bishop
Member
The SRI tests are referenced frequently enough as solid evidence of paranormal ability that I wanted to create a thread to discuss it. This is an offshoot from a recent thread on the old Skeptiko forum, so I thought I'd give it a shot on the new forum and see how goes.
The video can be seen its entirety here.
Alex himself has voiced his opinion on the strength of the video in the past:
I enjoy following through on leads that may be evidence for particularly clear and strong paranormal effects, and the idea that this video was conducted under strict protocols designed by Targ and Puthoff was interesting enough to explore. I’ve taken a good look at the video, compared it against the corresponding research, and in my opinion the videos should not be considered strong evidence of the paranormal. In fact the SRI videos may have ultimately been damaging to Targ’s and Puthoff’s research and/or reputation.
As far as I can tell, the video only exists in the edited form linked above. I contacted SRI, Targ, Puthoff, Zev Pressman, and the CIA to get a better handle of how and when it was filmed, and to find out if there was a more comprehensive set of videos showing the complete unedited demonstrations. SRI responded saying there were no other videos, and nothing had been properly archived. This is disappointing and somewhat baffling. Targ, Puthoff and Pressman did not respond. At the CIA I spoke with several people, all of whom explained that to their knowledge nothing existed.
The main problem is trying to figure out exactly what the video actually is. It does not appear to correlate in meaningful ways to Targ’s and Puthoff’s research, and if it is supposed to correlate then it sheds a bad light on their methodology.
The film is described in the video as follows:
As Alex mentioned Puthoff also has commented on the films authenticity. From D. Scott Rogo:
This insistence on the films authenticity is in fact the problem, because what the video shows is a complete lack of the methodologies and protocols described in the SRI research.
There are many many examples of this, and here is one. The research describes testing conditions as:
In the corresponding section in the video Geller can be seen sitting in a room that is clearly not the shielded room described (it has windows with blinds for example), with multiple experimenters in the same room as he draws pictures and confirms them right on the spot.
It's similar with the other demonstrations, such as Geller sitting on the floor choosing metal containers with liquids while the experimenters casually sit in the same room joking around. If these videos are legitimately footage of the actual experiments, as Puthoff and others attest, then it raises serious doubts about the soundness of any of it.
A careful comparison of the published research and video shows these contradictions pretty much across the board, and opens up all kinds of possibilities for leakage. For example in this clip from 6:20 – 9:10 Geller demonstrates his ability to find the ball bearing hidden in a metal container. The most blatant potential leak here is the camera man himself, who is present for both the initial placement of the bearing by an assistant and the process of Geller locating it; it’s clear that he is present because he is moving the camera on its tripod. Targ is also in the room with Geller congratulating him, which is odd. I think it's important not to blow these off as inconsequential, unless one is willing to casually dismiss the importance of strict experimental protocol. Isn't that what all this is resting on anyways?
Here are the possible conclusions that make the most sense, none of which seem good for the research or researchers.
1. It is possible that Geller is demonstrating actual abilities. But you must also accept that Targ and Puthoff were not following any kind of clear protocol, and worse, breaking the protocols as described in the research. This raises serious doubts about soundness of the experiments.
2. The videos were setup or staged to gain traction for the research or for Geller. This is certainly possible and even understandable, but that would make everyone who swears by them including the researchers deceitful.
3. Geller, as a professional illusionist, manipulated the events of the SRI research to his own ends, leaving Targ and Puthoff who were honest in their efforts to make sense of what was going on.
For the reasons above I don’t consider the video strong evidence of the paranormal, and it seems more possible to me that the researchers were duped. I would like to hear others opinions/perspectives on it, as I'm sure there are possibilities that I haven’t considered. Please take a good look at the video and compare it to the correlating research papers so we can keep this discussion on point. And also, let's please keep this topic Randi-free!
The video can be seen its entirety here.
Alex himself has voiced his opinion on the strength of the video in the past:
they are real and the researchers and camera people back them up... we have no good reason to doubt there [sic] authenticity... moreover, these are very qualified researchers performing very simple tests... I think the SRI vids are the real thing.
I enjoy following through on leads that may be evidence for particularly clear and strong paranormal effects, and the idea that this video was conducted under strict protocols designed by Targ and Puthoff was interesting enough to explore. I’ve taken a good look at the video, compared it against the corresponding research, and in my opinion the videos should not be considered strong evidence of the paranormal. In fact the SRI videos may have ultimately been damaging to Targ’s and Puthoff’s research and/or reputation.
As far as I can tell, the video only exists in the edited form linked above. I contacted SRI, Targ, Puthoff, Zev Pressman, and the CIA to get a better handle of how and when it was filmed, and to find out if there was a more comprehensive set of videos showing the complete unedited demonstrations. SRI responded saying there were no other videos, and nothing had been properly archived. This is disappointing and somewhat baffling. Targ, Puthoff and Pressman did not respond. At the CIA I spoke with several people, all of whom explained that to their knowledge nothing existed.
The main problem is trying to figure out exactly what the video actually is. It does not appear to correlate in meaningful ways to Targ’s and Puthoff’s research, and if it is supposed to correlate then it sheds a bad light on their methodology.
The film is described in the video as follows:
this film describes the five week investigation conducted at Stanford Research Institute with Uri Geller, a young Israeli. The film portrays experiments that we performed with him just as they were carried out. Each scene has been taken from film footage made during actual experiments. Nothing has been restaged or specially created.
As Alex mentioned Puthoff also has commented on the films authenticity. From D. Scott Rogo:
Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment' he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with MrPressman, which is exactly what I did.
This insistence on the films authenticity is in fact the problem, because what the video shows is a complete lack of the methodologies and protocols described in the SRI research.
There are many many examples of this, and here is one. The research describes testing conditions as:
shielded room, so that from that time forward Geller was at all times visually, acoustically, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at the target location. Only following Geller's isolation from the experimenters was a target chosen and drawn, a procedure designed to eliminate pre-experiment cueing
In the corresponding section in the video Geller can be seen sitting in a room that is clearly not the shielded room described (it has windows with blinds for example), with multiple experimenters in the same room as he draws pictures and confirms them right on the spot.
It's similar with the other demonstrations, such as Geller sitting on the floor choosing metal containers with liquids while the experimenters casually sit in the same room joking around. If these videos are legitimately footage of the actual experiments, as Puthoff and others attest, then it raises serious doubts about the soundness of any of it.
A careful comparison of the published research and video shows these contradictions pretty much across the board, and opens up all kinds of possibilities for leakage. For example in this clip from 6:20 – 9:10 Geller demonstrates his ability to find the ball bearing hidden in a metal container. The most blatant potential leak here is the camera man himself, who is present for both the initial placement of the bearing by an assistant and the process of Geller locating it; it’s clear that he is present because he is moving the camera on its tripod. Targ is also in the room with Geller congratulating him, which is odd. I think it's important not to blow these off as inconsequential, unless one is willing to casually dismiss the importance of strict experimental protocol. Isn't that what all this is resting on anyways?
Here are the possible conclusions that make the most sense, none of which seem good for the research or researchers.
1. It is possible that Geller is demonstrating actual abilities. But you must also accept that Targ and Puthoff were not following any kind of clear protocol, and worse, breaking the protocols as described in the research. This raises serious doubts about soundness of the experiments.
2. The videos were setup or staged to gain traction for the research or for Geller. This is certainly possible and even understandable, but that would make everyone who swears by them including the researchers deceitful.
3. Geller, as a professional illusionist, manipulated the events of the SRI research to his own ends, leaving Targ and Puthoff who were honest in their efforts to make sense of what was going on.
For the reasons above I don’t consider the video strong evidence of the paranormal, and it seems more possible to me that the researchers were duped. I would like to hear others opinions/perspectives on it, as I'm sure there are possibilities that I haven’t considered. Please take a good look at the video and compare it to the correlating research papers so we can keep this discussion on point. And also, let's please keep this topic Randi-free!