APPENDIX TWO
Text of Stanford Research Institute
Film
Throughout mankind's history there has existed a folklore
that certain gifted individuals have been capable of producing physical effects
by means of some agency generally referred to 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 catalog 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. 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 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.
This film describes a
five-week investigation conducted at Stanford Research Institute with Uri
Geller, a young Israeli. The film portrays experiments that we performed with
him just as they were carried out. Each scene has been taken from film footage
made during actual experiments; nothing has been re-staged or specially created.
It is not the purpose of the film to demonstrate any purported psychic abilities
of Mr. Geller but rather to demonstrate the experiments done with him and his
response to the experimental situation.
Meet Uri Geller. One of the types of
demonstration that Geller likes to do is to sit with a group of people and
attempt to send a number to various people in the room. With Uri Geller, this is
Edgar Mitchell, who with his eyes covered is trying to pick up the number that
Geller is sending. Also, we see Wilbur Franklin, of Kent State, Harold Puthoff
and Russell Targ, of SRI, along with Don Scheuch, vice-president for research at
SRI. Dr. Scheuch is trying to receive and then write down the number that Geller
is sending. In this case, Scheuch is successful in picking up the number.
Of
course, this is not a laboratory experiment, since the activity is totally under
Geller's control. It was set as an absolute that experiments, to be worthy, had
to be under institute control. Here we show a series of experiments where,
previously, fifteen drawings were placed in double-sealed envelopes in a safe
for which none of the experimenters had the combination. It took signatures of
both the key researchers to remove a drawing at random from the collection in
the safe. One of the researchers would then, in this case Targ, look at the
drawing outside the experimental room, reseal the envelope, enter the
experimental room, whence Geller's task was to draw what he perceived in the
envelope.
This is Geller's representation of what he believed was sealed in
the envelope. At no time during these experiments did he have any advance
knowledge of the target material. As far as he is concerned, these could be
drawings of any kind, whether a design or a representational picture. In fact,
this is the most off-
target of the drawings that he did.
Here - the
experiment is repeated, this time with Puthoff as a sender, just to check that
the identity of the sender is of no significance in the experiment.
Additionally, all experiments are tape-recorded to guard against any verbal
cuing on the part of the experimenters.
This the drawing that Geller has
made to correspond to the target object. The rectangle on the clipboard
represents the TV screen in Geller's mind on which he claims to project the
image he is trying to draw. As you can see, he is quite elated about getting the
right answer. Before he does this, it is usually preceded by several minutes of
"I can't do this - it's impossible. I want to stop. Let's wait."
Here in the
laboratory notebook on the left side of the page you see the original targets,
and on the right, Geller's responses. This is not a collection of correct
answers out of a long series of correct and incorrect responses. This is
actually the total run of pictures in the series. It is interesting that there
is often a mirror symmetry.
In this particular case, neither Geller nor the
experimenter had knowledge of what the target was. This is a double blind
experiment. Here, on the upper left of the page, is a picture that was brought
to SRI by an outside consultant and sealed in his own envelope; Geller's
representation is at the lower right. This was by far the most complicated
target picture encountered during these experiments.
This is a typical
target carrier used in the experiments. The inner envelope is opaque in its own
right; the outer one is a heavy manila envelope. A floodlight behind these
envelopes would not permit the interior to be seen. This type of communication
experiment was repeated many other times during the five weeks, with Geller
choosing to pass about 20 percent of the time.
It is interesting that when
he drew his response in this case he didn't recognize the object as eyeglasses -
it seemed to him to be an abstract drawing. In general, these drawing
experiments were not double blind as one of the experimenters knew what was in
the picture in the envelope.
Here, however, we present a case of a double
blind experiment, in which someone not associated with the project comes into
the experimental room, places an object into a can chosen at random from ten
aluminum cans. Numbered tops are also put on at random. The randomizer then
leaves the area, and the experimenters enter the experimental area with Geller,
with neither the experimenters nor Geller knowing which can contains the object.
In this particular case, the target is a three-quarter-inch steel ball which now
resides in one of the ten cans in the box.
The ten cans having been arranged
neatly, Geller's task now is to determine which of these ten cans holds the
steel ball bearing. He is not permitted to touch the cans or the table. The
experimental protocol is for experimenter to remove the cans one at a time in
response to Geller's instructions as he points or calls out a can-top number.
Eventually there will be just two or three cans left, and Geller will then
indicate both by gesture and in writing which one of the remaining cans contains
the target. It is only at the end of the experiment that Geller touches the can
that he believes contains the object. The protocol included the possibility that
he might touch a can accidentally. In such case, that would have counted as a
miss. Here he writes the selected number.
This, you might say, is a kind of
ten-can Russian roulette. He has made his choice. The steel ball is found.
In later repetitions of this same experiment, he was finally weaned away
from the dowsing technique where he runs his hands over the cans. He got to the
point where he could walk into a room, see the cans lined up on a blackboard
sill, 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.
Now we are repeating the
experiment with a different target object. One of these cans is filled with
room-
temperature water.
Again, the can was filled by an outside person
who randomized the position of the cans. Then the box that contained the cans
was rotated by a second person so that there is no one person in the room who
knows the location of the target can. As you can see here, there is less hand
motion by Geller over the can. The protocol as before involves his calling out
the number or pointing and one of the experimenters removing the can at Geller's
call. At this point in time he is asked to make his choice both by writing the
number down as well as making a selection by hand. You will note that he is
making a final test to be sure of his selection. Tentatively, he reaches and
having made the selection now looks to see whether water is inside the can He
now waters the plant with the contents of the can. You will note he is very
pleased with finding this target because he had doubts at the outset whether he
would be able to locate a can filled with water.
We repeated this type of
experiment fourteen times; five times involved a target being a small permanent
magnet, five times also involved 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 didn't have adequate confidence as to where they were, and
he declined to guess, and passed. On 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. In subsequent work with another subject, we found
the subject experiencing a highly significant difference in his ability to find
the steel ball bearing as compared with finding other targets.
The whole
array of this run had an a priori probability of 1 part in 10^12 or statistics
of a trillion to one. Here is another double blind experiment in which a die is
placed in a metal file box (both box and die being provided by SRI). The box is
shaken up with neither the experimenter nor Geller knowing where the die is or
which face is up. This is a live experiment that you see - in this case, Geller
guessed that a four was showing but first he passed because he was not
confident. You will note he was correct and he was quite pleased to have guessed
correctly, but this particular test does not enter into our statistics.
The
previous runs of ten can roulette gave a result whose probability due to chance
alone is one part in 10^12 We decided at the outset to carry out the die-in-
box experiment until we got to a million to one odds, at
which time the
experiment was terminated. Out of ten tries in which he passed twice and guessed
eight times, the eight guesses were correct, and that gave us a probability of
about one in a million.
We would point out again, there were no errors in
the times he made a guess.
This is the first of two experiments in
psychokinesis. Here a one-gram weight is being placed on an electrical scale. It
is then covered by an aluminum can and by a glass cylinder to eliminate
deflection due to air currents. The first part of our protocol involves 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 signals. In tests following this
experimental run, a magnet was brought near the apparatus, static electricity
was discharged against parts of the apparatus, and controlled runs of day-long
operation were obtained. In no case were artifacts obtained which in any way
resembled the signals produced by Geller, nor could anyone else duplicate the
effects.
The bottom four signals show the type of artifact that results from
tapping or kicking the table. They are small AC signals with a time constant
characteristic of the apparatus. The upper two traces, on the other hand, are
apparently due to Geller's efforts. They are single-
sided signals, one
corresponding to a 1,500-mg weight decrease, the other corresponding to an
800-mg weight increase. Those types of single-sided signals were never observed
as artifacts with any other stimuli.
We have no ready hypothesis on how
these signals might have been produced. The width of the signals produced by
Geller was about two hundred milliseconds. The chart ran at one millimeter per
second. It was of interest to note that Geller's performance improved over the
period of experimentation, starting with 50-mg deflections and arriving at 1,500
mg.
In this experiment Geller is attempting to influence the magnetometer
either directly or by generating a magnetic field. The full-scale sensitivity of
the instrument is .3 of a gauss, and, as is clear in this instance, his hands
are open. Throughout the experiment, his hands do 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.
Here you see substantial fluctuations both to the left and to the right - almost
full-scale in certain cases - on the magnetometer meter. These fluctuations are
sometimes uncorrelated with the motions of his hands.
This is the chart
recording of the magnetometer fluctuations produced by Geller. We see here
full-scale fluctuations of .3 of a gauss, which is a significant magnetic field,
comparable to the earth's field. After each of these experiments we would in
general discuss the results with Geller, show him the strip chart recording, and
talk about the significance of his experiments. He was very interested in the
experiments we were doing because he had never taken part in laboratory
experiments of this kind before.
The following is an experiment which in
retrospect we consider unsatisfactory, as it didn't meet our protocol standards.
Here the task is to deflect the compass needle which, indeed, Geller does.
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 that we are 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 case, we found later that these types of
deflections could be produced by a small piece of metal, so small in fact that
they could not be detected by the magnetometer. Therefore, even though we had no
evidence of this, we still considered the experiment inconclusive and an
unsatisfactory type of experiment altogether.
A look at the lower mirror
affords one the best view. It can be seen that his hands are completely exposed
to photography from above and below with different cameras.
These are a
series 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, as you will see in the film, the metal is indeed bent.
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 continuously filmed and video-taped. It is evident that some
time during the photographic period this stainless steel spoon became bent.
However, unlike the things we have 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 is being bent because he has extraordinarily strong fingers and good
control of micro-manipulatory movements or whether, in fact, the spoon "turns to
plastic" in his hands, as he claims.
Here are a number of the spoons that
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. The rings
that were bent are shown here. The copper ring at the left and the brass ring at
the right were manufactured at SRI and measured to require 150 pounds force to
bend them. These rings were in Geller's hand at the time they were bent.
This brief recap is to remind you of those experiments we feel were best
controlled. They are the three perception experiments, including the hidden
drawings in envelopes, 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 electrical scale and the deflection of
the magnetometer - also do not seem to admit of any ready counter-hypothesis.
What we've demonstrated here are the experiments that we performed in the
laboratory and should not be interpreted as proof of psychic functioning.
Indeed, a film never proves anything. Rather, this film gives us the opportunity
to share with the viewer observations of phenomena that in our estimation
clearly deserve further study.