WORK WITH A FRAUDULENT PK METAL-BENDING SUBJECT (DEBORAH DELANOY)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000701030001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 10, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: RP

Approved For Release 2000/08/15: CIA-RDP96-eO 92ROA0 M0001-6
to deceptive behavior. He said that he was a practicing magician
who had wished to see if it were possible for a magician to pose
successfully as a psychic in a laboratory.
Deborah Delanoy (Dept. of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland)
During a seven-and-a-half-month period in 1983-84, 1 worked
with a self-alleged PK subject at the University of Edinburgh's
Psychology Department. (Drs. John Beloff, Julie Milton, and Julian
Isaacs also participated in this research.) The subject, Tim (a
pseudonym), participated in 20 sessions representing approximately
60 hours of work. At the time of this study Tim was seventeen
years old. Bright and very affable, he appeared to be an almost
ideal subject. Eager to demonstrate his ability in a controlled lab-
oratory environment, he was exceptionally cooperative. He readily
followed our instructions and often contributed useful ideas and
suggestions of his own. Tim claimed to have started bending metal,
mostly cutlery, at the age of four and to have been doing so ever
since. He claimed that some objects bent without his awareness of
them having done so, while at other times he could bend things
purposefully by simply concentrating on doing so. During the.
course of our work, Tim also claimed to have developed fire-raising
abilities.
The work with Tim covered many different areas, including
micro-PK, macro-PK, fire-raising sessions, and Ganzfeld sessions.
There were also several (at times emotionally intense) counseling
sessions. Throughout our work together Tim never succeeded in
producing any apparent psi effects under properly controlled condi-
tions, although many effects were produced under less secure cir-
cumstances. Eventually, due to mounting evidence suggesting
fraudulent behavior, a hidden camera was utilized to film the sub-
ject without his knowledge. This film revealed blatantly fraudulent
activities. When confronted with evidence of his deception, the
subject denied that his activities had been fraudulent. The work
with Tim ceased at this point, and several months elapsed before
contact with him was reestablished. When it was, Tim confessed
Our work with Tim highlighted several factors which may be
of concern to other macro-PK researchers. The primary "lesson"
that arose from this case was that as researchers we must never let
ourselves forget that our subjects may be deceiving us. Nor should
we let our judgment be influenced by our personal knowledge or
perception of our subject(s). In keeping these dictates in mind, it
may be of use to consider the different manners in which a subject
may provide deceptive information. In the broadest sense, this
may be done in two ways: deceptive information may be conveyed
intentionally or unintentionally.
Unintentional deception refers to cases in which the subject
genuinely believes the information he is providing is accurate,
whereas in fact it is not. Thus, a subject may believe that some
occurrence was paranormal in origin, when its actual cause was
quite normal. In such situations the subject will be entirely gen-
uine in his portrayal of events, as he will be entirely convinced
that his interpretation is correct. When working with Tim his per-
formance was so convincing that I frequently considered the possi-
bility that he was deluding himself about the genuineness of his psi
ability.
In other situations the subject may be quite purposefully try-
ing to deceive the researcher. In such cases, one of the subject's
first priorities would be to present himself to the researchers in as
genuine and convincing a manner as possible. As Tim demonstrated
to me, one should never underestimate the consummate acting skills
that one's subjects may possess. Researchers should also be wary
of confirmation of abilities or events from others, even when the
reference is from an apparently reliable and unbiased source. It
is always possible that others may have been either taken in by, or
be acting as confederates with, one's subject.
The distinction drawn between intentional and unintentional
deception is not meant to be absolute. A subject who has genuine
psi ability, or believes he has, may resort to intentional deception
upon occasion. This may be done for a variety of reasons. Per-
haps fraud may be used to heighten a genuine effect, or it may be
resorted to if the "real thing" does not appear to be forthcoming.
The subject may even think that there is nothing wrong with "help-
ing the effect along" if he is convinced that his ability is genuine.
This situation can pose a dilemma for the researcher. If one
has evidence suggesting both genuine ability and fraud, does one
continue to work with the subject? In Tim's case we had no strong
evidence of PK ability. Once we had acquired firm evidence of
fraud, we concluded that no one was likely to benefit from further
Approved For Release 2000/08/15: CIA-RDP96-00792R000701030001-6
 104 Approved For Release 200dt6B115 : CIA-RDP%rOOT9i2RW07G12030001-6 105
1IUL Ln? 1 wu.nout reser- produce macro-PK at will suggested exciting possibilities. I wanted
vations. Several months elapsed between the time the work with his claims to be true, and this desire may have influenced my eval-
Tim ceased and his admission of being a magician. During this uation of his performance.
period I still had do
bt
u
s as to whether Tim might have possessed
genuine PK ability and had only resorted to fraud out of frustra-
tion at not being able to produce PK under controlled conditions.
With hindsight, these doubts seem surprising, given that I
had discovered obviously fraudulent activity, had other evidence
suggesting fraudulent behavior, and had no strong positive results.
Why had I been willing to give Tim's PK ability the benefit of the
doubt when the evidence was against doing so? In considering this
question I discovered two aspects of my relationship with Tim that
may have contributed to my apparent reluctance to recognize that
Tim's claims were false. Firstly, I was biased towards liking Tim,
both initially and as our relationship developed. Secondly, I was
biased towards believing him. The factors that gave rise to these
feelings are inherent in many experimental situations and thus may
be of interest to other researchers.
In parapsychology it is generally regarded as advantageous to
have a friendly and open rapport with one's subject(s). We want
our subjects to feel comfortable, which includes wanting them to
like us to some degree. If we perceive that we have been success-
ful in this pursuit it seems a natural facet of human nature that we
will, in turn, like them. This may be particularly true in macro-PK
work, where a subject and researcher may work closely together for
a relatively lengthy time. Researchers thus may feel that they have
come to know their subjects well, and a genuine friendship may de-
velop. Having a good rapport with subjects may be quite beneficial.
A good researcher /subject relationship will not only make any inves-
tigation more pleasant for all concerned, but it may also be helpful
in eliciting psi. But this should not blind researchers to the pos-
sibility that they may be more trusting of subjects whom they like
or feel they know well than of other subjects.
Another facet of liking our subjects involves the fact that we
need them. In most cases subjects will travel to research centers
and give their time for little, if any, compensation. Thus, they are
helping us with our work and we; are indebted to them for doing so.
In Tim's case, he devoted a great deal of his time to working with
us and also had a relatively long journey to and from our lab.
These things, particularly when combined with his very cooperative
and friendly manner, may well have biased me towards liking him.
This, in turn, may have colored my perspective in viewing his
claims.
It is also possible that I was biased towards believing Tim.
We are all familiar with the difficulties arising from the so-called
"elusive nature of psi." In short, we cannot study a phenomenon
unless we can first produce it. Thus, Tim's claims that he could
Fortunately, any biases that may have arisen from liking and
believing my subject did not lead to any obvious errors in judgment
in this case. The criterion of accepting only evidence produced
under thoroughly controlled conditions was used in all the work with
Tim. Strict adherence to this criterion did not allow any judgmental
errors caused by personal biases to arise. However, as researchers
we should be aware of the possible occurrence of these biases to
ensure that they are not allowed to influence our findings.
An unfortunate reality which parapsychological researchers
must never forget is that we work in an area that will continue to
attract those intent upon deception. Not only must we protect
against fraudulent and/or misleading activity on our subjects' part,
but also we must recognize that unintentionally we may contribute
to our own deception. Only if we are aware of and guard against
these factors will our field be able to advance unembarrassed by
deceptions others may try to perpetrate.
FACTORS AFFECTING JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE OCCURRENCE
OF PSI IN SPONTANEOUS SETTINGS
Caroline Dow (Dept. of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland)
This paper describes three areas of research in social and
cognitive psychology concerning errors in everyday human judg-
ment and decision making which may be relevant to the study of
errors in decisions about the operation of psi in spontaneous set-
tings. At their most general level, these decisions either take the
form "psi has occurred" or, alternatively, "psi has not occurred."
When somebody decides "I have witnessed psi" when in fact there
is a normal explanation for their experience, we may call this a
"false positive." Conversely, the conclusion "I have not witnessed
psi" when in fact psi was in operation may be called a "false nega-
tive."
Attribution Theory: Objective Data
Vs. Subjective Theories
Attribution theory studies how people decide what caused an
event that they witnessed. It has often been described as the
study of the causal explanations of the layperson. In fact, there
Approved For Release 2000/08/15:
IA-RDP96-00792R000701030001-6