It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psi-Wheel Dubunked. You are not supernatural.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Tgautier13,

I’m not really debating the merits of the argument put forward in the OP just your odd willingness to accept a youtube video at face value when it is supposedly demonstrating a supernatural ability while at the same time trying to poke holes in a very sound demonstration of a scientific principle. Surely you can see the contradiction.


There is only one contradiction in this debate. The OP's video is just a demonstration on heat convection. The schism occurs when one tries to take this video and use it as some form of evidence in an attempt to 'debunk' the psi wheel. This is the contradiction I am seeing.


With regard to the OP’s argument while it can’t be said to prove that telekinetic ability isn’t used it does demonstrate a far more likely reason for the movement of any given “psi wheel”.


It does not. The video provides hypothetical reasons for the wheel's occurrence yet it fails to demonstrate in any sufficient manner the reasoning behind these estimations. As I noted in my original post, it came off as amateurish and ill-conceived.


By the way, the OP didn’t claim to debunk telekinesis just this so called psi wheel.


This is true and I will concede this point. However, as americandingbat pointed out the OP did make the sweeping generalization in the title of this thread 'You are not supernatural.' To me this implies a denial of all telekinetic ability, with emphasis added to the psi-wheel for the thread's purposes. Just my opinion though.




Impaired,


Originally posted by impaired
The person Tgautier13 mentioned is bending spoons and stuff... Look at all of his videos on YouTube. Try and debunk those.
Peace.


It’s a Youtube video! When did that site become the great bastion of scientific principle?

How do you know he isn’t used wires or, fancy camera work or anything? It’s insane to watch these things and just accept them.


YouTube is the largest video-streaming website on the internet, is part of a mulit-billion dollar corporation, and has many partner affiliate programs with businesses and organizations that provide interesting and thought-provoking material. It is not just a place to look for Family Guy clips or 4chan memes.

The user I linked to had the right intentions in posting his videos to YouTube; I assume he wanted to provide evidence of his abilities to the largest possible audience without having to advertise himself, thus raising question marks about his intent in the first place.

Also, the OP's provided video comes from Dailymotion, a website in the same field as YT. Why do you raise questions about the validity of the user on YouTube, yet trust the video from Dailymotion?

I have to go for now, I will return later to this thread to provide my reasoning for believing the youtube user.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Tgautier13]




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Ok Its so nice when the debunkers start their work
So umm ok I get that you can debunk th hands near the wheel trick as that is an easy one . I can also understand debunking the psi-wheel and no hands if somebody wants to be really picky(with a umm fishing string or whatever).

But hey , how do You debunk a psi-wheel under a glass container(or any container ) being spinned
??

Not that I need any debunking as I can spin the wheel pretty decent (just not under any containers yet , thou I managed it once or twice but that was sheer luck imo
)but hey , give your best shot



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Universal Light
 





The only way to know if the psi-wheel is true or not is for yourself to actually try it.


Huh? Just because you can replicate a result, doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is accurate. It could simply be some other natural force that you aren't aware of or had neglected to take into account when preforming the experiment. A positive result to the experiment would lead you to the faulty assumption that you are psychic.

Tautologically, the opposite is also true. However, in the case of telekinesis, there is pretty much zero hard evidence suggesting such a phenomena exists. There actually has been quite a lot of serious lab work done on the matter of psychics, remote viewers, and telekinesis, especially during the Cold War by both Soviet and American militaries. The result? A huge waste of money and little else.




So you haven't shown that a psi wheel can't be moved by telekinesis, you just have shown that it can be moved by convection or air currents.


We haven't proven that it can't be moved by pixie magic either. Pixies and Telekinesis are extraordinary claim, as they are far outside the realm of normal human experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is something which Telekinesis experiments just haven't provided yet. Just a bunch of testimonials, hoaxes, youtube vids, and new-age spiritualism books. So claiming telekinesis as a possible cause for it's spin is faulty logic, for the same reason as claiming it spins because "it's the will of god".



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 





But hey , how do You debunk a psi-wheel under a glass container(or any container ) being spinned ??


You mean this?



The author of the video revealed his trick.




In the first video, a pin sized hole was drilled in both the surface of the table as well as the plastic bowl the set up was sitting on. From there, a person off camera was blowing into a tube that was connected to this hole (under the table) which cause the wheel to spin. The second video used this same principle, but in a more sophisticated fashion. The surface of the table is hollow, with two separate air channels going to two different pin holes. Two tubes could "plug in" to each hole on the hollowed legs, which were hidden by thin layer of laminate that could pop on and off. This is why you can't see the bottoms of the two front legs on the video when the wheel is spinning.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
We haven't proven that it can't be moved by pixie magic either. Pixies and Telekinesis are extraordinary claim, as they are far outside the realm of normal human experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is something which Telekinesis experiments just haven't provided yet. Just a bunch of testimonials, hoaxes, youtube vids, and new-age spiritualism books. So claiming telekinesis as a possible cause for it's spin is faulty logic, for the same reason as claiming it spins because "it's the will of god".


I tend to place the so-called "burden of evidence" on the person making a claim. In the case of this thread, the claim is that the video linked to in the OP debunks psi wheels and by extension proves that humans are not supernatural. So it's the skeptics who have the spotlight on their evidence and logic this time around.

If this was a thread in which the OP linked a video of a psi wheel and claimed that it proved the existence of psi/chi, the burden of evidence would be on them, and some of the questions would be the same (only in reverse): how do you know you can trust this video? have you taken into account convection and air currents as possible forces? etc.

Although I will admit that I expect more scientific and logical rigor from "skeptics" than "believers" most of the time, since they're usually claiming to be defending the rational, logical, scientific world.

As to governmental research into psychic powers, specifically telekinesis, not showing results, there is the disclaimer: that have been declassified.

It's very true that the video doesn't disprove the pixie magic theory either. But then it never claimed to.

edit: Where does the phrase "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" come from, anyway? It sounds so much more courtroom drama-ish than scientific or philosophical.


[edit on 3/21/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
Seriously, you expect us to believe some youtube video? We want evidence, hard evidence!


Youtube is a great source of evidence for conspiracies....havent you seen the crazy colours in the sprinkler lady?

Proof that we are poisoning the earth is shown when a lady (obviously with no intelligence) sees a rainbow in her water from the sprinkler


Anyway......I agree with you

But I also agree with the op



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 





I tend to place the so-called "burden of evidence" on the person making a claim.


I will agree that the OP was clumsy in his wording, and over-reached his intent. However, given the subject matter, I don't feel the OP needs overwhelming evidence against Telekinesis since living in a world void of this phenomena is not outside the realm of normal human experience, nor is it a positive claim.

As to the quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; I'm not sure who first coined it. I picked it from Carl Sagan. No, it's not a tenant of the "Scientific Method". It's more like conventional wisdom, and a good rule of thumb.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Sorry to pee in your pool OP, but you can't debunk this one:

www.youtube.com...

I've done this too, I was about two feet away from one in a glass, did not have my hands anywhere near it and was able to turn the psiwheel. No static, convection, or any thermodynamics involved.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Anyway......I agree with you

But I also agree with the op


The truth is, I think most things like psi wheels are scams/hoaxes/whatever and that it probably is designed to take advantage of small sources of convection or mechanical force.

Although I think some form of telekinesis is probably possible, if by that we mean "mind controls matter".

But I like claims to be accurate, especially when they're on the "scientific" side of the fence.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by The Weaving Spider
 


/faceplam

I really hope you're just trolling.



The surface of the table is hollow, with two separate air channels going to two different pin holes. Two tubes could "plug in" to each hole on the hollowed legs, which were hidden by thin layer of laminate that could pop on and off. This is why you can't see the bottoms of the two front legs on the video when the wheel is spinning.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I can move cardboard vs paper.. and instead of a pin, on a pen tip. It took me months. I don't need my hands.

I can move a paper psi wheel under a plastic jug. I need to use my hands though and I actually drag the wheel.. when its under the jug, all of a sudden I can't sense it, so i've been studying this. I have theories that a glass container would be better. Thats complicated though and it goes into molecular/energetic structures and I just wanted to make this post short.

I can move paper and cardboard psi wheels, with a dust mask on, from several feet away. Do I ask you to believe me? No.

But more then that, be careful of those who use absolute statements and jump to conclusions to quickly and close their mind so readily.

To state absolutes one way or another is a bad way to show "wisdom points" in my book.

If your thread was called "Psi wheel POSSIBLY Debunked. You MAY NOT be supernatural", then I probably would have ignored it.

This post is less about TK and more about the other point.

EDITED TO ADD:
But I also want to say that the sole reason I've been trying to develope this past the beginner stage is because TK is possibly the best in-your-face ability to show off to the most doubtful. Hey man... I doubted all this stuff years ago but it took some digging into the workings of my mind. These realizations have changed my life profoundly and I want to share it with the world.

It all starts by wanting to change, by wanting to understand and expand one's sense of identity. We all have it within us.


[edit on 21-3-2009 by CavemanDD]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CavemanDD
 





I can move paper and cardboard psi wheels, with a dust mask on, from several feet away. Do I ask you to believe me? No.


Why should anyone believe you? You offer nothing except for your own testimony. If that's the case, then why say anything at all? You practice TK because it's "in-your-face" to the skeptics, yet you don't go into any specifics about how this ability operates because it's "too complicated". Again, why even bring it up then?

Smells like snake oil to me. If you truly have this talent and an idea as to the mechanisms behind it, and you truly wanted this information out to the widest possible receptive audience, then I would highly suggest you seek out a reputable university to demonstrate these powers to and work with them to foster a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena. Then seek publishing in a reputable scientific/medical journal. I doubt the concepts and subject matter are too complicated for the brightest minds in academia to understand. If it has to do with energy and molecular structures, then imagine what kind of technological understanding and practical applications could be derrived from a fundamental understanding of this. It could revolutionize physics and how we interact with the world. It would be an amazing and pivotal benefit to mankind.

And wouldn't that, then, make you a sociopath for keeping this information to yourself (either by choice or by apathy) rather than letting it benefit society?

I have a hunch that you wouldn't do that though. I also have a hunch that any explanation you have will rely heavily on other unsupported and unsubstantiated "mystical" energy fields. The devil is, after all, in the details - and the more details one gives - the higher the risk of their claim being refutable. Vaguery, testimonials, and easily hoaxed videos/pics. That's the ticket, eh?

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 



It demonstrates another possible reason; whether or not that reason is more likely is a judgment call.


I agree that it is a judgement call but the causes detailed in the OP are backed by science and can be repeated and verified by anyone; telekinesis has neither of those going for it.

I also agree that the OP doesn’t truly debunk the psi wheel but he does debunk the notion that if such an object is moved without physical contact then it must be telekinesis.

I disagree with your second point though, they must say why they pick the conclusion they do even if they’re just saying it to themselves. However if you’re going to come into a public forum where the issue is disputed then you must be able to support your personal opinions with reason.

reply to post by Tgautier13
 


I accept that you don’t agree with the OP’s video but how can you question that as having possible false elements yet not question the youtube videos you posted? That’s what I’m asking you.


It does not. The video provides hypothetical reasons for the wheel's occurrence yet it fails to demonstrate in any sufficient manner the reasoning behind these estimations.


It shows an actual demonstration of convection (and other things) at work and how they can affect a psi wheel including from a human source without physical contact. The principles it mentions are widely known and understood and the experiments shown are easily repeatable. How does that not demonstrate a more likely reason for a moving paper wheel than telekinesis? Unless you are claiming that telekinesis has a similar amount of scientific evidence and understanding behind it.


Also, the OP's provided video comes from Dailymotion, a website in the same field as YT. Why do you raise questions about the validity of the user on YouTube, yet trust the video from Dailymotion?


This is what I’ve been asking you, except you are doing the opposite.


reply to post by Thill
 



But hey , how do You debunk a psi-wheel under a glass container(or any container ) being spinned ??


Why hasn’t this been demonstrated in a controlled scientific environment under supervision of a reputable body?

I can’t explain half of what that David Copperfield does but that doesn’t make him genuinely magic.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Test your Hypothesis
===============================

Hypothesis : The movement of the wheel is caused telekinesis



To rule out the possibility that any relationship that appears in your data was produced by random chance ,you need to compare the results against the oppose situation i.e the movement of the wheel is not caused by telekinesis.

Null Hypothesis : the movement of the wheel is not caused telekinesis.

Alternative Hypothesis : the movement of the wheel is caused telekinesis.

Statistically compare the two sets of data.



In statistics, the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis. Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – you have to ‘refute’ or ‘nullify’ the null hypothesis. Unfortunately you have to assume that your alternate hypothesis is wrong until you find evidence to the contrary.
The Journal of Unlikely Science



This subject the first time i saw it , reminded me of a Crookes radiometer a.k.a , a light mill .





posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by americandingbat
 

I disagree with your second point though, they must say why they pick the conclusion they do even if they’re just saying it to themselves. However if you’re going to come into a public forum where the issue is disputed then you must be able to support your personal opinions with reason.


We may have to agree to disagree on this one, but where do you think this obligation comes from?

For instance, we have CavemanDD a couple of posts up, saying:


I can move paper and cardboard psi wheels, with a dust mask on, from several feet away. Do I ask you to believe me? No.


He's just reporting an achievement; an experience. Why should he have to prove it to anyone, unless he's specifically setting out to do so?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

reply to post by Tgautier13
 


I accept that you don’t agree with the OP’s video but how can you question that as having possible false elements yet not question the youtube videos you posted? That’s what I’m asking you.


I'm getting to this point..



It does not. The video provides hypothetical reasons for the wheel's occurrence yet it fails to demonstrate in any sufficient manner the reasoning behind these estimations.


It shows an actual demonstration of convection (and other things) at work and how they can affect a psi wheel including from a human source without physical contact. The principles it mentions are widely known and understood and the experiments shown are easily repeatable. How does that not demonstrate a more likely reason for a moving paper wheel than telekinesis? Unless you are claiming that telekinesis has a similar amount of scientific evidence and understanding behind it.


I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. It does not. It shows heat convection, yes, on a model ideal for motion in that situation. I will point you to any one of the posts I have made so far in this thread as to why it doesn't explain anything about telekinesis or more precisely a 'psi-wheel'.



Also, the OP's provided video comes from Dailymotion, a website in the same field as YT. Why do you raise questions about the validity of the user on YouTube, yet trust the video from Dailymotion?


This is what I’ve been asking you, except you are doing the opposite.


...and as I promised in my last post, here is my reasoning behind believing the videos I provided.



Above is the second video link I posted in my inital response to this thread. This video shows a person manipulating a die in a bottle of water, cap on.



  1. From 0:10 to 0:20 he screws on the bottle cap, and waves the bottle around in the air to illustrate how there is no outside influence.
  2. From 0:20 to 0:30 he takes a magnet and pulls up tacks with it, then shows how the die is a normal, non-gimmick piece.
  3. Finally from 0:35 on the actual telekinesis happens.


All parts of the environment, top and bottom of the table, and both hands and legs are visible. The video is unedited.

Now call me naive if you want, but what I see in the video above I cannot attribute to anything other then telekinesis. My mind wasn't made up on this one video though. Check out some of his other experiments:

Dollar fold

Fork rising

Spoon bending

Ball jump

All these videos are really quite fascinating to me. I'm open to explanations, but if you don't have a point any better than the OP's video, then I probably won't bother with it.



..And just because I feel like throwing more links out for the masses to devour:

Nina Kulagina

Telekinesis and Quantum Field Theory

What you need to know about telekinesis



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


lol a little try hard...


convection or any other ''natural'' force cannot account for psi wheels spinning in one direction...stopping...and spinning in the opposite direction at will.

If you can master the psi wheel it can be rewarding and fun at first, but after a while you realize that showing off and entertaining others with these ''supernatural''
abilities is really a true waste of time.

It takes a lot of mental energy to spin a psi wheel, but I wonder how much it takes to attempt to debunk something you know entirely nothing about? A video on metacafe does not debunk human energy and the untapped power of a focused and cultivated mind.


although ''psi'' or as I perceive, our natural energy, can be used to do fun things that could make you look like either a superhero( in our ego's eyes) or a freak (in everyone elses ego's eyes), it can be used for far many other things that could be perceived as constructive to the development of your soul and what you attract into your own life, law of attraction propaganda aside.


The truth is is that this post is you projecting, with words, how you really feel about yourself. You allege that "You( being all who read this post) are not supernatural."

Because you don't feel supernatural or refuse to believe it exists,( which Ill admit can be a good thing sometimes
), than it must not exist for anyone else. All the events which have led up to people coming to believe in the supernatural in their lives were merely coincidence and they are crazy and now you must be on some kind of quest to debunk them.

Really who is the one wasting the most amount of time. Its like trying to move a mountain with a shovel, you are not going to convince anyone who is already ''supernatural'' or has an understanding of it that is deeper than spinning a psiwheel. Just like Im not going to convince you or anyone else who gave you a star for your well thought out investigation on the supernatural.

What is ''supernatural'' anyway. Is it anything that surpasses the benchmark set by your imprinted model of reality? Is it a good santana album? Is it witch craft or the occult? Is it telepathic/psychokinetic/etc abilities? UFOs? God? What is supernatural.

Im willing to bet we all have different ideas of what ''supernatural'' really means. But this is proof of the power of words and how some people remain subservient to this power.

Some words are so powerful that they, if you aren't careful, can cause you to immediately stop thinking. Examples include many buzz words, like pseudoscience or republican or my favorite, God works in mysterious ways...

thought terminating cliches



[edit on 3/22/2009 by iiinvision]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Well they have an obligation to be honest with themselves; I would have thought that would be self evident. However with regards to my second point I would say common decency, if you can’t or are unwilling to articulate your reasoning then you’re just spamming. It’s little more than a verbose version of a “yes it is, no it isn’t” kind of argument.

As for caveman I’d suggest that his claim that he doesn’t want anyone to believe him is rubbish. If that was true then why say it at all? It’s useless to anyone if he’s not asking the reader to believe it.


reply to post by Tgautier13
 



It shows heat convection, yes, on a model ideal for motion in that situation. I will point you to any one of the posts I have made so far in this thread as to why it doesn't explain anything about telekinesis or more precisely a 'psi-wheel'.


But the model is the same as is used in these other psi wheel videos. The point is that convection clearly will have the same effect on this type of wheel, therefore convection (not to neglect the other reasons btw) is a likely candidate explanation for the movement in a number of these videos using the same or similar wheels.


...and as I promised in my last post, here is my reasoning behind believing the videos I provided.


But your reasoning all comes down to faith. How do you know he’s actually screwing the cap on properly? How do you know there isn’t a wire? How do you know the magnet he uses isn’t just too weak to affect the dice? How do you know the video isn’t edited? How do you know there’s nothing hidden in the desk? etc


My mind wasn't made up on this one video though. Check out some of his other experiments:


These aren’t experiments, they’re random videos. You don’t know anything about who did these or how they were done or for what purpose, you’re going on a persons word.

If I learnt any random card trick and pulled your card out of the deck and then said I was psychic you wouldn’t believe me would you? So why believe these people?

reply to post by iiinvision
 


So why not prove it? As someone said earlier get yourself down to your nearest University, show them what you can do and ask them to test and document it. It would be absolutely amazing, world changing if this was scientifically verified. So I implore you, from someone who would love this to be true to someone who claims to be able to do it, go out and change how we think of the world! Please!

And that isn’t me being sarcastic, I genuinely mean that. It would be amazing and I would love for it to happen.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by americandingbat
 


As for caveman I’d suggest that his claim that he doesn’t want anyone to believe him is rubbish. If that was true then why say it at all? It’s useless to anyone if he’s not asking the reader to believe it.


But he didn't say he doesn't care if anyone believes it; he said he doesn't care if someone in specific believes it (and by extension, he doesn't need everyone to believe it).

Now, I don't know CavemanDD, so I don't want to speak for him. But perhaps his intended audience is those who will believe without demanding scientific proof. Perhaps spinning psi wheels is not really the object for him, it's just a step along the way.

Think about religion. I'm an agnostic. I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God. But I don't feel any need to make anyone else believe that, and I certainly can't "prove" it. It's not even that important if anyone else believes it, or even believes that I believe it. Because the belief isn't as important as the way that colors how I think about the world and act in it.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


No I did not mean this clip in particular , just generally psi wheels under containers that rule out air flows and other outside forces.

Like I said before ,I do not need debunking anyway as I can influence the psi wheel on by own (even thou I am crappy at it
) . Besides this debate leads to nowhere ,any hard core sceptic can dismiss any video proof , because there can always be a way to cheat .

The only way a true skeptic will be convinced is either if he tries it alone (and actually sticks with the training for a few days ,even thou he believes it to be ridiculous) or if somebody shows him in real life (but that person has to be somebody the skeptic can trust , because if not then the skeptic mind will kick in and he will start finding excuses



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join