Psience Quest

(2017-08-31, 05:51 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Linda

Did something go wrong, or did you mean to post a blank reply above?

The former. I think it's fixed.

Linda

I'm not sure how to weigh the claim that the judge said one thing to Marks and Kammann and something different to Scott Rogo.

Linda

(2017-08-31, 01:36 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]To answer my own question, apparently these are two different holes and both relate to the same room. This is a "snippet" from an article in "The Zetetic" on Google Books:
"Perhaps just as important as the four-inch hole is the window between the "shielded" room and the anteroom. It appeared to be a one-way-vision screen (i.e., a reversible mirror) about two feet wide and 1.5 feet high. In November 1975 it was covered by a bulletin board screwed over it in the anteroom. Dr. Puthoff stated that it was even more thoroughly covered by a shield when Geller was being tested."

[Edited to add: I assume that snippet comes from David Marks and Richard Kammann, “The Nonpsychic Powers of Uri Geller,” Zetetic 1 (1977): 9−17.]

Just repeating this, as it appears to answer some of Max's questions.

One would hope that the authors did include Puthoff's statement about the shield in their book, as well as their earlier article.

The pinhole theory doesn't really work because, unless the bulletinboard is right up against the glass (and how could it be? How would it be fastened?), the pinhole would only work one way: on the side where Geller can put his eye right next to the pinhole. From the other side, there will be a gap between the glass and the board, and he won't be able to see through at all.

Let's not forget that three of the sessions were carried out by outside scientists (all misses, by the way) and surely they'd notice if there was a bare uncovered one-way window since they used both the shielded room and the adjacent room. So there must've been something blocking it.

(2017-08-31, 07:45 PM)ersby Wrote: [ -> ]The pinhole theory doesn't really work because, unless the bulletinboard is right up against the glass (and how could it be? How would it be fastened?), the pinhole would only work one way: on the side where Geller can put his eye right next to the pinhole. From the other side, there will be a gap between the glass and the board, and he won't be able to see through at all.

If that's the case, and if Marks and Kammann were right that the bulletin board was on the outside of the shielded room, then it could affect only one of the ten trials in which Geller drew a picture - number 4 (the solar system) in which the experimenters were inside the shielded room and Geller was outside. (That's also assuming Puthoff was wrong in stating that the window was covered by an effective shield, not by the bulletin board, at the time of the experiments.)

(2017-08-31, 08:06 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yuck, it's very poor... there is no way of really knowing if you can rely on these experiments in the paper or not... there is sufficient doubt about sensory leakage, due to the info I'm seeing here... and the Nature paper is so short due to limited space as to be almost useless in clarifying the problems... I'll be interested in the answers Linda gives to those three questions.

I mean, if Geller was actually in an EMI shielded room with a window that overlooked the adjacent room, then I've got a problem with the paper, as it says... "...Acoustic and visual isolation is provided by a double walled steel room, locked by means of a inner and outer door, each of which is secured with a refrigerator type locking mechanism..." Because that's just not accurate IMO.

Reading the paper I would think that this description of the room was of an inner and outer steel wall construction with block or insulating infill, tight fitting inner and outer steel doors and locks etc. From a 'visual' leakage point of view, not mentioning the presence of a window is really concerning.

Heck, I'd want to know about the window construction now as well. From an auditory point of view... glass can be a great sounding board when one puts one's ear against it. Which opens another possible correlation with experiments 5,6, & 7 that Geller passed on. As these three experiments were supposedly prepared outside of the experimental group (thus not in in the adjacent room), and so no verbal discussion should have taken place in the adjacent room about the imagery they would draw to represent these chosen keywords.

Yes, it's fair criticism that the shielded room doesn't seem to have been accurately described - and the cable conduit would also have compromised acoustic shielding. (Though I doubt whether aural clues would have been sufficient - particularly for that uncannily accurate reproduction of the bunch of grapes.)

But I think the variety of conditions makes it difficult to argue that unintentional flaws in the experimental design could have been responsible for all these drawings. All these possible visual and acoustic flaws concerning the first shielded room would affect only five out of the ten drawings in the sequence - the ones that used the first shielded room and the adjacent room:

[Image: Geller.jpg]
From what Linda posted, it sounds as though Marks and Kamman made separate suggestions for each of the three other set-ups. It would be interesting to see the details, but it seems a bit of a stretch.

Shielded room 2 is the Faraday cage that Linda mentioned ("double-walled copper-screen"). I suppose Geller would have been able to see out of it, but on the other hand the paper says it was 54m down the hall and around the corner from the computer room where the targets were displayed.

(2017-08-31, 07:45 PM)ersby Wrote: [ -> ]Let's not forget that three of the sessions were carried out by outside scientists (all misses, by the way) 

Indeed.

At the very least we must all conclude that there was an environment created by the resident team at SRI that was extremely conducive to positive results. The conditions were optimum for Geller to perform his "magic", whatever that may entail. As far as I am aware Geller never performed anywhere near as well as this before, or after, these sessions with these investigators.

(2017-08-31, 01:24 AM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]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...

I'm sure you noticed the first demonstration of the dimpled spoon bowl where we were not shown the spoon before its dimpling. And the second where the spoon bends until he does a scene change and lo and behold it breaks. It's telekinesis at work for sure.

(2017-08-31, 09:56 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you noticed the first demonstration of the dimpled spoon bowl where we were not shown the spoon before its dimpling. And the second where the spoon bends until he does a scene change and lo and behold it breaks. It's telekinesis at work for sure.

If the point you are so obtusely attmting to make is that Uri Geller has been known to be frauduloent, OK, I'm down with that.

If you think he is a complete, total fake now I have a dilemms.

Do I believe Steve001 and QuaLueder or Jacques Vallee?  Tough one, have to meditate on it.

Idiot Vallee a man with no Integrity known for lying his ass off

WRT Vallee, he needn't be lying.