[I love AP]

I think this video may answer some of the questions being asked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5NwRfMJgOQ

It is the most convinsing video I have EVER seen!!

I'm sure you will find some faults but as with anything, it is very hard to please everyone.

[DakaSha]

its the one they are discussing i think. yes its pretty convincing but it has been semi-debunked, there are ways he could have done it besides psi and it doesnt follow all of the rules that were proposed in this thread (matt was active in the thread even). it is good either way though

[Jjbreen]

Yes this is the one. The problem is back in 2006 he agreed to certain condition BEFORE making this video. He actually said, "Yes" w/the no misunderstood implication that he WOULD DO THIS:

Some of the things that he agreed to:

Clear See-Thru Table.
Feather, LWM in side the bowl lying loose on the table top.
Hand and face clearly seen during the video.
as-well-as other points that 5 months later he found "Moot", "Irrelevent", "silly" and "waste of time".

So basically one ordered: Ham & Cheese sandwhich, with Tomatoes, Mayo and Mustard, He wrote down Ham & Cheese, w/Tomatoe, Mayo and Mustard. Then handed over a piece of bread and cheese and said the rest was "moot", Irrelevent", "Silly" and "waste of time".

So let me ask a straight forward question -
Why agree to terms and conditions when you never had any intention of doing them??
Isn't that basically being dishonest and mis-leading? Basically LYING.
Then why get all EMO when you then present it knowing full well you didn't even come close to meeting the terms agreed upone.
There is only one reason: You could not do the demo and had to cut corners to "pull it off".

Only thing that is conviencing is that he could NOT do it w/the agreed upon terms and conditions. It's just that simple.

Want your 'bread and cheese' now and tell me this is "good"??

PLUS - note he did not take the $75.00 challenge to validate his video - there is a reason he had to avoid this as well. What we did not see going on behind the camera would be seen. Think about that one too.

The only thing 'good' about it wondering what motors he used in the table. That's about it. (That is why he didn't use the clear table top that he said, "YES" - too.)

This post has been edited by Jjbreen: 28 April 2007 - 05:57 PM

[Archaic]

Quote

PLUS - note he did not take the $75.00 challenge to validate his video - there is a reason he had to avoid this as well. What we did not see going on behind the camera would be seen. Think about that one too.

The only thing 'good' about it wondering what motors he used in the table. That's about it. (That is why he didn't use the clear table top that he said, "YES" - too.)

It was interesting to note that the pin/psiwheel did indeed look like it was being controlled!
At the rate of speeds it was rotating, and the almost flawless way it turned just did not seem right.

[Jjbreen]

Quote

It was interesting to note that the pin/psiwheel did indeed look like it was being controlled!
At the rate of speeds it was rotating, and the almost flawless way it turned just did not seem right.

The other thing is - they were the same speeds both direction Slow and Fast. A friend that does these kinds of analysis's for the legal system clocked it. They were the same speeds.

Now here is the big question: IF he did use this using TK (highly doubtful) what is his problem setting into place the "Doubt Removal Protocols"? Seems to me, before 'believers' ask/state - well he has this kind of 'control' - WOW! That is some extreme control. Then why the EMO? Why the avoidance of taking the challenge? Why 5 months to set up a demo that avoided the very things he said, "yes" too? - Calling the "moot", "irrelevent" and so on - is just a desperate attempt to avoid getting busted for a scam - IF you have this kind of TK control - then "moot", "irrelevent" and so on would NOT need to be part of the equation.

[existeance]

Quote

they were the same speeds both direction Slow and Fast. A friend that does these kinds of analysis's for the legal system clocked it. They were the same speeds.

You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

[Jjbreen]

Quote

You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

Huh?

[Archaic]

Quote

You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

Exactly, WHAT?

Well, existeance! You seem to think you know something, why don't you go ahead and amuse us!

This post has been edited by Dragonwick: 29 April 2007 - 10:41 PM

[existeance]

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know

[Archaic]

Quote

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know

Okay, and exactly how did you come to this conclusion?

[Jjbreen]

Quote

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know

I'm beginning to wonder if we are even talking the same thing??

[Jjbreen]

Quote

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying and I think you mis-understood me.

The Slow and Fast - He did this both directions:
Slow then Fast Clockwise
Slow then Fast Counter-Clockwise.

The thing I was pointing out that my friend did:
The slow and fast speeds were the same speed BOTH DIRECTIONS. Meaning the clear implication that a pump motor was more than likely used. Thought would not have been this exact of speed both directions. Now do you see my point?

Then if you argue - well "he has good control..." Ok, fine - then why did he need to 'cut corners' to do the demo?
Like the CLEAR TABLE TOP - that he said a CLEAR "YES- I can do that" That would of KILLED the electric motor question mark, very clearly! (pun intended)
Why didn't he have the feather light material at the base? That he agreed to? This too would have clearly shown NO MOTOR inside the table. They would have moved AFTER the pin wheel started to move - NOT before the fact. The reason why they were to be there.

See - there are seriously WAY TOO MANY FLAWS in this demo. It's not credible, it's not even "good" - when you actually go back to the give and take posts in 2006. He had a very clear understanding of what was expected and why. It only proved one thing: HE COULD NOT DO IT WITHOUT THE PROPS.

As I have stated: When you take the steps to remove the skeptics doubts: (Doubt Removal Protocols) you als REMOVE the ACTUAL SCIENCE that is doing this. It canNOT be done w/out the science clearly or w/illussions and/or trickery in effect. It's just that simple.

This post has been edited by Jjbreen: 01 May 2007 - 09:24 PM

[mattman]

Hello again. I just posted this at astral society and youtube, and think you all should give it a read.

Quote

Hello everybody, this is the moment you all have been patiently waiting for, and I thank you all for that. To be honest, I’m finding hard to articulate my thoughts at the moment, so I have decided to throw caution to the wind and just start talking. PSIWheel under a glass container and The best psi wheel video: PSIWheel under a glass container were both social experiments, and both illusions. But before deciding how to react to this, I have good reasons behind my actions, and it’s important that you hear me out.

Though I have had my doubts about telekinesis for a long time now, this whole idea of making videos began roughly 18 months ago. I don’t recall exactly what made me decided to make the first video, but somehow I got the idea in my head to make a telekinesis video as a means to show that, despite what people may think, these videos are absolutely worthless as ‘evidence’ for the phenomenon known as telekinesis. In reality, it was half for entertainment, half for making a point.

The idea was to make the most convincing (amateur) psi wheel video on the internet, have people rally their support around it as a result, and then when the moment was right, to confess that this video was an illusion, and make the point that no matter how convincing these videos may seem, to always see things like this with a *healthy* level of skepticism, even if you are otherwise a believer in such things. I say a “healthy” level of skepticism because, contrary to my initial expectations, the most ignorant people of this whole experiment where the hardened skeptics. But ill get into that later on, trust me.

I’m a bit hesitant to share the secrets behind my illusions because the last thing I want is for people to use them to make more fake telekinesis videos. But then again, not explaining how I did it could jeopardize the original purpose of urging people to be level-headed, specifically (and ironically) when it come to being skeptical. After weighing the two concerns, I have come to the conclusion that it’s better to expose this information so that people can be aware of it, as opposed to hiding it so that others would have a harder time replicating videos similar to my own. But before I get into how I did it, I would like to clarify how I didn’t do it.

In no way, shape, or form did I use the following:

-Magnets
-Heat/Convection currents
-Electronics (of any sort)
-Video Editing
-Static
-Strings
-My left hand (lol)
-Or anything else people “knew” I was using…

And because of this, every single one of the hard-headed skeptics who blatantly talked sh** about the video were just as “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “gullible” as the believers they labeled as such, and perhaps even more so because at least the believers had a video on their side (a relatively convincing one at that), where as the skeptics had nothing but this unfounded arrogance in themselves by thinking, without question, that they “just knew” it was fake AND HOW it was faked. Like I had said many times in the midst of these debates, I was in a unique position to know just how full of sh** these people really were. They all thought they were so smart lol.


I would now like to take this opportunity to expose the names and locations of the 2 most ignorant skeptics I have run across during this whole experiment.

Jj Breen

Keith Mayes


Moving on, the trick was very simple. Both videos made use of the same gimmick, a trick table. That being said, however, still none of those things I listed above were used in this trick table. In the first video, a pin sized hole was drilled in both the surface of the table as well as the plastic bowl the set up was sitting on. From there, a person off camera was blowing into a tube that was connected to this hole (under the table) which cause the wheel to spin. The second video used this same principle, but in a more sophisticated fashion. The surface of the table is hollow, with two separate air channels going to two different pin holes. Two tubes could “plug in” to each hole on the hollowed legs, which were hidden by thin layer of laminate that could pop on and off. This is why you can’t see the bottoms of the two front legs on the video when the wheel is spinning. And again, I used an “associate” to plug and unplug the tubes as well as to blow into them for a more convincing illusion.

Kinda sucks now that you know how it’s done, huh?

In closing, the initial goal of the video was to urge a healthy sense of skepticism for believers when viewing such videos because they are just videos. They are suspect by nature; too foul play can be going on off camera. However, after fighting numerous skeptics as part of the role I needed to play, I was exposed to just how ignorant these skeptics could be. Even knowing that my video was fake, still…these people were so sure of themselves (sure of things they just couldn’t be sure of given what they had seen) that they were borderline delusional. Seriously. I began getting caught up in the debates because *I knew* they didn’t know this video was fake, simply because there is no way to know for sure based on what the video allowed people to see. And yet, I couldn’t expose them for the “frauds” they were because I was too busy being the fraud I was lmao. (Of course, I have been saying all along that this video isn’t proof and shouldn’t be seen as proof)

But now it’s different. I’ve been waiting for this for a loooong time. Little did I know that this experiment would go from teaching believers something about being level-headed to teaching skeptics something about being level-headed. And please don’t mistake this as an attack on telekinesis. Personally I don’t believe in it, but I’m not foolish enough to think it’s impossible. For those that do, you’re ignorant and arrogant. For all you knew, or should I say “didn’t know”, I could have been the real deal. And that’s the point. You just can’t know, one way or the other, unless you have the first hand experience.

I know what the rules are here, but I dont really care. You can ban me if you wish, me registering here was a means to a greater goal.

But here's the things. I get why you all were so skeptical, but I had a role to play. If any of you had actually done any research on me, like going to astral soceity and reading some of my posts, youd know that I too am very much a skeptic of telekinsis, and am an advocate of the randi challenge...believe it or not. Like i said before, I made the videos specifically to reach the people who fall for these videos, and to show them why its not such a wise thing to do.

But then I came here and realized that, as bad all that was, some of the skeptics I have run across, were so skeptical that it was no longer a virute, with this website being the prime example. And thats saying something coming from me, because im quite the skeptic. In fact, now that im able to "break character", id like to say that a lot of you have you heads up your asses because of your skepticism. I actually began to get mad at some of you because of how idiotic you have made skeptics out to be. But I dont even want to get back into it, im biting my tounge as we speak.

A lot of you are no more "wise of the world" then those you criticize, you just happen to be on opposite ends of the same scale. Its like Theism's relationship to Atheism; both like require faith in something that can't possible be known.

And before you can say "I knew it!!1!", let me stop you. You didnt know, thats the point. You could have suspected, and hell, you could have even forumated a way i could have pulled it off, but there is a world's difference between that and "knowing". And even if you were ultimately right, its this mistake in thinking we "know" that cause both problems; that of thse stupid tk videos and that of these stupid skeptics who actually think they know what is and isnt possible.

And, JJ you say you leave room open for the possibility, but its obvious that this is more of a figure of speech than an actual creed. Its clear how you really feel by the way you handled this discussion. Those who really leave themselves open the possibility are not cyncial as you are, and would most likely see no point in participating in such a discussion, to such an extent, because of the utter futlity of it all. I have run into many level-headed, well-balanced skeptics and these types seem to be unanimously indifferent about the video. But you aren't, and neither are you circle-jerk buddies.

You give sceince and reason a bad name because of your wonton skepticism and cyncality.

This post has been edited by mattman: 08 June 2007 - 06:14 PM

[Jjbreen]

Wow - So I was right all along.....

Matt - I think you are pissed off with me for a couple of reasons - for which now the above post shows it 'right on the button'.
** You are not a man of your word.
You are nothing more than a 2 bit college con. Call it "social experiment" - you still had to pull a CON to do your experiment. You even LIED MUTIPLE TIMES!
Wow - quite the character their Matt - at least I didn't lie at any given time. Funny now you cannot say the same.

I am amazed at the 'rationalization' for lying - truly amazed. This is what you learned in college: How to rationalize lying!?? (all under the excuse of "Social Experiment") Truly S A D.

When you posted your second video - I basically (yes go back and read my posts) stated: you ignored your agreement. AKA - A man that doesn't keep his "yes's a yes" aka you LIED - Now you proved that. That you did not keep your agreement from 2006. That you did indeed LIE. Call it 'social experiment' or other lame ass excuses. You now stated clearly - "Yes, I did NOT keep my word." Something you gave me 'hell' for calling you on when I was right all along. You could NOT do the TK w/out cutting corners - thus it was a scam and you were lying in every single post.

Then I'm 'bad' for not guessing the exact means by which you did it? I did say it had to do with the table. I also stated the speed of the spinning paper was mechanical - not - TK. So big fracking deal I didn't get the exact method you used. I think you actually got pissed off w/me because I kept your lame excuses in the for-front. I am guilty of one thing: I expected you to keep your agreement from 2006 and when you did NOT - I called you on it.

So the question is: Why did you give me hell for calling you on it, when you knew I was right?

You are a 'man' for what you did??

I don't know about anyone else - But I'm done with you ---- A liar is a liar, no matter how they rationalize it. That's what even makes this worse - your rationalization of and for the LIE!

This post has been edited by Jjbreen: 08 June 2007 - 06:34 PM

[eqgumby]

That's some funny crap. I didn't think he could do it with the required controls in place. And he couldn't. That somehow makes the skeptics jerks? Why? Because they didn't guess which one of a hundred ways you could have faked it by circumventing the required controls? You're a putz. And a fraud. Did you at least do a term paper or something on this?