The Paranormal is it Fake?

[Einsteinium]

Magola has been tested in front of cameras while hook up to machines monitored by reputable scientists. Readings show large changes in his physiology. Unless its all a big lie orchestrated by the television show, it would seem he is doing more than parlor tricks. Just because magicians can replicate something with trickery does not invalidate Someone who may be doing it without.... It's an asinine assumption. Any thing can be replicated. I have looked for anything debunking magola other than the assumptions of randi, so far nothing. What I read is that magola is perfectly willing to be tested by randi even to the point of responding to randis assumption with video, but randi will not meet with him. It's not that magola will not come to him it's that randi will not meet him in public. Randi will not let the test be public. But who knows. If I had an ability I certainly would not perform it for a skeptical magician in private who stands to loose a million bucks. Magola was featured on Stan lees super humans and his abilities were tested.

I'm open to debunking information, but no one has any. If he cannot be debunked, scientific instruments show he actually undergoes biological changes, and a master magician that tests these things throws up smoke screens ( ) and insults and won't meet with him, then I am only left with the evidence available. Why doesn't randi simply put the matter to rest?

Interesting information! I have looked into this further and now I am starting to agree that there is something too this guy Magnola. I hope more tests and more information will be forthcoming! Fascinating!

[White Crane Feather]

The video you posted of Magola does not show him exhibiting any kind of magnetic property, or "thought power" (except clever thinking in how to fool the gullible.) He was using suction to lift the bowl. The clue is in how he placed his palm, slightly cupped, on the base of the bowl then pressed down (slowly, so as not to blow any talc into the air and give his trick away) and waited for a short while before lifting.

The powder would prevent suction and dry up moisture. It's a nice try at explaining something. But offering conjecture is not debunking. I could say he surgically had a magnet implanted in his hand to, but that is still just conjecture.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The powder would prevent suction and dry up moisture. It's a nice try at explaining something. But offering conjecture is not debunking. I could say he surgically had a magnet implanted in his hand to, but that is still just conjecture.

You mean the powder that he dumps and then promptly wipes off with his opposite hand? Why wipe it off at all if he has magnetic or telekinetic powers, powder shouldn't interfere with either of those? Why is he taking so long once he puts his hand on the bowl, if he's not using suction that is and is not using moisture on his hands to adhere.

Conjecture is not debunking, true, but there's nothing to debunk here because he hasn't really demonstrated anything; he certainly hasn't demonstrated that he has any powers, speaking of 'conjecture'. I wonder how well he would do if we kept the powder on and drilled a few holes in the bowl so he can't form a seal for suction. Or yes, maybe he has powers that would only overturn and revise several well-established scientific theories and be the most astounding discovery of our lifetimes, that's quite probable, after all, we all just saw it on youtube...

[Leonardo]

The powder would prevent suction and dry up moisture. It's a nice try at explaining something. But offering conjecture is not debunking. I could say he surgically had a magnet implanted in his hand to, but that is still just conjecture.

As Liquid Garden has said, I'm not debunking, and I never claimed I was. Magola, however, is in that very video claiming to be debunking Randi's exposure by using talc, of other so-called "magnetic people" . But what Magola is doing is not done under the strict conditions necessary to qualify as 'evidence', else I would not be able to point out that he could be achieving the effect via suction and be correct in stating that. Therefore it cannot be 'debunking'.

So, rather than accuse me of falsely claiming to be debunking - when I never made that claim - you should be accusing Magola of making that false claim. Because he did make that claim, falsely.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Tricks are tricks; the magician or fraudster knows the trick and you don't, and it's simple foolish arrogance to think that seeing is believing.

Also, if it is possible for magicians to duplicate the trick, then the explanation is trickery; do not assume outré explanations when mundane ones are available. Even if magicians cannot duplicate he trick, give them awhile.

This sort of thinking is the foundation of healthy scepticism; thinking otherwise only leave you open to accepting lies.

[White Crane Feather]

For the record I do think this might be a trick, but I think suction is unlikely . The issue here is not the reality of what magola can or cannot do. I first saw this on stan lees superhumans. it features a skeptic that investigates these things, and magola passed his tests. Including scientific ones. I was intrigued. The test seemd real and the results were convincing for the host.

The issue here is that no matter what noone will really consider the possibility that magola may have somehow learned to magnetize his hands. His physiology changed according to stan lees testes. While im skeptical of any television show it seemed like a legitimate effort. Especially in other episodes there was nothing unbelievable. There dosnt seem to be any debunking other than speculation... suction, wet skin...etc etc. It seems that he is legitimately willing to be tested by Randi in public.

If magola was really doing this, no one would believe him. apparently His physiology can change, he makes videos like skeptic always ask, he put talcum powder as on it as Randi requested....there is plenty of powder on it after he wipes off the excess, any an all kind of conjecture has been used. No matter what he does, if it were real, he could not prove it was some sort of ability rather than trickery. Even if he hooks electrodes up to his brain and scientists measure him. Even if he did it a 1000 time people would always cry foul.

This is called psudo skepticism.

[White Crane Feather]

Tricks are tricks; the magician or fraudster knows the trick and you don't, and it's simple foolish arrogance to think that seeing is believing.

Also, if it is possible for magicians to duplicate the trick, then the explanation is trickery; do not assume outré explanations when mundane ones are available. Even if magicians cannot duplicate he trick, give them awhile.

This sort of thinking is the foundation of healthy scepticism; thinking otherwise only leave you open to accepting lies.

It is absolutely not. I don't assume anything that's the problem psudoskeptics have. Duplicating something does not invalidate something. It only proves that it can be duplicated. Im going to coin the phrase psudoskeptics Folly.

[Mr Walker]

Incorrect....Frank...you disappoint me on this one. listen and learn.

There has always been a huge question about what caused the "rise" of civilization...the catalyst that caused thoughts like 'lets stack rocks together and make shelter"....

There is proof that the ancients began ingesting acacia wood and other hallucinogenics...aka...for the educated..."mind expanding drugs"....

These "shaman" that participated in these "journeys"...then rose to be the chiefs, the leaders, the kings and the pharaohs....there is no empirical proof of this...only hints and suggestion.

They are called "mind expanding" for a reason. Perhaps you have not read into it and I respect that. You can choose to look and see or you can choose to let sterotypes stand alone without investigation of your own...a choice.

Stanislav Grof did some absolutely amazing research into hallucinogens and the commonality of experience...I am not going to try and convince you because I am just a nut loose on a keyboard...but if you REALLY want to know...I suggest you start there. He did more studies into the effects and patterns of experience into hallucinogenic experiences than anyone else on the planet...ever. There is more to this than the "war on drugs" is willing to let you know...you have to hunt...and I mean bloodhound hard core hunt to find things...but you might just be surprised what the dean of psychiatry and psychology at John Hopkins University recorded in his studies....

It is more than just..."a thing"...

I invite you on a journey Frank...and the Journey starts with studying the research of a man named Stanislov Grof (or Graf as it is sometimes spelled)

I agree with frank. If you require a drug to alter your brain's normal function then the evidences your brain produces are neither "normal" nor reliable. But Shamanism requires no drugs, only the abilty to naturally enter a state of altered consciousness, or to learn how to interconnect with the world/environment /other people in different but natural ways. One can talk wth animals trees etc without the aid of any drug. One can reach into the cosmic consciousness and "meld" minds, without any form of drug and using a perfectly sane, non delusional,a nd very rational mind.These are natural normal albilities for human beings No drugs of any sort required, and not taking drugs ensures they can be observed, recorded and analysed, accurately, dispassionately, and with a clear rational mind..

[Frank Merton]

Shamans use all sorts of ways to alter consciousness besides drugs. I can do so with hypnotic breathing and it is perhaps interesting but not spiritual. When I begin to converse with trees I know things have gone too far.

[Frank Merton]

It is absolutely not. I don't assume anything that's the problem psudoskeptics have. Duplicating something does not invalidate something. It only proves that it can be duplicated. Im going to coin the phrase psudoskeptics.

The folly is you trust your own personal judgement without standards. This is arrogance, and leaves you open to being conned.

[+Liquid Gardens]

For the record I do think this might be a trick, but I think suction is unlikely . The issue here is not the reality of what magola can or cannot do. I first saw this on stan lees superhumans. it features a skeptic that investigates these things, and magola passed his tests. Including scientific ones. I was intrigued. The test seemd real and the results were convincing for the host.

The issue here is that no matter what noone will really consider the possibility that magola may have somehow learned to magnetize his hands. His physiology changed according to stan lees testes. While im skeptical of any television show it seemed like a legitimate effort. Especially in other episodes there was nothing unbelievable. There dosnt seem to be any debunking other than speculation... suction, wet skin...etc etc. It seems that he is legitimately willing to be tested by Randi in public.

If magola was really doing this, no one would believe him. apparently His physiology can change, he makes videos like skeptic always ask, he put talcum powder as on it as Randi requested....there is plenty of powder on it after he wipes off the excess, any an all kind of conjecture has been used. No matter what he does, if it were real, he could not prove it was some sort of ability rather than trickery. Even if he hooks electrodes up to his brain and scientists measure him. Even if he did it a 1000 time people would always cry foul.

This is called psudo skepticism.

But let me guess, you 'for the record' think that it might be a trick but that's because of real skepticism, not that pseudo kind. I'll consider the possibility that he magnetized his hands somehow, that alone is also an incredible claim unless he's had magnetic metal implanted or something, I'll consider that he has telekinesis, which is what I thought he must really have, I thought he could do this with non-magnetic material also but not sure. Regardless, you don't really think that the evidence that has been provided here is very good do you? There's nothing 'pseudo-' about questioning claims provided by television shows and internet videos of all things, jeez.

And of course he could prove he has some sort of ability rather than this being trickery, again, these bias accusations aren't really arguments or evidence. I'm supposed to not notice that for some reason he oddly (i.e., conveniently) actually has to touch what he's going to lift? Magnetism and telekinesis both work at a distance I thought. I'm not supposed to notice that the magnetic people who stick a metal pot to their forehead are always tilting their head back? Let me guess, if they tilt their head forward much more their powers won't be strong enough to stick it there, how incredibly convenient. There are multiple ways these powers could be demonstrated pretty much without question, and I really don't think you should be discussing skepticism, pseudo or otherwise, if you really think any of this evidence is close to that.

[White Crane Feather]

The folly is you trust your own personal judgement without standards. This is arrogance, and leaves you open to being conned.

Actually I I should have said I try not to assume anything. Yes I am an individualist I trust myself before others I am open to being wrong but not just because someone says I am. They better be able to prove it to me. Unlikely, I have never been conned and quit a few in my life have tried. I keep an open mind but make my own decisions. Well maby I did get conned on the mortgage on my first house ... But I was only 27. It won't happen again.

[White Crane Feather]

But let me guess, you 'for the record' think that it might be a trick but that's because of real skepticism, not that pseudo kind. I'll consider the possibility that he magnetized his hands somehow, that alone is also an incredible claim unless he's had magnetic metal implanted or something, I'll consider that he has telekinesis, which is what I thought he must really have, I thought he could do this with non-magnetic material also but not sure. Regardless, you don't really think that the evidence that has been provided here is very good do you? There's nothing 'pseudo-' about questioning claims provided by television shows and internet videos of all things, jeez.

And of course he could prove he has some sort of ability rather than this being trickery, again, these bias accusations aren't really arguments or evidence. I'm supposed to not notice that for some reason he oddly (i.e., conveniently) actually has to touch what he's going to lift? Magnetism and telekinesis both work at a distance I thought. I'm not supposed to notice that the magnetic people who stick a metal pot to their forehead are always tilting their head back? Let me guess, if they tilt their head forward much more their powers won't be strong enough to stick it there, how incredibly convenient. There are multiple ways these powers could be demonstrated pretty much without question, and I really don't think you should be discussing skepticism, pseudo or otherwise, if you really think any of this evidence is close to that.

Yes I think I heard he did it with ceramics. Don't know I didn't see it. The point is LG, if the effect was a real bio electric ability the world would miss out if a bunch of stuffy cynical Randy's mounted a smear campaign against him, and so far it sort of looks like that.

I heard from reading somewhere a while ago that national geographic was planning on doing a documentary on him soon. After the tests performed on him on Stan lees super humans. It could be propaganda on magolas part, but it will be awesome if they do make one.

Edited August 26, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[Whatsinausername]

To say ask if the paranormal itself is fake is far to general. It's a very broad subject.

[fullywired]

.. One can talk wth animals trees etc without the aid of any drug. .

But if you require an answer I recommend a parrot

fullywired

[slaughtr]

Look cut all the phony bs about what is not verifyable. For what I have personally delt with myself as well as hundreds of others you can stuff your notions about paranormal activity as being fake ina stromboli. I don't care who believes or who is skeptical because to me none of you all matter.what does matter is the many families and people who have experienced these phenomina. As I always say there are things science can not explain so to insist there has to be an explanation and proof ?,...it doesn't always fall inline like that. To deny there is no proof is absent minded as hell and really no matter how much proof you present somebody always wants to find an explanation for every damn thing.Honestly if you don't believe stay of the post you do more than infuriate me. If parasychology was fake why study it? Although we know that there are fakes but that's best explained like having a piggy bank full of pennies and out of 1000 pennies ther are 23 fakes or canadian pennies. All in saying skeptics stay skeptic utill it happens to you and folks who believe don't worry about who doesn't because when it's all over they will learn.

[scowl]

Look cut all the phony bs about what is not verifyable. For what I have personally delt with myself as well as hundreds of others you can stuff your notions about paranormal activity as being fake ina stromboli. I don't care who believes or who is skeptical because to me none of you all matter

Then why are you wasting your time here?

[Mikko-kun]

Then why are you wasting your time here?

Same reason as me I believe, because I believe most of you are more capable of holding an unoffensive conversation about this topic than just "proof please". I've been proven wrong on a few accounts on that though. You can always draw your own conclusions about proof and come up with an alternative theory, everyone can conceive alternative possibilities. So I've done my time wasting on these kind of things here, I hope. Just begs the question, why do you waste your time here to try to "educate" us that an one-eyed view is better than giving room for other theories, swinging your proof around as if you didn't understand what I've just said.

[Einsteinium]

Same reason as me I believe, because I believe most of you are more capable of holding an unoffensive conversation about this topic than just "proof please". I've been proven wrong on a few accounts on that though. You can always draw your own conclusions about proof and come up with an alternative theory, everyone can conceive alternative possibilities. So I've done my time wasting on these kind of things here, I hope. Just begs the question, why do you waste your time here to try to "educate" us that an one-eyed view is better than giving room for other theories, swinging your proof around as if you didn't understand what I've just said.

But you do understand that the burden of 'proof' is on those making the claim that the paranormal is real right? The point of people 'explaining' certain paranormal phenomena with rational non paranormal explanations is simply to show that the 'paranormal' event does not HAVE to be paranormal and can be explained with conventional reasoning. Because most paranormal 'events' can be rationally explained it means that those who say the paranormal is real are going to have a pretty hard time explaining with any rationality why they think said event was paranormal in nature. Because the human mind is so easily tricked (pareidolia, optical illusions, etc), not to mention the huge numbers of people suffering from mental illnesses it means that sadly, eyewitness accounts and experience do not count for much in this pursuit of truth. What is required is objective, real, hard, measurable, reproducible, evidence to support it. Something that most paranormal phenomena are very much lacking in- which begs the question- if paranormal phenomena are real then why so little evidence? The evidence for Santa Clause is in some cases more compelling than the evidence for some paranormal phenomena. So why is this?

[Mikko-kun]

Things can be explained rationally because rational is physical and physical is at least almost always one side of things, and seems to be always connected in some level to these things. So it's a given there's a rational explanation to things in most cases.

One thing you sceptics seem to ignore somewhat, or be less sensitive to, is placebo, the power of the mind, willpower, whatever you want to call all that. It all works similiarly to me. When you doubt just because it's fun or "your thing" to doubt instead of doubting because you have a hunch it's wrong or because there's something that you actually think makes it sound wrong instead of your conditioning speaking out, conditioning that paranormal is supposed to be fake and unscientific. I dont believe a sincere doubt with a real reason hurts when you aim to discover the true state of the matter instead of bash other peoples' beliefs, but how often is that the case really? Can you say sceptics have not taken camps and dug moats where they fortify themselves and keep using whatever means necessary to make their point come across?

Sorry for being awfully focused on how it's on a lot of sceptics too, but you need to understand that if you want to explore something like this, I think. Arguments and fights dont have to be bad but when you let your predisposition dominate you on these matters it's hard to exchange things.

....

What you say about human mind being easily tricked and all that is true, I feel the same. And those cases where this seems to be the case, where it seems to be just someone seeking attention or money or something like that, just leave them alone... not worth it. And you're right, paranormal event doesn't have to be paranormal. In fact what is paranormal at the end of the day? Placebo? Something science can't now explain? Nah... that's just things we can't explain yet on the physical level. Parallel levels can exist because physical and what's beyond physical can exist parallel. I believe they do, but if you find something that you think might convince me to change my stance on that belief, I ain't going to keep demanding you for proof but just take what you got and see how far I can question myself. Why can't a lot of you sceptics do the same when we give something?

[+Liquid Gardens]

One thing you sceptics seem to ignore somewhat, or be less sensitive to, is placebo, the power of the mind, willpower, whatever you want to call all that. It all works similiarly to me.

Not at all, as matter of fact one could say it is exactly the power of the mind that in my view has led people to believe with too much certainty in the paranormal. The mind is incredible, it basically assembles and orders and makes sense of our shared reality from a relatively small amount of sensual inputs. There is absolutely no doubt however that the brain is not always 100% perfect at assembling internally what is reality, it does make mistakes, both perceptually and cognitively, and can mislead. Skeptics are not necessarily any more immune to that compared to anyone else, but what a lot of skeptics do recognize is that because the brain and especially the interpretations we make can be prone to error, then our confidence in what we think are the cause of things we experience should be tempered by that, especially for things that we classify as paranormal since they cannot be demonstrated and have other possible more mundane interpretations.

[Mr Walker]

The folly is you trust your own personal judgement without standards. This is arrogance, and leaves you open to being conned.

One MUST be able to trust one's own personal judgement and standards This requires education and understanding /knowledge but is an imperative for an individual to live in any world. Who else's judgements and standards should one live by but ones own ethical, moral, logical and spiritual values? These must be tested against logic, philosophy, and historical/socilogical, and other standards. They mus tbe compared/contrasted and evaluated for comparative benefit and worth to one's self, to one's society and to humanity. But still, ONLY ones own judgements can be relied upon, because one can only be sure of one's own integrity standards etc. Never anothers.

Naturally standards are important, but only one's own standards in any thing should determine the way a person lives.

[Mr Walker]

But if you require an answer I recommend a parrot

fullywired

Not necessarily. The cosmic consciousness can supply logical and responsive dialogue from any source. One can learn a great deal via communing with all forms of nature, and people.

I have even won a few bets on the melbourne cup from tips given by " trees". IMO this is not the tree speaking to me, but a response form the cosmic consciousness, who/which responds using the tree as an avatar.

[Frank Merton]

What I've seen is that largely those who were raised in fundamentalist ("we are right and all who disagree are evil") homes who nevertheless end up not believing retain the fundamentalist attitude, except they turn it back on their origins and end up hating religion.

Those raised in more liberal environments generally aren't as interested in how wrong the believers are and are more tolerant of what they only view as somewhat intellectually behind the times.

[scowl]

Same reason as me I believe, because I believe most of you are more capable of holding an unoffensive conversation about this topic than just "proof please".

Unlike you, the opinions of people here matter to me. There are a lot of smart people here who have different experiences from me that I like reading about.

Just begs the question, why do you waste your time here to try to "educate" us that an one-eyed view is better than giving room for other theories, swinging your proof around as if you didn't understand what I've just said.

Because some people are jumping to conclusions without understanding the evidence.