| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> website | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: website |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 28, 2005 Views: 2533 | website Take a look at this website: keithmayes.cjb.net It is a rebuttal of his main page. I dunno... what do you all think? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Sep 28, 2005 Views: 2528 | RE: website Try given the full URL please, can't get the usual combinations to work. |
| Posted By: Grant Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2525 | RE: website I went on that website just the same comments from someone who's been upset by your comments. The truth obviously seems to hurt... Here is his page, hope it pastes right: - Telekinesis: Fact or Fantasy? A Rebuttal of Keith Mayes's Site I am officially fed up with Keith Mayes, and this website is here to show why. Hopefully by the time you finish reading this website, you will no longer think his site to be a completely scientific resource for determining the validity of telekinetic phenomena. Click here to view his website. Actual quotes from his website are in bold. Actual quotes from his forum are in bold italics. This is a very rare TK site in that it actually attempts to study the subject in an objective, rational and logical manner. So rare in fact I haven't yet found another. Okay... first of all you must realize the claim made here in one of his opening sentences. He claims to have created a website that studies the subject of telekinesis in a logical manner. To study something in a logical manner, it is commonly accepted that you will have a logical conclusion. This is not the case with his website. This is exemplified by this from his website: A summary of my conclusions: I have been able to demonstrate that the two most commonly used tests for TK, that of spinning the psi wheel and rotating a straw on a glass bottle, I can do easily without any TK involved whatsoever, and without any trickery, and so can you. First of all... anything you do to recreate the effects of other TK videos without using TK would be considered trickery. He follows with this: If you want to insist TK is real, regardless of the facts, then you have come to the wrong site, go here instead and continue to keep your head buried in the sand. http://ppsociety.com Right off the bat there is some problem with his logic. No matter what he makes fake videos of, they are nowhere near facts that insist that TK isn't real. He is spouting nonsense right here. What facts is he talking about that insist that it isn't real? His videos? Does he ever explain this? I think he does: The fact that I have been able to duplicate these two popular TK stunts does not of course prove that TK does not exist. Even if I were able to duplicate every single claimed TK stunt it still would not prove that TK does not exist. It would only prove that all TK stunts can be done without TK, which is not the same thing as saying there is no TK. However, it would make claims for TK look very silly indeed if they were all done by non-TKers! Well... now we see that he has anticipated our objection to what he stated earlier in his site by saying that it doesn't disprove TK. But what he eludes to now is that all videos done by TKers are not TK because of what he found in his experiments. What I have been able to demonstrate is that you do not need TK for the two most common tests, the psi wheel and rotating straw. You will be able to see this proof for yourself. And yes, it is proof, not because of my videos, they are just there for clarification, but because I give you step by step instructions on how to do it yourself. See... he says right here what exactly he is able to demonstrate. Guess what that is! All it is is that his videos prove that it is possible to rotate a psi-wheel and straw without using TK! This is an incredible deduction, right? Actually, how horribly wrong. Everyone knows that it is possible to make videos like those without TK. The main point is that just because you can purposefully, intentionally create videos that are fake, doesn't mean that all videos that TKers made are fake and they just don't know it. there are lots of other stunts that TKers claim they can do, but it does tend to bring these other claims into question. See? Why should they need other videos when creating fake videos doesn't prove those videos done by TKers to be fake? Just because he made a bunch of fake videos doesn't mean that all videos of TKers moving psi-wheels and straws are fake. This is illogical. To illustrate even further: I have proven that TK is not what is making these objects move but instead it is just warm air or static. He has only proven that the wheels and straws in his tests only moved by air and static. He has not proven anything whatsoever regarding videos done by TKers. Think about it. He then gives this list of reasons he doesn't believe in TK: Here are my reasons for believing that TK does not exist: 1) The two main TK stunts, the most popular 'proof' of TK, are not TK. Maybe the videos he made didn't use TK (he purposefully exploited static and wind, etc.), but that means nothing about the other videos made by TKers. 2) I have never seen TK demonstrated. Have you seen an atomic explosion in person? I bet you believe it would kill you though. Seeing for yourself sometimes has nothing to do with believing. 3) TK has never been performed under test conditions. Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. 4) Nobody has claimed the Randi prize money. And this means something, why? 5) No respected scientist in the world has ever claimed that TK exists. Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. 6) No scientific institute of any repute has ever claimed that TK exists. Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. 7) No respected scientific journal has ever reported claims that TK exists. Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. 8) I can think of no reason for believing in TK. And this is his only valid point. However, that is just my belief, you will have yours. So... what is his whole website left saying... logically? Basically, it is this: He believes that TK doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven. He also believes that the videos done by TKers are fake, because he can make fake videos of the same thing. The epitome of this is his quote off the forum on his site: What I said was, and read this very carefully, nobody has ever demonstrated rotating a psi wheel or straw by TK. I am NOT talking about videos, they can be faked, I am talking about doing it under test conditions. As in demonstating it, not submiting a video. Until it has been demonstrated to exist, it does not exist, except as a myth Got it now? so then I reply to him saying: >Until it has been demonstrated to exist, it does >not exist, except as a myth > >Got it now? This is exactly what I have been trying to show you is illogical. He replies by using the same illogical argument again: It's up to Tkers to prove they have TK. Not one Tker ever has. TK does not exist. I rest my case Got it yet? Got it yet? I hope you do... Keith has no idea how illogical he makes himself sound spouting nonsense like this. It really makes for some entertaining reading... |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2522 | RE: website http://keithmayes.cjb.net That should work... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2511 | RE: website Okay, thanks guys, I have got to the site now. It's amazing how many of these tkers attack my view on videoes as being worthless 'evidence' and somehow manage to totally ignore all the facts that I give to show how to rotate a straw and a psi-wheel without TK. They then claim I am illogical when I say that I am unable, by doing these two stunts without TK, to claim that TK does not exist. Not worth the bother of arguing with numpties like that. What's their problem? If they can do it then why don't they? |
| Posted By: Grant Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2510 | RE: website I think the site is garbage. The site is just crap, a sad attempt at trying to ridicule keith because he's made you look stupid on his site. I'm assuming that the site was set up by 'Nick' because from reading earlier posts and that site it seems to be the same person. Most probably 'Anonymous' is Nick I mean whats the big deal with leaving your name. Nick you have been proven wrong on keiths site so you make your own site and make it look as if keith does'nt know what he's talking about. Funny how you only used about 1% of yours and keiths chats on your site as an example. Maybe that was because the other 99% was you looking stupid!! You then add Keiths reasons for believing that TK does not exist, but add your comments which i think is crap. So i added my comments, here they are: Keiths Reason - 1) The two main TK stunts, the most popular 'proof' of TK, are not TK. Nicks reply - Maybe the videos he made didn't use TK (he purposefully exploited static and wind, etc.), but that means nothing about the other videos made by TKers. What i think - He clearly shows how easy it is to move a straw etc without using TK. You seem highly offended maybe because you actually thought it was TK until you realised it was static giving you a little push start. K - 2) I have never seen TK demonstrated. N - Have you seen an atomic explosion in person? I bet you believe it would kill you though. Seeing for yourself sometimes has nothing to do with believing. G - Oh so what your saying is that you believe in TK even if you havn't seen it, should I call it gut instinct then. Great comparison Nick, how can you compare the two. I don't think there is many people who have seen an atomic explosion because they wouldn't be alive most probably. Your comparing something that exists to something that has not been proven to exist. K - 3) TK has never been performed under test conditions. N - Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. G - Please... they carried out experiments trying to prove what they believe. They never made any hard evidence to support TK or PK anyway. Their hardly going to prove themselves wrong! Dumb Ass!!! K - 4) Nobody has claimed the Randi prize money. N - And this means something, why? G - err because if you can prove it your making easy money. Strange, it hasn't been claimed! K - 5) No respected scientist in the world has ever claimed that TK exists. N - Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. G - Nick, he said 'respected scientist'. K - 6) No scientific institute of any repute has ever claimed that TK exists. N - Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. G - A claim has to be backed by proof, which there aint... K - 7) No respected scientific journal has ever reported claims that TK exists. N - Princeton has done plenty of research and even has published papers on it. Look it up. G - Christ your like an echo. They believe what they are trying to prove, their not going to say it don't exist because they would look pretty silly wouldn't they. K - 8) I can think of no reason for believing in TK. N - And this is his only valid point. G - Correct Nick! There is no reason, unless we are as ignorant as you. Nick just actually open your eyes and ask yourself if there is not but one piece of evidence that will prove skeptics wrong. Oh and your site is sh_it!!!! |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2507 | RE: website Keith: They then claim I am illogical when I say that I am unable, by doing these two stunts without TK, to claim that TK does not exist. I don't know anywhere on that site where the person says this. Your sentence has a double negative in it... was it meant to? Did you mean to say: They then claim I am illogical when I say that I can, by doing these two stunts without TK, claim that TK does not exist. And as to whether or not "Nick" is the one who posted, or created, the website... I had no idea. |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2506 | RE: website Grant: What i think - He clearly shows how easy it is to move a straw etc without using TK. You seem highly offended maybe because you actually thought it was TK until you realised it was static giving you a little push start. Well... technically I have never done a straw... just a psi-wheel. But I believe that "Nick" or whoever is right in saying that Keith's fake videos don't prove or even show that I didn't spin the wheel with TK. Common sense... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2503 | RE: website Anonymous, I really did mean what I said. I always do. I am unable to prove (by any means) that TK does not exist. That is a true and factual statement. It is impossible to prove a thing does not exist. How can you prove that tiny pink elephants do NOT live high up in the Alps? My point is that it up to the one presenting the case to prove it. i.e. show us the tiny pink elephants, or perform the TK. Are you following this? If this still seems illogical to you then I would suggest you show it to a university lecturer. |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 29, 2005 Views: 2501 | RE: website What I was saying was that nowhere on that website does it say you are illogical for saying you can't prove TK to not exist. You made that up... the guy never says that at all... |
| Posted By: Grant Posted On: Sep 30, 2005 Views: 2494 | RE: website Anonymous:"Well... technically I have never done a straw... just a psi-wheel. But I believe that "Nick" or whoever is right in saying that Keith's fake videos don't prove or even show that I didn't spin the wheel with TK. Common sense..." How can you say the videos didn't even show that you didn't spin the wheel using TK? Keith didn't use TK and shows how easy it is to move the psi-wheel with out TK. If you are so sure you used TK then really you can prove it, am i right? common sense... And it is 'Nick' who set the site up, have a look at the threads started by him on this site. |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Sep 30, 2005 Views: 2491 | RE: website Pretty straightforward here: 1. I make a video of me moving a psi-wheel using TK. 2. Keith makes a fake one. Does #2 logically mean that #1 is fake? Nope... Just because he made a buch of fake videos doesn't mean that my video is fake too. Sorry 'bout that. Oh... and yes, I checked the old topics out with Nick in them... and I found the quoted text. Whatever... like I really care though. |
| Posted By: Grant Posted On: Sep 30, 2005 Views: 2489 | RE: website Pretty straightforward here: 1. You make a video of yourself moving a psi-wheel claiming you used TK. 2. Keith makes a fake one showimg how easy it is to do without TK. Does #2 logically mean that #1 is fake? Well that depends, does TK actually exist? You tell me... You said - "Just because he made a buch of fake videos doesn't mean that my video is fake too. Sorry 'bout that." Anonymous you seem to be struggling with this, all keith done was demonstrate the straw and psi-wheel experiments without using TK. There is nothing fake about it, its down to you to prove it exists not keith to prove it does not exist. It's not to difficult to prove is it Anomynous, after all you can do TK! Sorry 'bout that. |
| Posted By: Grant Posted On: Sep 30, 2005 Views: 2482 | RE: website sorry, made a mistake. take 'a fake' out of point 2 |
| Posted By: Anonymous Posted On: Oct 1, 2005 Views: 2471 | RE: website All Keith has done was show that you can do the tricks without TK? Well then... why does he say that that means that TKer's videos are fake because you can do them without TK? Sorry 'bout that... but you aren't responding to my actual statements, but going off on your own little rant. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 ] Next Page -> |