cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (06/15/85)
This is the first of several postings I plan to make. In this one I will
present my general feelings about the evidence for Geller's legitimacy, without
responding directly to previous postings. In later postings I will comment
on what has already been said (and to whatever responses this elicits).
1. If you believe that Geller is "strictly legit", never resorting
to trickery, you are a fool.
2. If you have concluded, only on the basis of the publicly available
reports of Geller's activities, that PK (psychokinesis) is real
and that Geller practices it, you are naive.
3. If you don't have a fair amount of knowledge about the techniques of
prestidigitation you should hesitate to base a positive evaluation of
Geller's abilities on personal observation, particularly under
"uncontrolled" conditions.
4. You should be very sure of the knowledge (and honesty, of course) of
anyone who's testimony you rely on to reach a positive verdict about
Geller.
With that out of the way, I will further say that I believe that Uri Geller
probably at times accomplishes his feats by means of PK.
The publicly available reports of Geller's activities are no where near enough
evidence to overcome the VERY low A PRIORI probability I would attach to
the existence of PK. There exists, however, a large body of experimental
evidence, ranging in quality from moderate to high, that PK exists. Although
some people who have examined this evidence disagree, I think that as a whole
it provides overwhelming evidence for the existence of PK.
Since I do not consider PK next to impossible to start with, I feel that the
relatively modest evidence of Geller's abilities is sufficient to conclude that
it is more likely than not that Geller can at times use it. I would not be
shocked, however, to learn he was a complete fake.
One problem I have with the question of Geller's legitimacy, is that he
demonstrates a "rare" form of PK. There is much less evidence for this type
of PK. I am speaking of "static-PK" or "directly-observable PK". Most of
the evidence for PK comes from experiments where small effects are detected
by statistical techniques applied to many observations of a system with a
high degree of indeterminacy (randomness). Geller seems to demonstrate
a level of PK which does not require such techniques. My feeling, however,
is that directly-observable PK is just an extreme form of the same phenomenon
found in statistical PK experiments and that we should expect a few exceptional
individuals who can occasionally exhibit it. There is a fair amount of
evidence (independent of Geller) for the existence of directly observable PK
and so this aspect only slightly lowers the probability I assign to Geller's
legitimacy.
Geller's favorite trick, PK-MB (psychokinetic metal-bending, a.k.a. the "Geller
effect") had not been studied, to the best of my knowledge, before Geller
arrived on the scene. Once again, given (in the conditional probability sense
of the term) the existence of PK, I think that the probability of PK-MB is
pretty high. Furthermore, experiments done since Geller seem to have
demonstrated fairly well the reality of PK-MB (as well as having demonstrated
that if you advertise for "psychics" you will get a lot of frauds.).
Topher Cooper
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (06/19/85)
Several of the recent postings about Geller have dealt with the examination
of "Geller" fractured metal artifacts using an electron microscope. It seems
worthwhile to cite and summarize the papers which these discussions refer
to.
There are, to the best of my knowledge two papers. Both are by Dr. Wilbur M.
Franklin and both are found in [1]. The first paper [2], a reprint, is a
popular account of his investigation. The second paper [3] gives some more
technical details and then goes into Dr. Franklin's theories of psi (or
"teleneural physics" as he prefers to call it). It appears for the first
time in "The Geller Papers." All quotes in the following are taken from [2].
"The Geller Papers" also provides us with an account of Dr. Franklin's
background:
Wilbur M. Franklin is Chairman of the Department of Physics, Graduate
Division, at Kent State University. He holds degrees in biology,
metallurgical engineering, and solid state science and technology. His
publications include articles on such subjects as diffusion theory, the
properties of liquid crystals, and the nature of fractures in metals; and
many papers on teleneural physics. His interest in this last area began
in 1972, when he first met and worked with Uri Geller. Since then he has
initiated a course in teleneural physics at Kent State, the course is
funded in part by a grant from the Ford Foundation. Dr. Franklin is a
member of the American Physical Society and is listed in American Men of
Science.
CONTENT:
There were four objects studied by Dr. Franklin: two stainless steel spoons, a
stainless steel needle, and a platinum ring. The fracturing of these objects
occurred in a fairly informal setting, with Geller allowed to handle the
objects.
All four of the metallic specimens, as observed by the author, were
fractured in a room-temperature setting. All were handled by the author
or coworkers within approximately thirty seconds to a minute after fracture,
and no one reported the sensation of uncomfortable heat or cold from the
specimens. All four specimens were owned by colleagues of the investigator;
none was owned by Geller or his associates. A fracture occurred in the
small part of the shank of one of the spoons, as it was observed visually,
when the spoon was withdrawn by Geller from a cup in a time of less than
three seconds. The fracture in the second spoon was seen to occur as the
spoon was held in Mr. Geller's fingers while he bent it in a gentle manner
back and forth five or six times to angles of approximately forty-five
degrees from the spoon's original shape. No apparent strain on the part of
the subject was observed during the bending or the fracture process of the
spoons or of the other specimens. In the case of the platinum ring, the
fracture appeared as a crack in the ring while an associate of the author's
held it gently between the palms of her hands in the proximity of Mr.
Geller. Subsequently, Mr. Geller took the ring and gently bent and broke
a small segment out of the shank. The fracture in the needle occurred as
it lay on a table approximately a meter from Mr. Geller.
A great deal of force would be needed to bend the spoons, but not a superhuman
amount. Franklin comments: "The author could not bend manually another spoon
from the same set by more than ten degrees." Examination of the fractures on
the spoons showed surfaces typical of "ductile failure." In other words both
spoons appeared to have been broken by bending them back and forth until they
broke. This was what had been observed with one, but not the other spoon.
Some anomalies relative to this description are given in [3] but not in [2].
Only the first fracture in the ring is discussed. "The SEM [Scanning Electron
Microscope] photographs showed a widely variable microstructure with regions
that appeared to have been distorted by shear, others characteristic of
incipient melting, and one that appeared similar to a low-temperature cleavage
surface."
In a discussion of both the ring and the needle:
If ductile failure had occurred in the needle or ring the SEM should have
shown a dimpled pattern looking like a lacy white filigree network. ...
The intergranular patterns seen in the needle fracture surface suggest
corrosion or stress corrosion. But Geller did not hold the needle prior
to fracture, so corrosive chemicals could not have been applied. In
addition, an energy-dispersive x-ray analysis was done on the needle's
surface and did not indicate the presence of corrosive chemicals. The
overall pattern of the surfaces of the needle and ring were not indicative
of fatigue or shear failure, either.
MY COMMENTS:
Its pretty obvious that, if we only pay attention only to the description of
the session(s?) in which the artifacts were obtained, we would conclude that Dr.
Franklin had probably been thoroughly bamboozled. Under these conditions
misdirection and sleight would be fairly easy. We do not get any clear idea
of the amount of time all this took, how much forewarning Geller got, etc.
So what does the SEM data prove? It PROVES nothing. It does place rather
severe restrictions on whatever explanations we might have for the phenomena.
Whatever Geller did, normal or paranormal, to cause the fractures they resulted
in an appearance under the SEM (especially the ring) which seemed very unusual
to an experienced metallurgical engineer. It is unlikely that he simply cut
twisted or bent the ring to cause it to break. I don't know how reliably the
x-ray analysis would spot the use of the corrosive.
Overall I would say that Dr. Franklin seems naive and, I would guess, less
educated about parapsychology than he thinks he is. As far as his observations
of Geller are concerned, he seems much too confident of his ability to detect
fraud by simple "objective" observation. He should be listened to, however,
when he says that the characteristics of the fractures are highly unusual.
REFERENCES:
[1] Panati, Charles (Ed); "The Geller Papers: Scientific observations on the
paranormal powers of Uri Geller". Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston; 1976
[2] Franklin, Wilbur M.; "Fracture Surface Physics Indicating Teleneural
Interaction" From [1] 75-81. Reprinted from "New Horizons Journal", Vol 2,
No. 1, April 1975.
[3] Franklin, Wilbur M.; "Metal Fracture Physics Using Scanning Electron
Microscopy and the Theory of Teleneural Interactions" From [1] 83-106.
Topher Cooper
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.