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 -

Possible Evidence


Astrocreep

Recommended Posts

Matt -

At this point in time a couple of us have talked in IM and realized that we need to give you a fair chance - but one that also does not comprimise the need for credibility.

So we came up with this:

A.) The Pin Wheel test must be done in a school science room, lab, dept.

B.) From the Sci -vs- Psi thread - Post 88 & 89 must be printed unedited and given to the science teacher.

C.) A science teacher or more must be present at the time of the demo.

D.) The teachers must supply:

........... Their full name.

........... The school they teach at.

........... The state and cilty of the schools location.

........... A few witnesses also present.

E.) You must have the camera set so that everything is fully seen.

F.) You must tell before the Pin Wheel spins exactly what direction it will spin: CCW (counter clock wise) or CW (clock wise) - And the Pin Wheel must do it.

This must be specific and not just 'random' - Random leaves open the obvious chance that science was at play.

The problem with personally produced no witnesses leaves it open to being "fixed" - "hoaxed" - "tampered with. Sorry if this offendes you but - you must understand extreme claims must be met with extreme evidence.

As already previously stated - there simply is to much 'chance' of to many things that could be done. I am sorry if you do not like it, but look it from this point - How many video's are on the internet that show obvious science at play being scammed off as psi! Look also at how many videos are out there showing how easily it is to be hoaxed or shown to be an illusion. This sad but true has to be addressed.

Now understand as I have stated only to clearly - I am not out to disprove PSI. Just the oposite - I would actually like to see more Psi be actually proven. But the PIN WHEEL is a chosen object that just has way too many hurdles that have to be jumped. THIS IS ALSO NOT MY FAULT! I just accept the reality of it - as must anyone that chooses to use this medium to prove Psi.

Respectfully - Jj.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jjbreen

    70

  • mattman

    45

  • ShaunZero

    18

  • drakonwick

    13

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

A.) The Pin Wheel test must be done in a school science room, lab, dept.

B.) From the Sci -vs- Psi thread - Post 88 & 89 must be printed unedited and given to the science teacher.

C.) A science teacher or more must be present at the time of the demo.

D.) The teachers must supply:

........... Their full name.

........... The school they teach at.

........... The state and cilty of the schools location.

........... A few witnesses also present.

E.) You must have the camera set so that everything is fully seen.

F.) You must tell before the Pin Wheel spins exactly what direction it will spin: CCW (counter clock wise) or CW (clock wise) - And the Pin Wheel must do it.

This must be specific and not just 'random' - Random leaves open the obvious chance that science was at play.

I myself do not feel that any of these people on here claiming to have these powers will be able to pull this off without some sort of science being involved.

Edited by Silentom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAUNTED BY OURSELVES

There is the apparent mystery of ghosts, apparitions and poltergeists, but are they really so mysterious? On the Isle of Wight where I live in England there are ghost stories galore of people who claim to have seen figures who come and go wearing the clothes of other centuries. There can be many reasons for this. It could be a formerly incarnate mind that is so attached to that experience-that illusion-that it continues to 'live it' even after its body hologram has 'died'. It manifest another illusory body through residual self-image, just as those who have had near-death and out-of-body experiences report doing. These substitute 'bodies' are much less dense than the five-sense hologram and appear, disappear, and move around in a way that seems impossible to a five-sense observer. But the observer is seeing another level of reality and possibility. Other ghosts and the sights and sounds of ancient battles that people say they have seen and heard can also be the memory of the battle, the recording if you like, imprinted as a thought form in the energy field.

Poltergeist activity has been widely reported as families being terrified by some force that moves objects, turns on taps, switches electrical equipment on and off, and sometimes hurlsthings around the room. But is this really, or always, an 'evil spirit' at work? Many common themes have been identified in poltergeist activity that have led researchers to believe the 'culprit' is the mind or minds of those being 'haunted'. Often activity is connected to teenagers, especially girls, going through a period of emotional stress. The external phenomenon is a hologrpahic mirror of what is going on with the person emotionally. Everything is connected to everything else because everything is everything. This appliesto apparently 'dead' objects like cups, lamps and ash trays. They are really vibrational fields and at that level they can be moved by other vobrational influences-the minds of people. In turn these vibrational fields are tunred into 3-D holographic 'reality' by being observed. The minds of people, say a teenage girl, unknowingly interact with the 'inanimate' objects on the level of the frequency fields as they express their emotional state at that subconscious level of reality. But they consciously 'see' the result of this at their conscious level of reality-the five senses-with the objects moving and flying about the room. Understandably they scream in terror, but they are doing it themselves!!! When they calm themsevles emotionally, their five-sense reality calms down and the 'poltergeist' moves on!

There is an important point to stress here. I have just described how the subconscious level of the girl imprints a vibrational field wit her thoughts and emotions(reality) and her conscious five-sense level observes that field into holographic illusion. This is the process by which we all constantly create our own reality. Just as the teenage girl doesn;t realize in her conscious awareness that she is creating the poltergeist activity with her subconscious mind, people in general don't realize that their observed reality-their 'lives'- are only a mirror of their subconscious reality.

Book: Tales from the timeloop.

Author: David Icke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an important point to stress here. I have just described how the subconscious level of the girl imprints a vibrational field wit her thoughts and emotions(reality) and her conscious five-sense level observes that field into holographic illusion. This is the process by which we all constantly create our own reality. Just as the teenage girl doesn;t realize in her conscious awareness that she is creating the poltergeist activity with her subconscious mind, people in general don't realize that their observed reality-their 'lives'- are only a mirror of their subconscious reality.
Yes and i feel this was shown very accurately in the movie "An American Haunting"

But what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about on this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Well I think it’s clear that I’m not the only one making claims about what’s going on in the video. Given this, the burden of proof is not solely on me. However, I have provided two videos so far, one of the actual phenomenon and one exploring the effects of convection currents on both covered and uncovered pin wheels (complete with thermometers and such). I’m still waiting on the videos of those who have made claims contradictory to my own, so you are right about one thing…

But if your serious about this and you are moving it with your mind then you might wanna figure out how your doing it. I think your just BSing. And if you want people to take you serious than aproach it seriously.

That’s what I’ve been trying to do, but like I said before, I can't go back in time and make that first video better. Surely you can understand the utter futility in making retrospective criticisms the backbone of your argument. Instead, id suggest that we focus more on the next video I will be making so all of this can be, at least somewhat, fruitful and not simply one big pointless argument about wouda-coulda-shoulda’s.

Number 1 you did, the question being can you use your mind to move objects. A better non-objective one would be, what is moving the PSI Wheel

1 - Pass

I agree.

Number 2 you said you didnt even know what PSI was you just used the term. But you did gather the resources. But 50% is still failing.

2 - Failed

Look, I’m not pretending to know how exactly that wheel is moving, but I think it’s obvious that something unusual is going on, and that something is, as of now, a phenomenon that is still very much shrouded in mystery. I called it PSI and TK (I should stick with tk) because that seems to our best bet in assuming what is going on. If you wish to know why, it’s because all other conventional explanations have been accounted for and debunked as being the cause of the movement (which will be evident in my next video). I don’t see how me fabricating some theory (that I know is just pure speculation, no less) is going to make that phenomena any more or less credible than it already is. But if you really think it will help, I’m sure I could make something up...

Number 3 maybe I skiped it but I never read how you think it works.

3 - Failed

Again, if you want me to guess I can do that, but I think it’s clear that that will not make these findings any more or less credible than they already are. As of now, the only thing I really know is that conventional explanations fall short of being able to explain what’s happening. So what would you do in my situation, lie about knowing what’s going on? I think its TK, and I do so because that is the only thing that is making any sense as of now. But if you are asking me how exactly TK works, well I just don’t know. Regardless, me not knowing the specific dynamics of TK doesn’t mean it can’t be TK. Surely you can understand why. After all, that didn’t stop sceintists when it came to the theory of gravity...

Number 4 You didnt do any measurements, do you even know how much force is needed to move "your" wheel? Did you measure air tempature or any other factors?

4 - Failed

At the time I didn’t think it was necessary to go to those lengths, but after I discovered this was a concern, I made a second video that clearly shows the effects and shortcomings of convection currents when it comes to pin wheels (thermometers and all). All I can really do is take these new concerns into account when making my next video because I can’t go back in time and make the first video better.

Number 5 again no data to rule out contamination of said experiment.

5 - Failed

I analyzed data in the sense that I ruled out the possibilities of convection currents and stray air currents being the cause of the phenomenon. Of course, I will rule out more in the next video, but that is going to take some patience on your part.

Number 6 again no data.

6 – Failed

There is data in my second video, relevant data that you have yet to acknowledge.

Number 7 This one you did.

7 – Pass

Yep.

If your trying to prove PSI as a scientific fact then approach it like a scientist. If your not than whats the point of showing a video of a Pin Wheel moving.

The point of the video is to show this phenomenon, whether it is actually telekinesis or some other unknown phenomenon I have mistaken for telekinesis. Besides I never claimed this phenomenon to be supernatural, so I enough with the “I think its science making the wheel move” speech. Any natural phenomena could be said to be the work of science, and I have freely admitted that I thought this phenomenon to be a natural, though “undiscovered”, phenomenon. What I’m trying to say is that perhaps the science involved in TK is a science we have yet to understand (perhaps it has something to do with quantum physics or the zero-point energy field).

And I have been trying to approach this like a scientists, I just didn’t realize the lengths I would have to go to for a video that is otherwise intrinsically unable to actually prove anything. So what is the point of me doing half of the crap you all have asked me to do when, in the end, it can never be the caliber of evidence you all are demanding? No video is ever going to be good enough evidence, even the one Jj has suggests I make, because no matter what lengths I go to, there is always going to be too many things that could be going one behind the scenes. Even I know this, so why is it none of you seem to realize how pointless it is for me to go to these extreme lengths in making this overly complex video that will still not be good enough?

I’m beginning to wonder why I should even bother with Jj’s suggestions. Sure, some of them are good (and I will be doing those), but some are simply over-the-top, and in the end, would only make the video cluttered with unnecessary junk. If you think this is a hoax, what’s stopping me from getting a fake scientist to “verify” my video, or paying a real scientist to lie? Does that sound unfeasible? Its not, but we are already so far removed from likelihood that there is no longer a distinction between what is possible and what is probable.

I’m going to make a video that demonstrates this phenomenon and the best I can hope for is for people to think “well yes, it’s possible this video could be a hoax, but given what the video shows, it’s also possible that it’s genuine.” And I don’t need to take absurd precautions in order to make a video that can do this, so anything above and beyond what is required to do that is superfluous. I just want a video so well done that it would take a high improbability for it to have been a hoax. That’s the best I can do given the inherent limitations of a video. It’d be foolish to expect more than that from me, so don’t.

Are we clear? You know, I said all of this in my introduction on youtube. This video not intended to be taken as infallible proof of TK. It’s simply a documentation of this phenomenon, one that attempts to remove as much possibility of “foul play” as possible, because I already know it’s impossible to remove it all possibility of foul play. If you haven realized this yet, now you have… so I hope that will lighten the mood a bit.

I’m not trying to make history here, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... That link caused my computer to freeze up!

Maybe it was just a problem on my end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Does anyone still remember me, or the promise i had made 5 months ago? I promised you all a video that would fly in the face of the criticisms that my first video invoked. Im not one to dissapoint, that is unless you were hoping I would never actually follow through with my promise.

I did. And now I going to expect nothing less of you than I have expected of myself this past year. Your going to have to step up your game, because like I said before, this video isnt going to be so easy to BS your way through. This time your flawed reasoning going to stick out like a sore thumb, and everyone is going to see just how full of it some of you skeptics are.

-mattman

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thing is exactly which of the lettered rules that Jj outlined above does your post and this video actually contain? Ok so you got F. Not really impressive all in all given how important the other letters really are to your proof claim.

A. The video was done somewhere that does not appear to be a science room or lab. Looks like somewhere in your house. This is an area you have total control over and is not a good choice for the are to conduct the tests. You could liken this to all those great new inventions that seem to defy "conventional" physics and promise to rid the world of its oil dependency but just don't seem to work outside of the inventors garage unfortunately. Amazing how that works isn't it?

B,C & D. No science teacher. No credible witness. Just you and only you on screen. Having a legitimate science teacher there was the most important of all the rules that you were provided. Can you grasp how vital it was that you did this? How incredibly important it was to a have a learned, credible and verifiable witness to this demonstration? Without this it doest really matter what your video shows.

E. This one was also high on the "I should really do this to make sure my proof holds up" list of things to do. Do you realize that your left hand is never visible any time the paper spins? Maybe thats nothing but you are inviting to much doubt into this discussion thanks to that. Also having everything including you always in view of the camera makes sure no trickery or editing is involved. Its been a long day, I'm a little tired and I'm certainly to video editing expert but does anyone else see the way this video "jumps" in certain places? Mind you this could be just what happens to videos updated to Youtube. I dont know but it does invite so much doubt into this. If you where on screen all the time these little jumps wouldn't mean a thing but when they happen with just the setup and the floor on screen its a little suspicious to me. Again maybe Im way off base and hopefully someone can chime in that has more experience picking apart videos. Lastly here not having the entire scene in view just hurts your cause. Something could be just off camera that is causing the paper to spin. There might be nothing there but once again you invite so much doubt in when something could be hiding just less than two feet away from the bowl.

F. You got this one and you got the paper spinning pretty fast. I think its the fastest I've ever seen. I suppose that is a pretty good feat all in all and calling out the direction it will turn sure helps things. I think this is the first video I've seen where someone actually does this. Again this is the only one you got though. One of six is not a passing grade here. No matter how well this one was done the failure to do the others correctly(or at all) over shadows this one.

Sorry if I sound a little harsh here but if you spent the last five months trying to produce a video that "flys in the face of criticism" and this is the result, you have failed miserably and wasted 5 months of your life. The only thing thats going to stick out like a sore thumb is your total and utter disregard for some simple rules. Rules that where given to you and anyone else for that matter to make sure the next video of supposed proof would be something worth watching. This video is not worth the time to watch. Other than being unique in that the paper is spinning pretty fast there is nothing special going on here. Sure your hands are "far" from the bowl. Sure it spins on command and in the direction you wish it to. Sure it spins fast as fast can be. Failure to obey the simple rules makes these points moot. Trickery, rigging, fakery, illusion. These all come into play now. This video is proof of nothing and can be easily discredited given these possibilities.

Do I know what is acting on the paper and making it spin? Nope not right now. Let me think on it and get back to you. I have a few ideas but I need to reason them out before I present them. Do I think its Psi? Not right now thanks to the doubt you yourself invited in.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ima make a videop identical to that exept with boiling cups of water nearby instead of hands, and see if the heat theory for something like this is accurate--how far away would you say the hands were, 4 inches?

Great idea since everyone knows hands are as hot as boiling water.

It took me awhile to go back and read through 9 pages of posts. The second video you did was great. It shows that the psiwheel isn't affected by heat or magnets. The psiwheel does go in both directions and stops before doing so. I don't think any of your debunkers can do this. I do say the proof is on them.

Edited by ChrisV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wrote this long post addressing kevins concerns point by point, but I know where its heading...and its only going to be a waste of time and energy, not only on my part, but most likely on others' part as well. So im editing it (which is all the more painful because it was pretty good). Heres what it boils down to. I know there are things in my video that 'invite doubt'. Hell it invites doubt simply because its a video. Nevertheless, I have to work within the boundaries of the medium, which contrary to kenvin's post, I did well enough to refute every theory that was used against me in the first video (magnetism, heat, air, etc). But I can only do so much, and there is a point when trying to do more than that is simply superfluous, and even counter productive to the video.

My point is this, despite the "potential" of foul play my video, or any video allows, this video is still showing us something that would be foolish to ignore simply because it has the "potential" of being a hoax. Anything has the potential of being a hoax, even your parents actually being your real parents (just an example haha).

The fact remains, given what the video shows, and doesnt show, how do you explain what happened regardless?

anyone?

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wrote this long post addressing kevins concerns point by point, but I know where its heading...and its only going to be a waste of time and energy, not only on my part, but most likely on others' part as well. So im editing it (which is all the more painful because it was pretty good). Heres what it boils down to. I know there are things in my video that 'invite doubt'. Hell it invites doubt simply because its a video. Nevertheless, I have to work within the boundaries of the medium, which contrary to kenvin's post, I did well enough to refute every theory that was used against me in the first video (magnetism, heat, air, etc). But I can only do so much, and there is a point when trying to do more than that is simply superfluous, and even counter productive to the video.

My point is this, despite the "potential" of foul play my video, or any video allows, this video is still showing us something that would be foolish to ignore simply because it has the "potential" of being a hoax. Anything has the potential of being a hoax, even your parents actually being your real parents (just an example haha).

The fact remains, given what the video shows, and doesnt show, how do you explain what happened regardless?

anyone?

Hello Mattman, this coming from a hardened skeptic of most things paranormal.. I very much agree with you here. You have debunked all the previous arguments brought against you. And you have obviously spent a lot of time researching and explaining to the best of your ability how it works and how it does not. As for me, I'll remain neutral for now. It's very amazing for sure, but of course there are very surprising ways to fake things like this (If we're looking for an example, you could be using a trick table with small holes that blow air or release heated air. It sounds extravagant, but with so many people attempting to fake things like these, you never can truly tell without a certified test). I think all I can say is that if you are genuine, PLEASE do not lose sight of eventually taking up the JREF challenge. That will be proof beyond any argument. And also thank you for attempting to professionally and reasonably handle arguments and queries. When looking into metaphysics, you end up in a sea of false and exaggerated claims, faked videos and pictures, and so on. It's nice to see someone putting forth an effort to remove all reasonable doubt. Again, if you really can do this, the only real thing left to get to a point where nobody can argue, is a test under laboratory conditions, or, even better; claiming the JREF prize.

In my opinion, if there's anything short of that that you can do to debunk more possible arguments, I would say use styrofoam packing peanuts (or another extremely light material) inside and outside of the bowl, and show the full room, and have an unbiased observer.

(One little thing I found interesting, in your first video, you held your hands flat, unlike most people who make "TK" videos. This is also the way Nina Kulagina, the famed Russian practitioner of telekinesis (I don't believe she has been debunked yet?), held her hands when demonstrating telekinesis.)

Edited by KBA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KBA, I don't think I can tell you how much I appreciate your intellegent, yet mature attitude towards all of this. It is people like kevin and Jj who make me wonder why I even make these videos, but its people like you who remind me of what im really trying to do. There is no satisfying some skeptics, nevertheless I do this to reach those skleptics who are somewhat level headed, which you clearly seem to be. I never intended to "convince" people that psychokinesis is a legitimate phenomenon with these videos, I only wanted to make a video that would force the skeptics to question and possibly revaluate their preconceptions of pk. Honestly, all I could hope for was the skeptics who would otherwise hold a negative stance to all of this (by default, it often seems) would, in turn, hold a neutral one. This is what i meant when i said "I’m going to make a video that demonstrates this phenomenon and the best I can hope for is for people to think 'well yes, it’s possible this video could be a hoax, but given what the video shows, it’s also possible that it’s genuine.'”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think it’s clear that I’m not the only one making claims about what’s going on in the video. Given this, the burden of proof is not solely on me.

I agree with you here. If I say that I can levitate, it is on me to bring forth evidence of my claim. However, if a skeptic comes along and suggests a theory as to how I do it, he must now bring forth evidence to solidify his claim(Theory). In other words, a skeptic can't just pop in and say "This is how you do it: sdsds", and that's that. He'd now need to put forth evidence.

What the skeptic can do without needing to bring forth evidence, is to just simply say "This video is inconclusive, because there are still possabilities of a hoax".

Well I think it’s clear that I’m not the only one making claims about what’s going on in the video. Given this, the burden of proof is not solely on me.

I agree with you here. If I say that I can levitate, it is on me to bring forth evidence of my claim. However, if a skeptic comes along and suggests a theory as to how I do it, he must now bring forth evidence to solidify his claim(Theory). In other words, a skeptic can't just pop in and say "This is how you do it: sdsds", and that's that. He'd now need to put forth evidence.

What the skeptic can do without needing to bring forth evidence, is to just simply say "This video is inconclusive, because there are still possabilities of a hoax".

The video was done somewhere that does not appear to be a science room or lab.

So? It MUST be done in a science lab to be valid? There's some "power" stopping the phenomena from happening elsewhere?

Amazing how that works isn't it?

So, you won't take anything from an average person, simply because they don't have access to a science lab?

How incredibly important it was to a have a learned, credible and verifiable witness to this demonstration?

Oh wait.. I thought witnesses meant nothing in the scientific world. Hell, at least it seems that way from listening to a few scientists comment on Ghosts and UFOs..

I dont know but it does invite so much doubt into this.

Doubt is basically the same thing as belief. It's a hunch...

Let me note: I also believe he could have done better, but nothing annoys me more than people who discredit things for what I see as bogus reasons.

Edited by Zero of Deism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record: I've just watched the second video and it's pretty damn impressive. If this is a trick, it's a damn good one. No one here so far, has convinced me that they have found the correct theory to explain this "trick". Besides, they have no proof of their theory. The video is what it is(An impressive video) untill someone can prove the contrary.

EDIT: Just realized that the guy I quoted above in my last post(Sorry for double posting) was referring to the first video. The second video blows everything he said out of the water. The hair dryer obviously blows his "Air Flow" theory right out of the water. It also blows any "heat" theory out of the water. Hair Dryers get pretty damn hot.

The ONLY thing that could explain this would be a control in his left hand pressing a switch, making the little "clear thingy" inside spin. Other than that, I'm in awe. There'd have to be a microscopic "engine" to make it turn mechanically.

I give you props on this video, man. Great job. You even have me in awe, a person who usually thinks it's kids believing they can move things with their minds because they want to feel "special".

Edited by Zero of Deism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you zero of deism. Im not so sure Kevin A was talking about the first video. In fact, he makes reference to things that happened in and only in the second video, such as the wheel spinning in both directions, my hand being out of the camera frame, etc. If he were talking about my fist video, I'd understand why he was as critical as he was seeing as it wasnt that great of a video.

Nevertheless, I do believe he was talking about this new video, and despite the lame appology he offered me for being harsh(which had no other purpose but to excuse, and in turn, allow his "harsh" attitude to be exempt from counter-criticism), he has yet to say anything more than "This video is clearly a hoax, of this im sure...but for reasons im not actually aware of" which seems to say much more about his unchecked bias than it does of my video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let me begin with saying that yes my comments earlier are in reference to your second video. I thought that would be clear enough but perhaps not.

I will admit I misunderstood the purpose of your second video. I thought you had meant to create a video that would blow all/any doubt out of the water and present it in such a way no one could doubt it. "Your going to have to step up your game, because like I said before, this video isn't going to be so easy to BS your way through. This time your flawed reasoning going to stick out like a sore thumb, and everyone is going to see just how full of it some of you skeptics are." I think the arrogance I perceived here is what did it and made me respond the way I did. I'm sure it wasn't meant to come across the way it do to me. But really "we skeptics" don't have to step up our game. Your video still lacks the correct substance to keep "us" from picking it apart and presenting logical possibilities. "We" haven't BSed our way through anything as far as I can tell. "We" have provided sound scientific principles that explain your first video and others like it. Thats not BS I don't think. Flawed reasoning? Full of it? I don't think so.

"Nevertheless, I have to work within the boundaries of the medium, which contrary to kenvin's post, I did well enough to refute every theory that was used against me in the first video (magnetism, heat, air, etc)." Actually I think you missed my point. Maybe I did not explain it well enough. Your second video refutes the ideas that heat/magnetism/airflow from you being so close to the paper wheel is what is causing the movement(more or less). Your second video does not refute the idea that heat/magnetism/airflow is what is causing the paper to turn. Your video shows that your body and hand(singular) is not close to the wheel. Other than this there is nothing all that special about the video as I previously said. What is your left hand doing? The video could be stopped and edited since there are several shots with just the table setup and floor in the shot. We don't actually see you speaking so perhaps the video was edited. All the things I outlined. The space between your hand and the wheel is the only thing different from previous videos with paper wheels moving. You also controlled the direction and speed(somewhat) of the wheel and I am not dismissing this. Given the possibility that this was faked makes the wheels direction and speed moot. I'm hoping I am consigns across clear enough.

You stepped back and made a video showing a different way to spin the wheel, control its direction and speed. Everyday people more or less try and make videos that will not appear to be faked/edited to the viewers. Hollywood shows this constantly. You made a video trying to show that the basic arguments presented by skeptics here are all off base and the said video has not been "faked" in any way. Correct? Am I wrong in this understanding? You took the basic arguments of the skeptics word for word and made a video that proves them wrong. The problem is you did not create a video that refutes that ideas themselves. For example. "Heat from your hands cause the wheel to spin". "See? My hands aren't any where near the wheel. There is no heat source close to the wheel under glass setup". Does anyone other than me see the problem here? You proved that heat from your hands/body probably isn't moving the paper but you have not shown that no heat source at all is causing the paper to move. See my point? A specific argument using a broad scientific principle and a response refuting the specific argument and not the scientific principle. This is entirely my point.

"My point is this, despite the "potential" of foul play my video, or any video allows, this video is still showing us something that would be foolish to ignore simply because it has the "potential" of being a hoax. Anything has the potential of being a hoax, even your parents actually being your real parents (just an example haha)." I disagree. I believe this video is showing something that would be foolish to believe is paranormal given the way it was presented and what is shown. My point is this, despite the "potential" of something paranormal going on in the video, or any psi video, this video is still showing us something that would be foolish to completely believe is psi related just because it has the "potential" to be paranormal. Is my point clear enough yet?

Maybe my point has been clear since the beginning and yet I'm still accused of being wrong. Ok maybe. Prove it(and we get right back to that old argument again. Round and round we go). Sorry I had to go there just because. Have I been harsh? Perhaps but I don't think all that much and not without specific reason.

The biggest point against me so far is I have presented no idea of what is actually turning the paper or what is going on in the video. Let me try and do something about this. First off the idea that the hair dryer is showing us that heat and airflow from outside the bowl is not responsible for the papers movement. It does prove that at the time the hairdryer was used no air from the outside could easily get into the contained area. But some hair dryers do have a no heat just blow air option. How are to know the hair dryer wasn't on this setting? How do we know it wasn't just blowing room temp air and not heated air onto the glass bowl? I don't know this is just a thought to me. Your other video shows a thermometer but this one doesn't. There is a chance here to me. Mind you this would be you trying to show it wont spin while stacking the odds in your favor. Are you doing this? I don't know really. Again theres a chance. Another thought here. The video is faked. Its been cleverly edited taking out what is moving the paper. Again there is a chance like I explained before. The video could be stopped when only the table and floor were in view. I see some jumps in the video that make me suspicious though I'm asking someone that knows more than I to tell me what I'm seeing is not from editing. We do not see you speaking. It could all be edited and faked. Next up we don't see your left hand and only when your hand is not seen does the paper move. Suspicious? Damn straight. Could you be toggling a switch that is just off camera? You you be turning on and off perhaps a radiant heat soruce? Could you be flipping a switch controlling something that was placed under the table and edited out? Could the cord be running up the front leg of the table? If you want something more specific than this and what me to make a video to prove what I think is going on here you're going to be waiting a while and I'm not sure I will devote the time to actually do either. Is that my fault? Am I in error here? I think not.

Mattman you are a believer. You're right there with many other believers. I cant touch you. I cant convince you. Its a belief. Call it a matter of faith and I cant touch that. Any argument becomes an automatic tie. Neither side consenting defeat shall we say. How can you argue with a stance like that? I will end by saying this. Mattman I hope you go on to win Randis million dollars. Prove us all wrong. Show us all that we aren't simple, boring, average non super power possessing creatures living out a rather bland lives. Show us that we can go beyond our every day normal senses and abilities. Prove us all wrong. Please? If this video is really showing an ability you have learned go on the local news. Contact Randi. Contact and talk show host. Contact you local college. Prove us all wrong by going beyond a video posted on Youtube. If true you have the opportunity to turn the world on its head and open up doors we never knew existed. For the sake and benefit of humanity itself go beyond posting a video on the internet.

Oh and based on what I've read on these forums being mentioned in your post along with the likes of Jj I will take as a compliment. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Wondering if Im posting in vain. I remain,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your second video does not refute the idea that heat/magnetism/airflow is what is causing the paper to turn.

What more do you want?! He put a hair dryer blowing right on it. That shows that heat, NOR air will cause it to spin. He put a magnet all around the object, hence proving a magnet would not move it.

What is your left hand doing?

Instead of speculating, how about you tell us what his hand was doing? There were no "motors" or anything mechanical near the wheel, so even a "switch" would not work.

The video could be stopped and edited

Again, speculation. I could say the moon landing video was edited, but if I can't prove it was, I can't use it as a valid theory.

The space between your hand and the wheel is the only thing different from previous videos with paper wheels moving.

I don't think he used a hair dryer and magnet in the last video....

You proved that heat from your hands/body probably isn't moving the paper but you have not shown that no heat source at all is causing the paper to move.

Did you even watch the video? Heat would not have moved it if the heat from the hair dryer didn't even get it to budge! What more do you want?! A thermal friggin image of the surroundings, with a magnet hanging from the ceiling right above it, and a hair dryer placed on a chair blowing straight on it?!

Edited by Zero of Deism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit I misunderstood the purpose of your second video. I thought you had meant to create a video that would blow all/any doubt out of the water and present it in such a way no one could doubt it. "Your going to have to step up your game, because like I said before, this video isn't going to be so easy to BS your way through. This time your flawed reasoning going to stick out like a sore thumb, and everyone is going to see just how full of it some of you skeptics are." I think the arrogance I perceived here is what did it and made me respond the way I did.

yeah, I admit I was a bit arrogant i suppose. But given ive been on the receiveing end of bs pseudo-scientific garbage from people who have so little *actual* scientific understanding that they are unable to understand how full of it they really are, and that after a year of this nonsense, I finally have a video that refutes that which had been perverted and used against me...is it really that hard to understand the attitude I have developed about all of this? btw, I do the same thing when someone sounds arrogant, so i guess i cant be that mad lol.

But really "we skeptics" don't have to step up our game. Your video still lacks the correct substance to keep "us" from picking it apart and presenting logical possibilities. "We" haven't BSed our way through anything as far as I can tell. "We" have provided sound scientific principles that explain your first video and others like it. Thats not BS I don't think. Flawed reasoning? Full of it? I don't think so.

Actually "you skeptics" are going to have to step up your game, that is unless you have no intention on critiquing this video. Remeber when someone said "the burden of proof is on the person making the claims"? At the time, that person was referring to me, but its relevence applies to anyone whos making claims, skeptics included. Which means that, should you assert a claim about my video, even one as general as "its fake" you sir are responcible for backing up that assertion with some sort of evidence (specific references to the video) and perhaps even a filmed demonstartion (when it comes to asserting a scientific principle). Naturally, you would have to recreate similar conditions for a theory to be "proven". For example, you would have to use a heat source from a certain distance away to spin a covered pin wheel in both directions, at two different speeds. See what i mean?

Your second video does not refute the idea that heat/magnetism/airflow is what is causing the paper to turn. Your video shows that your body and hand(singular) is not close to the wheel. Other than this there is nothing all that special about the video as I previously said. What is your left hand doing? The video could be stopped and edited since there are several shots with just the table setup and floor in the shot. We don't actually see you speaking so perhaps the video was edited. All the things I outlined. The space between your hand and the wheel is the only thing different from previous videos with paper wheels moving. You also controlled the direction and speed(somewhat) of the wheel and I am not dismissing this. Given the possibility that this was faked makes the wheels direction and speed moot. I'm hoping I am consigns across clear enough.

Nothing special about the video... as in nothing different from my first (and other) tk videos? Here are a list of things i did differently than my first video: I show under and around the table the setup is on; I do a heat, magnet, and air check to show that the bowl is preventing outside influences on the wheel; I spin the wheel on both directions, in two drastically different speeds; the closest part of my body is 24 inches away from the table; I also narrate what im was giong to do before I actually did it. I will explain how these simple differences you make a habit of overlooking will actually refute most, if not all of your recent "possibilities" of my video being a hoax.

You stepped back and made a video showing a different way to spin the wheel, control its direction and speed. Everyday people more or less try and make videos that will not appear to be faked/edited to the viewers. Hollywood shows this constantly. You made a video trying to show that the basic arguments presented by skeptics here are all off base and the said video has not been "faked" in any way. Correct? Am I wrong in this understanding? You took the basic arguments of the skeptics word for word and made a video that proves them wrong.

I made this video to show that the argument used against me in the past were not applicable to this phenomenon, which my first video wasn't able to do for obvious reasons.

The problem is you did not create a video that refutes that ideas themselves. For example. "Heat from your hands cause the wheel to spin". "See? My hands aren't any where near the wheel. There is no heat source close to the wheel under glass setup". Does anyone other than me see the problem here? You proved that heat from your hands/body probably isn't moving the paper but you have not shown that no heat source at all is causing the paper to move. See my point? A specific argument using a broad scientific principle and a response refuting the specific argument and not the scientific principle. This is entirely my point.

Well, considering that a large number of people said, specifically, that the heat *from my hands* was what was causing the movement of the wheel in my first video, I actually have disporved that specific theory. I can not, and need not, disprove the notion that heat rises or that heat can cause convection currents because that is a valid notion. However, what people dont do (which is a critical error on their part) is to apply these scientific principles to the specific situatuion. Most of the time they say "convection currents" but they do not explain how convection currents could have been used in the specific video. Lets take my new video for example. Where is the heat comming from? How does the wheel start and stop moving so abruptly when using heat would take a significant amount of time to move the wheel, not to mention that, in order to stop the wheel's movement, that heat would have to suddenly and magically dissappear? And also, even still, that falls very short of explaining how exacly the wheel is able to move in two different directions, and at two different speeds. And if you really want me to get specific, eventhough its not in this video, i have already shown that 140 degree heat from an external source is not enough to get the wheel to twitch, from only an inch or two away noless. How much heat do you think i would need to get the wheel to move as fast as it did from at least a few feet out...1000 degrees, 2000 degrees of hot air being blasted directly at the wheel?? In my convection current video, the wheel doesnt even spin as fast as, or in the same manner, as in my new video...and i was using an open flame directly underneith the setup, and it wasnt even covered with anything. You put all that together, and what you are implying is that i was somehow able to heat the setup up to over the temperature of an open flame, without any devices being able to be seen, withoutn touching the table or setup, and without the plastic cap melting, or without the toorthpick and/or paper wheel to burn up? Oh yes, and how exacly could i make the wheel unwaveringly spin in two different directions?

I disagree. I believe this video is showing something that would be foolish to believe is paranormal given the way it was presented and what is shown. My point is this, despite the "potential" of something paranormal going on in the video, or any psi video, this video is still showing us something that would be foolish to completely believe is psi related just because it has the "potential" to be paranormal. Is my point clear enough yet?

I think its clear that either extreme would be foolish, complete belief or complete denial. Besides, i made it a point to say "I never intended to "convince" people that psychokinesis is a legitimate phenomenon with these videos, I only wanted to make a video that would force the skeptics to question and possibly revaluate their preconceptions of pk" on several occasions. Thus, i dont see the relevence of this part of your post.

The biggest point against me so far is I have presented no idea of what is actually turning the paper or what is going on in the video. Let me try and do something about this. First off the idea that the hair dryer is showing us that heat and airflow from outside the bowl is not responsible for the papers movement. It does prove that at the time the hairdryer was used no air from the outside could easily get into the contained area. But some hair dryers do have a no heat just blow air option. How are to know the hair dryer wasn't on this setting? How do we know it wasn't just blowing room temp air and not heated air onto the glass bowl? I don't know this is just a thought to me. Your other video shows a thermometer but this one doesn't. There is a chance here to me. Mind you this would be you trying to show it wont spin while stacking the odds in your favor. Are you doing this? I don't know really. Again theres a chance.

I suppose my word means nothing (which i dont blame any for thinking) but there isnt such a setting on that hair dryer. Nevertheless, as I elaborated on before, the "heat" theory has a tremendous amount of questions to be addressed before it can be a legitimate possibility for this specific video. I did this on purpose because I knew heat wasnt involved, but i needed a way to show others that heat wasnt involved. The fact that you can see that there is nothing under or around the table, as well as doing the hair-dryer check, helps me in my goals...but even if you ignore all of that, the fact that it spins in two directions at two different speeds is the clencher. I can't even begin to think of a way I could use heat to do that, given what the video shows. Maybe you could enlighten me? Because as of now, the heat theory is officially lacking, unless someone can explain how *specifically* heat could have been used in this video to create the filmed effects. Simply making a reference the notion that heat rises/create convection currents is obviously not enough.

Another thought here. The video is faked. Its been cleverly edited taking out what is moving the paper. Again there is a chance like I explained before. The video could be stopped when only the table and floor were in view. I see some jumps in the video that make me suspicious though I'm asking someone that knows more than I to tell me what I'm seeing is not from editing. We do not see you speaking. It could all be edited and faked. Next up we don't see your left hand and only when your hand is not seen does the paper move. Suspicious? Damn straight. Could you be toggling a switch that is just off camera? You you be turning on and off perhaps a radiant heat soruce? Could you be flipping a switch controlling something that was placed under the table and edited out? Could the cord be running up the front leg of the table? If you want something more specific than this and what me to make a video to prove what I think is going on here you're going to be waiting a while and I'm not sure I will devote the time to actually do either. Is that my fault? Am I in error here? I think not.

Ok, nevermind the fact that you can see my reflection in the glass bowl when im off screen, ill give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Lets for a moment assume the video is edited (which it isnt, but nevertheless). What *specifically* could I have edited out that would make the wheel spin like it did? What specifically could be in my hand that would make the wheel spin like it did? We have already shown that the heat theory, as it is currently stated that is, has some fundamental kinks in it to be dealt with. So whats left? I see you metnion a wire, but a wire to what exactly? A magical, remote controlled device that allows me to have complete control over the wheel? What kind of device could do what was seen in the video? What sort of heat source could do what was seen in the video (two different directions, two different speeds, no melting or buring of set up lol)?

And no, its not your fault . But if you do continue to analyze or criticise my video, you are goig to be expected to justify your assertions to a substantial degree, naturally. Otherwise anything you say is completely moot, wouldnt you say (if you do not sufficently explain or justify your concerns)? I know it would be moot if I didnt substantiate my assertions, i dont see why youd be an exception.

Mattman you are a believer. You're right there with many other believers. I cant touch you. I cant convince you. Its a belief. Call it a matter of faith and I cant touch that. Any argument becomes an automatic tie. Neither side consenting defeat shall we say. How can you argue with a stance like that? I will end by saying this. Mattman I hope you go on to win Randis million dollars. Prove us all wrong. Show us all that we aren't simple, boring, average non super power possessing creatures living out a rather bland lives. Show us that we can go beyond our every day normal senses and abilities. Prove us all wrong. Please? If this video is really showing an ability you have learned go on the local news. Contact Randi. Contact and talk show host. Contact you local college. Prove us all wrong by going beyond a video posted on Youtube. If true you have the opportunity to turn the world on its head and open up doors we never knew existed. For the sake and benefit of humanity itself go beyond posting a video on the internet.

Ok, um, I did this right in front of me, with my own mind lol. Unless I shouldnt believe in my 5 senses, why shouldnt I believe in what im doing for god sakes? Its not like i watched a video and am now convinced of tk...i *did* it. Its something I actually did, on several occasions. Perhaps its hard for you to understand where im comming from, but if i were to say to you "its your belief that you can surf the net, and there is nothing i can say to change that", surely you would see the sheer rediculouslness of that. I dont see how it would be possible for me to unknowingly fool myself so many times, so accurately and perfectly. In fact, its beyond rediculous to think that, given the precations I have taken. Its clearly not a belief at this point, its a physical reality. As for the sceince behind this reality, i dont know. But, its seems very uncanny that when i want it to spin clockwise, its spins clockwise and only clockwise. When i want it to spin counter clockwise, its spins counter clockwise and only counter clockwise. When i wanting it to stop spinning, its stops. When i want it to spin fast, it does so...and all the mean while under a glass and from multiple feet away. Your right, why should I believe in this tk nonsense [/sarcasm]

Oh and based on what I've read on these forums being mentioned in your post along with the likes of Jj I will take as a compliment. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Wondering if Im posting in vain. I remain,

Kevin

I think its clear that Jj will pervert scientific principles (and reason in general) to whatever extent necessary so that he never has to admit to being wrong or mistaken about his assumptions. And the fact that I dont see him around makes me wonder why he isnt here, seeing as he was my primary "adversary" before. Anywho, if necessary, I will find and quote the nonsense for all to see so that people can understand what exacly im talking about. His assertions became more and more unreasonable as time went on, and i as began bringing his theories under question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you I could type out a long post in rebuttal but we will only continue along these lines. It would be a waste. All we are doing is going back on forth and getting nowhere. We are just going back on forth about the possibilities of what, other than psi, is going on in the video. I've presented ideas the way a decent rational person would but it seems that my ideas fall short because they are not very specific. There is a bit of irony involved where I have to present my idea on what is going on in the video but explaining the precise mechanism forcing the wheel to spin, how its acting on the wheel with no apparent links to said wheel, and how it can control speed and direction precisely yet when most psi believers or perhaps practitioners are asked what force is asking on the wheel the answer is pretty much "my brain"or "my super powers". Ok so some go a little further and try to explain it with various theories but in the end their theories are about as accurately defined as mine. Ironic don't you think?

It seems like we are not going to get a video from you Mattman that contains a few more letters of Jjs outline. Am I correct in this? Perhaps a zoomed out version showing you all the time and some of my other critiques? Probably not. I'm not going to bank on this one so what else am I to do? Basically my only option is to prove that this video presents either trickery, science or a man more clever than myself. Yes I'm leaving out the option of psi mainly because men far more learned than I have disproved this idea time and time again. I can not make the assumption that if I cant figure out an option other than psi it doesn't mean that they would not find one. The other reason is if you can consistently spin the wheel the way you have shown in the video and it really is psi why haven't I seen you on the news? Mind you I dont know where you live but there must be a tv news station near by? A local paper that could report this? A local college or school that might just be interested in seeing your presentation? I reiterate my earlier comment that if you are really doing this with psi please come forward and show the world somewhere other than Youtube. For the sake and benefit of humanity come forward. Are there particular reasons you will not?

Ok back on track here and the idea that I have to come up with proof of my own seemingly. Well in order to do this I need some information. If you could please answer these questions as completely and truthfully as possible it would be great. Mind you if you are using trickery then you would know what probably does and does not work already so you could easily but me at a disadvantage by not answering truthfully. Kind of stacking the deck against me. Please be honest with me and I have no option but to trust this unfortunately. Ok here goes.

For the table:

What are the dimensions of the table?

Height to top of table from floor?

Dimensions of the top of table? Thickness of top of table?

What is table made from? Solid wood or particle board covered in veneer?

If possible where the table was purchased from. Ikea, Walmart, etc?

For the needle and toothpick:

It appears to be a cap off hair spray or the like correct?

Diameter and height of cap?

What type toothpick is it? Do you have a name brand?(toothpicks have different shapes depending on manufacturer)

Height of toothpick and cap once put together.

The paper:

Type of paper? Regular 20# bond printer paper? Something heavier or lighter?

Dimensions of paper before folding?

Directions on how its folded?(Could change the balance point and amount of friction if folded differently)

The bowl:

Dimensions of bowl?

Diameter at top, about middle and bottom along with height?

Type of glass? Is it pyrex or regular mixing bowl glass?

Perhaps thickness of glass if you can?

If possible a name brand and source from where bowl was purchased?

Hairdryer:

Name brand and model number?

If not available perhaps a close up of the controls on the handle?

Misc:

The magnet and weight is explained well enough but if there is anything special you can tell me it might be of use.

Has any of the items been modified and how?

Anything else of importance?

What about your background? If you happen to be a stagehand of a Las Vegas magician or the like Id say the odds are in your favor.

I think that is it. If you can provide me with this info it would be great and I thank you. I'm off to channel my inner Randi and write out some material orders. I have a few ideas I need to expand on. This is going to be interesting.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I dropped out of this for a lot of different reasons – but have received more than a few PM’s about Matt’s new video. So I did go and watched it carefully 3x’s. Then I re-read what NEEDED to be met to make this a VALID DEMONSTRATION.

I quote what was the final lists of things that MUST have been done to avoid any questions of fraud – hoax or trickery of any kind. All I can say Matt – you raised more doubts then not….

Here is the final post that I gave on this: (and I quote from my post.)

A.) The Pin Wheel test must be done in a school science room, lab, dept.

And EMPTY hall way did not meet this. Failed

Edited: as was pointed out to me - we actually have no valid proof this was a hall way. We only have your word. The video failed to even prove this. It only showed a small section of flooring w/one light being reflected off of the floor. So this could have been a basement, family room, heck even a kitchen - we simply do not know where you are.

B.) From the Sci -vs- Psi thread - Post 88 & 89 must be printed unedited and given to the science teacher.

I do not know if this was met or not – so I don’t know.

C.) A science teacher or more must be present at the time of the demo.

FAILED – there was a BIG reason for this. But you seemed to have AVOIDED any witness all together – so one has to ask – WHY? Thus YOU created doubt.

D.) The teachers must supply:

........... Their full name.

........... The school they teach at.

........... The state and cilty of the schools location.

........... A few witnesses also present.

FAILED -

Again there was a serious reason for this. An EMPTY hall way creates more doubts and questions then anything else. Try to convince me you are not an aspiring magician trying out his tricks??

There was also a reason why the Teacher HAD to give their full name, the schools name and the City and State – So I could look it up and call the school and ask the teacher on the phone for validation of the video.

But you went out of your way to avoid any witnesses at all.

E.) You must have the camera set so that everything is fully seen.

FAILED: Edited - also see above, we have actually NO CLUE where you are.

You gave us a nice 360 view of a VERY SMALL area of the floor only. What to the R or L of the hall way at hip level or higher? What was up and down the hall hip or eye level?? You seemed to keep the focal point more than just restrictive.

Then your R-hand was ALWAYS out of the camera’s view.

F.) You must tell before the Pin Wheel spins exactly what direction it will spin: CCW (counter clock wise) or CW (clock wise) - And the Pin Wheel must do it.

This must be specific and not just 'random' - Random leaves open the obvious chance that science was at play.

This is one of the most curious of your video and the only one you met.

Now here is the problem – from all the other videos like this – it took a ‘normal’ amount of time to get it to spin – yours began to spin almost ‘electronically controlled’ – like on CUE, this actually now raises more then a few questions and doubts – because YOU DID NOT MEET THE OTHER CONDITIONS.

Because there are NO/Zero Witnesses and that you limited the view of the camera you shot yourself in the foot – NOT ME. So unless you can actually meet the above requirements you did nothing more than prove you have something you are hiding and went to no small effort to show just that.

EDITED: A prof. friend of mine at the UofWash. told me that your table could be questioned. I was curious by this and asked why. "Jj - some tricks have the 'trick' hiden out of sight. There are a number of tricks that are done because the 'cause' of the trick is actually built into the table - totally out of view. Then as you pointed out, the Paper started to spin a little "too quickly on cue". I've seen these demo's before and none of them responded this quick or fast. Even the best illussionist know to add some 'effort' to it. Those that do respond "on cue" do so for a reason - the "cue" has been staged and set."

A couple of things he pointed out and is NOT saying you did do this - only the questions that he would raised based on his own experience: Again because you did NOT get valid witnesses to be present.

Do we know for certain the paper isn't lined w/copper thread? This would NOT respond to magnets but would respond to electrical pulse. Thus it would "pass" your magnet test.

Do we know what was in your R-Hand? No.

Do we know what is around at hip or eye level? No.

You obviously did have a plug for the hair drier and possibly the camera. So remote control stimulus is not removed from the equation.

Someone asked me about the Hair dryer - even though you proved it was 'air tight' - why didn't the heat from the drier make it spin, like you said would happen? This was a good question - Hair driers can have 'room temp' blowing through it. I have one that is HOT - Warm - Air temp. So if it is set on 'room temp' setting - then there is NO temp change. Easy answer to that question and MOST do have this feature to just 'blow dry' no heat. Not at all uncommon.

Matt - the witnesses would have avoided a lot of doubts and questions. I'm sorry - but that is WHY that was put in the list, to avoid EXACTLY what you just caused to happen: CAUSE - EFFECT. The doubts to this video is not my fault at all. In fact please show me Rationally and Logically and even with good old Common Sense - how the list of requirements would create doubt or are even be 'wrong'. :)

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get tested by a scientist. Then there is no doubt. Your teacher would do. Otherwise, why believe you.

Edited by ericraven2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get tested by a scientist. Then there is no doubt. Your teacher would do. Otherwise, why believe you.

Short - sweet and so to the point! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get tested by a scientist. Then there is no doubt. Your teacher would do. Otherwise, why believe you.

I wouldn't trust the word of a scientist anymore than anyone else... I say this is VERY possible evidence. No one has touched this video's validity in my opinion... I'm not convinced it's faked so far, not to say it ISN'T.

You guys are seeming EXTREMELY biased. You're placing UNEEDED guidelines on what he can and can't do. He wasn't in a science lab, so what? He was in a wide open room, and he demonstrated how no outside force such as heat or airflow would affect the pin wheel.. being in a scientific lab would not have changed this fact. I'm too busy to touch the rest of what Jj said, but I'm sure I will tonight. I just think it's pathetic how you so simply toss things out and say "Failed" because he wasn't in a science lab. I don't have access to a science lab, and if I were displaying a new phenomena to someone and they called it fake simply because I wasn't in a lab, I'd lose it. I give matt props for not blowing up in this thread.

If I was him, I'd be tempted to make a 3rd video, but I'd probably not even waste my time, because nothing would be enough for you guys. Quit beating around the damn bush and just go ahead and admit that no matter how well made a video is, you won't accept it as evidence or even POSSIBLE evidence.

Because there are NO/Zero Witnesses and that you limited the view of the camera you shot yourself in the foot – NOT ME. So unless you can actually meet the above requirements you did nothing more than prove you have something you are hiding and went to no small effort to show just that.

Don't even give me this bull, you and me BOTH know that a witness would NOT have made a difference to you. Like I said ealier, you guys are just beating around the bush.

Someone asked me about the Hair dryer - even though you proved it was 'air tight' - why didn't the heat from the drier make it spin, like you said would happen? This was a good question - Hair driers can have 'room temp' blowing through it. I have one that is HOT - Warm - Air temp. So if it is set on 'room temp' setting - then there is NO temp change. Easy answer to that question and MOST do have this feature to just 'blow dry' no heat. Not at all uncommon.

Heat will not get the wheel to move everytime. I struggled to get heat to spin a psiwheel once, and I almost didn't believe the "heat" theory because of it. But eventually it did move. Regardless though, there was no way his hands at least, were causing heat. There was also nothing under the table, or in the bowl with the psiwheel. The only thing one can suspect is something with mechanics or video editing. So, either jump on one of the two and try to prove it's the case, or quit searching for OTHER reasons to call the video invalid.

So, in my opinion, we can toss out "Scientific Lab" and "Witness" from the guidelines, as the first one won't make a difference and the ladder usually makes no difference to a skeptic, as the witness could lie or "be in on it". This is evident in the way UFO eyewitnesses are treated.

Will this do:

He makes a zoomed out version of the TV, he shows you that the heat is turned up on the hair dryer, he then uses the hair dryer AND the magnet to show that that heat nor magnatism is affecting the psiwheel AGAIN. He shows you all around the table AGAIN, he shows you the cap the psiwheel will be posted on AGAIN. He sits far away from the psiwheel AGAIN, shows both of his hands, explains exactly which way the psiwheel will move AGAIN..... Would that be good? I doubt it.... He'd have to make your heads spin around on your shoulders. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in belief 100%, I just find the video very interesting and it has potential, and I know how he must feel if he really does have this "power". You guys are saying a few things, that in my opinion are biased... Scientific lab? Like Double You Tee Ef? If he was in a scientific lab and made this video the exact same way, nothing would be different....

Edited by Zero of Deism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.