Uri Geller - What do you think?

[Laird]

Now, it's a big planet, how would I know you've seen Penn and Teller?  Wasn't that a good trick that blindman did? How could he have fool not one but two magicians who were sitting not more than two feet away watching every move with a combined total of 50 years of magic knowledge? How I ask you?

I don't know (I don't even know that it was a trick as opposed to genuine psychokinesis) but I do know that this isn't comparable to the experiments documented on the SRI video, not least of all because those were double-blinded and disallowed Uri from touching anything. Max asks whether Uri might have provided the tin canisters, and whilst I can't answer that from knowledge, I'd say that the experimenters were a lot more careful than to have allowed that.

Kamarling, who started this thread, has agreed to move it to this sub-forum. So it's now an unrestrained Skeptic "debunking" free-for-all thread. Have at it!

If anything, this decision proves how quickly a discussion can degenerate once you invite Steve001 to take part. I can't imagine that I'll return to this thread from now on.

Vallee lies. Yes?

Dr. Jacques Vallée: "…were at the SRI cafeteria having lunch, a big round table and Geller was across the table from me and Geller suddenly says, “I want to do an experiment with you Jacques, so I’m going to send you…I thought, I’m going to send it in two things. I’m going to send the whale, which is essentially a fish, I know a whale isn’t a fish but you know, I’m going to send a fish and I’m going to send a wooden shed that I see through the window. Geller said – all of a sudden he was all business – he took his pencil and he drew something and he says, “Look, I’m going to draw what I’m getting, but I’m not getting one thing, I’m getting two things. I’m getting a fish and then I’m getting a wooden shed.” So he drew the two things, he didn’t draw the target. There was no way he could have known that I did not send him the target, I sent him two things that I made up, and that’s what he got."

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

Linda, is the tone of your post to mean that Geller is a fake, all the time?

(Sorry, just had to add this note.)

Kammann died in 1984 but there is some information about David Marks. He is (or was) a CSICOP fellow and we all know how unbiased those guys are, right?

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/in...vid-marks/

The research of Targ and Puthoff, much of which appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, is “nothing more than a massive artifact of poor methodology and wishful thinking” In addition, the best positive evidence is simply not mentioned. Robert Morris noted that Marks and Kamman (1980) “disregard altogether the studies considered by those familiar with the field as providing the best evidence for psi” and cite no evidence from parapsychology journals. Theirs, said Morris, was a “biased selection of material [which] cannot be regarded as an adequate review for assessment of psi research”.

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). 

Thanks. I had been assuming there must be a sceptical suggestion as to how this was done, and wondering what it was.

However, looking at Table 1 in the Nature paper linked to by Max, there were a number of different combinations of Geller's location and the target location. The commonest combination (Shielded room 1 for Geller and Adjacent room for the target) would account for only four of the ten trials in which Geller produced a drawing. That would leave the devil, the solar system, the camel and the three computer images. I'd say that of those six, five are reasonably clear hits, and the other one (the church) isn't a clear miss.

Did Marks and Kammann have another explanation for the other drawings?

[Ninshub]

If anything, this decision proves how quickly a discussion can degenerate once you invite Steve001 to take part. I can't imagine that I'll return to this thread from now on.

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.