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

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.
I'm not saying you own anything. What you own or don't own has nothing to do with trying to analyse the video and how it could be produced without 'psi' powers. I'm approaching the subject at hand from a scientific pov.

There's no need of me making another video (of what I provided so far) covered under a bowl, I think my words will suffice when I say NOTHING happens. But that has nothing to do with the purpose the video was made for. It was to address these remarks of yours, nothing else...

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.

yes, i am gong to need a link.
Here you go, from the link...

Specifications:

* Motor Type: 3 Pole Ferrite

* Bearing Type: None

* Torque 4.8V/6.0V: 36/42 oz-in (2.6/3.0 kg-cm)

* Speed 4.8V/6.0V: 0.11/0.09 second

* Size: 1.2" x 0.5" x 1.2" (30mm x 12mm x 30mm)

* Weight: 0.58 oz (16.6 g)

Note however that I will not be using anything this sophisticated. As I mentioned a crappy RC toy contains servos (non variable) that are sufficient for the job and looking at the toy I have in front of me - they seem to be even smaller ;)

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.
I'm well aware of the physics of optics and in this case it may just be a plus for the effect. The glass doesn't have a negative refraction index so the beam will always finish up on the inside of the bowl, it's a given it will not follow the same path as it did on the outside and there will be a tiny divergence & phase shift but all the more better to heat a slightly larger volume of air or greater surface area of the paper.

Cheers

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

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.

Matt -

I am not the one making extraordinary claim of TK. I honestly have nothing to prove. I only present HONEST Reasonable Doubt towards the evidence that you supplied. BTW - You supplied plenty of reasonable doubt, so we will let the watchers decide -

"Did Matt present a credible video?"

"Did Matt create questions of doubt in the video?

- Can we suspect questions w/the fact that Matt's right hand is NOT seen during the demonstration?

(Or are people fine that the hand is out side the cameras view?)

- Can we trust that w/no credible witnesses (like a science teacher) there - that no tricks were done?

(Or are people fine that this was done void of any witnesses? As outlined in the Nov. post of where the teacher was to give their full name, Schools full name and the City - State of the school. So telephone call could be made to verify the teacher did indeed work there.)

- Would people be seriously ok presenting this video before a science class or use it for public viewing as/for VALID CLEAR UNQUESTIONALBE PROOF of TK?

(Understanding that you name and reputation is being seen in support of this video.)

Why?

Why not?

What makes this credible?

What in the video creates reasonable questions of doubts?

We will now let them decide - would

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you own anything. What you own or don't own has nothing to do with trying to analyse the video and how it could be produced without 'psi' powers. I'm approaching the subject at hand from a scientific pov.

Oh ok. That makes sense.

There's no need of me making another video (of what I provided so far) covered under a bowl, I think my words will suffice when I say NOTHING happens. But that has nothing to do with the purpose the video was made for. It was to address these remarks of yours, nothing else...

oh, i must have missed that part. my mistake.

Here you go, from the link...

Note however that I will not be using anything this sophisticated. As I mentioned a crappy RC toy contains servos (non variable) that are sufficient for the job and looking at the toy I have in front of me - they seem to be even smaller ;)

ok, this means that your rc micro pump theory is possible. Ill admit it, there's nothing I can say to the contrary other than I didnt engineer and fabricate a remote controlled, battery operated table...but my word is just my word. Other than that, all i can say to my defense is that such a thing would require that i be a professional engineer, professional table maker, and have all of the tools and resources a pro engineer/table maker would need in order to pull something like this off, which is unlikely (but possible). And im not sure how i could prove that this table isnt a seemlessly made, completely internalized trick table (kinda hard to do)...without an x-ray at hand lol.

I'm well aware of the physics of optics and in this case it may just be a plus for the effect. The glass doesn't have a negative refraction index so the beam will always finish up on the inside of the bowl, it's a given it will not follow the same path as it did on the outside and there will be a tiny divergence & phase shift but all the more better to heat a slightly larger volume of air or greater surface area of the paper.

Cheers

I think youre right. When i shined a laser pointer through bowl that had been used (as opposed to the glass used before), for the most part the beam remained "normal", though there are noticeble distortions (a vertical streak/haze of light surrounding the dot of light). But those distortions werent as critical as what happened with this glass, perhaps because the curvature of the bowl is less extreme than the smaller glass. But even still, something about this seems a bit too sci-fi for me to just acknowledge as being possible without a demonstration of some sort. Its not that i dont think it can created heat, and thus convection currents (in a general sense). Its partially that im still not convinced that an IR laser can spin it as fast as seen in my video, but mainly that I dont think that it can yeild any real control over which direction the wheel spins, considering specifcially how this IR laser is assumed to make the wheel move. If it just creates convection currents, it would yeild no more control over the spinning of the wheel than the heat from ones hand (on an uncovered wheel).

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Matt - I am going to put my money where my mouth is:

Here is the deal:

After having come back from a coffee time w/a few of my science teacher friends. High School to Community College and University Level.

They got my e-mail and looked at your video. They all agreed there is nothing to give any validation to this video. It's like all the other ones out there - from Science being passed off to illussions. Nothing that gives any crediblity or validation to them.

This would be shot down in any serious educational group of any size - in that there are way too many questions that caused and created valid and honest doubt.

They also found it curious that you expected to be just taken at your word, like all the other people that did this.

Why you think we should 'just trust you', with the flood of hoaxes and scams and lack of understanding videos out there, is beyond me. But you seem to think we are just suppose to 'trust you' above the other TK video producers out there.... :blink:

BTW: Why do you think this? I am curious as to your rational - especially when you asked and I do quote:

The second reason I have come here is to get your advice on how to make a more credible documentation of this phenomena. What would you suggest that I do differently? So far, it has been suggested that I:

-Move the wheel in two directions (which I did not do before)

-Move it without the use of my hands, or have hands much further away from the wheel

-Place small feathers/bit of foam around the wheel as to be reactive to any significant breezes

-seal the container around the wheel somehow

-use a glass table/show under the table

-have a panoramic view of this phenomena in action (camera guy getting different views while im moving the wheel

-show my face/give a real-time commentary while im moving the video,

-etc (refer to the comments at youtube and/or astral society)

This is from your post #49.

Bold added for focus. You asked some questions and good ones and then basically ignored more of them then not - you didn't even have the feather or foam inside to even validate that nothing else was going on. In fact if you go through the orginal 'give and take' there were some things you said, "YES" to and didn't even meet. So even from the orginal things that you DID agree to and said you WOULD DO you did NOT do.

You did not meet the orginal goal here as " I have come here is to get your advice on how to make a more credible documentation of this phenomena...

So the challenge:

1st - If you have a PayPal or another online money transfer account, after agreement to the following - I will deposit *$25.00 into it to cover gas and you pocket the rest. *Please read the bottom, as this will be returned to....

2nd - I am not asking for your last name - I do need to know the City and State you live in for the following reason.

..... I will contact the local High School's - Community College to find a Science teacher that will be willing to have you come in and do exactly what you did in the video, to validate your claim that this was TK and not some trick or passing off science as "Psi".

.... You will meet that Science Teacher and there is likely some students will be there to, to add more validation to your demonstration.

.... Then you take exact set-up you have in the video that we see: Bowl, table, hairdrier and such.

.... These WILL BE examined by the teacher and any students carefully. This must be understood.

..... Then do exactly what you did on the video for the science teacher and any students there.

..... They will validate at the end of the demo video exactly what they saw and what you did.

..... Basically that NO tricks, illussion or passing off of Science as "Psi".

If this is done and they are agreed that you did this via-Psi (thought only, NO 'help' from any other 'sources of any kind: Be electronic, secondary heat/cold sources - well you get the idea: THIS MUST BE PURE TK w/no secondary help or influence at all) then I will put another $25.00 into the account. A total of $50.00.

BUT - *if you fail then you have to return the $25.00 initial deposit back to my Paypal Account. Nothing more except an apology to the group IF you are found to have 'cheated' in any way at all.

There - that is the deal - Now you can prove once and for all with accountablity, crediblity and validation that your claim of TK is straight. So now I put my money where my mouth is. :yes:

Ball is in your court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever happened to you not talking anymore, i was really looking forward to that. The point is im done with your games. I have made a more credible video than my previous, and i have taken peoples suggestions into account. But its not your idea of "more credible" (which I found out is scientifically undeniable). No video can be this type of "credible" seeing as no video is sceintifialy unquestionable, mainly because any video is still just a VIDEO. Are you mentally challeneged, how many times do i have to say this? How many times do I have to say that your "checks ansd balances" are worthless when it comes to the type of credibility you are asking for? This makes them utterly pointless, and a hassel, on top of it. Why wold i do those things if they are only going to waste my time and energy, and in the end, are not going to improve the credibility of my video? How many times do i have to say that this isnt supposed to be interpreted as scientific proof of TK before you realize that what youve been saying all of this time has long ago been rendered as being moot? YOUR C&B'S ARE IRRELEVENT TO SCIENCE, AND THUS ARE IRRELEVENT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MY VIDEO. There is only so much i could do to improve the credibility of my video (and even then, my video is still not undeniable). I did those things. What you suggested was unnessecary and ill thoughtout, which you only reinforce by not forumlating a theory based on these "shortcommings".

You clealy are not going to man up here, since youve had ample chances to do more then imply that this video is a hoax. But you have yet to make a single claim because this video baffles you, despite that numerous doubts it invites. So unless you make a claim like AI, if you think my video is a hoax, just say it. Say it and leave it at that if you are not going to substantiate your suspicions with a plausible claim. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME with your irrelvent criticisms of how my video isnt infallibly proof of tk.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, i must have missed that part. my mistake.
Either I misunderstood or you misunderstood, it doesn't matter though because either way the video I posted was to show how much heat given off hands can spin a wheel, there's no point of me posting a video of THAT particular setup covered under a bowl - because it does not incorporate anything like what I suggested could possibly cause an effect under a bowl.

ok, this means that your rc micro pump theory is possible. Ill admit it, there's nothing I can say to the contrary other than I didnt engineer and fabricate a remote controlled, battery operated table...but my word is just my word. Other than that, all i can say to my defense is that such a thing would require that i be a professional engineer, professional table maker, and have all of the tools and resources a pro engineer/table maker would need in order to pull something like this off, which is unlikely (but possible). And im not sure how i could prove that this table isnt a seemlessly made, completely internalized trick table (kinda hard to do)...without an x-ray at hand lol.
I hear ya but at the same time you have to understand where I stand. None of the above actually accounts for anything when it comes to suggesting a way the effect could be reproduced using current science. As a scientist, I could not possibly discount a new theory about how gravity can be united with all the forces, for example, based on someone telling me that the person who is proposing it has no qualifications to do so - that person's qualifications or lack thereof has nothing to do with the theory proposed. It comes down to whether a fault (failure) or not can/cannot be found in the theory, right? Similarly, with the demonstration you have made, it is moot for me to question whether you are capable or not to make a potentially fraudulent demonstration, it comes down to "is it possible to do without psi ?"

And strangely enough, if it is possible using science, it does not discount any possibility (probability is different though ;) ) of 'psi' powers playing a part! All I can prove in the end is that there is a way to reproduce it using science, but at the same time I cannot prove that you ARE using any of the techniques that I propose - unless we go overboard and extremely pedantic about the subject (which neither of us have time nor patience nor funds for ;) IMHO )

You just may change your viewpoint on skeptics (or at least me personally) here, as I mentioned in my follow-up post (targeted towards your second video) - I AM IMPRESSED! And what you have presented is teetering on the virge of almost improbable but not impossible as you've come to realise, but even so my morals tell me that if there is a possibility of such an account being faked then there is a possibility of many young minds being "taken for a ride" and as such, I am not defending science as much as I am defending the corruption of young minds that will potentially be responsible for taking humanity further (including my children) well into the centuries that are to follow. IF claims of 'psi' are being faked (or exaggerated or fabricated) then any such actions equate to a large DEFICIT to the generations that follow. IF we are trying to find the 'right' way or the best way to take humanity forward then IF fraudulent or misleading claims are made, humanity could actually be stepping backwards - no doubt about that! THAT IS MY ONLY CONCERN AND THAT IS WHY I CRITICALLY ANALYSE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jjbreen Yesterday, 03:05 PM Post #205

..... I will contact the local High School's - Community College to find a Science teacher that will be willing to have you come in and do exactly what you did in the video, to validate your claim that this was TK and not some trick or passing off science as "Psi".

.... You will meet that Science Teacher and there is likely some students will be there to, to add more validation to your demonstration.

whatever happened to you not talking anymore, i was really looking forward to that. The point is im done with your games. I have made a more credible video than my previous, and i have taken peoples suggestions into account. But its not your idea of "more credible" (which I found out is scientifically undeniable). No video can be this type of "credible" seeing as no video is sceintifialy unquestionable, mainly because any video is still just a VIDEO. Are you mentally challeneged, how many times do i have to say this? How many times do I have to say that your "checks ansd balances" are worthless when it comes to the type of credibility you are asking for? This makes them utterly pointless, and a hassel, on top of it. Why wold i do those things if they are only going to waste my time and energy, and in the end, are not going to improve the credibility of my video? How many times do i have to say that this isnt supposed to be interpreted as scientific proof of TK before you realize that what youve been saying all of this time has long ago been rendered as being moot? YOUR C&B'S ARE IRRELEVENT TO SCIENCE, AND THUS ARE IRRELEVENT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MY VIDEO. There is only so much i could do to improve the credibility of my video (and even then, my video is still not undeniable). I did those things. What you suggested was unnessecary and ill thoughtout, which you only reinforce by not forumlating a theory based on these "shortcommings".

You clealy are not going to man up here, since youve had ample chances to do more then imply that this video is a hoax. But you have yet to make a single claim because this video baffles you, despite that numerous doubts it invites. So unless you make a claim like AI, if you think my video is a hoax, just say it. Say it and leave it at that if you are not going to substantiate your suspicions with a plausible claim. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME with your irrelvent criticisms of how my video isnt infallibly proof of tk.

I have a question mattman! If you think that you are actually using Pk, then why not go to a high school or some place that Jj provides for this experiment? I mean you have nothing to hide right??

Personaly I get the feeling you are avoiding this just like many other people do simply because you are bluffing, BS'ing, us or whatever. You are offered a chance to prove yourself and yet you turn it down why? :hmm:

Edited by Dragonwick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever happened to you not talking anymore, i was really looking forward to that. The point is im done with your games. I have made a more credible video than my previous, and i have taken peoples suggestions into account. But its not your idea of "more credible" (which I found out is scientifically undeniable). No video can be this type of "credible" seeing as no video is sceintifialy unquestionable, mainly because any video is still just a VIDEO. Are you mentally challeneged, how many times do i have to say this? How many times do I have to say that your "checks ansd balances" are worthless when it comes to the type of credibility you are asking for? This makes them utterly pointless, and a hassel, on top of it. Why wold i do those things if they are only going to waste my time and energy, and in the end, are not going to improve the credibility of my video? How many times do i have to say that this isnt supposed to be interpreted as scientific proof of TK before you realize that what youve been saying all of this time has long ago been rendered as being moot? YOUR C&B'S ARE IRRELEVENT TO SCIENCE, AND THUS ARE IRRELEVENT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MY VIDEO. There is only so much i could do to improve the credibility of my video (and even then, my video is still not undeniable). I did those things. What you suggested was unnessecary and ill thoughtout, which you only reinforce by not forumlating a theory based on these "shortcommings".

You clealy are not going to man up here, since youve had ample chances to do more then imply that this video is a hoax. But you have yet to make a single claim because this video baffles you, despite that numerous doubts it invites. So unless you make a claim like AI, if you think my video is a hoax, just say it. Say it and leave it at that if you are not going to substantiate your suspicions with a plausible claim. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME with your irrelvent criticisms of how my video isnt infallibly proof of tk.

Wow the arrogance just excudes from your posts doesn't it? I would be careful what you say Mattman. You are becoming a little too personal with you comments towards Jj.

First let me thank you for your answers to my questions pertaining to your setup. I have two ideas that I'm working on now and one of them is along the lines of what AI Guardian is thinking. Give me some time because I need to source some parts and pieces and I will get back with you.

Then I come to this. I think I have finally figured out the game being played here. "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." The thing is Matt in one breath you deny that your video was meant to prove anything at all and in the next you challenge anyone to prove it is not showing a psi ability. Well which is it bro? You cant have it both ways. Either it was meant to prove psi or its a bull video and you arguing with people over them picking it apart is pointless. Which is it? You want it both ways. You want the believers out there to take your video, put it on a podium and run with the idea that it finally shows irrefutable proof. Then when a skeptic picks it apart you want to cry foul and say your video wasn't meant to show anything at all really. Pick one man would you? You gloating over the fact that no one has created a video like yours by using simple trickery or science is really getting old. Your attitude towards Jj and anyone else with a very reasonable take on this is wearing thin also.

I think this is what is happening here though I'm sure you will deny this. You came here under the guise of wanting to create a credible video. You got some info, stepped back and worked on it. You wanted to create one that would attempt to silence the most harsh critics. Namely Jj since he has been here since the beginning. Only problem is you cant do that and you certainly cant create a video using the rules that were setup. Instead you create a video to the best of your ability showing the same boring "tests" for validity and presented it to the world in a slightly different manner than before. You know how you did it and I doubt it is some superpower. You present your video to the world with the disclaimer that its not intended to show anything scientifically provable yet when someone picks it apart using science or simple logic you get very defensive . Why is that Matt? You're trying to have it both ways and you just cant. No one can. You are gloating over the fact that Jj has not outlined an exact mechanism or whatever that could be used to spin the paper. Yet you seem thrilled that AI and myself are going to try and reproduce your video using whatever we think up. I cant help but think you are sitting back with the thought that AI or I will fail in recreating a setup that works and appears the same and your video will be pushed further into the proof arena. I'm finding this to be more of an ego trip than anything. Im just reading between the lines of your posts and this is what Im seeing. Fault me if you will for saying this.

You use the idea that no video no matter what would be scientifically undeniable thus you did not try and make one. I call bull on that one. You seem like a smart guy and you would know better than this. What Jj outlined would come very close to being undeniable and thus give you and this paper spinning to prove my super powers stunt alot more validity. You use this like a crutch to help you and psi stand up while the skeptics here use it to beat you with. Let me tell you Matt that it makes for a poor crutch but a fine club. You say you're a student and obviously a college one based on your age. You are telling us in your spare time you couldn't find a professor on campus or other wise willing to look at your little show and help prove this to the world? You're setup would take ten minutes to show them and you would be done with it. Yet you have not done this because it was seemingly impossible? I cant believe that for a second.

Again I ask and I think this is the third time. WHY AREN'T YOU AND YOU'RE LITTLE SHOW ON THE LOCAL NEWS CHANNEL FOR THE WORLD TO SEE? If this is real and you truly have this ability show the world. Prove it. Go collect Randis one million dollars. Use the money to but the future misses something nice. Invest the money and never work again. Only maybe preforming a show or two now and then, Make the rounds on the talk show circuit. Do all that stuff. Again why haven't you contacted the local news? A local newspaper? Someone? For the love of toast show the world that us mere mortals can extend beyond our 5 senses and simple abilities and do something that is truly amazing.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever happened to you not talking anymore, i was really looking forward to that. The point is im done with your games. I have made a more credible video than my previous, and i have taken peoples suggestions into account. But its not your idea of "more credible" (which I found out is scientifically undeniable). No video can be this type of "credible" seeing as no video is sceintifialy unquestionable, mainly because any video is still just a VIDEO. Are you mentally challeneged, how many times do i have to say this? How many times do I have to say that your "checks ansd balances" are worthless when it comes to the type of credibility you are asking for? This makes them utterly pointless, and a hassel, on top of it. Why wold i do those things if they are only going to waste my time and energy, and in the end, are not going to improve the credibility of my video? How many times do i have to say that this isnt supposed to be interpreted as scientific proof of TK before you realize that what youve been saying all of this time has long ago been rendered as being moot? YOUR C&B'S ARE IRRELEVENT TO SCIENCE, AND THUS ARE IRRELEVENT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MY VIDEO. There is only so much i could do to improve the credibility of my video (and even then, my video is still not undeniable). I did those things. What you suggested was unnessecary and ill thoughtout, which you only reinforce by not forumlating a theory based on these "shortcommings".

You clealy are not going to man up here, since youve had ample chances to do more then imply that this video is a hoax. But you have yet to make a single claim because this video baffles you, despite that numerous doubts it invites. So unless you make a claim like AI, if you think my video is a hoax, just say it. Say it and leave it at that if you are not going to substantiate your suspicions with a plausible claim. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME with your irrelvent criticisms of how my video isnt infallibly proof of tk.

Wow - I guess I called your bluff and you folded? Rather EMO too.....

Matt, I guess a bit of me is "lost" -

-- You knew from the beginning that this wasn't going to be easy.

-- You knew it wasn't going to be "friendly".

-- You knew it was going to be looked at very closely.

So I find it curious that you thought, for reasons beyond me, that this video would 'work'? Why?

I do not have to make one (video) to discredit yours. I only had to point out what you agreed upon and didn't even do. You actually discredited your own video for the following 5 reasons =- that you understood needed to be there and why.

Why this video failed:

A - There was a reason BOTH hands needed to be seen in the video.

So why did you think your R-Hand wouldn't be missed during the demo? You honestly didn't think this would create doubt?

B - There was a reason for the clear table top. You even posted this in your own post. So it was assumed you understood WHY this needed to be clear?

C - There was a reason why a feather, strip of toilet paper or foam needed to be inside the glass laying on the top of the table. To give proof that there was no wind or such in there.

D - There was a reason why the camera needed to give a better FOV then you supplied. It seems you did your best NOT to allow us to see outside that very limited circle.

E - There was a reason we needed to see your face. It wasn't to see what you looked like. It was thought, wrongly I guess that you understood this too.

Forget the witnesses, the teacher and such. Put that to the side for right now.

Just the five points above. There were reasons for these to be there. It was thought that you understood these reasons. The clear fact that you avoided ALL of the above 5 is more than just curious, it does raise doubts. IF you had just met those 5 - your video would have been more crdible then what you presented. You cut so many corners that you caused more than REASONABLE DOUBT.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I wanted to make a *more* credible video because at least I was aware that no video i could have possibly made would be "scientifically credible",not even a video including everything JJ suggested. Seeing as Jj's suggestions are moot in terms of making my video credible, scientifically speaking, what would be the point of me going through the hassel of trying to do all of the irrelevent stuff, if the goal is scientific proof? Can someone answer this for me?

And if my video invites so much doubt Jj, why havent you used that to formulate a theory yet? Can you not make sense of these shortcommings? This is very suspect if you ask me. It should be a cake walk for you to come up with a number of theories to discounte my video...but you have made none. Why? Why not just do it, if only to shut me up?

The rest about me not meeting your standards is clearly irrelevent because your standards themselves are moot. Ill say it one more time and then im going to ignore those who ignore this post. We need to clear the air here. I said i wanted to make a more credible video than my first, which i did. It seems as if the concensus here of what is deemed "credible" (not more credible mind you, but "credible") is something that is sceintifically undeniable, or very close to it. No video can be this type of credible, seeing as any video is still overwhelmingly suspect...just because its a video. Given this, not even Jj's suggestions would have been enough to elevate my video to the level of credibility you all are criticizing my video for not being. Which means that, even if i had done all of those things, my video still wouldnt be what you all would consider "credible". This renderd his checks and balances as an excercise in futility. Why am i the only one who has noticed this? Maybe because its the only thing Jj has going for him...

Other than that, im looking forward to your theories Kevin, and forgive me if i sound irratated...I am. Its very irratating to see people accuse me of ignoring Jj's checks and balances when i have addressed them time and time again, like i just did again. I have clearly shown that his C&Bs were a futile in establishing credibility. And seeing as such, there was no reason to spend more time and energy on something that was going to do nothing for my video. And please dont pretend like this doesnt make sense, it makes perfect sense.

And in the end, if it still wasn't good enough for any of you, well cry me a river. I tried, I did alot (3 videos) and most of you have done nothing but sit in your armchairs and talk crap from across the internet. I made it spin in two directions (twice), i showed around and under the setup, i did tk from further away, i did a heat, air, and magnet check...all of these things were primary concerns, which have apparently lost their importance simply because i actually did them. How funny is that?

You all must take me for a fool if you think im not acutely aware of some of the unreasonableness and shortcommings involved on the skeptics parts (some of them anyway). Its painfully clear to me, which means that there is a good chance that its not only clear to others, but also to yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I wanted to make a *more* credible video because at least I was aware that no video i could have possibly made would be "scientifically credible",not even a video including everything JJ suggested. Seeing as Jj's suggestions are moot in terms of making my video credible, scientifically speaking, what would be the point of me going through the hassel of trying to do all of the irrelevent stuff, if the goal is scientific proof? Can someone answer this for me?

And if my video invites so much doubt Jj, why havent you used that to formulate a theory yet? Can you not make sense of these shortcommings? This is very suspect if you ask me. It should be a cake walk for you to come up with a number of theories to discounte my video...but you have made none. Why? Why not just do it, if only to shut me up?

The rest about me not meeting your standards is clearly irrelevent because your standards themselves are moot. Ill say it one more time and then im going to ignore those who ignore this post. We need to clear the air here. I said i wanted to make a more credible video than my first, which i did. It seems as if the concensus here of what is deemed "credible" (not more credible mind you, but "credible") is something that is sceintifically undeniable, or very close to it. No video can be this type of credible, seeing as any video is still overwhelmingly suspect...just because its a video. Given this, not even Jj's suggestions would have been enough to elevate my video to the level of credibility you all are criticizing my video for not being. Which means that, even if i had done all of those things, my video still wouldnt be what you all would consider "credible". This renderd his checks and balances as an excercise in futility. Why am i the only one who has noticed this? Maybe because its the only thing Jj has going for him...

Other than that, im looking forward to your theories Kevin, and forgive me if i sound irratated...I am. Its very irratating to see people accuse me of ignoring Jj's checks and balances when i have addressed them time and time again, like i just did again. I have clearly shown that his C&Bs were a futile in establishing credibility. And seeing as such, there was no reason to spend more time and energy on something that was going to do nothing for my video. And please dont pretend like this doesnt make sense, it makes perfect sense.

And in the end, if it still wasn't good enough for any of you, well cry me a river. I tried, I did alot (3 videos) and most of you have done nothing but sit in your armchairs and talk crap from across the internet. I made it spin in two directions (twice), i showed around and under the setup, i did tk from further away, i did a heat, air, and magnet check...all of these things were primary concerns, which have apparently lost their importance simply because i actually did them. How funny is that?

You all must take me for a fool if you think im not acutely aware of some of the unreasonableness and shortcommings involved on the skeptics parts (some of them anyway). Its painfully clear to me, which means that there is a good chance that its not only clear to others, but also to yourselves.

Okay let me get this straight mattman! You are saying that because no one can come up with a scientific explanation as to why we can't explain how you done you're vids. that it is proof? lmao first off it's a video and well we can't see everything that is going on in the video.

You have to understand that this is why you are being treated the way you are! Some may make videos but they are reletively useless because they are just not sufficient enough evidence to prove psi.

If you really think you do have these sopposed abilities, then you need to be tested in a controlled invironment, so that if anything is out of the normal it can be recorded by several people up close and personal.

Any other thing you say on here will just be pushed to the side, because like I said a video showing some neat trick is just that.

Edited by Dragonwick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt -

Why did you ignore my last post and the 5 points that you understood and agreed upon?

I know you won't because logic states: Matt cannot answer these because either way he answer them - he will be admitting he screwed up and thus would have to admit he failed. But I will re-ask them again.

Why this video failed:

A - There was a reason BOTH hands needed to be seen in the video.

So why did you think your R-Hand wouldn't be missed during the demo? You honestly didn't think this would create doubt?

B - There was a reason for the clear table top. You even posted this in your own post. So it was assumed you understood WHY this needed to be clear?

C - There was a reason why a feather, strip of toilet paper or foam needed to be inside the glass laying on the top of the table. To give proof that there was no wind or such in there.

D - There was a reason why the camera needed to give a better FOV then you supplied. It seems you did your best NOT to allow us to see outside that very limited circle.

E - There was a reason we needed to see your face. It wasn't to see what you looked like. It was thought, wrongly I guess that you understood this too.

I quote:

..... irrelevent stuff, if the goal is scientific proof? Can someone answer this for me?

Funny that you expect an answer but yet you do NOT address the 5 points above. Would you tell me how these 5 are "irrelevent" to the video in question? You seem to call them "irrelevent" - "silly" - "a waste of time" and such: But how are they?? How would they subtract to the adding validity to your video: I would seriously love to hear the answer to that. :blink:

You have avoided certain clearly stated and, well yes, obvious points w/no small EMO. You did not address them you just get EMO and starting calling people names, well me. I expect name calling from kids in Elementry School, Matt. Not a 21 year old in college. You are suppose to have "grown up". But this is all to common w/people and videos like this. They get busted and they see the points are more then valid and just get p***ed off. Their scam didn't work.

Why did you think your right hand not being seen in the video was not important?

Why does it make your demonstration seriously questionable. <- Continue to ignore just that one, as you have been doing and it tells us: Matt is hidding something and is afraid. If only on this point: You know the missing right hand is a very valid point. Because the hand is NOT seen it does create Reasonable and Honest Doubts towards your video. I'm sorry but it does. Tell me how it doesn't create doubt? (P L E A S E!)

You avoided those questions for the possible reasons: You knew they were agreed upon by you. You knew they were and are valid and because you couldn't pull the video off other wise - you blast me for being "to picky" instead of admitting straight up; you screwed up and/or a scam is clearly trying to be pulled off. But the R-Hand being hidden off camera is NOT picky and not out of line and it is relevent.

What are my theories of what you did - there are way to many of them because of the five recent points made and the obvious and emotional avoidance you took to NOT have them there. (Not to mention the other.) They were all there for clearly stated and yes very obvious reasons.

Could there of been a remote electric pump motors or two motors in the small table? Yes there could. Even two speeds: Slow & Fast. One of the pump motors w/small tube w/a small hole in the table angled R and the other angled L. to control the direction and the two speeds.

Why do I think this? I did go back and watched the spinning.

It was interesting to note the speeds for Slow and Fast in both directions were pretty much the SAME SPEEDS.

Also add to that the extreme quickness that it happened. There was no "build" up of speed - it just happened.

Like what one would expect w/pump motor. Thought control would not have been that "Instant" or that 'quick' or that consistantly 'exact'. Thought control would of had some flux in the speeds.

I would also suggest that is why you took 5 months and several takes to pull this stunt off. A trick and illussion takes time - TK doesn't, to set up. TK either works or it does not. Illussions/Tricks take a little more time.

Also because if it was honest and real Psi-TK, w/the control you think we are to believe you have in this video - it should have only taken at the most 1/2 hour to 1 hour to make. So in 5 months we are suppose to believe you didn't have a single free 1/2 hour to 1 hour?? :huh:

Can I prove it?

No - but you cannot prove it's not. (Because you thought A-E were "irelevent".) :blink:

For a 21 year old in college, you need to take a class in reasoning skills, because your reasoning here is faulty and the lot of us see it and you are a tad EMO because we do see it.

See I can suggest that is why face is not in the picture or your right hand.

That is why the feather or TP or other super light object was suppose to be inside the bowl.

For which you did understand the reasoning of this. But these all had to be avoided and were avoided. Why? Because they would show your trick. Prove me wrong? Oh wait - you cannot, because these Checks & Balances were "irelevent". :rolleyes:

Edited - My sons friend who is into little remote cars and racing just told me there are little electric/battery operated motor that would do this easily and cheaply. I just went on the internet and googled Tiny Electric Motors and Tiny Electric Pump Motors. Yup - 15.00 and up. These would fit inside your brown table and are R/C controlled w/AA and AAA Batteries.

Edited: Two of my local friends have added $10.00 a piece to the OFFER of the $25.00 IF Matt takes the challenges and passes it. So it's up from $50.00 to $70.00 total. But why do I have this "strange feeling" that Matt has to turn it down and not 'go there'?? Hmmm......

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a snapshot of an RC micro unit out of a micro RC toy car. This could even fit into a 1/2 inch tabletop!

The two silver cylinders are miniature MOTORS both with clockwise/anticlockwise control.

The two blue cylinders are capacitors capable of storing enough charge to run the motors continuously for ~7 minutes - no batteries involved!

post-15586-1177290526_thumb.jpg

BTW, I have a picture that I took of a larger unit (another RC toy car) but when I fixed it, the kids wanted to play with it again :cry:

YOUR C&B'S ARE IRRELEVENT TO SCIENCE
I find this comment quite disturbing. Although they may not be called specifically checks & balances, their equivalents are being used extensively in science and are VERY relevant.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a snapshot of an RC micro unit out of a micro RC toy car. This could even fit into a 1/2 inch tabletop!

The two silver cylinders are miniature MOTORS both with clockwise/anticlockwise control.

The two blue cylinders are capacitors capable of storing enough charge to run the motors continuously for ~7 minutes - no batteries involved!

post-15586-1177290526_thumb.jpg

BTW, I have a picture that I took of a larger unit (another RC toy car) but when I fixed it, the kids wanted to play with it again :cry:

I find this comment quite disturbing. Although they may not be called specifically checks & balances, their equivalents are being used extensively in science and are VERY relevant.

Cheers

Thanks AI - pretty much gives some solid ground to our theory, doesn't it? Nicely done.

So I gave you my theory in the prior post, MATT - and here AI pretty much shows that it could easily be done.

Now please answer my questions in the last post of mine above, just before AI's. :)

Yes it distrubs me too that he seems to think he is not obligated to follow even the simplest of Checks & Balances. That he wants to "prove TK" - but yet doesn't want to do it in a way that is credible - even slightly.

At this point a couple of us after reading his posts are seeing: It is a scam and he knows it - he just wants to see if we can figure it out - thus the reasons why he, with NO small EMO puts down accountablity. He doesn't want to be accountable because he knows it's a scam.

So Matt - why don't you just come clean - tell us it's a scam/trick or what ever Politically Correct term you wish to use and say up front - "I wanted to see if you guys could figure it out..." Enough already w/the EMO Act.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jjbreen... U just shutted that guy down so bad... Oi matt, want some bandaids for those burns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jjbreen... U just shutted that guy down so bad... Oi matt, want some bandaids for those burns?

I am getting fed up with crap being or should I say - people attempting to pass off "crap as 'psi'". Then they get all EMO because they are busted and the thing is - it didn't take much to bust it and debunk it.

Back in the beginning of this Matt stated and I quote:

" I have come here is to get your advice on how to make a more credible documentation of this phenomena...

He even implied understanding of what needed to be met, why it needed to be met and even agreed to certain points that HE WOULD MEET. Then ignored them ALL except the control of the paper pin wheel. The reason he had to ignore them and call the irrelevent is because other wise he couldn't pull off his con job. That is the only logical reason that can be seen.

For someone that wanted to "... make a more credible documentation of this ..." he did everything by the book to do just the oposite and yet fails to even address the simplest of questions: Why did he keep his R-Hand out of the video. Then he says basically - "that's not important and it's "irrelevent" and does not take away from the demonstration..." :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting fed up with crap being or should I say - people attempting to pass off "crap as 'psi'". Then they get all EMO because they are busted and the thing is - it didn't take much to bust it and debunk it.

Back in the beginning of this Matt stated and I quote:

He even implied understanding of what needed to be met, why it needed to be met and even agreed to certain points that HE WOULD MEET. Then ignored them ALL except the control of the paper pin wheel. The reason he had to ignore them and call the irrelevent is because other wise he couldn't pull off his con job. That is the only logical reason that can be seen.

For someone that wanted to "... make a more credible documentation of this ..." he did everything by the book to do just the oposite and yet fails to even address the simplest of questions: Why did he keep his R-Hand out of the video. Then he says basically - "that's not important and it's "irrelevent" and does not take away from the demonstration..." :wacko:

True, people should get their facts straight before making "revelations" of crap for evry1 else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jj, my right hand is a moot point, like your presence in this discussion. If my table is a remote controlled trick table (or whatever), how would showing my right hand disprove that possibility, when its just as likely that someone off screen could have the remote? See what im saying people, if you just take the time and think before you talk, you can answer these questions yourselves.

And just incase it hasnt penetrated your thick skull JJ, i didnt do your C&B's because there was no point. If you want to know why refer to any of the dozens of times i explained myself. I did answer your questions, you just didnt want to hear it. Just reread the post i had made before this one. Its a DIRECT RESPONCE to why i didnt do those 5 things. Ignoring it isnt going to make it go away.

And Jj, once again, read my posts. I have already said AI's theory was possible...days ago...you retard. lol

Dragonwick, you may want actually read what i say before you try to make smart ass remarks...i specifically said that this video WASNT supposed to be proof.

AI gaurdian, when i said "your C&B's are irrelevent to sceince" (in reference to JJ's comments) i said that because his suggestiong for my video still wouldnt have made my video scientifically credible...now would it? Thats exactly why they are irrelevent, not as general principles mind you, but as "necessities" for a "credible" video.

By now, if i havent gotten through to you, there is nothing i can to do or say to change that. You can continue this circle jerk session without me. Im done here. Props to AI for actually comming up with a plausible theory. Semi-props to Kevin for at least trying to do this (sorry i am not sticking around for your theory, i cant take this nonsense anymore). Thanks to those who have tried to be reasonable about all of this, KBA for example. Thanks to those who tired to defend me.

commense the cheap shots, seeing as i will no longer be around to defend myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jj, my right hand is a moot point, like your presence in this discussion. If my table is a remote controlled trick table (or whatever), how would showing my right hand disprove that possibility, when its just as likely that someone off screen could have the remote? See what im saying people, if you just take the time and think before you talk, you can answer these questions yourselves.

And just incase it hasnt penetrated your thick skull JJ, i didnt do your C&B's because there was no point. If you want to know why refer to any of the dozens of times i explained myself. I did answer your questions, you just didnt want to hear it. Just reread the post i had made before this one. Its a DIRECT RESPONCE to why i didnt do those 5 things. Ignoring it isnt going to make it go away.

And Jj, once again, read my posts. I have already said AI's theory was possible...days ago...you retard. lol

Dragonwick, you may want actually read what i say before you try to make smart ass remarks...i specifically said that this video WASNT supposed to be proof.

AI gaurdian, when i said "your C&B's are irrelevent to sceince" (in reference to JJ's comments) i said that because his suggestiong for my video still wouldnt have made my video scientifically credible...now would it? Thats exactly why they are irrelevent, not as general principles mind you, but as "necessities" for a "credible" video.

By now, if i havent gotten through to you, there is nothing i can to do or say to change that. You can continue this circle jerk session without me. Im done here. Props to AI for actually comming up with a plausible theory. Semi-props to Kevin for at least trying to do this (sorry i am not sticking around for your theory, i cant take this nonsense anymore). Thanks to those who have tried to be reasonable about all of this, KBA for example. Thanks to those who tired to defend me.

commense the cheap shots, seeing as i will no longer be around to defend myself.

What a waste of a good thread! :no: I seriously wonder if matt was even trying to make a point or even if he knew what he was talking about.

Oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a waste of a good thread! :no: I seriously wonder if matt was even trying to make a point or even if he knew what he was talking about.

Oh well...

Based on his EMO, his use of "Credible", "Irrelevent", "Moot" and not to mention what he DID AGREE TOO in 2006 and then avoided all but the control factor. I have only come to the thought - he found he couldn't do it with TK so he had to side step all the agreements - like clear table top, feather or super light material inside the bowl laying flat and such. It simply wouldn't work. So 5 months later after seeing this - he had to pull off a scam and it didn't work. No one bought it. So he did like so many others: Got all EMO and took his toys and went home pouting.

As my prior post stated: He was or should have been aware that this wasn't going to be easy, we were not going to be 'nice' and we were going to look at it seriously.

As I have stated: The Pin Wheel is NOT the best choice for trying to prove "PSI" or "TK". It simply is not the method of choice. One will have to take EXTREME measures to remove as much doubt as possible.

Once they start to take steps to 'remove the doubt protocols' - they all find it cannot be done, there is NO TK to be shown. Remove the science that does play into this - you remove the "TK", it's just that simple. - One would think by now, they would see this, one would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on his EMO, his use of "Credible", "Irrelevent", "Moot" and not to mention what he DID AGREE TOO in 2006 and then avoided all but the control factor. I have only come to the thought - he found he couldn't do it with TK so he had to side step all the agreements - like clear table top, feather or super light material inside the bowl laying flat and such. It simply wouldn't work. So 5 months later after seeing this - he had to pull off a scam and it didn't work. No one bought it. So he did like so many others: Got all EMO and took his toys and went home pouting.

As my prior post stated: He was or should have been aware that this wasn't going to be easy, we were not going to be 'nice' and we were going to look at it seriously.

As I have stated: The Pin Wheel is NOT the best choice for trying to prove "PSI" or "TK". It simply is not the method of choice. One will have to take EXTREME measures to remove as much doubt as possible.

Once they start to take steps to 'remove the doubt protocols' - they all find it cannot be done, there is NO TK to be shown. Remove the science that does play into this - you remove the "TK", it's just that simple. - One would think by now, they would see this, one would think.

I mean you're right Jj! Matt was given a set of guidelines to follow to make any kind of irrefutable proof.

And then he comes back with a video not very well put together as far as the previously stated guidelines were concerned!

But yet he gets mad and calls it moot, when we ask why is it up close, why is he not in full view of the camera Etc.! WHY! Because it leaves questions.

Simply put to make an extraordinary claim you have to have extraordinary evidence. calling it moot, and telling sceptics they need to provide videos is ,irrelevant we are not the ones making the claim.

Edited by Dragonwick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once they start to take steps to 'remove the doubt protocols' - they all find it cannot be done, there is NO TK to be shown. Remove the science that does play into this - you remove the "TK", it's just that simple. - One would think by now, they would see this, one would think.

The above is the fact of just about all cases where people try to prove Psi abilities that simply do NOT exist except in fantasies.

As people begin to start the process of building a credible video - they see only all to clearly that when you add even the basics of the Protocols to remove doubts - you also remove the ability to do the 'demonstration'. You stop the science that is at play - one then finds only all to clearly that the "powers" are not really there.

Then one is left w/only two options:

A - Swollow the pride and fess up. (Seldom done.)

B - Build a hoax.

But to do that you have to avoid the "Doubt Removal Protocols".

Thus doubts and questions are seen and raised. Then the end results - the person gets hurt feelings, gets EMO, throws out insults and walks away pouting. Always a good ending!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing he did wrong was not show his left hand. That's IT! Period. There was no need to be in a science lab, that would have changed nothing. And a witness would not have changed a thing either, all a witness would have done was raised more problems. Such as, "Who is that person", "Are they in on it?", "Maybe he's tricking them as well", etc...

The ONLY thing he did wrong was not show his left hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing he did wrong was not show his left hand. That's IT! Period. There was no need to be in a science lab, that would have changed nothing. And a witness would not have changed a thing either, all a witness would have done was raised more problems. Such as, "Who is that person", "Are they in on it?", "Maybe he's tricking them as well", etc...

The ONLY thing he did wrong was not show his left hand.

I just went back and checked the posts. I see that you were not apart of the 06 "give and take". No ZoD, there were some thing that he did agree to and implied understanding of their reasons to be there.

To name a few:

He agreed to a clear table top. :yes:

HE agreed to a feather or LWM inside the bowl. :yes:

He agreed to full FOV of the demo area. :yes:

He agreed to his face being fully seen. :yes:

He agreed to hands being fully seen. :yes:

There we other thing too - but those are just a few that he did say, "YES" to and/or IMPLIED understanding and acceptance to. He knew their reasonings from the very beginning.

So I'm sorry when you say "YES" and give clear understanding to the reason. Then it was/is expected to be there and SHOULD HAVE BEEN! These were NOT there.

That like ordering a Ham & Cheese with Tomatoe and mayo and mustard sandwhich, he writes down ham & cheese, Tomatoe, Mayo, Mustard and says, "Coming right up!". Then brings you a slice of bread and cheese. Oh, I thought the rest was 'moot' and 'silly' and a 'waste of time'. Enjoy. :blink:

So then, since he did agree to these and understood - why did he not think these would be noticed missing?

Then to excuse them away as "irrelevent", "Moot", "waste of time", "silly" and so on.

Sounds 100% like excuses, because he realized he couldn't pull it off with out the hidden props.

Plus he understood quite clearly that this was not going to be 'friendly' and that it WOULD BE LOOKED at. So one would think when he understood he would make sure to "cross his t's very carefully and dot all his i's just as carefully. So I am really sorry - in this you are wrong.

When one starts to remove the actual science behind it - you also remove the reason it was working. No Psi or TK - just good old Science.

Why people expect this to be 'easy' and not looked at is beyond me.

Plus I find it no small curiosity that he, being in college to turn down $70.00. No not a million - but still $70.00 is at least a beer and pizza feed or gas money. All he had to do was SHOW UP. I would do all the scheduling. I put my money where my mouth was - But it was a safe bet he would ignore it. He had too.

Edited by Jjbreen
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.