PsiPog.net

View topic - joe t's video

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » joe t's video

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

joe t's video

Author

Message

Posted on Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:33 pm

mattz1010

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 885

LoL it'll be like a project! Watch Kief.

I actually want to see what he has to say about my first post on the 6th page.

It'd be interesting to see what happens if you use his tactics against him. But then he's going to pull a double-standard via the claim of psi hasn't been proven yet so he doesn't have to give any evidence. How lame.

So...because he doesn't have any research or evidence, he's going to tell us something we already know?

Look at us, predicting his moves XD

Posted on Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:00 pm

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

It's like playing chess with someone who uses two or three moves over and over again...

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:25 am

nusil

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

Hi, this is slightly off topic but it does regard the psi videos overall.

I'd first like to establish that i DO believe in PK but i would like to voice some skeptic opinions about the videos and present a differentiating explanation as to why some of the phenomenon occur in the video.

Please see this only as possible ways other people who are skeptic may perceive the videos, i am in no way asserting that neither PK nor any of the videos are false. I apologise if these explanations have already been presented.

1. When i watched the videos where the watch, mobile phone, pen, remote control and coin are manipulated i was thinking to myself that all these objects are likely to have portions of ferromagnetic material in them, they could be easily manipulated with a simple bar magnet under the table (like how i used to do in primary school Smile

) , or if not a bar magnet then stronger magnets are easily available or even electromagnets. Obviously a glass encasing isn't going to have much effect on the magnet's strength as the magnetic field easily penetrates the glass.

2. The videos where paper psi wheel, the toothpick or the book are moved could have easily been done with the use of a fan. The paper psi wheel has no glass encasing (which is apparantly bad practice i've heard?), the toothpick is hella light and the book. Why doesn't it move in the other direction. The wind could have easily been directed toward the spine of the book and obviously that's gonna push it the direction that it goes. Why not move the book the other way? Some people may think that if you'd put the fan on the other side of the book the pages might start flipping on its own. Then again you could always glue the pages together...there's an idea =/.

3. With the foil on the cork, i'm not sure...maybe you could've done it with Lenz's law in mind. Using large DC currents you could've created back EMF and induced current within the piece of foil thereby producing opposing magnetic flux. Using the induced magnetic flux you could've manipulated the foil with another bar magnet or something of the kind.
Or you could've drilled a hole through the desk, shoved a skewer or some rigid thin wire or whatever through the cork and blue-tacked (playdough, stickytape, putty, whatever) to the foil and twisted the thing around manually.

So next time please keep in mind these possible explanations when making a video and you may well reduce the number of skeptics. And plus it would make your video look more authentic. Then again we have people like Criss Angel to do that.

If you can disprove these physics-oriented explanations I gladly invite you to.

Btw does anyone know the name of the guy who appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres show who used telekinesis (or something) to bend the spoon, pencil, move cigarette around in free air, made the spoon jump up etc...?

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:08 am

larryleisure

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 44

agree that the vids should be as visible and as clear as possible to eliminate the skeptics doubts Smile

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:40 am

Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

No matter what video is made there will always be ways to fake it. I honestly don't see the point in thinking of ways these videos "could" have been made. We know they can be faked. Everyone knows they can be faked. We don't hide from the fact that it's easy to fake them.

I suppose people are just going to sit around and theorize no matter what though. It just gets really retarded from my perspective, people telling me all the ways I faked my video. I've met people who were completely convinced that I had a tube in my hand, and was blowing air through the tube, to affect the wheel. It's understandable that people are going to be skeptical and discuss how the videos could be faked. But just because it's understandable doesn't make it any less annoying.

There comes a point when you have to say: that's an interesting video. It could be fake, but it could be real. That's it. And drop everything else, and be happy with that small conclusion.

~Sean

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:24 am

maxus

Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 851

How would you be able to hold a magnet under the desk, with your knees? The most convincing videos on here have both hands in the picture surrounding the object, im not sure that someone would go to all that trouble to make a 'setup', if all they wanted to do was fool a bunch of Pkers, as that is just moronic.

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:27 am

PsiGuy60

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 900

Is Kief Banned or something? i havent seen him for quite some time...

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:35 pm

nusil

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

maxus, doing that is moronic but there are many morons in this world.

Not saying the video makers are moronic, just counterarguing your point.

Peebrain, take it maturely why don't you. These possible suggestions were only made so that you could improve your videos in the future. I don't see the harm in that. If it is real then you have absolutely nothing to hide.

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:20 pm

Joshy

Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544

nusil wrote:

Leave him. He's bound to be fucking PISSED at all the skeptics that don't accept it. I don't blame him, he's right.
Alot of skeptics wont accept it no matter what.

Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:14 pm

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

maxus wrote:

....Some people would make some kind of contraption to make it spin under the table...and nusil do realize how many people have posted what you have just to say it? Quite a few so they all know how to improve it and whatnot just to let you know. Wink

Posted on Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:10 am

batworz

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 128

Kief, from page 2 when you say:

Quote:

No it has not, such a claim is entirely without merit and scientific backing.

Actually there is, now I haven't seen the examples which JoEt posted but I have read upon Uri gellar being tested for bending a spoon in real lab conditions. TK is real and it is scientifically proven.

Quote:

"Your main problem is that you can't comprehend or accept that Psychokinesis (PK) is real and proven."

Because IT ISN'T. That's not ?a problem?, it's not being deluded.

Well actually TK is REAL, I don't think most of us lie here on the forum about our experiences, of course some are just absurd which I guess is expected.

Posted on Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:41 am

nusil

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

Joshy wrote:

nusil wrote:

Leave him. He's bound to be fucking PISSED at all the skeptics that don't accept it. I don't blame him, he's right.
Alot of skeptics wont accept it no matter what.

Yeah i know many of those kind of people, it's always good to keep an open mind.

and bladeslinger thanks for telling me, sorry i've repeated. i just couldn't be bothered reading 7 pages of this thread =p

Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:19 pm

pants

Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

Well ill pick up the baton seeing as you scared Kief off.

' I don't understand your problem with the title of psionics. Perhaps you need to do some research on the name, before attacking it.'
because psionics is a word that indicates, telepathy, ESP and all manner of effects that have no basis in fact. Psionics may well all be psychology and the bodies way of decieving itself. The word makes an assumption that there is something paranormal when no one really knows.

'Now, have I proved psionic related abilities by scientific means? No.'
and there in lies the problem. Personal experience is essentially meaningless. To see that, look at religeons* You can ask many christians why they believe in God, and to them they have percieved something that proved his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are ministers that fully believe they are performaing miracles and are backed by those around them.

The science just isnt there though.

Now if your content to leave Psi as a similar such experience then this and every other skeptic debate ends here. If you want the debate to go on, and want a point to the skeptic forum then you need proof.

There is no point being skeptical of something that isnt interested in being proven on anything other than a personal level.

'Now, doesn't that interest you in any way?'
The geiger counter tests are very interesting. They are not proof of psi yet but they may have substance to them. However, as with all science it needs decent peer review before it can be considered a definate effect.

'Science has done some past testing that has showed certain unknown activity'
Im afraid not even that much. Science has proven that there _may_ be something that is unknown. There is no conclusive proof of anything paranormal.

'Scientist take the proper precautions before attempting the experiment.'
That is a gross generalisation. The field of parapsychology is flooded with crackpot theories, hoaxers after some money and poor methodologies leading to terrible science. I am not making a similar generalisation and saying that all of it is rubbish but its pretty much a known fact that a good deal of the science has not had the proper precautions and has been deeply flawed.

'Remote viewing was proven to work and was used until the end of the Cold War.'
That is a bold claim, and not backed by anything ive read. US remote viewing never managed to provide solid evidence that what they were doing worked. (Despite a vast chunk of it being researched by scientologists who undoubtedly hold massive bias.) For every hit a remote viewer made there were countless failures and indeed the whole project was shut down due to being ineffective and poorly managed.

' I have supplied plenty of material that supports my statements. I have listed scientist, organizations, universities, testing experiments, dates etc.'
All of which I believe he has discounted and with good reason. The primary examples of PEAR, Rhine, and the Russian women are all flawed.

PEAR didnt actually prove anything conclusively. The link you provided to the skepdic explains that.
Rhine was notoriously easy to deceive and found to confirm multiple paranormal events only to later find that they were hoaxes.
The Russian Woman has already been explained as not being paranormal, by a parapsychologist no less.

Hmm a few new names, though ive already seen much of the evidence and most is not good.

Helmut Schmidt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt_(parapsychologist) flawed experiments he refused to retest.

Dr. Julius Krmessky -Though his demonstrations remain impressive they have not, to my knowledge, been properly tested.

Dr. Genady Sergeyev - I had not heard of him before and information on him is sparse. Though his connection to Kulagina, whos effects have been largely dismissed by both a Dr. Stanley Krippner and the Rhine institue, suggests he didnt discover any true paranormal effects.

Ingo Swann - Was one of the scientologists I refered to previously.

Uri Geller - Though I risk him sueing me for saying so... he has been spotted on camera using misdirection and bending a spoon with his own brute force. This rather destroys his credability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrYa75GMaVM There is also the experiment Randi setup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O90yvyTd5Y Not as compelling as the first video though rather suspect.

'Scientist do not write false information to support their claim on any aspect of study.'
Another generalisation though I take your point. There are many of these people who would like to get money from selling books on the subject. A lot of people love the paranormal. There are many though, that are genuine about there work. However, while they may not be lying they can be horrendously biassed. My previous example of Rhine being easily decieved being a case in point.

Many of these scientists place a lot of faith in what they are doing. Its incredibly difficult to accept results as wrong and far easier to interpret them in a favourable way. (The Ganzfeld tests being another prime example of this.)

'As you can obviously see, there are many organizations, journals and research labs'
Yes but interest in a subject area is no indication of whether the effect actually exists. Its either a sign that it is interesting or profitable.

'Don't stand there and tell me that these abilities aren't being investigated and research.'
He didnt. He said that non of the research had been succesful.

'I would like to see these documents stating that "Rhine was fooled by magicians for quite some time".'
I personally have not found official documents, but his being decieved by a circus horse is quite a famous story and Rhine is a commonly used figure for skeptics to show just how much some people can want there experiments to be right. Even if they are total rubbish. The following link explains some of Rhines exploits in humerous detail.
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Jan01/jnf_powersofthemind.htm
(Incidentally a facinating interview in its entirety.)

'Those 71 successful represent that something indeed is occurring.'
Yes anything from a paranormal effect to flaws in the experiment or shear chance. With so much failure in comparison, it is not significant evidence of anything.

'Remote viewing has been proven to work!'
No it hasnt. You still havent provided a single link that provides any evidence that it has. Youve shot down his articles for not having proof but you havent provided any proof in the first place.

'Have you read the reports of Dean Radin and Roger Nelson'
meta-analysis is simply not as reliable as a single flawless large scale experiment. (Even the aspirin example remains controversial.) In order to fully assess how accurate there rather optimistic claims are you would need to check individually every single experiment that they utilised in there analysis. Not only this but you would have to know that there selection had been completely impartial. As has already been proven by the skepdic PEAR have shown bias (even if you believe the results to still be proof there initial claims were far more grand than the reality.)

Granted this is about the best evidence ive so far seen and it has been properly peer reviewed with a degree of success. It is still flawed. Especially in light of there very own tests not proving particularly succesful. The discrepency in the results going from barely against natural odds to 1 in 10^35 seems quite absurd.**

' Rhine institute had a still does have a journal. Do some research.'
He said in his own post that the Rhine institute has a journal. Hed prefer if they didnt publish all there work through it. Its not exactly a decent peer review if the only reviewers are from the same institute that ran the test. (Note that the previous PEAR paper was reviewed by a respectable and entirely seperate journal, which is exactly why it is so compelling.)

From Kief though fired back and forth - 'I’d go so far as to say lying '
I think it needs to be made clear that it is unlikely anyone here is lying. Indeed a good chunk of the evidence provided on both sides are not likely to be lies. They are, however, very likely of being biassed, and bias can cause massive problems. A lot of the scientific method is built around eliminating all bias and its still far from perfect. You dont have to be a liar to say something thats wrong.

'Do I sound like a person who would be wasting my time on something that isn't real?'
As ive explained before, whats real outside the bounds of science is a very subjective matter.

'I have recently tried to contact James Randi'
Im almost as skeptical of Randi as I am of psionics but he didnt say James Randi, he said a casino, and in fact hes happened upon the perfect test. Beat the casino. Win a jackpot of a lot of money and give it back. The media would love a story like that and when you link us to the story, we have our proof. Thats a challenge to anyone. Someone must be willing to put up with the fame, or even enjoy the fame. Its also circumstantial evidence of the non existence of these abilities. There _are_ ways of proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet it hasnt been proven even with decades of research. (I can come up with other real world tests that would be well publicized and impossible to fake.)

In summary.
There is _no_ conclusive evidence that psi exists let alone the paranormal effects it would indicate. Its been interesting to see what came up. However,the only thing that comes close to proof of it (so far on these forums that I have seen) is the meta analysis by Dean Radin and Roger Nelson. Which while a fairly well written and reviewed paper may well be based on faulty data.

I look forward, if in this case it is possible, to being proven wrong.

Oh and a pre-emptive attack for the fairly prolific jeering comments. I dont care if im impressing you, I dont care if you dont like me. I am here because it interests me, whether it is true or not. I am not a teenager nor emotionally unstable. I consider myself very open minded just not so much as to let my brain fall out, and this isnt about personal experience. I cant know what youve personally seen so theres no use being a skeptic about such experiences and debating the point.

* I read you dont talk about religeon because of its before and after life problems so ill stay away from those areas and indeed any judgements about religeous beliefs.

** After a more indepth look at the paper they make some assumptions. The extent of the filedrawer effect was calculated in a couple of ways. They chose to take the one that would involve an improbable number of thrown away tests... There was no real reasoning for this beyond making the statement it was more accurate. Though even if it was true the filedrawer effect may still be there and only be partially responsible for problems. There measure of design flaws seems broken. Essentially they claim that if the better tests come out with the same results as the worst tests then theres no problem with any of the tests.

That has some problems.
a) Who determines which tests are of a higher 'methodological quality'?
b) just because there is a corrolation between the tests is not perfect proof that the worst tests werent producing faulty results. Just a good indication.
c) This doesnt take in to account any flaws that run througout the various tests regardless of quality, and
d) It doesnt elliminate filedrawer problems from this papers point of view.

Though even if there analysis was found flawless, in the words of wikipedia 'A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics.'

Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:45 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Oh, oh, OH-- PWNED!

Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:52 pm

bladeslinger

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1337

I have to say you are much better than Keif my friend. Wink

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » joe t's video

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.