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

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. He wasn't in a science lab, so what? He was in a wide open room, and he dimonstrated 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.

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.

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.

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....

Actually ZD -

I have to disagree w/you on this, for the follwoing reasons:

There would be a big difference! On the witness issue - I am sorry but one will asked

- Why did he avoid witnesses??

- Why did he do it in "secret" with 'no one would be around at all'??

This raises valid doubts and questions. Sorry but this is the 'real world'.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence and checks and balances.

You don't like it tough - that is the real world.

It's been this way since extreme claims have been made - they have to prove it under extreme conditions to validate their claims.

Even the guy that said local anathesia could be used in surgery. He was challenged - so he proved it - he removed his own apendix in front of witnesses. <-- that is the real world.

A. The above (my outline) is the real world. The real world isn't going to bow to "sloppy" work. This was sloppy work in the real world. This is not credible and would not pass for credible in any University or Community College.

This is not controlled and NO accountablity or any checks and balances built in.

B. Yes valid witnesses, that are willing to put their names and such on the line are for the most case going to be really careful about what they put their names too. Especially teachers of the public school and teach the sciences.

I know a 'few' of them from Jr. High to the University Level.

If these people put their name on record - they are putting their reputation on record. That means something to the people I know. Especially those in the science community are going to be very careful to see what is and is not going on. Their reputations depend on it.

There is a serious reason for checks and balances, ZD - to avoid scams, hoaxes and the likes. That is why it was outlined the way it was - to have those C&B's there! They were NOT and seems possible that they were AVOIDED. This raises serious doubts for very obvious reasons.

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

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.

Of course you wouldn't, because that would hurt your belief system when it was proved faked. Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Why did he avoid witnesses??

Because skeptics always yell that that you can't use something subjective as evidence.

- Why did he do it in "secret" with 'no one would be around at all'??

Why not? I wouldn't have thought of bringing someone along for the video. It would seem pointless and mess up my concentration.

This raises valid doubts and questions. Sorry but this is the 'real world'.

I'm keepin' it real.

You don't like it tough - that is the real world.

You're the one obviously not liking the "real world", in reality we all think differently, in reality most people would not have thought to bring along another person, as it seems pointless, especially when you'd need to find a total stranger so the skeptics won't think they're in on it. Tell me how that's not "real", he obviously used what he had easy access too. An open, uncluttered room and everything else you see in the video.

If these people put their name on record - they are putting their reputation on record.

Reputation is the main reason behind bias in the scientific community. No one wants to touch paranormal phenomena, even when they may be valid, in fear that other scientists will shun them.

Of course you wouldn't, because that would hurt your belief system when it was proved faked. Give me a break.

You're so biased you just sterotyped me. Because I questioned your skepticism with skepticism, you automatically group me as a believer, and claim the only reason I wouldn't trust a scientist over anyone else is because I'm a believer. eric, I always see you posting here, and I can confidentally say that Jj is more of the "real" skeptic, and you are a cynic. I'm sure you do get called a cynic pretty often, so I'll give you a break.

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

Of course you wouldn't, because that would hurt your belief system when it was proved faked. Give me a break.

Well stated, Eric - :tu:

Seems they NEED (for obvious reasons) to avoid accountablity and checks and balances. Other wise they would be exposed - can't have that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jj, I take that back, you're starting to sound as biased as eric after agreeing with his last statement. I'm tired of having to repeat myself, I do not believe this video to be proof 100% and only called it interesting, and plausible, but it seems you guys like to ignore that just to keep me on the "believer" side to make yourselves feel better. A believer would be argueing that this video is PROOF without a doubt, a believer would be defending the belief that he is using psi to spin the wheel. I'm not doing any of that here.

So, I'd appreciate it if you don't group me with the believers untill I actually claim this is proof of psi.

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

You're so biased you just sterotyped me. Because I questioned your skepticism with skepticism, you automatically group me as a believer, and claim the only reason I wouldn't trust a scientist over anyone else is because I'm a believer. eric, I always see you posting here, and I can confidentally say that Jj is more of the "real" skeptic, and you are a cynic. I'm sure you do get called a cynic pretty often, so I'll give you a break.

I stated fact. I am realist. You like to beleive in anything. To say that you can't trust a scientist to do the testing almost borders on silliness. I would rather be a cynic then believe in Santa. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated fact. I am realist. You like to beleive in anything.

So, you're a realist yet you tell me I believe anything, LOL! Name a few things that I believe, and please provide evidence that PROVES I believe these things, that way you're not stating what you believe. You put too much faith into scientists, they could easily lie about their outcomes, even with a peer review, the evidence is not impossible to surpress, and I wouldn't put it past the biased scientists out there.

You're a realist who needs a reality check, that's funny!

Oh, and incase you missed or ignored my edited post:

Jj, I take that back, you're starting to sound as biased as eric after agreeing with his last statement. I'm tired of having to repeat myself, I do not believe this video to be proof 100% and only called it interesting, and plausible, but it seems you guys like to ignore that just to keep me on the "believer" side to make yourselves feel better. A believer would be argueing that this video is PROOF without a doubt, a believer would be defending the belief that he is using psi to spin the wheel. I'm not doing any of that here.

So, I'd appreciate it if you don't group me with the believers untill I actually claim this is proof of psi.

Don't get me wrong, I think alot of what you guys said was valid, but I'm pointing out what I see to be biased and unnecessary. Funny thing is, when I do JUST that, I'm called a believer.... Funny stuff. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically thrown on the other side of the fence and treated as a believer, then looked down upon. Biased-much? I even explained how a third video should be made, showing as I understand your doubts. Though I doubt the video would even be good enough still.... So making another is pointless.

Instead of seeing friendly CC on how to help him prove what he's saying from you guys, you guys are giving off the attitude that he definitley IS frauding the video with the way you word your posts.

I stated fact.

So it's fact that I'm a believer? Prove it.

I would rather be a cynic then believe in Santa.

Now you're a ignorant cynic! You don't even understand how to have a civil debate without throwing in comments like this. If that comment wasn't biased, I don't know what is!

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

Because skeptics always yell that that you can't use something subjective as evidence.

WOW - you just earned my "WOW" Award! I cannot even believe you said this. You do understand why SUBJECTIVE isn't accepted don't you?

Here let me enlighten you:

In reason, subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view, such that concepts discussed are treated as objects.

You do see why Subjective Evidence isn't accepted?? It is BIASED. So one HAS to be OBJECTIVE when presenting evidence or proof. They have to take into account ANY & ALL possible doubts, questions that will come up. If they do not, as they say, "cover the arses...." well they will be nothing short of '-laughed at-'. For good reason - they were SLOPPY!

Why not? I wouldn't have thought of bringing someone along for the video. It would seem pointless and mess up my concentration.

The point is my dear ZD - this was stated as one of the conditions for CHECK AND BALANCE. We have those for a reason, a very good and valid reason.

You're the one obviously not liking the "real world", in reality we all think differently, in reality most people would not have thought to bring along another person, as it seems pointless, especially when you'd need to find a total stranger so the skeptics won't think they're in on it. Tell me how that's not "real", he obviously used what he had easy access too. An open, uncluttered room and everything else you see in the video.

As stated, this WAS addressed pre-video. He asked what would be needed. These were stated as what would be needed. It's just that simple. Since he choose to ignore it and avoid it - he shot himself in the foot. He choose to remove the "Check and Balances" and expect us to go - "oh, ok that's fine." No it's not, it was there to avoid any chance of the all too common frauds, hoaxes, scams, illussions and misunderstandings of the dynamics that are usually at play. You remove the checks and balances - you create nothing but doubt. ESPECIALLY since this was outlined BEFORE the video work.

Reputation is the main reason behind bias in the scientific community. No one wants to touch paranormal phenomena, even when they may be valid, in fear that other scientists will shun them.

Actually I think you'd be surprised at how many in the science community would actually like to see this HONESTLY done. There actually are tests that have been done BY THE SCIENCE community. Proof of telepathy between twins has been very well documented by not just the science community but by many others. So much to the point that is NOT even questioned, it is accepted as being real. Understood completely - NO, that is where the testings begin to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW - you just earned my "WOW" Award! I cannot even believe you said this. You do understand why SUBJECTIVE isn't accepted don't you?

Wow? Why, because I agreed with you that you can't accept subjective as evidence? That's why he didn't bring a witness, because it would be added subjective accounts! You're still acting like I'm a believer! I agreed that subjective accounts can't be evidence! You're the one acting as if you don't agree that subjective accounts can be considered evidence! You're asking him why he didn't bring along a witness!

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

So, you're a realist yet you tell me I believe anything, LOL! Name a few things that I believe, and please provide evidence that PROVES I believe these things, that way you're not stating what you believe. You put too much faith into scientists, they could easily lie about their outcomes, even with a peer review, the evidence is not impossible to surpress, and I wouldn't put it past the biased scientists out there.

You're a realist who needs a reality check, that's funny!

Oh, and incase you missed or ignored my edited post:

Don't get me wrong, I think alot of what you guys said was valid, but I'm pointing out what I see to be biased and unnecessary. Funny thing is, when I do JUST that, I'm called a believer.... Funny stuff. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically thrown on the other side of the fence and treated as a believer, then looked down upon. Biased-much? I even explained how a third video should be made, showing as I understand your doubts. Though I doubt the video would even be good enough still.... So making another is pointless.

Instead of seeing friendly CC on how to help him prove what he's saying from you guys, you guys are giving off the attitude that he definitley IS frauding the video with the way you word your posts.

So it's fact that I'm a believer? Prove it.

You are getting a little upset. Calm down. Take deep breaths and repeat after me. Psychic powers do not exist. Now take a nap. :P

Using scientific protocol in testing is crucial in making this subject be taken seriously. Youtube just don't cut it.

Just for the record I would love for these things to be proven will. I am just not willing to believe a easily faked video.

Edited by ericraven2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are getting a little upset. Calm down. Take deep breaths and repeat after me. Psychic powers do not exist. Now take a nap.

I think you're seeing me as agressive because you yourself are pumped up and ready to throw naughty comments around like the santa one. Oh, and may I ask.. When did I say psychic powers exist? You must have ignored my last few posts if you still think this, lol. Ignore another of mine, and I'll have no use reading yours.

Proof of telepathy between twins has been very well documented by not just the science community but by many others. So much to the point that is NOT even questioned, it is accepted as being real. Understood completely - NO, that is where the testings begin to understand.

I know that, and that is the ONLY "power"(I consider it a natural phenomena not well understood, but I use power for lack of a better term) that I accept. And to show the bias: How often is this study ever referenced to? Hardly ever, and there are still people who deny telepathy COMPLETELY.

[As stated, this WAS addressed pre-video. He asked what would be needed. These were stated as what would be needed. It's just that simple. Since he choose to ignore it and avoid it - he shot himself in the foot. He choose to remove the "Check and Balances" and expect us to go - "oh, ok that's fine." No it's not, it was there to avoid any chance of the all too common frauds, hoaxes, scams, illussions and misunderstandings of the dynamics that are usually at play. You remove the checks and balances - you create nothing but doubt. ESPECIALLY since this was outlined BEFORE the video work.

You're aware of the possability that he thought a witness was unnecessary just like I do, no?

For the record: I dont' consider an eyewitness account as proof, but it will definitley help solidify any facts it coincides with. This is evident in the UFO field, when an eyewitness account coincicides with things such as Radars or other accounts from across the world. However, a witness in this video would not have even changed your opinions. You would have accused that person of being "in on it" or "lying".

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

I have viewed this video a couple times and have looked for a simple way to debunk it from a skeptics point of view, but I am finding it hard too find a simple solution to disprove it. I myself am becoming a beliver through personal experiences and have looked at these experiences in retrospect to find any evidence that would disprove the event in question.

If you have any solutions I would like to hear them.

I did not see the video, but I take it that is of someone moving a piece of paper on a table with their mind right? Magicians use two methods of doing this. The first is that they or some accomplices "blow" on the table thusly moving the paper. Try it yourself and you can see how easy it is to do. Not having seen the video, it's hard to say which method they are using. The second method is to take a small piece of a paper clip and tape it to the other side of the paper and then using a magnet attached to their knee, they can move it about at will. Just a couple of methods to produce that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're aware of the possability that he thought a witness was unnecessary just like I do, no?

Why in the world would a witness be unnecessary unless a person was trying to hide someting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in the world would a witness be unnecessary unless a person was trying to hide someting?

Because a witness can only offer a subjective account of what happened, and could easily be fooled just like the person watching the video, magicians fool people right in front of them all the time... Better yet, they could lie and/or be in on it. At least that's the next thing you guys would jump on if he made a 3rd video with a witness.

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

Wow? Why, because I agreed with you that you can't accept subjective as evidence? That's why he didn't bring a witness, because it would be added subjective accounts! You're still acting like I'm a believer! I agreed that subjective accounts can't be evidence! You're the one acting as if you don't agree that subjective accounts can be considered evidence! You're asking him why he didn't bring along a witness!

No ZD - I'm not - actually I'm addressing your posts, but also addressing to the readers as well. I know full well you are not the only reader so I address as much of the point as is possible. I also get a fair amount of PM's that address some of these same issues/questions - so I honestly try to address given point and questions in posts where they fit.

BTW: I like your knew ICON from I-Robot??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the bottom line is - The 'witness' part was stated clearly BEFORE the video, Matt asked for what would be needed. So I find the debate of witnesses kind of mute. It was before the point not after the point.

So it's like debating, "well I ordered a hamburger, you wrote down hamburger - so why did you bring me turkey??"

This part of the dialog simply is a mute issue as again it was stated before the fact - not after. It was stated as to the reason why: Checks and Balances. To put it in simple terms - he avoided all measures of Checks & Balances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how about we ask him why he left out the witness part, perhaps it's because he agrees with me that it would not solidify the validity of the video... but only raise more questions as "Were they in on it", "Were they tricked as well", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how about we ask him why he left out the witness part, perhaps it's because he agrees with me that it would not solidify the validity of the video... but only raise more questions as "Were they in on it", "Were they tricked as well", etc.

Well see that is why the teachers name, school, city and state were required. So that I could look the school name up and actually call the school to talk to the teacher.

Yes I agree that there is always the possible chance that a teacher could be 'in on it', I agree - the chance is there. But that does not negate the check and balance.

This is what it is all about - too many videos are out there where:

-- it's a plain hoax: magic - illussions are being clearly presented.

-- the science in play is not understood.

See the people I know that are science teachers, these would be very straight forward when presented with this by a student or person. If it's billed as being 'sold a trick' - yet they would along with it, but if it's being sold as testing the validity of a claim - they would be honestly straight.

With the clearly spelled out posts 88 - 89 that were sighted and the reasons for the check and balance - the teachers I know would be seriously straight about it all. They would make it as straight forward as possible. They would not 'play the game'. So I think when a serious test is being asked for, there would be honest effort put forward - at least by all the teachers that I know.

With videos like this one - there is simply NO checks and balances supplied at all.

Thus we have only his word - which with the flood of crap out there - 'word' simply isn't good enough from one trying to 'prove' this.

IF one is seriously out there to prove this to be valid, extreme effort has to be taken to cover as many doubts and questions that will be asked.

You learn from other's mistakes. So you do not replicate them. In this case too many mistakes were made that created more questions and doubts then were asnwered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree that there is always the possible chance that a teacher could be 'in on it', I agree - the chance is there. But that does not negate the check and balance.

The check and balance should not be considered valid unless it is full proof, in my opinion. That way we have SOLID checks and balances, instead of only making things more complex WHILE adding to the confusion.

For the record:(Another record! lol) I was right.. eric doesn't accept telepathy. He told me via PM.

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

The check and balance should not be considered valid unless it is full proof, in my opinion. That way we have SOLID checks and balances, instead of only making things more complex WHILE adding to the confusion.

For the record:(Another record! lol) I was right.. eric doesn't accept telepathy. He told me via PM.

I can agree w/that. The other reason for this is rather obvious and I'll PM you w/that answer in that I want to see if anyone can figure out the other reason to this.

As for complications - the world is complicated. Matt or anyone else for that matter would not be treated w/'white gloves'. Actually they would be met w/boxing gloves - in that they would have to be VERY SURE of themselves to 'go there' - the world does not play nice to and with extreme claims. It has been filled w/a history of scams, hoaxes and frauds. So the skeptical nature of this field is valid for a lot of reasons. When one cuts corners and avoids certain protocols - this raises obvious questions and doubts - for good reason.

If one cannot stand the heat - get out of the kitchen. There is no small heat of doubt and such for the reason of the historical abuse.

Plus as I have stated many times in various threads - The Historical "Protocol" has ALWAYS been - You make an extraordinary claim - you have to either PUT UP or SHUT UP. You have to meet the burden of proof - it's called a burden for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could there be an assistant with an infrared laser? I have never looked into these paper wheel things. I have witnessed real e.s.p., and heard of things from a relative, but since there are attention seeking magician types, one never knows.

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could there be an assistant with an infrared laser? I have never looked into these paper wheel things. I have witnessed real e.s.p., and heard of things from a relative, but since there are attention seeking magician types, one never knows.

linked-image

That is an excellent point! Light frequencies do cause motion - hmmm......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could there be an assistant with an infrared laser?

Why there isn't any intelligent skeptic here? I saw Matt who moved wheel in two diffrent directions, two diffrent speeds, etc. under glass. Can you prove it was not TK not only using words, that means nothing? Where are your (skeptics) videos???

btw Great job Matt :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why there isn't any intelligent skeptic here? I saw Matt who moved wheel in two diffrent directions, two diffrent speeds, etc. under glass. Can you prove it was not TK not only using words, that means nothing? Where are your (skeptics) videos???

btw Great job Matt :)

Wow. You don't make a lick of sense. Skeptic videos. Give us a break.

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.