US Court Rules Yoga Not a Gateway to Hinduism

originally posted by: iNobody
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I respect your views, I could never do differently. But there is magic in this world, and I'm not talking about slight of the hand trickery.

See, that's what comes from believing in any kind of spiritual flim-flammery: you have to believe in all the other kinds too, and be afraid of it.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

You seem intelligent but are too fast to judge things you know nothing about. My statement is based on actual observation and personal experience. Obviously you have never had any and thus believe no one else has. It is narrow and restricted, your view is. And it is understandable, how out of your ignorance, you gain haughty disdain toward that which you do not know, and others who know and have seen things you know nothing about.

originally posted by: iNobody
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

You seem intelligent but are too fast to judge things you know nothing about. My statement is based on actual observation and personal experience. Obviously you have never had any and thus believe no one else has. It is narrow and restricted, your view is. And it is understandable, how out of your ignorance, you gain haughty disdain toward that which you do not know, and others who know and have seen things you know nothing about.

No, I have a haughty disdain toward the impossible, and towards those who fill in the blanks of what they do not know with magic and demons.

Also, that mask magician was pretty cool. But sadly, I can think of several ways that could be done without having to believe demons had anything to do with it.

EDIT TO ADD: I can't believe you actually linked a video of TV magicians as proof of mysticism.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Obviously more is possible than what you imagine. The world, the universe is a bigger place than just you.

Here is some more good footage:

originally posted by: iNobody
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Obviously more is possible than what you imagine. The world, the universe is a bigger place than just you.

Here is some more good footage:

Again, why are TV magicians proof of mysticism? I see your footage and raise you an example of your logic:

a reply to: iNobody

It's easy to explain how such tricks were done when we can only see them on film (CGI) and cannot attest to how honest to observes in the films were - they could obviously have been plants and just playing along, for ratings, a nice wedge of cash to help promote their show and so forth. "Magicians" have assistants and so forth, it's all part of the game.

About 15 years ago most people could not explain how David Blaine did his various "tricks" and now his secrets are pretty much common knowledge and have been exposed to millions on TV. Now we know that he had plants in the audience/crowds to distract and help lead emotional responses which helps to give such tricks more emotional impact on screen. Even his "how the f### was that done" trick with people's names appearing written on his skin in ash was shown to be a simple parlour trick.

Give it time and Dynamo's methods will be exposed by some other Illusionist who wishes he'd got them on screen first.

No need for demons.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

My logic? You didn't refute anything shown you. And that is a very tiny fraction of what is out there on film. Not to mention what happens everyday.

But you are still discounting my personal experiences. Which is enough to tell me you are disingenuous, and not sincere.

Here is some more footage:

a reply to: skalla

I really like how you said he used plants. Here is some footage where there is no way plants were used:

a reply to: iNobody

Each trick uses different methods obviously, it aint "one size fits all", that would be disingenuous.

I'm not going to trawl through an hour and a quarter's worth of video, be reasonable at least.

There are some excellent analysis of various modern "magician" tricks HERE, including Derren Brown, Dynamo, Blaine and so on.

a reply to: skalla

Already read that site. Most of it is guesses, and much of it is just grasping at straws. Too bad you couldn't come up with any better.

a reply to: iNobody

"most of it guesses", supported by a description that relates to the videos they post there too.

Nice try.

I guess evidence and zealotry don't mix, but we knew this already.

So back to guessing about incorporeal beings for you then. This does of course make you a pseudo-sceptic, where others require evidence and you need none. Perfect.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

LOL "She's a Witch!"

I'm embarrassed for our species (in the past and even today in some parts of the world), that anyone would ever surmise that someone was a witch and condemn them to death. If someone truly was a witch the ignorant masses wouldn't even be able to catch them to put them to death because they'd all be dead or turned into newts before they'd have a chance to get them to the gallows or stake.

Logic, clearly has never been one of our strong points. It's also ironic how keen we've been to kill in the name of religion. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the big ten, but apparently we can disregard depending on our agendas.

a reply to: skalla

Explain to me my personal experiences please Skulla.


(Notice that I ignored the name-calling, which obviously tells me you are a troll, and not sincere).

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: iNobody

"most of it guesses", supported by a description that relates to the videos they post there too.

Nice try.

I guess evidence and zealotry don't mix, but we knew this already.

So back to guessing about incorporeal beings for you then. This does of course make you a pseudo-sceptic, where others require evidence and you need none. Perfect.

A quote from that website:

"This explanation presumes...."

Right, they guess. What I said it was. There is a lot of that going on over there, guesses, where they admit it. And then some guesses where they say they know they are right. But that is all it is. And they do admit some things as well. You do realize this is hosted by people with your mindset...that God does not exist, and supernatural forces are not real. So they think they can explain everything away. Even when they can't.

I respect your right to believe the way you do. I am no one to say any different, I am as far from a zealot, as you are from believing me.

But there is one thing. Where you misjudge me, and accuse me of things that are not. I do not do that to you.

Who is really mislead? Where do you get constant bombardment to think the way you do?

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: iNobody

Each trick uses different methods obviously, it aint "one size fits all", that would be disingenuous.

I'm not going to trawl through an hour and a quarter's worth of video, be reasonable at least.

There are some excellent analysis of various modern "magician" tricks HERE, including Derren Brown, Dynamo, Blaine and so on.

That website said that the way Dynamo puts the cell phone into a bottle is that he hides it behind his back. And yet already I showed you another video of someone doing it without the bottle ever leaving your sight:

Explanation:

First thing you have to pay attention to is the bottle. What exactly happens to the bottle after Dynamo gets ahold of it? For how long can you still see it? If you look at the video again, you will see that Dynamo puts it after his back immediately, while misdirecting the viewers with the cell phone. Also notice the guy standing behind Dynamo. He is clearly an accomplice who’s job is to take the bottle from Dynamo’s left hand while everyone is distracted by the phone and hand Dynamo another bottle, which already has an identical phone in it.

Dynamo then quickly brings the bottle from behind his back in a way that makes it impossible for the viewers to see if there is anything in it. He brings both hands together with great speed, and it seems as though he really pushed the phone through the glass and into the bottle. However, he merely had to push the phone in his right hand into the sleeve of his jacket (probably using a gimmick called Gecko, which pulls the phone into his sleeve using elastic bands). An identical phone is already in the bottle, and all he has to do now is reveal it to the audience.

That was from the website you linked.

Yet here, we see it happening without the person putting the bottle behind his back. Either this explanation is ignoring or is ignorant of other cases, or it is just a straight up lie. Which is it? You take it at face value, without even telling me that it ignores other evidence, and then call me names. And I could do this with all the evidence at the website. And yet, I am the zealot? Your name calling, and covering up of the truth, and either believing those lies, or are a accomplice to them, tells me much about your character.

youtu.be...youtu.be...

I knew it Paul Daniels and his succubus Debbie McGee are evil Satan spawn Mo Fo's.
Why else would he come up with Wizbit.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'd like you or someone else to explain my previous post.

a reply to: iNobody

You need to read up on pseudo scepticism then.

In short, you need to apply the same levels of examination and criticism to your own arguments as you do those of whom you are disagreeing with. Your position is a fallacy.

a reply to: iNobody

Dude, that's plain as day.

The white label very handily obscures the part of the bottle where the phone enters from the view of the camera. The "solid part" of the bottle that he demonstrates at the start of the clip is on a different area, facing the camera.

Classic distraction.

So he inserts the phone at a different area, where there is clearly a slot in the bottle to allow the phone to pass inside. Handily disguised by the handwritten label. Why is there a silly handwritten label on the bottle? To distract you.

The blonde man going "no way" is a plant.

What on earth do you think that label is for?

It's a pretty shoddy illusion.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: iNobody

Dude, that's plain as day.

The white label very handily obscures the part of the bottle where the phone enters from the view of the camera. The "solid part" of the bottle that he demonstrates at the start of the clip is on a different area, facing the camera.

Classic distraction.

So he inserts the phone at a different area, where there is clearly a slot in the bottle to allow the phone to pass inside. Handily disguised by the handwritten label. Why is there a silly handwritten label on the bottle? To distract you.

The blonde man going "no way" is a plant.

What on earth do you think that label is for?

It's a pretty shoddy illusion.

ETA: not handwritten label, just very carefully placed, and positioned. Why else would he obscure the entry point.