Experiments with Uri Geller
WWu777
by Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D., and Russell Targ,
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California.
During Uri Geller's visits to the Stanford Research Institute, he took
part in certain experiments that do not appear in either of the
foregoing two papers by Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. What follows is
the narration to a half-hour film, shot at the SRI laboratories, that
contains these additional tests. The research presented here was
conducted during Geller's first visit to SRI - a five-week period in
late 1972. The film was sponsored jointly by the Mind Science
Foundation, the Science Unlimited Research Foundation, and EDMA, all of
San Antonio, Texas. It was first shown publicly on March 9, 1973, at a
physics colloquium at Columbia University. Because a film itself cannot
offer Proof of genuine paranormal abilities, Puthoff and Targ made the
following remark at the end of the narration: "What we've demonstrated
here are experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not
be interpreted as proof of psychic functioning." Since the film also
depicts some experiments that have been reported in the previous two
papers, the text of the film has been edited, with the consent of the
SRI researchers, to avoid repetition.
The following narrative is published for the first time, with the
permission of the researchers.
THROUGHOUT mankind's history there has existed a belief that certain
gifted individuals have been capable of producing physical effects by
means of some agency generally described as psychic or psychoenergetic.
Substantiation of such claims by accepted scientific methodology has
been slow in coming, but recent laboratory experiments, especially in
the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, and more recently in our own
laboratory, have indicated that sufficient evidence does exist to
warrant serious scientific investigation. It would appear that
experiments could be conducted with scientific rigor to uncover not just
a catalogue of interesting events, but rather a pattern of cause-effect
relationships of the type that lend themselves to analysis and
hypothesis in the forms with which we are familiar in the physical
sciences. The SRI considers this to be a valid area for scientific
inquiry.
As scientists we consider it important to examine various models.
describing the operation of these effects so that we can determine the
relationship between extraordinary human functioning and the physical
and psychological laws we presently understand. It is not the purpose of
our work at the SRI to add to the literature another demonstration of
the statistical appearance of these phenomena in the laboratory, but
rather we seek to achieve an understanding more compatible with
contemporary science, and more useful to mankind.
Here we describe partial results of a five-week investigation conducted
at the Stanford Research Institute with Uri Geller. It was set as an
absolute that experiments, to be worthy, had to be under institute
control and not Geller's.
We conducted a double-blind experiment in which someone not associated
with the project came into the experimental room, placed an object into
a can chosen at random from ten aluminum cans. The randomizer then left
the area, and the experimenters entered the room with Geller - neither
the experimenters nor Geller knowing which can contained the object. In
one case, the target was a3/4-inch steel ball bearing. The ten cans had
been arranged neatly, and Geller's task was to determine which of the
ten held the steel ball bearing. He was not permitted to touch the cans
or the table. The experimental protocol called for the experimenter to
remove the cans one at a time in response to Geller's instructions.
Eventually, there were just two cans left, and Geller indicated by
gesture and in writing which one of the remaining cans contained the
target. He was correct. It was only at the end of the experiment that
Geller touched the can that he believed contained the object. The
protocol included the possibility that he might touch a can
accidentally. In such a case, that would count as a miss.
After repetition of this experiment several times, using different
objects, Geller was finally able to walk into the room, look at the cans
lined up on the table, and just pick up the one that contained the
target. We have no hypothesis at this point as to whether this is a
heightened sensitivity of some normal sense, or whether it is some
paranormal sense.
In another case, one can contained room-temperature water. Again, the
can had been filled by an outside person who randomized the position of
the cans in a box. Then the box was rotated by a second person so that
there was no one person in the room who knew the location of the target
can. Geller entered the room and had no difficulty picking out the can
that contained the water. We repeated this type of experiment fourteen
times; five times involving a target, which was a small permanent
magnet, five times also involving a steel ball bearing as the target.
Twice the target was water. Two additional trials were made - one with a
paper wrapped ball bearing, and one with a sugar cube. The latter two
targets were not located. Geller felt that he did not have adequate
confidence as to where they were, and he declined to guess, and passed.
On each of the other twelve targets -the ball bearing, the magnet, and
the water - he did make a guess as to the target location and was
correct in every instance. The whole array of this run had an apriori
probability of one part in 10^12, or odds of a trillion to one.
In another double-blind experiment a die was placed in a metal file box
(both box and die being provided by the SRI). The box was shaken up with
neither the experimenter nor Geller knowing which face landed up. Out of
ten trials, in which he passed twice and guessed eight times, the eight
guesses were correct. It gave us a probability of about one in a
million. We again point out that there were no errors when Geller made
guesses.
We also performed two experiments in psychokinesis. In one test a
one-gram weight was placed on an electric scale. It was covered by an
aluminum can and by a glass cylinder to eliminate deflection due to air
currents. The first part of our protocol involved our tapping the bell
jar; next tapping the table; then kicking the table; and finally jumping
on the floor, with a record made of what these artifacts looked like so
that they could be distinguished from actual signals. Geller's task was
to try to influence the scale merely by holding his hands above the bell
jar (never touching it) and concentrating. He was able to do this. Once
our recording device showed an apparent weight decrease of 1500 mg, and
another time an increase of800 mg. These two readings had not been
observed as possible artifacts. In fact, in no case were our intentional
artifact readings similar to the signals produced by Geller, nor could
anyone else duplicate the effects Geller produced.
We have no ready hypothesis about how these signals might have been
produced. It is of interest to note that Geller's ability to influence
the scale improved over the period of experimentation, starting with 50
mg deflections and arriving at 1500 mg.
In another experiment Geller attempted to influence a magnetometer,
either directly or by generating a magnetic field. The full-scale
sensitivity of the instrument was 0.3 gauss. Throughout the experiment
Geller's hand did not come into contact with the instrument. The
magnetometer itself was used as a probe to go over his hands and person
to make sure that there were no magnetic objects in his hands or on him.
Geller had no apparent difficulty in influencing the magnetometer. He
caused fluctuations - almost full-scale in certain cases - whose
direction was uncorrelated with the motion of his hands. He was very
interested in the experiments we were doing because he had never taken
part in laboratory work of this kind before.
Another experiment was performed; in retrospect we consider it
unsatisfactory as it did not meet our protocol. In this case Geller's
task was to deflect a compass needle, which he did. Before and after the
experiment he was gone over with a magnetometer probe, and his hands
were photographed from above and below during and following the
experiment, so we were sure there were no obvious pieces of metal or
magnets in his possession. However, according to our protocol, if we
could in any way debunk the experiment and produce the effects by any
other means, then that experiment was considered null and void even if
there were no indications that anything untoward happened. In this
particular experiment, we found later that the type of compass needle
deflections we observed could be produced by a small piece of metal, so
small, in fact, that it could not be detected by the magnetometer.
Therefore, even though we had no evidence that Geller might have
employed this means, we still considered the experiment inconclusive and
an unsatisfactory type of experiment altogether.
There are a number of unconfirmed physical effects that need further
investigation. One of Geller's main attributes that had been reported to
us was that he was able to bend metal from a distance without touching
it. In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so. In a more
relaxed protocol, he was permitted to touch the metal, in which case the
metal did indeed bend. However, it becomes clear in watching this
demonstration on film that simple photo-interpretation is insufficient
to determine whether the metal is bent by normal or paranormal means.
In the laboratory, these spoon-bending experiments were continually
filmed and video-taped. It is evident that some time during the
photographic period a stainless steel spoon became bent. However, unlike
what we had heard about Geller, it was always necessary for him in the
experimental situation to have physical contact with the spoon or, for
that matter, any other object that he bends. It is not clear whether the
spoon was bent because he has extraordinarily strong fingers and good
control of micromanipulatory movements or whether, in fact, the spoon
"turns to plastic" in his hands, as he claims.
A number of the spoons were bent by one means or another during the
course of our experiments. There is no doubt that the spoons were bent.
The only doubt remains as to the manner of their bending. Similarly, we
have rings that were bent by Mr. Geller: a copper ring and a brass ring
that were manufactured at the SRI and measured to require 150 pounds of
force to bend them. These rings were in Geller's hand at the time they
were bent.
The following brief recap is a reminder of those experiments we feel
were best controlled. They are the perception experiments, including the
double-blind- hidden-object experiments, and the
double-blind-die-in-the-box experiment. The two psychokinetic
experiments - the depression or raising of a weight on an electric scale
and the deflection of the magnetometer - also do not seem to admit of
any ready counterhypothesis. What we've demonstrated here are the
experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not be
interpreted as of psychic functioning.