If y'all remember the early days of The Urban Mystic, there was probably the biggest, and maybe the only, controversey in Urban Mystic history when Bob Couttie tried to spam the site! I let him post his comment and then eight months later he posted the same comment and I deleted it and then he accused me of censorship. That led to some work by a reader/guest contributer countering Couttie's claims regarding Uri Geller and nitinol. I purchased a very old copy of Couttie's book (which is out of print), read it, and wrote a 16 page refutation that so far is up only in PDF format. One day I will turn it into a separate page on the site as well as a video series.
That was 2010. The crux of the matter is does Uri Geller use trickery to bend spoons or not? I don't have an answer, and I've made clear on The Urban Mystic many times that I think it could go either way. Some of his feats are probably tricks, but there is good evidence that he has genuine powers as well. Remember, Uri Geller became a multi millionaire not by bending spoons, but by dowsing for oil, and he has been very successful at finding oil and minerals just by pointing at spots on maps. There is also the experiments performed at SRI with dowsing that appear legitimate.
The reason I bring this up is that I have discovered a video of Bob Couttie talking about Uri Geller, with some evidence of what might be trickery. I'll leave any interpretation up to you, my valued couple of readers. Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Uri Geller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uri Geller. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Mind over Matter
Another 5th Dimension documentary. This one rates a solid A. There is a nice history of psychical research, including Ted Serios, Nina Kulagina, and Uri Geller. They talk about the work of J. B. Rhine and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program, then move on to the random event generators of the Global Consciousness Project and the work of Dean Radin. Unlike the last program this was not a debunking exercise. Overall this was a much better, more honest work that presented data and asked the viewer to draw one's own conclusions.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Forbidden Knowledge 2011 Part 1
At last, your salivation is at hand! I have completed my review on Forbidden Knowledge, and present all 8,028 words of it here for you, my valued couple of readers. It is 16 pages long (roughly one page for every ten pages of the book), with 20 references and two images. Creating an HTML version will take hours, if not days, and may even exceed the size limit of a single page on The Urban Mystic, so for now I will present you with a PDF version, completely free of charge.
Forbidden Knowledge: A Dissertation on Debunking, Parapsychology, and the Psychology of the Paranormal
Forbidden Knowledge: A Dissertation on Debunking, Parapsychology, and the Psychology of the Paranormal
Monday, January 31, 2011
Forbidden Geller 3
Reader Steve (now practically a contributor) has contacted me with more information regarding Geller, Byrd, and nitinol, that all too mysterious substance that has dominated the one and only controversey ever to hit The Urban Mystic (if I recall correctly). I personally have no stake in the issue, though continue on with the subject because talking about Egypt will make you, my valued couple of readers, want to slit your wrists and write graffiti on the nearest public building with your own blood yelling at the government to just waste the Muslim Brotherhood already to keep their pernicious evil from consuming the world as you slowly bleed out, fully aware that Mubarak is a monster and yet he is still better than the alternative.
Steve interviewed Eldon Byrd in 2001. He presented it to me to help provide context to the debate.
In the interview, Byrd picks apart many aspects of Gardner's article. According to Byrd, the wires given to Geller were marked with a razor and the ends were cut in such a way as to identify them later. These unique markings were later confirmed, meaning Geller did not substitute the wires for any he had prepared earlier to use in some form of trickery. Of course, Gardner does speculate that the hotel room Byrd was staying at was broken into by one of Geller's associates, the pieces of wire removed, taken back to where Geller was staying, manipulated so that they would produce the characteristic kink, and returned to Byrd's hotel room and the evidence of the break in covered up all with no one noticing. If you're willing to accept that whole shopping list of an explanation of trickery then Geller is a fraud. If you perfer the simpler explanation that Geller deformed the unique wire without prior handling it, in the presence of Byrd, then, well, he still might be a fraud but the possibility of the effect being genuine is now an open possibility. If Randall and Davis' experiment with a young boy who produced the same effect as Geller is evidence of anything then the more likely explanation seems to be that Geller, at least in Byrd's test with nitinol, is not cheating and genuinely produced a nonphysical deformity in the metal wire.
According to Byrd, Frederick Wang at the Naval Surface Weapons lab did try to remove the kink from the Gellerized wire, and that when Gardner interviewed him he caught Wang off guard. Thus, when Gardner said Wang didn't remember trying to un-Gellerize the wire, it was not because he did not try to un-Gellerize the wire but because he genuinely forgot, as all humans do from time to time. If Byrd is to be believed (and I believe him a whole lot more than I believe Gardner, who not only likes to trick his readers with the old bait-and-switch tactic mentioned in the previous post, but also thinks Randi is a credible source of information), then the un-Gellerizing did take place and was not a fabrication.
Now, I'm biased. I am biased against Martin Gardner because he likes to trick his readers, because he cites Randi as a credible source, and because he is a debunker and debunking goes against everything science stands for. I am inclined to believe that Byrd is telling the truth. Could he have been tricked? Yes. Is it likely that he was tricked? I would have to say no. Unless Geller tricked him on multiple occasions, and with the same or similar tricks, and the young boy R&D tested tricked them under much better conditions than the Byrd/Geller tests and without ever having met Geller to learn how his trick was performed, then trickery seems unlikely. Trickery is possible, in the same sense that whenever you hear someone's voice on a radio that the voice is really produced by a ventriloquist nearby and not coming from the radio, but trickery is far from the most likely possibility, regardless of what debunkers like Gardner (and Couttie for that matter) want to believe.
I'm not going to say the issue is settled, but the circumstantial evidence does seem to be pointing strongly in one direction.
Update: After looking through all the posts here at The Urban Mystic, I have concluded that, as of today, 15 posts have been on Uri Geller, or a total of 8.93% of all Urban Mystic posts. This is more than mysticism, religion, the Jews, the Bible, atheism, communism, or global warming. Looking through the tags one finds that "History" has more posts (25), but 4 of them are about the 100 Greatest Battles and one is repeated twice. History is also a broad category, not a single topic like Uri Geller. "The Urban Mystic" and "Irked-Confusion" appear more too, but that's just because everything here is self-referential. "Fundamaterialism" has 19 posts, but they are roughly divided evenly among cosmology, evolution, and the mind/brain connection, none of which out do the Geller posts alone. The same is true with "USA" (18 posts), and "REAL Science" (34 posts, including significant overlap with the Geller posts). Thanks to Bob Couttie, The Urban Mystic is more about Uri Geller than any othe single topic. There will be two more posts on this topic, my written report tearing apart Forbidden Knowledge, and the video version of it, and that's it. I don't care what Bob has to say, he is finished here after that.
Steve interviewed Eldon Byrd in 2001. He presented it to me to help provide context to the debate.
In the interview, Byrd picks apart many aspects of Gardner's article. According to Byrd, the wires given to Geller were marked with a razor and the ends were cut in such a way as to identify them later. These unique markings were later confirmed, meaning Geller did not substitute the wires for any he had prepared earlier to use in some form of trickery. Of course, Gardner does speculate that the hotel room Byrd was staying at was broken into by one of Geller's associates, the pieces of wire removed, taken back to where Geller was staying, manipulated so that they would produce the characteristic kink, and returned to Byrd's hotel room and the evidence of the break in covered up all with no one noticing. If you're willing to accept that whole shopping list of an explanation of trickery then Geller is a fraud. If you perfer the simpler explanation that Geller deformed the unique wire without prior handling it, in the presence of Byrd, then, well, he still might be a fraud but the possibility of the effect being genuine is now an open possibility. If Randall and Davis' experiment with a young boy who produced the same effect as Geller is evidence of anything then the more likely explanation seems to be that Geller, at least in Byrd's test with nitinol, is not cheating and genuinely produced a nonphysical deformity in the metal wire.
According to Byrd, Frederick Wang at the Naval Surface Weapons lab did try to remove the kink from the Gellerized wire, and that when Gardner interviewed him he caught Wang off guard. Thus, when Gardner said Wang didn't remember trying to un-Gellerize the wire, it was not because he did not try to un-Gellerize the wire but because he genuinely forgot, as all humans do from time to time. If Byrd is to be believed (and I believe him a whole lot more than I believe Gardner, who not only likes to trick his readers with the old bait-and-switch tactic mentioned in the previous post, but also thinks Randi is a credible source of information), then the un-Gellerizing did take place and was not a fabrication.
Now, I'm biased. I am biased against Martin Gardner because he likes to trick his readers, because he cites Randi as a credible source, and because he is a debunker and debunking goes against everything science stands for. I am inclined to believe that Byrd is telling the truth. Could he have been tricked? Yes. Is it likely that he was tricked? I would have to say no. Unless Geller tricked him on multiple occasions, and with the same or similar tricks, and the young boy R&D tested tricked them under much better conditions than the Byrd/Geller tests and without ever having met Geller to learn how his trick was performed, then trickery seems unlikely. Trickery is possible, in the same sense that whenever you hear someone's voice on a radio that the voice is really produced by a ventriloquist nearby and not coming from the radio, but trickery is far from the most likely possibility, regardless of what debunkers like Gardner (and Couttie for that matter) want to believe.
I'm not going to say the issue is settled, but the circumstantial evidence does seem to be pointing strongly in one direction.
Update: After looking through all the posts here at The Urban Mystic, I have concluded that, as of today, 15 posts have been on Uri Geller, or a total of 8.93% of all Urban Mystic posts. This is more than mysticism, religion, the Jews, the Bible, atheism, communism, or global warming. Looking through the tags one finds that "History" has more posts (25), but 4 of them are about the 100 Greatest Battles and one is repeated twice. History is also a broad category, not a single topic like Uri Geller. "The Urban Mystic" and "Irked-Confusion" appear more too, but that's just because everything here is self-referential. "Fundamaterialism" has 19 posts, but they are roughly divided evenly among cosmology, evolution, and the mind/brain connection, none of which out do the Geller posts alone. The same is true with "USA" (18 posts), and "REAL Science" (34 posts, including significant overlap with the Geller posts). Thanks to Bob Couttie, The Urban Mystic is more about Uri Geller than any othe single topic. There will be two more posts on this topic, my written report tearing apart Forbidden Knowledge, and the video version of it, and that's it. I don't care what Bob has to say, he is finished here after that.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Forbidden Geller 2
Today I finish the articles provided by reader Steve regarding Uri Geller and nitinol, that mysterious substance whose properties no one seems to agree on. This last one was written by Martin Gardner, science and mathematics writer who had a side job in debunking.
Gardner seems to write in such a way to present the reader with one set of facts then produces a sort of plot twist, revealing something to the contrary for no evident reason. For example, he mentions the laboratory where Byrd met Geller first, the Isis Center, saying "Is not Isis a peculiar name for a naval laboratory?" (emphasis in original) Well, I don't think so. The government always picks seemingly random names for its projects. Paperclip was the name of a project to transport Nazi scientists and research to the United States after the war before the Soviets got them. Able Danger was the intelligence operation that uncovered the 9/11 plot, or at least was going to (depending on who you ask) until red tape got in the way (wasn't Able Adam and Eve's son who was killed in a fit of jealous rage by his brother Cain? No, Gardner really speculates on the religious connotations of the name Isis). Grudge was the UFO investigation project that preceded Blue Book, so named because the Air Force didn't want to do it. Sailor Hat was a simulated nuclear blast, using hundreds of tonnes of conventional explosives, to see how well defended combat ships were. What I'm trying to say is that government projects always have goofy names, there's nothing suspicious about that.
He does reveal, in the very next paragraph, that the Isis Center was an organization created by an occult group, (possibly Theosophists, he's not too clear on that) not the Navy. Why mislead the readers by proposing the rhetorical question about why the Navy would name their laboratory Isis then? The world will never know. (Okay, I just wanted an excuse to link to that commercial)
Gardner agrees with Couttie that nitinol was not uncommon during Byrd's experiments. That means that the same number of people who say it was common as who say it was uncommon. Without some tie-breaker we may never know who is right.
He does make two references to Randi in the footnotes, so I'll have to subtract points for that. Anyone with half a brain knows that Randi isn't the great paragon of wisdom. He's even less reliable than the other wiki (I've had people grading papers at universities tell me the stuff some students got off Wikipedia is no better than stuff people just make up on the spot, although some of the stuff they have on different guns is pretty good).
Gardner does point out some holes in Byrd's paper, and some issues with the controlls of his test with Geller:
"Since no magicians were present during the chaotic session at which Uri bumped and kinked one piece of wire, it is impossible to do more than speculate on possible nonparanormal explanations. One scenario is that Uri came prepared with samples of wire to which he had previously given permanent kinks (in a way to be explained below) and then straightened. He passed up the wire of lager diameter because he had not brought wire of that size. The smaller-diameter wire was then switched, by Uri or Shipi, for Byrd's sample. Uri bumped the wire while stroking it - easily done by a push with the thumbnail. Then when Byrd heated the wire it naturally lost the bump and assumed its permanent kink."
He then goes on:
" However, it is not necessary to suppose that Uri came with prepared wire. Nitinol wire is now harder to get than in 1973, but I finally obtained a sample about a foot long of the 0.5mm. wire. I cut off a small piece, and I swear by all that is holy that my very first experiment was a whopping success. Using two small pairs of pliers I bent the wire at a sharp angle. I straightened the wire, then by holding the wire between thumb and first two fingers, and pressing with my thumbnail, I created a bump at the wire's center. I put the wire in a bowl and poured boiling water over it. The bump vanished and the wire assumed the shape of an angle, almost 90 degrees, with a sharp vertex. The angle was unaltered by applying a match flame.
"Excited by this unexpected success, I tried producing a sharper angle (about 3 degrees), but when I straightened the wire it snapped in half. I then repeated the experiment with a third piece, this time using nothing more than two pennies to grip the wire, and a third penny to force an acute angle. I straightened the wire, letting the angle remain as one side of the bump. When boiling water was poured over this wire the bump disappeared and the wire assumed an angle with a sharp vertex of about 75 degrees. I have it before me as I type. It is indistinguishable from the wire in plate 4 of Panati's book."
Playing Devil's Advocate,
I can say that since we have only Mr. Gardner's word to go on (he provides no pictures of this metal he bent, and there were no other witnesses) we can't know if he's lying or not. This criticism then is completely worthless, by his own standards. He then goes on into speculations of the sort of "someone could have cheated by doing X, where X is whatever Rube Goldbergian scenario I can think of but cannot prove one way or the other." Speculation of this sort is completely useless, as he himself says a few paragraphs down (he likes to repeat this tactic throughout the article), since the test was uncontrolled all speculation on it is useless. Well, then why did you spend the past six whole paragraphs doing something you yourself admit is useless speculation? Is it to add length to the article because you get paid by the word? If so I can respect that.
Gardner talks about correspondences with Byrd that point out inconsitencies in Byrd's paper, but does not actually provide us with evidence that these correspondences exist. Again, we must take his word for it, and again, Devil's Advocate, we have no way of knowing whether he's making stuff up. Gardner then goes on to do more speculation about how Geller might have cheated, but he doesn't know, he's just speculating, and what's worse, he mentions Randi again. No one is convinced by Randi's shitty magic tricks! Randi is a terrible magician, as Don Lane could attest to (I can't find the original video I was looking for, so here's this one instead).
He says Byrd had to let go of the wire at some point to get out a match and light it: "Now surely it takes two hands to open a match folder, take out a match, close the folder, and strike the match," but there has been at least one side-show performer who could not only light a match without needing both hands, but could also roll a cigarette, strike the match, and light the cigarette, and he had severely diminished limbs that were functionally useless, so no, it does not take two hands to strike a match.
What are we left with? 2 for cheated and 3 1/2 for not cheated. Since there are no more articles, and no more opinions to assess, we can go no farther in figuring out where exactly the truth lies, which is exactly what I predicted in the previous post. I suppose I should end with the following quote made by Arthur Koestler at the top of Gardner's article, "Uri is certainly 25 percent fraud and 25 percent showman, but fifty percent is real." I don't know what the truth is, but Koestler is probably right.
Gardner seems to write in such a way to present the reader with one set of facts then produces a sort of plot twist, revealing something to the contrary for no evident reason. For example, he mentions the laboratory where Byrd met Geller first, the Isis Center, saying "Is not Isis a peculiar name for a naval laboratory?" (emphasis in original) Well, I don't think so. The government always picks seemingly random names for its projects. Paperclip was the name of a project to transport Nazi scientists and research to the United States after the war before the Soviets got them. Able Danger was the intelligence operation that uncovered the 9/11 plot, or at least was going to (depending on who you ask) until red tape got in the way (wasn't Able Adam and Eve's son who was killed in a fit of jealous rage by his brother Cain? No, Gardner really speculates on the religious connotations of the name Isis). Grudge was the UFO investigation project that preceded Blue Book, so named because the Air Force didn't want to do it. Sailor Hat was a simulated nuclear blast, using hundreds of tonnes of conventional explosives, to see how well defended combat ships were. What I'm trying to say is that government projects always have goofy names, there's nothing suspicious about that.
He does reveal, in the very next paragraph, that the Isis Center was an organization created by an occult group, (possibly Theosophists, he's not too clear on that) not the Navy. Why mislead the readers by proposing the rhetorical question about why the Navy would name their laboratory Isis then? The world will never know. (Okay, I just wanted an excuse to link to that commercial)
Gardner agrees with Couttie that nitinol was not uncommon during Byrd's experiments. That means that the same number of people who say it was common as who say it was uncommon. Without some tie-breaker we may never know who is right.
He does make two references to Randi in the footnotes, so I'll have to subtract points for that. Anyone with half a brain knows that Randi isn't the great paragon of wisdom. He's even less reliable than the other wiki (I've had people grading papers at universities tell me the stuff some students got off Wikipedia is no better than stuff people just make up on the spot, although some of the stuff they have on different guns is pretty good).
Gardner does point out some holes in Byrd's paper, and some issues with the controlls of his test with Geller:
"Since no magicians were present during the chaotic session at which Uri bumped and kinked one piece of wire, it is impossible to do more than speculate on possible nonparanormal explanations. One scenario is that Uri came prepared with samples of wire to which he had previously given permanent kinks (in a way to be explained below) and then straightened. He passed up the wire of lager diameter because he had not brought wire of that size. The smaller-diameter wire was then switched, by Uri or Shipi, for Byrd's sample. Uri bumped the wire while stroking it - easily done by a push with the thumbnail. Then when Byrd heated the wire it naturally lost the bump and assumed its permanent kink."
He then goes on:
" However, it is not necessary to suppose that Uri came with prepared wire. Nitinol wire is now harder to get than in 1973, but I finally obtained a sample about a foot long of the 0.5mm. wire. I cut off a small piece, and I swear by all that is holy that my very first experiment was a whopping success. Using two small pairs of pliers I bent the wire at a sharp angle. I straightened the wire, then by holding the wire between thumb and first two fingers, and pressing with my thumbnail, I created a bump at the wire's center. I put the wire in a bowl and poured boiling water over it. The bump vanished and the wire assumed the shape of an angle, almost 90 degrees, with a sharp vertex. The angle was unaltered by applying a match flame.
"Excited by this unexpected success, I tried producing a sharper angle (about 3 degrees), but when I straightened the wire it snapped in half. I then repeated the experiment with a third piece, this time using nothing more than two pennies to grip the wire, and a third penny to force an acute angle. I straightened the wire, letting the angle remain as one side of the bump. When boiling water was poured over this wire the bump disappeared and the wire assumed an angle with a sharp vertex of about 75 degrees. I have it before me as I type. It is indistinguishable from the wire in plate 4 of Panati's book."
Playing Devil's Advocate,
I can say that since we have only Mr. Gardner's word to go on (he provides no pictures of this metal he bent, and there were no other witnesses) we can't know if he's lying or not. This criticism then is completely worthless, by his own standards. He then goes on into speculations of the sort of "someone could have cheated by doing X, where X is whatever Rube Goldbergian scenario I can think of but cannot prove one way or the other." Speculation of this sort is completely useless, as he himself says a few paragraphs down (he likes to repeat this tactic throughout the article), since the test was uncontrolled all speculation on it is useless. Well, then why did you spend the past six whole paragraphs doing something you yourself admit is useless speculation? Is it to add length to the article because you get paid by the word? If so I can respect that.
Gardner talks about correspondences with Byrd that point out inconsitencies in Byrd's paper, but does not actually provide us with evidence that these correspondences exist. Again, we must take his word for it, and again, Devil's Advocate, we have no way of knowing whether he's making stuff up. Gardner then goes on to do more speculation about how Geller might have cheated, but he doesn't know, he's just speculating, and what's worse, he mentions Randi again. No one is convinced by Randi's shitty magic tricks! Randi is a terrible magician, as Don Lane could attest to (I can't find the original video I was looking for, so here's this one instead).
He says Byrd had to let go of the wire at some point to get out a match and light it: "Now surely it takes two hands to open a match folder, take out a match, close the folder, and strike the match," but there has been at least one side-show performer who could not only light a match without needing both hands, but could also roll a cigarette, strike the match, and light the cigarette, and he had severely diminished limbs that were functionally useless, so no, it does not take two hands to strike a match.
What are we left with? 2 for cheated and 3 1/2 for not cheated. Since there are no more articles, and no more opinions to assess, we can go no farther in figuring out where exactly the truth lies, which is exactly what I predicted in the previous post. I suppose I should end with the following quote made by Arthur Koestler at the top of Gardner's article, "Uri is certainly 25 percent fraud and 25 percent showman, but fifty percent is real." I don't know what the truth is, but Koestler is probably right.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Forbidden Geller
No, I won't comment on Egypt, except to say that Mubarak does want Israel to give the Syrio-palestinians "East" Jerusalem, and this is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, the big angry mob that wants to get rid of him (and probably behead him too) likely holds the standard Arab position of "KILL ALL JEWS!!!!!" so I would have to say that the US should at least publically condemn the rioters, as we would be better off with Mubarak in power than some jihadist.
On to the main topic. I read one of the articles a reader, Steve, brought to my attention in regard to Uri Geller, nitionl, and the controversey here at The Urban Mystic involving myself and Bob Couttie. Seems John L. Randall and C.P. Davis performed a similar experiment involving an eleven year old boy, who was also a metal bender, where they gave him nitinol and he produced a permanent deformation. Randall and Davis tried to remove the bend, using high voltage and tension clamps and the metal never did return to its rightful shape. The R&D article seems to agree with the original Byrd assessment that nitinol was uncommon during the time Byrd tested Geller (a claim Couttie disagrees with) and that permanent deformations cannot be created using trickery such as tying the metal in a knot and heating it with a match (one of two ways Couttie says it can be done in his book).
Who is correct? Is Couttie or are Byrd, Randall, and Davis? I will only say this one time, so pay attention: I Don't Know. Reading through the other article provided by Steve I will keep tabs on how many people agree with which position. Admittedly, just because lots of people agree on something doesn't make it true, but we can perform an interesting little game here. Sure, it won't tell us anything, but it will be a lot more fun than having to clean up the weekly blizzards that climate change has been dumping here since December.
So far, Bob Couttie stands along in the group of people who claim Geller could have cheated with the nitinol. Eldon Byrd, John Randall, C.P. Davis say Geller could not have cheated. R&D also mention a Dr. G. Rowlands who provided them with samples of nitinol and the specs of the material, and while his opinion regarding Geller is not mentioned his specs are the same as those provided by Byrd, so we can count him as half a point in the "not cheated" category. As of now the score is 1 for cheated and 3 1/2 for not cheated. Again, let me be clear that this little exercise is not a scientific assessment in any way and cannot tell us who is right. The issue likely can never be solved. Only two people know if Geller cheated or not, Geller himself and God, and neither seem to be providing us with what really happened, but this exercise can provide at least circumstantial evidence toward figuring out what happened.
Prediction: After reviewing all four reports, Byrd's, Couttie's, R&D's, and Martin Gardner's, I predict that we will be no closer to knowing whether or not it was possible for Geller to cheat with nitinol than we did when we first began.
On to the main topic. I read one of the articles a reader, Steve, brought to my attention in regard to Uri Geller, nitionl, and the controversey here at The Urban Mystic involving myself and Bob Couttie. Seems John L. Randall and C.P. Davis performed a similar experiment involving an eleven year old boy, who was also a metal bender, where they gave him nitinol and he produced a permanent deformation. Randall and Davis tried to remove the bend, using high voltage and tension clamps and the metal never did return to its rightful shape. The R&D article seems to agree with the original Byrd assessment that nitinol was uncommon during the time Byrd tested Geller (a claim Couttie disagrees with) and that permanent deformations cannot be created using trickery such as tying the metal in a knot and heating it with a match (one of two ways Couttie says it can be done in his book).
Who is correct? Is Couttie or are Byrd, Randall, and Davis? I will only say this one time, so pay attention: I Don't Know. Reading through the other article provided by Steve I will keep tabs on how many people agree with which position. Admittedly, just because lots of people agree on something doesn't make it true, but we can perform an interesting little game here. Sure, it won't tell us anything, but it will be a lot more fun than having to clean up the weekly blizzards that climate change has been dumping here since December.
So far, Bob Couttie stands along in the group of people who claim Geller could have cheated with the nitinol. Eldon Byrd, John Randall, C.P. Davis say Geller could not have cheated. R&D also mention a Dr. G. Rowlands who provided them with samples of nitinol and the specs of the material, and while his opinion regarding Geller is not mentioned his specs are the same as those provided by Byrd, so we can count him as half a point in the "not cheated" category. As of now the score is 1 for cheated and 3 1/2 for not cheated. Again, let me be clear that this little exercise is not a scientific assessment in any way and cannot tell us who is right. The issue likely can never be solved. Only two people know if Geller cheated or not, Geller himself and God, and neither seem to be providing us with what really happened, but this exercise can provide at least circumstantial evidence toward figuring out what happened.
Prediction: After reviewing all four reports, Byrd's, Couttie's, R&D's, and Martin Gardner's, I predict that we will be no closer to knowing whether or not it was possible for Geller to cheat with nitinol than we did when we first began.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Pirates of Forbidden Water
I have finished my analysis of Forbidden Knowledge, and must now type up the nearly eleven pages of notes I took. In the mean time I will present two short articles one of my valued couple of readers, Steve, provided in the ever popular Uri Geller post about a number of other investigators' work with nitinol. I think everyone is going to comment there in the future instead of reading anything new.
While reading Forbidden Knowledge I noticed Mr. Couttie's ambivalence toward the subject of dowsing. Dowsing seems to be one of the most widely accepted "paranormal" effects, even among skeptics. This reminded me of a video I saw a few years back about dowsing. For your viewing pleasure, In Search Of... Water Seekers.
Sidenote: Integral Politics is 2,287 words long, nearly twice as long as the next longest post. Even without the long quote near the end it is still 1,994 words long, about 1.6 times as long as number two.
While reading Forbidden Knowledge I noticed Mr. Couttie's ambivalence toward the subject of dowsing. Dowsing seems to be one of the most widely accepted "paranormal" effects, even among skeptics. This reminded me of a video I saw a few years back about dowsing. For your viewing pleasure, In Search Of... Water Seekers.
Sidenote: Integral Politics is 2,287 words long, nearly twice as long as the next longest post. Even without the long quote near the end it is still 1,994 words long, about 1.6 times as long as number two.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Still Forbidden
You may remember in September I posted about Bob Couttie and his book Forbidden Knowledge. I was holding onto that book to read in December like The Geller Papers. Reading both books in the same month, a year apart, and reporting on them seemed fitting. Seems a monkey has been thrown into my plans. Right now I am in the middle of what looks like the largest research project I have ever taken on. I have well over 2000 pages to read (1500 left!) and will not be able to read Forbidden Knowledge and report on it here for you, my valued couple of readers, and Mr. Couttie who appears from time to time to stir the pot here. I still have ten videos made in November as a reserve to upload regularly, but taking on extra reading will be out of the question.
-Dee
-Dee
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Forbidden Knowledge
If you're one of the two or three regular readers here you have probably read a comment made eight months ago on a post Uri Geller Bends On, in regard to a book review I made of the book The Geller Papers by Charles Panati. A man by the name of Bob Couttie, who I assume is either a magician or a maritime investigator (or both?), posted a comment saying that a permanent bend can be made in the metal nitinol using nonpsychic means. The enigmatic Couttie tells the reader to google his name plus nitinol. Then he disappeared, for eight months. About a week ago he posted another comment, on the same exact post, that was almost identical to the first one he posted. He said that he can tell anyone how to make a permanent bend in nitinol using nonpsychic means. I was a bit surprised that he returned eight months later to post a nearly identical comment, and after some thought deleted it because there was nothing really new in his comment.
He posted another comment again yesterday, in which he goaded me to approve his comment, questioned my masculinity, and called me closed minded. He also suggests that I have never met Uri Geller, though I don't know what I said in my book review which would lead him to believe that, and so I must assume he is bluffing and doesn't really know whether I met Geller or not. I did google his name and found an essay from 1988, a few references to said essay on some magic forums, and a site about maritime disasters, about 70 results in all, counting duplicates (The above linked Uri Geller Bends On being one of them). I have not had time to read the whole essay (linked here for your reading pleasure, and mine in a few days), but it seems to suggest that by tying nitinol in a knot and heating it with a match a permanent bend can be made similar to Geller's. Not having the money to spend on nitinol I leave the experiment up to you. Mr. Couttie also has a book, Forbidden Knowledge, that was published in 1988 and doesn't seem to have gone into reprint yet. There is no description of the book so I'm not sure what it's about but I'm guessing it's about Geller and other psychics of the 70s and 80s. There are nine used copies for sale for four dollars and up plus shipping. It's only 160 pages, a nice afternoon's read (maybe a weekend if you're a slow reader like me). I am personally endorsing the book, for what it's worth, and suggest all three readers buy a copy. As soon as I update my Amazon account I myself will buy a copy and read it when I get the chance (I have three books already in que), and when I am finished I will post a review like I did for The Geller Papers.
-Dee
He posted another comment again yesterday, in which he goaded me to approve his comment, questioned my masculinity, and called me closed minded. He also suggests that I have never met Uri Geller, though I don't know what I said in my book review which would lead him to believe that, and so I must assume he is bluffing and doesn't really know whether I met Geller or not. I did google his name and found an essay from 1988, a few references to said essay on some magic forums, and a site about maritime disasters, about 70 results in all, counting duplicates (The above linked Uri Geller Bends On being one of them). I have not had time to read the whole essay (linked here for your reading pleasure, and mine in a few days), but it seems to suggest that by tying nitinol in a knot and heating it with a match a permanent bend can be made similar to Geller's. Not having the money to spend on nitinol I leave the experiment up to you. Mr. Couttie also has a book, Forbidden Knowledge, that was published in 1988 and doesn't seem to have gone into reprint yet. There is no description of the book so I'm not sure what it's about but I'm guessing it's about Geller and other psychics of the 70s and 80s. There are nine used copies for sale for four dollars and up plus shipping. It's only 160 pages, a nice afternoon's read (maybe a weekend if you're a slow reader like me). I am personally endorsing the book, for what it's worth, and suggest all three readers buy a copy. As soon as I update my Amazon account I myself will buy a copy and read it when I get the chance (I have three books already in que), and when I am finished I will post a review like I did for The Geller Papers.
-Dee
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Geller Papers: A Final Assessment
Sorry, but I've been a bit off this year and should have posted this days ago.
What can I say about the paranormal abilities of Uri Geller. Before reading this book I was, in fact, thoroughly convinced that some of the abilities manifested by Geller were genuine. I have personally had experience with ESP and metal bending, so I know they're not fake like Geller's critics claim.
At times The Geller Papers is very involved and makes scientific references to areas in which I am unfamiliar and therefore cannot assess the quality of (there were several pages I barely understood, mostly involving statistical analysis and engineering equations). This should obviously appeal to the scientists who no doubt should read this tome to spark interest in psychical research. Many scientists who wrote for this book came away concluding that science should invest more time, effort, and money (especially money, if you ask me, and I suspect if you ask them too) into psychical research involving psychic all stars like Uri Geller and other people dubbed "mini-Gellers." Don't get me wrong, all this research involving "ordinary mortals" (read: college sophmores) and their performance in Ganzfeld, telephone telepathy, micro-PK, etc., is very good and very important, but you learn far less about basketball by watching gradeschoolers play than you do by watching professionals. Some people are more talented at generating psychic effects as others, just as in every field of human endevor, and it makes a lot of sense to study these psychic super stars so we can learn the limits of these abilities and work toward developing practical technologies to utilize psychic phenomena.
From my own experiments I must concur with J. G. Taylor's findings that length of an object corresponds to the ease of bending that object, with longer objects bending more easily, and also that objects with a regular shape bend easier than others (which explains why I can bend a spoon or fork, but not a key of identical thickness). The metal becomes momentarily plastic when it is ready to bend, then deforms at a point where the least effort is required - the metal's weakest point, where a bend or break would first occurr under mechanical stress.
Uri Geller of the 1970s was phenomenal. Uri Geller of today, seems to have watered himself down. On a television appearance he made promoting his new show with Chris Angel he broke a spoon in half and said something to the effect of "some people say this is magic, others say it is psychic, but I want to leave it a mystery." This is a huge departure from thirty years ago when he went around the world claiming to be psychic and damn the opposition. In no way does this detract from past performance. He has bent metal without touching it; several magicians came away from testing him staking thier reputations that Geller was not using any form of trickery known to magic; he has performed in ESP experiments with odds against chance of a trillion to one, but perhaps in recent years Uri has gotten soft and accustom to the fame, and perhaps now he is under more pressure to perform and employs a degree of trickery to reclaim the audience he had decades ago.
Anyway, I highly recommend the book The Geller Papers: Scientific Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller, edited by Charles Panati. This book gives a glimps at what psychical research could be if we employ modern tools and techniques to pro-psychics like Uri Geller.
-Dee
What can I say about the paranormal abilities of Uri Geller. Before reading this book I was, in fact, thoroughly convinced that some of the abilities manifested by Geller were genuine. I have personally had experience with ESP and metal bending, so I know they're not fake like Geller's critics claim.
At times The Geller Papers is very involved and makes scientific references to areas in which I am unfamiliar and therefore cannot assess the quality of (there were several pages I barely understood, mostly involving statistical analysis and engineering equations). This should obviously appeal to the scientists who no doubt should read this tome to spark interest in psychical research. Many scientists who wrote for this book came away concluding that science should invest more time, effort, and money (especially money, if you ask me, and I suspect if you ask them too) into psychical research involving psychic all stars like Uri Geller and other people dubbed "mini-Gellers." Don't get me wrong, all this research involving "ordinary mortals" (read: college sophmores) and their performance in Ganzfeld, telephone telepathy, micro-PK, etc., is very good and very important, but you learn far less about basketball by watching gradeschoolers play than you do by watching professionals. Some people are more talented at generating psychic effects as others, just as in every field of human endevor, and it makes a lot of sense to study these psychic super stars so we can learn the limits of these abilities and work toward developing practical technologies to utilize psychic phenomena.
From my own experiments I must concur with J. G. Taylor's findings that length of an object corresponds to the ease of bending that object, with longer objects bending more easily, and also that objects with a regular shape bend easier than others (which explains why I can bend a spoon or fork, but not a key of identical thickness). The metal becomes momentarily plastic when it is ready to bend, then deforms at a point where the least effort is required - the metal's weakest point, where a bend or break would first occurr under mechanical stress.
Uri Geller of the 1970s was phenomenal. Uri Geller of today, seems to have watered himself down. On a television appearance he made promoting his new show with Chris Angel he broke a spoon in half and said something to the effect of "some people say this is magic, others say it is psychic, but I want to leave it a mystery." This is a huge departure from thirty years ago when he went around the world claiming to be psychic and damn the opposition. In no way does this detract from past performance. He has bent metal without touching it; several magicians came away from testing him staking thier reputations that Geller was not using any form of trickery known to magic; he has performed in ESP experiments with odds against chance of a trillion to one, but perhaps in recent years Uri has gotten soft and accustom to the fame, and perhaps now he is under more pressure to perform and employs a degree of trickery to reclaim the audience he had decades ago.
Anyway, I highly recommend the book The Geller Papers: Scientific Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller, edited by Charles Panati. This book gives a glimps at what psychical research could be if we employ modern tools and techniques to pro-psychics like Uri Geller.
-Dee
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Geller Papers
From the preface to The Geller Papers by Charles Panati.
A growing number of professionals, most notably physical scientists, believe Geller can do these things. They have tested him. They have observed events for which there are no present scientific explanations. Other people, however, among them magicians, see Geller as tremendously talented, lightning-fast in his deceptions, and disarmingly humble over his many failures. They take him to task not because of his talent and theatrics, but because, according to them, he pawns off what he does as "the real thing" – the product of innate paranormal abilities.
The purpose of this book is to present firsthand observations on the talents of Uri Geller and, in doing so, to bring to light and offer for public scrutiny much material that has either never before appeared in print or has surfaced only piecemeal in the popular press. The book is written – through papers, reports, diary entries, and letters – by the scientists and professionals who, in various ways, have scrutinized Geller's talents, and feel that Geller is an individual who deserves further scientific attention.
Since 1972, when he first came to worldwide attention, Geller has been tested in seventeen laboratories in eight different countries. The scientists who have worked with him have watched him deform solid steel rods without touching them, cause part of an exotic crystal to vanish from within a sealed container, alter the memory of a rare metal alloy, erase information from computer tapes, set Geiger counters ticking with only his thoughts, and read the thoughts of others while he is sealed in a room that blocks out all types of radio waves. They are men and women of probity, affiliated with major universities and research centers throughout the world. To prevent fraud the scientists have searched Geller for metals that might be hidden under his fingernails and magnets sewn into his clothing, x-rayed his teeth for evidence of minute electronic devices, bound his hands, blindfolded his eyes, all but stripped him naked. Many of the scientists flatly stake their reputation on the genuineness of Geller's paranormal talents.
But scientists, it is rightfully said, should not be the final arbiters in separating what is psychic from what is magic. And they have not been. Four magicians have worked closely with Geller, applied their own standards to prevent any sleight of hand, and have observed inexplicable events. It is their unanimous opinion that Geller either has paranormal abilities or is acquainted with a form of magic unknown to the entire brotherhood of magicians. Their observations are presented here along with those of the scientists.
Some of the papers in this book were originally meant for publication in reputable scientific journals – and several were submitted to these journals. In each case it was the scientist's hope that publication of his work with Geller would provide a platform for healthful debate and would generate further and more exhaustive experimentation. To date, however, only one paper has appeared in a major scientific journal. It is not the purpose of this preface to examine the procedures of scientific publishing, lest of all for such a highly unorthodox subject as parapsychology. Suffice it to say that all of those papers appear here. No material in them has been altered; no terminology diluted; the reports contain all the original charts, diagrams, pictures, and references that support the research. Geller's failures as well as his successes are discussed.
Some of the papers are heavily detailed, giving all the specifics necessary for a scientific investigation. Others are short sketches, informal notes, or personal observations about the hours and days a particular researcher spent with Geller. Fourteen papers are by physicists, mathematicians, and engineers; three by parapsychologists; four by magicians; one by a professional photographer (who witnessed Geller take a "thought photograph"); and one (a letter that appears in the Introduction) by a dentist who x-rayed Geller's mouth for evidence of hidden devices. These men and women who have tested Geller are convinced that he is a phenomenon worthy of, indeed, demanding, the serious attention of science. As the prestigious British technical journal Nature editorialized, Geller "has clearly created a prima facie case for further investigation."
Who are the professionals who have investigated Geller? What are their credentials? How rigorous or causal were their investigations? Exactly what did they do? And, of course, what did they discover? These questions will be examined, in part, in the Introduction. It should be noted, however, that the Introduction is not meant to be an evaluation of the papers; the papers stand or fall on their own contents. Rather, because of the technical nature of many of the papers and the sheer volume of the material they contain, the Introduction will serve as a general review, for the layman, of the major highlights of the research that has been done with Geller.
There can be no doubt that this research will affect different people in radically different manners. Geller-advocates who read this collection of firsthand observations may fell confirmed in their present opinion of him. His critics will dissect these papers and will find large loopholes and countless faults with the experiments and descriptions they contain, for all of the evidence presented here is certainly not of equal quality. There is nevertheless a considerable amount of new and impressive information – from responsible scientists and professional magicians alike. Their observations taken as a whole are hard to dismiss on the grounds of simple fraud or mass delusion. But whatever one's opinion of the events described in this book, the thoughtful reader should give these reports a careful review before drawing final conclusions on the phenomena associated with Uri Geller.
A growing number of professionals, most notably physical scientists, believe Geller can do these things. They have tested him. They have observed events for which there are no present scientific explanations. Other people, however, among them magicians, see Geller as tremendously talented, lightning-fast in his deceptions, and disarmingly humble over his many failures. They take him to task not because of his talent and theatrics, but because, according to them, he pawns off what he does as "the real thing" – the product of innate paranormal abilities.
The purpose of this book is to present firsthand observations on the talents of Uri Geller and, in doing so, to bring to light and offer for public scrutiny much material that has either never before appeared in print or has surfaced only piecemeal in the popular press. The book is written – through papers, reports, diary entries, and letters – by the scientists and professionals who, in various ways, have scrutinized Geller's talents, and feel that Geller is an individual who deserves further scientific attention.
Since 1972, when he first came to worldwide attention, Geller has been tested in seventeen laboratories in eight different countries. The scientists who have worked with him have watched him deform solid steel rods without touching them, cause part of an exotic crystal to vanish from within a sealed container, alter the memory of a rare metal alloy, erase information from computer tapes, set Geiger counters ticking with only his thoughts, and read the thoughts of others while he is sealed in a room that blocks out all types of radio waves. They are men and women of probity, affiliated with major universities and research centers throughout the world. To prevent fraud the scientists have searched Geller for metals that might be hidden under his fingernails and magnets sewn into his clothing, x-rayed his teeth for evidence of minute electronic devices, bound his hands, blindfolded his eyes, all but stripped him naked. Many of the scientists flatly stake their reputation on the genuineness of Geller's paranormal talents.
But scientists, it is rightfully said, should not be the final arbiters in separating what is psychic from what is magic. And they have not been. Four magicians have worked closely with Geller, applied their own standards to prevent any sleight of hand, and have observed inexplicable events. It is their unanimous opinion that Geller either has paranormal abilities or is acquainted with a form of magic unknown to the entire brotherhood of magicians. Their observations are presented here along with those of the scientists.
Some of the papers in this book were originally meant for publication in reputable scientific journals – and several were submitted to these journals. In each case it was the scientist's hope that publication of his work with Geller would provide a platform for healthful debate and would generate further and more exhaustive experimentation. To date, however, only one paper has appeared in a major scientific journal. It is not the purpose of this preface to examine the procedures of scientific publishing, lest of all for such a highly unorthodox subject as parapsychology. Suffice it to say that all of those papers appear here. No material in them has been altered; no terminology diluted; the reports contain all the original charts, diagrams, pictures, and references that support the research. Geller's failures as well as his successes are discussed.
Some of the papers are heavily detailed, giving all the specifics necessary for a scientific investigation. Others are short sketches, informal notes, or personal observations about the hours and days a particular researcher spent with Geller. Fourteen papers are by physicists, mathematicians, and engineers; three by parapsychologists; four by magicians; one by a professional photographer (who witnessed Geller take a "thought photograph"); and one (a letter that appears in the Introduction) by a dentist who x-rayed Geller's mouth for evidence of hidden devices. These men and women who have tested Geller are convinced that he is a phenomenon worthy of, indeed, demanding, the serious attention of science. As the prestigious British technical journal Nature editorialized, Geller "has clearly created a prima facie case for further investigation."
Who are the professionals who have investigated Geller? What are their credentials? How rigorous or causal were their investigations? Exactly what did they do? And, of course, what did they discover? These questions will be examined, in part, in the Introduction. It should be noted, however, that the Introduction is not meant to be an evaluation of the papers; the papers stand or fall on their own contents. Rather, because of the technical nature of many of the papers and the sheer volume of the material they contain, the Introduction will serve as a general review, for the layman, of the major highlights of the research that has been done with Geller.
There can be no doubt that this research will affect different people in radically different manners. Geller-advocates who read this collection of firsthand observations may fell confirmed in their present opinion of him. His critics will dissect these papers and will find large loopholes and countless faults with the experiments and descriptions they contain, for all of the evidence presented here is certainly not of equal quality. There is nevertheless a considerable amount of new and impressive information – from responsible scientists and professional magicians alike. Their observations taken as a whole are hard to dismiss on the grounds of simple fraud or mass delusion. But whatever one's opinion of the events described in this book, the thoughtful reader should give these reports a careful review before drawing final conclusions on the phenomena associated with Uri Geller.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Uri Geller and the Magician
The following is from pages 244-46 of The Geller Papers: Scientific Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller, edited by Charles Panati. Leo Leslie – a professional magician from Denmark, was asked to prep the audience of a television show, being filmed in Copenhagen in 1974, before Uri Geller was to come on. He told them what tricks he thought Geller would be performing and instructed the staff how to avoid potential fraud. After the show he met with Geller backstage to investigate Geller's claims personally.
I told Geller I was still skeptical despite what I had seen him do on the television show. He asked what he could do to convince me of the genuineness of his paranormal powers. "Well," I said, "you could either bend one of my keys or attempt, if you can, to read my thoughts." Geller responded enthusiastically. "OK," he said. "Make a drawing." He asked me to sit at one end of the sofa with my back to him while he sat at the opposite end with his back to me. I decided to draw a flower. (From the psychologist who stood near Geller and observed his every move, I later learned that Geller started to draw a flower immediately, even before I set my pencil to the paper. He had finished his drawing before I had even begun mine.) "Are you finished?" Geller asked me. I told him that I was not, and that I was still concentrating on the object I had decided to draw.
"Then we must start over again," said Uri, "Because I have already received an image and finished my drawing." He thought this attempt had failed.
Now I drew a flower and took some time putting finishing touches on it. But apparently Geller was receiving nothing. "I don't thik I can do it," he said. "Are you having difficulty concentrating on the object?" he asked. I told him that I was, but still I asked to see whatever sketches he might have made. He turned around and said, "I can only get the image of flowers." He had drawn a crude sketch of another flower.
My suspicions of him had begun to fade. There was no chance that he could have cheated. None of his own people was present in the room. The girl from the studio sat at Geller's end of the room and she could not possibly see my drawing. A photographer roamed around the room, but he said nothing and did nothing but take photographs. Geller could not have used accomplices or relied on secret signs to receive the drawings.
What about the possibility that Geller relied on "sound readings," that is, the reproduction of lines from the sound impressions a pencil makes on paper. Because I am an experienced mentalist, I intentionally had distorted the sounds my pencil made while I drew the flower. In addition, I spoke constantly during the time I was drawing – partly to drown out sound from my pencil and in part actually to confuse Geller. I believe that sound-reading must be ruled out as a possible method by which Geller could have received the drawings.
Could Geller have used a "thumb-writer"? This clever little magician's aid is a tiny metal clip, filled with lead, which is held tightly underneath the thumbnail so that the lead point sticks out slightly. With such a device, an accomplished mentalist can, in a moment, reproduce a simple drawing or a small series of numbers on a card behind his back. When the mentalist pulls the card from behind his back, it looks as if the drawing had been there all along. Being a practicing mentalist, will not go into complete detail here on exactly what else a person experienced with a thumb-writer can ahieve. The only thing that must be stated is that the psychologist at Geller's end of the sofa saw Geller draw both flowers before he said he "gave up." I have to admit that I believe Geller actually read my thoughts.
After his demonstration of telepathy Geller tried psychokinesis. A nickle-plated, enameled key was given to Geller. He asked the journalist who was present to hold the key between two fingers. Geller then rubbed it a couple of times, very lightly, with his forefinger. "I can't do it," he suddenly said. "You have done something to this key. I cannot get in contact with the metal." I immediately suspected that Geller probably used a chemical to soften metal, and that with the coating on the key he felt defeated. I took the key from the journalist and studied it closely. But while I sat looking at the key the enamal suddenly started to crack, and a second later strips of the nickel plating curled up like small banana peels, while the key actually started to bend in my hand. I don't know who was more excited, Geller or the rest of us in the room. I only know that we were all thrilled.
The judgment of all of us who were present for what occurred was one of total endorsement of Geller's paranormal claims: both his ability to bend metal and his talent for receiving telepathic signals. When I am asked about the strength of my own conclusions as to what I witnessed, I can answer only that while Geller was in Copenhagen I did not catch him in any deceptions. Therefore I have to continue to rely on my own judgment and experience as a mentalist; they tell me that Uri Geller is genuine.
I told Geller I was still skeptical despite what I had seen him do on the television show. He asked what he could do to convince me of the genuineness of his paranormal powers. "Well," I said, "you could either bend one of my keys or attempt, if you can, to read my thoughts." Geller responded enthusiastically. "OK," he said. "Make a drawing." He asked me to sit at one end of the sofa with my back to him while he sat at the opposite end with his back to me. I decided to draw a flower. (From the psychologist who stood near Geller and observed his every move, I later learned that Geller started to draw a flower immediately, even before I set my pencil to the paper. He had finished his drawing before I had even begun mine.) "Are you finished?" Geller asked me. I told him that I was not, and that I was still concentrating on the object I had decided to draw.
"Then we must start over again," said Uri, "Because I have already received an image and finished my drawing." He thought this attempt had failed.
Now I drew a flower and took some time putting finishing touches on it. But apparently Geller was receiving nothing. "I don't thik I can do it," he said. "Are you having difficulty concentrating on the object?" he asked. I told him that I was, but still I asked to see whatever sketches he might have made. He turned around and said, "I can only get the image of flowers." He had drawn a crude sketch of another flower.
My suspicions of him had begun to fade. There was no chance that he could have cheated. None of his own people was present in the room. The girl from the studio sat at Geller's end of the room and she could not possibly see my drawing. A photographer roamed around the room, but he said nothing and did nothing but take photographs. Geller could not have used accomplices or relied on secret signs to receive the drawings.
What about the possibility that Geller relied on "sound readings," that is, the reproduction of lines from the sound impressions a pencil makes on paper. Because I am an experienced mentalist, I intentionally had distorted the sounds my pencil made while I drew the flower. In addition, I spoke constantly during the time I was drawing – partly to drown out sound from my pencil and in part actually to confuse Geller. I believe that sound-reading must be ruled out as a possible method by which Geller could have received the drawings.
Could Geller have used a "thumb-writer"? This clever little magician's aid is a tiny metal clip, filled with lead, which is held tightly underneath the thumbnail so that the lead point sticks out slightly. With such a device, an accomplished mentalist can, in a moment, reproduce a simple drawing or a small series of numbers on a card behind his back. When the mentalist pulls the card from behind his back, it looks as if the drawing had been there all along. Being a practicing mentalist, will not go into complete detail here on exactly what else a person experienced with a thumb-writer can ahieve. The only thing that must be stated is that the psychologist at Geller's end of the sofa saw Geller draw both flowers before he said he "gave up." I have to admit that I believe Geller actually read my thoughts.
After his demonstration of telepathy Geller tried psychokinesis. A nickle-plated, enameled key was given to Geller. He asked the journalist who was present to hold the key between two fingers. Geller then rubbed it a couple of times, very lightly, with his forefinger. "I can't do it," he suddenly said. "You have done something to this key. I cannot get in contact with the metal." I immediately suspected that Geller probably used a chemical to soften metal, and that with the coating on the key he felt defeated. I took the key from the journalist and studied it closely. But while I sat looking at the key the enamal suddenly started to crack, and a second later strips of the nickel plating curled up like small banana peels, while the key actually started to bend in my hand. I don't know who was more excited, Geller or the rest of us in the room. I only know that we were all thrilled.
The judgment of all of us who were present for what occurred was one of total endorsement of Geller's paranormal claims: both his ability to bend metal and his talent for receiving telepathic signals. When I am asked about the strength of my own conclusions as to what I witnessed, I can answer only that while Geller was in Copenhagen I did not catch him in any deceptions. Therefore I have to continue to rely on my own judgment and experience as a mentalist; they tell me that Uri Geller is genuine.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Uri Geller Bends On
The following is from pages 4-6 of The Geller Papers: Scientific Observations on the Paranormal Powers of Uri Geller, edited by Charles Panati. Geller demonstrated his metal bending ability for physical scientist Eldon Byrd of the Naval Surface Weapons Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1973. He bent samples of the metal nitinol, which was, at the time, very difficult for the public to obtain.
Nitinol wire is composed of approximately 55 percent nickel and 45 percent titanium. It has a physical memory. That is, a piece of nitinol wire actually "remembers" the shape in which it was manufactured. No matter how much it is crumpled or bent, a nitinol wire, when heated, springs vigorously back to its original shape. Byrd is quite familiar with the properties of nitinol. He knows that no simple ordinary force can alter the wire's memory; he wanted to see if Geller could.
Geller arrived at the Naval Surface Weapons Center in October of 1973. in one test Byrd held a five-inch straight piece of nitinol by its end while Geller "gently stroked" the middle of the wire with his thumb and index finger. After twenty seconds Geller felt a "lump" forming in the wire. He removed his fingers and there was a sharp "kink" at the wire's center. Byrd placed the wire in boiling water, which should have removed the kink. It did not vanish. "Instead of [the wire] snapping back with some force into a straight shape," Byrd writes, "[it] began to form approximately a right angle." Byrd then placed the kink over a flame, but still it did not straighten out.
In his paper "Uri Geller's influence on the metal nitinol," Byrd states that a crystallographic analysis of the kinked section showed that the crystals that contain the wire's memory had actually increased in size. Such a change requires that the wire be reannealed by being heated to a temperature of about 900o F. "There is absolutely no explanation as to how Geller bent the wire by gently touching it," says Byrd.
Perhaps not, but the metallurgists at the Naval Surface Weapons Center were intent on removing the kink. They put the wire under tension in a vacuum chamber, and heated it by passing an electric current along its length until the wire was glowing and almost molten; in other words, they reannealed it into a straight shape. When the wire was removed from the chamber and laid on a plate to cool it was indeed straight; it appeared to have regained its original memory. But when the wire cooled to room temperature, the kink spontaneously returned. "The day following the experiment, writes Byrd, "I took another piece of nitinol wire and tried to bend it into as tight a kink as Geller had formed; I used the point of a screwdriver ... It was impossible for me to [do it] without using Bunsen burners and pliers." Byrd also tried various chemicals on pieces of nitinol wires to see if the wires could be temporarily "softened" so that a kink might be formed without extreme heat and sizable force. The nitinol proved impervious to all the chemicals tested.
But experimentation between Geller and nitinol does not stop there. Byrd realized that anomalous effects can occur in the best of experiments. Perhaps the wires Geller altered (there were several of them) had a structural defect: Is this why Geller had been able to change their memory? Byrd pondered this question for eleven months before he got another chance to test Geller. This time it was not at the Naval Surface Weapons Center, but in an informal setting at the home of a friend of Geller's in Connecticut. Byrd brought with him three pieces of nitinol wire; all had been thoroughly tested at the lab to make sure that on being heated they sprang back to straight configurations. Geller rubbed the wires one at a time, and all three became deformed. Heating would not straighten them out. On later examination, nitinol experts at the lab concluded that the only way "permanent deformation" could have occurred was through the use of intense heat and mechanical stress. "All of the bends that Geller had produced thus far in nitinol wires have been permanent deformation," says Byrd. "The wires can be ... twisted into any shape by hand, but on being heated ... [they always] return to the shape Geller had imposed upon them."
Could Geller have somehow cheated to achieve the results he did? Because of the unusual nature of nitinol, the scientific controls essential for an unambiguous investigation are, for the most part, built into the testing material. Byrd and his colleagues conclude that Geller would have had to either "palm" a Bunsen burner or substitute his own pieces of nitinol, manufactured to his specifications, if deception is to be the explanation for the events that took place. Geller had to deform the wire, Byrd thinks, by paranormal means.
Nitinol wire is composed of approximately 55 percent nickel and 45 percent titanium. It has a physical memory. That is, a piece of nitinol wire actually "remembers" the shape in which it was manufactured. No matter how much it is crumpled or bent, a nitinol wire, when heated, springs vigorously back to its original shape. Byrd is quite familiar with the properties of nitinol. He knows that no simple ordinary force can alter the wire's memory; he wanted to see if Geller could.
Geller arrived at the Naval Surface Weapons Center in October of 1973. in one test Byrd held a five-inch straight piece of nitinol by its end while Geller "gently stroked" the middle of the wire with his thumb and index finger. After twenty seconds Geller felt a "lump" forming in the wire. He removed his fingers and there was a sharp "kink" at the wire's center. Byrd placed the wire in boiling water, which should have removed the kink. It did not vanish. "Instead of [the wire] snapping back with some force into a straight shape," Byrd writes, "[it] began to form approximately a right angle." Byrd then placed the kink over a flame, but still it did not straighten out.
In his paper "Uri Geller's influence on the metal nitinol," Byrd states that a crystallographic analysis of the kinked section showed that the crystals that contain the wire's memory had actually increased in size. Such a change requires that the wire be reannealed by being heated to a temperature of about 900o F. "There is absolutely no explanation as to how Geller bent the wire by gently touching it," says Byrd.
Perhaps not, but the metallurgists at the Naval Surface Weapons Center were intent on removing the kink. They put the wire under tension in a vacuum chamber, and heated it by passing an electric current along its length until the wire was glowing and almost molten; in other words, they reannealed it into a straight shape. When the wire was removed from the chamber and laid on a plate to cool it was indeed straight; it appeared to have regained its original memory. But when the wire cooled to room temperature, the kink spontaneously returned. "The day following the experiment, writes Byrd, "I took another piece of nitinol wire and tried to bend it into as tight a kink as Geller had formed; I used the point of a screwdriver ... It was impossible for me to [do it] without using Bunsen burners and pliers." Byrd also tried various chemicals on pieces of nitinol wires to see if the wires could be temporarily "softened" so that a kink might be formed without extreme heat and sizable force. The nitinol proved impervious to all the chemicals tested.
But experimentation between Geller and nitinol does not stop there. Byrd realized that anomalous effects can occur in the best of experiments. Perhaps the wires Geller altered (there were several of them) had a structural defect: Is this why Geller had been able to change their memory? Byrd pondered this question for eleven months before he got another chance to test Geller. This time it was not at the Naval Surface Weapons Center, but in an informal setting at the home of a friend of Geller's in Connecticut. Byrd brought with him three pieces of nitinol wire; all had been thoroughly tested at the lab to make sure that on being heated they sprang back to straight configurations. Geller rubbed the wires one at a time, and all three became deformed. Heating would not straighten them out. On later examination, nitinol experts at the lab concluded that the only way "permanent deformation" could have occurred was through the use of intense heat and mechanical stress. "All of the bends that Geller had produced thus far in nitinol wires have been permanent deformation," says Byrd. "The wires can be ... twisted into any shape by hand, but on being heated ... [they always] return to the shape Geller had imposed upon them."
Could Geller have somehow cheated to achieve the results he did? Because of the unusual nature of nitinol, the scientific controls essential for an unambiguous investigation are, for the most part, built into the testing material. Byrd and his colleagues conclude that Geller would have had to either "palm" a Bunsen burner or substitute his own pieces of nitinol, manufactured to his specifications, if deception is to be the explanation for the events that took place. Geller had to deform the wire, Byrd thinks, by paranormal means.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Uri Geller at SRI
The Stanford Research Institute in California investigates the psychic phenomena associated with Uri Geller in the 1970s (you can tell by the tight pants and poofy hair everyone has). The ESP and remote viewing tests provided the best results (the one test had odds against chance of a trillion to one). Geller also produced a full scale deflection of a magnetometer, altered the reeding of a weight on a scale that was under a glass dome, and dowsed for water, sugar cubes, and ball bearings inside sealed metal tins. The experiment where Geller moved a compass needle was discarded because of bad protocol. Informal demonstrations were conducted of Geller's metal bending ability on a variety of objects with different compositions. The entire series of videos lasts about 30 minutes.
-Dee
-Dee
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Urban Mystic Classics: Summer Spoons
Reprint from 22 August 2008.
In the same vein as an earlier entry this month, "Michael Chriton on PK", I have returned to the world of metal bending. While out eating I took the coffee spoon in my hand almost unknowingly and began the process of bending it. I'm not sure why I did this; perhaps the spoon wanted to be bent or wanted me to bend it. When I felt that it was in the state where it is ready to bend I approached with mild trepidation and decided against anyting spectacular for what I hope would be reasonable and obvious reasons. Anyway, here is the result of that.
Although I had no way of officially measuring it the spoon did seem more bent after an hour or so from the time I had put it down than when I initially bent it. This has been known to happen often.
-Dee
In the same vein as an earlier entry this month, "Michael Chriton on PK", I have returned to the world of metal bending. While out eating I took the coffee spoon in my hand almost unknowingly and began the process of bending it. I'm not sure why I did this; perhaps the spoon wanted to be bent or wanted me to bend it. When I felt that it was in the state where it is ready to bend I approached with mild trepidation and decided against anyting spectacular for what I hope would be reasonable and obvious reasons. Anyway, here is the result of that.
Although I had no way of officially measuring it the spoon did seem more bent after an hour or so from the time I had put it down than when I initially bent it. This has been known to happen often.
-Dee
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Urban Mystic Classics: Michael Chriton on PK
Michael Chriton talks about his experiences with psychokinesis and metal bending a la Uri Geller. This is a reprint from 11 August 2008, back before The Urban Mystic changed URLs. This will begin the series on Uri Geller and metal bending.
"but other magicians, such a James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn't a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick.
"But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren't trying to trick anybody. They were just little kids having a good time."
Michael Crichton, world famous best selling author and global warming skeptic explains why the skep-dicks' explanation that spoon bending is just a trick is wrong. You can't deny experience. The experience for what it is, experience, is beyond chriticism.
It's refreshing to see someone as famous as Mr. Crichton is sympathetic toward psi. So just what is the secret to spoon bending?
" The only thing I noticed is that spoon bending seemed to require a focused inattention. You had to try to get it to bend, and then you had to forget about it. Maybe talk to someone else while you rubbed the spoon. Or look around the room. Change your attention. That's when it was likely to bend. If you kept watching the spoon, worrying over it, it was less likely to bend. This inattention took learning, but you could easily do it. "
I can attest to that. My old teacher told me about focused inattention in teaching me spoon bending (it's been a while since I've done it, so am badly out of practice; it can become an expensive endeavor).
-Dee
"but other magicians, such a James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn't a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick.
"But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't a trick. I looked around the room and saw little children, eight or nine years old, bending large metal bars. They weren't trying to trick anybody. They were just little kids having a good time."
Michael Crichton, world famous best selling author and global warming skeptic explains why the skep-dicks' explanation that spoon bending is just a trick is wrong. You can't deny experience. The experience for what it is, experience, is beyond chriticism.
It's refreshing to see someone as famous as Mr. Crichton is sympathetic toward psi. So just what is the secret to spoon bending?
" The only thing I noticed is that spoon bending seemed to require a focused inattention. You had to try to get it to bend, and then you had to forget about it. Maybe talk to someone else while you rubbed the spoon. Or look around the room. Change your attention. That's when it was likely to bend. If you kept watching the spoon, worrying over it, it was less likely to bend. This inattention took learning, but you could easily do it. "
I can attest to that. My old teacher told me about focused inattention in teaching me spoon bending (it's been a while since I've done it, so am badly out of practice; it can become an expensive endeavor).
-Dee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
