spiritnl

I find it hard to believe, that good quality videos can be edited that fast and still look real. How about doing the OK sign with your hands, and make the levitating paper ball pas through?

How about some mirrors near it in different angles, (so one can view the paper ball in the mirrors from different angles, and see the little paper ball in one mirror via another mirror) wouldn't that exlude video-editing?

Ok, let's say someone is capable of levitating a little paper ball, nothing more. He only has a camera and the the only person in the room is the person levitating the little ball of paper. Whát would you guys want to see to make the video convincing?

Where did I say I expect people to accept this as evidence. I mearly said: If you are interested, take a look. And yes, the object swings, but there are no strings. Why do you want videos debunked?

There is no string. I don't think you wasted time on this discussion either.

Not taking anything to personal over here. I respect everyone's opinions. And yes, I realise the burden of proof is right on my shoulders, because I started this discussion. If someone is interested, here is some levitation of a friend: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x1MQJesgJP0

Just a question: If everyone won’t believe and consider anything they don’t have evidence for, how is science suppost to develop? Why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence? Because I came to this forums to share my experiences and opinion, and because psychokinesis is truelly amasing. I will try to make people wonder via forums and start considering it until I find another medium to convince people (maybe the scientific medium one time). No. Think about it; people believe in all sorts of weird stuff' date=' ranging from CIA mind control satellites to big men in the clouds who control everything, that doesn't make them right. I can't just take people's word for things, or I'd have to also give credence to the rantings of the local homeless guys.[/quote'] I am not asking you to take my word. Are you willing to give 15 minutes of your time? I wan’t to try something. In that case' date=' you need an unbiased outside observer, someone who's a skeptic and won't feel a subconscious desire to simply confirm his beliefs.[/quote'] Ok. Regards, Me

It would be nice if you tell me a little bit more about those experiences, either here or in a PM. Yes, I am aware of consequenses that proving this ability may have, and I have been thinking about that a lot.

Please do; it would be a truly remarkable discovery. But from where I'm sitting' date=' it's much more probable that those clips are fake than real, and I see no compelling evidence or logic to illustrate otherwise. [/quote'] ‘Much more probable’. BUT, that doesn’t mean you should spred it like a fact. As I said earlier, it is not and will not be efidence, but to myself. I disagree' date=' and I'd need to see the full experimental paper before I could conclude either way. See, this is why we're so keen on scientific journals; a journal article gives the whole details of the method, so that any flaw can be clearly seen. Without such a detailed account, we're left guessing and taking it on faith, which I, nor any other scientist, does.[/quote'] Agreed. I said *real* results. Those results are *not* significant' date=' and are so poorly laid out that nothing can be concluded. Some info on science: much of science involves doing the same thing over and over and over again, taking all of those measurements, and running stats on them. It also involves extensive control of outside variables, and, in this case, double-blind testing would be appropriate. None of those were followed. I also not the site casually dismisses multiple initial failures. That's shitty science right there, plain and simple. You cannot throw out data for *any* reason other than something plainly obvious like equipment malfunction.[/quote'] Ok, agreed. Why not? No' date=' seriously, why not? Why should I give credence to a wildly improbable claim that lacks evidence, rather than dismissing it? If I'm at a used car dealer, and he tells me the car he wants to sell me gets 10000 miles per gallon, but offers no proof or evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss his claims?[/quote'] I’ve told you why not. Because you don’t know wether it’s false by looking at the history. You can only assume it. You can disagree. But for me it remains a fact that I have the knowlegde and you have the opinion, that’s because I am not lying. I am not lying, it is easily said, but hard to prove, I know. Show me calculations of those probabilities. Quote: My mindset' date=' by which this is extraordinary, is the default: since we do not see telekinesis regularly, or anything like it in day to day life, it is *not* ordinary, and thus must be treated as an extraordinary claim.[/quote']Yes. No, it doesn’t need to be, but your missing the point. Psychics have shown it and have tried to prove it. See' date=' this is the problem: you're ignoring the next steps. We *have* considered the possibility. In doing so, we asked for evidence. Since there is none, we say no reason to continue consideration. You can't simply ask us to keep considering a possibility in the total absence of evidence; that's faith, not science.[/quote'] You asked for evidence, I will try to provide some. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop considering the fact it might be real untill I come with some evidence. Aren’t my words some sort of evidence to you (not suggesting scientific evidence). On a tangent' date=' because I believe it's essential for any educated person to understand statistics and probability. If people understood how stats worked, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do. Also, if, as you claim, you are trying to prove this scientifically, you will *need* stats to do it, and the right tests. It's a vital part of experimental design. For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance. And that's just scratching the surface. If you're serious about this, read up on experimental design; there are problems that can arise that you'd never notice without a good stats background, but can tank your experiment.[/quote'] My main focus is macro-psychokinesis. If at anytime probability will start playing a role, I will do my homework. No need for proof, a magician DOES fake PK. One should NEVER' date=' EVER start an experiment assuming the hypothesis is correct. In fact, the best way is to assume the opposite. Consider it false, and ask what it would take to convince you otherwise. Consider all possible flaws, every possible objection. Starting by assuming things are correct is precisely what went wrong with Project Alpha.[/quote'] Your missing one essential point. We need that faith in order to perform psychokinesis. That does not mean we won’t look at flaws though. He has some articles in official magazines. And has done research. Up to the next one: Wow. He's never done real science' date=' has he? My experiment has 3 factors, and works fine; it's called a multi-way ANOVA test. This is what I mean by reading up on experimental design. that quote above is how science was done 200 years ago. Thing are much, much more sophisticated now.[/quote'] Sorry if I confused you. That was a quote of mine. Although I am pretty sure that it contains essential and correct information.

Actually, my reference is that page too. Read wikipedia -> it IS a discussable matter. Uploading short documentary, edit:

True, we will find a way. And besides, the geiger counter is just one of the thousands things to do. Watch out. You know wikipedia isn't a scientific source. Have you ever seen the documentary on Nina Kulagina? It's quite interesting. I'll see if I can upload it for you.

Don't worry, he is a science teacher. 'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.' I'll try. But I was refering to psychics who showed their ability under scientific conditions, like Nina Kulagina.

I will continue my practice in this amasing ability. And when I think I am ready, I well definitly set up an experiment using 'the scientific method'. Don't worry, you will hear from me. Now you'll just have to do it with some stupid Youtube videos. As I mentioned earlier, I guess, I am already experimenting with a science teacher. The next step will be the geiger counter. See if I can get that working. Discussable matter.

No, your pointing out that I suck ass at probability because I am 'one of those psychics'. Besides, I am not a psychic. I am a scientist (or a scientific person) who practices and researches psychic phenomena. I see a difference. Any magician could do psychokinesis? Not really, any magician could do fake psychokinesis. But I get your point.

And why should I have to take a probability class. It's a pretty irrelevant post. Why do you assume I don't know enough about probability. And besides, you are refering to micro-psychokinesis and other skills that could include probability. I am talking about macro-psychokinesis.

True. But without the 'hey, this could be possible' - people will not start realizing and this unique gift, if I may call it that, will be forgotten and go in the books as 'false'. Nontheless, I was and am a sceptic too. So I am not asking you to just believe me either.

Oh I will, give me some time here. I am currently experimenting with a former science teacher. Yup, whatever you want to believe. You should really watch your words there. I am not a faker and definitly not a liar. So don’t spred it around like it is a ‘fact’. And maybe one day I will prove you wrong without a video on Youtube. Oh, please, what a crappy dodge. Is there any reason why not? It would be a *huge* survival advantage, and *any* advantage would rapidly be selected for and spread through the population. What do you want me to say about it. You are right on that part, I guess. I think they were smart enough to ban that outside factor. They did not use that word, I used it. I think the only thing they mentioned was that it was beyond the smell perception of that dog. Yes it sure does, and that’s why it is either fake, or unknown. http://www.psipog.net/blog/2006/06/reproducible-results.html I can’t blame you. Dude, what do you want me to do. I don’t think Randi will be to impressed seeing a can roll. And besides, I am 16 years, still at school. Do you wan’t me to step up to my parents: Hi mom, dad, can I do the Randi challenge? Indeed, it ís based on scepticism. But healthy sceptisim. That includes; writing me off as either a liar, or a delusional, but also: maybe a kid who isn’t lying. There is one difference, you have next to no knowlegde of nuclear physics. I have knowlegde over this matter. I get your point. This ís an extraordinary claim. But you also have to understand why it is one. Because of the image your currently have. What if it wasn’t extraordinary. Well, that is a matter that can be discussed though. Not asking you to. Only asking you to consider the fact psychokinesis might be real.

Well, I could have expected him popping up in this discussion. Yep, this will sound lame: but I am not interested in Randi's million. But who knows, maybe I will someday. http://www.psipog.net/show.php?cmd=wp&id=14 VS. http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/topjref.htm

Yes, you mentioned humans. But you mentioned it with 'the fact' that we don't have telekinetic abilities. That's why I mentioned it. Mabye we are all telekinetic but don't use the ability from the day we are born. Maybe we are all telepathic but we regard incidents as 'coincidence'. This is another subject, but don't you have those feelings that you know that specific someone will call you, or that you just know what somebody is going to say, word by word. Maybe they can, but don't use it. Not going onto the psychokinetic-aspect of animals. But, it is accepted that dogs can 'sense' when your coming home. I was watching a documentary on discovery, I think. They put normall cells in 7 pots. And in one of them some cancer cells. The dog was capable to search the one with cancer cells and sit next to that one. And calculations showed that it was beyond the smell perception of the dog. Maybe the 'force' doesn't come from within the human. That mechanism is pretty much unknown, although 'the force' has been messured. I am currently working on the aspect of messuring this specific force. I know, anything with that word in it will be regarded as fluff instantly. That's because of the terrible image psionics has been givin by science and media. That girl may not have been able to give you a picture of that specific skill, real or not. But I can give you something of me. http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2Wy9_9RJ8M And of a friend: http://www.psistudies.net/_media/Lassenissen-levitation-paper-19nov-2006.JPG - Me

Thanx, I've encountered some people that had a problem with it, so that's why. Well, I've been doing psychokinesis for aprox. a year. And I have never heard theories that psychokinesis is due to a 'methaphysical plane' (other psychic abilities, like astral projection include that). This is a little theorie I wrote on another forum and this is the most commen one: It's a bit of a crappy explanation, I know.

There were some posts about this subject before. But I want to take the debate to another level. I am not looking for dumb posts like 'Crap, it's total bullshit' The reason I am posting this is to find out what people on science forums think about this subject. And to make it more interesting, I state psychokinesis is real. This topic contains a poll too. Please give your opinion. Psychokinesis Moving/affecting matter with the power of thoughts. Edit: before typing any more, please note my primary language isn't English. I'll try to type proper English.