作者：夷人
链接：https://www.zhihu.com/question/21685616/answer/1343390102
来源：知乎
著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。
其三，是1994年星门计划研究规划。该报告由美国国防情报局（Defence intelligence Agency）撰写，共106页，他们准备用5年时间研究超自然现象背后的机理与可能应用场景。请注意，他们早就解决了超自然现象的存在性问题。
PROJECT STAR GATE RESEARCH AND PEER REVIEW PLANwww.cia.govwww.cia.gov
[img=971,1057]https://pic2.zhimg.com/80/v2-15f1497d6edd3e213fc5441bf1adf03a_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]该计划准备组织一个跨机构跨学科的研究团队，参与机构有美军实验室，美国国家实验室与顶尖名校，这些学校包括普林斯顿大学，哈佛大学，斯坦福大学，康奈尔大学，麻省理工学院，维吉尼亚大学，加州理工多个分校，参与学科涉及理论物理学，热动力学，量子力学，天文学，心理学，统计学，医学，神经生理学，人类学，人工智能等。
[img=761,1746]https://pic2.zhimg.com/80/v2-a3e8d13132d75d4cd5dc8fb756ac3aa2_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]另外组织一个学术评审委员会，以对该研究的客观性进行评价，这个评审委员会同样阵容庞大，包括著名医生，名校教授还有诺贝尔物理学奖得主等。
[img=782,1761]https://pic1.zhimg.com/80/v2-6fbbf8eac94495e4f26d2feb784cf434_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]DIA的星门计划后来归由CIA管辖，虽然，政府的公开说辞是，特异功能用途有限，所以他们终止了星门计划。我注意到有国内朋友居然根据星门计划的终止，来否认特异功能的存在性。朋友啊，您想想，世界上最顶级的情报机构几十年来花大量人力物力研究特异功能，难道真的只是把它当作笑话么？更何况，与UFO研究项目经常更改名称一样，星门计划的所谓“终止”，很可能只是为了应对信息自由法案（FOIA)带来的压力，故意换一个名头罢了。比如2004年左右，美国国防情报局与军方其他部门开展了一系列匪夷所思的项目，包括瞬间传输，星际之门等等，这些所谓的高科技，在过去可都是不折不扣的“伪科学”。
夷人：近百年人类科技发展成就远超之前数千年，这不恐怖吗？www.zhihu.com
[img=972,1180]https://pic2.zhimg.com/80/v2-8039b7966c76e44c5c46900eecf3cd0f_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/flim-flam-flummery-a-skepti.htmlmichaelprescott.freeservers.commichaelprescott.freeservers.com
[img=972,1204]https://pic1.zhimg.com/80/v2-e17bd57c236a5bc8fce68776bf2abea9_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]
Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi那些荒谬的琐事：对詹姆斯·兰迪先生的几点质疑
Years ago, when I was a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist, I read James Randi's 1980 book
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. Randi is an accomplished magician and a professional skeptic, dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience. In line with this agenda, and as its title suggests,
Flim-Flam is a concerted attack on miscellaneous purported irrationalities – everything from the pop-culture writings of Erich von Daniken to the more serious investigations of professional parapsychologists. I enjoyed the book, which reinforced my belief system at the time.
多年前，当我还是一个成熟的怀疑论者，�荅�论者和理性主义者时，我拜读了詹姆斯·兰迪（James Randi）在1980年出版的大作：《 荒谬绝伦！ 通灵，超感官知觉，独角兽与其他妄想》（
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions）。
兰迪（Randi）是一位经验丰富的魔术师和专业怀疑论者，他致力于反驳他认为是伪科学的所有主张。 与这个目的相一致，正如其标题所暗示的那样，”Flim-Flam”这本书，是对所谓各种非理性行为的�荇t别攻击，从Erich von Daniken的流行文化著作到专业超心理学家的严肃研究。 在那个时候，我喜欢这本书，因为它巩固了我的信仰体系。
Recently I picked up
Flim-Flam again. Having changed my mind about many things over the past twenty years, I responded to it much differently this time. I was particularly struck by the book's hectoring, sarcastic tone. Randi pictures psychic researchers as medieval fools clad in "caps and bells" and likens the delivery of an announcement at a parapsychology conference to the birth of "Rosemary's Baby." After debunking all manner of alleged frauds, he opens the book's epilogue with the words, "The tumbrels now stand empty but ready for another trip to the square" – a reference to the French Revolution, in which carts ("tumbrels") of victims were driven daily to the guillotine. Randi evidently pictures himself as the executioner who lowers the blade. In passing, two points might be made about this metaphor: the French Revolution was a product of "scientific rationalism" run amok ... and most of its victims were innocent.
最近，我重新阅读了“Flim-Flam”。 在过去的二十年里，我对许多事物的观感都发生重大转变，所以阅读该书所带来的反应也变得截然不同。 书中挖苦与讽刺的语气让我尤为震惊，兰迪将灵学研究人员描绘成戴着“帽子和铃铛”的中世纪傻瓜，并把在超心理学会议上发表的声明比作“Rosemary's baby”的诞生（"Rosemary’s baby"是1968年美国的心理学恐怖片，一位母亲认为自己的孩子不属于这个世界）。 在揭露了各种所谓欺诈行为之后，他在书的结尾写道：“现在，农车已经空了，但准备再去广场拉些回来” ，这句话影射法国大革命，描述了满载受害者的推车每天被送往断头台。 兰迪显然把自己想象成是放下铡刀的刽子手。 顺便说一句，关于这个比喻，有两点值得一提：法国大革命是“科学理性主义”狂奔的产物……而它的大多数受害者都是�荈d的。
Still, the tedious nastiness of
Flim-Flam does not tell us anything about its accuracy. Intrigued, I decided to check out a few of Randi's claims in detail.
I chose to focus on Chapter Eight, Randi's dissection of the experiments of Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, two well-known parapsychologists. Randi calls them "the Laurel and Hardy of psi" and proceeds to argue that their experiments were a tissue of ineptitude, gullibility, and dishonesty.
The first thing I noticed was that Randi never gives any indication that Targ and Puthoff have any scientific credentials or accomplishments. The casual reader could be forgiven for assuming that they are not "real" scientists at all. For the record, Targ is a physicist credited with inventing the FM laser, the high-power gas-tranport laser, and the tunable plasma oscillator. Puthoff, also a physicist, invented the tunable infra-red laser and is widely known for his theoretical work on quantum vacuum states and the zero point field. (See
The Field, by Lynne McTaggart, for an overview of Puthoff's work in quantum phyics.) If these two are "Laurel and Hardy," at least they come with good résumés. Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training.
不仅如此，“Flim-Flam”整本书冗长而乏味，却始终�茠k给我们提供任何可验证其准确性的信息。 出于好奇，我决定详细考查兰迪的一些说法。
我选择重点关注第八章，兰迪对两位著名超心理学家Russell Targ 和Harold Puthoff的实验进行剖析。 兰迪称他们为“精神研究领域的Laurel与Hardy” （Laurel与Hardy是两位著名的喜剧搭档，类似于国内双口相声搭配），并继续宣称，他们的实验是充满�荅遄A轻信与不诚实的垃圾。
我注意到的第一件事是，兰迪从未提及Targ与Puthoff在科学领域的资格或成就。 粗心的读者如果读了兰迪的著作，以为Targ他们根本不是“真正“的科学家，完全不是你们的错。 从公开发表的记录看，Targ是物理学家，发明了FM激光器和可调谐等离子体振荡器，其中FM激光器是一种大功率气体传输激光器。 Puthoff同样是一名物理学家，发明了可调红外激光器，并因其在量子真空态和零点场方面的理论工作而广为人知。 （请参阅Lynne McTaggart撰写的“The Field”，它概述了Puthoff在量子物理学方面的工作）。如果这两位研究者是“ Laurel 与 Hardy”，至少他们都具备良好的科学履历。 相比之下，兰迪没有受过任何科学训练。
Randi starts off by telling us how Targ and Puthoff took a professed psychic, Ingo Swann, to Stanford University, where, they said, Swann used his psychic abilities to affect the operation of a magnetometer. According to Randi, "the report was all wet." He knows this because he contacted Dr. Arthur Hebard, "the builder of the device, who was present and has excellent recollections of what took place." Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie."
This is pretty compelling stuff. But is Randi's version of events accurate? Let's take a look.
First, he seems to make a rather basic error when he says that both Targ and Puthoff were present for this experiment. As best I can determine, Puthoff conducted the experiment, which took place in June, 1972, without Targ's assistance. Targ had met Puthoff prior to this time, but their work together apparently did not begin until a few months later.
That's a small point. Far more important is the matter of Dr. Hebard's testimony. There's another side to the story, which I found in
Chapter 17 of
Psychic Breakthroughs Today by D. Scott Rogo. Rogo, who died in 1990 at the age of forty, was a prolific journalist and researcher of psychic phenomena. He wrote numerous popular books, some of which have been used as college texts. He also published research papers in peer-reviewed parapsychology journals. Although Rogo was sometimes criticized for tackling overly esoteric subjects, he had a reputation for honesty and was respected for his willingness to do hands-on investigation and field work, rather than relying on armchair appraisals. A Scott Rogo tribute and bibliography can be found
here.
兰迪这样描述道，Targ和Puthoff将灵媒Ingo Swann带到斯坦福大学，他们认为Swann利用精神力影响了磁力计的操作。 根据兰迪的宣称，“实验报告注了水。” 他之所以知道这一点，是因为他联系了Arthur Hebard博士，Hebard是“设备制造商，他在场并对发生过的事情有良好的记忆”。 Hebard对兰迪说，他对Targ-Puthoff的研究结果有异议。 兰迪引用Hebard的话：“这是一个谎言。您可以按照自己的意愿理解这句话，但它就是我所认为的谎言。”
这个指控非常引人注目。 但是，兰迪所说的是否准确？ 让我们来查一查。
首先，兰迪说该实验由Targ和Puthoff共同进行，就犯了一个基本错误。 据我所知，只有Puthoff是实验者，该实验于1972年6月进行，Targ并没有参与。 Targ在此前遇到过
uthoff，但显然直到几个月后他们的合作才正式开始。
当然，这只是一个细节问题，Hebard博士的证词更为重要。 故事的另一种说法，是我在D. Scott Rogo撰写的《当今精神研究的突破性进展》（“
Psychic Breakthroughs Today”）第17章中找到的。 罗戈（Rogo）于1990年去世，享年40岁。他是一位多产的新闻工作者和灵媒现象研究人员，写了许多受欢迎的书，其中一些已被用作大学教材，Rogo还在同行评审的超心理学期刊上发表过研究论文。 尽管有时Rogo因涉入过分深奥的主题而受到批评，但他以诚实著称，常进行实地调查并深入现场，不作键盘侠式的评论，也因此备受尊重。 读者可以在这里找到Scott Rogo的纪念文和著作目录。
D. Scott Rogo and His Contributions to Parapsychologywww.tricksterbook.comwww.tricksterbook.com
Rogo writes, "There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology." Hebard's interest in the paranormal contradicts Randi's statement that Hebard, "not being a reader of far-out literature," was unaware of Targ and Puthoff's claims.
Rogo acknowledges that Hebard's account differs in some respects from Puthoff's. "Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made. Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me." (Ellipsis in original.)
As for the discrepancies between Hebard's and Puthoff's accounts, Rogo reports that in a subsequent meeting with Puthoff, he was shown "the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's."
So far, then, the best we can say is that Randi's criticism of Puthoff (and Targ, who apparently wasn't even involved in the magnetometer experiment) is far from the last word on the subject.
Rogo写道：“显然，Puthoff博士对实验结果的看法，与兰迪声称Hebard博士告诉他的观点，二者存在一些差异。因此，为了澄清这一点，我决定联系Hebard博士。我最终在新泽西州Murray hill的贝尔电话实验室找到Hebard，他非常愿意与我讨论关于Swann影响磁力计的实验，并且自称对超心理学非常感兴趣。”
很明显，Hebard对超自然现象的兴趣，与兰迪描述的“Hebard不是边缘资料的阅读者，且不了解Targ与Puthoff的主张”并不相符。
Rogo承认，Hebard的观点在某些方面与Puthoff有所不同，他接着写道， “ 但是，兰迪声称，从未有人要求Swann尝试停止磁力计记录的场电荷。Hebard博士毫不含糊地否认了这一点。他轻松回忆起，他曾建议，如果Swann能够做到这点，那将是一个非常有意义的结果。当然，实际上正是他们提出此建议后，Swann按要求这样做了。兰迪还直接引用Hebard博士的话，称Targ和Puthoff的宣称是'谎言'。从那时起，Hebard博士就对兰迪的这一说法感到非常恼火，他向我解释，兰迪曾试图说服他做出这项指控，但他拒绝了。Hebard博士后来为我签署了一份与此有关的声明。” （正文内容有所删节）
至于Hebard和Puthoff之间看法的差异，Rogo报告说，在随后他与Puthoff的会晤中，Puthoff向他展示了“Swann实验中磁力计给出的图形打印结果。相关记录里面，支持Puthoff的证据，要比Hebard来得多。”
那么，到目前为止，我们至少可以说，兰迪对
uthoff的批评（以及Targ，虽然他并没有参与磁力计实验）远不是实际发生的情况。
Randi proceeds to launch a comprehensive critique of Targ and Puthoff's article "Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal
Nature, and whichcan be read
here (or
here). The article details experiments involving, among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller.
Randi's take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller's isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller's averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller's performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.
兰迪继续对Targ和Puthoff的文章《在感官屏蔽条件下的信息传导》 （"Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding"）进行广泛的评论，该文于1974年10月18日发表在受人尊敬的《自然》杂志上，可以在此处（或此处）阅读。 这篇文章详细介绍了自称通灵者Uri Geller的系列实验。
兰迪对这一系列实验嗤之以鼻，他把Targ和Puthoff说成是“垃圾研究者”。 兰迪这样描述，Targ与Puthoff的实验是在鼓励作弊的混乱气氛中进行的。 Geller隔离室墙壁上有一个洞，使Geller能够在进行超感官知觉（ESP）实验时偷看科学研究者的操作。Targ和Puthoff故意忽略失败的实验结果，如果把它们考虑进去，Geller的命中率将降低到随机水平，所以他们歪曲了测试结果。 兰迪还说，Geller的表演得分不当，所得分数比应得的更高。
（译者注， Nature文章发表后遭受大量攻击，最后被撤稿。原文给出的链接失效，我在下面附上Nature文章的简介与新的链接。多年后还有另一篇文章遭受类似待遇，与稀释水的信息传导有关，同样是兰迪参与抹黑此事。当事科学家因此身败名裂，失去所有的学术光环与经费，晚景十分凄凉。详情请参看我的另一篇文章。）
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/118665845zhuanlan.zhihu.comNature文章链接：
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/18741867_Information_Transmission_Under_Conditions_of_Sensory_Shieldingwww.researchgate.netwww.researchgate.net
[img=972,1661]https://pic2.zhimg.com/80/v2-251942b24e6e7bd3d93583ac31835bbe_720w.jpg?source=1940ef5c[/img]The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]"? He explains that he was given inside information by "an individual" who claimed to represent dozens of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.
Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the Broomhilda group. He says that "Broomhilda verified for me much of the information that I had been holding on to for years," but where did he get this earlier information in the first place? "That data," he says, "now moved from the status of hearsay to documented fact." But
documented is hardly a term applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds, "Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda's charges. Taken together," he concludes, "the information from all sources amounted to quite an indictment."
Maybe so, but it's an indictment that would never hold up in court. The reader is expected to take Randi's word that his unidentified sources are trustworthy – and that the sources themselves are well-informed about experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.
Thus when Randi alleges that "hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI ... were never reported," we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, "All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless," we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion.
一个问题自然浮出水面：兰迪是怎么知道这一切的？因为正如他所承认的那样，“我从未涉足SRI（进行实验的斯坦福研究所）的神圣实验场所。” 他解释说，是有“个人”向他提供了内部信息，这个神秘爆料者声称代表着数十名SRI科学家。 该科学家小组秘密工作，甚至采用代号（Broomhilda），将信息偷偷传递给兰迪。
不幸的是，兰迪从未透露此神秘人物是谁，也没有提及Broomhilda小组的其他成员。 他说：“Broomhilda验证了我多年来一直掌握的许多信息，这些数据现在已经从传闻变成有正式纪录的事实”。
首先，他所谓的早期信息从何而来？其次，“有纪录”这个词不是这么用的，它既不适用于从未透露来源的初始信息，也不适用于匿名来源的Broomhilda信息。 他补充说：“其他事实是在与个人的交谈和通信过程中获得的。在这些人中，许多人并不了解Broomhilda，而是自己采取行动调查。他们完全独立的意见支持了Broomhilda的指控。”他总结道，“ 总而言之，所有消息来源构成了足够的起诉证据。”
真是如此吗？或许吧！但这样的起诉书永远不会在法庭上出现。 读者只是在听兰迪的一面之词：他的匿名消息来源值得信赖。至于消息来源本身到底是否充分了解整个实验程序，谁也不知道。
因此，当兰迪声称，SRI 实验中存在“从未报道过的数百次[失败]实验...”时，我们只能去相信兰迪的个人信用，因为不存在任何文档证据支持该声明。 同样，当兰迪明确表示“其他所有测试（成功的）都缺乏适当的条件控制，所以完全�茈峞赤�时候，我们也找不到任何可验证的证据支持这一主张。
A
posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand 'Chinese Whispers.'" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is precisely what the bulk of Randi's argument consists of.
Randi does produce two individuals willing to go on the record – Charles Rebert and Leon Otis, both of whom were SRI psychologists. Rebert and Otis apparently disagreed with the Targ-Puthoff conclusions; indeed, Randi tells us that "a horrified Rebert also heard that Targ and Puthoff were going to proclaim these erroneous findings before Stanford University's psychology department, and he forbade such a blunder. The talk was canceled." But this only tells us that there was a dispute among the scientists at SRI. Rebert and Otis ran some unsuccessful tests with Geller and decided that he was a fraud. Targ and Puthoff ran what they regarded as successful tests and decided that, in some areas at least, Geller had legitimate psychic powers. Nothing in Randi's text establishes which conclusion was correct.
Randi goes on to report that after he had criticized Geller in an earlier book, Targ and Puthoff "issued a 'fact sheet' in rebuttal to twenty-four" of his points. According to Randi, "This attempt was a failure, and in response to one claim that the SRI tests were done under tight controls, a scientist who was there declared flatly, 'This is b.s. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol.' I will not burden you," Randi concludes, "with the other twenty-three points; they are as easily demolished."
Well, hold on. A quotation from yet another anonymous source ("a scientist who was there") hardly constitutes a demolition job, especially when the scientist's argument consists of an unsupported assertion ("none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol"). Personally, I would have welcomed the "burden" of the other twenty-three points and of Randi's detailed and carefully documented rebuttals.
我在留言板上找到一个帖子，它很好地概括了这种情况：“对实验者科学方法欠佳的指控，主要采用了没有根据的个人意见和二手“中国式闲话”。”（在英国，中国式闲话与美国电话游戏等同，都指不可靠的消息）。值得一提的是，像兰迪这样的超自然现象批评家，永远都在谴责研究者对“轶事证据”的依赖，但显然，在兰迪这个指控中，拿得出的也仅仅是不着边际的“轶事”而已。
兰迪确实找到了两个愿意作证的人-Charles Rebert和Leon Otis，他们都是SRI心理学家。 Rebert和Otis显然不同意Targ-Puthoff的结论。 确实，兰迪告诉我们：“当Rebert听说Targ和Puthoff将在斯坦福大学心理学系之前宣布这些错误的发现，他惊呆了，Robert努力让斯坦福避免这样的错误。所以谈话后来被取消。” 但这仅仅是告诉我们SRI的科学家之间存在争议。 Rebert和Otis与功能人Geller进行过一些失败的测试，并认为他在欺诈。 Targ和Puthoff进行了他们认为成功的测试，并认定至少在某些领域，Geller确实具备精神力量（特异功能）。 兰迪的文章中没有任何内容可以确定哪个结论是正确的。
兰迪继续说，他在早期出版的书中批评了Geller之后，Targ和Puthoff发表了一份“事实列表”，以驳斥兰迪论述中的24个论点。 兰迪说：“这是一次失败的尝试，有人回应说SRI测试是在严格控制下完成的，但一位当时在场的科学家断然宣称：'这是胡说，就我和我的同事而言，实验并未达到公认的科学标准。”'兰迪总结道，“我不会详细描述其他23点；但它们都很容易被驳倒。”
好吧，先等等。 又来一个匿名消息来源（当时在场的科学家），这样的宣称什么也驳不倒，特别是该科学家发表了对实验的负面观点（“没有一个实验符合公认的科学原则”）时，却选择不肯露面。 就我个人而言，我对其他23点很感兴趣，也想知道，兰迪是怎样对它们进行有详细记录的认真辩驳。
Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in
Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments."
Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.)* I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole – therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller experiments."
It would appear that the hole in the isolation booth's wall poses considerably less of a problem than the holes in Randi's arguments.
我们再来看一下D.Scott Rogo的说法，其结果与兰迪的主张有所不同，Rogo早些时候从Hebard博士这条线给出了很好的信息。 我们知道，兰迪“从未涉足”SRI 的研究设施，但Rogo不同，他于1981年6月12日访问了斯坦福研究院。他发现兰迪误解了隔离室墙壁上的孔，根据兰迪的说法，Geller可以通过孔道监视研究人员。 “Flim-Flam”这样描绘：窥视孔供电缆通过，宽度为三英寸半，因此可以很好地观察研究人员的实验区域。 但是Rogo发现，“该孔道宽3.25英寸，穿过一堵12.5英寸的墙，因为视野受限，很难通过它看到东西。 孔道也不是完全敞开的，它被一块固定有电缆的金属板覆盖着，而且Puthoff博士和他的同事担心他们的研究对象太过聪明，可能精巧地将光学探头插入该孔，因此他们在进行心灵感应实验时，全程监视着孔道。”
兰迪还指出孔道位于地板上方34英寸处，但Rogo说不是： “它不在地板上方三英尺处，而只是位于地板上方一点点。即使在最佳条件下，你也只能看到一小部分地板表层和对面的墙壁。（视野半径大约只有20°，并且Geller实验的目标物完全悬挂在不同的墙上。）我在拜访SRI时还发现，在整个Geller实验中，设备机架都位于孔道的前面，进一步阻碍了孔道视野。在结束此行时，我与两位亲身参与实验的研究者交谈，他们俩都同意，在Geller实验期间，电线穿过孔道，因此完全堵塞了视线。”
显然，与兰迪书中描述不同，隔离室墙壁上的孔道，根本不大可能构成问题。
By now, I felt that Randi's credibility was in doubt. He had committed careless errors of fact, had quite possibly misrepresented and misquoted Hebard, and had made unsupported assertions based on rumors. I wondered what Targ and Puthoff have to say about all this. The only responses from either of them that I could find online were part of a long essay by Winston Wu, "
Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena"; the relevant part is
Argument 18. Puthoff is quoted as saying the following:
"In
Flim- Flam, [Randi] gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. (He did not.)* ...
"The truth of the matter is that none of Randi's claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi's guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi's suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician's tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam....
"In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions," Puthoff continues, "we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: [Randi] said that in our
Nature paper we verified Geller's metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it. We showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the film."
到目前为止，我觉得兰迪的信誉令人怀疑。 他犯了粗心大意的事实错误，又可能曲解或错误引用了Hebard的原话，并在谣言的基础上提出�荇祰u的主张。 我想知道Targ和Puthoff怎么说？ 在网上所能找到的唯一回应，来自于温斯顿·吴（Winston Wu）的一篇长文，该文章名为《揭穿反对超自然现象与灵媒现象的常见怀疑论点》（ "
Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena"）， 相关内容位于第18节。Puthoff的原话引用如下：
“在Flim- Flam中，如果我的记忆正确，[兰迪]给出了28个争议点。我有机会在Parapsychology Association会议上与兰迪面对面质询，且提供了证据，在录音条件下，他承认自己在所有争议点上都是错误的。他甚至表示将在CSICOP小组即将出版的平装书中发表更正声明（但实际上他没有这么做）...
问题的真相是，兰迪对我们操控不当的所有指责，实际上与实验没有任何关系，当然，因为兰迪不在实验现场，所以并不知道细节。这些内容Scott Rogo曾在某个文章中独立调查并报道过。 正是因为兰迪的责难，Rogo专门检查了兰迪关于实验控制不当的每个猜测，并发现它们在测试条件下不适用。实际上，与我们采取的复杂步骤相比，兰迪的所有建议都是业余的，他怀疑我们只是重复魔术师的伎俩，或者中了以色列的情报骗局。
如果有人认为这只是我们与他的口水之争，那么我们从他的错误指控列表中，选择那些可以独立验证的部分来分析。例如：[兰迪]说，我们在Nature文章中宣称，实验验证了Geller的金属弯曲能力，但如果您仔细看那篇文章，会发现我们说的是，实验�茠k为此提供足够的证据。兰迪又说，SRI关于Geller的影片不是著名摄影师Zev Pressman所拍，而是我们自己操刀完成，并贴上Zev的名字。但我们拿出Zev的亲笔证言，确认是他拍了这部录像。”
There is no way for me to verify Puthoff's statement that he tape-recorded Randi's concession of defeat "on all the points." This has to stand as an unsupported assertion, just like Randi's own arguments. But it
is possible to take a closer look at Puthoff's last two claims.
First, Puthoff insists that his and Targ's
Nature article does not endorse Geller's alleged metal-bending. This is accurate, as you can see for yourself by reading
the article. Puthoff and Targ write, "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."
On the other hand, I have not found any statement by Randi in
Flim-Flam to the effect that Targ and Puthoff "had verified Geller's metal-bending." He attacks the Targ-Puthoff experiments on other grounds. Of course, he may have made this statement elsewhere, but as far as I can tell, Puthoff is rebutting a point Randi never made.
我没有办法证实
uthoff的说法，即他在录音条件下，“全盘记录”了兰迪承认所有论点错误的过程。 因为没有证据，就像兰迪的宣称一样，这点只能被看作�荇祰u的断言。 但是，我们可能可以仔细看看Puthoff的最后两个主张。
首先，Puthoff坚持认为，他和Targ的Nature文章没有认可Geller所谓的金属弯曲能力。 这是准确的，我阅读Nature原文，Puthoff和Targ写道：“据广泛报道，Geller展示过自己的超自然手段，即他具备弯曲金属的能力。尽管在我们的实验室中观察到，Geller确实弯曲了金属，但我们�茠k将这些观察结果与适当控制的实验相结合，以获得足以支持超自然假设的数据。”
另一方面，我也没有在Flim-Flam中找到兰迪的任何声明，即Targ和Puthoff已“验证了Geller的金属弯曲能力”，兰迪是以其他理由攻击Targ-Puthoff实验的。 当然，他可能在其他地方发表过这一声明（但我没看到）。因此，据我所了解的情况而言，在这一点上，Puthoff是在驳斥兰迪从未提出的观点。
How about Puthoff's second claim, regarding the SRI film? Randi certainly does make this an issue in
Flim-Flam. Targ and Puthoff, he writes, "appended to [the film] – without his knowledge or permission – the name of Zev Pressman, the SRI photographer who had shot the film.... Pressman, said Targ and Puthoff, was present during [a particular series of] experiments. Not so, according to Pressman.... Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI that he had been told the successful [tests] were done
after he (Pressman)*
had gone home for the day. So it appears the film was a reenactment ... Pressman did not even know that Targ and Puthoff were issuing a statement, he did not sign it, and he did not give them permission to use his name. He knew nothing about most of what appeared under his name, and he disagreed with the part that he did know about." (Italics in original.)
Here we have Randi saying that this photographer, Pressman, was duped and used by the experimenters, while Puthoff says that Pressman signed an affidavit swearing that "indeed he did make the film." Is there any way to resolve this?
A further Web search turned up
Chapter 14 of
The Geller Effect. Part One of this book is written by Uri Geller. Part Two, which includes Chapter 14, was written by Guy Lyon Playfair. Living up to his name, Playfair offers an even-handed presentation of the various controversies surrounding the flamboyant and eccentric Geller.
Playfair writes, "[Randi] turned, in a later book,
Flim-Flam, to the professional photographer who had made the film, a Stanford employee named Zev Pressman, with an extraordinary series of unfounded allegations....
"Pressman flatly denied all of Randi's allegations in two public statements, neither of which was even mentioned in the 1982 reissue of the book. 'I made the film,' said Pressman, 'and my name appeared with my full knowledge and permission . . . Nothing was restaged or specially created . . . I have never met nor spoken to nor corresponded with Randi. The 'revelations' he attributes to me are pure fiction.'"
It is true that no mention is made of these "two public statements" in
Flim-Flam's 1982 edition – the edition I own.
关于SRI拍摄的影片，也就是Puthoff的第二个主张又如何呢？ 兰迪在“Flim-Flam”中确实在此问题上大书特书。 他写道，“Targ和Puthoff未经SRI摄影师Zev Pressman的知情或许可，就把Zev的名字附在其[影片]上。...Targ和Puthoff说，在进行这一系列实验时，Zev就在现场。但据Zev Pressman所言，这不是事实……最该死的是，Zev曾对SRI的其他人说
，拍摄那天，他被告知成功的[测试]都是在他（Zev）回家以后完成的。 所以影像可能被动过手脚……Zev Pressman甚至都不知道Targ和Puthoff发表了声明，他没有签名，也没有允许他们使用自己的名字。 大部分以他的名字出现的东西，与他所知并不相符，所以也不认可。” （斜体字是引用书中原文）
在这里，兰迪说，摄影师Pressman被实验者欺骗和利用，而Puthoff说Pressman签署了声明，确认“实际上是他拍摄了这部电影”。 两者明显冲突，有什么办法可以解决这个疑问？
进一步的网络搜索让我找到《盖勒效应》（“The Geller effect”）这本书的第14章。 本书的第一部分由Uri Geller撰写，第二部分（包括第14章）由Guy Lyon Playfair撰写。 Playfair没有辜负自己的名字（playfair这个名字有公平做事的意思），华丽而古怪的Geller现象存在各种各样的争议，Playfair对此进行了公正的陈述。
Playfair写道：“ [兰迪]在后来写的的书Flim-Flam中，把话题转到拍摄这部影片的专业摄影师，也就是斯坦福研究院一位名叫Zev Pressman的雇员上，提出了一系列�荇祰u的指控……。
“Pressman在两次公开声明中断然否认了兰迪的所有指控，在1982年这本书的重新发行中兰迪甚至都没有提及此事。'我拍了这部电影，'Pressman说，'我的名字是在我充分了解和许可的情况下出现的。 ……没有什么影片是经过重新拍摄或特别创造出来的……我从未见过兰迪，没有与他交谈过，或与他有过任何往来。他所谓与我有关的'爆料内容'纯属虚构。”
的确，在“Flim-Flam”的1982年版本（我拥有的版本）中没有提及Pressman的“两个公开声明”。
For corroborating testimony, I turned once again to the indefatigable Scott Rogo, who investigated this claim just as he had looked into Dr. Hebard's testimony and the infamous hole in the wall.
Rogo writes, "I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labeled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!)*" Rogo also reports that Puthoff showed him Pressman's signed affidavit.
How could Randi's conversation with Pressman be so different from Rogo's? The truth is, Randi does not appear to have had a conversation with Pressman at all. Take another look at the quote from
Flim-Flam. The key words are: "Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI ..."
为了进一步证明此事，我再次求助于不知疲倦的斯科特·罗戈（Scott Rogo），他在调查Hebard博士的证词和墙壁上臭名昭著的孔洞时曾亲临过现场。
Rogo写道：“ 1981年1月5日，我直接与Pressman先生交谈，当我告诉他兰迪的书时，他很感兴趣。他否认自己曾与魔术师对过话。当我给他读兰迪书中涉及他的那部分内容时， 他对有关Targ-Puthoff影片所谓的“曝料”说辞感到非常恼火。他坚定地支持这部影片的真实性，告诉我他是如何当场拍摄的，并说兰迪的指控纯属捏造（他的描述性语言还带点色彩！译者注：指骂粗话）。”
Rogo还报道说，Puthoff曾向他展示过Pressman的签字声明。
为什么兰迪与Pressman之间的对话，和Rogo的版本如此不同？ 事实是，兰迪似乎根本没有与Pressman对过话。 再看一下“Flim-Flam”的用词，注意关键部分：“最该死的是，Zev曾对SRI的其他人说……”
Evidently, then, Randi's source is not Pressman himself, but unnamed "others at SRI" who passed on this information to Randi. Another round of Chinese Whispers, it seems.
At this point Randi ends his discussion of the Geller experiments and proceeds to criticize Targ and Puthoff's later work, as well as the work of another researcher, Charles Tart. Dealing with these criticisms would require another essay of equal length to this one, so I will stop here. The reader who wants to go further is invited to read Randi's
Flim-Flam and then click on any of the links inserted throughout this essay and listed below. Or just search the Web for the keywords Randi, Targ, Puthoff, etc., and see what comes up.
Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul.
The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the
Flim-Flam man.
显然，兰迪的消息来源不是Pressman本人，而又是某位匿名的“ SRI的其他人”，他将这一信息传递给了兰迪。 似乎又是一轮中国式闲话。
至此，兰迪结束了他对Geller实验的讨论，并继续批评Targ和Puthoff以后的工作，以及另一位研究者Charles Tart的工作。 谈论这些批评内容将需要另一篇与此文长度相等的文章，因此我将暂时写到这里，也邀请想进一步了解此事的读者去阅读兰迪的“Flim-Flam”，然后单击本文中插入以及文后列出的所有参考链接。 或者只是在网上搜索关键字Randi，Targ，Puthoff等，然后看看都能找到什么内容。
在一个雨天的下午，我开始进行这个不起眼的在线研究项目时，我对兰迪的印象有些复杂。 我认为他思想封闭，见识肤浅，但又同时认为他是真诚的，至少以他自己的视角而言，是诚实的。 现在，在详细探讨了他对Targ-Puthoff争议的贡献之后，我对他完全失去了正面观感。 兰迪是个欺负人的角色，渴望攻击和嘲笑，不惜歪曲甚至发明证据。简而言之，兰迪就是那种，在辩论中不计一切代价想占上风的人，不管用的是公平还是龌龊的手段。
因此，他的书名具有新的意想不到的含义。 在我看来，詹姆斯·兰迪（James Randi）确实是荒谬透顶（Flim-Flam）的人。
------------------------------------------------
*Material in parentheses is in the original text.
ADDENDUM: James Randi was kind enough to respond to my essay after a reader brought it to his attention. At first I didn't add any comments of my own, but since I've now uncovered some additional, relevant information, and since a few e-mailers have asked why I didn't respond, I've posted some remarks after Randi's.
*括号内的材料为原文。
附录：在读者把这篇文章转给詹姆斯·兰迪（James Randi）后，他为此专门作出回应。 最初我没有添加任何评论，但因为我现在发现了一些其他的相关信息，并且有朋友通过email来信询问“为什么没有回复兰迪的说法”，所以我在兰迪的评论后面附上我的答复。
In a message dated September 24, 2003, James Randi responds:
Briefly....
I set out here to rebut the accusation by Michael Prescott, at
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm. I spent some two hours gathering the material, made brief notes, and then realized that I was wasting far too much time picking off fleas. Here are the notes I prepared:
Referring to the Prescott document: No, I did not specify the scientific credentials of Targ and Puthoff. They were laser scientists, which does not serve as any validation of their scientific – or other – ability to witness these matters.
When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became "interested in parapsychology" as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.
Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, "As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means." He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over
the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! "There were unusual excursions of the data recorder," he told me – again! – "but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations." Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had "selective memory" of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.
Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in
Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the "signed statement" that Rogo says he made.
Prescott says I "never set foot inside the SRI facility"? Look at
Flim-Flam, pages 140-141 and see the drawings I made at SRI with Leon Otis. And I have a photograph of myself looking through the same "peep-hole" that Geller used. It was taken by Leon. I spent an entire afternoon there.
The "scientist who was there," as quoted by Prescott, was Leon Otis.
At this point, I have no time to pursue this tirade by Prescott, further. The rest of it would collapse, as above, under my point-for-point rebuttal.
In closing, I quote Prescott: "There is no way for me to verify Puthoff's statement that he tape-recorded Randi's concession of defeat 'on all the points.'" Oh yes there is, Prescott. Contact Puthoff and ask for a copy of that tape-recording. Hal Puthoff is still alive, and he's a liar. No such conversation ever took place, I did not make such a statement, and Puthoff has no evidence to support his outright lie, because there is none.
James Randi
（译者注：以下是兰迪回应的中文翻译，明眼者应该不难看出，这篇回应避重就轻，漏洞百出，却又深得信息扭曲的精妙，读者如果没有看过很多外交话语式的谎言，可能很容易被拐进沟里，所以我会在兰迪回应中加些评论，但这样可能会使文体变得不连贯）
在2003年9月24日的一封邮件中，詹姆斯·兰迪（James Randi）这样回应：
简短而言...
我从这里着笔，是为了反驳迈克尔·普雷斯科特（Michael Prescott）在以下网页上对我的指控，
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm。
我花了两个小时来收集材料，做简短的笔记，然后才意识到我在�茞嶉𢸍惜W浪费了太多的时间。 以下是我的笔记内容：
（这是心虚者的经典说辞，一方面显然Prescott的文章戳到了他的痛点，兰迪知道文章的分量，使得他不得不出来回应，同时又要故意表现出某种看不起或不以为意的态度，以降低读者的关注力度。当然，这种说辞显然很容易被看破，有点像掩耳盗铃，类似于精神胜利法）
有关Prescott文件里提及的内容：不，我确实没有强调Targ和Puthoff的科学背景。 他们都是激光科学家，这并不能证明他们具备研究此类问题的科学能力或其他能力。
（译者注：知名科学家都不够格，试问怎样才能证明研究者的资格，需要魔术师背景么？更何况，不管够不够格，客观列出书中主体参与人的背景，是一般要求）
当我最初与Arthur F. Hebard博士联系时，他没有注意到超心理学方面的其他大部分工作，直到我通知后他才知道。 由于塔格（Targ）和普索夫（Puthoff）的惨败，他对“超心理学”产生了兴趣。
（译者注：Hebard既然参与建议Swann进行影响磁力计的实验，也就是说他了解超心理学实验流程，不大可能对这个领域没有了解。作为知名科学家，Hebard也不大可能在没有了解背景的情况下置身于争议性的实验研究。所以不管Hebard对超心灵研究的立场如何，既然他在测试现场，应该不会如兰迪所说，对超心理学工作没什么了解，需要兰迪提醒才会关注此现象。兰迪作此声明，显然违背常识，大概率是在撒谎。但是，他敢于继续捏造此谎言，应该是得到了Hebard的首肯与背书，因为只要Hebard公开站出来否认，兰迪将信誉扫地。也就是说，我们也需要怀疑Hebard此人，从整件事情看来，Hebard不是什么�荈d者，应该属于官方打压团队的一员，或者已被收买/说服/恐吓。Hebard的表面资历极为光鲜，如果已经涉入这个领域，越是在学术上风生水起，越是需要对这样的学者高度警惕。）
就在今天（2003年9月24日），Hebard告诉我：“就我的经验（与Swann事件有关）而言，Swann对仪器产生的影响都可以用常理来解释。” 他对这次实验记忆深刻，还回想起他与Scott Rogo见面时，他们只是简单地把手放在机器的氦气排放口上，就可产生与Swann相同的效果，并且，如果在进行实验的建筑物中，有其他机构使用氦气源，也会产生相同的效果！ 他再次告诉我：“数据记录仪确实记录了反常现象，但没有任何�茠k用科学解释的东西。” 请注意，Rogo没有报告此事！ Hebard说，Rogo对他们之间的讨论，只是做了“选择性的记忆”，并试图让Hebard说出自己不认同的观点。
（译者注：这段话很有意思，既然Rogo已经去世多年，他们可以任意编造故事情节，因为死��对证而毫��风险。我们先假设兰迪没有撒谎，他确实听到Hebard如此说，而且我觉得这个可能性颇大，特别对Hebard的履历有些了解后，个人对他也没有太多信任。作为记者，Rogo在世时，以诚实的职业道德著名，死后却被人肆意扭曲，实在不是一个绅士行为。我们且撇开他们对过世者Rogo的指责，Hebard对实验的论点同样有些问题。氦气源影响磁力计读数，并不能证明Swann实验的�荇藺吽C作为科学家，你先得验证Swann接触了氦气源，才能得出这样的论断。这种诡辩在特异功能领域尤为常见，比如魔术师说，我可以用某某手法复制某种特异功能，它在逻辑上并不能证明特异功能是假的。）
Hebard还向我重申，他同意我在《Flim-Flam》一书中写的一切相关内容。 他否认自己曾经做出过Rogo所说的“签字声明”。
（译者注：再次，因为Rogo去世，此事�茠k对质。到底是兰迪，Hebard还是Rogo撒谎，只能靠我们自己判断了）
Prescott说我“从未涉足SRI设施”？ 请看“Flim-Flam”，第140-141页，并查看我与Leon Otis在SRI制作的图纸。 我有一张在SRI拍摄的照片，就站在“窥视孔”前进行观察，那也是Geller使用的相同孔道，照片是Leon拍摄的。 我在SRI度过了整个下午。
Prescott引用的“在那里的科学家”就是指莱昂·奥蒂斯（Leon Otis）。
（译者注：这是兰迪反驳中最有分量的点，却也经不起推敲。Prescott在后面有详细的分析，首先，兰迪的书再版过几次，“从未涉足SRI”乃是他在旧版书中的说辞，不管他去没去过，他都在打自己的嘴巴。其次，兰迪去SRI的时间值得进一步确认，根据资料分析，兰迪可能在写书前并没有实地考察SRI现场，而后才被人邀请去那里。至于是谁邀请他去，为什么邀请他去，都值得读者玩味。需要注意的是，兰迪在网上提供的SRI相片，没有给出拍摄时间，而后干脆移出网站，关于此点，请看之后Prescott的文字。
至于Leon Otis是谁，可信度如何，网上很难找到相关信息，他也没有公开站出来发表声明，所以这条线索很难研究下去。）
写到这里，我想没必要进一步关注Prescott的说辞。如上，在我的逐点反驳下，其余指控都会一一崩溃。
（译者注：又是精神胜利法，避重就轻，回避问题。Prescott文章中最重要的部分，是与摄影师Zev Pressman相关的内容，兰迪书中对这一点着墨甚多，也是最为严苛的责难。然而，兰迪在反驳中，没有对此质疑说一个字，就直接鸣金收兵，宣告自己胜利了。）
最后，我引用Prescott的话：“我没有办法证实Puthoff的说法，即他在录音条件下，'全盘记录'了兰迪承认所有论点错误的过程。”
噢，是的，Prescott，请与Puthoff联系，并索取该录音带的副本。 Hal Puthoff仍然活着，而且是骗子。 我们从未进行过这样的对话，我没有发表过这样的声明，Puthoff没有证据支持他的直白谎言，因为根本没有证据。
（译者注：最后这点直接叫板Puthoff，他做出了公开回应。到底谁是骗子，恐怕还是得交给我们自己判断。）
詹姆斯·兰迪
The above are Randi's comments, reproduced in full. For additional information on Randi and his work, please visit his Web site,
www.randi.org, or buy his book at
Amazon's Flim-Flam sales page. (Later addition: Checking this link, I happened to notice that the May 6, 2004, Amazon reader review of
Flim-Flam, posted by someone named Skip Harrison, is plagiarized verbatim from the opening sentences of my essay - and even has the same title! Next time, Skip, use your own words. Mine are copyrighted.)
Now for my points, posted on September 29, 2003. Some of these points may bolster my case, while others may bolster Randi's.
First, on Dr. Herbard's statement ... If Rogo misquoted him, then I apologize. In Rogo's defense, he did say that Hebard's memory of the event differed from Puthoff's in some respects (as I noted). In my own defense, I never made much of the Ingo Swann-magnetometer business anyway. It was not a formal experiment, it was very poorly documented, and everyone involved disagrees on what happened. All I said was that Randi's statements are "far from the last word on the subject." I think this cautious appraisal remains true.
以上是兰迪的评论，我全文转载。 有关兰迪及其工作的更多信息，请访问其网站
http://www.randi.org，或在Amazon的Flim-Flam销售页面上购买他的书。 另外，检查此链接后，我偶然发现亚马逊的读者对Flim-Flam的评论，由斯基普·哈里森（Skip Harrison）发表于2004年5月6日，他逐字抄袭了我文章开头的句子，甚至用了相同的文章名字。 下次，请别这么做，尽量使用您自己的文字，我的文章拥有版权。
现在看下我的回复，它发表于2003年9月29日。其中一些论据可以支持我的原始观点，而其他论据则支持兰迪的观点。
首先，以Hebard博士的话说...如果Rogo错误地引用了他的话，那么我表示歉意。 在Rogo的辩驳中，他确实说过Hebard对事件的记忆在某些方面与Puthoff有所不同（正如我所指出的）。 在我自己的争辩中，��论如何我没有谈太多Ingo Swann的磁力计实验。 这不是一个正式的实验，它的文献记录不良，而且每个参与人员都对发生的事情持不同意见。 我只说“兰迪的批评远不是实际发生的情况”，我认为这种谨慎的评估仍然正确。
（译者注：Prescott在这里有些认怂。因为兰迪搬出了Hebard，且Hebard很可能站在兰迪的立场上，而另一位当事人Rogo已经去世，如果真要就此展开辩论，Prescott确实没有胜算。更何况，Hebard名头太大，我估计即便是Prescott，也不敢轻易怀疑Hebard的信用度。这也让我们警醒，一个像Hebard这样的所谓权威科学家，如果作此扭曲之事，其影响将会多么恶劣。）
On the matter of the disputed quote from
Flim-Flam, indicating that Randi "never even set foot" inside the SRI facility ... The quote is accurate. Here it is in full context: "Shortly thereafter, I received a communication from a member of a second special committee within SRI charged with looking into the Targ and Puthoff shenanigans (the first 'Psychic Research Review Committee' had found everything perfectly kosher, it seems), asking me for for details about my investigations of the situation there.
They were asking
me [both emphases in original], and
I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [emphasis added]."
The quote is on p. 142, in the first full paragraph, which begins, "Weeks went by." The key words, the ones in red italics above, are on the 15th line of the page (counting down from the top). This placement refers to the 1980 edition of
Flim-Flam.
Apprised of this, Randi responded, "Wasn't able to find that! But the scale diagrams I ran in
F-F were the direct results of my visit there. I believe it should have read, 'They were asking me, and at that time I'd not set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'"
关于对Flim-Flam书中说辞的引用：即兰迪“从未涉足SRI设施内”……这个引用是准确的。 书中原话是：“此后不久，我收到了SRI第二个特别委员会成员的来信，他们负责调查Targ和Puthoff的恶作剧（似乎第一个“精神现象研究审查委员会”发现一切都完美��误）。第二委员会成员询问我有关实验调查的详细信息，是他们主动问我（原文中重复此句，作为重点强调），而我从未涉足SRI的神圣土地（再次重点强调）。”
该文字引用来自 142页的第一个完整段落，它以“几周过去了”作为开头， 关键词（上面的红色斜体字）在页面的第15行（从顶部开始向下计数）。 此引用内容的页面位置，请参考1980年版的“Flim-Flam”。
被指出这一点后，兰迪回答说：“我�茠k找到它（指书中关于没有去过SRI 的文字）！但是我在Flim-Flam中画的比例图，是我访问那里后的直接结果。我相信它应该写成：“是他们主动问我，但那时我还没有涉足SRI的神圣土地。”
（译者注：这段是在玩文字游戏。Pressman的推断是以兰迪的书作为依据的，存在某个背后势力，即兰迪书中透露的第二委员会，在寻找抹黑Targ与Puthoff实验的素材，他们找到了兰迪，兰迪当时在写Flim-Flam，也可能是第二委员会鼓动他出来揭发。在写书时，兰迪没有去过SRI。所以才会在书中写上“never”一词。至于SRI邀请他去参观，以便更好攻击相关实验结果，可能是以后的事，所以在书的再版中，他们对此表达有些调整。
兰迪的回复，先否定自己的白纸黑字，推说“没看到”原文，再避重就轻，改几个词，也就更改了事件关键点。别小看一两个词，意义会变得有所不同。按兰迪更改后的说辞，事件发生顺序是，第二委员会调查实验，主动找到兰迪，兰迪表示那时还没有去过SRI，所以他们安排了兰迪前往拜访，之后兰迪才写下Flim-Flam这本书。
��论哪个版本是真相，兰迪都�茠k自圆其说，后面的一些分析也让我更接受Pressman的原有判断，即兰迪在写书时，没有去过现场，可能只是得到SRI某人的喂料，就匆匆发表批判文字，所以才会有那么多错误，比如孔道的描述与位置等等。同时，它也证实了，确实有一个背后势力在刻意引导此事，兰迪是他们找到的前台打手罢了。）
The same reader who kindly confirmed this quote for me (my copy of
Flim-Flam being unavailable at the time) also directed me to a page of Randi's Web site showing
photos of Randi at SRI. (The photos are about three-quarters of the way down the page.) No date is given for Randi's visit.
The Web site photos and accompanying diagram raise a few questions of their own. First, there is the question of just how big the hole in the isolation-room wall was and how much of the outside room could be seen through it. In
Flim-Flam's 1980 edition, in the diagram on page 139, the hole is shown as 4.5" in diameter, providing a view of 4.5 feet of one wall and 6 feet of another wall - a substantial part of the room. However, in the diagram on Randi's Web page, all three values are different. Here the hole is 3.5" wide, affording a view of 39" of one wall and 4 feet of the other. By comparison, Rogo's measurement of the hole was 3.25" in diameter, which agrees pretty closely with one of Randi's diagrams but not the other.
I believe that in the 1982 edition of
Flim-Flam, the figures were changed to those shown on the Web page (though I can't be sure, because I don't have the 1982 edition with me now). In any case, the discrepancy between the 1980 diagram and the more recent diagram at least raises the question of when, exactly, the actual hands-on measurements were made -
before or
after the book's 1980 publication? If they were made before, then it seems inexplicable that the 1980 diagram could have been wrong in so many respects. If they were made after, then the arguments in
Flim-Flam are based on second-hand information, at best - just as the text itself seems to imply.
曾经为我确认此引用内容的同一位读者（当时我没有Flim-Flam的副本），也将我引向兰迪网站的页面，其中显示了兰迪在SRI访问的照片，（照片大约在网页底部四分之三的位置。）只是它没有提供访问的日期。
网站的照片和附图自身，存在一些问题。 首先，我们得问，隔离室墙壁上的孔究竟有多大，通过隔离室可以看到多少外部空间？ 在“Flim-Flam”1980年版本第139页的图表中，该孔的直径显示为4.5英寸，可以看到一堵墙的4英尺范围和另一堵墙的6英尺范围（房间的大部分）。 相反，在兰迪网页上给出的图表中，所有三个数值都与此不同。此处孔宽变成3.5英寸，视野大概是一堵墙的39英寸范围，及另一堵墙的视图为4英尺范围。相比之下，Rogo对该孔的测量直径为3.25英寸 ，它接近于兰迪其中一个图表的数据，但与另一个图表完全不同。
我相信在1982年版本的“Flim-Flam”中，这些数字已更改为网页上显示的数字（尽管我不确定，因为我现在没有1982年版本的数据）。 ��论如何，1980年图表与较新图表之间的差异，至少提出了一个问题，即究竟是何时进行了实际的手动测量？ 在本书1980年出版之前还是之后？如果是之前测量，那么1980年的图表在很多方面都不对，这似乎有些莫名其妙。 如果是在此之后进行的，那么“Flim-Flam”中的论点，充其量是以二手信息为基础，与此书本身所暗示的情况相一致。
The hole was unblocked when Randi observed it, but, according to Rogo, was entirely blocked with cables and a metal plate during the experiments. On the above-mentioned Web page and in
Flim-Flam, Randi says that the hole had been stuffed with gauze, but fails to mention the cables and plate. Randi's accompanying diagram (both on his Web page and in the book ) indicates that the wall is indeed about twelve inches thick, as stated by Rogo, a fact that would inevitably "scope ... your vision and severely limit ... what you can see through it," in Rogo's words. (In Randi's close-up photo, the wall appears to be much thinner than twelve inches, as you can see by looking closely at the hole itself. This is presumably a trick of the light.)
On his Web page, Randi notes, "One would think that the targets might be placed face-up on a table, or fastened to the separating wall, but a magician would benefit from having them posted on the wall opposite the blocked-off window in the wall, if he could by some means get a peek through that wall. Would that have been possible, in the 1972 visit of Mr. Geller? 'Broomhilda' members seemed to think that a likely scenario."
If they merely thought it "likely," then they were just guessing and didn't actually know. Note that Rogo wrote in
Psychic Breakthroughs Today, "... the targets for the Geller experiments
were hung on a different wall completely [emphasis added]."
当兰迪到现场观察时，该孔道未被堵塞，但是据Rogo所称，在实验过程中该孔被电缆和金属板完全堵住了。 在上述网页和“Flim-Flam”上，兰迪说该孔已经塞满纱布，但没有提及电缆和金属板。 兰迪随附的图表（在网页和书中）均显示墙壁确实厚约十二英寸（如Rogo所述），用Rogo的话说，这一事实不可避免地会“影响……你的视野，并严重限制……你从孔道中看到的一切”。 （在Randi提供的特写照片中，墙壁看上去比十二英寸要薄得多，而与你直接观察孔道而看到的结果不同。这大概是照片拍摄技巧造成的光影错觉。）
兰迪在他的网页上指出：“人们会认为测试目标可能是正面朝上放在桌子上，或者固定在隔墙上，但如果把测试目标粘贴在被挡窗户的对面墙上，而魔术师能以某种方式窥视那堵墙，他将因此得到信息。 在Geller先生1972年的实验中，是否可能发生了这种情况？Broomhilda成员似乎认为就是如此。”
如果他们只是认为“可能”，那么他们就是在猜测而实际上并不知道。 请注意，Rogo在《当今精神研究的突破性进展》中写道：“ ...Geller实验的目标物完全悬挂在不同的墙壁上（重点强调）。”
It's up to the reader to decide if Puthoff and Targ, or any other scientists, whether skilled in conjuring or not (and Russell Targ is an amateur conjurer), would put Geller in an isolation booth while leaving a large, unblocked (or barely blocked) hole in the wall, directly facing the targets he was supposed to guess.
Now for the alleged tape recording made by Puthoff ... Taking Randi's advice, I did manage to contact Hal Puthoff by e-mail. He replied promptly, but said that after having relocated several times over the past three decades, and having put many of his belongings in storage, he no longer knows where to find the tape.
Puthoff wrote: "Of course, having got caught, Randi would have to call me a liar, and count on the fact that I would be unlikely after all these years to put my hands on the tape. You can quote me in saying that I say that Randi is a liar when he calls me a liar. My profession is as a scientist dedicated to reality and truth, his is as a charlatan dedicated to misdirection and tomfoolery to gain the moment. Let the audience figure out who is more likely to be lying!"
Much as I respect Puthoff, I must reiterate what I said in my essay: Without hearing the tape, neither I nor anyone else can confirm that the encounter took place.
读者应该可以自己决定，Puthoff和Targ或任何其他科学家，（��论擅长魔术与否，Russell Targ是一名业余魔术师），有没有可能把Geller放置在隔离间中，然后在墙上留下一个巨大�蚞B挡的（或几乎没有遮挡的 ）孔洞，让Geller看到本该由他猜测而知的实验目标物。
现在，针对Puthoff录制的磁带录音...在兰迪的建议下，我确实设法通过电子邮件与Hal Puthoff取得联系。 他迅速给我回复，说在过去的三十年里搬了好几次家，所以他的许多物品到处存放，以至于现在�茠k知道在哪里可以找到那卷磁带。
Puthoff接着写道：“当然，这是重要的把柄，兰迪不敢承认，所以不得不称我为骗子，并指望这些年来我不太可能还存有录音带。你可以引用我的话，说兰迪就是一个骗子，却称呼别人为骗子，我的职业是致力于研究实相和真理的科学家，他是骗子，致力于误导和伪装来获取关注的机会，且让观众自己判断谁更可能说谎！”
我非常尊重Puthoff，但必须重申自己在文章中所说的话：在没有亲耳听到录音带的情况下，��论是我，还是其他任何人，都�茠k确认这件事（兰迪录音承认错误）发生过了。
Although Randi doesn't comment on the part of my essay dealing with cameraman Zev Pressman, a reader alerted me to another source of information on this controversy. This is the 1999 book
Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, by Jonathan Margolis, the relevant chapter of which can be read
here.
Margolis writes, "Another postulate still of the sceptics concerning the SRI tests in the 1970s is ... that the SRI film cameraman, an ex Life Magazine war photographer, Zev Pressman, had not really taken any of the 40 hours of footage which was edited down into the Geller film, and that he had been forced to say he had shot it, while in fact a group of conspirators in league with Uri Geller had contrived it. If the story is true, then someone must have had a great deal of leverage over Mr. Pressman, for even in his mid eighties and frail, he still insisted when I visited him at his home at Palo Alto, a few miles from SRI, that it was his film and his alone, and has a clear recall of several other of Geller's feats. Pressman was so keen to talk about his Uri Geller experiences that he even rounded up his neighbour, the then head of information at SRI, Ron Deutsch, now also well into retirement, for our morning coffee meeting."
This makes
three independent, published accounts (Playfair, Rogo, Margolis) all of which concur on Pressman's continuing insistence that he did shoot the SRI film.
尽管兰迪在有关摄影师Zev Pressman的部分没有发表评论，但还是有读者提醒我关注此争议点的另一个信息来源。 它来自于乔纳森·马戈利斯（Jonathan Margolis）于1999年出版的《尤里·盖勒：魔术师还是神秘主义者？》（“
Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?”），其相关章节可以在此处阅读。
Margolis写道：“关于1970年代SRI的测试实验，存在另一个来自怀疑论者的推断……怀疑论者说，前生活杂志的战地摄影师Zev Pressman也是SRI影片的摄影师，他并没有真正拍摄40个小时的镜头， 或编辑Geller的电影，他被迫说是自己拍摄的，但事实上是一群与Geller同谋的阴谋家编造了影片......如果这个故事是真的，那肯定有人对Pressman先生施加了极大的压力。80年代中期，Pressman先生已经衰弱老迈，我在他离SRI几英里的Palo Atto的家中拜访他时，他仍然坚持说那是他拍的影片，而且是自己独自一人完成的。Pressman对Geller当时的几桩表现印象深刻，也非常热衷于谈论他对Uri Geller的见证经历，以至于他专门去找SRI当时的信息主管Ron Deutsch，来一起加入我们的早间咖啡会议。Ron是Pressman的邻居，现在也退休了。”
这样我们有了三个独立的信息来源（Playfair，Rogo，Margolis），他们公开发表报道，全都说Pressman坚持认为自己确实拍摄了SRI的相关影片。
In my essay, Puthoff is quoted as writing, "... we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: [Randi] said that in our
Nature paper we verified Geller's metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this." One e-mailer said that Puthoff had indeed made a statement verifying Geller's metal-bending - but not in the
Nature article. The statement, allegedly, was in the SRI film, and this is what Randi had challenged.
However, no such statement appears in the script of the SRI film, which is posted
here. Indeed, the script says exactly the opposite. Nor do its contents come across - to me, at least - as the ravings of blundering pseudoscientists eager to convince themselves and dupe the public. Read for yourself (all emphases added):
"These are a series of
unconfirmed physical effects that need further investigation. One of Geller's main attributes that had been reported to us was that he was able to bend metal from a distance without touching it. In the laboratory
we did not find him able to do so. In a more relaxed protocol, he was permitted to touch the metal, in which case, as you will see in the film, the metal is indeed bent. However, it becomes clear in watching this demonstration on film that
simple photo interpretation is insufficient to determine whether the metal is bent by normal or paranormal means.
在我的文章中，曾引用Puthoff的原话，“ ...我们从他的错误指控列表中，选择那些可以独立验证的部分。例如：[兰迪]说，我们在Nature文章中宣称，实验验证了Geller的金属弯曲能力，但如果您仔细看那篇文章，会发现我们是说，实验�茠k为此提供足够的证据。” 一位读者发来电子邮件说，Puthoff确实发表过声明，证明Geller的金属弯曲能力，但不是在Nature文章上。 据说，该声明在SRI影片中发表，而这个声明正是兰迪所公开挑战的。
但是，SRI影片的脚本中并没有出现这样的声明，读者可以从这里找到该影片。 而且，影片中的说法恰恰相反。 至少对于我来说，没看到所谓愚蠢的伪科学家们，渴望说服自己并扭曲信息以欺骗公众。 请读者自己阅读判断（重点部分）：
“这是一系列未经证实的物理效应，需要进一步研究。据报道，Geller的绝活之一，是他能够在不接触金属的情况下远距离弯曲金属。在实验室条件下，我们发现他没有这种能力。在一个相对宽松的方案中，他被允许触摸金属，这种情况下，正如您在电影中看到的那样，金属确实弯曲了。但是，通过观看影片中的演示，有一点很清楚，仅仅根据拍得的照片判断，不足以确定，金属到底是通过正常身体力量，还是通过超自然力量弯曲的。”
"In the laboratory, these spoon-bending experiments were continuously filmed and video-taped. It is evident that some time during the photographic period this stainless steel spoon became bent. However, unlike the things we have heard about Geller, it was always necessary for him in the experimental situation to have physical contact with the spoon or for that matter any other object that he bends.
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.
"Here are a number of the spoons that were bent by one means or another during the course of our experiments. There is no doubt that the spoons were bent.
The only doubt remains as to the manner of their bending. Similarly, we have rings that were bent by Mr. Geller. The rings that were bent are shown here. The copper ring at the left and the brass ring at the right were manufactured at SRI and measured to require 150 pounds force to bend them. These rings were in Geller's hand at the time they were bent...
"What we've demonstrated here are the experiments that we performed in the laboratory and
should not be interpreted as proof of psychic functioning. Indeed,
a film never proves anything. Rather, this film gives us the opportunity to share with the viewer observations of phenomena that in our estimation clearly deserve
further study."
“在实验室中，这些汤匙弯曲实验是被连续拍摄和录像的。很明显，在摄影的一段时间里，这种不锈钢汤匙确实弯曲了。但是，与我们听听到的传闻不同，在实验条件下，Geller如果想要使汤匙或其他任何物体发生弯曲，他与物体间的物理接触始终是必要的。只是尚不清楚，汤匙的弯曲，究竟是因为Geller的手指特别有力，可以很好地进行微操控，还是因为如他所说的，汤匙在他手中'变成了塑料'。
在我们的实验过程中，有许多勺子以一种或另一种方式弯曲。毫�蚨�问，勺子的确发生了弯曲。唯一的疑问仍然是使勺子弯曲的方法。与此类似，我们让Geller做戒指的弯曲实验，左图所示的铜环和右图所示的黄铜环都是在SRI制造的，经过测量，它们需要施加150磅的力才能弯曲。 但当时，这些戒指都在Geller的手中发生弯曲...
我们在这里，只是展示实验室中进行的实验，它不应该被解释为特异功能的证明。确实，一部电影从来�茠k证明任何事情。相反，这部影片为我们提供了与观众分享相关现象的机会，我们认为，它显然值得进一步研究。”
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Additional note, October 15, 2003: There is still apparently some controversy over the contents - and even the existence - of the SRI film made of Uri Geller's experiments. For those who want to see the film for themselves, it can be viewed in its entirety at
www.uri-geller.com/vids.htm. (Many thanks to the email correspondent who informed me of this fact.)
The site claims that the film can be viewed in either RealPlayer (.ram) or .mpg format. However, if you click on the .mpg links, they turn out to be RealPlayer files. So you'll need RealPlayer (a free download at
www.real.com).
The film has been broken up into four parts to make smaller files. Even so, if you have a 56K modem, it will take a long time to play each file because of the frequent pauses for buffering.
我�茠k说得比Puthoff更好。
补充说明，2003年10月15日：显然，SRI制作的关于Uri Geller的实验内容存在一些争议，甚至这个影片到底存不存在，都有人争执不休。 对于那些想亲自看到此片的人，请移步
http://www.uri-geller.com/vids.htm观看完整的影片。 （非常感谢通过email告知我此事的网友）
该网站声称影片可以通过RealPlayer（.ram）或.mpg格式观看。 但是，如果点击.mpg链接，实际上是还RealPlayer文件。 因此，您将需要RealPlayer播放器（可从
http://www.real.com免费下载）。
这部电影被分为四个部分，以制成更小的文件方便上传。 即使这样，如果您使用的是56K调制解调器，由于经常会发生暂停缓冲，播放每个文件仍会花费很长时间。（译者注：别忘了那是十几年前的网络）
The first clip, SRI1, is a rather dull "talking head" introduction with no experimental footage.
SRI2 includes two telepathy experiments (not the ones involving the isolation booth, unfortunately), a "target" experiment in which Geller identifies which metal can is holding a steel ball bearing, and another target test in which he has to identify a can filled with water.
SRI3 mentions (but does not show) additional target exercises similar to the ball bearing and water tests above. It then shows a double-blind die-in-a-box test, in which Geller correctly guesses which face of the die is showing. Because he chose to "pass," this particular run was not included in the statistical results. The eight tests that were included in the formal results (in which allegedly Geller achieved a perfect score) are not shown. The clip continues with two PK tests - one in which an electrical scale is made to register significant weight gain and loss, and another in which the needle of a magnetometer is deflected. This segment concludes with an "unsatisfactory" test in which Geller makes a compass needle deflect. Though the test produced positive results, the researchers later decided that their controls had been inadequate, so it wasn't counted.
SRI4 shows "unconfirmed" metal-bending effects. Geller bends spoons before the camera, but the researchers admit that they cannot know if he was using his finger strength to create the bend. After a brief recap of the best-controlled tests, the film ends.
剪辑的第一部分SRI1，是一段相当乏味的“言语”介绍，没有实验镜头。
SRI2包括两个感应实验（不幸的是，它不包括隔离间里进行的实验），其中一个目标感应实验是，Geller需要确定哪个金属罐内藏有金属球，另一个实验是，他必须找出装有水的金属罐。
SRI3提到（但未显示）其他目标感应实验，类似于上面的钢珠和水测试。 然后，影片显示一个双盲盒内骰子测试，盖勒需要猜测骰子的哪个面朝上。 因为他选择“略过”，所以该实验结果未列入统计中。 正式结果中包括的八项测试（据称Geller获得了满分）没有在影片中显示。 影片继续展示两次“精神致动”测试，一种是通过电子秤记录重量的明显增加和减少，另一种是将磁力计的针头偏转。 本部分测试结果“不令人满意”，在该测试中，Geller确实使指针发生偏斜。 尽管测试结果是正向的，但后来研究人员认为，他们的对照实验不足，因此也不算在内。
SRI4显示“未经证实”的金属弯曲效应。 盖勒在镜头前弯曲汤匙，但研究人员认为，他们不知道Geller是否在用手指的力量来弯曲。 在简要回顾其中控制最佳的测试内容之后，影片结束了。
As mentioned above, the script of the SRI film can be found
here.
I hope this at least settles the question of whether or not the so-called "Pressman film" was actually made ...
Yet another additional note, December 1, 2003: Steve Knight, whose Web site
www.zem.demon.co.uk/ contains a great deal of material about this and other Uri Geller controversies, has informed me that authors Marks & Kamman report that at least one target drawing was displayed opposite the isolation room. They write, "He [Puthoff] told us that he taped this drawing 'right here,' pointing to a spot directly across from the covered window." (
The Psychology of the Psychic, p. 135). This bolsters Randi's argument that Geller could have peeked through the hole in the door. On the other hand, a target drawing of a devil, which Randi describes as being "in full view" of Geller when he left the isolation room (Randi,
The Truth About Uri Geller, p. 46), was actually in a different room altogether. According to the paper published in
Nature, this "target location [was] an office at a distance of 475 m [meters]" from the isolation room. See
www.zem.demon.co.uk/ttaug.htm for more info.
如上所述，可以在此处找到SRI影片的脚本。
我希望这至少解决了“Pressman影片”是否真的存在的问题。
另一个补充说明，2003年12月1日：史蒂夫·奈特（Steve Knight）的网站含有大量与Uri Geller争议有关的内容，他告诉我，马克和卡曼（Marks＆Kamman）报告说，至少有一个目标物放在隔离室的对面位置。 他们写道：“他[普托夫（Puthoff）告诉我们，把图挂在那儿，指的是与被遮盖的窗户直接相对的一个点。 （《灵媒现象中的心理学》，第135页）。 这支持了兰迪关于盖勒可以通过孔道窥视的论点。 另一方面，关于一个魔鬼图像的目标图实验，兰迪曾说，Geller在离开隔离室时，它会进入“Geller的全视野”，但实际上，这幅图挂在另一个房间里。（兰迪，《关于尤里·盖勒的真相》）。 根据Nature杂志发表的文章，“这个目标图位置是离隔离室475 m [米]的办公室”。 有关更多信息，请参见
http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/ttaug.htm。
I've also found a Web site created by Ingo Swann, in which he describes his own recollection of the disputed magnetometer event. His story is highly readable and amusing. You can find it
here.
(May 15, 2004) James Randi has provided additional comments on his dispute with Hal Puthoff at this location :
www.randi.org/jr/043004bad.html#4 . The same material, augmented by a few comments from Steve Knight, can be found at:
www.zem.demon.co.uk/fact.htm . Some earlier remarks by Randi on the Puthoff controversy can be read at:
www.randi.org/jr/042304seven.html#10 .
(November 21, 2005) Another update on the controversy that will not end. I received an email from Steve Knight, who maintains a Uri Geller-related Web site. He wrote:
Over the last few months I have been in contact with Jean Millay (formerly Mayo) who was present at the SRI tests of Geller. With regard to which wall the drawings were placed on I asked: "Do you remember if the drawings done with Uri in the next room were stuck up on the wall and if so which wall?"
Jean replied: "a couple of the first ones were on the west wall, until they decided to move us to another building."
This would seem to confirm what Marks & Kamman wrote about their visit to SRI: ""He [Puthoff] told us that he taped this drawing 'right here,' pointing to a spot directly across from the covered window." (see: www.zem.demon.co.uk/rogo.htm for futher confirmatory details regarding the distance between Geller & the target)
Note that 6 of the 13 trials reported in the Nature paper involved Geller in the EEG shielded room with the target in the room next door. It would seem plausible that the drawings were diplayed on the same wall each time; certainly there is no suggestion in the literature or from Ms. Millay that the targets were displayed on a different wall each time.
Also, as you may recall, I emailed you a link to a photograph
( www.randi.org/images/082302-RoomAB.jpg ) which clearly showed that the cable hole was much nearer the 36 inches from the floor that Randi claimed and not "a little above floor level.", as Rogo claimed.
In light of all of the above will you consider revising your page on Randi to reflect the facts?
我还找到了Ingo Swann创建的网站，他在上面描述了对有争议的磁力计事件的回忆。 他的故事读起来很有趣。 你可以在这里找到它。
（2004年5月15日），詹姆斯·兰迪（James Randi）在以下链接中提供了他与哈尔·普索夫（Hal Puthoff）之间纠纷的其他评论：
http://www.randi.org/jr/043004bad.html#4。 你可以从以下网址找到相同的材料，这里加了Steve Knight的一些评论：
http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/fact.htm。 兰迪（Randi）先前针对普索夫（Puthoff）争议的一些言论可以从以下网址找到：
http://www.randi.org/jr/042304seven.html#10。
（2005年11月21日）相关争议似乎永远不会结束。 我收到了史蒂夫·奈特（Steve Knight）的电子邮件，Knight负责维护一个与Uri Geller相关的网站。 他这样写道：
在过去的几个月中，我一直与曾参与Geller SRI测试实验的Jean Millay（以前叫Mayo）接触。 关于图纸放在哪个墙壁上，我问：“您还记得与Geller相关的图纸是放在隔壁房间的墙上吗？如果是这样的话？它们放在哪个墙上？”
Jean回答说：“最初的几张图是放在西墙上，后来他们决定将我们搬到另一座建筑物里。”
这似乎可以证实Marks＆Kamman在访问SRI时写的内容：““他[普托夫（Puthoff）告诉我们，把图挂在那儿，指的是与被遮盖的窗户直接相对的一个点。”（请参阅：www .
http://zem.demon.co.uk / rogo.htm，以进一步获得盖勒（Geller）与目标物之间距离的详细信息）
请注意，Nature杂志报道的13项试验中，有6项涉及Geller在EEG屏蔽室里，而目标物在隔壁房间中。 似乎每次都在同一堵墙上挂图纸是合理的； 当然，从文献或者Millay女士的证词来看，也没有暗示目标物每次都挂在不同的墙上。
另外，您可能还记得，我通过电子邮件将照片的链接发送给您（
http://www.randi.org/images/082302-RoomAB.jpg），它清楚地表明，电缆孔与地面的距离，与兰迪宣传的36英寸接近，但与Rogo所描述的“高于地面一点点”并不相符。
鉴于上述所有情况，您是否考虑修改兰迪有关的文章，以反映事实？
The photos of Randi at SRI were mentioned and linked to in the
first addendum to this essay. (The link was supplied by a different reader.) The hole is important only if it was unblocked. If the hole was sealed off, then it wouldn't matter how high or low it was.
I've never heard of Jean Millay, but I'm happy to include her testimony. Again, it doesn't matter if the drawings were displayed opposite the isolation booth
unless the hole was unblocked. If the hole was blocked, then Geller would have been unable to see out of the booth at all.
Whether anybody remembers accurately what happened at SRI thirty-three years ago is doubtful at this point. Thirty-three years ago I was twelve years old and shooting stop-motion dinosaur footage as a hobby. If someone were to ask me now to reconstruct the details of how I created a particular shot, I would have to rely on speculation, as my memories have long since faded. I imagine the same is true of the various recollections of the SRI tests.
But it's not of great import. In the light of the successful tests of ESP carried out by the
Ganzfeld experimenters, the early SRI tests have become more of a historical footnote than a major piece of evidence for the existence of psi. The Ganzfeld tests proved that volunteers off the street can demonstrate ESP, so why wouldn't we assume that Geller also exhibits this ability, at least sporadically? If ordinary folks can do it, why not someone who has made it the focus of his career?
It seems that only blind antagonism to Geller or to the idea of psi itself could explain the skeptics' continued resistance to this obvious conclusion.
在本文的第一篇附录中提到兰迪在SRI的照片，并提供了照片的链接（该链接是由其他读者告知的）。只有当孔道未被堵塞时，它的位置才更重要。 如果实验中孔道已被密封，那么它的高低��关紧要。
我从未听说过让·米拉（Jean Millay），但很高兴发表她的证词。 同样，除非孔道未被阻塞，否则，图纸是否放在隔离室对面的墙上，这点也不重要。 如果孔道已被堵住，那么Geller根本就看不到隔离室外面的情况。
更何况，是否有人能准确地记住三十年前发生在SRI里的事情，也是值得怀疑的。 三十三年前，我只有十二岁，业余爱好是拍摄恐龙的定格动画。 如果现在有人要我重新描述，当时怎样制作特定镜头的细节，我将不得不依靠推测，因为我的记忆早已消退。 我想，对SRI测试的各种回忆也是如此。
但这也不是很重要。 Ganzfeld实验的研究者们已经成功完成超感官知觉（ESP) 的测试，早期的SRI实验早已变成历史的注脚，不再是证明特异功能存在的主要证据。 Ganzfeld测试证明，大街上的志愿者都可以展示ESP的能力，那么为什么我们不认为，Geller至少偶尔也会表现出这种能力呢？ 如果普通人能够做到这一点，为什么把特异功能当作职业焦点的Geller反而做不到？
似乎只有对Geller或特异功能本身采取盲目的对抗态度，才可以解释怀疑者对这一明显结论的持续抵制。
资料来源：
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and other Delusions, by James Randi, for sale at
Amazon.com and elsewhere
James Randi's SRI photos and diagrams, at
www.randi.org/jr/082302.html
Script of SRI film, at
www.geocities.com/the931/uri16.html
"Information Transfer under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, in Nature, October 18, 1974, (Vol. 252, # 5476; pp. 602-7), at
http://66.221.71.68/content/research/sria.htm or at
www.heart7.net/mcf/hambone/g3.html
Psychic Breakthroughs Today, by D. Scott Rogo; Chapter 17 at
http://66.221.71.68/analysis.htm
The Geller Effect, by Guy Lyon Playfair and Uri Geller; Chapter 14 at
www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge14.htm; Chapter 15, which includes an account of the magnetometer incident, is at
www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge15.htm
"Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena," by Winston Wu, at
www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview," by George P. Hansen, at
www.linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/hansen or in Adobe Acrobat format at
www.psicounsel.com/scicop.pdf
"D. Scott Rogo and His Contributions to Parapsychology," by George P. Hansen, at
www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/RogoObit.htm
"Psychic Laboratory" message board at
www.psicounsel.com/psilabts.html
The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, by Lynne McTaggart, for sale at
Amazon.com and elsewhere
Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, by Jonathan Margolis (1999); Chapter 11, which includes material on Pressman, can be read at
www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter11.htm
"Dr. Hal Puthoff: From SRI to ZPE," interview by Mark Pilkington; an interesting discussion of Puthoff's psi research and his work in quantum physics, at
www.forteantimes.com/exclusive/puthoff.shtml
