by James Randi
A second set of tests involving Geller were done to test his clairvoyance. In these, no one would know what the test object was, so telepathy was ruled out and the knowledge would have to come by some other sensory apparatus, if at all.
One hundred drawings were prepared and sealed up in envelopes by SRI personnel, then divided into groups of 20 for three days of experiments. On all of these tests, Geller “passed”; that is, he refused to try. Each day, however, he made 12 drawings that he said were associated with the entire pool of 100 drawings. On each of the three days, 2 of his drawings could reasonably be associated with 2 of the targets in that day’s 20 test drawings. But the drawings did not correspond in numbers greater than could be attributed by chance.
Another test involved a single die placed in a 3”-by-4”-by-5” steel box and shaken by the experimenters. The face uppermost was unknown even to the experimenters, and Geller accepted the test eight times out of the ten times tried, “passing” on two. He was correct all eight times he tried. The probability of this occurring by chance alone is one in 1,000,000.
The “SRI Report” concludes that “in certain circumstances, significant information transmission can take place under shielded conditions.” Factors affecting the results, they decided, are “whether the subject knows the set of targets in the target pool, the actual number of targets in the target pool at any given time, and whether the target is known by any of the experimenters.”
Metal-bending, though observed at the lab, was not reported in this paper “due to lack of adequate controls.”
I am dealing here only with the Geller substance of the SRI paper, and must ignore the rest, which describes further tests with other “sensitives.”But I may mention that the complete narrative of the SRI film showing Geller at work—which was shown at Columbia University on March 9, 1973, to convince disbelievers before the SRI paper was published—appears in the report as well.
There was no way that I could get to see the SRI film. Only the elite of the world of science and journalism were invited, and being of a lower order of life, I received no request for my presence. Besides, the film might well have refused to run under negative vibrations, being the psychic revelation that it was. Leon Jaroff, of Time, was invited, but the editorial pressures made it necessary for him to send his assistant, Sydnor Vanderschmidt, in his stead. (Circulating among the celebrities after the showing of the film, she reported that she overheard one of the top U.S. physicists remark with a smile, “Targ does not strike me as being very smart.”) So a complaint, made by Targ and Puthoff that Jaroff failed to attend the film showing is hardly valid.
By a rather surreptitious means, I managed to obtain a videotape copy of the last half of the famous film. And what I have seen has caused me several bruises from falling off my chair in laughter. How the great minds at SRI failed to tumble to the simple tricks Geller performed for them, I cannot understand. Even my youngest magic student solved the compass trick right away:
Geller is shown waving his hands about over a simple compass. We are solemnly assured that his hands have been carefully examined with a probe to be sure he has no magnets concealed. Nonetheless, the compass needle deflects! But it moves, not in rhythm with his hand movements, but in time with his head, and only when his head approaches the device! Open wide, Uri. What’s this magnet doing in your mouth?
Then Uri treats us to some spoon-bending. That’s right, folks, these serious men of science sat about watching Geller stroke a spoon, trying to make it bend. And it didn’t bulge a degree out of normal. Not while they were watching it, that is! You see, the spoon-bending trick is shown in the film in five segments. In each, we see the Israeli wonder stroking for all he’s worth, turning the spoon every which way and concentrating mightily like a man in pain. And every time a segment ends (to wind the camera or to put new film in) the spoon returns to the screen with a new bend in it! Marvelous!
I bothered to study this phenomenon further by photographing the spoon in profile from the television screen at the beginning and end of each segment. Guess what? There is no change whatsoever in the bend while the camera is running, but considerable change when no film is being shot—that is to say, while no one is looking.
Now, I am not a great scientific mind, so I cannot pass judgment on the methods used by the accomplished scientists who performed these earth-shaking experiments with Geller. But if a simple method like the one I have just outlined was not thought of by the greatest minds in parapsychology, someone is missing the boat somewhere.
The film ends with a display of wondrously contorted rings and silverware all bent by Geller, but the narrative tells us that they are not quite sure of how all of these got bent. I think I know.
Tell me, gentlemen of SRI, if the film you so highly tout proves absolutely nothing about Geller’s psychokinetic “bending” powers, why include the sequence? Could it be that you just need to bolster your case, so you throw in the glamour stuff, too? Whatever happened to science along the way? Or is that too unsophisticated a question, and attitude, for you?
I repeat: What I saw of the film leaves no mystery about Geller. It does leave other mysteries, though.
1 I must add that a few scientist friends disagree with this assessment.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
A lie travels round the world
While truth is putting on her boots.
—Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Well, the descriptions given in the SRI paper are certainly not complete, by any means. Russell Targ reported to Dr. Joseph Hanlon, who wrote an analysis of the “SRI Report” for New Scientist, that he felt “confident that Geller will cheat if given the chance.” So the question is, did he, could he, and would he cheat if the opportunity arose? Certainly he would if he wanted to impress the scientists—and he wanted to do so very much. Could he? Yes, because the experiments were full of loopholes. Let us look into some of these.
First, did the “steel room” really provide electrical shielding? We may never know. All of my requests to see the room and test it have been met with stony silence. Had I the opportunity to test it, I would (a) examine the audio line, which could be used to transmit a radio signal inside, unless provided with isolation transformers or other filter systems, or which could be tapped into directly if the vigilance of the experimenters was low enough; (b) I would find out if the supply of 110 V.A.C. to the inside of the room was isolated from the other mains—otherwise, a simple communications link could be established by that means (such systems are available at very low cost in any electronics store, and can easily be miniaturized); and (c) I would find out if a low frequency induction system could be set up (such systems are often used to conduct the regular A.C. through the walls) to transmit information.
But hold on a moment! We would need a confederate to transmit the information to Uri! We’ve already been told that all means were adopted to be sure that no cueing was possible, so we can assume that any person who would be capable of giving information to Uri was excluded from the test area. Not so. Shipi was there, according to Hanlon, “constantly underfoot” during the tests! So we have both links we need for a perfectly possible method of cheating on these tests!
Further inquiries within Stanford Research Institute reveal that the famous steel room (referred to as the “Faraday Cage,” though the screened room more aptly meets that definition) is not anywhere near soundproof. A tap on the outside of the room can easily be heard inside; this signaling is quite possible even while the door is shut. And there remains unexplained an interesting occurrence during the telepathy tests that were conducted with Geller: at the end of one test, the experimenters found it impossible to open the door! They called to Geller and got no answer, though it was obvious he was on the other side of the door and holding it shut with his body, and he would not admit them for some three or four minutes. When they finally got in, they discovered the lock had been tampered with from the inside!
And this is a set of tests don
e under “controlled” conditions? Funny, I don’t seem to be able to find any mention of these events in the “SRI Report.”
But we’ve not described just how successful Geller was. And this may surprise you, but I’ll be much more generous than the experiment’s judges were in deciding which were “hits” and which were “misses.”
The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
You see, I’ve given Geller three more hits than SRI gave him, leaving only one miss in the whole works—and three passes, besides the one hundred envelopes he passed up as well.
Why? Because if you study the third response to Figure 3 you’ll find two tridents drawn among all the other nonsense, and there is a trident in the target. But examine those tridents carefully, and compare them with the other drawings in the three sets of responses. Note that all drawings are very carefully made; all lines meet; and all closed curves are closed carefully and neatly. What are the only two drawings in the entire set of thirty drawings in the answer that are carelessly—as if done at the last second, surreptitiously? Yes, the two tridents! Is it possible that Geller made these drawings after the target was shown to him. Yes, it’s very possible. Lora Myers, writing for Oui magazine in September, 1975, reported that she performed a “telepathy” test with Geller in which she had drawn a television set. Geller made a number of drawings in response to this. Lora says, “Then I show him my television set. Exuberantly, Uri flips over the paper on which he had drawn the rose. On the back of his response to my first drawing, the pear, are a few faint lines that look like parts of a square. In a flash, Uri again seizes the pen from my hand and draws in a television set over the lines, adding two little knobs, and his name at the bottom.
FIGURE 1. This is almost a hit. It has the word “noise” and a human head with a lightning bolt in one ear. If you made an excuse to leave the room—and could have gotten just one quick glance at Shipi Shtrang, and he was trying to signal “fire- cracker” to you, wouldn’t he put his fingers in his ears? And wouldn’t that mean “noise”1—like a drum? I see the word noise written in the response! SRI verdict. a miss. My verdict:, a miss (but just).
FIGURE 2. Leapin’ lizards. Sandy! This is a 100% hit, no question. The system was really working well here. See text p. 60. Even the number of grapes is right. SRI verdict, a hit. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 3. Of thirty responses to a simple target, only two seem to correspond to the transmission the tridents. And, of all the response drawings, only two are hastily scrawled—one of them even over a previous drawing—the tridents! Could these have been hastily added as Geller emerged and saw the target? I think so—SRI verdict, a miss. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 4. Here again, the system worked well. The response corresponds exactly to a verbal impression of the target, though not to a visual (or a telepathic) one. SRI verdict a hit. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURES 5, 6, and 7 were a rabbit, a tree, and an envelope in the original series, but were passed over by Uri despite their simplicity. Let’s score them as misses!
FIGURE 8 (CAMEL). A quick glance at this target might have given Shipi an impression of a horse. Interestingly enough, if telepathywere used, this would be one of the most impressive of the results! SRI verdict, a hit. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 9 (BRIDGE). To an American, a bridge must be a suspension bridge. To Uri, it might mean a rural span. In any case, the response does not mate the picture, but could correspond to a verbal cue. SRI verdict. “Fair.” My verdict: “Fair +.”
FIGURE 10 (left). How Uri’s name got under the target picture I’ll never know. But a bird is a bird, and all systems were working, though you can’t prove that Uri’s drawing is a sea-going bird. But I’ll be generous. SRI verdict, a hit. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 11 (right). (This and the next two tests were done in the cage.) No question of it. This shape, which could have been transmitted by simple hand gestures or by a verbal cue, can hardy be drawn any other way. A success!—But—not as a kite! As a square with diagonals, yes. Such a response could result from a hand signal that would give only the geometries. SRI verdict, a hit. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 12 (left). Come, now! The shape of the church is right there in the overturned champagne glass! Or as near as we can get to a shape transmitted by hand gestures. Try it: Ask another person to pick up a drawing while you “draw” it in the air. It should approach Uri’s result. Even a bunch of dots got through, as well. Isn’t telepathy wonderful! SRI verdict, a miss. My verdict, a hit.
FIGURE 13 (right). I would accept anything with an arrow in it. They might even have been watching Shipi by now (a bit late!) and opportunities would be getting slimmer. But he’s a good man to have around. SRI verdict. “Fair.” My verdict a hit.
I mean look, you saw it,’ he crows, setting down the pen. ‘The pen is down here... I got your television set!’”
The SRI report tells us specifically that the responses were collected before the target was shown to the subject. Given the many statements from persons present at that series of tests to the effect that Geller’s every whim was satisfied and that conditions were altered any way he wanted them, I find it not difficult to postulate that on this occasion the performer could have emerged from the sealed room clutching the three pages of responses he’d made—pen or pencil still in hand—and looking up at the target posted in full view, could have hastily added the two tridents to the third page. Note that the two tridents are not only the sole sloppy drawings in the set of thirty, but one of them overlaps the globe drawing, carelessly. It is the only response to do so, as if it were made without Geller looking at the place he was drawing.
My conclusion has to be that Geller emerged from the room, saw the complex target drawing, seized upon the one “theme” that he could quickly sketch in (the trident), and did so, then looking at the result, he tried again for a better version. Ten points for effort, guts, and ingenuity. But no points for drawing.
The other bonus points I’ve awarded him are in Figures 9, 12 and 13. In Figure 9,1 consider that Geller got a bridge—the same word that was being transmitted, though not the same drawing of that word. It almost seems as if he got the sound of the target rather than the visual impression, doesn’t it? Well, consider that possibility. We already have a very possible system (Shipi/electronics) for transmission of data. Why not?
In the case of Figure 1 (a firecracker) he tried with thirteen separate responses. (The actual word chosen was “fuse”—not “firecracker.”) But the human head with squinting eyes and a “pain” bolt entering the ear, the drums and the word “noise” show me that he got very close to the target: a lit firecracker. I’ll make a bet here. I’ll bet that Geller made some excuse to leave the room, promising to hold his hand over his closed eyes, and shot a quick look at Shipi. This poor guy was under pressure to give Uri a signal—very quickly—that would convey the idea of a lit firecracker. Somehow, whatever other methods they had set up were not working at that moment. So, to transmit the idea to Geller, Shipi stuck both index fingers in his ears, shut his eyes, and grimaced in pain. And the signal that gets across is “noise.” Or a human head with pain in the ear.
Farfetched? Maybe. But, under pressure to produce, it’s the kind of thing I would expect my confederate to do, and I would probably make the same sort of response. And as we discover more about Uri’s record in these matters it seems a more likely explanation than telepathy.
Now my reader will be astonished, perhaps, to find me making the assumption that highly trained men like Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ could possibly allow loose enough conditions to exist during the tests so that Geller could demand to be let out of the sealed room and allowed other great relaxations of security—such as having Shipi Shtrang, certainly the most probable confederate a performer might be suspected of using, to be present and “underfoot” during the experiments. How can I presume so much? Because I have seen what grown men will do to satisfy a deep need to believe. And, because Captain Edgar Mitchell, for
mer astronaut, surely one of the leading Geller supporters, has said, “I was there virtually all the time. I am a co-investigator on all that work... Frankly, [there’s] a problem that Russ and Hal had—they were so eager to keep him around that they worked themselves into a box by meeting his every whim, and if he threatened to walk off they would relent and do what he wanted. Of course they lost control of the situation, and it just got worse and worse and worse....”
So my presumptions are based upon testimony from a man who was deeply involved in the Geller tests. And something else bears mention as well. Mitchell also related—to Joseph Hanlon—that there were a great number of experiments done with Geller at the SRI sessions that they could not report, because Geller simply broke loose from even the flimsy controls they did insist on. Thus we see that Geller had a good deal of knowledge about the testing procedures and was not exposed to them “cold turkey” at all. By the time the lab settled down to record results, he was familiar with their methods and prepared to work a way around them to get results.