Psience Quest

(2017-08-31, 10:02 PM)Pssst Wrote: [ -> ]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

I'm intrigued why people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? A long time ago when I and he were much younger I was impressed with his abilities, not now. While his supporters are busy doing that the one question they don't seem to ask is this: Why didn't he do something more important than bending spoons and making compass needles move... with a talent like that?

(2017-08-31, 10:41 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm intrigued why people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? A long time ago when I and he were much younger I was impressed with his abilities, not now. While his supporters are busy doing that the one question they don't seem to ask is this: Why didn't he do something more important than bending spoons and making compass needles move... with a talent like that?

Because he's a showman - he can't help it, his ego demands it. How many times does this need to be repeated in a single thread: Geller is known to fake and use stage magic - nobody is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether he mixes stage magic and genuine psi abilities. Can he pass off stage magic as psi under controlled conditions? Just repeatedly pointing out that Geller is known to cheat doesn't answer that question. The investigation by Marks and Kammann looks more promising but, again, you have to weigh that report against the fact that Marks is a well-known and aggressively biased debunker, being a member of various sceptical organisations including CSI(COP) and its New Zealand equivalent. He is on record for saying the same thing that all dogmatic sceptics say - there is no evidence for psi. Of course he's going to cherry-pick evidence to support that claim, or should we be one-sided in giving the benefit of the doubt?

In the end, it comes down to how much you trust that the SRI scientists were honest in their own reporting and whether they left gaping holes (literally and figuratively) for Geller to take advantage of. So far, I have yet to see anything conclusive either way (which is why I started the thread).

As to your point about why he didn't do something more substantial than spoon bending, what do you suggest? He would be criticised whatever he tried - as he was when he did that geological dowsing. What if he claimed he could use his talents for healing - would anyone believe him any more than other healers have been believed? He would be vilified for unscrupulous self-promotion and using trickery on unsuspecting patients. Some healers get on with what they do for no profit or fame and we hear very little about them. Geller is not like that - he feeds on the fame and controversy and enjoys the profits. But is it all fake? I still don't know.

(2017-08-31, 11:19 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Because he's a showman - he can't help it, his ego demands it. How many times does this need to be repeated in a single thread: Geller is known to fake and use stage magic - nobody is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether he mixes stage magic and genuine psi abilities. Can he pass off stage magic as psi under controlled conditions? Just repeatedly pointing out that Geller is known to cheat doesn't answer that question. The investigation by Marks and Kammann looks more promising but, again, you have to weigh that report against the fact that Marks is a well-known and aggressively biased debunker, being a member of various sceptical organisations including CSI(COP) and its New Zealand equivalent. He is on record for saying the same thing that all dogmatic sceptics say - there is no evidence for psi. Of course he's going to cherry-pick evidence to support that claim, or should we be one-sided in giving the benefit of the doubt?

In the end, it comes down to how much you trust that the SRI scientists were honest in their own reporting and whether they left gaping holes (literally and figuratively) for Geller to take advantage of. So far, I have yet to see anything conclusive either way (which is why I started the thread).

As to your point about why he didn't do something more substantial than spoon bending, what do you suggest? He would be criticised whatever he tried - as he was when he did that geological dowsing. What if he claimed he could use his talents for healing - would anyone believe him any more than other healers have been believed? He would be vilified for unscrupulous self-promotion and using trickery on unsuspecting patients. Some healers get on with what they do for no profit or fame and we hear very little about them. Geller is not like that - he feeds on the fame and controversy and enjoys the profits. But is it all fake? I still don't know.

Oh, something practical like this. See this thread. The U.S. Military Believes People Have a Sixth Sense" 
How about figuring out how it works? Perhaps, if it's real it would give us a deeper understanding of how this universe works. If it's real who can imagine what practical applications might arise?

I'm really tired of the claim - counter-claim in this thread. I think it comes down to this: Puthoff and Targ and their team were serious, qualified researchers - quite obviously they would have been very aware of the possibility of sensory leakage and taken every necessary step to prevent it.

Only "skeptics" would believe this team could have made fundamental errors like allowing Uri to peer through holes.

I'll quote from the Scott Rogo chapter excerpt that Chris shared earlier (emphasis mine):

Quote:Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations.

This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth, which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn’t three feet above the floor but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it – even under optimal conditions – is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole – therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller experiments.

I have no doubt that the claims which Linda references are at the same level of fantasy.

Unless something very compelling comes up, I'm probably done debating in this thread.

I think Max's questions have been answered. Marks and Kammann described what they found on their investigation, but also noted that they unable to confirm what was present during the experiments, if different (they mention other possibilities including a curtain and a board which could be shifted).

I agree with Laird that there probably isn't much more to get out of this. Proponents are willing to take it on faith that the experiments were performed without error. I don't take any of that on faith, since my experience has been much different in this regard for all areas of research, not just parapsychology. I don't give a rat's ass about Randi's speculation (so don't care that Rogo chose to explain it away). Regardless of whether you think that Marks and Kammann's explanations are sufficient for every case, I think the discrepancies that they found between the reporting of the conditions and the actual conditions are too worrisome for any but a committed believer to ignore.

So, as usual, it comes down to which way your individual preferences lead you when all you have to go on is "trust me". Proponents will still believe and scientists/skeptics will still be skeptical.

Linda

With respect to the Farraday cage, the speculation was that one of Geller's assistants could see the picture and then signal to Geller from outside the cage, not that Geller could see anything. Which makes sense, because the drawings from those sessions didn't look like the pictures.

The only drawing which matches the picture was the grapes and that was the only picture which was hung directly across from the window. None of the remaining drawings match in the way that you would expect from someone who saw the picture. They look more like someone following a description (like "solar system") or hand movements.

Linda

(2017-09-01, 02:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of whether you think that Marks and Kammann's explanations are sufficient for every case, I think the discrepancies that they found between the reporting of the conditions and the actual conditions are too worrisome for any but a committed believer to ignore.

I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

(2017-09-01, 02:46 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

AFAIK There's no need to worry about libel if they stick to facts and don't assert fraud.

Reading the two accounts of the August work with Geller (the "diary" and the Nature version) throws up some interesting points.

Diary (linked to earlier in the thread, but the is the CIA version)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0027-0.pdf

Nature, October 1974
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0001-4.pdf


First, I want to address the method used to choose the target word. Opening a dictionary at random and picking the first word that can reasonably be drawn allows too much leeway in what the target will be.

This is important because one of the non-psi ways to achieve these results is to us an accomplice: someone who knows what Geller will draw and then chooses a word that can be interpreted in a similar manner.

The person choosing the target is not specified in either document, but Jean Millay (who went on to become a noted parapsychologist in her own right) wrote about her experiences as the person who drew the target picture and in her version of events, it was Russell Targ who chose the word and told her what to draw. 

(I hope this link works. Click on section from page 62)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DXaI...er&f=false

With regards to these words, it's worth mentioning that the reporting of the target word changed between the diary version and the Nature version. What was originally "fuse" became "firecracker" in Nature, which made it a much better hit. Similarly, "bunch" became "grapes" in the Nature article. The next two trials had no target word at all, according to the original version, but in Nature they do.

This is odd and very telling, especially the first two, since it's an example of Targ and Puthoff changing the data in order to improve the impression of success. 

It happened again with the sessions involving the scientists brought in from outside. In these three Geller drew pictures for each one, but eventually passed. In Nature, it is maintained that no drawings were made. This is interesting because there was another session in which drawings were made but Geller passed, but in this case the drawings matched (it's the camel/horse session) and the session was counted as a hit.

The next point I want to address was the 60-trial experiment held in December using double blind conditions and a protocol much closer to the one that the CIA wanted back in April. This was a complete failure, yet it is only mentioned in passing in the Nature article. It seems odd to me that they should emphasize the results of 13 trials over the 60 trials that followed. It's like writing up the pilot study in full, and then skimming over the actual experiment as briefly as possible.

(2017-09-01, 06:17 PM)ersby Wrote: [ -> ]It happened again with the sessions involving the scientists brought in from outside. In these three Geller drew pictures for each one, but eventually passed. In Nature, it is maintained that no drawings were made. This is interesting because there was another session in which drawings were made but Geller passed, but in this case the drawings matched (it's the camel/horse session) and the session was counted as a hit.

Thanks. The diary is very useful. Apparently the same was true of the bridge session the same day. Geller passed, but his drawing was presented in the paper.

[Edit: And the kite and the church in the computer series.]