Extraordinary claims. Ordinary investigations.

Psychic powers: video proof?

psiwheel1

This is honestly one of the most curious videos purportedly showing paranormal abilities I have ever seen. It’s not an extraordinary feat like the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, after all it’s just a piece of paper spinning. Hardly useful. But the many ways by which the author tries to make it clear there’s no trickery involved turns this boring spinning piece of paper into something genuinely intriguing.

Before explaining this video, however, I would like to ask for you to write down, Windows Notepad would do, how would you briefly answer to a friend the following questions: 1-“Does this video proves the paranormal?”, and 2-“How was it created?”. It’s important that you write down your answers, as they may surprise you later.

Keep reading for the whole story.


Psi wheel

If there were doubts that the video was real, here’s another one by the same author:

There’s a whole fad around these “Psi wheels”, folded from pieces of paper or tin foil into pyramid shaped things capable of spinning freely. Thousands of people testing their “mind power”, wondering whether they are some kind of X-Men.

What almost all of them end up eventually doing is spinning the psi wheel, but with no psychic powers involved. The psi wheel construction, similar to a big fan and with almost no friction makes it vulnerable to many subtle external influences that are not usually noticed around, such as:

Heat convection, where the heat can come form your own hands; air currents, normal in any usual household; all sorts of vibrations; and even static electricity, the same one that makes a comb attract little pieces of paper. It can also attract a psi wheel.

With that explained, the mystery continues: none of these effects seems to be able to explain the two videos we have seen. In the first one, the author uses a hair dryer to make it very clear that the psi wheel is properly insulated from outside air currents. That’s especially relevant since blowing air around is an age-old trick, made famous in the 1980s by James Hydrick, who claimed he was an X-Men, that is, a psychic. He was properly exposed on national TV by James Randi. The second part of the video is a classic FAIL.

We can also see demonstrated in the first video how a strong magnet is shown not to influence the psi wheel, discarding simple magnetic tricks, and the speed and even controlled change of direction in which the psi wheel turns may also discard the idea that simple vibration is involved.

Static electricity remains a possibility, though it would be very hard to build an inconspicuous electrostatic motor in those conditions. The  table is also shown beforehand, and it looks completely normal, as well as the bowl and everything else.

Did you write down how would you answer the two questions? Please do answer. Does this video proves the paranormal? How was it created?

Answers

Some time after publicizing his videos, the author, “Mattman”, finally revealed:

“The two videos were both social experiments, and both illusions. 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. 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.”

Here’s the answer to the first question, and that is obviously, that the video doesn’t prove the paranormal. However, and this is the most important point here, it’s not because the author confessed it was an illusion, a hoax of sorts. This is just a detail, a relevant one, but a detail.

Even if he didn’t confess, the videos alone would still be far from being a convincing proof. At this exact moment, for instance, you still don’t actually know how it was made. It could have been created in all sorts of ways, some of which you may have thought about, and all of them without any psychic powers involved.

A video of this nature, even if authentic, would only be the first step towards a series of other experiments to verify, reproduce and then finally demonstrate something as extraordinary as telekinesis. The author could recant his confession tomorrow, claim the videos were real and the MIBs forced him to lie (and also robbed him of his real powers)… and the video would still not be any convincing proof of the paranormal.

There’s no such thing as “video proof” of the paranormal, and for that instance, perpetual motion machines, ghosts, flying saucers, aliens… not when all there is is a video. A video alone is at best just an intriguing series of images that could have been produced in a varied number of ways.

Which takes us to the second answer. How it was created.

“The trick was very simple. Both videos made use of the same gimmick, a trick table. That being said, however, 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…
In the second video, [with two transparent bowls], 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 first 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?”

I created a couple of graphics, below, that may help in better understanding the tricks. Starting from the second video, the simpler one, it only takes a tube, some pin sized holes in both the table top and the first bowl’s bottom. And, Hydrick style, someone blowing (in the concealed tube).

psi11 

Some may think that as there’s no second tube from the hole in the table to the hole in the bowl to direct the air, this trick wouldn’t work. It does work, as air coming from the table would increase the pressure in the bowl and come out through the hole in the bowl. The slightest breath of air will move the psi wheel, if you remember. The only limitation is that one cannot properly control the direction to which the wheel will spin.

In the first video, the most interesting, the fabulous ideas was to use the parts of the two front legs that are out the camera frame. This small detail, so innocent and unnoticed among all the misdirection of showing the table first, magnets and hair dryer, is the key from where all the rest follows. You may not even noticed or much less remembered that parts the two front legs were not visible while the wheel was spinning. I didn’t.

psi21

The hair dryer noise, as good misdirection, may also cover up any sound the “associate” could have made while he was connecting and disconnecting tubes to the legs. With two tubes and two separate holes in the table top directly affecting the psi wheel, here one can easily control the direction and speed with which it spins.

Now that you know the secret, it may look simple, perhaps even obvious. Hindsight is 20/20, and that’s why I asked you to write down your answers. And now it’s time to check them.

Pseudoskepticism

Mattman ended up testing not only those who believed in his videos. He reserved some strong words for some skeptics (profanity included):

“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. 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.”

A whole discussion, and a philosophical, epistemological one at that, can be made over whether we can claim a video such as the ones we have seen are fake without confirming first how they were faked. Don’t worry, you brave reader that came this far, I won’t discuss that here, but if there’s a lesson for the believers who accepted the video, there’s also one for the skeptics. We can confidently claim that the videos are no demonstration of the paranormal, that however is not the same as being able to confidently claim they were fake!

We can assume they were fake, with reasonable assurance – contrary to what Mattman wrote, we skeptics have a whole corpus of scientific knowledge behind that assumption. It is, nonetheless, an assumption, deduced from the absence of evidence of the paranormal along with it’s apparent contradiction with established and verified knowledge.

We cannot forget that science’s main principle is being able to revise and refine it’s own established knowledge, and as Sagan tirelessly repeated, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This must put the assumption into due perspective.

We can speculate as to how the videos were made. It will be, nonetheless, only speculation. They may be informed speculation, but unless we find evidence or the author himself reveals and indicates how he did it, it will be speculation.

And what we definitely cannot do, risking being pseudoskeptics, is yelling “Fake!” and more, claiming we definitely know it’s fake as it was done by “After Effects! Nylon string!” and so many other ways by which the video could have been created… but in the end, it wasn’t. Incorrectly presenting our speculation, our guess, our belief that the video was created by some prosaic way without sufficient evidence is in some way as gullible as thinking it was accomplished through paranormal means. Nylon strings have been verified as real, unlike Telekinesis, but what big difference does it make when none of those were actually used?

This sermon is probably already boring you, especially the arrogance of preaching you, dear reader, not to be arrogant. You may ask how would I answer those questions myself.

Well, luckily in this instance I have recorded what I instantly replied when I first saw the video. Instant Messaging be blessed. A chap messaged me, “Have you seen the video? Being in the Internet, it’s probably fake, but it’s a very good one at that”.

How did I reply?

“The video is good indeed. I do believe it’s fake, that is, the author found a way to make the psi wheel spin, apparently (apparently!) without resorting to magnetism or external air currents, and is exploiting that in the video.”

You can judge if that was a good answer and if I’m a good skep or a bad skep. I think the “apparently!” bit saved me, I did emphasize that right away. The psi wheel does spin by external air currents, contrary to appearances. But I only emphasized that after so many embarrassing moments after proclaiming my elaborate explanations only to find that the real answer never came to my mind. As it didn’t here. So, take these advices coming from someone who is also trying to deal with his own limitations and errors. We are all in this together, fellow Sagan-wannabe skeptics.

This post is already too long and is probably more and more rambling, so I will not extend myself and comment on how the psi wheel reminds of Crookes radiometer, a very curious device that defies a clear and thorough scientific explanation to this day, being reason for many scientist’s embarrassment.

Not to mention that Sir William Crookes himself has a whole story of involvement with the spiritualism and the paranormal. A very fine story that one of his scientific inventions would be much more puzzling a century later than his spiritualist investigations. All of this will be for another post.

So, to the due end, how could one appropriately answer those questions, right there at the beginning, before all of these rants? Here’s a suggestion:

Does the video prove the paranormal? No.

How was it made? I don’t know.

Simple, huh? Well, apparently!

* * *

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Popularity: 10% [?]

Posted in Paranormal,Skepticism | 40 comments

40 Comments so far

  1. someguy July 25th, 2009 6:54 am

    It’s amazing how many ads for numerology and ‘psychic hotlines’ there are on this page!

  2. Pablo July 25th, 2009 2:11 pm

    Very interesting…

    A funny coincidence is that the scientology.org ad banner is showing at the bottom: Very appropriate :-)

  3. Mori July 25th, 2009 2:40 pm

    Yeah, I must block all those ads… but it must be done by hand, one by one, if I happen to view them too, finding the domain and filtering them. I understand it’s odd to see them and that you readers may complain… some ads will inevitably be there (if I block one numerology ad, another one will fill it), it’s too much work blocking all of them.

    But I will block the Scientology one. Thanks for the warning.

    If you find an ad you don’t think appropriated, please, try to indicate the domain address of the ad too, that takes one step out of the process for me!

  4. WhyteWolf Technology July 25th, 2009 4:10 pm

    PsiWheel Under a Glass Container video…

    This video is a couple of years old, but I just read about it on Forgetomori last night. It shows a folded piece of paper, balanced on an upright toothpick, under a glass bowl. The guy in the video shows how he can make the paper spin with his “psychi…

  5. Pies July 25th, 2009 5:24 pm

    Please remember, that YouTube comments contain the kind of thing people talk about on their way home from a show. They’re not something most of them would say publically.

    I think the angry people are the ones who think there is such thing as magic, but you’re not it. Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite.

  6. Pies July 25th, 2009 5:28 pm

    I would be even more impressed if you built a bowl with hidden, electrostatics-powered motors, so that if you rub the right spot on the bowl, the paper spins :) But that would be a feat of engineering, not illusion.

  7. Renzo July 25th, 2009 6:46 pm

    The problem with proving the paranormal is actually identical to the problem of proving physical phenomena scientifically. Ultimately, a peer-reviewed paper, while I trust it more than a video on Youtube, still does not eliminate the possibility of fudged data or other tomfoolery on the part of the paper authors. With direct experience, and an effective use of logic, you can prove something for and to yourself, but that does not constitute proof for the person you tell about it.

  8. Blake July 25th, 2009 8:03 pm

    I always thought the term pseudoskepticism was profligate, and it’s use, often quisling.

  9. Pepper Lim July 25th, 2009 8:27 pm

    Bravo! Simply fantastic!

  10. jake July 25th, 2009 9:56 pm

    did the creator of the video actually try this setup to move the wheel with his “psi” powers?

  11. jayjay July 25th, 2009 11:19 pm

    if the creator of the illusion tried to see if it was possible for him first, objective observation, with the added hint of “trying to see”, i mean actually moving the spinner with “psi” powers, but believing it, or actually expecting it to. It is a very important5 element to the “psi” power thing. it is a sort of mental circuit that allows access to parts of the brain, (or at least thats the argument). It is a very simple yet elusive thougt pattern. And the more complex your thoughts about it get, the harder it is to get rid of the excess thoughts.so in general,not proved otherwise would have to come into effect, since the statement of “the lack of evidence” is a double edged sword. And i do intend this comment as the simple question, “did he try?” before he went through the elaborate misguiding of attention.

    i did notice that not all elements were in the shot, thought to myself, if hes being SO thorough, why not just set it on the ground to eliminate doubt of the wooden table (although someone who would manipulate a table, could also as easily pick up a few tiles for the same effect)

  12. Tim July 26th, 2009 6:34 am

    @jayjay. I also was curious if the creator gave the real thing a go. The video was done so well that I was tempted not to read the solution for the same reason you indicated. By having (apparent) evidence of psi ability, it makes it easier to believe it is possible. And at some level I hope that believing it to be possible may unlock an otherwise latent ability.

    I have no evidence that I am psi, but that is not evidence that I am not. What impresses me the most though is the generosity the creator shows to all of humanity and our quest for reason. That was a lot of work to set up, so thank you for the experience and fresh perspective.

  13. Dan July 26th, 2009 9:02 am

    Does faking a demonstration then make all such demonstrations fake?

    What about the set of people who can make the paper turn?

    Try it yourself: stick a needle in a bar of soap, set it on a table, fold a square of paper twice and put it on the needle.

    Make it turn.

    When I did this as a teen, it seemed that it would turn as soon as I stopped mentally trying really hard. I could “let” it turn.

    Anyone else?

  14. Pies July 26th, 2009 11:20 am

    This one’s a fake, as explained, but even the people who think they really can move the paper are wrong. It’s not them doing it, but the Psi Angels who tend to manifest themselves around people who squint and get red in the face from effort. It’s them who make the Psi wheel spin, not you, silly buns.

    Try and prove me wrong.

  15. Pies July 26th, 2009 11:28 am

    However I do applaud the efforts to exercise the underutilized areas that some people have in the brains.

  16. jayjay July 26th, 2009 11:52 am

    “psi” as shorthand for psychic, we all are.

    As i understand it, psychic refers to higher functions of the brain associated with thinking, remembering, imagining, etc…

    telekinesis and telepathy, are relatively common phenomenon, but explanation does them no justice. It makes it common place, devoid of mystery, and our need for reason and reproduction, and ultimately, communicability remove the wonder of these events.

    the complexity of thoughts can be just as wonderful as the mysterious unknown. The associative patterns are typically quite astounding.

    So the common telepathy, thinking of a person seconds before they call. Be it an often caller (which is more likely and explainable) or the out of the blue…

    telekinesis is a bit tougher to find the common occurence, or at least one of which we experience ien masse, but the next time you toss something, especially to another person notice the accuracy of the toss, and if inaccurate the tendency of thought at that moment(murphy’s law as physical dynamic interactions)…

  17. […] Ooops! That last video was probably faked! […]

  18. Michael July 26th, 2009 2:07 pm

    What’s with that nonsense about the Crooke’s radiometer? Good grief man, you sound like a creationist bleating that scientists think bees can’t fly. The article you link to disagrees with your statement – we had most of the answer 6 years after it was invented, and some other possibly theories were only disproved with the advent of better technology, and that was over 100 years ago! Just because many people since didn’t do their homework hardly says anything more than a bleak statement on the lower bounds of scientific literacy.

    WRT to the point of the article, however, I must reply with a forceful ‘meh’. Presumptuous jerks on the internet isn’t surprising, but they hurt no one but themselves. I can hardly disagree with more venom for frauds and hoaxes, though.

    Not to say the author implied we aren’t, but I’d like to stress that we are most certainly justified in having confidence in it being a fraud. We don’t have to throw out all previous knowledge to evaluate a new claim. A thousand exposed hoaxes is plenty evidence to dismiss all claims that don’t have extraordinary evidence behind them. If any of it was real, we’d have found a verifiable one long ago.

  19. fouber July 26th, 2009 2:31 pm

    While I don’t think the “FAKE!” yellers bring much to the discussion, I don’t think their response is inappropriate. To calmly respond “I don’t know how it was made” is simply restating the obvious and adds even less.

    It reminds me of the atheist vs. agnostic argument. I am an atheist. People frequently tell me that I’m wrong, that in fact I’m an agnostic, because NO ONE can say for certain that god doesn’t exist. Of course we don’t know anything for certain, but that doesn’t stop us from stating reasonable assumptions as fact all the time. I’m sitting in a chair as I write this. This is an assumption of course; it could be an elaborate illusion that tricks my brain and butt into thinking it’s a chair, but no one objects to me stating it’s a chair. Stating that telekinesis powers are fake is another reasonable assumption that the average, experienced person should be able to make.

    Guessing how it was done may not be scientifically rigorous, but it’s a lot more fun than simply declining to comment until the peer review board arrives.

  20. Mori July 26th, 2009 3:36 pm

    People, I’m not advocating one should refrain from speculating how the video could have been made. I find that exercise actually amusing and enlightening, on BoingBoing some people mentioned the idea of having the whole setup spinning, so that the psiwheel could be stationary and yet appear to spin. Not very practical, but a wonderful out-of-the-box idea that may be fine to have in mind for other cases. And a few people actually correctly guessed the trick here involved a trick table, a pinhole and even that the table’s front legs were involved.

    What I’m emphasizing is that unless we have evidence, we should state, if only as a quick disclaimer to save our own asses (“apparently!”), that we are speculating. We must not mistake a proposed prosaic explanation for a clear, conclusive answer to something. Unless we have the evidence to back that up. If we have little evidence to back that up, we must mention that. Otherwise the only difference between skeptics and believers would be the fact skeptics have an academic textbook to establish what is real while believers may have some arbitrary belief. Textbooks are very fine, they are not arbitrary, but ideally one should be able to directly analyze what is real or not, being capable of contradicting the precious textbooks when the evidence shows that. The ultimate judge of what is real or not is not a textbook, it’s reality itself.

    Furthermore, when claiming a video purporting to show paranormal effects is “fake!”, perhaps one may be allowed not to warn all the time that that is an a priori assumption, but when pressed and discussing this with those who believe; it may be very apropriated to mention and admit exactly that. There should be no problem to admit that. It’s not that different from mentioning that evolution is, indeed, a theory. It’s also a fact, we can prove evolution does happen. The inexistence of the paranormal is an assumption. We cannot prove that negative (this is a long discussion, my position is that we can’t). But it’s an assumption working every single day everywhere in the world where laws of conservation of energy and mind-bogglingly precise measurements of physical phenomena are tested just fine with that assumption. Quoting Sagan, assuming paranormal phenomena don’t exist is not prejudice, it’s post-judice. Centuries of research have failed to show the contrary. But once again, it’s an assumption.

    It’s not horrible to admit that, and if believers think that assumptions and theories mean those ideas are dogmatic or worthless, then we may explain to them it’s not like that.

  21. Le_Woodman (Le_Woodman) July 26th, 2009 5:32 pm

    Psychic powers ! The trick : http://bit.ly/mTR2S
    and the explanation : http://bit.ly/kaJSv

  22. […] Watch carefully the demonstration above. Here’s how it works. […]

  23. Frank Brusca July 27th, 2009 11:43 am

    Occam’s razor!

    These charlatans could have gone a little more hi tech and really stumped folks. Inside the laminate they could have installed one or more CO2 cartridges controlled by some RC valves. With such a set up they could have avoided the give-away video edits and even shown the full table. Our theatre department used this type of trickery for a production of Blythe Spirit. They needed to have a table dance around on the stage. They used some CO2, valves, some rods in the table legs that were pushed by the blasts of air and some toy TC controllers. It was an impressive effect!

  24. adsf August 5th, 2009 9:47 pm

    Just want to say this is a very cool site. Love the scientific approach and explanation to all these mysteries. Keep it up.

  25. someguy August 13th, 2009 8:52 pm

    Hey, not complaining at all. I imagine that most people ‘filter out’ (ignore) these ads usually – just noting the irony. This blog is superb, by the way!

    Mori: I do block some ads, but filtering all of the ironic ones would take too much work. They are automatically selected by Google Adsense. I expect Google to do its job and remove the illegal ones while I manually block the more persistent/inadequate ones that keep showing up.

  26. Kyle Armbruster September 3rd, 2009 9:01 pm

    It was clear to me that whatever the trick was, it was based on the table.

    This is where many magic tricks and other hoaxes/stunts/pranks fall down for me. If you are a magician or other kind of trickster, please use props that look exactly like something I can go pick up at Wal-Mart or something.

    In the case of the table, I looked at it and thought, “That looks like a simple, handmade, crummy table with obvious laminate.” It was clear that the trick was based on the table, because who makes such an ugly, impractical table?

    That being said, the joy I get from this kind of thin–honest magic tricks included–comes from figuring out as much as I can about how they work. That’s the fun part for me. I love this stuff, but mostly because of the human cleverness it shows off. Knowing how something like this works just makes it all the more fun, IMO.

  27. FCS October 28th, 2010 5:31 am

    Hahaha. It was so funny how you desperately tried to justify your views/beliefs/skepticism/know-it-all-ism and so on.

    Oh and stop thinking I believe in the “paranormal” because I really don’t.

    I’m a stupid fool who knows nothing.

  28. FCS October 29th, 2010 3:31 am

    Nice, just like the creationist idiots.
    You’re a class act, man.

  29. FCS October 29th, 2010 3:32 am

    That second comment wasn’t meant for this article. Hahaha, my mistake.

  30. […] some "psi-wheel debunking for dummies" I could use? – JREF Forum and especially here: forgetomori Psychic powers: video proof? I think most skeptics would conclude our beloved Sandy, someone who has shown herself to be as […]

  31. Svelato il trucco per la psi wheel - Pagina 4 November 8th, 2011 9:03 pm

    […] […]

  32. ASmattman April 15th, 2012 6:32 pm

    Nice write up :)

    I think the most important thing to take away from this is recognizing just how little we truly know, in the most genuine sense of the word, as sole persons.

    There is a fundamental and qualitative difference between firsthand and secondhand knowledge. Firsthand knowledge is that which you have verified yourself through observation and testing. Secondhand knowledge is information which you have not confirmed yourself, but have indirectly learned from an external source (such as through text, verbal testimony, and even video).

    This doesn’t necessarily mean secondhand knowledge is invalid or without purpose. The scientific community hinges upon both firsthand knowledge (independent and repeatable testing) as well as secondhand knowledge (journals, publications, etc)…and clearly the scientific community has accomplished more than enough to demonstrate that secondhand knowledge can be both trust worthy and accurate.

    Never the less, there is a very real difference between knowing something is true because you personally have done the observation/testing and hearing something is true from someone else…even if ultimately the information you’ve heard is accurate.

    Unfortunately there is no way to “inherit” firsthand knowledge from a secondhand source, regardless of how established, trust worthy, or well-equipped that source is. Again, this doesn’t mean secondhand knowledge is somehow less true than firsthand knowledge, only that believing in secondhand knowledge requires a level of assumptiveness not required with firsthand knowledge.

    And therein lies the heart of the matter. The problem isn’t that people assume so much of what they believe, it’s that they are unaware that their beliefs are assumptions — assumptions in things they have read or heard but have never verified themselves. In all honestly, there is no practical way for every individual to scientifically confirm every scientific principle themselves. That doesn’t mean those principles are untrue, just that believing in them is, by the very definition of the word, an “assumption”. And these assumptions are what creates both those which are overly skeptical, and those who are not skeptical enough. In the end, its the same problem…putting TOO MUCH faith in that which you truly do not know.

    Take care
    Matt

  33. Lenoxus April 25th, 2012 10:59 pm

    Even firsthand knowledge is pretty suspect, actually. Consider optical illusions, or auditory ones like the McGurk effect, or the dozens of other ways that eyewitness testimony can get screwed up, memories can change, etc.

    And when someone can say “But I’ve seen it with my own eyes!” then their mind suddenly has a natural defense mechanism against all self-skepticism.

    All in all, the easiest person to fool is yourself. It’s much wiser to lend our credibility to the experts over oneself; this is the humble and enlightened path.

  34. andres September 29th, 2012 5:08 pm

    Hola la Psychokinesis es real yo lo se . disculpa pero tambien hay videos de personas que mueven esferas de cristal muy pesadas eso no tiene explicacion en tu logica por ende estas muy equivocado, el ser humano puede hacer mas cosas de lo que te imaginas….
    aca hay un video que no lo vas a poder desmentir http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4FvcE4fbY&feature=related

  35. andres September 29th, 2012 5:12 pm

    ahunque yo creo que esta persona no tiene ningun control sobre su psy , segun yo veo en este video hay un fraude por que hay una mano que el esconde , talvez se este haciendo fluir sobre su mano electricidad o tenga algo parecido ,que en si mismo ahunque fuese un engaño , yo lo veria como una oportunidad de innovacion en el terreno cientifico…

  36. Mouse October 21st, 2012 12:22 am

    Yeah, so in regarding everyone’s skepticism, it’s none of any of those except MAYBE static. However, if one can generate enough static to affect something that isn’t metal and doesn’t conduct electricity well (paper) then I am skeptical of it being only static. Also, I have also been working on doing this, and let me tell you, I wasn’t able to do it in a day (many many months to be exact). It is extreme focus, extreme open-mindedness, and you HAVE to believe you can do it. After you can even do those things, controlling it like the dude did in the first video is the next and much more hard step to do. I can SORT of do it, but I cannot control it 100% yet. However, I have made a video where I have pushed it in the direction I wanted it to go. Also, I didn’t place my hands in any sort of way. They were folded on my lap while I just simply looked at it. So if it’s REALLY static, then I have a ton of static spewing from my head. 3 feet away.

  37. George McGee October 21st, 2012 5:14 pm

    Wow, very interesting videos and post, and I’m very proud to say that those were my exact answers! (not trying to be big headed here btw)

  38. Rumtopf March 12th, 2013 7:33 am

    It’s funny how there are still people saying this is real when the creator himself has explained how he did it xD.

  39. David Wallace August 7th, 2013 12:43 am

    Dang, I was really hoping to find the real explanation for this effect but I’m only finding fakes. I first did this “trick” many years ago, always under glass, and my best guess is a static field. If true it’s still interesting that a negative or positive field could be generated, at will, by the human body.

    Qi, or Ki, has not been ruled out but I suspect not many believe in this bio force. I have no interest in convincing anyone it’s real but since I’ve personally felt the force generated by a Tai Chi master in China I know it’s real.

  40. Hettema August 12th, 2013 1:36 am

    well i was pretty convinced that your trick is both real and fake
    I have read half of your skeptics story and the first thing i can think of just to throw a curve ball was:
    where is your proof of aero-dynamics, all you gave us was a picture illustration (from what i have seen)
    as crazy as it sounds regardless of the video evidence (proof) and commentary (fake)
    neither can be honest, the video could have been real PK and your writing is a lie or vise-versa (your
    conventional story)
    so you have it down packed that it doesn’t matter what is done people will only go with their own all knowing
    beliefs
    or as James Randi would say, “assumptions”

Leave a reply

Live Comment Preview