We numbered ten JREF coffee-mugs from 1 to 10 on the outside bottoms. For the baseline part of the test (20 "open" trials in which all those present would know in which cup the target had been placed) Mike was first asked to choose one of ten face-down shuffled cards bearing numerals from 1 to 10, and that choice would designate where the target would be placed, each time. I had asked him to carefully "scan" the floor area of our library in advance to make sure there were no distracting elements present, and he himself carefully chose the positions of each of the ten cups on the floor. He was encouraged by me to adjust the placement of the cups as many times as he needed to, during this phase. He'd told us, first, that at least five feet of separation was required between each cup, but that he could work with just three feet between them. I immediately insisted that he must use at least five feet, since I did not want to allow an excuse later on that the spacing had been inadequate. As it turned out, he chose to have some cups within a foot of one another. But we could not interfere with his choice, since he assured us that all was sufficient for his needs.
Mike also asked that several metallic objects (trophy cups, plaques, steel devices) be removed from the bookshelves nearby. At his request, a teaspoon was taken to the next room because he said that the silver could also attract his stick; that spoon was made of aluminum. But, again, we did not correct his statements.
For the "open" phase of the preliminary test procedure, the target package was placed in the designated cup, which was then openly placed in the spot Mike had chosen for it, mouth-down. He then scanned all ten cups, and declared — both by pointing and verbally — where he believed that his stick had detected the target. Another number was then selected, and the procedure was repeated, twenty times in all. His score was 100% in these "open" tests.
Pause. Let me explain here the purpose of the baseline test of twenty "open" detections, in which the location of the target is known in advance. It served five distinct purposes, which is why we always use such a procedure:
(1) The performer has the opportunity to try out the setup, and make any necessary changes, adjustments, or re-locations that he thinks are needed. Mr. G. changed the location of the ten cups on the floor many times before the "open" detection trials were completed, and finally declared his total satisfaction with the placements, and with the conditions.
(2) The process of randomizing numbers, etc., which is sometimes unfamiliar or unknown to the performer, becomes clear. For Mike, we prepared ten cards bearing numbers from one to ten, shuffled them face-down, and asked him to choose one for each test.
(3) The performer becomes familiar with the sequences and rules of the test. With Mike, we changed only one factor: we began with plastic cups, but because of the bulk of the target package, we switched to using the JREF coffee mugs.
(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.
(5) After the "blind"test is done, following the "open" series, the performer cannot offer the excuse that his powers were not working at this time. Mike obtained 100% results during the "open" test, quickly and positively, showing that he was quite able to use his powers.
Following the "open" sequence, for each of the "blind" tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times.
...
The results were that when Mike G. knew the location of the concealed target (the "open" tests), he obtained 100% results. When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.
