In the spirit of Chris's reply:
(2017-08-30, 11:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]For example, in the dice box experiments, at least some of the time, Geller handled the box, making it possible for him to thumb the lid for a quick peek after a little misdirection.
And the rest of the time?
(2017-08-30, 11:03 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Marks and Kammann are two psychologists who attempted to replicate Trag and Puthoff's research. They wrote a book, "The Psychology of the Psychic" about the results. With respect to the experiments with Uri Geller, they toured the facilities where the experiments were performed, reviewed the lab notes of the various people involved in the program, looked at video tape and discussed the experiments with Targ and Puthoff. It became clear that what was shown on the videotape was a sanitized version of the actual experiments.
For example, in the dice box experiments, at least some of the time, Geller handled the box, making it possible for him to thumb the lid for a quick peek after a little misdirection. For the drawing experiments, there was a window (one-way mirror) between the room where Geller sat unobserved and the room where the drawings were produced. A bulletin board covered the window, and Marks and Kammann noted that a pinhole in the bulletin board would allow Geller to observe the production of the pictures (as well as listen to any conversation as an intercom was present between the rooms).
Marks and Kammann were the ones who discovered that the remote reading results were due to poor procedure on Targ and Puthoff's part when they presented the targets in the order they were visited to the judges, and left cues in the readings as to the order the sites were visited, making it easy to match readings to the sites. Taking the cues out and mixing up the order left the results unremarkable.
Has anybody else read the book?
Linda
I have the second edition of the book.
I think Laird could do with reading it. Like I said before, there are possible naturalistic explanations for the experiments he did with Puthoff and Targ. As the possibility of fraud and sensory leakage was not ruled out, there is no need to invoke miracles.
(2017-08-30, 05:38 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]You know what's funny? Skeptics go on about how easy it is to get fooled, and that any test of a purported psychic needs to have magicians involved to check for trickery. But point out to them in a given experiment that a magician was involved and suddenly it becomes, "Oh, so you think magicians can't be fooled, huh?"
I tell you, the goalposts can be shifted endlessly.
There is no reliable evidence Russell Targ was a practicing magician, apart from his own words in a biography. Joe Nickell says it is a fabrication. I am inclined to believe it is. Targ has been caught lying about remote viewing experiments (check out the book by David Marks that fls mentioned), so likely he lied when he said he used to work as a magician.
Targ has very bad eyesight. He cannot see hardly anything, do you really think he was the best person to be testing Geller?
(2017-08-31, 01:14 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]A video of Uri bending a spoon. Fairly recent it appears to be. https://youtu.be/pN_AC9KHlM8
Lol I found the comments more interesting than the video. Almost every comment calling him a conman, fraud and liar.
I also see it is an advert for Kellogg's cereal. Uri must be desperate for money again...
(2017-08-30, 11:59 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it's too late to change the decision, but it is possible to copy this thread back onto the ECP forum and have two discussions going.
I'm really not that invested in it, thanks, Ninshub.
I think this thread demonstrates how polarised the views are, except that most of the proponents seem to be saying merely that there appears to be something of interest happening in the video and the others are insisting: no there isn't, it's just Geller, he's a fraud and so are all those guys who tested him at SRI. It is curiosity versus certainty, open-mindedness versus dogma. It is also a case of sceptics citing other sceptics.
The internet is full of the same dogma which is why this thread and the malaise it highlights are quite depressing and why I feel less inclined to take part. I asked for more evidence and I tried to find it myself. If Google search is an indicator of the state of play, then what you will find when you search are pages and pages of links to sceptical sites and blogs. CSICOP, RationalWiki, even the sceptically biased Wikipedia with its so called
Guerrilla Skeptic editors. If shouting down the opposing view is the way to win debates, then the internet is proof that it works. Leuders comes along to this forum and shamelessly
cites his own website as though RationalWiki should be regarded as a trusted and unbiased source. A site dedicated to the character assassination of anyone involved with psi research (unless that involvement happens to be for the purpose of debunking). A site where pejoratives like pseudoscience and woo are tossed around like confetti and any semblance of balance is dispelled after reading the first paragraph of any entry.
In short, leave it where it is (or move it back) - I don't particularly care right now.
(2017-08-31, 03:18 AM)JonDonnis Wrote: [ -> ]Wikipedia is a great website , everything on it has to be sourced. The paranormal believers hate the website because it is pro science and debunks their woo
Just because this forum allows Skeptics, and that the policy is not to moderate content (so far), this doesn't mean that any type of post is welcome. This is obviously a troll post, and is not welcome here. I see you're a new member, please reconsider your approach to posting.
I don't have a great deal of time, but here's a rough and ready timeline of Geller at SRI. I think it'll help people distinguish between the filmed experiments and the ones written up in the Nature paper since there seems to be a bit of confusion between the two.
- - -
September 1973, Targ joins Puthoff at SRI and soon after they met Andrija Puharich and learn about Uri Geller. They meet Geller in November, and conduct a number of preliminary experiments, held sporadically over six weeks: dice box, hidden objects in box, picture drawing and metal bending. These were the filmed experiments.
A letter on 14th February 1973 to <<redacted>> from Targ and Puthoff describes Geller’s results very positively: he reproduced twenty drawings almost error-free, located hidden objects “without error”, also mentions dice tests, increased weight recorded by a laboratory balance under a Bell jar. Letter requests that a more comprehensive one-year program be commissioned.
On 22nd Feb, a Technical Memorandum reported the results of the work with Geller.
Work with Geller conducted 1 Dec 1972 - 15 Jan 1973
A: Probability 1/6 Double-Blind Dice Box Experiment
Die in a box. Ten trials. Two passes and eight hits.
B: Probability 1/10 Hidden Object Experiment
Ten identical aluminium film cans with stainles steel tops placed in a row.
Someone not associated with the research would place target in a random container.
Geller and Exp were absent and therefore blind to the target.
Geller would, by process of elimination, try to find the correct container.
This was performed twelve times without error, with two passes.
C: Picture drawing experiment
Simple pictures drawn by Targ on 3x5 cards. These pictures put in double sealed envelopes and placed in a safe. This was done on the morning of the experiment.
One envelope was chosen by two experimenters, open it, look at the picture, re-seal it, and then enter the room where Geller was.
“Geller made seven almost exact reproductions of the seven chosen target pictures, with no errors.”
D: Laboratory Balance
A precicision laboratory balance with a 1g mass on it was placed under a Bell jar.
Displacements recorded, different in signature to those displacements produced by jumping, kicking table, etc.
Apparatus ran for one day as a control to look for noise.
E: Magnetometer
Geller waved his hands over a Bell gaussmeter set to full sensitivity of 0.3 gauss, and caused a complete deflection of the chart recorder.
March 30, a report of a trip to SRI is written. It describes discussions regarding the future of the project, and that CIA management won’t be satisfied until “testing which incorporated techniques & devices (e.g., trapped envelopes, etc) which they understood and respected.” Geller preferred to Swann, due to his apparent better results. Geller willing to return to SRI in April, and he has (ostensibly) no idea of agency support for the program.
April 4, letter from <<redacted>> re protocols. Stresses that the results be of a form that agency management would understand, and that the true nature of the sponsor be kept from the subjects. Also requests that the subjects recieve less feedback: delay it, and make it vaguer rather than trial by trial. Talks at length about how half of the line-drawings on 3x5 cards will come from the agency and the logistics of managing this.
April 6, memo of a telephone conversation with Puthoff and same man who wrote the letter on April 4, telling him the paperwork is going through re contact extension. Geller to arive on April 13 for more testing.
April 10, memo of another telecon, saying paperwork proceeding well, and mentioning a technical analysis of a telecon between <<redacted>> (probably Kit Green) and Geller had not found anything unusual.
(Is this the telecon between Geller and Kit Green where Geller guessed the details of a book on Green’s desk?)
No documents relating to Geller’s visit in April! Did it even take place?
August 4-11 Additional work with Geller. Picture drawing and Target Pictures. This is the work written up for Nature.
December, extra work with Geller: the failed experiments using 3x5 cards, as discussed in April, mentioned in the Nature paper.
(2017-08-31, 01:02 AM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]There is no reliable evidence Russell Targ was a practicing magician, apart from his own words in a biography. Joe Nickell says it is a fabrication. I am inclined to believe it is.
I'm sure you are. And I'm inclined to take Russell at his word. If you have any proof of fabrication (as opposed merely to another man's opinion), then please feel free to present it.
On a related note, I wonder what you make of this (thanks to Jim_Smith for posting this link on Skeptiko very recently):
http://www.urigeller.com/category/testim...magicians/
(2017-08-31, 12:54 AM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]I have the second edition of the book.
I think Laird could do with reading it. Like I said before, there are possible naturalistic explanations for the experiments he did with Puthoff and Targ. As the possibility of fraud and sensory leakage was not ruled out, there is no need to invoke miracles.
I asked you previously: you are asserting that the possibility of fraud and sensory leakage was not ruled out, but
by whom?
Certainly,
sensory leakage was ruled out explicitly by the experimenters (my bolding):
Quote: In our detailed explanation of the shielded room and the protocol used in these experiments no sensory leakage has been found, nor has any defect in the protocol been brought to our attention.
One would probably be safe in concluding from the second half of that sentence that fraud was ruled out impicitly by the experimenters.