If You Could See What You're Thinking

February 24, 2011 8:47 AM

Ted Serios and Psychic Projections Thoughtographs-- "Psychic Projections/Photographic Impressions: Paranormal Photographs from the Jule Eisenbud Collection on Ted Serios" features a series of images produced by Theodore Judd Serios (1918-2006), a bellhop from Chicago who appeared to possess a genuinely uncanny ability. By holding a Polaroid camera and focusing on the lens very intently, he was able to produce dreamlike pictures of his thoughts on the film; he referred to these images as "thoughtographs," and many striking examples are on display in the exhibition. The Chronicle commenters aren't convinced of this guy's ability. Nile Root claims to have seen him in action.
posted by Ideefixe (38 comments total)

Eek! First time posting on the blue and I messed up, sorry.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:47 AM on February 24, 2011

This seems legit, and will probably replace PKE meters.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:07 AM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]

I remember reading about Serios in some debunking book back in the 80s or 90s. Probably one of Randi's, but I don't see a lot in Wikipedia about it.

In any case, a non-expert "seeing him in action" is not a sufficient test. As has been proved repeatedly, when stage and closeup magicians place restrictions on the performer that would restrict how they themselves would make the ILLUSION work, the magic fails to happen.
posted by DU at 9:24 AM on February 24, 2011

Mind photography is Serios business.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:26 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh I see, Root was debunking. His page is formatted like a believer.
posted by DU at 9:27 AM on February 24, 2011

I've seen the images on display at UMBC. Legit or not, they're pretty cool. Here's the accompanying lecture.
posted by HumanComplex at 9:28 AM on February 24, 2011

Serios and Eisenbud in Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers.
posted by The Mouthchew at 9:29 AM on February 24, 2011

I remember reading about Serios in some debunking book back in the 80s or 90s. Probably one of Randi's, but I don't see a lot in Wikipedia about it.

My guess would be Martin Gardner.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 9:35 AM on February 24, 2011

When I started reading the FPP, I read it as "Ted Serios and the Psychic Projections", and thought it was going to be about an obscure but highly influential early 90's Bay area indie band.

It still should be...
posted by hincandenza at 9:38 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]

mandatory "you can't be Serios".



sorry
posted by xqwzts at 10:13 AM on February 24, 2011

Yeah right.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:27 AM on February 24, 2011

Randi and Gardner debunk this asshole long ago. He was also outed by a couple amatuer magicians who got to see him perform up close. Heck, his debunking was published in the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography. The 60s and 70s were quite a time to be a scam artist. I guess Uri Geller got away with millions, but morons like Serios didn't make the grade.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]

I seem to recall seeing a kid from Russia do this on In Search Of or some other 70's parastupidity show. He at least projected images of things in the room he was being interviewed in. These look rather too intentionally dreamy and artsy, although as just a collection interestingly treated polaroids, they are pretty cool. Too bad he had to muck it up with the stupid sideshow.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2011

Juicy part here:

Charlie Reynolds and David Eisendrath, both amateur magicians and professional photographers exposed Serios as a fraud after spending a weekend with him and Eisenbud. Serios claimed he needed a little tube in front of the camera lens to help him concentrate, but he was spotted slipping something into the tube. Most likely it was a picture of something that the camera would take an image of, but which Serios would claim came from his mind rather than his hand. The exposé appeared in the October 1967 issue of Popular Photography. Serios' psychokinetic powers began to fade after the exposure and he has remained virtually unheard from for the past thirty years.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:29 AM on February 24, 2011

Isn't it kind of disingenuous to post about his "remarkable ability" without, you know, mentioning the tube he held in front of the camera lens to produce his thoughtographs?
posted by lefty lucky cat at 10:32 AM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]

Oh good Lord. Is that old fraud still around?
posted by scalefree at 10:40 AM on February 24, 2011

He should have used the word "Jesus" more often. Maybe "Angels" now & then, as a bit of spice.
posted by aramaic at 10:44 AM on February 24, 2011

Sorry, but this guy is my favorite fraud ever.

Unless he's legit and it turns out that Bear-Proof Suits are the base of a tech tree that leads to a hodgepodge of unrelated technologies.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:13 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Psychic" Fraudster's Faked Photos Actually Kind of Cool-Looking!

In other late-breaking news, the Tichborne Claimant wasn't the same guy, the Cardiff Giant was a carving, the Davenport Brothers weren't psychics, and Soylent Green is people.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:16 AM on February 24, 2011

Is that old fraud still around?

Well, he died in 2006. BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT MEANS NOTHING--HE JUST STEPPED INTO THE SUMMER LAND!
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:17 AM on February 24, 2011

I was thinking of posting about Serios when I saw him on A&L Daily today.

I used to go to a Denver psychiatrist thirty-odd years ago who was head of the Colorado Psychiatric Association, a respectable man as far as psychiatrists go (I'm a PK...psychiatrist's kid...myself.).

My shrink was a skeptic regarding psychic phenomena until he saw Serios in action. The doctor saw a Serios produce a photograph based on a sealed envelope in another room, which was a somewhat stylized artist's drawing of a sunflower. Serios produced a photo that looked like a photograph of a sunflower. There was no way for Serios to have been able to see the sealed drawing, according to the doctor. In researching him on the Internet, it appears that most of the photos may have been produced via his "gizmo," but hearing testimony from a man who saw him makes me wonder.
posted by kozad at 11:46 AM on February 24, 2011

There's a lot to unpack in your comment, kozad. First, the idea that your friend actually was a skeptic. In my experience people who have a fairly credulous mindset often have a self-perception of being "skeptics". So his claim of skepticism should not by itself be taken as proof that he was one. And even if he was, mere skepticism by itself offers no advantage against a fraudster. You need to have a cognitive & observational toolkit to go along with your doubting; you need to know how people are fooled, how to detect attempted fraud & how to not be fooled yourself.

People are notoriously unreliable witnesses, especially in the face of deliberate misdirection. Just because your friend remembered the incident without a gizmo doesn't mean there was no gizmo used at the time. If your friend could state what positive measures he took to detect any hanky-panky, that would help establish his expertise & bolster his testimony.
posted by scalefree at 12:14 PM on February 24, 2011

In a cognitive psychology class, I heard two things:
1) When you imagine an image, or when you dream, your visual cortex is active.
2) One time, researchers stuck electrodes into the visual cortex of a cat and were able to decode the data into an actual visible image, using the cat's visual cortex as a camera.

What would happen if you snapped a cat-brain-picture while the cat was in REM sleep, I wonder???
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2011

Serios produced a photo that looked like a photograph of a sunflower. There was no way for Serios to have been able to see the sealed drawing, according to the doctor.

I saw a magician draw the contents of an sealed envelope - does this mean the magician performs actual supernatural magic?

Of course not - it's just a standard magic trick. Serios adds a slight layer of abstraction by using his "thought photograph" rather than just a pen and paper, but the principle trick is the same.
posted by muddgirl at 12:43 PM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]

does this mean the magician performs actual supernatural magic?

That's the other thing about this that blows my mind. If you could genuinely do a supernatural act, you would immediately monetize it via a corporation of the government. The idea that if your mind could move things, write on things, etc and all you would do is try to get yourself on talk shows and do magic acts is ridiculous.

Of course, they all end up as entertainers or wanna-be gurus because general audiences are far less skeptical than corporations or governments who will at least attempt to get you to prove your worth.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:09 PM on February 24, 2011

It pains me to read descriptions of this miraculous tube as a mere "gizmo."
posted by Tube at 1:34 PM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]

An anti-debunker site worth checking out here.
posted by kozad at 2:01 PM on February 24, 2011

For some definitions of "worth" - I think some of his points have some validity but like many believers he focuses too much on performance, and not enough on what skeptics are actually saying:

First, an investigator would frequently put his hand over the gismo, blocking any light from entering it, yet Serios would still produce an image.

Second, Serios did not always use the gismo, and was able to produce images without it.

The film could have been pre-exposed. Even without the gizmo, he could hold his cell in his hand. There could be enough ambient light between the gizmo and the lens.

Third, Serios produced his images while being filmed continuously by a camera crew on more than one occasion - a precaution that would seem to minimize the likelihood of sleight of hand.

Magicians who do "close work" can be continuously filmed, without the home audience being able to detect their sleight of hand.

Fourth, sometimes Serios did not even hold the camera or the gismo, which were in the hands of an investigator.

Serios does not need to hold either the camera or the gizmo for this trick to work. Furthermore, it is reported that he would produce hundreds and hundreds of blank photos for every one "impressioned" photo, and his performance is pitch-perfect to create confusion among the observers as to the enviroment under which a photo is created. Unless there is some thorough data collection which tracks the method of production for each photo, I am skeptical of any claims which link a specific method to a specific result.

Fifth, Serios at times produced an image on a camera that was some distance away from him - as far as 66 feet in one instance.

Sixth, Serios also produced images on a camera that was in another room altogether.

Seventh, Serios was placed inside a Faraday cage - an electromagnetically shielded environment in a laboratory - with the camera outside the cage; he still produced an image.

See answer to #1/2 and #4. Furthermore, for all these "images", are we counting full-black and full-white exposures as Serios wants to? This is not explained in the blog post.

By the way, Randi also forgets to mention that Serios first produced "several pictures of the submarine Nautilus" in this test, before coming up with the Elizabeth photo. Presumably we are to believe that he just happened to have his cylinder preloaded with shots of a submarine that day.

Yes, it's called a lucky coincidence. People who claim to be paranormal thrive on them.
posted by muddgirl at 2:18 PM on February 24, 2011

Randi also makes much of the fact that a "prominent conjuring authority" named Persi Diaconis, asked to observe a session with Serios, "was able to switch a whole batch of film right under [Eisenbud's] nose." He implies that Serios could have done the same thing. Maybe. But the investigators were watching Serios. They had no reason to watch Diaconis, who was there as an observer, not a test subject.

Why weren't the investigators watching Diaconis? The implication is not only that Serios could switch batches of film, but that he may have a colluder that could do the same. If the investigators didn't catch Diaconis then why did they think they would catch a colluder?
posted by muddgirl at 2:21 PM on February 24, 2011

An anti-debunker site worth checking out here.

Shocking! A guy into near death experiences and ghost hunting thinks Serios could be the real deal without doing one lick of original research! Man, don't the believers out there know how incredibly desperate and unconvincing they come off as? Its like that guy you work with who always comes in wearing clashing colors. If someone would have just pulled him aside and gave him a clue when he was younger he wouldn't be publicly embarrassing himself as an adult.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:35 PM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]

The doctor saw a Serios produce a photograph based on a sealed envelope in another room, which was a somewhat stylized artist's drawing of a sunflower. Serios produced a photo that looked like a photograph of a sunflower. There was no way for Serios to have been able to see the sealed drawing, according to the doctor.

Well, there are quite a number of ways to do that exact trick in stage magic shows; it's a two-gaff bit, combining a variation on "Sealed-Envelope Reading" and "Spirit Slate". (I like "Bishop's Sealed Letter Answer" and David Phelps Abbott's stack-and-switch, but there are many variations.)

I suppose it's possible that Serios's psychic abilities only happened to manifest themselves in the exact format of stage illusions that have been around since the 19th century, but Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:15 PM on February 24, 2011 [4 favorites]

O.K. I give up. This is a tough crowd. I just happened upon another Colorado expert 30+ years ago who was convinced by Serios, as was Eisenbud. But, yes, magicians do things all the time that I cannot explain, and perhaps my doctor just happened to be close to the action, and was bamboozled the same way anyone can be in the presence of an adept bamboozler (emphasis on the booze, here).

Our experiences inform our prejudices. There are personal reasons why, although usually skeptical, I remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomenon. Occam's Razor is still the best place to start, however. And not knowing as much about magic as some of you, I am a lot more skeptical of my psychiatrist's conclusions than I was earlier today.

There certainly are some interesting posts on the Web about Serios, though, including a lot of academic/aesthetic digressions about his "photography."
posted by kozad at 7:47 PM on February 24, 2011

Damn Dirty Ape If you could genuinely do a supernatural act, you would immediately monetize it via a corporation of the government. The idea that if your mind could move things, write on things, etc and all you would do is try to get yourself on talk shows and do magic acts is ridiculous.

But what do you do if your supernatural power is something pretty worthless? I can bend spoons with my mind (It's true! Go check you cutlery drawer. If your computer is too close, my telekinetic vibrations will have travelled over the internet lines, and bent several spoons.) But there's machines that can do it much more reliably and accurately than I. So showing off would be the only way to make money off this extraordinary ability.


Third, Serios produced his images while being filmed continuously by a camera crew on more than one occasion - a precaution that would seem to minimize the likelihood of sleight of hand.

This makes me wonder why he only made photographs. Couldn't he put his gizmo onto the video camera, and make psychic videos? In fact, wouldn't todays modern digital camera sensors be much easier to project your images onto?
posted by WhackyparseThis at 10:38 PM on February 24, 2011

Just a guess but I'm betting he could reliably create static on cameras that use digital tape, almost as if his hands were radiating a magnetic field. But for some strange reason his powers over camera sensors attached to optical media are nonexistent.
posted by scalefree at 11:05 PM on February 24, 2011

Occam's razor is good, but not sufficient. For me, it's an issue of the scientific method - if something is possible in this world - something "supernatural" like clairvoyance or thought photography - then it should be possible to observe it, to form a hypothesis as to when and why it occurs, and to prove or disprove that hypothesis.

In the case of thought photography, I am immediately skeptical because the practitioner has developed a whole ritual around creating an "image", yet is only successful a couple times out of hundreds of photographs. Even if I were a believer, my first questions would be: Why is he successful sometimes but not others? What conditions are necessary for a successful photograph? What conditions never produce a successful photograph? Then, if I'm a skeptic, I start to ask: Are these necessary and sufficient conditions actually common methods to hide an illusion of some sort?
posted by muddgirl at 5:55 AM on February 25, 2011

But what do you do if your supernatural power is something pretty worthless?

I think that might be impossible, somehow there will be economic worth attached to it. If you somehow can perform supernatural acts, regardless of how "worthless" they seem someone is going to be interested in understanding it. Sure, bending spoons is silly, but if you can manipulate matter without touching it that could revolutionize medicine, control systems, warfare, interface systems, espionage, etc. Your DNA would be worth millions. If you could flip just enough bits in computer RAM with your mind you could take down entire networks or shut down missile systems.

Just understanding the forces involve and how it works is worth a lot of money. Careers in science could be made by the guys who explain this stuff, even with zero practical uses for it. Nobel peace prizes would flow like water.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:03 AM on February 25, 2011

Exactly, damn dirty ape. Spoon bending is a great example - can Gellar really only bend spoons? Can he bend some kinds of spoons but not others? How big of a spoon can he bend? How small of a spoon? Does he need to hold it in his hand or can he bend at a distance? What's the maximum distance? Does it depend on the size of the spoon?

Of course, Gellar isn't interested in any of these questions because he can't actually bend spoons with his mind - he bends them with his hands just like the rest of us.
posted by muddgirl at 7:35 AM on February 25, 2011

In fact, wouldn't todays modern digital camera sensors be much easier to project your images onto?

Yes, if you were using your thoughts instead of magnets.

That said, Serios did most of his work in the 1960s and 1970s.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:46 AM on February 25, 2011