Shortly after The Magic of Uri Geller was released in 1975, the parapsychology journal Psychoenergetic Systems published a lengthy attempt at rebuttal by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of what they considered to be the major errors I had committed.
Upon publication of this Targ and Puthoff blast, I immediately prepared a response. It was submitted to Fate magazine and to Psychoenergetic Systems—now defunct—but was refused. It never saw print.
Following are the 24 points I make in this book that Targ and Puthoff contended and the “facts”
as they see them, together with my comments, which have heretofore been denied publication.
(1) Foreword by Jaroff (p. 15): Geller convinced executives and researchers at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). . . that he could (among other things) distort solid metallic objects.
Fact: SRI’s position on Geller’s putative metal-bending ability is clearly stated in the researcher’s Nature publication: “It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis.” (Nature 252, No. 5476, pp. 602-607, October 18, 1974)
My Response: Leon Jaroff penned that comment, not I. However, both he and I had good reason to believe that T and P were referring to metal-bending in their glowing December 1972 letter to Scientific American magazine. They had already told Professor Ray Hyman, sent by the Department of Defense to SRI to evaluate T and P’s claims about Geller and others, that Geller could bend metal paranormally without touching it. However, in denying that their comment to Scientific American referred to Geller, T and P get in even deeper trouble. They have revealed to us that they were writing about the infamous Magnetometer Experiment with Ingo Swann! This was probably the most messed-up pseudo-experiment that they ever did—incorrectly reported, badly run, loosely (if at all) controlled, and a general catastrophe. The fact that these scientists eventually reversed their opinions of Geller’s ability to bend metal—by any “psychic” means—does not excuse their wild claims about the “extraordinary” powers they said they had “carefully verified and well documented”
from their “highly gifted subjects.”
(2) Randi (p. 22): Few of the Geller experiments, especially the famous tests at SRI in which Geller performed apparent miracles of ESP, include in their reports the fact that one Shipi Shtrang, once claimed by Geller as his cousin and his brother, was present.
Fact: During the SRI experimentation, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area, a pre-condition for experimentation adopted on the basis of advice by project consulting magicians.
My response: I stand by that statement. No reports mentioned Shtrang. It matters little whether he was “in the target area.” I never said that he was! He was still there, and able to assist Geller.
Verbal soft-shoe will not work.
(3) Randi (p. 23): But scientists are loath to consult magicians.
Fact: At SRI one of the two responsible investigators is an amateur magician with over twenty years experience, a Bay Area magician who specializes in exposing fraudulent poltergeist cases is a continuing consultant from the beginning of the project, and Milbourne Christopher, a world-renowned magician and critic of psychic phenomena, was brought in to critique video tape and film of the Geller work, and to suggest protocols for further experimentation.
My response: (a) Arthur Hastings, the part-time magician referred to but not named here, told me that he gave T and P some rules to follow. They ignored them, and Geller insisted that Hastings not be allowed to witness the experiments. (b) Christopher, far from being asked to witness the tests, saw only selected film and tape at SRI months after Geller had left\ He has said that there was not enough detail in the record for him to tell anything about how the tricks might have been done.
Certainly none of his suggestions were later followed by T and P, who seemed willing to listen—after the event—and then chose to ignore all advice.
(4) Randi (p. 23): Even while the Stanford Research Institute was involved in testing the Israeli Wonder, I wrote offering my services and never received the courtesy of a reply.
Fact: Randi’s letter, dated September 6, 1973, was months after completion of the SRI work with Geller.
My response: There was more than one letter. None of them were answered.
(5) Randi (p. 27): Then, too, there seems to be developing a public belief that science approves the trend toward parapsychological research and that most people believe in psychic marvels. It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists today have no interest, or belief, in these things.
Fact: According to a recent survey reported by Chris Evans in New Scientist, pp. 209, January 25, 1973; “Parapsychology—What the Questionnaire Revealed,” 67 percent of nearly 1500 responding (the majority of whom are working scientists and technologists) considered ESP to be an established fact or a likely possibility, and 88 percent held the investigation of ESP to be a legitimate scientific undertaking.
My response: I stand by this statement. Chris Evans’s test was not all that it might have been, and he admitted it. He failed to realize that (a) New Scientist is a popularized UK science magazine, read mostly by the informed layman, not full-time scientists, and (b) those who answer such polls tend to be believers, who are thus more heavily represented in the results. Other surveys have failed to support the New Scientist inquiry.
(6) Randi (p. 43): Puthoff reprinted the Nature article without the page-and- a-half introduction!
(Following paragraph implying editing out of material unfavorable to the paper.)
Fact: Reprint of article to which Randi refers is the standard Nature reprint sent to authors. The so-called Introduction Randi claims is deleted refers to an editorial at the front of the magazine, several pages earlier. Nature reprints standardly do not carry editorials, letters to the editor, etc.
My response: T and P had a responsibility to mention that editorial. It was an integral part, not of the scientific paper, but of the total picture Nature presented to its readers. Technically, T and P have a valid point; ethically, they do not. My statement is still true: Puthoff did not publish the embarrassing editorial.
(7) Randi (p. 46): After reprinting Nature editorial Randi claims that he must give his own version of SRI paper, as SRI did not make paper available to him.
Fact: SRI paper to which he refers was in same magazine as the editorial he reprinted, a few pages later ... a document in the public domain, available in any technical library, permission for the use of which is obtained from the magazine as was done for the editorial.
My response: I was not aware the paper was “public domain.” I would rather have published the original. It was damning. I asked permission of SRI, but was never answered. That says something, I think.
(8) Randi (p. 49): There was no way that I could get to see the SRI film. Only the elite of the world of science and journalism were invited (to the Columbia symposium).
Fact: The Columbia symposium was widely known to be an open symposium to which any interested individual could come and for which no invitations were required.
My response: Hearing of the film, I tried to contact Dr. Gerald Feinberg, at Columbia, who sponsored the showing. I was unable to do so, and was unaware that it was an open showing. In any case, I certainly was not invited, in spite of my known interest.
(9) Randi (p. 49): Randi would have the reader believe that the compass sequence and spoon-bending sequence of the SRI film “Experiments with Uri Geller” are examples of where SRI scientists were taken in by magic tricks.
Fact: With regard to the compass sequence the film narration states: “The following is an experiment which in retrospect we consider unsatisfactory as it didn’t meet our protocol standards. Here the task is to deflect the compass needle . . . However, according to our protocol, if we could in any way debunk the experiment and produce the effects by any other means, then that experiment was considered null and void even if there were no indications that anything untoward happened. In this case, we found later that these types of deflections could be produced by a small piece of metal, so small in fact that they could not be detected by the magnetometer. Therefore, even though we had no evidence of this, we still considered the experiment inconclusive and an unsatisfactory type of experiment altogether.”
With regard to the spoon-bending sequence, the film states: “One of Geller’s main attributes that had been reported to us was that he was able to bend metal... In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so . . . [It] becomes clear in watching this film that simple photo interpretation is insufficient to determine whether the metal is bent by normal or paranormal means ... It is not clear whether the spoon is being bent because he has extraordinarily strong fingers and good control of micro-manipulatory movements, or whether, in fact, the spoon “turns to plastic” in his hands, as he claims.”
(Text of narration of film “Experiments with Uri Geller,” shown at Columbia and elsewhere. Text released as part of SRI press release of March 6, 1973, accompanying Columbia presentation.)
My response: Yes, the film contains a disclaimer. Then why, gentlemen, were these “inconclusive and . . . unsatisfactory” sequences included in a “scientific” film at a leading university in this official unveiling of the wonders of the Psychic World discovered at Stanford Research Institute, a leading center of scientific endeavor? To add glamour and to fluff up a very poor effort, obviously. The film belongs with the Mack Sennett epics.
(10) Randi (p. 52): Shipi was there, according to Hanlon, “constantly underfoot” during the tests.
Fact: Neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area during the tests. Hanlon’s allegations to the contrary were refuted in Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, p. 443, November 1974.
My response: Again, I never said Shipi was “in the target area.” But he was there, underfoot, and so was his sister—a proven confederate, as is Shipi—throughout the tests. Why? Simply because Geller wanted it that way. The mouse was running the tests—again.
(11) Randi (pp. 52-64): If you made an excuse to leave the room—and could have gotten just one quick glance at Shipi Shtrang, and he was trying to signal . . . A quick glance at this target might have given Shipi an impression of a horse . . . Such a response could result from a hand signal. . . This shape, which could have been transmitted by simple hand gestures or by a verbal clue . . . They might even have been watching Shipi by now . . . etc.
Fact: As indicated above, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted in the target area, and Geller was never permitted to change his position (i.e., enter or leave experimental room) while an experiment was in progress.
My response: Not so. The “experiments” with Geller were done largely over weekends, when SRI was deserted. Soft-drink and beer cans, food wrappers and scraps, incense sticks and general debris were evident after these sessions. I have been told that Geller did leave the “sealed room”
during tests, and in the Faraday cage series he could see Shipi/Hannah clearly through the mesh walls.
(12) Randi (p. 60): Captain Edgar Mitchell has said “I was there virtually all the time. I am a co-investigator on all that work . . . they were so eager to keep him (Geller) around that they worked themselves into a box by meeting his every whim . . .”
Fact: Captain Mitchell was not at SRI for any of the experimentation reported in Nature, but rather only during early efforts to find whether it was possible to introduce strict protocols as was finally done successfully.
My response: Mitchell was there during the filming but he was such a stickler for protocol that Geller preferred he leave during other sessions. Remember, these tests were done Geller’s way or they were not done at all, or else they were done but not reported because they failed. Mitchell’s comment is not less interesting just because he was subsequently shut out.
(13) Randi (p. 61): Only in the tests where there was no possibility of transmission of data from a confederate did Geller refuse to try the test or just fail it. (Referring to Experiments 5-7)
Fact: Two of the three experiments (6 and 7) were carried out under the same conditions as all of the others—no potential confederates in the target area. The third experiment (Exp. 5) was a special clairvoyance experiment—again with no potential confederate in the target area.
My response: So what? When there was no way of doing the trick (and it was most often done through a confederate) Geller “passed”—or, as in the “devil” episode, resorted to tried-and-true desperation measures and succeeded. Remember, there were many “experiments” with Geller
—and others at SRI—that failed and were never reported.
(14) Randi (p. 62): [With regard to the Faraday cage experiments.] He could even reach his arm out of the cage. What is to prevent Shipi from signaling these three to Geller? Nothing.
Fact: The Faraday cage is entirely sealed and guarded. Only by opening the door can one reach out.
With regard to Shipi acting as a confederate to signal to Geller, again, as in all experiments, neither Shipi nor any other potential confederate was permitted into the target area or knew of the target, a precaution insisted upon and followed as a result of advice from consulting magicians.
My response: I was told that the large mesh of the “cage” allowed one to reach out. I was never able to see the cage, or a photo of it, though opening the screen door is obviously not difficult.
Hannah Shtrang was in the target area this time and was a general “gopher,” thus being provided with an excellent opportunity to act as a confederate. Many people wandering by asked to see the target and were shown it. The control on this test was ridiculous
(15) Randi (p. 65): And is it not curious that this Geller test series was never reprinted or mentioned by any of his SRI disciples? [Referring to the 100-envelope double-blind clairvoyance test that Geller failed.]
Fact: This test, with its negative results, is also in the Nature paper, fourth paragraph from the end of the section on Geller.
My response: There is no way that anyone could identify the 100=envelope test reported in Nature with the Rebert/Otis test. T and P say, in Nature, “On each day he made approximately 12 recognizable drawings, which he felt were associated with the entire target pool of 100. On each of the three days, two of his drawings could reasonably be associated with two of the 20 daily targets.
On the third day, two of his drawings were very close replications of two of that day’s target pictures.” Fact: There was never any provision for “associating” drawings with the entire pool. He was to tell the contents of one envelope at a time. T and P are attempting to salvage something from these failed tests, which they had to report since they were designed by others at SRI.
Fact: The episode on the third day took place after the test was officially terminated and involved a special set of six envelopes not in the original target pool. Geller left the room several times during the tests and scored direct hits on two envelopes. Rebert solved that one; anyone could.
(16) Randi (p. 73): . . . agreed to examine Geller’s claims, with the arrangement that if the results were not positive no report would be issued . . . Did Geller have the same arrangement with the boys at SRI before he agreed to be tested there? I’ll bet he did!
Fact: Negative results on compass deflection and metal bending are reported in the SRI film
“Experiments with Uri Geller,” Columbia Physics Coloquium, March 6, 1973, and negative results on metal bending and 100-envelope clairvoyance test are reported in Nature, October, 1974.
My response: T and P refuse to answer direct questions! Note that here they skirt the implication, never saying that they did not have any such arrangement with Geller. To have no negative tests—a 100 percent success—would be too good. (I’ll still bet that Geller had the boys over a barrel with such an arrangement!)
(17) Randi (p. 100): Now, SRI, in its great wisdom, has called in a magician briefly as consultant. Not before Geller’s tests, mind you, but after. With them, the alarm system is installed after the robbery. It is interesting to note that when Geller did a subsequent series of tests there (p. 65), he failed. Any connection?
Fact: SRI called in a magician as consultant before any of the tests with Geller, not after. (A magician who specializes in exposing poltergeist cases as frauds.) If Randi is referring only to Milbourne Christopher, no tests, including those of page 65, were done after Christopher’s consultancy, all work with Geller having been completed before Christopher’s arrival.
My response: See my response to point 3.
(18) Randi (p. 115): And the SRI public relations man (who his since quit the organization) called Wilhelm of Time to see what could be done about the story.
Fact: SRI’s public relations man, Ron Deutsch, did not quit the organization over this or any other issue, and is still there.
My response: Fellows, I never said that Ron Deutsch quit “over this . . . issue”! I merely reported what I had been told, that he had left SRI. T and P are partly correct: Deutsch, at the time T and P wrote, was still at SRI; he left shortly afterward.
(19) Ray Hyman quoted by Randi (p. 135): “So I asked them [Puthoff and Targ] if he could bend them without touching them (metal rings). They told me he could do it either way. I asked Puthoff if he or anyone else at SRI had seen Uri do it without touching the ring. They never did answer me. They simply assured me that he could do it either way.”
Fact: The above is false reporting. It is well known that Puthoff and Targ of SRI have been agnostic on the subject of metal bending since the beginning, and reported thus both in the SRI film and in the Nature paper.
My response: Here we either accept Hyman’s word, or call him a liar (see my point 1). He is a reputable investigator, with no reason at all to fabricate his story. He prepared a report in writing, for Washington, immediately upon his return from SRI. His visit predated the Nature paper by almost two years, well before T and P had abandoned all efforts to get metal-bending evidence from Geller and were forced to fall back on their poorly controlled “ESP” tests to submit as a report on what they’d done with the money.
(20) Randi (p. 142): First of all, Taylor’s statement about the magician is not true. Where he got that idea, I cannot tell. There was no magician present.
Fact: Taylor’s statement is true; he got it from SRI researchers. A magician was present.
My response: Taylor’s actual words, reported in the book (page 142) are, “Some experiments
were scrutinized by a magician on television monitors...” The account implies strongly that the magician (Christopher) watched the experiments in progress, not months afterwards! There was no
were scrutinized by a magician on television monitors...” The account implies strongly that the magician (Christopher) watched the experiments in progress, not months afterwards! There was no