Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Psychokinesis Videos


meirphase

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

Edit: Any chance you can let me know which is the best article there so I can start from the top? 

I believe I listed it in order from most to least in terms of 'credibility'. Though feel free to read what you please. I doubt you'll change your mind anyway.

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Be grateful. Mercy is a rare commodity, here.:mellow:

It unfortunately is a rare commodity anywhere in the internet world I'm afraid. :mellow:

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps after capturing bid DNA, forced sterilization of him and his progeny can improve the gene pool.

:huh: Okay, once again I'm just reading this out of context, so I would probably know wtf you're talking about if I read previous comments, but just taken out of context, this quote's scary as hell. (Pretty funny too actually :lol:)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing presented as factual should require a belief system in order to be accepted.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The impossible? And he may be the only one? He is indeed an interesting aberration of humanity then, even if the last believer of anything paranormal. His DNA should at least be captured for future science. Perhaps after capturing his DNA, forced sterilization of him and his progeny can improve the gene pool and there should be no future occurrences of this type of aberration. It is a good thing we have identified possibly the last one, Wes.

 

somewhatI

I meant no offense Papa, i truly do respect your unwavering position. I do see it as somewhat magical.

Come what may, through all the critics and what not, you never falter in the quest to contemplate the possibilities of everything.

That kind of will is magical.. And powerful. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

I meant no offense Papa, i truly do respect your unwavering position. I do see it as somewhat magical.

Come what may, through all the critics and what not, you never falter in the quest to contemplate the possibilities of everything.

That kind of will is magical.. And powerful. 

 

I am not claiming magical, just logical analysis. Some people ridicule what they can't understand and that is an intellectual defense mechanism and a just surface avoid  is one conclusion from my logical analysis. They display a false bravado that is obvious to some.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

Thanks! Flipping back and forth to fast to look for it! Going there!! Popcorns ready!!

Don't get too excited, most of it's a bunch of real boring scientific papers and such. :sleepy: You know, the kind of thing skeptics constantly criticize us for not having. :rolleyes: Which we actually do. But of course those aren't valid for x amount of reasons. Whatever...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Don't get too excited, most of it's a bunch of real boring scientific papers and such. :sleepy: You know, the kind of thing skeptics constantly criticize us for not having. :rolleyes: Which we actually do. But of course those aren't valid for x amount of reasons. Whatever...

Dude i am going to be vacant for a while, already skimmed. Much to read. You have done your research! Hats off, not that i wear hats... But you know 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Don't get too excited, most of it's a bunch of real boring scientific papers and such. :sleepy: You know, the kind of thing skeptics constantly criticize us for not having. :rolleyes: Which we actually do. But of course those aren't valid for x amount of reasons. Whatever...

I think I'll start with the telepathic dog! 

Edit: Actually, scratch that. Waaaaaay too many variables. What's a good one with a better controlled experiment?

Edited by Timonthy
Edit.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Don't get too excited, most of it's a bunch of real boring scientific papers and such. :sleepy: You know, the kind of thing skeptics constantly criticize us for not having. :rolleyes: Which we actually do. But of course those aren't valid for x amount of reasons. Whatever...

That's a lot of stuff to go through but I'm giving it a try.  I've got a feeling i'm in for a bumpy ride though. Taking just the second link as an example, it's going to take much reading to get to the meat.  Here are a couple of quotes from the front page:

Quote

 

Random Generators and Living Systems as Targets in Retro-PK Experiments:

The subject succeeded in this task by purposeful PK missing by means of getting mentally and physically tense and then desperately attempting to shorten the tone intervals. (What does this really mean?!)

 

Quote

 

An Experiment With the Alleged Human Aura:

Instructions to the experimental group were to attempt to locate A.G. by auric emanations streaming out from behind the screen where he was hidden. Each session involved 40 trials, and each group completed 18 individual sessions, for a total of 36 sessions overall. Statistical analysis yielded nonsignificant results for both groups combined.

 

Many of the articles are extremely old, 1964, 1976 and 1976 - I'm going to need to see if any later repeat studies where ever conducted for much of this stuff.  The psychic dogs experiment by Sheldrake was well known to me beforehand and the rebuttal from Wiseman.  Seeing as no one else has been able to replicate the test (or simply hasn't tried) then it's inconclusive to me either way.  This might be part of the problem though: 
 

Quote

 

This was exactly the problem that I (and I think Wiseman et al. in the papers provided by Jerome) had with the "experiment". I think there was at most a 4 hour time window with which the owner would return and these were similar every day. This 4hour time window is also shortened by the fact that from the time that she left the house the shortest time that she would return was 85 minutes, and the longest was 220 minutes - so when they left the house, the dog knew that within about 2hours she should be home. From the paper:

Seven of PS absences were in the daytime, at various times in the morning and
afternoon, with PS's times of return ranging from 11:13 AM to 3:36 PM. Twenty-three were in
the evening, with PS returning at a range of times between 7:30 and 10:45 PM.

And given that the increase in the dog's behavior began before she even decided to come home, then the dog clearly was not psychic.

 

I think the video shows one carefully constructed instance where the times matched exactly - my question is why didn't they create a video montage of this happening every time? After all he carried out over 100 tests but only included one piece of video evidence for one of them.  I'm not just trying to debunk here, I really will give the data a good going through but without specifics it's a lot of work!

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aquila King said:

:mellow: I love how people here keep screaming for evidence, then when I post it it's completely ignored...

If you have real evidence, proof, of the paranormal you'd be world famous.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

That's a lot of stuff to go through but I'm giving it a try.  I've got a feeling i'm in for a bumpy ride though. Taking just the second link as an example, it's going to take much reading to get to the meat.  Here are a couple of quotes from the front page:

Many of the articles are extremely old, 1964, 1976 and 1976 - I'm going to need to see if any later repeat studies where ever conducted for much of this stuff.  The psychic dogs experiment by Sheldrake was well known to me beforehand and the rebuttal from Wiseman.  Seeing as no one else has been able to replicate the test (or simply hasn't tried) then it's inconclusive to me either way.  This might be part of the problem though: 
 

I think the video shows one carefully constructed instance where the times matched exactly - my question is why didn't they create a video montage of this happening every time? After all he carried out over 100 tests but only included one piece of video evidence for one of them.  I'm not just trying to debunk here, I really will give the data a good going through but without specifics it's a lot of work!

I realize it's a lot to work with and I apologize for the sheer bulk of it all. My primary aim in posting all of this was to simply show that there is a rather significant amount of evidence in the exact form that skeptics ask for: scientific studies, experiments, and research papers. Now whether they are convincing or not is up to each individual's interpretation. But the consistent claim that "There is no evidence" on the part of skeptics is simply false. By all means they can find personal fault in the results of said evidence, they don't have to be convinced of it, and all the evidence is open to their own Materialist interpretation. But claiming that there is no evidence is simply false. There is, they just personally find the evidence faulty. I don't deny that Materialists have evidence, I merely disagree with their interpretations of it. I simply wish that they could have the common decency to do the same.

9 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If you have real evidence, proof, of the paranormal you'd be world famous.    

Only if there wasn't a consistent effort on the part of dogmatic Materialists to try and shut down and suppress opposing viewpoints.

Click the 'Skeptical About Skeptics' link in my signature to know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw Merc14 (I know this is off-topic but real quick), who's the dude in your avatar with the top hat? :huh: I swear I've seen him before somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Btw Merc14 (I know this is off-topic but real quick), who's the dude in your avatar with the top hat? :huh: I swear I've seen him before somewhere.

Westworld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I realize it's a lot to work with and I apologize for the sheer bulk of it all. My primary aim in posting all of this was to simply show that there is a rather significant amount of evidence in the exact form that skeptics ask for: scientific studies, experiments, and research papers. Now whether they are convincing or not is up to each individual's interpretation. But the consistent claim that "There is no evidence" on the part of skeptics is simply false. By all means they can find personal fault in the results of said evidence, they don't have to be convinced of it, and all the evidence is open to their own Materialist interpretation. But claiming that there is no evidence is simply false. There is, they just personally find the evidence faulty. I don't deny that Materialists have evidence, I merely disagree with their interpretations of it. I simply wish that they could have the common decency to do the same.

Only if there wasn't a consistent effort on the part of dogmatic Materialists to try and shut down and suppress opposing viewpoints.

Click the 'Skeptical About Skeptics' link in my signature to know what I'm talking about.

LMAO.  Asking you for evidence is not suppressing your point of view you silly thing, it is merely asking that you prove what you are showing is real rather than a magic trick and since you can't produce said evidence I will assume it is a trick and you are either a gullible fool for believing it to be real or a fraud who is conning people for either money, acclaim or both.  Which are you Aquila King, the fraud or gullible fool, there is no other choice unless you can produce your proof.  

As for your "materialist" slur (in your world) I think it is ridiculous and more evidence of your fraudulent behavior as it pointedly attacks people for having a rational view of the world.  Slick trick and it probably works on credulous, immature folks.

BTW, NDE is not paranormal it is the brain dying and while many claim life changing experiences there is no evidence of any kind that the paranormal is involved.   Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean it is supernatural.

7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Btw Merc14 (I know this is off-topic but real quick), who's the dude in your avatar with the top hat? :huh: I swear I've seen him before somewhere.

That would be Knucky Thompson of Boardwalk Empire.  

 

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO.  Asking you for evidence is not suppressing your point of view you silly thing, it is merely asking that you prove what you are showing is real rather than a magic trick and since you can't produce said evidence I will assume it is a trick and you are either a gullible fool for believing it to be real or a fraud who is conning people for either money, acclaim or both.  Which are you Aquila King, the fraud or gullible fool, there is no other choice unless you can produce your proof.  

There's absolutely no justifiable reason for arrogant condescension and petty personal insults. Until you can speak to me in a civilized manner I feel no need to respond to you.

58 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

As for your "materialist" slur (in your world) I think it is ridiculous and more evidence of your fraudulent behavior as it pointedly attacks people for having a rational view of the world.  Slick trick and it probably works on credulous, immature folks.

:huh: Is the term 'Materialist' now considered a hateful slur? No seriously, if so I'm in the dark about it and I in absolutely no way intended it as such. I merely meant it as a genuine description to mean: "a philosophical position one takes that asserts that all that exists is the material universe, and that nothing of a spiritual nature exists." At least that's what I considered it anyway. I was once an Atheist and a Materialist myself not too long ago, and I had no problem calling myself one. I believe I remember Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet referring to themselves as Materialists as well, and in both cases they were merely using it as a definitional term.

In any case, I genuinely didn't mean it as a slur, and if you took it that way then I'm sorry.

 

Google's definition of Materialism (I was referring to #2):

ma·te·ri·al·ism
məˈtirēəˌlizəm/  
noun
noun: materialism
  1. 1.
    a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
  2. 2.
    Philosophy
    the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
    • the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

There's absolutely no justifiable reason for arrogant condescension and petty personal insults. Until you can speak to me in a civilized manner I feel no need to respond to you

No worries,I really only want to hear from you about this evidence you keep saying you have, You know the one teh unimaginative, ignorant and stupid materialists are using.

Quote

 

:huh: Is the term 'Materialist' now considered a hateful slur? No seriously, if so I'm in the dark about it and I in absolutely no way intended it as such. I merely meant it as a genuine description to mean: "a philosophical position one takes that asserts that all that exists is the material universe, and that nothing of a spiritual nature exists." At least that's what I considered it anyway.

 

Materialist is only a slur in the way yu use it, see my sentence above.

Quote

 

I was once an Atheist and a Materialist myself not too long ago, and I had no problem calling myself one. I believe I remember Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet referring to themselves as Materialists as well, and in both cases they were merely using it as a definitional term.

In any case, I genuinely didn't mean it as a slur, and if you took it that way then I'm sorry.

 

 A spiritualist is not in the realm of the paranormal, they are two different things.  When one says he believes in the spiritual nature of the universe they are not  also saying that they believe in ghosts, telekinesis, ESP etc.  One can believe in God without believing  in the things papageorge believes are real.  Your combining of the two is both bizarre and suspicious, especially when combined with your utter disdain for "materialists".   Why would you do this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you about using materialism. How it's often used by those of the more spiritual kind to ridicule those who do not share their beliefs. What I see that I believe is going on. Is the difference between materialism and more of a mental perspective. In our minds there is a "world" of infinite possibilities and fantastical things. The root of spirituality is this mental sphere. Of the imagination. People think that dreams predict the future, that they see their actual loved one's who've passed. When people are in altered states of consciousness they perceive the world differently. This does not mean that what they see and/or sense is real. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I told you about using materialism. How it's often used by those of the more spiritual kind to ridicule those who do not share their beliefs. What I see that I believe is going on. Is the difference between materialism and more of a mental perspective. In our minds there is a "world" of infinite possibilities and fantastical things. The root of spirituality is this mental sphere. Of the imagination. People think that dreams predict the future, that they see their actual loved one's who've passed. When people are in altered states of consciousness they perceive the world differently. This does not mean that what they see and/or sense is real. 

Yes and thanks for that but he seems to be combing that stuff with the paranormal stuff that papageorge preaches, is that common because my thought is Aquila  is justifying his paranormal beliefs by including them with his spirituality.  Spirituality is not paranormal in my book but maybe I am misreading him yet why thump papageorge on the back for his lunacy unless you believe it yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Merc14 said:

Yes and thanks for that but he seems to be combing that stuff with the paranormal stuff that papageorge preaches, is that common because my thought is Aquila  is justifying his paranormal beliefs by including them with his spirituality.  Spirituality is not paranormal in my book but maybe I am misreading him yet why thump papageorge on the back for his lunacy unless you believe it yourself?

Actually I was writing my comment up and then you posted before I got finished. Spirituality does tend to lead people into believing more paranormal things, but I do agree they do not by default go hand in hand. The way I see it is that people believe what they want to believe because it satisfies some missing aspect of their lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.