View topic - Wow NI must see this, and you must too.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Wow NI must see this, and you must too.

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

Wow NI must see this, and you must too.
Author	Message
Wow NI must see this, and you must too. on Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:21 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	Owned... I saw this on a different forum, brought it here.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:38 pm
neveza Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 1147	well, it has some good points, but there isn't any show of other light sources so the lighting thing could be true or not. I guess we need to wait untill NI explain it...even though skeptics will attack anything even if it was a personal show. I believe he actually did it.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:53 pm
Sirius Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 90	Personally... I don't know one way or another if it is real or not, but if you look at the glare or whatever on the lamp and knife, you'll see there was a light coming from <whatever> direction that could form the shadow, easily. Life has many light sources, yeah? The wall? The wall is messed up. Walls aren't always perfect. The shadows on the hand seem to match up well enough with the knife's shadows. Look at the lamp: glass. You can see the bulb or whatever through it. Get your own knife, and compare the shadow to what you can form, maybe? It isn't so unnatural. Or maybe I'm wrong.
Back to top
Valid points all. on Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:20 pm
ErikJDurwoodII Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Let?s see if my knowledge in Graphic Design/Computer Animation can help understand the situation a bit better. Okay, first off there are two big problems with this image that, at least for me, that keep this image from being proof of anything and demote it to a cool picture of something cool. First and foremost, IT?S A PHOTO! Moreover, a DIGITAL PHOTO. I?d say from the quality of the image and the color re-production, it?s probably an older Floppy Disk based Sony Digital Mavica or an old Kodak DSC camera. (the fat ones you held like a sandwich). Of course having had the text added to it in some program, the embedded data about the file that reveals the model of camera, f-stop, shutter speed, date and time the picture was taken is all gone. More sophisticated image editing programs like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and the GIMP preserve this data until the image changes so much the data is invalid. Ulead Photo Impact (older versions) and MS Paint, destroy this data. Secondly, the other big issue is that it?s not the original. A specialist can examine an original photo file to see if it was altered, even if the original was compressed (JPEG). There are signs that the file was changed and in many cases, re-compressed. Those two points alone de-merit the image to ?just a cool picture.? I would suspect that Not_Important?s intent for this image was not to be an earth-shattering kick in the teeth to all those who question the existence of PK, but rather a simple photo to show others something cool because you were not there to see it for yourself. It?s so easy to fake these things. With enough skill you can fake them so well, that you can?t really tell from the output. There is a whole industry built around making special effects and imagery that amaze your perceptions. That doesn?t mean that every amazing image is fake, but you need to draw your own conclusions. Be smart. Even still. There are people ready to pick a harmless photo to pieces because it claims something stupendous. And I am no different. However I will take the other side of the fence on this one. I am not claiming that this photo is the genuine article, but I believe the image in the opening post to this thread is just a tad to presumptuous. ^__^ Time to knock it down a few pegs! Alllllrighty then. Item Number One: Light source. Since we don?t have a large enough image to tell from the lamp?s reflection and it is entirely out the frame, we are not certain about the type and dimensions of the light source. If I were to make an educated guess, I would guess it was a fluorescent tube lamp. I say this mainly because of the color temperature of the image. It seems much cooler than what an incandescent lamp would create. If the camera has a sophisticated enough white-balance system, it may be able to compensate, however the system, no matter how sophisticated would shift the flesh tones in his hand and cool the green in the lampshade below. As for the shape of the light, there?s really no telling. Again, my guess is that it?s a fluorescent bulb possibly a CCFL bulb in a fixture that exposes the bulb directly. Like an articulating desk lamp placed up high, or something to that effect. Item Number Two: The wall splotch. Well I think it?s just a bald spot in the wall texture. Like where a door knob swung into the wall and needed patching then painting. Considering that evidence of digital tampering is kind of silly. Think about it. If somebody had the skills to go to the lengths of crafting, rather well, a small and basic ruse like this, do you think they would have intentionally blurred such an obvious spot on the wall? I mean honestly. Item Number Three: The lamp shade. That lamp is a classic design known as a ?Banker?s Lamp.? The most notable trait of the Banker?s Lamp is its dark green shade. For over a century the design has not changed much and it still keep that classy charm even after all these years. The shade is a white cream glass that is gently bent into its distinctive shape. Afterward, a green glaze is melted and bonded to the shade to give it the identifiable green hue. Due to the time period of its design and the fairly primitive techniques used in its construction, often times the shade and its glaze is uneven and warped creating unique patched of darker and lighter green throughout its surface. This effect once thought to be a defect in manufacturing is now considered part of the lamp?s charm. Even today, the lamp is intentionally constructed to mimic the original defect to retain the classic style and add to its value. Also, the green glaze is very reflective and will reflect the environment of the room. In this case, a darker region of the room was reflected adding to the ?shadow? on the shade. Item Number Four: A natural effect of light is how it bounces off of an object and inherits some of the color of the object in the process. I don?t have to go very deep into this point. It seems to me that the dis-colored area is simply the light that was cast onto his hand being reflected back up to the Swiss-Army knife. Also, authentic Victrinox brand Swis-Army Knives have shiny red plastic side panels that absorb impacts as well as keep them looking swell. The sheen of this plastic can also reflect the light of his palm rather well and can also cause the same effect. And lastly, Item Number Five: The shadow on his palm. For all sakes and purposes, the shadow means nothing. Considering the possible distance of the light source compared to the distance of the knife to his palm, the edges of the shadow won?t be very soft. By the knife's distance, to make the shadow any softer, the light source will have to be nearer to his hand. The tinting of the shadow and the sharpness of its edges give wary eyes something to suspect, but the contours of his hand distort the shadow well enough that I can say if this image was altered, it was done by someone that pays attention to details and doesn?t say, leave blurry spots on walls. I re-iterate. I do not consider this image anything other than an image that is cool to look at and may give people much needed confidence in reaching their goals. This is just a photo. It does not constitute scientific fact. Is it real? Who knows. Does it matter? Not really. And as for the author of the image above, I take care in maintaining a fair and unbiased point of view toward topics that are separated by opinion. I also strive to maintain a level of respect and professionalism that projects integrity and fairness to all those involved. Always careful when selecting words, I make certain that what I say, I mean. So as I distill my vast knowledge of the English language to carefully craft my thoughts, to you, my anonymous friend, I say; ?pwned? -Erik J Durwood II
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:07 am
ShadowWolfX Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 507	Bravo Erik, a fine eye for detail has seem to won the day today, since there is a lot of evidence to consider with your long post. All in all why should we care if its fake or not? For all those who can spin the PsiWheel and retain control over it then well we don't need to stop as say "WHOW! Thats fake im rethinking Telekinesis", since we can do it so why get off set on the higher forms of TK such as levitating a object of considerable weight such as that (Considerable weight to move with ones mind I mean)
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:45 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	haha nice... I have to send that post to the person who posted it... Thanks for clearing that up.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:28 pm
Zarin Joined: 24 Jan 2006 Posts: 2	@ErikJDurwoodII I am the one who analyzed that image and made the one that zack posted. I am personally a professional at photoshop and I know manipulated works when I see one. For my explanation I will be using your image. Figure 1. The primary light source, it is displaying light about... I'd say ABOUT 45 degrees up from the hand if my measurement assumptions are correct, and the shadow of the knife (which because of it's depth on his hand) should be on his arm. Figure 2. S wall sploch, possibly from a hole in the wall, but because of the paint coat, and because this hole if "just-repaired" would be solid white (which it is not) it is simply a blur tool. Artists use blur tools to assist in images in which an object has been added. Usually when you cut images quickly you will take a bit of their background, using the blur tool artists can attempt to make the image more realistic by making the edges match a bit more. Figure 3. The banker lamp, I am familier with it myself. Thankfully the lamp is not even relavent to the picture in anyway other than that it's there. Figure 4. Considering the fact that his hand is not the most reflective object in the world, I would doubt any light would be reflected onto the knife. The reflection of course, because of the shiney material would cause a small white patch of intense light, that could possibly cause a lens flare. (Hate to tell you but I'm also in the photography business). Because the image of the knife (which I could probably find the EXACT same one on google) appears so close to the light, the brightness on the knife would not be there. Assuming it was somehow there, the glare would be there, because it is not I would suspect the dodge tool used to lighten images. Sadly the tool does NOT preserve reflectivity. Figure 5. To continue from figure 1. The shadow fails to display the unique shadow cast by the corkscrew (I have a knife identical to it, I know what shadows it can make). Having said that. The shadow is flat, and resembles... well, this: --- While the knife at the angle it's at, looks like this: / (not exactly THAT much but you get the point, it's angled) So how is it being cast? Why is it being cast there? FURTHERMORE, I can tell you that it was edited in paint. The distinct, as I call them, "Contrast Fumbles" of paint exist right where the gold of the lamp meets the green. The multi color blocks there indicate that it was saved as a LOW quality JPG, which paint automatically does. I'm not entirely sure WHAT kind of light that is, because to the left bottom there is a dark patch, which indicates the light pointing down at an angle which elaborates more on my shadow theory of why it should not be there. More I hate to say this, but the irony just makes me laugh with glee. You try to explain this with science, while science DENIES telekinetic powers entirely. I hate to say it guys, but phsyics says it is impossible. But I'm game, I'll say it exists. Because of the technique he is using which requires "intense concentration", it would be almost impossible to keep the the camera steady (which is required because if you do not use a flash, which he did not, the image comes out blurry) get it to your face, AND keep the knife in the air. @Your little "Psywheel", the difference in air temperature and palm temperature causes air circulation to mix and swirl making any lightweight objects inside the area move. Now because it is suspended in the air and cannot move off it's base it merely turns. And yes zack, dipping your hand in ice water isn't going to change that. Infact it could make the temperature from your hand colder than room temperature. Even taking your hands out of the equation could still cause it to rotate due to air circulation throughout the room. Guys, seriously, take a physics class. And as you people say... "pwned" -Zarin
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:35 pm
TKgpp Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Zarin wrote: You try to explain this with science, while science DENIES telekinetic powers entirely. I hate to say it guys, but phsyics says it is impossible. Science DENIES it? What do you mean? "Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge ? based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism ? aimed at finding out the truth." -Wikipedia How could possibly science deny something? You could said that there's no *known* mechanism that could possibly explain the existence of telekinesis. That doesn't mean it does not exist, and that's why some of us try to use the scientific method. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin People should not make such extraordinary claims... on either sides...
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:06 pm
mattz1010 Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 885	Quote: @Your little "Psywheel", the difference in air temperature and palm temperature causes air circulation to mix and swirl making any lightweight objects inside the area move. Now because it is suspended in the air and cannot move off it's base it merely turns. And yes zack, dipping your hand in ice water isn't going to change that. Infact it could make the temperature from your hand colder than room temperature. Even taking your hands out of the equation could still cause it to rotate due to air circulation throughout the room. Please tell me you've never watched the videos and done your research. You've never seen a psiwheel under a glass before, have you? Spinning a magnet underneath (would require a tinfoil wheel, or a high concentration of metal in the paper -_-), would cause jolts here and there, seeing as your hand doesn't rotate independently of your arm.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:31 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	HOLY CRAP ZARINS HERE! HIDE THE STASH!!! time to own. Zarin, look at this, read it, and seriously do reaserch before calling anybodies work fake.http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm then, this guy will give you 1 million dollars legit if you disprove this guy's evidence by disproving the evidence, I wont listen to any skeptic until they pass the challenge: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html The whole website has a book that owns your views... http://www.victorzammit.com/ Tons of evidence. BTW Science does allow for telekinesis, this is an exerpt from the article I linked to: New discoveries in quantum physics each year are shattering the materialistic reductionist view we had of the universe, making psychic phenomena and other dimensions more plausible. These include the non-locality (meaning distance and space don?t exist) of twin particles (discovered by Alan Aspect in 1982), string theories that postulate several other dimensions beside our own, the discovery that particles behave differently when observed (making psychokinesis more probable), etc. (See Fred Alan Wolfe?s Taking the Quantum Leap and The Spiritual Universe) Each new discovery seems proves the skeptics wrong and moves us further from their views and closer to metaphysical paradigms. This is obviously not a good sign for their case. It appears that the skeptic camp is a sinking ship that one should get off to avoid embarrassment. Just the discovery alone in quantum physics that all matter is a form of vibrating energy makes paranormal and psychic phenomena much more plausible and understandable. Your "physics" class is getting more obsolete, and completely wrong. Watch "what the bleep do we know", which owns materialist reductionist newtonian physicists with an iron hammer, seriously, there are tons of quantum stuff which goes against the newtonian paradigim. Another beef I have with skeptics is that they dismiss anything that points torwards paranormal phenomena a fraud, even when the evidence is obvious, and there is no way that you can "fraud" quantum randomness in the experiments by Dr.Rhine. Its obvious that skeptics are getting more wrong every second. Heres another exerpt: Since successful psi results have been achieved in tests conducted under the scientific method, it can be said that evidence for psi has been gained from the scientific method anyway. Not surprisingly though, skeptics tend to only accept results done with the scientific method that show the results they want, which is no psi results and only chance results. Skeptics will say that an experiment was uncontrolled even when they were never at the location of the experiment. This happened with the Stanford Research Institute?s experiments on famous Israeli psychic Uri Geller. Psychic debunker James Randi (Geller?s nemesis) and others who were not at SRI when Geller was tested, made a bunch of accusations against SRI such as poor controls and deliberate skewing of the results on the part of the scientists there, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. Since Randi and his skeptics were never there, all they have is speculation based on their closed beliefs. In fact, during the course of his career, Uri Geller succeeded in 17 controlled experiments in different laboratories. Here are some quotes from the scientists who tested him. Notice the bold emphasis on the controls and strict conditions of the experiments. "I tested Uri Geller myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key." Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria) ---------------------------------------- Through intense concentration, Uri was able to bend a 3/8" cold rolled steel bar under controlled conditions, as he rubbed the top of it with his forefinger. I was sitting very close to him during this experiment. On another occasion, a radish seed sprouted and grew 1/2" as he held it in his hand. I watched this very closely as well. " Jean Millay PhD. (Saybrook Institute U.S.A.) -------------------------------------- "Uri Geller was tested in my laboratory at UCLA. During the experiments in Kirlian photography and after hundreds of trials, he produced three extraordinary photographs in which flashes of energy were clearly visible. What wonderfully welcome sights they were! I have also tested Uri's watch-fixing and metal-bending abilities. He has demonstrated these to me under controlled scientific conditions, in a most convincing manner". Dr. Thelma Moss (Professor of psychology at UCLA and one of the first U.S. researchers to experiment with Kirlian photography - U.S.A.) ------------------------------------ "Uri bent a strong heat-treated alloy bar held by myself and my assistant at each end. There was absolutely no pressure exerted by Uri while the bar was bending. All the controlled experiments I conducted with Uri Geller have been described in Sciences et Avenir, No. 345, pp. 1108-1113." Professor Charles Crussard (Professor of Metallurgy, School of Mines, Paris, and Scientific Director of Pecheney, France) And for your attacks on belief of the paranormal: Furthermore, people who hold paranormal or other non-empirical beliefs may simply be expressing a cultural, personal or spiritual view, and nothing more. This does not mean they are less intelligent, more irrational or childish than non-believers of the paranormal. In fact, these people are usually capable of applying rational and intelligent thought to a wide variety of everyday situations when it matters, and no doubt do this effectively and rationally. I wont listen to the skeptics until somebody rebuts the evidence in the book. That is a great website that puts alot of credibility to psi, and tells how it can be integrated into newtonian physics, if you still like that old hoe.http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.1_shoup.pdf
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:24 pm
ErikJDurwoodII Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 16	Zarin wrote: ...wall sploch, possibly from a hole in the wall, but because of the paint coat, and because this hole if "just-repaired" would be solid white (which it is not) it is simply a blur tool. Zarin wrote: FURTHERMORE, I can tell you that it was edited in paint. The distinct, as I call them, "Contrast Fumbles" of paint exist right where the gold of the lamp meets the green. The multi color blocks there indicate that it was saved as a LOW quality JPG, which paint automatically does. Ummm. But Paint doesn't have a Blur tool.... Not to mention, this photo has been on the Internet for years. The "Contrast Fumbles" as you call them could simply be caused from excessive compression for web transport. In all honestly, you go to such great lengths to de-bunk this image when it is a simple harmless photo. Once again, I do not consider this image proof of anything. But for you to claim that science DENIES the existence of these abilities? I think that?s assuming too much. Science is a process. That?s all. You get groups of individuals ready to rip holes in any theory they get their hands on if it doesn?t fit their model of the universe. Truth is, physics is just a set of guidelines that allow for direct experimentation of theories. The ?rules? are not absolute and we are constantly finding better ones. You can say it doesn?t exist ?till the cows come home, but there is no amount of dogmatic skepticism that will excuse away the rock-hard results we get from our experiments. I do not claim any superiority in the realm of Photoshop mastery, but I am familiar with the tools and have many years of professional experience in the field of digital art. I believe that my analysis of the image was fair and appreciative to both sides of the argument, but you seem to find fault in all of my points. I respect your view and your stead-fast commitment to support it, but perhaps in the future you could uphold the title of ?professional? by using the one tool you haven?t seemed to master yet. Tact. -Erik J Durwood II
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:39 pm
Zarin Joined: 24 Jan 2006 Posts: 2	I guess I should be more specific for you. PHYSICS which is a branch of science, denies it. Because the subject relates only to physics... One could assume, especially since you "psychics" have such great mental capactiy. Use some logic mb? @TKgpp Dictionary.com wrote: Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Physics - Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws I'm not sure why you looked at an encyclopedia for a word definition... most humans would look in a dictionary. Dictionary.com wrote: Dictionary - A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. Encyclopedia - A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. Psi-wheel in a glass case? Three objects in that case: Foil, pushpin, AIR. You cannot begin to imagine the powers that air can have over something. @ErikJDurwoodII Again, with the assumptions, it appears I need to be frank and descriptive to those with low logical capacities. Paint, does not have a blur tool. Paint, was used to add the text. Photoshop, or GIMP (however I am not familier with GIMP) does contain a blur tool. Physics, has something called "laws" which if broken... well to be honest, they have never been broken to my knowledge. Because the mind does not give off a force, something that is ESSENTIAL to the movement of an object, it is but plain to realize "Gee, maybe because I'm not giving any force to this thing, it won't move." Newton's Laws as you read this you will find that it speaks of objects moving without contact forces. Such things as magnets, or gravity. And I won't even link on how magnetism works, if you don't know, then you must have the knowledge base of a 10 year old. Now because I need to use small words for you folks apparently... Your brain, is not magnetic. Your brain, does not gravitate things to or from you. A possible explaination for the psiwheel is static electricity. Now you might be going "Dude, the psiwheel doesn't have to be metal!" well you know what? Neither do things affected by static electricity. Something so non-metalic as a LEAF could be affected. Having said that, static electricity can move things not in direct contact with it, or things that are concealed. It acts like magnetism. If you were to put a magnet in a glass case, could I use another magnet to move it? Yeah. So without further ado, I present you with a challenge, that if completed, I will never EVER question tk again. Levitate a car, a full size car that you could drive. Using your "powers", lift it over a house, recording the ENTIRE process, showing the sky so you don't cheat with your silly helicopters You do that, I won't question again. Until then, Physical Science denies it. Humans are so egotistical. They think they are gods amoung other animals for their accomplishments, while we have done nothing but build ruin. We act so powerful, and claim we can do things with nothing but our mind. While we cower in fear if a wild animal is near us. Pathetic. ALSO, to the_zack, anybody could say anything, and thanks to technological advancements in video editing, anybody can claim anything. Who's to say that story is true at all.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:00 pm
the_zack Joined: 16 Jan 2006 Posts: 13	You still havent tried to disprove any of my claims with anything, if you are right, then why hasnt anyone won the challenge? Have you ever heard of quantum physics? It totally goes against newtons laws. How can an electron jump from point A to point B without going in between? how can a particle go in and out of existence to who knows where? there are so many theories that are currently being proven that totally go against the 400 year old paradigm that is newton. we arent talking about the piwheel right now. Im talking about the changing of quantum events with only the intent of the mind. This has been replicated many times. And this 'fraud' thing you install to every claim of tk or psychics is pretty much a closed minded way of saying "I cant go against what you are saying with any truth at all and just make up the only thing that is left without even considering the possiblilty of paranormal phenomena". Still, if you are really that almighty zarin i encourage you to take that challenge, and if this stuff is really bullshit, somebody would of won the 1 milion by now. Until then, paranormal phenomena has been proven and will continue to be proven until that challenge has been passed. the "anybody can make up anything false" about paranormal phenomena is also just total crap, because they believe that this is called "anectotal evidence". They say that any anecdotal evidence is false because memory is fallable. " While it may be true that most of the paranormal evidence is largely anecdotal in nature, by no means is it true that they are worthless or invalid. The fact is that most anecdotes, personal accounts, and what we remember check out most of the time or at least point to something real. Rarely is it ever based on nothing at all. For example, if someone told me that there was a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit at the local mall taking photos with kids, the odds are that if I went to the mall to verify it, it would check out most of the time (and if the Santa dressed man isn?t there at the time, he was there earlier at least). Or, if I went to the supermarket and asked the staff what aisle number the bread was at, most of the time the aisle he would tell me would be the one that has bread. Likewise, if I was inside a building and someone came in and said it was raining outside, most of the time it would check out. Either it would be raining now, or the wet floor would show that it was raining earlier. Similarly, when someone tells me what the ending is of a movie or book, it usually always checks out when I watch the movie or read the book. It?s that simple! There are countless examples like this that I could use, most of which are very mundane. Obviously, these types of simple ordinary everyday anecdotes point to something real. Now, since the skeptical philosophy about anecdotes doesn?t hold up when applied to simple mundane examples, why should it be used to evaluate paranormal experiences and claims? It makes no sense at all. One argument I use that always gets these skeptics goes like this. I ask them about a country they?ve never been to before, such as France for example. And I state it like this: ?Since you?ve never been to France before, and you have no real evidence that it exists other than anecdotes you heard, do you assume then that it doesn?t exist for now? After all, the photos, videos, and souvenirs from that country could all be forgeries, you just don?t know do you?? The skeptic will usually reply with ?But I can fly to France and verify that it exists.? And that answer totally misses the point, so I then counter with the key question ?Yeah but UNTIL you go to France, do you assume for NOW that it doesn?t exist, based on your skeptical philosophy that anecdotal evidence is invalid?? That stumps them EVERYTIME! They NEVER have a response to that one"- thats from the link i linked to. Tests have been done where it was impossible that static electricity, wind, or whatever could of effected it, I really dont see how static electricity can change quantum events.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:06 pm
neveza Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 1147	the skeptic, you do understand that some scientists are stating that the physics we know needs to be updated, aside from that, I have cause object slide about a good inch or two, I don't think slight winds would cause it to do so.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:40 pm
Pyrodragon Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 81	For the skeptics: There are multiple videos of people moving objects under glass, people controlling and changing the direction of a psi wheel with out moving their hands, and I personally can move the psi wheel in which ever direction I want from at least 10 feet away. I think you don't want to accept telekinesis because if you did, you would have to make major changes to your outlook on life.
Back to top

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

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Wow NI must see this, and you must too.