Match the target picture with the response picture...

Here's some fun for everybody, match the target picture, with response picture...

I'll start you off with an easy example:

K - M

note: some targets may have more than one response picture.

[Laird]

The ones I'd be confident about are:

F-A
B-G

I've seen (elsewhere) the devil and its correspondent, so I won't pretend to guess that one.

My less confident assessments would be:

C-P
N-D (assuming the devil pic has two correspondents)
E-J
H-I (which you forgot to label)

I guess that reveals which one the devil picture corresponds with, but hopefully folks won't try to work it out.

A and F
B and G
C and P
D and N
E and L
K and M, as you said

That's as far as I can go.

I had a mare with that didn't I, missed off a letter, and I see I've missed a picture too (the bridge). Never mind, these were the targets and responses for Geller/SRI experiment 1 to 10. Geller passed on 5, 6 & 7. Leaving these 7... (a,b,c... g)



He also did experiments 11-13 with the target on a computer



Although the dice in a box experiment was mentioned, no other experiment was written up in this paper, the metal canister experiments featured so heavily in the video don't feature at all.

I'll put a link to the 1974 Nature paper in the other Geller thread.

I had a mare with that didn't I, missed off a letter, and I see I've missed a picture too (the bridge). Never mind, these were the targets and responses for Geller/SRI experiment 1 to 10. Geller passed on 5, 6 & 7. Leaving these 7... (a,b,c... g)



He also did experiments 11-13 with the target on a computer



Although the dice in a box experiment was mentioned, no other experiment was written up in this paper, the metal canister experiments featured so heavily in the video don't feature at all.

I'll put a link to the 1974 Nature paper in the other Geller thread.

Well, again, unless he cheated somehow (and I think it's totally fair to assume he would have if he could have), that's fucking incredible.

Well, again, unless he cheated somehow (and I think it's totally fair to assume he would have if he could have), that's fucking incredible.

On a straightforward glance, I'm OK with b, g, & e in the first set... and I'm OK with a (& perhaps c) in the second set... but it is more complicated than that... and worthwhile taking the time to really get to grips with the details of each experiment in the actual published paper...

On a straightforward glance, I'm OK with b, g, & e in the first set... and I'm OK with a (& perhaps c) in the second set... but it is more complicated than that... and worthwhile taking the time to really get to grips with the details of each experiment in the actual published paper...

What do you mean "I'm OK with..."? And perhaps you could share what you see as the complications, since you apparently think it is not what it appears to be...

thanks!