| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Theory for TK proven! | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Theory for TK proven! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 27, 2004 Views: 779 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi alegiojon. I was at my friends house today so was able to use her pc to view your videos at ppsociety. I looked at video No. 26 with the spinning foil. It was hard to see what was going on in any great detail to be honest, but I could see that the foil was rotating. I couldn't help noticing though that the foil had a large flap sticking up all along one side which makes an ideal sail. It looks a perfect design for blowing on in order to make it rotate. I'm not saying that this is what actually happened, only that it could have, which is enough to invalidate it as a demonstration of TK because I can produce a video showing exactly the same thing with no TK involved whatsoever. I then looked at video 23, with the fork and psi wheel. It was again disappointing because the motion of your hand was more than enough to rotate the psi wheel. I can rotate mine with the same hand movement, or even less. I can't comment on the fork as I don't know how it was balanced etc. Nonetheless, I could easily produce a video showing the same thing, no problem. All I can say is that having seen these two videos, I have to say that they are very unconvincing as a demonstration of TK. I can produce videos showing the same thing without any TK involved at all. Anyone looking at your videos, or Placebo's, with an open and unbiased mind, would have to come to the same conclusion. The other videos on ppsociety I will not bother to comment on. Enough is enough. Do you have anything on video that is undeniably a demonstration of TK? |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 27, 2004 Views: 770 | RE: Theory for TK proven! hello keith, well i'm glad you finally saw the videos, i agree with you at all, those videos aren't a real detailed proof, and i'm aware of it, but my purpose wasn't to prove TK in that site, but i can change that for you, as i said in the second e-mail i sent you, i can make a special video for you, adding any details you'd like to see, as for example, my hands, the desktop, my covered face, the closed windows, and anything that can tend to unconvince you. i was thinking about making a video with a psiwheel made of paper under a glass container, and i'll try to do it at distance aswell, in that way i'll show you everything around, i can actually hold the webcam while you see the psiwheel spins under the glass (hopefully), well thanks for taking the time to watch them out, i know they are not convincing enough but as i said, those videos are just TK videos, they aren't TK demostration of proof videos, so well, tell me if you accept my offer and i'll record the video and send it to you or post it somewhere so everybody could see it. greets, alegiojon |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 27, 2004 Views: 763 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi alegiojon, Thanks for your reply, I was a bit concerened you might take a huff. Yes, I appreciate your comments in as much that the vids were not made with the purpose in mind of 'proving' that TK was operating, but simply showing it operating. I think your suggestion is a good one. A rotating paper psi wheel under cover would be interesting to see. So if you could do that and post it up somewhere so we could all take a look, that would be great. We all know that vids can't be taken as proof of anything, but at least it would give me something to go on. I am sort of stuck just now, I can't think of what else to test that I can duplicate here. Your new vid would be an interesting move forward. I know that I could maybe test the floating cocktail stick, but have to say that at this stage I think it would be pointless, and as interesting as watching paint dry. Cheers Keith |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 759 | RE: videos Hi Keith I'm not afraid of being proven 'wrong', and as such your analysis does not upset me. However, regarding your comments... I understand that my first straw video was not that convincing - did you however look at the second one I recorded? I had distance of over 30 cm... do you feel that could be static? The success I had during the thunderstorm was effected without a need for proximity or movement. I've also done this from over a metre away from the straw. However this is not so easy to record and do not have it on video :/ Another question - my hands can be still and 30 cm away, and the straw often does not react immediately - taking some time to begin moving. Static could react consistently by speeding up the movement, but not leaving the straw dormant for a minute first and then suddenly moving at speed. In my humble opinion. What is your view on this? I'd also like to point out that any of our videos are incredibly easy to 'fake' And the videos were not created with a view to convincing others that it exists, but rather with a view to demonstrate what can be done. In fact, in my case my videos are primarily a marker for my progress and confidence. As with alegiojon's case, is there something in particular you'd like me to attempt with the straw? Something reasonable that would rule out static? Alegiojon's success is far more helpful than mine, but I'd like to get your feedback for my own clarification if nothing else Regarding the floating toothpick, I'm not particularly interested in testing it, as I have my own concerns about what may cause it from normal physical laws. For example - my proximity to the water is quite close, and the speed is very slow. It *could* be explained as the heat from my fingertips altering the strength of the surface tension around the toothpick, at the points where my fingertips are closest. I feel that change of surface tension may cause movement As such, I've not really been keen on using the toothpick video as an argument in these discussions I should attempt it again, from a distance and with greater speed perhaps, before it would be worthwhile looking into As you said the results would be quite boring, I think Regards Greg PS: Perhaps I should attempt to create a video from a metre distance, with the camera view to the side. With the initial stationary straw for a few minutes, and then an attempt to move it? I simply want to record a video that is not disappointing re: static, air, etc |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 756 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Greg, Thanks for your reply. The problem with static is that it is invisible, we can't see it working. We can't see if we are neutral, negative or positive, and the same with the straw. The only thing we are able to see is the effect it produces. In this manner if the straw moves away from, or towards me, I know it is due to static. Tkers would argue that it is not static, and that what we are seeing is the effect of TK. Stalemate! Or is it? We need a way to demonstrate what is at work here. So what I do now is to rub the straw with a paper tissue, it creates a big charge (without the need for me to get it naturally by going up and down the stairs or walking across the room, whatever) and I am then able to move the straw at will. I can push it away at a distance, pull it towards me, spin it around, and even spin it right off the bottle. I can reduce the charge by grounding and thus move the straw with more gentle control. I can make it do whatever I want. That is how I demonstrate it is static. I can even hold the straw close to the psi wheel and make that move. How much more proof do you need that it IS static? Now it is over to you demonstrate it is TK. What do you do? If you use the same hand motions as me and get the same results, is that TK? It might be, but then again it might not, we are both doing the same thing and getting the same result! As always with any claim made, it is not the responsibility of others to prove the claim false, it is the responsibility of those making the claim to prove it correct. You would need to do something with TK that I cannot replicate with static. Unfortunately, anything that you can do I would also be able to do. Even if I just leave the straw alone, it can and does move of its own accord after even 5 minutes. I have explained all this in my test notes. If you wanted to demonstrate TK, you would have to rotate the straw without your hands. Not only that, but most importantly, you would need to show 100% control. You would have to be able to say, "I am now going to make it rotate clockwise for 30 seconds" and so on. If not, how can you claim it is you making it move? Without this intentionality, we can claim any event, after it happened, to be due to us. "I made that dice come up six...." etc. etc. You see the problem in claiming it as TK without demonstrating control? Without control you have nothing to show, you can do nothing that I can't do, and I am able to do it on a lot more regular basis as well. It does not tire me in the least as it takes no effort and works first time every time. You ask if it is possible for you to come up with a convincing demonstration with the straw? in a word, NO. The rotating straw is useless as a test for TK, and to be fair, I think that anyone reading this would have to agree it was static, the evidence for it is simply overwhelming. Have you tried what I suggested and charged up the straw and had some fun with it? You should. If that doesnt convince you then nothing will, not ever. Go on have a go, youll like it! Keith |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 753 | RE: Theory for TK proven! hey keith, reading your last post, i have to agree with what you said, to demostrate that the straw is not rotating due to static, someone would have to spin the straw without hands, and have a certain control over it, as saying "i'm going to move it clockwaise now" that would be enough convincing in my opinion, and well, why am i replying to your last post?, because i think i can also make a video under those conditions, but i have to figure out how to show my face, the room, the distance i have plus the straw rotating. i'll try anything, really, because i have done it and i have real witnesses as some members of my family of skeptic friends around here, and i did exactly what you said, that's why it caught my attention, i said this "now i'll move it to the right, now to the left, and so on" and they were so convinced about it, since in this room where i practise the windows blocks any air currents, although i have a big door on here which has a hole under it, i use to put clothes to cover that hole. in the video i will show all that, but i think it'll be a long video hehe but well, not many TK:ers are offering what i am offering, Placebo is offering his help too, but he is not as experienced as i am, i know TK:ers that are more advanced than me, but i don't think they'd like to do what i'm doing with you keith, so well, i'll really try anything convincing enough of the claims i have made. i'll be working on it since tonight, so in a couple of days you might have two or three videos (hopefully) greetings, alegiojon |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 743 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Keith You believe it to be impossible to demonstrate the straw, and speak of the straw in terms of static. However you seem to have ruled that option out of the pinwheel examples. Why is that? The material? The movement? The hand movement? Why can't I simply choose a different object, of different material? I've played with a straw with a lot of static on it. It does not allow for the distance, flexibility and intention I have on it, in my opinion. As I said earlier, I've moved the straw without hands, from a metre away, with responsiveness of only about 10 seconds. I believe my control to be intentional and consistent enough to demonstrate perhaps 70% accuracy. Without hand movement. I'll attempt some kind of example of this as soon as I can get the time again. Unfortunately I have family staying over, and a tight deadline to meet at work. In the meantime, Alegiojon's videos will have to do :) Greg |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 740 | RE: Theory for TK proven! I think is post says more about the characters involved than the presence of TK. Anyhoo... The psi-wheel and the straw test are popular with TK wannabees exactly because anyone can do them, because they have nothing to do with TK! Hello? This is logic calling, anyone home!? So why do so many people continue with these two particular 'tests'? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TK ABILITIES YET THE 'TESTS' WILL ALWAYS SHOW POSITIVE RESULTS! If any of you guys had real TK abilities you'd do something more effective than move the psi-wheel. Keith, you know more about he effects of static and air currents etc than anyone else on here, can't you devise a completely new kind of test for these guys? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 739 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi Greg, I'm afraid I don't understand your last message when you mention "ruling out that option from the pin wheel experiments." You mean static? Well, if that is what you mean then I don't rule it out. As I've said a few times now I can move the psi wheel by using static, pushing it away sometimes and drawing it in others. However, this only works with just a single finger held close to one of the tips, and obviously does not work at all when the hands surround the psi wheel as there is no preferred direction. Do you mean something else? You mention about using another object or different material. I have already suggested that a wooden cocktail stick instead of a straw would be a lot better test. However, I was wrong. I have run the test using a wooden cocktail stick, charged up the straw and held it near the stick. The blasted thing rotated quite rapidly! I even used a large heavy pencil instead of the little stick and got the same result. This now means that in order to rule out static we can't use plastic, paper or wood. Bit of a problem isn't it? Regarding intentionality. You said "I believe my control to be intentional". I suggest, as I have before, that you keep a record. Write it down "I will make it turn clockwise" and record the result. See how often you are correct. When you have done that see if it is 70%. If it is, or even if it isn't, ask yourself two questions...... 1) Is any figure over the 50% that you would expect by pure chance alone meaningful? Is 55%? 60%? 70%? How many times would it need be done to be meaningful? 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000? If it all comes down to stats I think that is a bit of a weak argument. 2) If it really is by intentional TK, then why so many failures? Why not every single time? If say, your results showed hit, miss, miss, hit, hit, hit, hit, miss, would that prove anything? How long after the start is acceptable as claiming you did it? 1 second, 5, 10, 60, 5 mins? It all starts to get very arbitrary doesnt it? As I said right in the beginning, accurate and detailed records are the key, they are essential. Without them I would have never figured out the psi wheel results. I feel sure that if you keep records of your control you will be disappointed. I know you are busy just now with guests (groans) but when you get the time I would be interested to know your hit rate, if you can be bothered that is. In the meantime, as you say, I look forward to seeing alegiojons videos. All the best thanks, Keith |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 738 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi alegiojon, I appreciate your offer to make a decent video. Yes, demonstrating intentionality is crucial. Forget the straw though, because as I have already explained it is impossible to rule out static, totally impossible. Forget using a wooden cocktail stick as well. I have been able to show that will also move by static. A paper psi wheel under a glass cover would be fine. If you can do it without hands even better. Thanks again, Keith ps, please read next comment. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 734 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi The Last Random Hero, I also think that the reason that these two tests are so popular is because anyone can do them, given the right circumstances. As it happens, both tests have a sufficient number of critical variables to ensure that both work sometimes, but not every single time, leading to the belief that sometimes they 'get it right'. By starting with these simple tricks it encourages their belief that they have TK. It then comes as no surprise to me when so many of them comment at ppsociety that they are unable to progress beyond that. It is because they don't have TK. To be fair, and open minded, all this demonstrates is that many people who think that they have TK do not. It does not of course prove that nobody has TK. It still leaves that possibility open. As is well understood though, and often said by myself, it is not possible to prove a thing does not exist, it can't be done. However, that is not the point, it is up to those making the claim to prove their case. You ask if I can devise a test that would prove TK. Yes, that part is easy. levitate something, like a watch, a book, or something solid like that. Or slide a cup of coffee across the desk. Or open a book at page 200. I could ask for many things. But they will say that is too much for them to do. They can only move small balanced objects. That is the state of play at the moment. I think alegiojons videos may prove interesting. I do hope so because I need something else to work on. Cheers, Keith |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 862 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Fair comment Keith, so as far as moving a psi-wheel inside glass what would you like to see done? I mean could you define that experiement in a way so that TK'ers could all try under the same conditions? I'm assuming you mean putting the psi-wheel in a the upturned lid of a large mayo jar and screwing the jar on over the top, something like that? Could you define a psi-wheel test where static etc. dont effect the wheel? I wonder if any of you guys who think they possess TK abilities have tried putting two psi-wheels or straws very close together while only using your 'power' to move one of them and not the other? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 858 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi The Last Random Hero, Regarding the psi wheel test. Put it this way. If I were Randi and offering $1,000,000 for a proven TK demo, then I wouldn't just accept a covered psi wheel test. I would set a number of conditions as follows. I would say to the TKer which direction I wanted the wheel to rotate and ask them to rotate it, and then ask them to stop it. Both should be executed within a reasonable period, say 20 seconds. I would want to repeat this at least 10 times. After a break I would want this repeated. The Tker would be allowed to move their hands if they wanted, after all the psi wheel would be in an airtight glass container, but they must be no closer than two metres in order to rule out static. If under these conditions they rotated the wheel as directed then I would pay out the money, it could only be TK at work. Then the fun could start in trying to work out what TK was. However, TK, as we know, has never been demonstrated under test conditions. I like your idea of putting two psi wheels close together and asking that only one of them move. Good idea. Any TKer could easily set up that test as no special equipment is required. All they would need to do is keep a record. Write down in advance which wheel they intend to move and in which direction, and keep a note of the results. My money says that if they a keep an honest and accurate record they would not be able to show any intentionality at work. Good thinking! |
| Posted By: alegiojon Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 846 | RE: Theory for TK proven! hello keith, well i understand your point with the straw, you told me to forget about it, but when i talk about making a video at a straw, i mean it with a real distance, like, me sitted some metters away from it, i don't know how many metters right now, but i think it is enough, i'll be sitted in the sofa while the straw will be in the table where the camera will be recording all, part of the room, my face, and the straw, so well i don't waste anything making a video at a straw, and i think you wouldn't mind to see it either, so i'll do it aswell as with the covered psiwheel, i might be working on it really soon, in a couple of hours to be exact, well, thanks for accepting my offer, i really appreciate it, and your respectful treatment aswell. greetings, alegiojon |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Dec 28, 2004 Views: 842 | RE: Theory for TK proven! Hi all, I must admit that I do feel uneasy about the general amount of pinwheel and straw exercises - and would like to devise something else. As has been pointed out, its easy to come up with a convincing test. However levitating a watch isn't exactly a beginner's exercise :P As convincing as it would be, it's not an option at this stage. (However I urge you to look at the videos showing the highlighters and watches being spun around on tables - no doubt you'd be suspicious as to their authenticity though) Most of what I'm about to say next is quite obvious... Essentially we find a situation where the ability being claimed, is very weak. As such, friction and inertia are critical factors that will eliminate the effect of it. In addition, it seems that barriers like glass and plastic make the effect a lot harder too. (Although some have achieved it) This results in exercises that are highly susceptible to static and air movement. For the reasons mentioned above, the most used exercises are pinwheel and balanced straw. I'd like to come up with an exercise that is (1) different (2) as 'easy' as possible and (3) more stable (less susceptible to external factors) (2) and (3) play against each other - so it's quite a tough call... I'll let you know if I come up with any ideas. Any suggestions in the meantime? Greg |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page -> |