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

Singling out Jj, isn't really going to get you anywhere, and it's a cue for flaming.

First off no one on here are experts on these cotroversial subjects, nor are they claiming to be.

Calling someone a BS'r because they are disagreeing with what you think is just absurd.

Matt-

Anyway, the whole idea was to create an illusion of a person who can do TK. Thats requires "role playing" or *gasp* dare i say it....lying. And i know what your thinking, "someone lied over the internet?? How could this be????....im so devistated i..i dont think ill ever recover from this"

Guidelines:

While our aim is to encourage serious discussion on metaphysical phenomena in this section, members posting dubious claims of fantastic psychokinetic abilities can expect to be at the receiving end of a certain degree of skepticism. We would like to encourage visitors to come forward with legitimate stories, however at the same time we want to discourage the posting of intentionally fabricated claims.

You come in saying you can make a video that will end all skepticism on this phenomena, and apparently you expected no one to come at you with a great bit of disbelief! Because you are now coming back telling everyone that you are a phony, and that you faked the video then only to single out people who highly doubted your claims from the begining.

Edited by Dragonwick
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

Wow - Matt is a tad puzzled that no one else shares his 'humor' in his con-job. I think it's safe to say you'll find NO ONE that will support you even a little on this one. You simply crossed too many lines: You've made yourself the UM Ultimate Liar. :tu:

*snip*

I'll support him...for election as biggest dill-weed of the year. Or UM Ultimate Liar if the slots open. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Matt's "logic": :wacko:

He calls my "Checks & Balances" - Moot - Silly - Waste of time, "psuedo science' and so on. That they could be 'worked around' and such. :blink:

Ok - fine -

Then why couldn't Matt pull off his scam w/them in place? :huh:

Why did he have to "moot" them?? :hmm:

SIMPLE: They made it impossible to pull off his con so he HAD to moot them. :cry:

So just how 'moot' and 'silly' are they really - I guess not that much. Matt couldn't pull of his scam w/them. :tu:

Thanks Matt - you just proved yet another lie you promoted as actually being quite true. My C & B's are worth while! :D

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

enough with the strawman fallacy. I clearly wasnt talking about all skeptics, yet you make it seem like I was. I was talking about the "too-skeptical" skeptics, because they are indeed ignorant, gulliblem, and stupid. This is the reason why i made the distinction between them and "well-balanced" and "level-headed" skeptics.

fair enough, perhaps it was a bad analogy. But lets clea the air here:

The Theist looks at the universe and says "i cant explain this. I know, it must be the work of a god".

The AGNOSTIC looks that the universe and says "I cant explain this", and leaves it at that.

The Atheist, however, looks at the universe and says "i cant explain this. But whatever did this, its wasnt a god."]

Dont confuse agnosticism and atheism, they are not the same thing. Both realize that there isnt suffient evidence for a God, but only one of the two makes the cardinal mistake of confusing an absence of evidence for evidence of absense. Guess which one?

Absence of evidence for a wild claim means that the claim can be dismissed until any real evidence appears.

I repeat my Santa Claus analogy. Santa Claus is a human invention. Gods are human inventions. Using Santa Claus or gods to explain why things happen are wild claims.

The agnostic says, "I can't prove that gods exist or do not exist so I won't assume either case." The atheist says, "I see no evidence that gods exist so I will assume that gods do not exist until I see some evidence that they do."

When is a skeptic "too-skeptical"? When the skeptic requires strong evidence for an extraordinary claim? You did not provide adequate evidence of psi, as you yourself said. That not everybody believed your demonstrations does not mean that anybody was too skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence for a wild claim means that the claim can be dismissed until any real evidence appears.

I repeat my Santa Claus analogy. Santa Claus is a human invention. Gods are human inventions. Using Santa Claus or gods to explain why things happen are wild claims.

The agnostic says, "I can't prove that gods exist or do not exist so I won't assume either case." The atheist says, "I see no evidence that gods exist so I will assume that gods do not exist until I see some evidence that they do."

When is a skeptic "too-skeptical"? When the skeptic requires strong evidence for an extraordinary claim? You did not provide adequate evidence of psi, as you yourself said. That not everybody believed your demonstrations does not mean that anybody was too skeptical.

Actually there was a Saint Nick that really existed. Yes we've 'emblished' his legened just a 'tad'. But it wasn't a human invention as much as an embelishment of the life of the real St. Nick.

As for the rest of your post about Skeptics - Right on the button! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would like to nit-pick all of your guy's posts to death, I didnt come here to bicker.

Jj, I sincerely hope you are able to get over this, and i hope that one day youll be able to trust again.

Dragonwick, i hope that one day you realize that this "great bit of disbelief" your talking about was so great that it could have "debunked" the real deal. Wait for it.....yeah now you get it.

Eqqumby, not funny. Sit down.

Blinzo, ok i get it...your an atheist.

Other than that, I digress. Thanks for playing along everybody. And now for the best part, mostly because even after i say it, you'll do it anyway. Feel free to continue this ciricle jerk session without me!

~fin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would like to nit-pick all of your guy's posts to death, I didnt come here to bicker.

Jj, I sincerely hope you are able to get over this, and i hope that one day youll be able to trust again.

Dragonwick, i hope that one day you realize that this "great bit of disbelief" your talking about was so great that it could have "debunked" the real deal. Wait for it.....yeah now you get it.

Eqqumby, not funny. Sit down.Blinzo, ok i get it...your an atheist.

Other than that, I digress. Thanks for playing along everybody. And now for the best part, mostly because even after i say it, you'll do it anyway. Feel free to continue this ciricle jerk session without me!

~fin.

He he...*jerk-jerk*

Maybe he mistook my disgust for humor. I still say he's a crank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Matt didn't con anyone, he just pulled an illusion and you guys all feel but raped bc you didn't know how he did it. that's the truth.

GET OVER IT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt ole buddy ole pal. Could you have possibly waited about another month to reveal this con? Thats about all I need to finish putting together my own trick table and filming my own video. Besides you waiting to reveal this the only thing I wish is that I would have told someone my idea on how this could be faked and Ill be damned if it is not almost exactly like what you did. Looking at the video there was only one thing in my mind that would make the paper spin the way it did and that was air being directed accordingly. The pin holes in the table top angled correctly, the thin veneer over it all, the hollowed out legs etc. The only thing my setup did not require was another person blowing into a tube. It used a compressed air source and was controlled by valves. Which "my left hand" would be controlling off camera. Mind you it would be a little tougher to do in order to hook up the compressed air source to the table without another person but when you are doing some construction work on a house and have all the carpet ripped up it is pretty easy to have a trick floor as well as the trick table. Also using my setup would use electronics and a hand conveniently off camera.

My only questions are this. How did you get the original veneer off and how did you replace it with it looking obvious? How did you hollow out the leg(s) and make the connection to the table top from the legs? These are the two parts of it that were giving me trouble until I worked out the kinks. It was a little tricky to complete but the final result should still be the same. One last question here. Could you make a video showing the trick table in detail and redoing this little setup with a wide angle to should you and your accomplice? Even post it on youtube to make sure the through and through blind believers see it as well as the original video.

I will disagree with you that the checks and balances outlined here are pointless. I still do not believe you could do this in front of a teacher/professor and get away with it. It would take some modification of your trick table but you could so do it so that no second person is needed to blow into tubes, the compressed air source is hidden inside the table and that the valves(also inside the table) could be controlled remotely using the proper electronics and a second person or a clever way for you to control them yourself. Of course this is considering the use of a wooden or opaque table top that you can hide stuff in. Go look at the rules the way they stand right now. It has to be a clear table top. You can't pull off this trick using a clear table top. There is no where to hide the parts and workings. Also even if you could use an opaque table top the whole part where Jj finds a teacher/professor to view your setup and INSPECT the the equipment. I've met some dumb professors in my time but I highly doubt someone stepping up to participate in this is going to pass over a highly suspect table top with pinholes in the top. Also, and Im sure you noticed this, look at the pin holes in the shiny surface of the table top. Pretty easy to spot close up aren't they? Especially is a decently lit room? That is really hard to get past someone who can inspect the setup. With Jj tracking down the teacher/professor you also don't really have a chance to turn them and convince them that half the prize money or whatever is worth lying about what they see. See my point? The checks and balances are so well thought out that not even a clever guy like yourself could do it using these stipulations.

I can kind of see your point in all this. Am I a little annoyed? Perhaps. If you made some beleivers fall for this hook line and a sinker and look like the fools they are, then maybe this is not all that bad. Though I am, per usual with you, taken back and annoyed with your constant arrogance. Congratulations on making a nice trick. Might I suggest a career doing things like this trick? Just leave the arrogance out of it. It wears thin on here but even more so in the real world. Also you are telling Jj to let it go. Might I suggest the same? Why is it that I have seen this whole thing more as a personal mission to outwit/outsmart/trick and ultimately attempt to make a fool out of Jj? Let it go man. If you were a true skeptic with an open mind(kind of like you claim) you would appreciate Jj and his opinions/thoughts. Go read what he says else where in these forums. He is not a hardcore skeptic who believes in nothing but a person who has varied opinions on these unexplained mysteries. Trust me I don't agree with Jj all the time but generally speaking it is in this sections of the forums we are of like mind. Also Jj is doing us all a favor by presenting his challenge and making up the checks and balances. They are a good set of rules and are a huge step in the right direction. If you are an advocate of the Randi challenge then you should advocate Jjs challenge. Other than the prize amount and some basic working the will work the some way.

Again Matt there is no way you are anyone else could come up with a trick that would win you the 300 dollars. The checks and balances are valid and important. Far from pointless as you call them. You came up with a good trick and a nice video. I hate to break it to you though, you remain the only person that remains "ignorant and arrogant". Go and reread the rules as they stand. Look at your setup. See it yet? Its a shame. You seem like a smart guy and everything but you are blind beyond the level you claim us skeptics to be. You're blinded by either arrogance or a vendetta. Maybe both. Step back and think about this. Most everyone who commented about your video here had valid points. The checks and balances are valid and can not be beaten through trickery. You think you can beat them easily thus making them moot? Fine then have at it and prove us wrong because as of right now you have done nothing but prove us right. See it yet Matt? See it?

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Matt didn't con anyone, he just pulled an illusion and you guys all feel but raped bc you didn't know how he did it. that's the truth.

GET OVER IT

Ok, as one who has been only an observer in all this here's my proverbial 2 cents worth. Illusionists (like David Blaine and Chris Angel) are very up front about exactly what they are doing (ie, they do not tell folks that they have proof of the paranormal). It's not the issue of Matt's clever illusion but rather that it was misrepresented in order to make make others look foolish that has people POed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not entirely correct

His point was not to make anyone foolish. David Blane and co are pure illusionists, they entertain people and yes, everyone knows what they do is an illusion. Matt wanted to make another point. On many metaphysical forums and sites like youtube these psychokinese video's appear like mushrooms. Matt's only point was to show everyone that you shouldn't believe ANY of those video's as proof. To many people seem to be wasting their time trying to move stuff with their mind, they think it's so easy from seeing all these phony video's..

Matt just debunked ALL of those TK video's. It's all show, and even if some of them are real (?), just b/c they are just videos their vallue is zero. That's the lesson to learn here.

Getting angry b/c he "lied" about it is just stupid. What would have been the point in telling from the beginning that is was a fake? He just let it become some kind of cult TK video that appeared on a lot of metaphysical sites. Now this confession hopefully has shook some people awake..

Right on matt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not entirely correct

His point was not to make anyone foolish. David Blane and co are pure illusionists, they entertain people and yes, everyone knows what they do is an illusion. Matt wanted to make another point. On many metaphysical forums and sites like youtube these psychokinese video's appear like mushrooms. Matt's only point was to show everyone that you shouldn't believe ANY of those video's as proof. To many people seem to be wasting their time trying to move stuff with their mind, they think it's so easy from seeing all these phony video's..

Matt just debunked ALL of those TK video's. It's all show, and even if some of them are real (?), just b/c they are just videos their vallue is zero. That's the lesson to learn here.

Getting angry b/c he "lied" about it is just stupid. What would have been the point in telling from the beginning that is was a fake? He just let it become some kind of cult TK video that appeared on a lot of metaphysical sites. Now this confession hopefully has shook some people awake..

Right on matt!

Merle - Did you even read the thread starting about Nov 2006?? I have serious doubts that you have....

and follow it forward to see how Matt exactly respresented himself - and the NO SMALL EMO he exhibited which now we are told was ALL A LIE. No there was serious misrepresentation. Even those that called him on it in clear and no uncertain terms - and he BLASTED us for calling him on it - claiming that it was very REAL again w/no small emo..... then look at how his emo, 'taking his toys and walked out'. No Merle - he crossed a lot of lines. Especially when he was 'busted' - even the table was focused on as the means by which he pulled off his con.....

The thing is - he told me my Protocols and C & B's were 'moot', 'silly' and 'waste of time' - but FUNNY he couldn't pull his con off with them. Why not since they were so 'silly'.... silly enough that he could NOT do it.... :blink:

Those that have been in on this from the beginning know exactly what took place and they ALL have every right to be p***ed off.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well im not going to decide whether what he did was cool or not but i like his opinion on you ^^

edit: and in a way hes proven more then your stupid challenge :)

Edited by DakaSha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that perhaps he statically charged himself before he sat down. Then continued the static charge by rubbing his hands together then and or other parts of his body and clothing.

If I was to debunk it that is what I would start off with. Not that I am actually debunking it right now for now I can not say that it is real or fake. I will have to look at it some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

psiballs...such foolish fools, stop your foolish foolery.

As foolish as psiballs might be, this thread has nothing to do with them.

Mattman said he was going to make a video with a psi/pinwheel that would make the skeptics believe.

There were also guidelines set so that all trickery would be rendered obsolete!

Matt did make a video and did not follow the guidelines which lead to alot of speculation and disbelief.

He called these guidelines/checkes & balances, "MOOT" because he could not get around them without

cheating.

So then he comes back and says that he lied, ("faked the video") on purpose to prove a point, that

some videos are good enough to fool even the best skeptic, as he seems to put it.

But in anycase he failed miserably, and now he doesn't get much respect for intentionaly lying and

faking a video for a laughable expense that in the end only made him look like a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well im not going to decide whether what he did was cool or not but i like his opinion on you ^^

edit: and in a way hes proven more then your stupid challenge :)

Coming from you - that's a compliment - thanks! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, it seems some of the people that joined into thread just recently have not taken the time to read the thread from about Nov. 2006. I would strongly suggest that you please read the whole story as it started to unfold. Please at least respect the others who have been in on this since then, by doing this instead of jumping in and clearly showing you have no clue of the full history of this.

I’ve started to wonder if Merler is not actually a friend of Matt’s?? I don’t know – but to jump in and support Matt so quickly really makes me wonder.

But here is the bottom line – that IF anyone reads the entire start of Matt’s and mines give and take on this, there was some things that were agreed to. That when Matt then presented his final video – were NOT met. This is when Matt started to get EMO. I’ll not list the every thing that Matt agreed to, but I will list two things that were.

He did agree to – in that he said, “Yes” to them as being part of his video.

- Clear Table Top.

- Light weight material laying on the table under the bowl.

Now there were other things, but I’ll just limit my dialog to these two that he clearly said, “YES” to.

When he presented his final video for viewing – these two items were obviously and clearly MISSING! Now to read his ‘logic’ and ‘rational’ they were “moot” – “silly” – “waste of time” – “easily worked around” and so on. Yet when this was pointed out that he did NOT meet them – there were no small EMO posts from him on this. It must also be pointed out – that he obviously could NOT pull off his scam w/these “moot” – “silly” – “waste of time” – “easily worked around” protocols. This really shoots down his ‘moot’ – ‘silly’ – ‘waste of time’ logic. Again he obviously could NOT ‘easily work around’ them, could he?

Now this was pointed out to him several times. The table was seen as the obvious point of how the pin wheel moved and that it was NOT TK. No we obviously didn’t guess the exact methodology he used. That is not the point. When we told him it was the table – he DENIED any tricks – he fought w/no small EMO that it was TK. In the end when it wasn’t being “bought” and he got seriously EMO in his posts – just go read them. See how HARD he fought that his ‘video was credible proof of TK’, rationalizing why he did NOT need to meet even the two points he agreed upon. He fought that this was a ‘credible video for TK’ – when it was NOT being bought. Now IF this was his ILLUSION as he now presents to us. Why on earth the EXTREME EMO’s? When he was now, obviously caught, how many of you would have continued the EMO posts and arguments on, “Credible TK video”?? Honestly think about that. He fought very hard on that part.

One other thing – is that he allowed this to become “personal” against me. He did not/does not like the fact that I didn’t ‘buy it’ – that I held him to his agreement, which now proves in several of my prior posts – “he could not pull off the scam w/out cutting corners”. I was right and that is why this p***ed him off. I held him to his agreement and was clear from the beginning I was correct – he could NOT do it and did NOT do it.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually i believe his version.

Good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually i believe his version.

speaking of allowing things to become personal.......

Can we concentrate on the topic at hand here please? Matt created a video that proves nothing. At the time it did nothing to prove TK. At this point it does nothing to prove that Jj's checks and balances are moot. In fact it reinforces just how important each and every one of his checks and balances are. The clear table top. The lightweight material places around the wheeling. He couldn't produce a video with these two checks in place so he created one anyways and then calls these checks moot. If they were moot and easily worked around he would have done so. He didn't because they are not easy get around.. Add in the clear table top or the light weight material and odds are he can't produce the video. The challenge presented by Jj is still valid and Matt's video does nothing but reinforce how vital the checks and balances are. Why is it some people can't see this?

Kevin A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of allowing things to become personal.......

Can we concentrate on the topic at hand here please? Matt created a video that proves nothing. At the time it did nothing to prove TK. At this point it does nothing to prove that Jj's checks and balances are moot. In fact it reinforces just how important each and every one of his checks and balances are. The clear table top. The lightweight material places around the wheeling. He couldn't produce a video with these two checks in place so he created one anyways and then calls these checks moot. If they were moot and easily worked around he would have done so. He didn't because they are not easy get around.. Add in the clear table top or the light weight material and odds are he can't produce the video. The challenge presented by Jj is still valid and Matt's video does nothing but reinforce how vital the checks and balances are. Why is it some people can't see this?

Kevin A.

Exactly the point from the beginning! :tu:

It seems believers have no logical reasoning, so they take sides with a "PHONY".

I'm still waiting on a video that will prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of allowing things to become personal.......

Can we concentrate on the topic at hand here please? Matt created a video that proves nothing. At the time it did nothing to prove TK. At this point it does nothing to prove that Jj's checks and balances are moot. In fact it reinforces just how important each and every one of his checks and balances are. The clear table top. The lightweight material places around the wheeling. He couldn't produce a video with these two checks in place so he created one anyways and then calls these checks moot. If they were moot and easily worked around he would have done so. He didn't because they are not easy get around.. Add in the clear table top or the light weight material and odds are he can't produce the video. The challenge presented by Jj is still valid and Matt's video does nothing but reinforce how vital the checks and balances are. Why is it some people can't see this?

Kevin A.

Kevin / Dragon -

I do not know how many times the above has been stated, by the both of U, by me and by others. From Nov. 2006 to current - you both are exactly correct. I guess they choose not to see it - because it's become personal to them, that their emotions have done nothing short then "blinded them" - for they do NOT address the clear facts of what you, I and a few others have pointed out. He couldn't pull it off w/the 'moot', 'silly', 'waste of time', and 'easily worked around'. He couldn't 'work around it' so he had to 'rationalize it away' and didn't even do a good job of that.... It is just that simple.

Edited by Jjbreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not a friend of matt, nor do I know him personally over the internet.

I've known about the video from other sites and I have read a lot of critic's theories how they thought the video was faked.

In saying that I support what matt said about you critics feeling conned and such I was refering to the fact that none knew how the setup of the illusion was.. and still stated all kinds of ways that is was done like this or like that.

I have not read the entire 19 pages here and I don't intend to either but I must say from reading the last pages that you are also correct to say matt didn't play fair game. He should have admitted a fraud when he couldn't reproduce the video in a way that it would have been almost impossible to be a fake.

In the end both sides here are in some way right and some way wrong. That in a way it could not be proven to be a fake is true. But also the other way around, so maybe you guys had to be a little more balanced in your criticism at some times..

ah well what the hell are we talking about here anyway? TK still remains unproven and that's what this thread is actually all about

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.