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

The paper doesn't move, the entire house is on a platform that revolves. Actually, there could be a tiny amount of ferris material on one corner of the paper and a magnet between his fingers. Just a slight amount of magnetic field would start the paper rotating. Knowing where the "dot" of ferris material is, and with practice, one can reverse the direction with another magnet in the other hand.

Edited by knott
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

Well, you all have gone and written far more than what I’m willing to address in detail (point by point). So I’m not going to, it’d be a waste of time anyway. You know, it’s odd how you all keep asking the same questions even after I answer them. I could quote things I wrote five months ago to answer the questions asked just days ago (and if I had the motivation, I’d do it just to be a wise ass).

Here’s the thing about Jj’s unquestionable “rules”…they are superfluous to the aim of the video (and reflect Jj’s own over-the-top unreasonableness when it comes to such things). Like I said before on several occasions, and am saying again, these videos are not meant to convince people that pk is real. They are not intended to be seen as infallible proof of pk. Why you all keep acting like that’s what I was trying to do, is simply beyond me. I said time and time again that these videos were intended to cause skeptics to reevaluate their preconceptions of pk (convection currents, static, magnets, etc) by eliminating those possibilities to the best of my ability. What about that do you not understand? You all keep holding me to these unreasonable standards of what I “need” to do in order to have objective proof of this phenomenon, as if that was what my aim was when creating these video. It isn’t, and never was. You and I both know that I can’t make a video that is beyond doubt, or even close to beyond doubt…mainly because any video I make, in the end, is still just a VIDEO. Honestly, how many times am I going to have to beat you over the head with this before I get it through that skull of yours?

This next part is very important. Again, my goal was to create a video that caused skeptics to rethink their assumptions of pk, and more specifically, to rethink the ways in which they assume I faked my videos. I hate to break it to you, but I did this…despite the fact that I didn’t jump through the hoops Jj had laid out before me. I didn’t have to in order to attain my goal, and in all honesty, it just doesn’t matter that my video isn’t good enough to satisfy all of the doubts people have. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, but its true. And it’s painfully clear.

And what’s even more humorous is that fact that I anticipated all of this, I truly did. Remember when I said something to the effect of “despite all the possibilities of foul play, given what the video shows (and doesn’t show), how do you explain what happens in the video?” I said that because I knew my video wasn’t “infallibly done” (not that it ever could be), and I knew you jokers were going to be too preoccupied splitting hairs with your cynicism instead of realizing “hey, this guy just made a video that refutes all of the theories we held true about his video being a hoax before”. I wanted to avoid this waste of time, but clearly it was an exercise in futility. And yet, I had a hunch this was going to happen regardless because, without those handy little pseudo-scientific theories in your bag, you would need to find some other way to try to discredit my video...but its not as easy to bs your way through this one, is it? Im betting it isnt, which is why you all have went from “knowing exactly how I faked it” to grasping at anything and everything within your reach like “uh, what’s your left hand doing, huh??”

You tell me. In fact, while you’re at it, explain to me how, given all of the possibilities for foul play (such as no witness, no lab, whatever)….EVEN STILL, how on earth could I have faked this? Enough of this ambiguous, unsubstantiated paranoia. Substantiate that paranoia or step off, it’s quite simple really. **The harsh reality of the situation is that it doesn’t really matter how many imperfections you can find in the video if, in the end, you are unable to make anything of it.** Without that last part, everything your said (which is a lot) amounts to nothing more than giving your ego a hand job…

Which is why I’m delighted that Kevin wants to know specifics about this video. It makes me think he’s actually going to do something with some purpose. (a lot of this information is in the introduction of my video on youtube)

-The table surface is 1 foot by 1 foot, and the table is 1 foot tall.

-Both the thickness of the legs and top is ¾ of an inch

-Not sure if the table is solid wood, but I suspect its particle board because it seems like a cheap table.

-The cap is from hair spray, clear plastic

-Its about 1 1/8 inch tall, about ¾ inch in diameter

-it’s a round wooden toothpick (its “diamond” brand)

-Together, the cap and toothpick are about 2 ½ inches tall

*Note I broke a bottom portion of the toothpick off (a half inch maybe) because it was too tall to fit under the glass bowl when mounted on the cap.

-The paper is officemax “maxbrite” 20 lb paper

-Dimensions are about 3.5 inch by 3.5 inch

- Its folded as it looks. Im not sure how to explain it… two creases bisecting the center of the paper ( like a +), and then two more creases down the diagonals (like a X).

-The bowl is 8 1/5 inches diameter top rim, 3 5/8 diameter at bottom rim, Pyrex, about a quarter inch thick. Its Pyrex brand, and Im not sure where we got it, its been around for years.

-The hair dryer brand is Clares Salon “P” Super “4’ (?) im not sure about the “p” or “4’ because its sort of worn off

-As for model number, the only number I see on it besides in the name is R24OLP, which is on the back by the warnings.

-ill take a close up of the name and handle for you

-The weight is 10 lbs, the magnet is rated at 50 lbs, but it was only able to pick up a 25 lb weight before it got “dangerous” for me to lift stuff with it.

-The magnet is right out of the box (bought it just for this video).

-No, I have no experience as a magician or illusionist.

And i dont know what that machine could actually do. I dont think an infrared laser would do anything mroe than a laser pointer...but if you can make a video that shows such a device can be used to move the paper, ill stand corrected.

And knott, i did a magnet check with a magnet rated at 50 lbs of lifting force, twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To highlight what I feel is the most important part of my post, simply pointing out the aspects of my video that "invite doubt" is useless unless you make something of those aspects. Im not saying they arent there...but if all youre going to do is say "well you didnt do this, you didnt do that..." you might as well not say anything because, in of themselves, those comments don't actually prove anything. They only decribe the video...which is rather redundant.

What people like Jj need to do is say "well, you didnt do (blank), and you didnt do (blank). Because of this, its possible that you faked this video by doing (blankity blank blank) with (blank) and (blank), which makes sense if you look closesly at (blank blankity blank blank)" In essence, they need to put it all together and make some sort of claim (and use those "suspicious parts of my video" to back up that claim). Without that part, identifying suspicious parts of my video is useless.

And not only that, but not making a claim does something else interesting. When you make a claim, that claim can be tested and scrutinized. But if all you do is make implied claims, there is no danger of being proven wrong because you cannot disprove an unspoken implication. In short, by refusing to formulate a specific claim, it provides that person with the safety of implied claim without making oneself vulnerable to the counter-criticisms only made possible with stated claims.

For example, when people say "we cant see whats in your left hand", they arent actually making a claim, but they are implying one (ex. there is something in my hand that is somehow causing the wheel to spin). But, because they dont come out and say what they are implying, there is no way for me to address or refute that implied claim, yet they are still able to make it anyway. And then they act like they've just proven something...

See what I mean? This is basically all anyone has done so far when it comes to "refuting" my video. They haven't made any actual claims, they only imply claims of foul play without having to say anything specific, thus by eliminating the danger of having their doubts being directly scrutinized in a specific way.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt -

Here is what you proved -

Matt is exempt from the rules of science. He doesn't have to follow them and some how is 'better' or 'right' in doing so.

In the real world Matt - this video would be seen as nothing more than the rest of the scams out there. Nothing more and nothing less!

Here look at this and tell me how your video is any different from this one?

See this is the point - you proved nothing by avoiding the 'checks and balances'.

You didn't cause me to think this is valid - especially when you put the above video w/yours.

BTW - the above was used to "prove" Psi until the person read the fine print - ILLUSSION. He regreted it back in Nov 06. Too many people jump at too many videos to "prove" when they realize it proves nothing - because we have NO - ZERO check & balances.

BTW - I also showed your video to several University Teachers and Community College - even showed them your recent prior posts. There response was - you proved only that you avoided standard set protocols. That if you even tried to submit this to anyone credible organization or such - you would be laughed out of the room.

So my question is - why do you expect to be treated w/"respect" and "thought" - when you did NOTHING to earn it?? You follow ZERO protocols. I fail to see how this helps your 'cause' or causes anyone to think this is "possible" when you've created just as much doubt and more because you willingly AVOIDED these protocols that would have added crediblity to your 'cause'.

I'm sorry - I live in the real world - your video AVOIDED the real world and it has to be asked: WHY???? :blink:

EDITED - I also have to agree - 5 MONTHS is a 'tad' long to do this 'simple' TK test. It WOULD take 5 months to figure out how to pull off the ILLUSSION/TRICK of it though. Especially for someone that might be just getting into his 'art'. I also have to agree - that again this suggests that it ILLUSSION as was also stated - You avoided witnesses, MATT there is ONLY ONE REASON people avoid witnesses - they do NOT wish to be FOUND OUT! Prove me wrong w/valid evidence that follows PROTOCOL.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, I am quite impressed with your latest video mattman. My attention is brought back here because I received a notification (couple of days ago) since I posted in another section & topic recently on UM - haven't been posting for a while and only just came back to see what the cuffufle was all about :D

Anyway, what I posted about your original video still stands for that original video...

I'm afraid Blizno has got the technique. I thought of that in fact when I first watched the vid (which was today). If you care to look again there is a moulded manufacturer etc. extruded stamp on the bottom of the large bowl yes.gif When the beaker is placed on the top it leaves a less than a millimetre gap between the two surfaces. Enough to create turbulance for the paper to spin if you blow at the surface of the larger bowl.

I have just reproduced the whole thing in less than 5 minutes and guess what - the thing spins when I blow as desribed above. I must have psi powers, NOT!

...and I did reproduce it in less than 5 minutes, I wasn't just spouting.

You've obviously perfected your 'technique' so 2 days ago I reproduced it (the original setup) again - this time it took a bit longer since I had to pull out my wife's hair dryer :lol: I needed to make sure that with even a tiny gap between the table and the bowl an effect on the paper will be visible when you blow at the edges with it - and it is. So for your latest attempt my original deduction does not work as it would be visible in your video and it is not.

Ok, so you want someone to suggest how it could be done apart from some psi powers, right?

As someone else has already suggested and the first thing that popped into my mind was that the table is 'doctored' ie. there is something hidden in it - very possible don't you think? I will elaborate further shortly. The other suggestion was an IR Laser and the thought also popped into my mind so I have consulted someone in the know and it turns out that the IR laser is more likely to heat the paper rather than push it into a spin (this is coming from someone however who has tested it with an optical light laser than an IR laser but the results should be pretty much the same). So this seems to be ruled out of the pool of possibilities.

Not to worry because there is nothing stopping anyone from 'doctoring' the table it is on.

Here is how it CAN be done and although I could reproduce it, it won't take just 5 - 10 minutes because of the slight engineering complexity involved.

Here is a link to the specifications of a 6V DC micro air pump with dimensions that will fit snuggly into a 3/4 inch table top :yes: Mind you this is the result of a first search I did for these things and from one manufacturer only so there may be even smaller units out there. And of course if you are familiar with RC (radio controlled) equipment and servos that can easily switch such a device on an off than the setup is almost complete except for creating microscopic holes that will direct the air-flow as required for the desired effect. Then that could explain your other hand being out of view but this means nothing of course because you can have an accomplice - even in another room ;)

Now some things that do bother me. When I performed my original test ie. blowing at a tiny gap between the 2 bowls and second test at the table & bowl I notice that the paper has a small vertical wobble before it starts spinning horizontally. I couldn't help but notice the exact same effect in both your videos, hmmm. Surely if you use some psi powers and you are willing the paper to spin why does it exhibit this same vertical wobble which seems to be a signature of air turbulance.

Also, little more disturbing, surely one of the easier suggestions (posted by someone previously and a very good one) to put polystyrene (bean bag type) balls inside and outside your setup would have been easy to do and would have easily shown any air turbulence during your demonstration of these 'powers'. Why not put these in?

Some other questions though. How many takes did this video take? 1, 5, 10, 100?

Why did it take 5 months to produce? Surely, someone who has these 'powers' and seems to be controlling a piece of paper so well could put these things together in 5 - 10 minutes like I have - except I have no powers except for those of deduction :D

And finally, it is a little suspicious that with your apparent powers of control (and you do it so well) I'm surprised that you brush off the JRef challenge like it's nothing. Perhaps you are afraid that your apparatus will not fly under proper scrutiny.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newsflash, actually an IR Laser may be able to reproduce the effect since it can quickly heat a portion of the paper and create convection currents! No pushing of the paper but rather heat drives the spin much like mattman demonstrated that a brisk heat source near the paper-top (like when a match was put under it) can spin it. :yes:

So now there are possibly two plausible ways to reproduce the video. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt -

Here is what you proved -

Matt is exempt from the rules of science. He doesn't have to follow them and some how is 'better' or 'right' in doing so.

In the real world Matt - this video would be seen as nothing more than the rest of the scams out there. Nothing more and nothing less!

Here look at this and tell me how your video is any different from this one?

See this is the point - you proved nothing by avoiding the 'checks and balances'.

You didn't cause me to think this is valid - especially when you put the above video w/yours.

BTW - the above was used to "prove" Psi until the person read the fine print - ILLUSSION. He regreted it back in Nov 06. Too many people jump at too many videos to "prove" when they realize it proves nothing - because we have NO - ZERO check & balances.

BTW - I also showed your video to several University Teachers and Community College - even showed them your recent prior posts. There response was - you proved only that you avoided standard set protocols. That if you even tried to submit this to anyone credible organization or such - you would be laughed out of the room.

So my question is - why do you expect to be treated w/"respect" and "thought" - when you did NOTHING to earn it?? You follow ZERO protocols. I fail to see how this helps your 'cause' or causes anyone to think this is "possible" when you've created just as much doubt and more because you willingly AVOIDED these protocols that would have added crediblity to your 'cause'.

I'm sorry - I live in the real world - your video AVOIDED the real world and it has to be asked: WHY???? :blink:

EDITED - I also have to agree - 5 MONTHS is a 'tad' long to do this 'simple' TK test. It WOULD take 5 months to figure out how to pull off the ILLUSSION/TRICK of it though. Especially for someone that might be just getting into his 'art'. I also have to agree - that again this suggests that it ILLUSSION as was also stated - You avoided witnesses, MATT there is ONLY ONE REASON people avoid witnesses - they do NOT wish to be FOUND OUT! Prove me wrong w/valid evidence that follows PROTOCOL.

Jj, how many times do i have to tell you that this video WASN'T INTENDED SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE TK? I dont have the resources, nor the motivation to create such a video for people such as yourself. It wouldn't be enough anyway. And it took five months because, well, I actually have a life. I go to college as a full time student, have a 3.70 GPA thank you very much. I also have a fiance to tend to. And not only that, I had to increase my abiltities to make the new video (I had to teach myself how to spin it faster, and in the other direction). That takes time. Look at my first video and then look at my second. Notice any improvements in my ability? That doesnt "just happen". I had to work on my skills in my free time. The video itself took about a week to film (5-10 takes, maybe a bit more) because it wanted to make a "good" video without any mistakes.

btw, As for that video you provided, ironically i was the guy who spotted how he did this trick back before he admitted it was a trick...but he erased my comment. You can see a dot of something on the table towards the beggining. I said it was some sort of sticky substance with a string attached, and then he removed my comment and became enraged with me, accusing me of being a magican too. lol

"You've obviously perfected your 'technique' so 2 days ago I reproduced it (the original setup) again - this time it took a bit longer since I had to pull out my wife's hair dryer I needed to make sure that with even a tiny gap between the table and the bowl an effect on the paper will be visible when you blow at the edges with it - and it is. So for your latest attempt my original deduction does not work as it would be visible in your video and it is not."

Well my original video is obsolete now (and i admit it wasnt all that good). So unless you can reproduce my second video, your just waisting my time.

"Ok, so you want someone to suggest how it could be done apart from some psi powers, right?

As someone else has already suggested and the first thing that popped into my mind was that the table is 'doctored' ie. there is something hidden in it - very possible don't you think? I will elaborate further shortly. The other suggestion was an IR Laser and the thought also popped into my mind so I have consulted someone in the know and it turns out that the IR laser is more likely to heat the paper rather than push it into a spin (this is coming from someone however who has tested it with an optical light laser than an IR laser but the results should be pretty much the same). So this seems to be ruled out of the pool of possibilities."

Ok, so you suggesting i own an IR laser...About how much to those cost? *rolls eyes And even if it can create heat, more than an open flame seeing as my wheel spins faster in my 2nd tk video than in the convection current video (wihtout catching the paper on fire, or melting the plastic cap, or burning the wooden table, or burning the toothpick), how does it spin in two directions? I think im going to have to require a video demonstration because i think your stretching the truth here a bit. I dont think such a thing can use used to create the same effects seen in my video. Time to see your evidence, seeing as you are the one making this claim.

"Not to worry because there is nothing stopping anyone from 'doctoring' the table it is on.

Here is how it CAN be done and although I could reproduce it, it won't take just 5 - 10 minutes because of the slight engineering complexity involved.

Here is a link to the specifications of a 6V DC micro air pump with dimensions that will fit snuggly into a 3/4 inch table top Mind you this is the result of a first search I did for these things and from one manufacturer only so there may be even smaller units out there. And of course if you are familiar with RC (radio controlled) equipment and servos that can easily switch such a device on an off than the setup is almost complete except for creating microscopic holes that will direct the air-flow as required for the desired effect. Then that could explain your other hand being out of view but this means nothing of course because you can have an accomplice - even in another room"

Now this is what i was talking about. This makes sense. This isnt pseudo sceince, this is actually possible, i admit. The only thing I can say in my defense, not that my word is ever taken seriously here, is that I bought the table and used it "as is" from the goodwill. Naturally, if you believe its a doctored table, this means nothing as i could be lying. So, the only other option is that I am an expert table maker and engineer to craft such a thing into such a thin table, seemlessly. But this requires, not only that im an expert table maker and engineer, but that i have all the equipment and resources necessary for building such a table. Possible, yes. Probable...not so much. Ill check that link out.

"Now some things that do bother me. When I performed my original test ie. blowing at a tiny gap between the 2 bowls and second test at the table & bowl I notice that the paper has a small vertical wobble before it starts spinning horizontally. I couldn't help but notice the exact same effect in both your videos, hmmm. Surely if you use some psi powers and you are willing the paper to spin why does it exhibit this same vertical wobble which seems to be a signature of air turbulance."

Fair enough. I'll admit that I do not know the sceince behind pk, so im not sure what i can say to that besides that it seems very odd that i would be able to blow a concentrated stream of air 24 inches, with enough power and percision to spin the wheel as such a speed, and to control the direction. But if you meant to use this as evidence for the micro pump, ill accept that.

"Also, little more disturbing, surely one of the easier suggestions (posted by someone previously and a very good one) to put polystyrene (bean bag type) balls inside and outside your setup would have been easy to do and would have easily shown any air turbulence during your demonstration of these 'powers'. Why not put these in?"

Because it seemed rather superfluous considering that i did two different air checks...

"Some other questions though. How many takes did this video take? 1, 5, 10, 100?

Why did it take 5 months to produce? Surely, someone who has these 'powers' and seems to be controlling a piece of paper so well could put these things together in 5 - 10 minutes like I have - except I have no powers except for those of deduction"

Well now you know why it took five months. Its because 99 percent of the time I wasnt working on the video. I was going to school as a full time student, I was spending most of my free time with my fiance, and I had to increase my abiltities so that i would be able to spin the wheel in both directions, and at a rapid rate. The video itself took no more than a few hours total, but that was spread out over a few days to fit my schedule.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, that pump is not "RC" its DC (as in battery powered, opposed to AC which would require an outlet). There is nothing saying that this is remote controlled, not in the feature section or anywhere, unless i missed it? There are only three pages....If i did, quote it and tell me the page number it is found on. Otherwise nice try. For whats it worth, that theory probably had the most potential up until now.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing Jurasic Park...I trust nothing that I "see"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt -

I guess I have to wonder then why you even bothered when you only met 1 of the conditions. If memory serves me - YOU ASKED WHAT IT WOULD TAKE - I answered. Why did you ask and then ignore them????? Wow - talk about a con job from the start. You certainly proved that. "I Matt will ask what will it take.... (fine print) and then ignore them." Which is exactly what you did. Nice job. Then you choose to "rationalize" why you would only meet one of the conditions AFTER you produced the video.

As you can see from the varied posts - you created so many questions and doubts from people. You actually did more harm to the investigation of the validity of TK then good.

You didn't create any kind of valid proof, evidence or thought. Your video is simply like all the others out there that are shot down. --

All because you didn't see it proper to follow some checks & balance protocols.

See here is the thing:

.... You stated you wanted the 'video' to be 'just right'.

..... Yet your R-Hand is missing in the video presentation when the pin wheel is spinning!

How is that "right" :wacko: - one hand NOT clearly seen in the video when you are spinning the paper. You do not think this created doubt and question??? Guess again. This WAS also part of the conditions. Both hands clearly seen. That well I guess that was not needed to be 'right'?? You rationalize that away and expect us to 'buy into it'.... :rolleyes:

See here is also an interesting fact you just stepped into:

You claimed you figured out how the Illussion video was done. That your post there was deleted. What does this tell me and the others: You know how to do illussions. So now please convience me how I and the other are not suppose to see this as anything less then just another illussion?? --> You just created another doubt as to why this video cannot be taken seriously.

So basically all you did was exchange one 'law of science' w/another - that of Illussion - which is yes a science. Yes you are very sore pressed to prove now this is not an illussion.

Your 5 months to take and re-take and take again a video that is less then couple of minutes. :blink: This also has me going 'huh'?? :unsure2: Especially since you are trying to convience me you have this 'power' and based on the video - quite under control too. :huh: Logic would say - one day at the most and an hour or so to 'get the video right'.

Bottom line:

This video cannot be taken as credible, it cannot be taken as valid, it cannot be used as proof or evidence of TK, it cannot be given any semi-serious thought, let alone serious.

You raised way too many questions of doubt just like the many of the other videos out there. Your's is just one more failed attempt. I'm actually rather disapointed - not that that means anything to you. I was actually impressed w/your attitued last year... I really was.......

But you failed in your goal... - all because you couldn't be bothered w/checks & balances. Your rationalizations are nothing more then weak excuses - Nothing more and nothing less.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you suggesting i own an IR laser...About how much to those cost? *rolls eyes And even if it can create heat, more than an open flame seeing as my wheel spins faster in my 2nd tk video than in the convection current video (wihtout catching the paper on fire, or melting the plastic cap, or burning the wooden table, or burning the toothpick), how does it spin in two directions? I think im going to have to require a video demonstration because i think your stretching the truth here a bit. I dont think such a thing can use used to create the same effects seen in my video. Time to see your evidence, seeing as you are the one making this claim.
You could own an IR laser, who knows, it's a possibility. Afterall, you don't know what I own do you? If I said I don't have a wife and 2 kids, is it not possible? And no, the IR laser does not have to be as powerful (with regards to heat) as a match is to spin the psiwheel faster than your demonstration of a match. I've just cupped my hands around a psiwheel (uncovered) at room temperature and I can tell you it is spinning faster than your demo of the match :yes: It's where the heat is applied. How could it spin in two directions? Simple, for one direction the IR beam is directed at the left side of the psiwheel, for the other direction it is directed at the right side of the psiwheel. And no, the beam does not push the wheel but rather creates an impulse in the air molecules that push it in the desired direction. You won't see me doing a demo of this though because there are easier ways and I have better things to invest my money in than an IR laser just to refute a video that can be refuted in other ways. B)

Now this is what i was talking about. This makes sense. This isnt pseudo sceince, this is actually possible, i admit. The only thing I can say in my defense, not that my word is ever taken seriously here, is that I bought the table and used it "as is" from the goodwill. Naturally, if you believe its a doctored table, this means nothing as i could be lying. So, the only other option is that I am an expert table maker and engineer to craft such a thing into such a thin table, seemlessly. But this requires, not only that im an expert table maker and engineer, but that i have all the equipment and resources necessary for building such a table. Possible, yes. Probable...not so much. Ill check that link out.

...

Um, that pump is not "RC" its DC (as in battery powered, opposed to AC which would require an outlet). There is nothing saying that this is remote controlled, not in the feature section or anywhere, unless i missed it? There are only three pages....If i did, quote it and tell me the page number it is found on. Otherwise nice try. For whats it worth, that theory probably had the most potential up until now.

I posted the specs so that you can see that the dimensions of the pump will fit into the table, it is DC operated ie no power cables required (as none are seen), and that the pump can actually pack a punch with respect to air flow. The RC part can easily be obtained from a 10$ (crappy) RC toy. I've already thrown out a couple over the years that my kids had.

Because it seemed rather superfluous considering that i did two different air checks...
This is an in-demo check not prior or post demo and will show any air flow inside and outside. What I find puzzling and not related to your vid is that even though purporters of 'psi' powers can 'move' a psiwheel which are on the order of 0.5 - 0.25 grams cannot move a polystyrene ball that weighs less than 0.05 grams but that's another story.

Well my original video is obsolete now (and i admit it wasnt all that good). So unless you can reproduce my second video, your just waisting my time.
Give me 5 months :w00t: and I just may have something for you B) After my tests today to see how much heat is required to give the psiwheel a nice spin (just your hands @ ~37 degC) I've found an even better way to make it work. I'll stick with the RC servos (2) from a crappy toy as mentioned. 1 controls left/right heating wire fillament and the other low/high current for low/high heat inside the table below the psiwheel :tu: So you get 4 possible combinations left low/high heat and right low/high heat. What's needed is to cut out a small compartment in the table to house the batteries, servos & switches & related electronics. Then the heating fillament wire is run as close to the surface as possible. Finally, cover with wood-grain (or similar to match table or create own look) surface, possibly a thin laminate.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt -

I guess I have to wonder then why you even bothered when you only met 1 of the conditions. If memory serves me - YOU ASKED WHAT IT WOULD TAKE - I answered. Why did you ask and then ignore them????? Wow - talk about a con job from the start. You certainly proved that. "I Matt will ask what will it take.... (fine print) and then ignore them." Which is exactly what you did. Nice job. Then you choose to "rationalize" why you would only meet one of the conditions AFTER you produced the video.

Because you came up with completely unessecary and unreasonable demands...and then you act all supirsed when i didn't meet them. There is nothing in your "rules" that couldnt just as easily have been rationalized away as what is already in my video, so what would be the point in putting in more evidence that your just going to dimiss anyway?

As you can see from the varied posts - you created so many questions and doubts from people. You actually did more harm to the investigation of the validity of TK then good.

You didn't create any kind of valid proof, evidence or thought. Your video is simply like all the others out there that are shot down. --

All because you didn't see it proper to follow some checks & balance protocols.

Again, you are so blinded with your own delusions that you still think this was meant to be scientific proof. I asked what you wanted to see so that i could make a better video *within reason*. I did this, and its a video you are still afriad to make a claim about (ill get into this later), but you went over the top with those rediculous and, in the end, pointless demands that would only serve to waist more of my time and energy. But im guessng you are going to ignore this again...and again lol

See here is the thing:

.... You stated you wanted the 'video' to be 'just right'.

..... Yet your R-Hand is missing in the video presentation when the pin wheel is spinning!

How is that "right" :wacko: - one hand NOT clearly seen in the video when you are spinning the paper. You do not think this created doubt and question??? Guess again. This WAS also part of the conditions. Both hands clearly seen. That well I guess that was not needed to be 'right'?? You rationalize that away and expect us to 'buy into it'.... :rolleyes:

AH HAH! Remember when i said this: "And not only that, but not making a claim does something else interesting. When you make a claim, that claim can be tested and scrutinized. But if all you do is make implied claims, there is no danger of being proven wrong because you cannot disprove an unspoken implication. In short, by refusing to formulate a specific claim, it provides that person with the safety of implied claim without making oneself vulnerable to the counter-criticisms only made possible with stated claims.

For example, when people say "we cant see whats in your left hand", they arent actually making a claim, but they are implying one (ex. there is something in my hand that is somehow causing the wheel to spin). But, because they dont come out and say what they are implying, there is no way for me to address or refute that implied claim, yet they are still able to make it anyway. And then they act like they've just proven something..."

You just did EXACTLY that. You made an implied claim without comming out and saying anything specific, which allows you to pretend like you have just proven something without actually making any sort of claim (which is clearly impossible). So, may hand is out of the frame...Elaborate on that. What could be in my hand/ what could my hand be doing? These are questions you need to answer before "we cant see your left hand" means anything...so stop pretending like you simply pointing that out "speaks for itself", it doesnt...and it wont just because you have no idea what my hand could be doing...

See here is also an interesting fact you just stepped into:

You claimed you figured out how the Illussion video was done. That your post there was deleted. What does this tell me and the others: You know how to do illussions. So now please convience me how I and the other are not suppose to see this as anything less then just another illussion?? --> You just created another doubt as to why this video cannot be taken seriously

So basically all you did was exchange one 'law of science' w/another - that of Illussion - which is yes a science. Yes you are very sore pressed to prove now this is not an illussion.

All that means is that I have half a brain. In fact, I could say this exact same thing of you and every other skeptic who "knows" how I "faked" this video. Obviously this is a moot point. You're grasping at straws now lol

Your 5 months to take and re-take and take again a video that is less then couple of minutes. :blink: This also has me going 'huh'?? :unsure2: Especially since you are trying to convience me you have this 'power' and based on the video - quite under control too. :huh: Logic would say - one day at the most and an hour or so to 'get the video right'.

Its funny how you have now resorted to ignoring what i have previously said just to further your own misconceptions. I told you that the video took only a few hours, you ignored that. I told you that 99% of that 5 months was used on being a full time college student/fiance/and person who doesnt want to spend all of his time making stupid video. You ignored that too, and acted like ive been toiling away for five months making that video, because you just mean that much to me. get over yourself lmao

Bottom line:

This video cannot be taken as credible, it cannot be taken as valid, it cannot be used as proof or evidence of TK, it cannot be given any semi-serious thought, let alone serious.

You raised way too many questions of doubt just like the many of the other videos out there. Your's is just one more failed attempt. I'm actually rather disapointed - not that that means anything to you. I was actually impressed w/your attitued last year... I really was.......

But you failed in your goal... - all because you couldn't be bothered w/checks & balances. Your rationalizations are nothing more then weak excuses - Nothing more and nothing less.

yeah whatever. With the 10's of thousands of words you have written, you still havent made a claim as to how specifically this video has been hoaxed. You have nothing 'real' behind your doubts besides doubt itself ( as opposed to ai-guardian), which is why you have yet to post any viable theories as to how this was faked...just the same moot criticism after moot criticism of my video to take the distraction away from your own gross shortcommings. Im willing to bet that you'll never make a straight forward claim, which is why you will have to settle with implying the claims of foul play, because anything specific you can think of falls short of being plausible. Isnt that right?

"You could own an IR laser, who knows, it's a possibility. Afterall, you don't know what I own do you? If I said I don't have a wife and 2 kids, is it not possible? And no, the IR laser does not have to be as powerful (with regards to heat) as a match is to spin the psiwheel faster than your demonstration of a match. I've just cupped my hands around a psiwheel (uncovered) at room temperature and I can tell you it is spinning faster than your demo of the match It's where the heat is applied. How could it spin in two directions? Simple, for one direction the IR beam is directed at the left side of the psiwheel, for the other direction it is directed at the right side of the psiwheel. And no, the beam does not push the wheel but rather creates an impulse in the air molecules that push it in the desired direction. You won't see me doing a demo of this though because there are easier ways and I have better things to invest my money in than an IR laser just to refute a video that can be refuted in other ways."

BS. I dont think yove gotten the wheel to spin faster than my video by simply using your hands, even if it was uncovered (my match demonstration is viable counter evidence). I believe that youre simply lying, which is why you have no video, and why you arent going to take the time to make a video. Its because your making this all up. Im betting youre also lying about the laser, since im bettingthere a good chance that youve never actually seen one of these lasers in person in you entire life, much less used one ( much much less on a psi wheel). Its all unsubstantiated speculation that youre trying to pass off as sceince. You just assume that the laser is able to create enough heat and control to do what the video shows without actually testing it (and thats assuming I own a freakin IR laser). Are you kidding me? lol If im wrong about the laser or wheel, prove me wrong with a video or something bsides your word. If you dont, as "unreliable" I may seem, it doesnt hold a candle to you or Jj. Which, by way of your own reasoning, means both of you should be taken less seriously than I, seeing as, at the very least, I have the videos to back me up.

"I posted the specs so that you can see that the dimensions of the pump will fit into the table, it is DC operated ie no power cables required (as none are seen), and that the pump can actually pack a punch with respect to air flow. The RC part can easily be obtained from a 10$ (crappy) RC toy. I've already thrown out a couple over the years that my kids had"

Fair enough. What are the dimension of the RC component? How do I know that can fit into the table? (i have to ask)

"Give me 5 months and I just may have something for you After my tests today to see how much heat is required to give the psiwheel a nice spin (just your hands @ ~37 degC) I've found an even better way to make it work. I'll stick with the RC servos (2) from a crappy toy as mentioned. 1 controls left/right heating wire fillament and the other low/high current for low/high heat inside the table below the psiwheel So you get 4 possible combinations left low/high heat and right low/high heat. What's needed is to cut out a small compartment in the table to house the batteries, servos & switches & related electronics. Then the heating fillament wire is run as close to the surface as possible. Finally, cover with wood-grain (or similar to match table or create own look) surface, possibly a thin laminate."

So are you going to ignore what I said before too? Why did you even ask why it has been 5 months if you were just going to fill in the blanks with your own imagnination? Or was that one of those implied criticisms... That aside, at least you made a viable claim, and that does count for something. Your theory is possible, period. It is an improbably feat for me to have planned, engineer, and fabricated this table...which only theorectially works (ill give some things to consider in a moment), but nevertheless, it is possible. However, short of me running this table through an x-ray machine mid-video (which came free with the IR laser I bought lol), Theres really nothing I can/could have done to show that this table isnt a seemlessly created trick table.

The only problem is with the specifics of your theory (which if i wanted to be as critical as you both, i wouldnt acknowledge your theory as being possible until you created a video with to undeniably prove your point). This all seems viable in principle, but there is a world of difference between that and what would really happen if we were to apply this theory. The amount of heat is what im concerned about, especially since the table didnt burst into flames, or even smoke. Thic is unlikely seing as "a thin layer of laminate" would burn through quite quickly, seeing as the filament would have to be at least as hot as a open flame, maybe hotter, to get the wheel to move as fast as it did. And there are also complications with spinning the wheel in controlled directions using heat. Just things to consider.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you came up with completely unessecary and unreasonable demands...

Wow - Checks & Balances are "unreasonable", Ok - I guess I'm "unreasonable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And knott, i did a magnet check with a magnet rated at 50 lbs of lifting force, twice.

You need a small rare earth magnet and ferris material on a corner of the paper. You forgot that it seems. A magnet won't attract paper.

Does anyone remember those solar or light powered pinwheels? They are black on one side and white on the other.

A laser can pop a ballon

Edited by knott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need a small rare earth magnet and ferris material on a corner of the paper. You forgot that it seems. A magnet won't attract paper.

Im not sure i follow what your saying. is or isnt there magnets/magnetic materials being used, and if so, why didnt my magnet effect them...but this other hidden magnet did? Besides, i still dont see how a stationary magnet would cause the wheel to spin instead of slowly center itself into position like the needle of a compass. in fact, the only way I canthink of using a magnet to spin the wheel is if that magnet revolved around the setup as fast or faster than the wheel was spinning, whilst dragging (revolving) the wheel with it.

Does anyone remember those solar or light powered pinwheels? They are black on one side and white on the other.

those are in vacuums, my set up is clearly not a vacuum.

A laser can pop a ballon

the real question is can it move the wheel with the same speed AND control as seen in the video? The only way to know for sure is to try it out. Anyone up for it?

"Ok - I guess I'm 'unreasonable' "

Quite, considering this wasnt meant to be seen or interpreted as sceintific evidence, yet you criticize my video for not being up to sceintific standards. And that video still wouldnt be scientifically sound even if i did every one of those "rules" you sugested. In fact, the reality behind the situatuion is that no real scientists would take any video as credible evidence, no matter what "checks and balances" seem to be in it. They wouldnt settle for anything short of multiple, in person experiments under strict sceintific conditions before they would take me seriously. Since all videos fall short of this reality, you rules are nothing but mere theatrics, impractical theatrics at that, ones that would do nothing more for the credibility of my video anyway. Yes, i would call that being unreasonable on your part.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ok - I guess I'm 'unreasonable' "

Quite, considering this wasnt meant to be seen or interpreted as sceintific evidence, yet you criticize my video for not being up to sceintific standards. And that video still wouldnt be scientifically sound even if i did every one of those "rules" you sugested. In fact, the reality behind the situatuion is that no real scientists would take any video as credible evidence, no matter what "checks and balances" seem to be in it. They wouldnt settle for anything short of multiple, in person experiments under strict sceintific conditions before they would take me seriously. Since all videos fall short of this reality, you rules are nothing but mere theatrics, impractical theatrics at that, ones that would do nothing more for the credibility of my video anyway. Yes, i would call that being unreasonable on your part.

You are right - I actually thought back in the beginning of all of this you were going to try to be credible, accountable and actually try to prove TK w/some accountablity. Something that was and is laking in all the other videos online.

The error was truly mine - I do appologize.

At this point I am not sure why you did the video?

If it was to show the possiblity of TK - it did not do that.... :blink: It is exactly like all the other video's out there - Illussions and non-illussions.

So I do actually apologize. I made the mistake in thinking you were going to be 'different' then the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - Checks & Balances are "unreasonable", Ok - I guess I'm "unreasonable".

Actually, Jj... Ealier I pointed out how a few of your checks and balances WERE unreasonable. And to be honest, I'd be a bit dissapointed if matt didn't make a third video disproving the other theories being thrown out. However, I'll admit I was annoyed as he was when a few skeptics pointed out POSSIBLE flaws and errors, yet never used that data to explain how he faked it. What they were saying was basically useless.

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

BS. I dont think yove gotten the wheel to spin faster than my video by simply using your hands, even if it was uncovered (my match demonstration is viable counter evidence). I believe that youre simply lying, which is why you have no video, and why you arent going to take the time to make a video. Its because your making this all up. Im betting youre also lying about the laser, since im bettingthere a good chance that youve never actually seen one of these lasers in person in you entire life, much less used one ( much much less on a psi wheel). Its all unsubstantiated speculation that youre trying to pass off as sceince. You just assume that the laser is able to create enough heat and control to do what the video shows without actually testing it (and thats assuming I own a freakin IR laser). Are you kidding me? lol If im wrong about the laser or wheel, prove me wrong with a video or something bsides your word. If you dont, as "unreliable" I may seem, it doesnt hold a candle to you or Jj. Which, by way of your own reasoning, means both of you should be taken less seriously than I, seeing as, at the very least, I have the videos to back me up.
Lying huh? Gee, I wish I had made a bet. I've made a video to demonstrate just how fast the psiwheel can turn just due to air currents generated from hands and I'll be uploading it shortly, probably not to YouTube but I'll give you a url.

About the laser, you are right I've never seen one in person and you are right I've never used one but that doesn't mean that I can't talk to people/scientists who have! And about the laser burning things, they do not come only in one power configuration - BURN. I've never seen a laser pointer burn anything but it can heat things up. It's all in the power output and the range of IR lasers is roughly between 3Watts to < 5mW. I guess the 3W one could burn things but 5mW or in between :no: I've done enough years at uni and then some to know my science. You are really barking up the wrong tree but hey that's your perogative. Here's a link to something related, spinning metal plates in partial vacuum (a radiometer novelty). Ah, I see knott beat me to it. And no mattman, it is not vacuum it's partial vacuum. It won't work in vacuum because it relies on air to create pressure and currents. It is in partial vacuum because normal light and IR is not powerful enough but LASERS can be depending on the power output of the device.

Fair enough. What are the dimension of the RC component? How do I know that can fit into the table? (i have to ask)
Trust me, they can. Even the full-on variable control servos are smaller than the pump, I put together a kit RC buggy years and years ago when the electronics weren't as small as they are today. But I will source specs if you really need them.

So are you going to ignore what I said before too? Why did you even ask why it has been 5 months if you were just going to fill in the blanks with your own imagnination? Or was that one of those implied criticisms... That aside, at least you made a viable claim, and that does count for something. Your theory is possible, period. It is an improbably feat for me to have planned, engineer, and fabricated this table...which only theorectially works (ill give some things to consider in a moment), but nevertheless, it is possible. However, short of me running this table through an x-ray machine mid-video (which came free with the IR laser I bought lol), Theres really nothing I can/could have done to show that this table isnt a seemlessly created trick table.
No I'm not ignoring what you said, just buying the same amount of time to reproduce what you did.

The only problem is with the specifics of your theory (which if i wanted to be as critical as you both, i wouldnt acknowledge your theory as being possible until you created a video with to undeniably prove your point). This all seems viable in principle, but there is a world of difference between that and what would really happen if we were to apply this theory. The amount of heat is what im concerned about, especially since the table didnt burst into flames, or even smoke. Thic is unlikely seing as "a thin layer of laminate" would burn through quite quickly, seeing as the filament would have to be at least as hot as a open flame, maybe hotter, to get the wheel to move as fast as it did. And there are also complications with spinning the wheel in controlled directions using heat. Just things to consider.
Either you don't know much about science at all or you are pretending not to know. Either way there is a way to regulate the heat OR to shield flammable materials. I've never seen boiling water do any burning damage to laminate or wood. Anything above that I don't know but I'll let you know when I get there ;) And no, you may have successfully blinded others by your match demonstration but not me, the heat does not have to be as hot as a match. Don't believe me? doesn't matter because you'll see the video. As it is, the video is 29Meg so I'm trying to cut it down (and make another better quality one - I forgot about the close up setting :rolleyes: ) and my FTP connection to my webserver is really sloooooow so it'll take a while to upload.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Jj... Ealier I pointed out how a few of your checks and balances WERE unreasonable. And to be honest, I'd be a bit dissapointed if matt didn't make a third video disproving the other theories being thrown out. However, I'll admit I was annoyed as he was when a few skeptics pointed out POSSIBLE flaws and errors, yet never used that data to explain how he faked it. What they were saying was basically useless.

ZD -

In the world that I live in C&B's are simply a way of life. They are there, have to be there or else I'd be out of a job. It is expected to have validation. It is expected to be credible. It is expected to be accountable.

Even in doing his video - there were ways to at least, if nothing else show an effort to trying to be. But he didn't even try - he just produced a video that is actually very 'run of the mill' videos that are already out there. So what actually was accomplished. To be honest back in Nov. when this started - I actually was allowing myself to believe there was a chance he was actually going to try to be accountable. My expectation and obviously very wrong in its well, placing the expectation on him. I had hope... incorrectly placed - but I honestly did.

Actually the challenge isn't that hard. W/the people that I know and even if they do not have contacts, I have no issues calling the Community Colleges - Universities around there and finding someone that would be willing to be a 'watcher' to Matt's video in demonstrating valid TK -( Now if indeed it is even true TK )- and not an illussion. But I am beginning to honestly see the issue here. --> AVOIDANCE of any attempt to be accountable and actually trying to give any real and serious validity to the study of TK. It's a fraud pure and simple and the reason is clear - no one is willing to actually "put up and be accountable and at least try honestly to be credible.

So even w/Matt's video - NOTHING has been proven, not even thought provoking wise.

I find it curious that people SEEM TO WANT this to be taken seriously, they SEEM TO WANT to prove it's real.

But they do everything in the book and then some - to shoot themselves in the foot.

Then they wonder why and get all EMO because they are not seen or taken seriously. :blink:

The reason is very simple:

-- They offer NOTHING even remotely credible or serioius to the study and/or research of.

-- They all do EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS. Thinking some how their "same thing" is "different" :huh:

So I guess I'm wondering when or even IF someone is actually going to step forward and say: Here I'm going to do 'it' and do 'it' R I G H T:

-- I am going to be honest, credible, accountable and straight.

-- I am NOT going to avoid witnesses - I will even let "you" choose the witnesses to validate my video and demonstration.

I find it sad actually that some how Matt thinks his video is any more "credible" or "thought provoking" as the other junk that is out there - illussions and/or people not understanding what they are doing or what is going on. It's is just like all the rest - so he actually did not accomplish anything more or less then the other videos out there.

So bottom line is then:

What was the point??

-- For it certainly didn't create any positive thoughts towards TK.

-- It certainly didn't help the 'cause'. It certainly didn't help - well anything, except to show that still no one is willing to deal straight.

At this point w/the various supplied videos that have been posted - nothing has even come close to giving any credible evidence or positive thoughts towards - "well is this actually real?" The evidence continues to mount that it can not be taken as real or even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the world that I live in C&B's are simply a way of life.

I never disagreed with you on this. However, I find some of your C&B's unnecessary. As I stated ealier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS. I dont think yove gotten the wheel to spin faster than my video by simply using your hands, even if it was uncovered (my match demonstration is viable counter evidence). I believe that youre simply lying, which is why you have no video, and why you arent going to take the time to make a video. Its because your making this all up.
Here you go mattman. ;) Compare it to your match burning with a temperature CONSIDERABLY higher than the heat given off a human hand. This is a ~21Mb AVI file (broadband/ADSL + download accelerator recommended) taken with an old digital camera (colours are playing up because of the lighting) of 2 1/4 mins of me using nothing but the heat of my hands to spin a slightly larger piece of paper than yours (in the
you created). Imagine what 100 degC could do instead of my hands. BTW, I've thrown in some polystyrene bean-bag-type balls so you don't accuse me of blowing on it. :)

NOTE to everyone else: This is NOT a fabricated claim! I claim that the wheel is spinning because of the heat of my hands (natural :yes: ) and this claim is NOT fabricated. There are no 'psi' powers used in this video - at least none that I am aware of. My wife gave it a go, my 9 yo son gave it a go and my 6 yo daughter gave it a go - always with the same (or similar) results. Unless we're a family of natural psions (?) it is nothing but the heat of our hands.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

((edit: oop, you posted before i could post this. Ill check out tha video. In the mean time heres this)

Lying huh? Gee, I wish I had made a bet. I've made a video to demonstrate just how fast the psiwheel can turn just due to air currents generated from hands and I'll be uploading it shortly, probably not to YouTube but I'll give you a url.

About the laser, you are right I've never seen one in person and you are right I've never used one but that doesn't mean that I can't talk to people/scientists who have! And about the laser burning things, they do not come only in one power configuration - BURN. I've never seen a laser pointer burn anything but it can heat things up. It's all in the power output and the range of IR lasers is roughly between 3Watts to < 5mW. I guess the 3W one could burn things but 5mW or in between :no: I've done enough years at uni and then some to know my science. You are really barking up the wrong tree but hey that's your perogative. Here's a link to something related, spinning metal plates in partial vacuum (a radiometer novelty). Ah, I see knott beat me to it. And no mattman, it is not vacuum it's partial vacuum. It won't work in vacuum because it relies on air to create pressure and currents. It is in partial vacuum because normal light and IR is not powerful enough but LASERS can be depending on the power output of the device.

So i own an IR laser then? lol this is rediculous... And i am looking forward to your video. Need be, i may ask you to replicate it with a glass container over the wheel. I shouldnt be hard to do if the glass doesnt make a difference about the convecton currents. And if it does, well, all the more reason to use a glass to see what difference it makes when it comes to convection currents.

Trust me, they can. Even the full-on variable control servos are smaller than the pump, I put together a kit RC buggy years and years ago when the electronics weren't as small as they are today. But I will source specs if you really need them.

yes, i am gong to need a link.

No I'm not ignoring what you said, just buying the same amount of time to reproduce what you did.

fair enough.

Either you don't know much about science at all or you are pretending not to know. Either way there is a way to regulate the heat OR to shield flammable materials. I've never seen boiling water do any burning damage to laminate or wood. Anything above that I don't know but I'll let you know when I get there ;) And no, you may have successfully blinded others by your match demonstration but not me, the heat does not have to be as hot as a match. Don't believe me? doesn't matter because you'll see the video. As it is, the video is 29Meg so I'm trying to cut it down (and make another better quality one - I forgot about the close up setting :rolleyes: ) and my FTP connection to my webserver is really sloooooow so it'll take a while to upload.

Cheers

Again im looking forward to your video, and possibly a second video where you do the same thing, but this time with a glass over the wheel seeing as that is a rather significant factor involved with my video, need be. As a side note about the laser theory, this bowl is rounded glass which is 1/4 of an inch thick. That means any beam that passes through it will be refracted and "prismed" significantly, which will not only diminish that beams concentration/focus, it will in turn diminish the beams effect on whatever it is shining on, correct?. Try it. Take a laser pointer and shine it through an empty glass and watch what happens to the beam's integrity.

Jj, whatever man. Think whatever you want to think, i cant do anything about that. Keep expecting undeniable proof of TK i the form of a video, eventhough thats never going to happen because no video is "undeniably sound". Keep trying to dodge this fact because its the only way you know how to rationalize my video away as a hoax, I cant stop you. Keep implying your ciriticms because you are unable to do anything more than that, its out of my hands.

But its clear you have only become redundant since this new video has emerged, which has in turn made me rather redundant because I have been consistantly trying to address your concerns, but you choose not to listen to what im saying. I cant control what you believe in, and its not my responcibility to calm your suspicion for you. I cant work with someone who wont work with me. Its just unfortunate that i tried to meet you half way, and you simply refused to budge.

You wont even address what you do see in the video, your too caught up with what you dont see. But thats not my problem tho, is it? If you think im full of crap, if you think this video is fake, then say it and leave it at that. Stop wasing both of our time.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never disagreed with you on this. However, I find some of your C&B's unnecessary. As I stated ealier.

I guess, ZD it comes down to this.

I was again, under the wrong impression - that Matt was going to try to be credible.

If someone is going to try to produce a 'credible' video to spark serious dialog on TK -

Crediblity means "going the extra mile" - not taking short cuts, not agreeing in a prior post to makes sure BOTH hands are clearly seen - then well "oops" one hand is not seen. (which BTW - he DID agree to on a post back in Nov or so. He said he would do this.

So this is where crediblity and accountablity began to fall - one of the things HE DID SAY "YES" to and agreed - he didn't even come close to doing. So now what does that one action do to his crediblity? Be honest - how is that being accountable and credible, let alone honest. Then he just 'excuses' it away. Why is the rest to be even trusted?

See here is again the point.

People are wanting to see this taken seriously - even hear online in UM. How is it we are suppose to take it even semi seriously when we keep seeing the same videos where it takes little no effort to show HONEST REASONABLE DOUBT?

For someone to want to produce a TK video to be taken seriously - THEY WILL HAVE TO PUT SERIOUS THOUGHT AND TIME INTO IT - not excuse after excuse after excuse. Let's face it, this area of focus is FILLED WITH EXCUSES by those that want us to take it seriously.

Here is the bottom line once again:

Anyone that wants to be taken seriously on the TK issue has to take the real and serious time to put credible effort and time into it.

If one is simply going to produce the same crap that is already online - don't bother - it will be a waste of your time. If you put no serious effort into it being credible - THAT WILL SHOW! You will reap the same exact effort of crediblity you put into the video.... it's just that simple

No I'm not a 'blanket' 'debunker' - as I have stated so many times on this: I do accept the validity of Psi abilities - I've seen credible evidence for Telepathy between twins that cannot be debunked with valid reasoning behind it. I've seen credible evidence for Empath (NOT Empathy - Not New Age "Empathic" read the body clues) but people that can actually feel and sense emotions that are not 'there' in words, body language or the other 5 senses that might be used for 'observation'. I've seen other situations of Psi as well. I'm actually working w/a team of Dr.'s here locally doing serious research w/a very real balance and honest approach to Psi. So I just do not 'debunk' for the sake of debunking.

IF one wants to be taken seriously - then put serious thought and effort into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear god Jj, you're like a broken record. And you still havent done anything more than imply that this is a hoax, which doesnt suprise me much because I honestly believe this video baffles you on some level. Thats why, to this very moment, you refuse to say anything specific. Its because if you were to actually try, nothing you could say would be suiffient in explanaing my video away as a hoax.

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.