LETTER TO BERNARD DIXON FROM RUSSELL TARG

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2014
• Sequence Number: 79
• Publication Date: October 22, 1974
• Content Type: LETTER

Declassified and; Approved For Release 2014/01/09: CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
\L12)
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025
(41E) 326-6200
October 22, 1974
Dr. Bernard Dixon
Editor, New Scientist
New Science Publications
128 Long Acre
London WC2E 9QH, England
To the Editor of the New Scientist:
We would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the points
raised in your recent sixteen page article regarding Uri Geller and our
investigation of him.
You correctly relate that the SRI paper in Nature does not indicate any
observation of paranormal metal bending on the part of Mr. Geller. Our
conclusions pertain only to his apparent paranormal perceptual abilities
which were indicated by our tests. In these tests Mr. Geller was separated
by up to 475 meters from the pictures that he was to attempt to duplicate.
The principle argument in the New Scientist article with regard to the
SRI work is that Geller could have obtained target information thrOugh
the use of. an implanted radio receiver used in conjunction with confed-
erates or bugged rooms. Since it was we who first brought this possi-
bility to the attention of your author when he visited us.last January,
we consider it irresponsible for him to lay naivete about such matters
at our door. At the time of his visit we alerted him to take appropriate
precautions in experiments he was proposing to carry out with Geller
because we were well aware of Dr. Puharichis expertise in the area of
micro-electronics, having collected his reports on this subjectSince
1963. Throughout our work with Geller we took precautions against the
very form of trickery suggested by your author, first, by.excluding
everyone other than the experimenter or experimenters from the target area,
and, second, by maintaining silence about the target until. after the
experiment was Completed and Geller's response was collected.
A similar case holds true for the allegation that Geller might have used
a "radio-controlled die" in the SRI experiments in which he identified
the uppermost face of a die in a steel box. The die we used was marked
with an SRI code and was of the transparent variety to preclude the use
of any internal electronics to indicate die position. Again, it is we
who brought the existence of such electronic devices to the attention
of your author. We are personally experienced and familiar with the
use and variety of conjuring paraphernalia and we alerted your author
to beware of such devices.
In view of the above we take great exception to the allegations that
we were heedless of these possibilities, and we consider such reporting
to be a substantial and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/01/09: CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
, Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/01/09: CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
DGLI IJA-nwas,
New Scieli-list (-) Russell Targ
Harold Puthoff
London, England
The New Scientist article also exemplifies a recurring dichotomy peculiar
to reporting in this area. On the One hand, researchers who ovet a period
of weeks set up carefully controlled experiments sometimes-find evidence
for certain paranormal phenomena and with great caution examine the data
for a year before publishing. On the other hand, speculation to the ;
contrary,(which is eventually given equal weight in the press) is often.
based on anecdotal material. An especially pithy example of this is the
inclusion in the New Scientist of a story excerpted from a Time Magazine
story which stated that SRI was visited by two U.S. Government representa-
tives (George Lawrence and Ray Hyman) who purportedly observed our work
and considered that "the controls were sloppy and inadequate". Although
widely reported, we categorically, deny that these men ever observed, any
SRI experimentation at all. When these men arrived at SRI with a request
to observe our controlled experiments, they were denied permission to do
so. We had had several such requests per week and had previously concluded
that it would be impossible to carry out controlled experimentation under
such conditions. As an alternative, they spent an engaging couple of hours
with Geller in which they observed the informal coffee table demonstrations
Which Geller favors, and in which they tried a number of their own and,
from our standpoint, uncontrolled experiments (which .we have on Videotape).
It is irresponsible, however, for these men or anyone else to retroactively
assign responsibility to SRI researchers for theirunsatisfactory experi-
ments. Similarly, it. is unprofessional for a magazine of the calibre of
New Scientist to proliferate such misinformation without determining the
facts, especially since this had been previously corrected in New Scientist
(July 12,, 1973). The SRI criteria for a controlled experiment are carefully
outlined in the Nature paper, and it is clear that we consider as un-
controlled any experiments involving observers knowledgeable of target
material, as in the Lawrence-Hyman observations.
Finally, it is recognized that any researcher who tried to use anecdotal
material obtained under uncontrolled conditions as proof of paranormal
functioning would be considered derelict in his scientific responsibility.
From the standpoint of a serious researcher, that sword must remain double-
edged. Anecdotal material, no matter how circlmstantial, must be handled
with the same caution and restraint with regard to refuting a phenomenon
as with regard to validating it. The position of the SRI researchers is
this: what is required in this field is more experimentation, not more
speculation.
RT: HP :j ls
Russell Targ
Harold Puthoff
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/01/09: CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/01/09 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9
S
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025
[phone]
Mr. Henry A. Grunwald
Managing Editor
TIME Inc.
Rockefeller Center
New York, New York 10020
. To the Editor of TIME:
29 October 1974
We would like to comment on some of the points raised in TIME's critique of
our paper, "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding"
(NATURE, October 18, 1974).
Your readers should be made aware that although your entire story deals with
our investigation of Uri Geller, the major part of our paper is based on work
with other subjects. Our primary concern is the study of the phenomenon of
paranormal perception, not the study of a particular subject such as Uri
Geller.
A substantial portion of TIME's story is based on reporter Joe Hanlon's comments
in the NEW SCIENTIST magazine, in which he discusses SRVs investigation of
? Geller. A principle argument in Hanlon's article (which you repeat) with regard
to the SRI work is that SRI researchers were unaware that Geller could have
obtained target information through the use of an implanted radio receiver
used in conjunction with confederates or bugged rooms. Since it was we who
first brought this possibility to the attention of Hanlon when he visited us
last January, we consider it irresponsible for him to lay naivete about such
? matters at our door. At the time of his visit we alerted him to take appropriate
precautions, as we had done, in experiments he was proposing to carry out with
Geller. This reflected our awareness of the expertise of Dr. Puharich (Geller's
?. mentor) in the area of micro-electronics, having collected his reports on this
subject since 1963.
? In view of the above, Hanlon's allegations that we were heedless of such
? cpossibilities is a substantial and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
Furthermore, we communicated the basic falsehood of Hanlon's allegations
directly to TIME via one of your West Coast representatives. We note that
? you chose to run your article without including this information. Therefore,
?. your magazine must share responsibility for proliferating misinformation.
In an area as controversial as paranormal investigation, charlatanism--the
effort to deceive by misdirection--must be guarded against in reporting as
well as in experimentation.
Harold Puthoff
Russell Targ
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory
14P /PT ? 4 c
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/01/09: CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010079-9