Psi-Wheel Dubunked. You are not supernatural.

reply to post by americandingbat


I was going by your quote so took his “you” to be a general “you”. But either way it’s obvious he wants someone to believe him, whether it’s the OP or established believers. To be honest his post reads more like “hey look at me and my advanced mental powers!”

But that’s beside the point; your question was why someone should be obligated to explain the reasoning behind their expressed opinion.

As I said before I think it is common decency, or perhaps a better word would be etiquette. Without people feeling an obligation to articulate their reasoning if asked then a discussion degenerates into two or more stubborn pillars with one side saying it is and the other saying it isn’t.

To go back to what I originally said, if someone makes a thread saying “what is the more likely cause of movement in a psi wheel, convection or telekinesis?” and someone simply posts “telekinesis” but refuses to say why then that is not a discussion. Similarly if it was a discussion about the nature of spirituality you saying “I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God” is of no more worth than me saying “it’s shellfish, all of it!!”; it’s the reasoning behind it that gives it value. You may not be able to prove your point of view but you must have a reason for thinking that way.

People are entitled to their opinions of course but if they don’t back it up with something it is, in itself, worthless.

reply to post by Thill

Besides this debate leads to nowhere ,any hard core sceptic can dismiss any video proof , because there can always be a way to cheat .

That is absolutely not true and is too often used as an excuse for not bringing the goods to the table imho.

I am sceptical of this but if you were to submit yourself to scientific scrutiny from any reputable body and consistently come out with positive, repeatable results then I would be satisfied.

Just because people aren’t impressed by a youtube video doesn’t mean they’re close minded.

reply to post by Mike_A


Um but look , I can make gazillions of movies on a spinning psi wheel(even thou I suck at it so probably wont , but that was just an example as I am sure there are people here that would be happy to do that) , but every one of those movies can be dismissed as there can always be a : tiny hole , a invisible line , out of sight fan , heat waves , etc that any skeptic can hold on to . An me saying there is none of such things will not convince anybody that wants to believe otherwise.

Like I said the only way for a true skeptic to be convince is to witness it first hand in real life or to actually stick with the practice for some time and try it out themselves.

In short : No clip , no matter how well done will convince somebody who wants to believe otherwise as there can always be that "out of sight help" that he can come up with

Edit: I am not saying that there are tons of crap clips that are done by people with to much time and are just pure hoaxes , of course there are. But that does not mean there are no geniue clips out there and that this phenomenon does not exist .



[edit on 22-3-2009 by Thill]

Originally posted by Lasheic

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.

Your approach is scientific. Mine is metaphysical.

My point is that if you feel the energy and move something with the energy, it is proof for you.

I have accomplished this and for me, it's true. That's all I'm saying. Try it and discern for yourself. But that's the point: discern for yourself.

The world is shrouded in half lies and half truth so all that's left is to look within your heart and determine what's true.

I am a performing magician and I can safely tell you that all of the videos shown to "prove" these things are doable with relatively simple gimmicks under identical circumstances.

I took an oath of sorts when I began to study magic and illusion to never reveal my methods to lay people. This does prevent me from coming right out and saying "He used X in combination with Y to achieve effect Z" I can however tell you that the answers are out there. Most of them right on youtube. Some people do not take the basic tennets of our craft as seriously as I do. If you are willing to dispel ignorance and do a little research you will learn some amazing things.

If all of this TK/PK stuff is true, then why does James Randi still have his check? Why hasn't anyone gone to the major academic institutions and sought validation through scientific study?

I find the topic of TK to be a bit of a joke.
There are alot of people claiming they can do this and that but in the end have they ever gone to a scientist or a university or as the post before mine pointed out to James Randi.
This could be a scientific breakthrough yet these people don't seem to have the balls to go and prove it in a studied environment.
Its just an illusion and the people claiming they have these powers are dillusional.

Originally posted by zombiemann
I am a performing magician and I can safely tell you that all of the videos shown to "prove" these things are doable with relatively simple gimmicks under identical circumstances.

I took an oath of sorts when I began to study magic and illusion to never reveal my methods to lay people. This does prevent me from coming right out and saying "He used X in combination with Y to achieve effect Z" I can however tell you that the answers are out there. Most of them right on youtube. Some people do not take the basic tennets of our craft as seriously as I do. If you are willing to dispel ignorance and do a little research you will learn some amazing things.

If all of this TK/PK stuff is true, then why does James Randi still have his check? Why hasn't anyone gone to the major academic institutions and sought validation through scientific study?

Cause James Randi's money is a scam, although he has exposed many fakes, the fakest thing is that money, there are people that have tapped into this stuff and have come to him, but every time he explains it all away, the same way these a-hole skeptics explain away the very best ufo videos as Venus or a weather balloon.

[EX]2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.[/EX]

Sorce

See that fancy little wording (in bold), the word decided is used, not the word proven, this is one of many examples of the loop holes in this scam.

You see, I could tell you I can drive a car, I can make a video of me driving a car, but you could explain that away as cg, or some bs statement, even if I drove up to your house in the car, you could explain that away as someone remote controlling it, there is always, ALWAYS a simple explanation for the extraordinary, that does not mean that it's right or true.

Originally posted by The Weaving Spider
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.

I dont need to debunk it, the guy who made the video admitted it was fake.
www.mind-energy.net...

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...



[edit on 22-3-2009 by robwerden]

I hate that this turned into a fight, but I want to say that the reason I started the topic was so people who knew nothing about magic would not get duped by this.

I know there are people who spend money, ignore their obligations and even destroy their own mental health chasing these dreams of being able to blow stuff up with their mind so to speak.

Alright, I don't really have any info on this topic but why don't you just do a test?

Whoever thinks they can do this legit should set it all up, but instead of "focusing" or whatever on the paper, they should leave the room.

Come back in a bit and see if it has moved... Now you know if it's you or nature.

Just a thought, lata.

reply to post by americandingbat

But perhaps his intended audience is those who will believe without demanding scientific proof.

I.E., the gullible. As said, if his claim was within the realm of normal human experience, then there'd be little call for initial doubt. This is why e-mail scams involving IRS refunds and lotteries are more lucrative than scams involving lost Nigerian princes.

I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God.

You're not the only one who's noticed. Scientists and mathematicians have noticed this for centuries, but they couldn't substantiate their claims until really the last 50 years or so and the advent of the computer. If you're truly interested in this patterning force, then check out Emergence and Complexity Theory.

I'm sure you're already familiar with fractals.

reply to post by Thill

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

However, as was demonstrated, the glass/plastic containers did NOT rule out air flows. That's part of the trick.. to make you ASSUME those factors are accounted for, when in actuality they are not. As to the famous magicians line, "Nothing up my sleeve, ladies and gentlemen".

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 )

Or so you say. No offense, but I don't think you've demonstrated a sound enough reasoning capacity thus far to trust your word on anything.

Besides this debate leads to nowhere ,any hard core sceptic can dismiss any video proof , because there can always be a way to cheat .

Perhaps this is because all the video "proofs" thus far are simply explainable hoaxes? Or perhaps not, though the evidence does seem to lean in that direction.

Unfortunately, the age in which pictures or video was "proof" of anything is long since passed. The only way to substantiate anything in those two media is to know the detailed history of the video/pic. Even in "reputable" circles, image manipulation is known to occur. I seem to recall a particularly BAD photoshop job done of a combat zone in Beirut released by Reuters a few years back. The good edits were likely never discovered.

And of course, ask just about anyone here what they think of the pictures/video released by NASA.

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

First off.. trust doesn't factor into it at all. Reality is what hypothesis and claims are tested against. This is why even "reputable" eye witness accounts are not considered as evidence in scientific circles. The courtroom and the lab are quite different. Secondly, if you're interested in the depths of the human mind, you really should read up on why our mind is so prone to auto-deception.

As AronRa put it:

Occultists, transcendentalists, and faith-healers of every religion know the auto-deceptive power of faith. It doesn’t matter which gods or spirits they pray to. No matter which devotion one practices, if the ambience of the ritual is right, then faith can prepare the mind and psyche the senses into perceiving or experiencing whatever the subjects want to believe. Seemingly miraculous feats and visions occur in every faith because faith itself is the cause of them, rather than whatever devotees may have faith “in”. That has to be the case, because faith is the only common bond between all religious beliefs.

(Full video and transcript)

Though he focuses more on the religious aspect, I believe it applies in this situation as well. After all, belief in the paranormal and belief in religion are often just two different angles of viewing the same side of a coin. The parallels between UFO fanatics and religious devotees are remarkable. I would suppose this may be why "New-Agey" spiritualists are often drawn to topics about UFOs, because both subjects are vulnerable to same flaw in reasoning and auto-deception.

but every one of those movies can be dismissed as there can always be a : tiny hole , a invisible line , out of sight fan , heat waves , etc that any skeptic can hold on to

Then you need a better test which takes those vulnerabilities into account, as well as a control groups by which you can compare sets of data so as to more easily identify either the source of the contamination or errors in the experimentation.

However, as said, Youtube videos are not reliable evidence.

who wants to believe otherwise as there can always be that "out of sight help" that he can come up with

This is why you need control conditions. Youtube videos are not subject to any sort of controls.

reply to post by Universal Light

Your approach is scientific. Mine is metaphysical.

So... I deal with reality, you deal with fantasy? Metaphysics deals with phenomena that is outside of this universe and perceptible reality. Even if we cannot perceive a thing directly, we can identify and understand it through it's interactions with other materials/matter - thus, it's not metaphysical. Radiation, for example. We can't feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it, etc. It is outside of our perceptible reality as shown by the five senses alone. Yet nobody claims radiation is metaphysical, and we know it's real by observing the effects it has on other materials.

This is why metaphysics usually just deals with arguments that are "above" naturalistic sciences, and provide really no applicable benefit to anyone except perhaps for shills, pastors, and carnival barkers.

The world is shrouded in half lies and half truth so all that's left is to look within your heart and determine what's true.

I think that's horrible advice. Certainly one should form their own opinions and their own standards. However, when it comes to physical reality, there is only one truth and one version of it. This "personal truth" concept is bogus because reality exists independently of the human psyche and human perception. We can only experience what our senses tell us, and they are subject to bias, alteration, and poor memory. How two individuals can experience the exact same phenomena, yet provide differing (sometimes strikingly different) accounts of it is called the Rashomon Effect.

The Rashomon Effect highlights the subjectivity of personal testimony, and why it is not an accurate description of reality. Science is a process, a methodology, designed to separate the subjective from the objective.

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.

What other psi wheel videos. This is the only video I have ever seen use this kind of paper stuck on a swivel to 'debunk' psi wheels. Please provide the videos you reference.

...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

These are all trivial questions and detract from the debate if you actually watch the video. In fact I almost didn't even reply to this post because it is clear there was little thought put into questioning the video itself instead of just raising dubious claims. Not trying to belittle your side at all, this is just what I see in your post.

How would the cap being screwed on 'properly' or not (which it clearly is) have any affect on the experiment. The bottle is sealed. There is sufficient movement between the bottle, die, bottle cap, and hands to prove there is no wire involved, and with all the movement taken into account I'm sure a wire would have been seen. Your magnet claim is a lazy rebuttal which could have been answered yourself given the proper study. The tacks he picked up with the magnet are probably 5x times as large as the amount of resin in the die that would accept a magnetic charge. If it were susceptible to magnetism at all, we would of clearly seen a magnetic relationship between the two objects. The video on first look doesn't seem edited, and the user says it is not. Its alright to have a little faith in people sometimes. Besides, anybody here who has read the thread who is adept at computer video technology can prove this point through their own experimentation. I'm not good at that kind of stuff, so I leave that up to you if you still have doubts to its validity. The desk claim is another lazy remark. Please provide your reasoning as to how anything in the desk could've influenced the die, inside the bottle, capped, and filled with water.

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.

As I asked in my previous post, please refute these videos with rational, level-headed claims, instead of just making off hand remarks about them or asking ridiculous questions you expect to be asked to a street magician. If you are not able to, don't raise questions over the validity of the person in the videos.

Besides, I'm getting the impression you are ignoring certain parts of my posts over others. The second video I provided does show an actual experiment being performed on a person using telekinesis. Go watch it. Then read a couple of the articles I provided.

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?

Telekinesis and magic tricks are two separate subjects. Understand the difference between the two and how you cannot use reasoning for one subject as proof for another.

To tell you the truth, the amount of logical fallacies you provided in your post almost put me off even replying to it. I try to remain neutral during debates, but off the record, that was a pretty poor effort (no offense!). Not because I disagree with your point, no no... because you are arguing semantics and making claims to what might be influencing the environment without providing any evidence to back up your claims.

Wait a minute... that kind of sounds like a certain OP's video we all watched...

Telekinesis and magic tricks are two separate subjects. Understand the difference between the two and how you cannot use reasoning for one subject as proof for another.

It doesnt exist.... no matter how hard to click your heels together you will not unscrew a bottle cap with your mind. Why assume that santa isnt real? IS THERE ANY REAL PROOF THAT SANTA DOENT EXIST BECAUS EI GOT PRESENTS AND MY PARENTS SAID THAT THEY DIDNT DO IT SO HA!!!!

SANTA IS REAL!!!!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by Thill


Ah sorry I misread your post, didn’t see the word video.

reply to post by Tgautier13


Like this one,

www.youtube.com...

How would the cap being screwed on 'properly' or not (which it clearly is) have any affect on the experiment. The bottle is sealed

It could be a false cap with a wire fed through the side perhaps, I don’t know. The point is that you accept at face value that he screwed the cap on, but you have no way of verifying this. Why do accept it so readily?

and with all the movement taken into account I'm sure a wire would have been seen.

Based on what? How can you be so sure? He barely moves the bottle at all, there are many tricks that use wire, even close up tricks and they’re very difficult to see. You have no way of verifying that it isn’t a trick; that is the point.

Your magnet claim is a lazy rebuttal which could have been answered yourself given the proper study. The tacks he picked up with the magnet are probably 5x times as large as the amount of resin in the die

Assuming that it is a real dice but again, you have no way of knowing that.

The video on first look doesn't seem edited, and the user says it is not.

But I’m betting you’re not a video expert and have not had access to the original recording. As for the user saying it’s not, so what? He wouldn’t say it was edited if it was would he. Again you’re just a taking his word on it.

Its alright to have a little faith in people sometimes.

Not when you are trying to determine the true validity of a claim.

so I leave that up to you if you still have doubts to its validity.

You’re missing the point, I am not making any claim as to its validity only that you can’t be certain that it is a real demonstration of telekinesis. And going back to my original post, why can you question the validity of the OP’s video but this godspeed guy’s?

As I asked in my previous post, please refute these videos with rational, level-headed claims,

Again, that is not the point. There is no reason to refute them because I’m not saying they’re fake. What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that they are real demonstrations of telekinesis either.

Telekinesis and magic tricks are two separate subjects.

They’re only different in that you accept one as false and one a true, the reasoning for this is contradictory. You’ve said in your post that you believe that a video is not edited because the originator says so, so why not believe me if I pick out your card and say that I’m psychic?

Again for clarification I’m not saying that these videos are using wires or other tricks, I’m saying that you have no logical reason to believe that they are demonstrations of telekinetic ability. The reason for that is because you can’t discount the possibility of it being trickery; the medium just does not allow for that level of scrutiny.

reply to post by Lasheic


This will be my last post on this, I'm not going to argue. It's clear we have differing opinions.

The metaphysical world is not fantasy. If you cannot see with your third eye, you will not be able to understand it.

Metaphysical = infinite
Natural sceince = linear thought.

Looking within your heart to discern the truth is bad advice? Wow.

Sorry to report this but there is not one independent existence that everyone lives in. Perception is reality and everything is a reflection of you. You create your reality, nobody else.

I know that won't go over well so I'll bow out of this thread on that note. Peace

Originally posted by Universal Light
reply to post by Lasheic

 

This will be my last post on this, I'm not going to argue. It's clear we have differing opinions.

The metaphysical world is not fantasy. If you cannot see with your third eye, you will not be able to understand it.

Metaphysical = infinite
Natural sceince = linear thought.

Looking within your heart to discern the truth is bad advice? Wow.

Sorry to report this but there is not one independent existence that everyone lives in. Perception is reality and everything is a reflection of you. You create your reality, nobody else.

I know that won't go over well so I'll bow out of this thread on that note. Peace

If you don't want to argue with someone, you simply dont say anything. All you did was get the last word in.

reply to post by robwerden


That wasn't my intention at all. I was anticipating a response thus giving that person the final word. I don't need it. I just didn't want to continue down this path. That was very assumptuous.

As of yet only one issue I brought up has been addressed. And quite frankly it was a tongue in cheek bit of sarcasm on my part that looking back was poorly worded.

I know the James Randi thing is a crock. But that does not answer why there has been no one who claims to have these abilities have subjected themselves to scientific testing. if you can do these things for a youtube video you should be able to do these things in a controlled laboratory environment.

I am not saying these things are not possible. I am just saying that the videos presented in this thread are not proof.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by americandingbat

 

But perhaps his intended audience is those who will believe without demanding scientific proof.

I.E., the gullible. As said, if his claim was within the realm of normal human experience, then there'd be little call for initial doubt. This is why e-mail scams involving IRS refunds and lotteries are more lucrative than scams involving lost Nigerian princes.

Is that all there is to you? doubt or gullibility?

Are there no spheres of experience where those are irrelevant?

Experience is its own reality. You don't even need to believe anything non-scientific to see that. Two people perceiving the same phenomenon with different understandings will have different experiences of it. Those experiences will impact the future beliefs and actions of the people. That's interesting, important, meaningful stuff.

I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God.

You're not the only one who's noticed. Scientists and mathematicians have noticed this for centuries, but they couldn't substantiate their claims until really the last 50 years or so and the advent of the computer. If you're truly interested in this patterning force, then check out Emergence and Complexity Theory.

I'm sure you're already familiar with fractals.

I could have been more detailed, I guess. I mean a moral or aesthetic patterning force; a purpose as opposed to a description or cause. But that's really another topic for another forum, not paranormal studies

edit: fixing quote tags

[edit on 3/22/2009 by americandingbat]

reply to post by Mike_A



First of all, I apologize if this post seems a bit confusing in correlation with the original quotes. I am answering each point in order of its significance to the main topic at hand. I am also going to be referring Telekinesis to its proper name of Psychokinesis in some parts.

They’re only different in that you accept one as false and one a true, the reasoning for this is contradictory. You’ve said in your post that you believe that a video is not edited because the originator says so, so why not believe me if I pick out your card and say that I’m psychic?

Where is this reasoning you refer to coming from? I accept both Telekinesis and 'Street Magic' to be true. I don't believe one is false. I've already stated, the two subjects are separate. Your analogy is based in faulty logic most likely due to lack of knowledge of either idea, or is an attempt to belittle the point of telekinesis by trying to group it in with gimmicks and sleight of hand tricks.

Psychokinesis if accepted by the scientific community, would violate some well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics and the conservation of momentum [wiki]. For this reason there is an intense amount of scrutiny put on the evidence for telekinesis. One must remember there is always a disproportionate amount of bias regarding any challenge to the beliefs of a group as a whole.

Defense Intelligence Agency: Para-psychics Research & Development
Page 10 ~"Perhaps the most meaningful experiment in terms of ease of evaluation and apparent potential in a communication mode was performed in 1967. This involved transmission of randomly selected digits between 0 and 9. Distance between 'sender' and 'receiver' was varied from several meters to several kilometers. Reported results, as attested to by at least five members of the All-Union Technical Society of Radio Technology and Communications imeni A.S. Popov (The Popov Society) indicates 105 of 135 numbers were described (received) correctly be the receiver. The article states this to be 78% correct; however, this is a significant understatement since it does not reflect the probability of such an occurrence. In fact, in terms of probability, this would have to qualify as the most statistically significant result ever reported in psychic research literature; the probability of duplication via random occurrence would be about 10^77." (Not a quote directly specific to Psychokinesis, but relevant to the discussion regarding psychic influence and scientific experimentation.)

Page 13 ~ "The most unusual psycho-energetic phenomena is the apparent ability of certain individuals to influence matter via mental volition. A form of energy transfer, which appears to be generated or regulated by mental activity, may be the basic source of such effects. The nature of this energy transfer and its interaction mechanism is being investigated by various researchers throughout the world. The process involving apparent interaction with inanimate material is usually referred to as psychokinesis and is associated with unexplainable motion or configuration changes. The term is somewhat limited in that it does not generally include all unusual energetic processes."

"G.A. Sergevev is known to have studied Nina Kulagina, a well-known psychic from Leningrad. Although no detailed results are available, Sergvev's inferences are that she was successful in repeating psychokinetic phenomena under controlled conditions. G.A. Sergevev is well-respected researcher and has been active in paraphysics research since the early 1960's." (excerpt regarding Nina Kulagina, who I have referenced to in previous posts)

The above document is the current undisclosed information the public has from the Government regarding psychic phenomena and research. It is 125 pages full of interesting experiments and information accumulated from around the world in all manners of psychic activity. Entire passages have been blacked out of course, they can't let us know the whole truth now can they...

Project Stargate is probably the most popular government involvement in the para-psychic, in my opinion because remote viewing is one of the most evidence-backed abilities claimed in this field. The US Government funds the organization of departments related to psychic abilities, and funds the research and development of the study of parapsychology.

But keep on telling me how sure you all are that this is all just 'magic' and has not even a shred of validity in real life, or how there is no scientific data or research at all regarding Psychokinesis. There are a whole bunch of believers, psychics, researchers, and federal entities who would like their turn to argue with you though. I hope you won't mind me bringing some popcorn to enjoy the show, either.

All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as self-evident.

Again for clarification I’m not saying that these videos are using wires or other tricks, I’m saying that you have no logical reason to believe that they are demonstrations of telekinetic ability. The reason for that is because you can’t discount the possibility of it being trickery; the medium just does not allow for that level of scrutiny.

I do have a logical reason to believe these videos because I already have a belief that telekinesis is real. Thus I have less strict measurement when regarding what I decide is 'real' and 'fake', and am able to come to this conclusion if the evidence is supported by a number of different variables that would suggest it were real. In my humble opinion, the YouTube user's videos routinely hold up to my own judgment, reasons for which I have posted multiple times in this thread.

Also, I might say no medium would allow for the kind of scrutiny you demand, but that of course would be a cynical over-exaggeration. I would hope you would get the point, though.

You’re missing the point, I am not making any claim as to its validity only that you can’t be certain that it is a real demonstration of telekinesis. And going back to my original post, why can you question the validity of the OP’s video but this godspeed guy’s?

And you can't be certain that it is not a demonstration of telekinesis. This argument though is pointless, because who can be certain of anything? We as intelligent organisms hold our own beliefs towards everything in the universe, and some of the beliefs clash with others sometimes. From a philosophical standpoint, there exist no certainties, only beliefs.

If this is the fundamental basis of your counter-points, I'm going to have to inform you that such an argument of semantics will only drive the debate around in circles and will never substantiate your position. Perhaps this is why I have had to repeat myself several times throughout our thoughtful discourse?

As to the second sentence of this paragraph, I refuse to answer this yet again, as I have stated the differences between the two videos probably three times by now throughout the course of the thread. What a coincidence.

Again, that is not the point. There is no reason to refute them because I’m not saying they’re fake. What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that they are real demonstrations of telekinesis either.

I actually believe you are missing the point here. I'm saying they're real, provided my opinion for said claim, then asked you provide a rebuttal to my conclusion. If you are unwilling to take a side in the argument, instead of just saying how no one can be sure or unsure whether its fake or real, then I would suggest saving your energy and not replying to me any further. Any prolonging of this would really just be a waste of time for both of us.

Like this one,

www.youtube.com...

Thank you for this video. You see, using the same intuitive judgment I watch this video and cannot accept this as real evidence. Much like when a bird is caught on camera and is mistaken as a UFO, this is an example of heat convection being labeled as psychokinesis.

To my original point though, this only one video. If this paper on a swivel experiment is lauded by so called 'teachers', I would have to say they are shams. There is plenty of other evidence and testimony regarding TK that does not use this model though, and that is where the original debate is sparked. The OP tried debunking para-pychic phenomena altogether by providing his video, which in reality has nothing to do psychokinesis.



...and to the rest of your response, I would argue that every point or question you raised which I have not quoted once again goes back to an argument of semantics and I have already addressed this issue.

In my humble opinion, I accept the YouTube users videos to be the real deal. I understand para-psychology as a misunderstood yet accepted aspect of reality. If you would like to provide any kind of evidence or rebuttal to my beliefs, instead of merely stating how I can't be totally certain of them, be my guest. So far my faith is unshaken and you have failed to enlighten me.