Scientific Proof of Psychokinesis

[ydoaPs]

H5NwRfMJgOQ

How is it done? The video maker showed it's not any of the most common explanations. Any ideas?

[John Cuthber]

One possibility is stop frame animation. Like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMRPKM1evk

[ydoaPs]

I now know the answer, but I want to see what you guys can come up with before I reveal it.

[Phi for All]

A remote controlled fan with vanes for directing the airflow embedded in the table with the faux veneer to conceal it.

[Mokele]

He always points the hairdryer down. If there's a gap between the bowl and the table, the lip of the bowl would prevent the hairdryer from moving it, but a person located some distance away could blow on it or use a fan. Notice you can't see his face or anything outside of the very narrow area.

[YT2095]

it doesn`t really show a Lot, but the Radiometer effect could be used with the correct sources As could vibrations at varying frequencies, perhaps built into the table itself.

think NDS Lite Rumble pack or Mobile phone/pager vibrator if you want some idea of how Tiny these can be!

those would be my 1`st 2 guesses without giving it any thought.

[Mokele]

the Radiometer effect could be used with the correct sources

 

Could this have something to do with why the videos like this always use paper, rather than aluminum foil or other materials? Are there specific, common frequencies paper is especially good at absorbing?

[ydoaPs]

A remote controlled fan with vanes for directing the airflow embedded in the table with the faux veneer to conceal it.

 

Not right, but the least wrong thus far.

[SkepticLance]

A thread around the vertical spindle?

[Mokele]

Vibrations, transmitted through the table to the pin that the pinwheel is mounted on?

[ydoaPs]

A thread around the vertical spindle?

 

Being pulled through a glass container? When did it get threaded through the bowl?

[SkepticLance]

Invisible threads are commonplace in conjuring, and can move quite nicely under the edge of a bowl. I am probably barking up the wrong tree, but I noticed that the setting up of the spindle was done very quickly while the guy doing it was talking, possible as a distraction.

 

The other thing that seems just too obvious is a tiny electric motor.

[Phi for All]

A remote controlled fan with vanes for directing the airflow embedded in the table with the faux veneer to conceal it.[/quote']Not right, but the least wrong thus far.

Oh crap, there's a small remote controlled turntable (the same diameter as the clear tube) that turns the whole spindle assembly in either direction. When the tube is placed over it (and he's careful to keep it in place when the needle is inserted), it hides the fact that the veneer under the tube is turning also.

[ydoaPs]

From the description of the video to which the embedded video is a reply:

[hide]Hello everybody, this is the moment you all have been patiently waiting for, and I thank you all for that. To be honest, I'm finding hard to articulate my thoughts at the moment, so I have decided to throw caution to the wind and just start talking. PSIWheel under a glass container and The best psi wheel video: PSIWheel under a glass container were both social experiments, and both illusions. But before deciding how to react to this, I have good reasons behind my actions, and it's important that you hear me out.

 

Though I have had my doubts about telekinesis for a long time now, this whole idea of making videos began roughly 18 months ago. I don't recall exactly what made me decided to make the first video, but somehow I got the idea in my head to make a telekinesis video as a means to show that, despite what people may think, these videos are absolutely worthless as 'evidence' for the phenomenon known as telekinesis. In reality, it was half for entertainment, half for making a point.

 

The idea was to make the most convincing (amateur) psi wheel video on the internet, have people rally their support around it as a result, and then when the moment was right, to confess that this video was an illusion, and make the point that no matter how convincing these videos may seem, to always see things like this with a *healthy* level of skepticism, even if you are otherwise a believer in such things. I say a "healthy" level of skepticism because, contrary to my initial expectations, the most ignorant people of this whole experiment where the hardened skeptics. But ill get into that later on, trust me.

 

I'm a bit hesitant to share the secrets behind my illusions because the last thing I want is for people to use them to make more fake telekinesis videos. But then again, not explaining how I did it could jeopardize the original purpose of urging people to be level-headed, specifically (and ironically) when it come to being skeptical. After weighing the two concerns, I have come to the conclusion that it's better to expose this information so that people can be aware of it, as opposed to hiding it so that others would have a harder time replicating videos similar to my own. But before I get into how I did it, I would like to clarify how I didn't do it.

 

In no way, shape, or form did I use the following:

 

-Magnets

-Heat/Convection currents

-Electronics (of any sort)

-Video Editing

-Static

-Strings

-My left hand (lol)

-Or anything else people "knew" I was using...

 

And because of this, every single one of the hard-headed skeptics who blatantly talked sh** about the video were just as "stupid", "ignorant", and "gullible" as the believers they labeled as such, and perhaps even more so because at least the believers had a video on their side (a relatively convincing one at that), where as the skeptics had nothing but this unfounded arrogance in themselves by thinking, without question, that they "just knew" it was fake AND HOW it was faked. Like I had said many times in the midst of these debates, I was in a unique position to know just how full of sh** these people really were. They all thought they were so smart lol.

 

 

I would now like to take this opportunity to expose the names and locations of the 2 most ignorant skeptics I have run across during this whole experiment.

 

Jj Breen

 

Keith Mayes

 

 

Moving on, the trick was very simple. Both videos made use of the same gimmick, a trick table. That being said, however, still none of those things I listed above were used in this trick table. In the first video, a pin sized hole was drilled in both the surface of the table as well as the plastic bowl the set up was sitting on. From there, a person off camera was blowing into a tube that was connected to this hole (under the table) which cause the wheel to spin. The second video used this same principle, but in a more sophisticated fashion. The surface of the table is hollow, with two separate air channels going to two different pin holes. Two tubes could "plug in" to each hole on the hollowed legs, which were hidden by thin layer of laminate that could pop on and off. This is why you can't see the bottoms of the two front legs on the video when the wheel is spinning. And again, I used an "associate" to plug and unplug the tubes as well as to blow into them for a more convincing illusion.

 

Kinda sucks now that you know how it's done, huh?

 

In closing, the initial goal of the video was to urge a healthy sense of skepticism for believers when viewing such videos because they are just videos. They are suspect by nature; too foul play can be going on off camera. However, after fighting numerous skeptics as part of the role I needed to play, I was exposed to just how ignorant these skeptics could be. Even knowing that my video was fake, still...these people were so sure of themselves (sure of things they just couldn't be sure of given what they had seen) that they were borderline delusional. Seriously. I began getting caught up in the debates because *I knew* they didn't know this video was fake, simply because there is no way to know for sure based on what the video allowed people to see. And yet, I couldn't expose them for the "frauds" they were because I was too busy being the fraud I was lmao. (Of course, I have been saying all along that this video isn't proof and shouldn't be seen as proof)

 

But now it's different. I've been waiting for this for a loooong time. Little did I know that this experiment would go from teaching believers something about being level-headed to teaching skeptics something about being level-headed. And please don't mistake this as an attack on telekinesis. Personally I don't believe in it, but I'm not foolish enough to think it's impossible. For those that do, you're ignorant and arrogant. For all you knew, or should I say "didn't know", I could have been the real deal. And that's the point. You just can't know, one way or the other, unless you have the first hand experience.

 

 

(and another follow up on UM forums)

 

But here's the things. I get why you all were so skeptical, but I had a role to play. If any of you had actually done any research on me, like going to astral soceity and reading some of my posts, youd know that I too am very much a skeptic of telekinsis, and am an advocate of the randi challenge...believe it or not. Like i said before, I made the videos specifically to reach the people who fall for these videos, and to show them why its not such a wise thing to do.

 

But then I came here and realized that, as bad all that was, some of the skeptics I have run across, were so skeptical that it was no longer a virute, with this website being the prime example. And thats saying something coming from me, because im quite the skeptic. In fact, now that im able to "break character", id like to say that a lot of you have you heads up your asses because of your skepticism. I actually began to get mad at some of you because of how idiotic you have made skeptics out to be. But I dont even want to get back into it, im biting my tounge as we speak.

 

A lot of you are no more "wise of the world" then those you criticize, you just happen to be on opposite ends of the same scale. Its like Theism's relationship to Atheism; both like require faith in something that can't possible be known.

 

And before you can say "I knew it!!1!", let me stop you. You didnt know, thats the point. You could have suspected, and hell, you could have even forumated a way i could have pulled it off, but there is a world's difference between that and "knowing". And even if you were ultimately right, its this mistake in thinking we "know" that cause both problems; that of thse stupid tk videos and that of these stupid skeptics who actually think they know what is and isnt possible.

 

And, JJ you say you leave room open for the possibility, but its obvious that this is more of a figure of speech than an actual creed. Its clear how you really feel by the way you handled this discussion. Those who really leave themselves open the possibility are not cyncial as you are, and would most likely see no point in participating in such a discussion, to such an extent, because of the utter futlity of it all. I have run into many level-headed, well-balanced skeptics and these types seem to be unanimously indifferent about the video. But you aren't, and neither are you circle-jerk buddies.

 

You give sceince and reason a bad name because of your wonton skepticism and cyncality.

 

 

[/hide]

 

The point of the text within the spoiler tags is itself worthy of discussion.

[SkepticLance]

To yd

As one of the sceptics you are criticising, let me say that I am not in the least offended. In spite of your vitriolic comments, there is very good reason to be sceptical of 'magic' tricks when they are claimed to be done by psychic abilities. The good reason is the long history of conjuring, and the enormous number of ways that exist to fool people, including sceptics. I have been challenged before by conjurer's tricks, and (mostly) I cannot figure out the exact way they are done. When they are revealed, I say, along with others, "Oh my God, it is so simple!"

 

This experience, which most of us share in one form or another, is the basis for scepticism, and that is by far the most rational response.

[ydoaPs]

To yd

As one of the sceptics you are criticising,...In spite of your vitriolic comments,

 

I neither made the video nor wrote the text within the spoiler tags.

[SkepticLance]

To yd

Sorry about ascribing those comments to you.

 

But I wonder - what's with the guy who wrote them?

Is he against sceptics in general or what? The comments were quite uncalled for unless he experienced something he has not spoken of?

[Mokele]

I think he's against those who simply conclude they know what the trick is, without confirmation, rather than those who simply say it's insufficient evidence because of any of several *possible* tricks.

[YT2095]

neat trick, and well concealed!

air pipes would have been low on my list of guesses.

 

although I was hoping it would turn out to be something a bit more "Sciencey".

[JohnB]

I think he's against those who simply conclude they know what the trick is, without confirmation, rather than those who simply say it's insufficient evidence because of any of several *possible* tricks.

I think his point is deeper than that. There is a difference between "healthy" scepticism and "pathological" scepticism.

 

Just as some true believers will see what they want to see, so do some sceptics.

 

The vid maker mentions a couple of posters, allow me to quote some comments by Keith Mayes;

FAKE FAKE FAKE. The whole thing is video faked. Look at these times closely!

0.46 After set up table jumps.

2.54 Table jumps start of spin.

2.56 Single frame shows multiple psi wheels.

3.09 Table jumps start of spin.

3.32 Table jumps start spin.

3.55 Table jumps

3.58 table jumps

A very good try but clearly FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.

That crap will never fool anyone with a brain, just the idiots that want to believe.

FAKE FAKE FAKE!

Take a look at the first 'jump' at 46 seconds. The table lengthens by about two inches for one frame. This is where you have joined on the fake part showing the wheel move but didn't line up the frames close enough. Good try but clearly FAKE!

Don't mention the cut in the video rosenvitae at 46 secs he denies point blank that it exists! If it did it would mean that all the crap set up and tests he did at the start was a waste of time. So it can't possibly be a cut can it? Either that or he faked the whole thing!

(Emphasis mine)

 

The vid maker denies the cut exists because it doesn't, yet here is a sceptic who cannot come to terms with that reality. (And as we know exactly how it was faked, the sceptics view is definitely not reality)

 

The above is not an example of "healthy" scepticism, it is indeed "delusional" in nature.