| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> The "Tree". | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: The "Tree". |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 23, 2005 Views: 592 | RE: The "Tree". Oh man, I just think of the smartest people here and start typing, sorry about that. Im not sure how Bubbap is so decieved by the name Keith Mayes or anyone else here.(Just thinking of you.) You have to understand this, that when if at any moment one says telekinesis does not exist, they must eliminate every possible sign that it exists in this known universe. In both the human and non-human form. When the name Keith Mayes comes up and the first possible words (on the first thread) is that TK does not exist, they must go through every possible means to eliminate the factors that it does/will exist. To go to your other words,that being that telekinesis must be repeatable and verifiable is such the case in the matter of the human form. As the non-human form is not a very easily eliminating force to obtain to prove "something does not exist". To eliminate the variable (quantitive/relative) is spoken of as impossible by the "Keith Mayes" whom does not purely state the words that TK does not exist in the opening page. Only that he can think of no reason for believing in it. If anything, not one word of future potential impossibility of it not existing. When "Keith Mayes" says "I don't have any TK powers" it is a pure contradiction,if followed by the sentence "(how could I when it doesn't exist.)". If it didn't exist, he would surely know how he eliminated every possible variable of it on this planet and therefore in any of every observable and non-observable universe. Of every human and non-human definition of it. Which in the understanding I have, he has not done so. Neither the imposter, nor the real one at that. So the next time "Keith Mayes" says "I have TK" don't believe a word. The next time Keith Mayes says "I don't really have TK powers", believe only that he has eliminated every possibility that he proves it does not exist. After all, this site is called Telekinesis:Fact or Fantasy? The word "or" is no different the "or" in static 'or' warm air. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 23, 2005 Views: 591 | RE: The "Tree". If one had a container of melted ice from Halley's comet on this earth before it passed, it would be proof it existed. Except it has a 70- somthing year chance of a revolution to pass againg starting from the year 1986. Unless it runs into something, or something into it and shatters it forever before it ever comes back. We have photographic proof, probably videographic. What I define in the words "Keith Mayes" used when "he" said "you can't prove something does not exist" is out of no doubt of mine inexplicable. I agree that if something can be measured in a variable by certain forms of proof - not proof itself - but videographic or otherwise, it exists or it had to have existed before. Until it is known that all variables of all signs of "something" nonexisting are exhausted by all means, it does not mean it did not exist if there is evidence that it "did" exist. It requires repeatable and verifiable consistency to the facts, in the human form so far as it is ones power to understand that telekinesis "does exist". That being that it is yours, and yours only. Otherwise, I have not been aware, and am not aware of what causes the static or (warm air?) that allows Keith Mayes to move objects without touching them. He has not specified how he has done it and with what object if there is any to use. Therefore, it is not the only way one finds out if they have telekinesis or not. Not the only way if he reveals how he used science to do what he did. It means all kinds of people could do the same thing ( even me ) and make the same videos. Be the same way about it. As far as I am concerned, he could still have telekinesis and do the same things anyway. As long as he never tells anyone how he did it without telekinesis,no one will ever know. This means he has not eliminated the possibilty of it existing, and NEVER WILL> EVER. ONE CAN ONLY HOPE HE ANSWERS ONE QUESTION THE RIGHT WAY, THE FIRST TIME. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 23, 2005 Views: 590 | RE: The "Tree". What category does Keith Mayes vote in anyway? "No?" or "I don't know." He can think of no reason for believing in TK. Is this synonymous with saying "It doesn't exist"? I was just thinking one is "I don't know" for "I can think of no reason for believing in TK.". The other "No" for "It doesn't exist." So I have to use quotes for "Keith Mayes" for one and Keith Mayes for the other. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 23, 2005 Views: 585 | RE: The "Tree". Peter Flack, You are, without a shadow of doubt, crazy. Signed: Keith Mayes the original Keith Mayes who is James Randi Keith Mayes the great TKer Keith Mayes who has no TK Keith Mayes who is Keith Mayes who is not Keith Mayes who Keith Mayes Keith I do not exist except in your head I do exist I think I exist I think I Exist I think I may have died But if I were dead could I think? Could I? Think? Could I? Not think? I don't know I'm not really here I'm not anywhere I'm everywhere I am. I think. I am. Do you think? Do you think I am? Do you think I died? Do you think I ever lived? Did I? Why? |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 581 | RE: The "Tree". PF Said: >> You have to understand this, that when if at >>any moment one says telekinesis does not >>exist, they must eliminate every possible sign >>that it exists in this known universe So you have proven that there's no possible sign that the fairies in your back yard can actually exist? So maaaaybe they do? The Flying Spagetti Monster exists as well then. Actually, nevermind this post. Ignore it, otherwise it'll just cause you to fire off another 50 replies, that nobody can make sense of. And yes. that is a hint. A big ***ing hint. |
| Posted By: Bubbap Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 579 | RE: The "Tree". Keith I do not believe you exist..wait a minute...yes you do!!! no you dont...yes you do...I dont exist...wait if I dont exist...how can I be put to sleep by PF's posts...I guess I do exist. Maybe PF doesnt exist so maybe we should all just ignore him!!! But, if PF doesnt exist how can we ignore him?..Im confused, I think I will go get drunk now |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 574 | RE: The "Tree". Mr. Keith Mayes, are you aware that you said you "educated the ignorant"? This means you use an open mind and ask anyone and everyone around if telekinesis is a fact or a fantasy. That you can think of no reason for believing in it. What by chance do you educate the ignorant by being ignorant of the same thing, and ask nothing, and just tell everyone "Get real people, TK DOES NOT EXIST!!!!"? I cannot imagine what it must be like for you to have those two personalities bouncing around in front of people everyday. Keith:"O.K. everyone, I have a question. I want to know if you think telekinesis exists or not, because I can think of no reason for believing in it." "What do you think, because I don't know, and I would love to educate the ignorant." --(Some one speaks)-- "Well, Keith, actually what I think is - " "Keith": "STOP!!!!!!!!". "Get real people, TK does NOT exist" "If it did, why doesn't somebody prove it?" --(Some one speaks) "Well, "Keith", actually what I was going to say was--- ...........(pause)...............Keith: "Yes, go on,"... "Well if someone can prove it, it means it exists, and can no longer be just what you don't beleive in anymore.".........."Keith": "What did you say about my belief?"........"Didn't you hear me the first time?" "I said it doesn't exist.". --(Some one speaks) "Well, it doesn't yet, your not telling the world it doesn't until you made sure that it never will, and that the evidence that it ever did, never existed." -- Keith: "I can think of no reason to believe in it, that is my opinion.""You will have yours." -- "Keith": "How can I, when it doesn't exist?" (Some one speaks) -- "Then you won't have that belief anymore and you won't be ignorant, you would open your mind to the possibiltiy. Why would you have a open mind and say it didn't exist, and never will?" --"Keith": "How can I, when it doesn't exist?" --Keith: "Those objects being moved in the video are a demonstration caused by warm air or static." --(Some one speaks)"So is it fact or fantasy?" --Keith: "Warm air or static." --"Keith": "It doesn't exist." --Keith: "I thought I asked you that question." --(Some one speaks)--"Well, yes, someone did, but "some one" answered for you and me." --Keith: "Who are you?" --"Ketih": "Don't answer that question." |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 25, 2005 Views: 569 | RE: The "Tree". I think we have found the Keith Mayes imposter that so baffles Peter Flack. He is posting comments in PF's messages! |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 25, 2005 Views: 565 | RE: The "Tree". Yes, but you see, I used the words 'Some one' to describe the person answering. How am I supposed to use the word 'someone'? Well, I am not supposed to, it would make me gender biased. After all, how am I supposed to know some 'one' was divorced, jealous, (knows almost everything about you), (stalking you in the lecture hall), or who knows what about who? Female or male? I don't know. It could be a male, it could be a female. Don't take it personally, but if you say TK does not exist- you must personalize that TK to someone or something first. Before you say one word about it not existing. So, take it back. If you can, I encourage you to close every thread you have spoken those words on at any opportunity possible. With all due respect. Not without taking it back though. This one isn't 'signed'. I expect to sign something with my name using my hand. Not my 'hands'. Regards, Peter. |
| Posted By: Go ahead, ignore me, I won' go away. Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 551 | RE: The "Tree". Yes, Peter Flack exists. You can ignore me, but I will not go away. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 549 | RE: The "Tree". Just ignore it, it will go away, eventually. It is just a computer, don't worry. No one knows, take a walk around the loch, look out for the sea monsters. Keep an eye on the field out there, for the crop circles, watch for a mind to be used for a brain. Maybe it will be out there, swirling around inside a metallic saucer shaped object. Maybe it didn't exist, will not exist, but it can be photographed. Just ignore it, it will go away. Keep away from haunted houses, with poltergiests moving all kinds of things without touching them.. Using their "minds". |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 545 | RE: The "Tree". + . - ++ -- +++ --- ++++ ---- ++++ ---- +++++ Telekinesis ----- +++++ exists ----- ++++ ---- ++++ ---- +++ --- ++ -- + . - |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 29, 2005 Views: 537 | RE: The "Tree". Remember, "Until it has been demonstrated to exist, it doesn't exist, except as a myth."? Keith, demonstration doensn't cause the existence to be existence. It has to be existing, and therefore, can at the point be demonstrated. Telekinesis, is not a myth in a non-demonstrative and non-existing form. It must exist for you to demonstrate it. It must exist first. Accept it. That is the way it is. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 30, 2005 Views: 528 | RE: The "Tree". Mr. Keith Mayes, I think your opinion of telekinesis has a possible contending match with your belief. Opinion and belief are in two universes of yours in words. The "duo-verse". This relates of course purely to the debate/(argument?) with Nick. You demonstrate what people are meant to "see" on that video as a demonstration of telekinesis. Without using telekinesis. You define nothing about the static that causes the effect. Your belief and opinion on/in telekinesis is flawed, as well as your logic in demonstrating telekinesis is non-existent. They are seperate from each other. Nick had a legitimate debate for which you cannot accept, being a believer in telekinesis not existing. Not the opinionated, that it can be demonstrated in simulation. The opinionated is that it exists in simulation because it has not been demonstrated BEFORE you / IN front of you, in ways which do not go by YOUR standards. The unseen and the unheard, are not your standards. Static is your only understanding of telekinesis and the non-existence of it. That is the belief of a closed mind, and the opinion of an open one. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 30, 2005 Views: 526 | RE: The "Tree". Entitlement is a beautiful understanding of life, when you don't have it. You realize how much you miss it, when your waiting for someone to show you how much they care that it doesn't exist. Just when you thought it did for only you, your not the only one who doesn't care. When you least expect it, you find out why your so entitled to your belief and your opinion. That you don't want anyone to know what it is until they miss it as much as you do. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next Page -> |