by Geller's efforts. Therefore, the experiment indicated an apparent ability of Geller to affect the apparatus by an as yet unidentified means. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDA9Y6-00787R000100180001-3
Appro d : pprove For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q130001-3 E. Magne tometer Experiment A Bell gaussmeter was used to determine if Mr. Geller could perturb an instrument sensitive to magnetic fields. The instrument was set to a full seale sensitivity of 0.3 gauss. The subject would move his empty hands near the instrument in an effort to cause a deflection of the chart recorder monitoring the magnetometer output. In carefully filmed experiments, Geller was able to perturb the magnetometer causing full scale deflection without touching the measuring head of the instrument. Geller was examined before, during, and after experimentation with the same magnetometer probe to insure against the presence of artifact-producing materials. F,. Further Observations A number of other observations were made which for one. reason or another did not meet our rigorous protocol prerequisites for a controlled experiment and therefore are not to be included in the category of experiments A through E which we consider well controlled. Perhaps the most notable of these were a class of observations associated with one of Geller's alleged attributes that had been reported to us, which was that he was able to bend or break metal from a distance without touching it. In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so. It was always necessary for him in the experimental situation to have physical contact with any metal he pent. In a more relaxed protocol where he was permitted to touch the metal, metals were bent. This included SRI-manufactured and Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP26-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100190001-3 serialized rings of brass and copper which were measured to require 150 lbs. force to bend them. However, it was not clear whether such bending took place because Mr. Geller has extraordinarily strong fingers and good control of micro-manipulatory movements, or whether the metal “turns to plastic” in his hand as he claims. Our final conclusion in watching our films was that simple photo interpretation is insufficient to determine whether metals are being bent by normal or © paranormal means. In summary, the three perception experiments (hidden drawings in envelopes, double-blind hidden object experiment, double-blind die-in-the-box experiment) and the two psychokinetic experiments (depression or raising of a weight on an electrical scale and the magnetometer indication) do not admit of any ready counterhypothesis to the concept of extraordinary human functioning. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDRY6-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The data gathered to date with the aid of consultants Swann and Geller point to the existence of an as yet unidentified mode of extraordinary human functioning. Efforts to explain the phenomena either within the framework of conventional concepts or by exposure of outright fraud have both met with failure at this point. With regard to the latter possibility, it might be mentioned that our efforts to detect fraud were quite sophisticated (including the use of consultant magicians on our part) under the hypothesis that subjects skilled in trickery might be sent to us to test the adequacy of our program to detect fraud. The observations to date are sufficiently detailed and well controlled to indicate without doubt that extraordinary human functioning has been observed. Further work is required, however, to obtain sufficient data to permit the emergence of patterns of cause~effect relationships and the elucidation of the mechanisms and agencies involved. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP$6-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 30 = 26 (p = 0.005) nN ras) CUMULATIVE HITS 3 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 TRIALS (p = 1/3 Per Trial). SA-2259-1 ' FIGURE 1 17 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q9130001-3 HITS/RUN (OUT OF 10 TRIALS/RUN) “0 1 2 3 4 RUN NUMBER (10 TRIALS/RUN; p = 1/3 PER TRIAL) \ | FIGURE 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9§-00787R000100180001-3 , SA-2259~7
Approved For Release2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0001091$0001-3 TEMPERATURE 50 SECONDS TIME SA-2259-5 . | FIGURE 3 19 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release 2900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q1g0001-3 2 a a 190 TRIALS a | < Ze : ac 32 n” + ER r™ 4 LL oO 2 J 2.9 O° 1 a, 3 4 5 6 7 . RUN NUMBER [(20 + N) TRIALS/RUN; p = 1/4 PER TRIAL] ; | SA-2259-6 © | FIGURE 4 — ‘ 20 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3
Approved For Release,g900/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q1g0001-3 02/7/72 PRAWWG PN og NUE COPE Pez : DRAW ES sree ~N ALAA. BY TARG ~ Seteen IN ENV ECCS Ee LL VAT AX URI 4s” izfofare f/x /rz Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3 21
Approved For Release.g)00/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00010Q130001-3 AM Ae af 3:06 Ke FIGURE 5 (Continued) Q) 7 ] Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100180001-3