Psychokinesis (vidéo)

[Azrael 5]

Not using their hands would be a start.

 

[Ashles]

Let's have a look at that second video in some detail (or at least as much as the video quality allows us.

Here are 2 screen grabs taken right from the start (the 'unaffected' spoon) showing a rather interesting 'flaw' in the spoon.

It seems odd the spoon should start out with such an obvious line.

 

[Ashles]

Next we see the spoon after it's first 'jump'.

It looks almost sheared off in the first screen grab. The line seems consistent in position.

 

[Ashles]

Here we see the bowl of the spoon fall off.

 

[Ashles]

And finally we compare the final break line with the original image of the 'undamaged' spoon.

Looks like a strange coincidence.

I'm sure there will could be a few ways to do this (note how much the spoon is waved around at the end) but I would personally suspect something to do with a broken spoon and magnets.

Either way this is not fantastically convincing.

 

[Beth]

Not using their hands would be a start.

People who are serious (not trickery) about what they are doing insist that the hand motions are necessary. Good thought though.

Beth

 

[Ashles]

People who are serious (not trickery) about what they are doing insist that the hand motions are necessary. Good thought though.

And how can you tell which are the 'serious (not trickery)' claimants and which are merely the trickery claimainats?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

And how can you tell which are the 'serious (not trickery)' claimants and which are merely the trickery claimainats?

jambo should look up the book by John LeClaire on working with Invisible Thread. I reckon jambo discounts thread in the Nina case partly because HE can't see it. In actual fact, nobody can see Invisible Thread unless they know what to look for. It is a magician's prop that can be made to look like miracles are taking place. It would definitely be available in Nina's time -- a long blonde hair is quite effective.

Plus jambo has no conception of how this is done. He doesn't know about LOOPS for example. Or, about how one effect can be achieved by a variety of trick methods.

All he has to do is google on magic and invisible thread to find hundreds of suppliers. Or drop in to the shop at the bottom of (note sure what street) off Argyll Street in Glasgow to Tam Shepherd's magic shop and ask for some IT plus an instruction video. Then he could really amaze his friends. I'm not giving away secrets here as this stuff is readily available from any good magic shop. You have to buy it, to understand it properly.

When are we going to see this Randi e-mail that so upset jambo's applecart?

Oh, and for Beth - video is not accepted for the challenge. The JREF will video a demo, but other precautions will already have been put in place - including eliminating magnets and IT and anything that might effect, for instance, a candle flame other than mindpower, ghosts, or 'energies'.

 

[Beth]

Oh, and for Beth - video is not accepted for the challenge. The JREF will video a demo, but other precautions will already have been put in place - including eliminating magnets and IT and anything that might effect, for instance, a candle flame other than mindpower, ghosts, or 'energies'.

Perfectly understandable for the challenge, but I was thinking about videos such as these. Would it be possible for someone to demonstrate something on a video that wouldn't automatically be assumed to be trickery?

Beth

 

[Vim Razz]

Perfectly understandable for the challenge, but I was thinking about videos such as these. Would it be possible for someone to demonstrate something on a video that wouldn't automatically be assumed to be trickery?

Making decisive manipulations to a portion of a light cloud of smoke would be good. It's not something you can slip a string aound, the outside of the cloud would provide a clear indication if air current were used, and it's light enough that pk-ers, if genuine, should have no trouble compared to all the heavy spoons, ice cubes and such that we see so many videos of.

Of course, it wouldn't rule out clever forgery, but it would be compelling enough to investigate IRL.

 

[B.S]

I have a question. Given the obvious amateur quality of these videos and the ease with which such feats can be done by trickery rather than psychic powers, what would a video need to show in order to considered evidence?

Not that I think the videos referenced in this thread are real, but rather if someone could do such a thing, how would it need to be videotaped to be considered real rather than trickery?

Beth

I personally don't think its possible for any video, or photograph, to be made in such a way as to be obviously real. Anything can be faked. So I wouldn't trust any of them as reliable evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Psychokinesis (vidéo)

I've read the translated extracts.

So you have not read the reports yourself.

 

[delphi_ote]

Perfectly understandable for the challenge, but I was thinking about videos such as these. Would it be possible for someone to demonstrate something on a video that wouldn't automatically be assumed to be trickery?

Beth

I hear that the next installment of that fantastic documentary "Star Wars" is coming out soon. Maybe it will contain the clinching proof that psychic powers are real after all. Video NEVER lies!

 

[epepke]

I sometimes worry about giving too much information about a trick. No, that's a lie. I don't. But they can ban me if they want.

The former video is excruciatingly obviously a thread trick.

The latter is pretty obviously a spoon that has been work-hardened previously.

Although I do appreciate the poster who told us about Bismuth alloys. I had only heard about Woodsmetal. When I get rich again, I'm going to buy some of this stuff.

 

[Beth]

Making decisive manipulations to a portion of a light cloud of smoke would be good. It's not something you can slip a string aound, the outside of the cloud would provide a clear indication if air current were used, and it's light enough that pk-ers, if genuine, should have no trouble compared to all the heavy spoons, ice cubes and such that we see so many videos of.

Of course, it wouldn't rule out clever forgery, but it would be compelling enough to investigate IRL.

That's an interesting idea. Thanks. I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted such a feat, but it's certainly food for thought. I agree that any video could be faked; I was basically asking what it would take to get skeptics to consider the possibility that it wasn't.

 

[Garrette]

Beth,

I think the environment and the observers would matter.

For instance, if Nina produced a video of this feat (or similar) and James Randi, Banachek (Steven Shaw), Penn & Teller, and Joe Nickell were present, it would help.

In addition, if the video were not simply the effect itself without any way to view the surroundings, it would help.

If the beginning of the video were a discussion of the protocols and the effect to be achieved, it would help.

Perhaps a video can never be conclusive, but a video can certainly be far more persuasive than this. Assuming, of course, that the alleged phenomenon is real.

As it is, this video is no better than an extract from Nina's diary in which she claims to have broken a spoon with her mind.

 

[Beth]

Beth,

I think the environment and the observers would matter.

For instance, if Nina produced a video of this feat (or similar) and James Randi, Banachek (Steven Shaw), Penn & Teller, and Joe Nickell were present, it would help.

Granted, that would help, but not really an option to the average person.

In addition, if the video were not simply the effect itself without any way to view the surroundings, it would help.

If the beginning of the video were a discussion of the protocols and the effect to be achieved, it would help.

Both of these suggestions are reasonable and easily done.

Perhaps a video can never be conclusive, but a video can certainly be far more persuasive than this. Assuming, of course, that the alleged phenomenon is real.

As it is, this video is no better than an extract from Nina's diary in which she claims to have broken a spoon with her mind.

I've no disagreement with your assessment of these particular videos and I agree that no video can be conclusive.

Skeptics often make the request for people to post video evidence. I was curious what sort of video might actually be considered evidence rather than just being assumed trickery. Thanks for giving your thoughts on the matter.

edited for formatting

 

[Ashles]

That's an interesting idea. Thanks. I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted such a feat, but it's certainly food for thought. I agree that any video could be faked; I was basically asking what it would take to get skeptics to consider the possibility that it wasn't.

It's a bit of a loaded question really.
If a video showed something that appeared to be totally inexplicable then a skeptic would probably think "I don't knowwhat happened there, or how that could have been falsely achieved except for advanced video trickery".
But advanced digital trickery is very hard to do effectively and perfectly - Hollywood can't always do it with loads of time and huge budgets.

But I have never seen such a video.

It is the oft used argument by believers "What would you do if you saw a genuine paranormal event?"
That would be like us asking believers "What would you do if evey psychic in the world admitted they were faking?"
What you might or might not do in a purely hypothetical situation in which things you believe are demonstrated clearly to be incorrect isn't particularly useful.

All sceptics have so far been presented with are videos that look very clearly like people performing very standard acts of trickery.

There might pehaps one day be a video convincing enough that, simply by itself, it garners enough interest to warrant further research into an individual.

That day has not come yet. And no video will, by itself, provide definitive evidence of anything paranormal. Expecially as video editing becomes cheaper and easier.

 

[Beckett]

I don't have much time to read through all of the posts on the subject but I've seen the first film many moons ago, as Randi would say, and having seen it again I believe she is using a magnet placed on the leg and not a thread in the hands/fingers as I've seen done by someone else (perhaps the same program I've seen the former perform the trick) as others have suggested. Someone else suggested a magnet early on in this thread and this to me seems more likely judging hand movement being out of sync with the movement of the salt shaker. However, the magnet may have to be quite strong judging from the appearance of the thickness of the table from a 3/4 overhead perspective, so I wouldn't rule out the thread theory... I just don't think she is moving the thread with her hands or fingers. Is there another video of same trick employing the use of a thread to juxtapose hand movement and when it occurs in relation to the movement of the object being moved?

Forgive any errors in grammar/word-usage in this post, as I'm writing as quickly as possible before heading off to work.

 

[The Don]

Or drop in to the shop at the bottom of (note sure what street) off Argyll Street in Glasgow to Tam Shepherd's magic shop and ask for some IT plus an instruction video.

It's on Queens Street, next to the Guildhall (I'll pop in during my lunch hour)