FYI, if you follow the link to the video in the description, the one at ijnp.magnifyDOTnet, watch the first video from 14:15-18:00 is where she exposes the magnets in the bowl and table both
ok, i looked him up... he's as unimpressive as all the others.
search here on youtube for "derren brown 1 inch punch" he demonstrates the exact same things with ZERO training in tai chi. all that matters is you find a student gullible enough to believe you have powers and you can do the same thing as victor... People making these claims have failed testing every single time. Also, you talk about Nat Geo, even though debunking frauds is not what they do, look at this: watch?v=lsSzSflkns8
@superrevivalcom "So the cloth they gave him wasn't the right type of cloth."
nonsense. 1) there was no energy to begin with 2) yes, it would be the wrong type of cloth IF and ONLY if he was able to shatter the jar... in reality, he couldn't do it with or without a cloth. with or without weights. it only shattered when he had the jar positioned over the indents.
@lennyhipp nonsense. 1) there was no energy to begin with --> I honestly dont know if this is for real or not, so i wont join the believers, nor the dis-believers. I keep standing in the middle until there's real hard evidence. But you are simply wrong with your statement, because everything is energy, there's nothing else in existence, energy is everything there is, and even quantum physics proves that. Of course there are many hoaxes and fakers but i do believe this stuff is possible, peace
"you are simply wrong with your statement, because everything is energy"
Ugh. you know very well the context in which i made my claim. Try basing your response on my intended purpose instead of taking something out of context. The energy this guy was claiming to have in order to topple the bricks does not exist.
"and even quantum physics proves that."
erm... WRONG!. NOTHING in science is ever proven or disproven. See? i can play word games too!
@lennyhipp It wasnt my intension to take it out of context, so im sorry. By the way are there any other parts? because it says part 2 of 6? just curious. And im wondering why dont they smash the table or pull off that cloth on top of it to show us the device that is supposedly helping to break the bottles? They came up with some answers but they device is never shown? Anyway thanks for the upload, this guy seems to be a fraud, but that doesnt convince me or proves that all of this stuff is fake
@superrevivalcom <----needs to read the video descriptions on both parts. it's 100% debunked, and sorry, but there's no argument. They DID give the guy a new cloth and new bowl, and he DID fail miserably!
you can physically build yourself up, hurt yourself until you cant do it no more with out breaking anything, it can be as simple as knocking on yourself or a desk and then you let it heal and do it again and let it heal do it again and each time you can do it more and more because the human body is amazing and what doesnt kill you truely does make you stronger, you have holes in your bones and they get smaller meaning you can withstand more impact in that area and skin calluses
@theconqueror agreed with pretty much everything you've said... it's a combination of training and physics. The book "behind the incredibles" explains all the "iron palm" and "iron body" etc. things. The shaolin themselves admit these are all elaborate parlor tricks in their self-published grandmasters text.
John Chang is not the real deal i beleive, chi is real but not like how people make it seem, its just breathing and focus, you get a feeling like a body part fallnig asleep but with out the pain, like springy feeling, but i beleive when they break stuff and hit their selves with things, thats not chi, that is physical training and tricks, over years of like punchnig somethnig your fist will become bigger and stronger and can break peoples skulls literally
This really saddens me. I'm s strong believe in the power of Chi. For person reasons and experiences. Why would he do this. Fake QiGong?? You see the beauty of QiGong is that not every one can master it. Look at John Chang. He was the real deal!!
he's not faking QiGong, he's faking being able to harness and project power/ energy. big difference.
"You see the beauty of QiGong is that not every one can master it. Look at John Chang. He was the real deal!!"
There's zero empirical evidence to suggest chang was the "real deal". he was never adequately tested. he managed to fool a few gullible film makers. So what!?
@lockmagic hi, i deleted the other parts because they were confusing people and had nothing to do with the debunking except for a one minute part where they show magnets are hidden in the table and he fails to move a bowl without magnets. please read the vid description and then you can see a link to the original unedited videos.
@leereturn2006 "they are hiding the true power by saying it is fake but the real power is still real"
yeah. Ahahhhahahhahahahahhahaa! that's a good one! you're funny.
"belive me"
no. don't believe you. you've no evidence to back your claim it's real. everybody who's been properly tested has failed miserably. willful ignorance is no way to go through life son
@lennyhipp oh so you look at life scientific way, let me tell you well you are right so are you happy now. you think that people can test any thing if they want to? technically yes, but you need to find your self before you have some statement in this subject, when you can find your self you will see, if you dont ever do it then keep living in the box that you think the world is.
@leereturn2006 " you think that people can test any thing if they want to? technically yes"
NO! the answer is "technically NO!" and i never stated such a thing... but what we CAN DO, is design a test where the results are self-evident. Either he can replicate these tricks under controlled conditions and the possibility of bias is eliminated... or he can't. it's really that simple. Test HIM properly, not his supposed abilities.
"you need to find your self before you have some statement in this subject"
NONSENSE. no need to find myself or anyone else... need common sense, an open mind, and an ability to think critically, which i do have. the box i live in is called reality my friend. that which exists outside it is fantasy.
this is only done for show, like a magic show presentation. But if you see a real qigong master, he doesn't need cloth on a table. A real master can heat up a wet towel or a bowl of water with his qi. Or a shaolin monk breaking bricks and stones with his head or palm.
go look for the self-published book "Grandmasters Text of the Shaolin Ch'an" in it, they explain how ALL these are skillfully performed tricks. i believe the paperback is still in print. Also, just because the dude you might have seen on camera wore orange robes, he most likely wasn't shaolin... who DONT perform for the public.
Sorry i was referring to organs not limbs, and i was stating Galileo was correct but people deemed him wrong. secondly it's ignorance that continues to make us think that something may not work, it was something like 2AM when i wrote my post. Despite whatever you may say there is never 100% evidence, and besides that for most of the things you have to try it before you judge it. If someone tells you to point a gun to your head and promises you there's no ammo do you still do it?
"besides that for most of the things you have to try it before you judge it"
bullshit. you (and me) are subject to confirmation bias. we're easily swayed by self-delusion. most things, you DONT have to try yourself! i can show you a dozen videos of what happens (dangerous) when you allow yourself to think you have these powers because you're convinced things happen, and others agree
"If someone tells you to point a gun to your head.."
directly contradicting your previous statement, aren't you?!
@lennyhipp there are many ways to try things with out burning your hand, to test if somethings hot, drop a drip of water, to test if a gun is loaded, perhaps check the ammo or even fire it. there are ways to test things with out hurting your self and seeing is almost always believing.
"there are ways to test things with out hurting your self"
tests can EASILY be designed so that the results are self-evident. remove chance of bias, and either he can do what he claims or not. it's simple
"and seeing is almost always believing"
then you lack critical thinking skills. you should believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see. a skilled conjurer can fool even the smartest
This guy is something else... First everyone complains (including me) that he refers to videos that are not there and suggests he puts the links into the video description at least. Then he bitches and moans and finally puts a link in there. Then he simply replies to an old comment of mine stating "but I put the links in there you idiot". What a complete and utter moron dishonest whining piece of shit haha
wait... everyone complains, or was it just you?! Yes, that's right, i referred to them, but also gave the URLs of where to find them, you were just too lazy to spend the 30 seconds it took to find them.
No bitching and moaning here, only hearty laughter at the morons who believe in this stunning display of bullshit. Feng Shui, Acupuncture, chi/qi, candling, healing touch, TT, TCM, and all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense!
@lennyhipp explain how acupuncture,candling and the healing touch is pseudo nonense. please you can have all 3 of those done to you any time, you just have such a dwelled mind convinced that science has figured it all out. people said it's impossible to fly, look now? people said it's impossible to regrow limbs, tada?
People also said aliens didn't exist (not COMPLETELY proven yet but there's evidence)
Science and people said many things, but it's not always correct. Another one is Galileo.
@monckey100 = sad little man out of touch with reality. Let me explain a few things to you:
1) "explain how acupuncture,candling and the healing touch is pseudo nonense"
the onus of evidence is on YOU (or the person making the claim that they are effective.) in every large clinical trial, acupuncture has been shown to be no more effective than placebo... in fact, when TOOTHPICKS were used instead of needles, the toothpicks that didn't even penetrate the skin were MORE EFFECTIVE than needles
Also, other studies have shown that the person giving the treatment didn't have to know what they were doing, and didn't insert the needles into the "proper" places for it to be effective. So much for meridiens, huh? Time after time, it's been found to be the power of suggestion at work. see also whatstheharmDOTnet for the serious results of following sham treatments of all kinds
3) there is ZERO evidence candling works and i challenge you to provide evidence i'm wrong
4) PLEASE provide ANY peer-reviewed paper in a credible medical journal that touts the efficacy of healing touch, because the studies i've seen has also linked it to the power of suggestion
5)"please you can have all 3 of those done to you any time"
i wouldn't let one of these fraud assholes within 50 ft of me. you're also making an argumentum ad popularum logical fallacy.
6) "you just have such a dwelled mind" <-this doesn't even make sense in English
@lennyhipp please, let me know the "studies you've seen". I'm a scholar too. And frankly, even if I don't believe in 99.99999% of what is called "paranormal", I doubt a serious study published on a peer review journal would find some evidence of an healing technique and dismiss it as "due to suggestion" since the concept of "suggestion" is so vague, and I guess it would be very hard to reproduce or falsify suggestion... The "power of suggestion" is in noway a science fact! Pure speculation!
Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996--2005
4. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1576.
Adverse effects of acupuncture
...and many more. There's over 50 entries on randiDOTorg, and 149 over at quackwatchDOTcom, and tinyurlDOTcom/acupuncturesham, and many more articles on the right
"Pure speculation!"
ridiculous. the effects are well-known and documented, see watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg or some examples
1) you don't have access to the supplied articles
2) you're a slow reader
3) you're just busy
4) you agree that acupuncture is a sham
which is it? because i have many more when those are finished. what scientific evidence do you have that supports the efficacy of acupuncture in treating anything other than pain?
10) cont'd. Although it's a near certainty there IS other life in the universe given the sheer uncountable number of stars, there is ZERO evidence ANY alien life has EVER visited earth. The chances of alien life finding us is close to nil. WHERE is this evidence you speak of?
11) "Another one is Galileo"
IDIOT. Galileo was correct, it was the catholic church that forced him to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system. he was the father of modern science because of this
ya, although I know its a stretch, ur going to have to post the other clips if you want to proove this guys totally a fake.. Sympathy to chi power is too strong to make people simply take your word for it.. I mean, I totally know it's far fetched but when I watch the video I don't see any of the things your talking about to be very convincing.. Still, I know it's probably fake but if there is more to this I think it'd put alot of minds at ease to just upload it
"ur going to have to post the other clips if you want to proove..."
i provided you with the URL for the original unedited clips. i have no intention of re-uploading them
"Sympathy to chi power is too strong to make people simply take your word for it"
yes, people are fond of believing in the silliest of superstitions and LOVE to take grainy old youtube vids as their sole "proof" of this crap. See the many John Chang vids as evidence of this. Read Dr Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things"
"I don't see any of the things your talking about to be very convincing"
you need to understand WHERE the onus of evidence lies. This old man has done NOTHING to show he genuinely has any powers. All i can do is say he failed to provide any such evidence when properly tested for. Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and he hasn't got any.
For the 3rd time, the vids are at: ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet/
wheres the other parts?? did they inspect the table and cloth for mechanisms? WHY NOT???????????? This doesn't look good for him but I can't elliminate all possibility that he really does have CHI POWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus I also really want this to be real........ Did they do some further tests on his stuff???? If so can u repost the videos?????
they were deleted because they confused too many people and i didn't have translations for them. one part DID show that he had magnets in the table, i accidentally deleted that part. look through the comments for links to the original videos.
"did they inspect the table and cloth for mechanisms? WHY NOT?"
it wasn't necessary, watch the vids again and read the descriptions
@lennyhipp LOl, no if i see a video that shows magnets in the table and bowl I'll believe he's a fraud.. I'd really like to see those videos though as my sympathy to potential reality of chi powers is strong...
@SHIBBYiPANDA "if i see a video that shows magnets in the table and bowl I'll believe he's a fraud."
i gave you links to the original vids. Enjoy the other unwatchable 40 mins! (and just for you, i updated the video descriptions of both videos to include them too)
"unless his power was to create magnets of course lol"
"If YOU were intelligent, you'd realize i have provided links to the original vids should anyone care enough to view them uncut."
So where are they? How about putting those links in the comments section of this video? Just a suggestion ofcourse - obviously you are smarter than anyone else on Youtube so you must have already thought of that. I wonder why you have not done that yet, but, as you say I am as stupid as the rest so I humbly bow my head to your shining star of intelligence.
@Aquar1uZ "So where are they? How about putting those links in the comments section of this video? "
how about doing 30 seconds of looking if you're that interested?! It's not important enough for me... 99 of 100 understand what's going on with the two vids i now have. if more idiots like yourself created the demand, i'd expend the effort
So, let me get this straight: you simply tell everyone who does not agree with you or wishes to debate your point of view to shut up and call them idiots.
Good luck with that.
PS: Nice move in deleting the other parts and then referring to them as "Please look at the other 5 parts!". Sure makes you look intelligent.
"let me get this straight: you simply tell everyone who does not agree with you or wishes to debate your point of view to shut up and call them idiots"
you'd have to be pretty big fucking moron to infer that. i only call people idiots when they exhibit evidence that they're an idiot... like thinking i call people not agreeing with me an idiot. Idiot.
I welcome intelligent discourse, all i ask of people is that they provide evidence if they're going to make a claim
i explained why i deleted the other FOUR parts, they confused people, because they mostly had nothing to do with debunking the fraud, and i didn't have translations for those parts, so why keep them?
"Sure makes you look intelligent"
If YOU were intelligent, you'd realize i have provided links to the original vids should anyone care enough to view them uncut. Sure makes you look like a complete and utter dipshit.
I am actually neutral on the topic of whether or not chi and its uses exist as they are presented, but it is very clear you are presenting a both highly one-sided and potentially jaded view of the topic
A demonstration was performed, and then accompanied by a logical explanation of how it COULD be replicated, I would hardly call that a "debunking" and may even laugh if you call it "caught in the act"
Really, it seems like the show wanted to leave its validity up to the audience to decide
@Ankoku15 "but it is very clear you are presenting a both highly one-sided and potentially jaded view of the topic"
bullshit. I've stated it's never been shown to exist when properly tested for, and i challenge people to provide empirical evidence silly things like this DO exist
"accompanied by a logical explanation of how it COULD be replicated"
bullshit again. they not only show how it COULD be replicated, when they apply controls, he fails to replicate the feats!
P2, He even directly explains, it will only work with HIS cloth and it will only work BECAUSE of the weight, rather then because of some made up answer that most frauds give
and a complex pulley system? haha, really?
seems too easily noticed, what does he use? that "invisible" string? because you can see it clearly within 4-5 ft of the user so I would assume the reporter would notice..
I WOULD comment next on the video footage of the bowl moving, but it has been removed so thats all for now!
@Ankoku15 "and it will only work BECAUSE of the weight"
you forgot: ...and will only work when positioned over an indentation in the table! In other words, he CANNOT do as he claims
"and a complex pulley system? haha, really?"
haha. really. they asked a magician how HE would replicate it, they are NOT making the claim that's precisely how the fraud did it. How else would the bowl of water move if not for a pulley system?
"what does he use?"
irrelevant. all that really matters is he cant do it
@Ankoku15 "because you can see it clearly within 4-5 ft"
bullshit for the third time. Invisible string not only wouldn't be strong enough to pull a bowl full of water, but it CANNOT clearly be seen 4-5 ft away. It cannot be seen even a foot away if the background is the same color as the thread. That's what magician's string is, it's a single strand of black thread. Otherwise close up magicians using it would be laughed at. it's called "invisible thread" for a reason!
@Ankoku15 "I WOULD comment next on the video footage of the bowl moving"
I had all six parts, but the other four parts confused people, so i removed the others not realizing one of the others had the debunking of the bowl. Never got around to re-uploading that one part. however, I've provided links to the original video many times.
Chi can actually be translated as "air" so, requiring an indent in the table to disrupt the air there could make sense, also, when you do take a good look at the movement in the cloth, why does it look like air flowing underneath the cloth? A spring would generally create a different movement pattern on the tablecloth as well as leave the cloth lifted or stretched, the bottle could also be similar, requiring the weight for the force of the air to implode it
"so, requiring an indent in the table to disrupt the air there could make sense"
WOW you're really stretching it. You're not only stretching it, you're bending over backwards for it, and double knotting it in the middle! You and i both know that "air" is NOT the definition of chi being proposed by him. Also, you conveniently forget that there is no indentation under the bowl. you also conveniently forget that even over the indentation, the jar does NOT shatter without the weights pressing down
"A spring would generally create a different movement"
who said there's a spring there? the magician only mentioned that's how HE would do it if he wanted to replicate it. i think it's pretty clear it's in fact a wooden or metal peg
"requiring the weight for the force of the air to implode it"
wow. for a seemingly bright guy, you sure are proposing a few looney ideas. almost as looney as chi itself! Now you're thinking air can implode jars?! you CANT be serious. Why even have a table cloth?
look at my first comment.. i say he could be a fake. this video gives no evidence that it is fake, only that there are possible ways of replicating it with springs. you claiming that this is evidence that he's fake is the same as someone saying god created the universe without evidence, just because it is a possible way that it came into existence.. sorry you seem like an angry person who has to cling to your beliefs and insult anyone who disagrees with you. close minded, but critical lol peace
"look at my first comment. i say he could be a fake"
..and then go on to make an ignorant lie directly after that comment
"this video gives no evidence that it is fake"
idiot:
A) she shows that there are deep indentations in the table that he positions the bricks over. she moves the bricks. he tries to put it back over. she doesn't let him. when the brick isn't on the indentation, he fails to topple it
B) she shows another indentation where he positions the jar and that weights are in the cloth
B cont) when she replaces the weighted cloth with a regular one, he fails to shatter it. when she moves it off the indentation, he fails again
C) she shows there are magnets in the bowl and in the table. (see link in vid description) When she provides a brand new bowl sans magnets he fails to move it
if you dont think that's evidence of it being fake, i have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you
"you claiming that this is evidence that he's fake is the same"
sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance, but i'm not angry, you're just dumb and gullible
"insult anyone who disagrees with you"
idiot, i WELCOME dissent if you back it with evidence
"close minded, but critical lol peace"
EVERYTHING about your comments are uncritical. i've got a VERY open mind, it's just not so open that my brain has fallen out. read my channel description about what it means to have an open mind. YOU ARE the one who's got a closed mind
this doesn't debunk it.. some chinese guy talking about it after it's done saying "oh, theres probly a spring" how would he set off the spring? and why didnt the reported just check to see if there is a spring?.. i believe this is real because i'm learning how to do this stuff :) he could be a fake but this video doesn't disprove anything. the chinese guy acts like he knows all. we have always learned new things (quantum physics) and you think now we have nothing else to learn?
"i believe this is real because i'm learning how to do this stuff :)"
you're gullible and you lack the ability to think critically. NOBODY has ever done this under controlled conditions, and your doing it could make you very rich
"we have always learned new things (quantum physics)"
show a connection between QP and this. i BEG you!
"you think now we have nothing else to learn?"
slippery slope logical fallacy you're making. if we did, we'd have no use for science!
@lennyhipp quantum physics shows us that we are energetically connected to the universe. the act of observing atomic expirements effects the atoms.
you can look at my video spinning a psiwheel from about 8 feet away. more people are becoming aware that this stuff is real and inevitebly science will learn to explain it instead of saying it's 'physically impossible
u say if science could be added to it's useless?.. so newtonian physics is/was useless then because einsteiens theory?
"more people are becoming aware that this stuff is real"
wrong. more gullible idiots fall for it. most rational people have the ability to think critically
"instead of saying it's 'physically impossible"
science makes no comment on the supernatural, sorry to inform you
"u say if science could be added to it's useless?"
go re-read what i wrote and stop trying to change the meaning. I said if we discovered everything, we could stop doing science, not throw out everything we learned you retard
@baalpeteor sorry, i removed parts 3-6 because they didn't have much to do with the debunking and it was confusing people. the full 1 hr video can be seen here:
ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet
put a dot where those DOTs are. Actually, she shows that he has magnets in both the bowl and table, but i didn't have a translation for that portion.
@Username84778 I originally had 6 parts. the original was 60 mins long, and 80% of it had nothing to do with debunking and it was confusing people, so i deleted them. I accidentally deleted the 3rd part where she showed there were magnets in both the table and the bowl. I'll re-upload that part soon, but it wasn't translated anyway. If you would like to see the orig unedited vids, go here:
@Username84778 were you able to see the videos i just gave you the URLs for? the original video came from a Chinese Televsion website. i had cut those two into 6 parts so i could fit them in under ten minutes. if you can't wait for me, please check them out. most of what i cut out had to do with the use of "chi" power/ energy in really bad kung fu movies.
@lennyhipp the website gives up a 404 error, unfortunately it doesn't work, don't worry do it in your own time, no one minds waiting. Do you believe in chi lennyhipp?
Maybe i pasted it wrong because i just checked it and it worked. i'll send you the link.
as for your question: if by chi you mean an energy that can be harnessed in your "dan tien" and flows through meridians, & can be projected to heal others or to move objects, then no, i think it's one of the stupidest ideas ever. if you're gonna say it's the energy that makes our muscles move, what in the west is called "action potential", then i could agree with that, just not your choice of name for it
this video was quite entertaining, but it would have been more entertaining if it was not an organization (CCTV) , rather a philosopher/ physicists ( skeptic) and battle it out on a debate .
"In order to believe in chi, is it required to dismiss the idea of 'controlled experiments'?"
Possibly! :) I can only speak for myself: In order for ME to believe in anything, some empirical evidence supporting the existence must be present. So far, after 24 yrs of looking, I've never heard of any empirical evidence for anything supernatural or paranormal. EVERY TIME it's been properly tested for, it's failed. Miserably.
@omfg4000 "Not quite. Empirical evidence of telepathy exists for example."
bullshit. i challenge you to present this so-called evidence. you'd also be eligible for the JREF million dollar prize should you have it. (empirical evidence that is)
Um could someone tell me what the trigger is (for the pin/spring/w.e it is)? cause from what im seeing all he does is yells and pop... so right now im assuming his voice controls it??? if i dont find a trigger (and watch the other 4 vids) and leave here im just assuming that he created mini holes in the table to amplify the pressure you know :P
@weiming10 I don't know why they didn't search him for a remote, but they treat the elderly differently in China. My guess is he has a trigger inside his sandal or perhaps on the inside of his knee.
Hi Tidan, the other 4 were removed because too many people complained that they were out of order. I purposely put them out of order in order to concentrate on the ones that debunked him. i forgot clip 6 shows them exposing magnets in both the table and the bowl. I'll be re-uploading that one soon. the other 3 really didn't explain much. nearly 25 mins of them comparing the tricks to bad kungfu movies. Dont know why they never removed the cloth. either it was glued on or he wouldn't let them?
Note to anyone following the nonsense of the last 4 days: Oliver has been banned for continually lying, and for not watching the video that clearly showed magnets in both the table and bowl, for continually putting words in my mouth, for exhibiting troll behavior, and for just being quite possibly the stupidest person on youtube. I quite enjoyed ridiculing him, but all good things must come to an end. He has however encouraged me to re-upload the video with the magnet and bowl.
Saying 'it wasn't necessary', is a fairly desperate excuse. If you're going to do a show trying to expose someone, you check very carefully for hidden props and such.
Why did they feel it was necessary to break open and check the bricks but not the table? Why did they feel it nessesary to check the cloth over the bottle but not the table?
So this isn't denying your disbelief, but certainly it's denying your belief that this gives any sort of solid proof.
see my analogy about car theft. Here's another: CSI find suspect's DNA at the scene, his fingerprints on smashed window, the guy admits to the murder, tells how he did it. Following your logic, it's not empirical evidence unless they can also find the blunt instrument he used to smash the skull <--INSANE
As far as not checking under the cloth: common sense: they probably couldn't. It might be explained in the rest of the vid, I didnt get the entire thing translated
Actually no that is a completely inaccurate analagy. Here is a more accurate one: The police suspect a man of attempted murder, they are unable to find the murder weapon (which is the device in the table), thus there are no finger prints to find. The man does not confess (which this guy doesn't), a detective (the magician here) has a theory about how he did it but is unable to prove it with empirical evidence (no conclusive evidence here).
That is just an embarrassment. Your same example: they find DNA and fingerprints (the indentations, the magnets, the protrusions), they have motive, and opportunity, they get a confession, they have surveillance footage. They then remove the chance of bias. They implement controls. He fails. Q.E.D. The results of their tests are self-evident.
"(which this guy doesn't)" he absolutely does. both in the part about the cloth and the other video i pointed you to. I've humored you long enough troll
No, as they did not find any magnets or protrusions, indentations show nothing apart from a jacket that looks like the same the man has.
Where is the confession? Did the man state this is fake? No he doesn't thus there is no confession. What does survalience footage relate to? Because they have no evidence via camera of this guy cheating.
The cloth provides weights, and he explains why they have weights.
You have a theory which you are unable to prove empirically, thus it is a failure.
That makes no sense as there is nothing survailience-wise that proves anything noone ever even makes a comment on any protrusions.
Erm no, they talk about mechanisms but they never actually show any. thus is it just a theory speculation, thus it is not empirical and your argument is senseless.
I gave you the EXACT TIMES in the vid that shows something poking up from beneath. "they never actually show any"
because they dont HAVE TO you unthinking moron! It's empirical because:
1)they showed his bowl had magnets. they showed the table had magnets. when they provided their own bowl (without magnets) he failed to move it
2)when they repositioned the bricks, he failed to move it, and in fact, he moved the bricks back over the holes, the video showed something pushing the brick from beneath
3)they show him positioning the jar over one of the many holes. they show something striking the jar from beneath by showing the table cloth pushing up. when they remove his weighted cloth, he fails to shatter it.
The results of her tests are self-evident.... to everyone on the planet except you my ignorant and unthinking troll friend
Indentations prove nothing, you base your beliefs on a trait common to most wooden tables and call it empirical this is foolish. There are no protrusions, you must watch your own videos. Where is this confession you are talking about? Are you saying this man admits he's a fraud? Erm no he doesn't.
They have no survailence footage that shows the man to have any cheats. Actually the cloth he fully explains which is an alibi.
it's not a belief, it's an observation. cloth on tables dont poke up beneath an object on their own. "Are you saying this man admits he's a fraud? Erm no he doesn't"
It's exactly what i'm saying, and for you to think he doesn't mean you didnt watch the videos i pointed you to
"Actually the cloth he fully explains"
he quite simply never doest this. you're lying
"They have no survailence footage that shows... cheats"
the video CLEARLY shows something poking up to topple brick and to break jar
Well actually nothing poked up. And if something did poke up it wouldn't have been that slow you are contradicting yourself in so many places. Stating it was a spring; well if it was a spring it jolts the brick it doesn't 'poke' up slowly.
Actually he quite simply does watch the video please.
No the video never talks about anything poking up, and if it was a spring like they state it wouldn't poke up. Think about what you are saying for a second.
Again, I'm not denying your disbelief. What I'm denying is that these clips show this man as a fraud, it hasn't been sufficiently proven anywhich way. This documentry is attempting to show that Chi is false, yet don't remove the tablecloth, don't check for magnets, don't check the table (before, during, or after the man was there). They fail to successfully duplicate it.
Plus as the poster you are being inconsistent deleting videos that apparently 'confused' people. confused them in what way?
Well actually yes it does the belief that this man is a fraud obviously. Well clearly we are watching two different things, if you think that not examining the table, and not giving any type of solid conclusion is empirical evidence.
How did they checked the table? They LOOKED at the table to check it they need to remove the tablecloth and check for springs themselves, all they are giving is merely speculation and guesses.
"you think that not examining the table, not giving any type of solid conclusion is empirical evidence."
Again. They showed indentations in the table. They showed something poking up thru the cloth to topple the bricks. When they moved the bricks NOT on those spots, he failed to topple them. <--Empirical
She provided her own cloth. He failed to shatter the jar. She comments there are weights in the red cloth he used. He admits he needs to use the cloth in order to shatter jar <--Empirical
You also need to learn the meaning of the word 'empirical', indentations are not springs and if you actually watched the videos you posted you'd see when he places the bricks he folds the cloth downwards so when the brick topples over it moves back into position. Thus nothing is poking up. By the way they were saying the spring jolted up and shocked the brick into moving not that it pushed it over
Yes weights in the cloth not springs in the table you can't shatter a bottle with a weighted cloth
"indentations are not springs" nobody said they were. I actually described to you five things that made the evidence empirical. Showing something protruding from the indentations and poking the bricks? that's empirical dumbass. "so when the brick topples over it moves back into position" wipe the drool from your chin. that never happened. "By the way they were saying the spring jolted up and shocked the brick" they didn't mention the word "shock" at all. IDIOT, HIS was the weighted one
You still do not understand what empirical evidence is. First of all to prove that this man is using things in the table you have to check the table. It is common sense and would give beyond all reasonable doubt suitable evidence to accuse him. But weights in the cloth and indentations gives nothing more than doubtfulness it does not give any sort of empirical evidence. In fact indentations are the most silly reason I've ever heard.
Lol, but you've conveniently missed posting the part about the bowl? Plus they also said those indentations had nothing to do with moving the brick. In case you don't know the difference indentations do not = springs.
This video does not give any conclusive evidence, it is merely a magician guessing about what this old man does, guessing. And to use this video as conclusive evidence is just silly.
NO YOU FUCKING MORON. I already told you what happened. I didn't miss posting it. I accidentally deleted it. HUGE difference. I was up for almost 3 years. I thought all the exposing was done in the first 2 vids, so i deleted the other 4 because:
A) people found it was confusing because they were out of sequence as i explained
B) because i didn't have a translation for the other 4. it's not an easy task to get a stranger to transcribe 44 mins of video
to everybody who's ever seen it but you apparently it does
"it is merely a magician guessing about what this old man does"
bullshit. the magician explained what was going on, what to look for, and how to check to stop him from cheating. the next day when she employed his suggestions, suddenly he could no longer perform his tricks. hmmmmmmmmm.
"to use this video as conclusive evidence is just silly"
Wrong, their theory was not that something was poking up, they actually show the man folding the cloth down and that is what moves up.
They never once state that it's the spring that's poking up, and no they do not use the word 'shock'. They say jolt which is the exact same thing.
No he didn't, the magician might be able to explain what was going on if he checked the table but he didn't so it is merely guesswork and nothing more.
@Oliiiverr "They fail to successfully duplicate it"
bullshit. they DID duplicate it
"you are being inconsistent deleting videos that apparently 'confused' people. confused them in what way?"
Confused them as they were out of order and IN CHINESE! DUH! The first two clips were edited down from the original 40 mins or so. I took two sections that showed the most debunking. Clips 3-6 showed the entire show. MANY people complained they were out of order despite my explaining in the description
Actually no they didn't duplicate it successfully, look for the keyword please 'successfully'. And gave the excuse that they had only little time to practice it.
Fair enough if they were in chinese.
Well actually checks for springs and such WAS necessary to prove he was a fraud, how are you supposed to conclude something especially a fraud accusation if you don't have empirical evidence? I mean magnets on the bowl, plus they didn't find any such magnets in the bricks if you watched.
No they didn't, they even stated it wasn't smooth and didn't look the same. Thus it was an excuse for failure.
Yes checking the table was quite nessesary. What you are saying is that you can accuse someone of hiding a device in a table because you felt 'indentations', and it's an absolute fact that they hid something in the table. But you don't need to check the table, and you call this empirical evidence? Learn what empirical means please.
Idiot. They still toppled the brick remotely in the exact same manner he did. Ergo, NOT a failure. Ummmm.. douche. they DID check the table. they showed indentations. they showed things protruding from the indentations to topple the bricks and shatter the jar, and they showed magnets embedded in the table. ALL OF THESE THINGS, and the others i mentioned, ARE empirical evidence.
"and it's an absolute fact that they hid something in the table"
yes it's an absolute fact from the empirical evidence
No they didn't, the even stated it was not a direct imitation, the brick wobbled a bit because of the spring underneath or something similar, thus they did not successfully imitate it, and gave the excuse they had little time to practice it.
Wrong, the cloth is folded down, they never once state it is a spring protruding.
They did not show any magnets in the table, they did not check the table even once. Well no it's not a fact, and your reasoning behind it is speculation and nothing more.
"how are you supposed to conclude something especially a fraud accusation if you don't have empirical evidence?"
There's PLENTY, you just don't understand what empirical evidence is apparently "I mean magnets on the bowl"
They showed this WATCH THE VIDEO already
"they didn't find any such magnets in the bricks"
IDIOT. They weren't checking the bricks for magnets. they were checking to see if they were ordinary bricks. they already showed something poking up from the table toppling the bricks
Lol, wait you are saying this man hid something in the table, and the fact that a cloth he had contained weights, and the fact that they felt indentations, (which by the way indentations are common on almost every wooden table you can find), provides empirical evidence, that this man hid something in the table? No offence but that my friend, is foolish.
No, they show him folding down the cloth before he places the brick they never once state something pokes up.
Actually no, if you understood the definition you'd see there is no empiricalevidence here just speculation and guesswork I'm not sure if you're blind or just seeing what you're wanting to see.
Well clearly you don't have a clue what indentations are as they are not holes, it was even stated the indentations prove nothing.
Actually yes the cloth is folded obviously you haven't been watching the video.
Well yes it does watch the video and you'll see him folding them.
@Oliiiverr Idiot, it is not only empirical, but i explained WHY it's empirical. The ONLY speculation is on the magician's part, and funnily enough, i didn't mention him at all in the 11 evidences. the "normal" indentations you speak of appear to be 1" in diameter and a good quarter inch deep. Yeah... those are normal wooden table features. RETARD. The cloth is never folded, and even if it were, it doesn't explain something CLEARLY poking up to topple the brick and shatter the jar.
6)yes, he admits he can't do it without positioning over holes and using a weighted cloth because mechanism in table needs weight
9-11) stop lying and watch the video already. I already told you I'd ban you if you continued to lie, or continue to refuse to watch the video i gave you the URLs for. It's too bad. I enjoyed ridiculing your retardation.
No it didn't, lol you've suddenly switched from indentations to holes which again makes you unreliable.
Erm no, why are you lying he never once stated there are any mechanics in the table this is just a THEORY made by the people who are in this video. He explains why there are weights in the cloth so watch the video for yourself already.
"yes on an old table there are many indentations"
On an old wooden table there might be a lot of surface scratches and small, SHALLOW dings in it, but ones large enough to put the entirety of your thumb in? and in a few frames later: large enough to put TWO fingers into? you're insane
Noone stuck their whole thumb down any part of the table because that wouldn't be an indentation that would be a hole, however if you're saying indentations to fit the surface of your thumb into this is common. Well no they don't, watch the video for yourself they state to topple the brick the cloth must be folded over then a spring jolts the brick, hence jolts not pushes, and causes a chain reaction.
Thus a theory, as they did not find any springs it is merely guesswork.
Why did you want me to check that video out to prove your point? If anything it looks convincing especially moving the bowl of water over a plank of wood that certainly isn't explained.
Plus if the table was loaded with springs it would be hard to activate them, if they believe it's springs why don't they simply lift the tablecloth up?
Of course I'm not denying your disbelief it doesn't look completely real, but this video certainly leaves even more questions to the people testing him.
"If anything it looks convincing especially moving the bowl of water over a plank of wood"
if you think it looks convincing, i have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you. it looks EXACTLY what it is: a bowl being moved across a plank of wood by magnets.
"that certainly isn't explained."
it certainly WAS explained. Look for the original clips on the Chinese Television website. I had 6 clips up, and i thought the other 4 were confusing people. I forgot one of them exposed the bowl thing
Wow i can always tell if someones a conduit and i new from the start that he wasnt u dont shout to use chi enerdy or lifer force.
animegeek27 3 months ago
@animegeek27 that's a nice load of babble.
no evidence for conduits, chi energy, or life force.
thanks for playing, try again.
lennyhipp 3 months ago
ok my questions are answered, just read the description, thanks anyway
KilluminatiTheMovie 6 months ago
@KilluminatiTheMovie
FYI, if you follow the link to the video in the description, the one at ijnp.magnifyDOTnet, watch the first video from 14:15-18:00 is where she exposes the magnets in the bowl and table both
lennyhipp 5 months ago
@superrevivalcom "Why would you delete a key video that shows magnets hidden in the table?"
TRY READING THE VID DESCRIPTION
"Why would you delete a video that shows a non magnetic rig and he is not able to perform it?"
See above
" Sounds like you are the one hiding something!!!"
Sounds to me like there's a village somewhere missing their idiot!
"I do agree that National Geographic..."
Uhhh. Hate to burst your bubble of ignorance, but this is NOT what these organizations do!
v=lsSzSflkns8
lennyhipp 6 months ago
ok, i looked him up... he's as unimpressive as all the others.
search here on youtube for "derren brown 1 inch punch" he demonstrates the exact same things with ZERO training in tai chi. all that matters is you find a student gullible enough to believe you have powers and you can do the same thing as victor... People making these claims have failed testing every single time. Also, you talk about Nat Geo, even though debunking frauds is not what they do, look at this: watch?v=lsSzSflkns8
lennyhipp 6 months ago
@superrevivalcom "So the cloth they gave him wasn't the right type of cloth."
nonsense. 1) there was no energy to begin with 2) yes, it would be the wrong type of cloth IF and ONLY if he was able to shatter the jar... in reality, he couldn't do it with or without a cloth. with or without weights. it only shattered when he had the jar positioned over the indents.
lennyhipp 6 months ago
@lennyhipp nonsense. 1) there was no energy to begin with --> I honestly dont know if this is for real or not, so i wont join the believers, nor the dis-believers. I keep standing in the middle until there's real hard evidence. But you are simply wrong with your statement, because everything is energy, there's nothing else in existence, energy is everything there is, and even quantum physics proves that. Of course there are many hoaxes and fakers but i do believe this stuff is possible, peace
KilluminatiTheMovie 6 months ago
@KilluminatiTheMovie <----needlessly pedantic.
"you are simply wrong with your statement, because everything is energy"
Ugh. you know very well the context in which i made my claim. Try basing your response on my intended purpose instead of taking something out of context. The energy this guy was claiming to have in order to topple the bricks does not exist.
"and even quantum physics proves that."
erm... WRONG!. NOTHING in science is ever proven or disproven. See? i can play word games too!
lennyhipp 6 months ago
@lennyhipp It wasnt my intension to take it out of context, so im sorry. By the way are there any other parts? because it says part 2 of 6? just curious. And im wondering why dont they smash the table or pull off that cloth on top of it to show us the device that is supposedly helping to break the bottles? They came up with some answers but they device is never shown? Anyway thanks for the upload, this guy seems to be a fraud, but that doesnt convince me or proves that all of this stuff is fake
KilluminatiTheMovie 6 months ago
@superrevivalcom <----needs to read the video descriptions on both parts. it's 100% debunked, and sorry, but there's no argument. They DID give the guy a new cloth and new bowl, and he DID fail miserably!
lennyhipp 6 months ago
you can physically build yourself up, hurt yourself until you cant do it no more with out breaking anything, it can be as simple as knocking on yourself or a desk and then you let it heal and do it again and let it heal do it again and each time you can do it more and more because the human body is amazing and what doesnt kill you truely does make you stronger, you have holes in your bones and they get smaller meaning you can withstand more impact in that area and skin calluses
theconqueror 9 months ago
@theconqueror agreed with pretty much everything you've said... it's a combination of training and physics. The book "behind the incredibles" explains all the "iron palm" and "iron body" etc. things. The shaolin themselves admit these are all elaborate parlor tricks in their self-published grandmasters text.
lennyhipp 9 months ago
John Chang is not the real deal i beleive, chi is real but not like how people make it seem, its just breathing and focus, you get a feeling like a body part fallnig asleep but with out the pain, like springy feeling, but i beleive when they break stuff and hit their selves with things, thats not chi, that is physical training and tricks, over years of like punchnig somethnig your fist will become bigger and stronger and can break peoples skulls literally
theconqueror 9 months ago
This really saddens me. I'm s strong believe in the power of Chi. For person reasons and experiences. Why would he do this. Fake QiGong?? You see the beauty of QiGong is that not every one can master it. Look at John Chang. He was the real deal!!
logicbeforematter 1 year ago
@logicbeforematter "Why would he do this. Fake QiGong??"
he's not faking QiGong, he's faking being able to harness and project power/ energy. big difference.
"You see the beauty of QiGong is that not every one can master it. Look at John Chang. He was the real deal!!"
There's zero empirical evidence to suggest chang was the "real deal". he was never adequately tested. he managed to fool a few gullible film makers. So what!?
lennyhipp 1 year ago
if they wanted to prove him wrong why didn't they just switch the freakin table
Xidkwhat2callmyselfX 1 year ago
@Xidkwhat2callmyselfX
because they wanted him to make an ass of himself and have him keep going hahaha but I kinda feel bad for him though maybe because he is old o well
LisaJackson05 10 months ago
Hi, where is the remaining part? 3 to 6?
lockmagic 1 year ago
@lockmagic hi, i deleted the other parts because they were confusing people and had nothing to do with the debunking except for a one minute part where they show magnets are hidden in the table and he fails to move a bowl without magnets. please read the vid description and then you can see a link to the original unedited videos.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
they are hiding the true power by saying it is fake but the real power is still real. belive me
leereturn2006 1 year ago
@leereturn2006 "they are hiding the true power by saying it is fake but the real power is still real"
yeah. Ahahhhahahhahahahahhahaa! that's a good one! you're funny.
"belive me"
no. don't believe you. you've no evidence to back your claim it's real. everybody who's been properly tested has failed miserably. willful ignorance is no way to go through life son
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp oh so you look at life scientific way, let me tell you well you are right so are you happy now. you think that people can test any thing if they want to? technically yes, but you need to find your self before you have some statement in this subject, when you can find your self you will see, if you dont ever do it then keep living in the box that you think the world is.
leereturn2006 1 year ago
@leereturn2006 " you think that people can test any thing if they want to? technically yes"
NO! the answer is "technically NO!" and i never stated such a thing... but what we CAN DO, is design a test where the results are self-evident. Either he can replicate these tricks under controlled conditions and the possibility of bias is eliminated... or he can't. it's really that simple. Test HIM properly, not his supposed abilities.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"you need to find your self before you have some statement in this subject"
NONSENSE. no need to find myself or anyone else... need common sense, an open mind, and an ability to think critically, which i do have. the box i live in is called reality my friend. that which exists outside it is fantasy.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
this is only done for show, like a magic show presentation. But if you see a real qigong master, he doesn't need cloth on a table. A real master can heat up a wet towel or a bowl of water with his qi. Or a shaolin monk breaking bricks and stones with his head or palm.
imaginator 1 year ago
@imaginator "a real qigong master, he doesn't need cloth on a table"
there's no evidence for such a thing as a "real" qigong master
"A real master can heat up a wet towel or a bowl of water with his qi"
There's no evidence to support this either. the Ripley's show you watch did NOT properly test him and they are EASILY replicated carney tricks
"Or a shaolin monk breaking bricks and stones"
got NOTHING to do with qi/chi and EVERYTHING to do with training and PHYSICS!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
go look for the self-published book "Grandmasters Text of the Shaolin Ch'an" in it, they explain how ALL these are skillfully performed tricks. i believe the paperback is still in print. Also, just because the dude you might have seen on camera wore orange robes, he most likely wasn't shaolin... who DONT perform for the public.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Sorry i was referring to organs not limbs, and i was stating Galileo was correct but people deemed him wrong. secondly it's ignorance that continues to make us think that something may not work, it was something like 2AM when i wrote my post. Despite whatever you may say there is never 100% evidence, and besides that for most of the things you have to try it before you judge it. If someone tells you to point a gun to your head and promises you there's no ammo do you still do it?
monckey100 1 year ago
"Sorry i was referring to organs not limbs"
ok. agreed, but non sequitur to our conversation
"Galileo was correct but people deemed him wrong"
the CHURCH deemed him a heretic because what he said contradicted the bible!
"it was something like 2AM when i wrote my post"
fair enough, i've been there too
"Despite whatever you may say there is never 100% evidence"
show me where i said it did!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"besides that for most of the things you have to try it before you judge it"
bullshit. you (and me) are subject to confirmation bias. we're easily swayed by self-delusion. most things, you DONT have to try yourself! i can show you a dozen videos of what happens (dangerous) when you allow yourself to think you have these powers because you're convinced things happen, and others agree
"If someone tells you to point a gun to your head.."
directly contradicting your previous statement, aren't you?!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp there are many ways to try things with out burning your hand, to test if somethings hot, drop a drip of water, to test if a gun is loaded, perhaps check the ammo or even fire it. there are ways to test things with out hurting your self and seeing is almost always believing.
monckey100 1 year ago
"there are many ways to try things..."
you're still contradicting yourself
"there are ways to test things with out hurting your self"
tests can EASILY be designed so that the results are self-evident. remove chance of bias, and either he can do what he claims or not. it's simple
"and seeing is almost always believing"
then you lack critical thinking skills. you should believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see. a skilled conjurer can fool even the smartest
lennyhipp 1 year ago
This guy is something else... First everyone complains (including me) that he refers to videos that are not there and suggests he puts the links into the video description at least. Then he bitches and moans and finally puts a link in there. Then he simply replies to an old comment of mine stating "but I put the links in there you idiot". What a complete and utter moron dishonest whining piece of shit haha
Aquar1uZ 1 year ago
@Aquar1uZ "First everyone complains (including me) "
wait... everyone complains, or was it just you?! Yes, that's right, i referred to them, but also gave the URLs of where to find them, you were just too lazy to spend the 30 seconds it took to find them.
No bitching and moaning here, only hearty laughter at the morons who believe in this stunning display of bullshit. Feng Shui, Acupuncture, chi/qi, candling, healing touch, TT, TCM, and all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp explain how acupuncture,candling and the healing touch is pseudo nonense. please you can have all 3 of those done to you any time, you just have such a dwelled mind convinced that science has figured it all out. people said it's impossible to fly, look now? people said it's impossible to regrow limbs, tada?
People also said aliens didn't exist (not COMPLETELY proven yet but there's evidence)
Science and people said many things, but it's not always correct. Another one is Galileo.
monckey100 1 year ago
@monckey100 = sad little man out of touch with reality. Let me explain a few things to you:
1) "explain how acupuncture,candling and the healing touch is pseudo nonense"
the onus of evidence is on YOU (or the person making the claim that they are effective.) in every large clinical trial, acupuncture has been shown to be no more effective than placebo... in fact, when TOOTHPICKS were used instead of needles, the toothpicks that didn't even penetrate the skin were MORE EFFECTIVE than needles
lennyhipp 1 year ago
2)
see v=pp5eiHUdwb4
Also, other studies have shown that the person giving the treatment didn't have to know what they were doing, and didn't insert the needles into the "proper" places for it to be effective. So much for meridiens, huh? Time after time, it's been found to be the power of suggestion at work. see also whatstheharmDOTnet for the serious results of following sham treatments of all kinds
3) there is ZERO evidence candling works and i challenge you to provide evidence i'm wrong
lennyhipp 1 year ago
4) PLEASE provide ANY peer-reviewed paper in a credible medical journal that touts the efficacy of healing touch, because the studies i've seen has also linked it to the power of suggestion
5)"please you can have all 3 of those done to you any time"
i wouldn't let one of these fraud assholes within 50 ft of me. you're also making an argumentum ad popularum logical fallacy.
6) "you just have such a dwelled mind" <-this doesn't even make sense in English
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp please, let me know the "studies you've seen". I'm a scholar too. And frankly, even if I don't believe in 99.99999% of what is called "paranormal", I doubt a serious study published on a peer review journal would find some evidence of an healing technique and dismiss it as "due to suggestion" since the concept of "suggestion" is so vague, and I guess it would be very hard to reproduce or falsify suggestion... The "power of suggestion" is in noway a science fact! Pure speculation!
ghostdog7575 1 year ago
@ghostdog7575 "a serious study published on a peer review journal would find some evidence of an healing"
PLEASE give reference to one that does this, i'd LOVE to read it
"I guess it would be very hard to reproduce or falsify suggestion"\\
remove the chance of bias. either they can reproduce the effects, or they cannot. tests can EASILY be designed so that the results are self-evident!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@ghostdog7575 whatstheharmDOTnet lists 11 victims of acupuncture treatment and of course is nowhere near the only ones.
1. BMJ 2009;338:a3115
Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups
2. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):858-866
A Randomized Trial Comparing Acupuncture, Simulated Acupuncture, and Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain
lennyhipp 1 year ago
3. Clin Med 2006;6:381--6
Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996--2005
4. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1576.
Adverse effects of acupuncture
...and many more. There's over 50 entries on randiDOTorg, and 149 over at quackwatchDOTcom, and tinyurlDOTcom/acupuncturesham, and many more articles on the right
"Pure speculation!"
ridiculous. the effects are well-known and documented, see watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg or some examples
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@ghostdog7575 1 week has passed... either:
1) you don't have access to the supplied articles
2) you're a slow reader
3) you're just busy
4) you agree that acupuncture is a sham
which is it? because i have many more when those are finished. what scientific evidence do you have that supports the efficacy of acupuncture in treating anything other than pain?
lennyhipp 1 year ago
7) "convinced that science has figured it all out"
retard, if science had it all figured out, there would be no need for science!
8) "people said it's impossible to fly, look now?"
irrelevant. we aren't as ignorant as we were 200 years ago
9) "people said it's impossible to regrow limbs, tada?"
hate to burst your bubble, it IS impossible to regrow limbs currently
10) "People also said aliens didn't exist"
Nobody i know said they didn't exist, it's near mathematically certainty they DO!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
10) cont'd. Although it's a near certainty there IS other life in the universe given the sheer uncountable number of stars, there is ZERO evidence ANY alien life has EVER visited earth. The chances of alien life finding us is close to nil. WHERE is this evidence you speak of?
11) "Another one is Galileo"
IDIOT. Galileo was correct, it was the catholic church that forced him to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system. he was the father of modern science because of this
lennyhipp 1 year ago
You are not hip at all, lennyhipp.
Aquar1uZ 1 year ago
@Aquar1uZ yeah, okay aquaman, like i hadn't heard that embarrassingly lame insult before...
if you must bring insults instead of evidence to back your side, you've already admitted defeat. thanks
lennyhipp 1 year ago
ya, although I know its a stretch, ur going to have to post the other clips if you want to proove this guys totally a fake.. Sympathy to chi power is too strong to make people simply take your word for it.. I mean, I totally know it's far fetched but when I watch the video I don't see any of the things your talking about to be very convincing.. Still, I know it's probably fake but if there is more to this I think it'd put alot of minds at ease to just upload it
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
"ur going to have to post the other clips if you want to proove..."
i provided you with the URL for the original unedited clips. i have no intention of re-uploading them
"Sympathy to chi power is too strong to make people simply take your word for it"
yes, people are fond of believing in the silliest of superstitions and LOVE to take grainy old youtube vids as their sole "proof" of this crap. See the many John Chang vids as evidence of this. Read Dr Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things"
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"I don't see any of the things your talking about to be very convincing"
you need to understand WHERE the onus of evidence lies. This old man has done NOTHING to show he genuinely has any powers. All i can do is say he failed to provide any such evidence when properly tested for. Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and he hasn't got any.
For the 3rd time, the vids are at: ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet/
lennyhipp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SHIBBYiPANDA
If you can prove ONE is a fake then why would you ASSume the others are not fake?
jagg1951 1 year ago
wheres the other parts?? did they inspect the table and cloth for mechanisms? WHY NOT???????????? This doesn't look good for him but I can't elliminate all possibility that he really does have CHI POWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus I also really want this to be real........ Did they do some further tests on his stuff???? If so can u repost the videos?????
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
"wheres the other parts??"
they were deleted because they confused too many people and i didn't have translations for them. one part DID show that he had magnets in the table, i accidentally deleted that part. look through the comments for links to the original videos.
"did they inspect the table and cloth for mechanisms? WHY NOT?"
it wasn't necessary, watch the vids again and read the descriptions
"...he really does have CHI POWERS!"
then you lack critical thinking skills
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"I also really want this to be real"
yes, many, many more like you. it's why it's popular. i once did too.
"Did they do some further tests on his stuff?"
wasn't necessary.
1) they showed indentations in the table that he placed bricks over. they showed something protruding from the indentations that toppled the bricks
2) when they repositioned the bricks he couldn't topple them
3) they showed metal weights in the cloth, he positioned the jar atop another indentation
lennyhipp 1 year ago
4) when they used an ordinary cloth, NOT on the indentation, he failed to shatter it.
5) (you'll have to look for the other vids) They showed magnets in both the table AND in his bowl
6) when they provided a NEW bowl full of water, he failed to move it
if you need more evidence than that that he's a fraud, you need to take some classes in logic and critical thinking
here's the original unedited videos: ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet
don't remember which ones contained the magnets and bowls
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp LOl, no if i see a video that shows magnets in the table and bowl I'll believe he's a fraud.. I'd really like to see those videos though as my sympathy to potential reality of chi powers is strong...
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA "if i see a video that shows magnets in the table and bowl I'll believe he's a fraud."
i gave you links to the original vids. Enjoy the other unwatchable 40 mins! (and just for you, i updated the video descriptions of both videos to include them too)
"unless his power was to create magnets of course lol"
his powers are as non-existant as his love life
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp unless his power was to create magnets of course lol
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
"If YOU were intelligent, you'd realize i have provided links to the original vids should anyone care enough to view them uncut."
So where are they? How about putting those links in the comments section of this video? Just a suggestion ofcourse - obviously you are smarter than anyone else on Youtube so you must have already thought of that. I wonder why you have not done that yet, but, as you say I am as stupid as the rest so I humbly bow my head to your shining star of intelligence.
Aquar1uZ 1 year ago
@Aquar1uZ "So where are they? How about putting those links in the comments section of this video? "
how about doing 30 seconds of looking if you're that interested?! It's not important enough for me... 99 of 100 understand what's going on with the two vids i now have. if more idiots like yourself created the demand, i'd expend the effort
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@Aquar1uZ "How about putting those links in the comments section of this video?"
how about they ARE?! just for your lazy ass who couldn't spend the 30 seconds to look for them!
"I am as stupid as the rest"
yep, you said it!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
So, let me get this straight: you simply tell everyone who does not agree with you or wishes to debate your point of view to shut up and call them idiots.
Good luck with that.
PS: Nice move in deleting the other parts and then referring to them as "Please look at the other 5 parts!". Sure makes you look intelligent.
Aquar1uZ 1 year ago
"let me get this straight: you simply tell everyone who does not agree with you or wishes to debate your point of view to shut up and call them idiots"
you'd have to be pretty big fucking moron to infer that. i only call people idiots when they exhibit evidence that they're an idiot... like thinking i call people not agreeing with me an idiot. Idiot.
I welcome intelligent discourse, all i ask of people is that they provide evidence if they're going to make a claim
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"Nice move in deleting the other parts"
i explained why i deleted the other FOUR parts, they confused people, because they mostly had nothing to do with debunking the fraud, and i didn't have translations for those parts, so why keep them?
"Sure makes you look intelligent"
If YOU were intelligent, you'd realize i have provided links to the original vids should anyone care enough to view them uncut. Sure makes you look like a complete and utter dipshit.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
I am actually neutral on the topic of whether or not chi and its uses exist as they are presented, but it is very clear you are presenting a both highly one-sided and potentially jaded view of the topic
A demonstration was performed, and then accompanied by a logical explanation of how it COULD be replicated, I would hardly call that a "debunking" and may even laugh if you call it "caught in the act"
Really, it seems like the show wanted to leave its validity up to the audience to decide
Ankoku15 1 year ago
@Ankoku15 "but it is very clear you are presenting a both highly one-sided and potentially jaded view of the topic"
bullshit. I've stated it's never been shown to exist when properly tested for, and i challenge people to provide empirical evidence silly things like this DO exist
"accompanied by a logical explanation of how it COULD be replicated"
bullshit again. they not only show how it COULD be replicated, when they apply controls, he fails to replicate the feats!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
P2, He even directly explains, it will only work with HIS cloth and it will only work BECAUSE of the weight, rather then because of some made up answer that most frauds give
and a complex pulley system? haha, really?
seems too easily noticed, what does he use? that "invisible" string? because you can see it clearly within 4-5 ft of the user so I would assume the reporter would notice..
I WOULD comment next on the video footage of the bowl moving, but it has been removed so thats all for now!
Ankoku15 1 year ago
@Ankoku15 "and it will only work BECAUSE of the weight"
you forgot: ...and will only work when positioned over an indentation in the table! In other words, he CANNOT do as he claims
"and a complex pulley system? haha, really?"
haha. really. they asked a magician how HE would replicate it, they are NOT making the claim that's precisely how the fraud did it. How else would the bowl of water move if not for a pulley system?
"what does he use?"
irrelevant. all that really matters is he cant do it
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@Ankoku15 "because you can see it clearly within 4-5 ft"
bullshit for the third time. Invisible string not only wouldn't be strong enough to pull a bowl full of water, but it CANNOT clearly be seen 4-5 ft away. It cannot be seen even a foot away if the background is the same color as the thread. That's what magician's string is, it's a single strand of black thread. Otherwise close up magicians using it would be laughed at. it's called "invisible thread" for a reason!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@Ankoku15 "I WOULD comment next on the video footage of the bowl moving"
I had all six parts, but the other four parts confused people, so i removed the others not realizing one of the others had the debunking of the bowl. Never got around to re-uploading that one part. however, I've provided links to the original video many times.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Lets give this a shot
Chi can actually be translated as "air" so, requiring an indent in the table to disrupt the air there could make sense, also, when you do take a good look at the movement in the cloth, why does it look like air flowing underneath the cloth? A spring would generally create a different movement pattern on the tablecloth as well as leave the cloth lifted or stretched, the bottle could also be similar, requiring the weight for the force of the air to implode it
Ankoku15 1 year ago
"so, requiring an indent in the table to disrupt the air there could make sense"
WOW you're really stretching it. You're not only stretching it, you're bending over backwards for it, and double knotting it in the middle! You and i both know that "air" is NOT the definition of chi being proposed by him. Also, you conveniently forget that there is no indentation under the bowl. you also conveniently forget that even over the indentation, the jar does NOT shatter without the weights pressing down
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"A spring would generally create a different movement"
who said there's a spring there? the magician only mentioned that's how HE would do it if he wanted to replicate it. i think it's pretty clear it's in fact a wooden or metal peg
"requiring the weight for the force of the air to implode it"
wow. for a seemingly bright guy, you sure are proposing a few looney ideas. almost as looney as chi itself! Now you're thinking air can implode jars?! you CANT be serious. Why even have a table cloth?
lennyhipp 1 year ago
look at my first comment.. i say he could be a fake. this video gives no evidence that it is fake, only that there are possible ways of replicating it with springs. you claiming that this is evidence that he's fake is the same as someone saying god created the universe without evidence, just because it is a possible way that it came into existence.. sorry you seem like an angry person who has to cling to your beliefs and insult anyone who disagrees with you. close minded, but critical lol peace
4rankie 1 year ago
"look at my first comment. i say he could be a fake"
..and then go on to make an ignorant lie directly after that comment
"this video gives no evidence that it is fake"
idiot:
A) she shows that there are deep indentations in the table that he positions the bricks over. she moves the bricks. he tries to put it back over. she doesn't let him. when the brick isn't on the indentation, he fails to topple it
B) she shows another indentation where he positions the jar and that weights are in the cloth
lennyhipp 1 year ago
B cont) when she replaces the weighted cloth with a regular one, he fails to shatter it. when she moves it off the indentation, he fails again
C) she shows there are magnets in the bowl and in the table. (see link in vid description) When she provides a brand new bowl sans magnets he fails to move it
if you dont think that's evidence of it being fake, i have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you
"you claiming that this is evidence that he's fake is the same"
red herring logical fallacy
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"sorry you seem like an angry person"
sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance, but i'm not angry, you're just dumb and gullible
"insult anyone who disagrees with you"
idiot, i WELCOME dissent if you back it with evidence
"close minded, but critical lol peace"
EVERYTHING about your comments are uncritical. i've got a VERY open mind, it's just not so open that my brain has fallen out. read my channel description about what it means to have an open mind. YOU ARE the one who's got a closed mind
lennyhipp 1 year ago
this doesn't debunk it.. some chinese guy talking about it after it's done saying "oh, theres probly a spring" how would he set off the spring? and why didnt the reported just check to see if there is a spring?.. i believe this is real because i'm learning how to do this stuff :) he could be a fake but this video doesn't disprove anything. the chinese guy acts like he knows all. we have always learned new things (quantum physics) and you think now we have nothing else to learn?
4rankie 1 year ago
"this doesn't debunk it."
ahhahhahahhahaa! wow. watch the fucking vid with your eyes open this time. read the vid description on both pts
"some chinese guy talking about it after it's done"
the magician is giving explanation of how he would do it
"how would he set off the spring?"
irrelevant, but there's dozens of ways
"why didnt the reported just check to see if there is a spring?"
irrelevant again. maybe she couldn't? read the vid descriptions
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"i believe this is real because i'm learning how to do this stuff :)"
you're gullible and you lack the ability to think critically. NOBODY has ever done this under controlled conditions, and your doing it could make you very rich
"we have always learned new things (quantum physics)"
show a connection between QP and this. i BEG you!
"you think now we have nothing else to learn?"
slippery slope logical fallacy you're making. if we did, we'd have no use for science!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp quantum physics shows us that we are energetically connected to the universe. the act of observing atomic expirements effects the atoms.
you can look at my video spinning a psiwheel from about 8 feet away. more people are becoming aware that this stuff is real and inevitebly science will learn to explain it instead of saying it's 'physically impossible
u say if science could be added to it's useless?.. so newtonian physics is/was useless then because einsteiens theory?
4rankie 1 year ago
@4rankie "quantum physics shows us that we are energetically connected to the universe"
it does no such thing. did you read that on a cereal box or conspiracy website?
"the act of observing atomic expirements effects the atoms"
oh! you've been watching that nonsense "what the bleep?"
"you can look at my video spinning a psiwheel from about 8 feet away"
seen a bunch of bullshit like that already, i'm not interested
do it under controlled conditions and win a million dollars from the JREF!
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"more people are becoming aware that this stuff is real"
wrong. more gullible idiots fall for it. most rational people have the ability to think critically
"instead of saying it's 'physically impossible"
science makes no comment on the supernatural, sorry to inform you
"u say if science could be added to it's useless?"
go re-read what i wrote and stop trying to change the meaning. I said if we discovered everything, we could stop doing science, not throw out everything we learned you retard
lennyhipp 1 year ago
u forgot to link this to part 3?
baalpeteor 1 year ago
@baalpeteor sorry, i removed parts 3-6 because they didn't have much to do with the debunking and it was confusing people. the full 1 hr video can be seen here:
ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet
put a dot where those DOTs are. Actually, she shows that he has magnets in both the bowl and table, but i didn't have a translation for that portion.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp thats cool and good enough. A rigged table (those pins/springs?) and magnets. smh
baalpeteor 1 year ago
wheres the rest?
Username84778 1 year ago
@Username84778 I originally had 6 parts. the original was 60 mins long, and 80% of it had nothing to do with debunking and it was confusing people, so i deleted them. I accidentally deleted the 3rd part where she showed there were magnets in both the table and the bowl. I'll re-upload that part soon, but it wasn't translated anyway. If you would like to see the orig unedited vids, go here:
ijnpDOTmagnifyDOTnet/user/SSM1NLM5BX0JDYBL
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp thanks man, I can't wait to see the rest! Upload all 6 parts so we can make our own minds up and enjoy the whole show, thanks!
Username84778 1 year ago
@Username84778 were you able to see the videos i just gave you the URLs for? the original video came from a Chinese Televsion website. i had cut those two into 6 parts so i could fit them in under ten minutes. if you can't wait for me, please check them out. most of what i cut out had to do with the use of "chi" power/ energy in really bad kung fu movies.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp the website gives up a 404 error, unfortunately it doesn't work, don't worry do it in your own time, no one minds waiting. Do you believe in chi lennyhipp?
Username84778 1 year ago
Maybe i pasted it wrong because i just checked it and it worked. i'll send you the link.
as for your question: if by chi you mean an energy that can be harnessed in your "dan tien" and flows through meridians, & can be projected to heal others or to move objects, then no, i think it's one of the stupidest ideas ever. if you're gonna say it's the energy that makes our muscles move, what in the west is called "action potential", then i could agree with that, just not your choice of name for it
lennyhipp 1 year ago
this video was quite entertaining, but it would have been more entertaining if it was not an organization (CCTV) , rather a philosopher/ physicists ( skeptic) and battle it out on a debate .
dan020350 1 year ago
In order to believe in chi, is it required to dismiss the idea of 'controlled experiments'?
jibberjabber098 1 year ago
"In order to believe in chi, is it required to dismiss the idea of 'controlled experiments'?"
Possibly! :) I can only speak for myself: In order for ME to believe in anything, some empirical evidence supporting the existence must be present. So far, after 24 yrs of looking, I've never heard of any empirical evidence for anything supernatural or paranormal. EVERY TIME it's been properly tested for, it's failed. Miserably.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@lennyhipp Not quite. Empirical evidence of telepathy exists for example.
omfg4000 1 year ago
@omfg4000 "Not quite. Empirical evidence of telepathy exists for example."
bullshit. i challenge you to present this so-called evidence. you'd also be eligible for the JREF million dollar prize should you have it. (empirical evidence that is)
lennyhipp 1 year ago
OMFG 1000 x apolgies, i accidentally deleted your comment instead of deleting my reply to you. So, in fairness, here is your comment in full:
"Stop being so stubborn and its not me who's telepathic"
Nice try. FAIL
NEVER said nor implied that i thought it was you who was telepathic. On the contrary, i'm saying NOBODY has shown evidence of it
YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to produce the evidence backing that claim.
Nothing stubborn about it, i'm just calling you on your ignorant bullshit
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Thanks for posting!
RyuBlade1980 1 year ago
Um could someone tell me what the trigger is (for the pin/spring/w.e it is)? cause from what im seeing all he does is yells and pop... so right now im assuming his voice controls it??? if i dont find a trigger (and watch the other 4 vids) and leave here im just assuming that he created mini holes in the table to amplify the pressure you know :P
weiming10 1 year ago
@weiming10 I don't know why they didn't search him for a remote, but they treat the elderly differently in China. My guess is he has a trigger inside his sandal or perhaps on the inside of his knee.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Wheres the other 3 videos? And why don't the reporters simply remove the table cloth and or examine the table to reveal and shenanigans???
tidan1 1 year ago
Hi Tidan, the other 4 were removed because too many people complained that they were out of order. I purposely put them out of order in order to concentrate on the ones that debunked him. i forgot clip 6 shows them exposing magnets in both the table and the bowl. I'll be re-uploading that one soon. the other 3 really didn't explain much. nearly 25 mins of them comparing the tricks to bad kungfu movies. Dont know why they never removed the cloth. either it was glued on or he wouldn't let them?
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Note to anyone following the nonsense of the last 4 days: Oliver has been banned for continually lying, and for not watching the video that clearly showed magnets in both the table and bowl, for continually putting words in my mouth, for exhibiting troll behavior, and for just being quite possibly the stupidest person on youtube. I quite enjoyed ridiculing him, but all good things must come to an end. He has however encouraged me to re-upload the video with the magnet and bowl.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Saying 'it wasn't necessary', is a fairly desperate excuse. If you're going to do a show trying to expose someone, you check very carefully for hidden props and such.
Why did they feel it was necessary to break open and check the bricks but not the table? Why did they feel it nessesary to check the cloth over the bottle but not the table?
So this isn't denying your disbelief, but certainly it's denying your belief that this gives any sort of solid proof.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"a fairly desperate excuse"
see my analogy about car theft. Here's another: CSI find suspect's DNA at the scene, his fingerprints on smashed window, the guy admits to the murder, tells how he did it. Following your logic, it's not empirical evidence unless they can also find the blunt instrument he used to smash the skull <--INSANE
As far as not checking under the cloth: common sense: they probably couldn't. It might be explained in the rest of the vid, I didnt get the entire thing translated
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Actually no that is a completely inaccurate analagy. Here is a more accurate one: The police suspect a man of attempted murder, they are unable to find the murder weapon (which is the device in the table), thus there are no finger prints to find. The man does not confess (which this guy doesn't), a detective (the magician here) has a theory about how he did it but is unable to prove it with empirical evidence (no conclusive evidence here).
That is far more accurate.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
That is just an embarrassment. Your same example: they find DNA and fingerprints (the indentations, the magnets, the protrusions), they have motive, and opportunity, they get a confession, they have surveillance footage. They then remove the chance of bias. They implement controls. He fails. Q.E.D. The results of their tests are self-evident.
"(which this guy doesn't)" he absolutely does. both in the part about the cloth and the other video i pointed you to. I've humored you long enough troll
lennyhipp 1 year ago
No, as they did not find any magnets or protrusions, indentations show nothing apart from a jacket that looks like the same the man has.
Where is the confession? Did the man state this is fake? No he doesn't thus there is no confession. What does survalience footage relate to? Because they have no evidence via camera of this guy cheating.
The cloth provides weights, and he explains why they have weights.
You have a theory which you are unable to prove empirically, thus it is a failure.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"No, as they did not find any magnets or protrusions"
They absolutely DID find magnets. Did you watch the videos i gave you the URLs for yet? This is not open to debate. Magnets were found
"Where is the confession?""
watch the video in question
"Did the man state this is fake?"
ummm. YES! "so, you have to put it on this spot?" "yes"
and later: "so this cloth is the key?"
"yes. If i don't have this cloth, then it won't work"
also, watch the video i sent the URLs for. he confesses there
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"What does survalience footage relate to?"
3:38-3:50 and 5:01-:04
"The cloth provides weights, and he explains why they have weights."
yes, and they explain you need the weight because the mechanism inside the table needs weight on the jar in order to shatter it
lennyhipp 1 year ago
That makes no sense as there is nothing survailience-wise that proves anything noone ever even makes a comment on any protrusions.
Erm no, they talk about mechanisms but they never actually show any. thus is it just a theory speculation, thus it is not empirical and your argument is senseless.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
I gave you the EXACT TIMES in the vid that shows something poking up from beneath. "they never actually show any"
because they dont HAVE TO you unthinking moron! It's empirical because:
1)they showed his bowl had magnets. they showed the table had magnets. when they provided their own bowl (without magnets) he failed to move it
2)when they repositioned the bricks, he failed to move it, and in fact, he moved the bricks back over the holes, the video showed something pushing the brick from beneath
lennyhipp 1 year ago
3)they show him positioning the jar over one of the many holes. they show something striking the jar from beneath by showing the table cloth pushing up. when they remove his weighted cloth, he fails to shatter it.
The results of her tests are self-evident.... to everyone on the planet except you my ignorant and unthinking troll friend
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Indentations prove nothing, you base your beliefs on a trait common to most wooden tables and call it empirical this is foolish. There are no protrusions, you must watch your own videos. Where is this confession you are talking about? Are you saying this man admits he's a fraud? Erm no he doesn't.
They have no survailence footage that shows the man to have any cheats. Actually the cloth he fully explains which is an alibi.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
it's not a belief, it's an observation. cloth on tables dont poke up beneath an object on their own. "Are you saying this man admits he's a fraud? Erm no he doesn't"
It's exactly what i'm saying, and for you to think he doesn't mean you didnt watch the videos i pointed you to
"Actually the cloth he fully explains"
he quite simply never doest this. you're lying
"They have no survailence footage that shows... cheats"
the video CLEARLY shows something poking up to topple brick and to break jar
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Well actually nothing poked up. And if something did poke up it wouldn't have been that slow you are contradicting yourself in so many places. Stating it was a spring; well if it was a spring it jolts the brick it doesn't 'poke' up slowly.
Actually he quite simply does watch the video please.
No the video never talks about anything poking up, and if it was a spring like they state it wouldn't poke up. Think about what you are saying for a second.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"Well actually nothing poked up"
ignorant lie. table cloths dont poke up by themselves. CLEARLY something pushed it up from inside one of several large holes. THINK man!
"if something did poke up it wouldn't have been that slow"
it WASNT SLOW YOU FUCKING MORON, the VIDEO was in slow motion. it happened so quickly they had to slow it down several times!
"you are contradicting yourself ... Stating it was a spring"
I NEVER ONCE MENTIONED A SPRING YOU DUMB FUCK. i never once contradicted myself
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"well if it was a spring it jolts the brick it doesn't 'poke' up slowly"
but NOBODY said it WAS a spring, the spring was offered as a possible explanation by the magician. it would appear he was wrong
"No the video never talks about anything poking up"
Liar. they show it TWICE and i gave you the EXACT times it did this
"if it was a spring like they state it wouldn't poke up"
ta-daaaaaaa! It's NOT A FUCKING SPRING! NOBODY said it was! DUH! Stop watching the animation and watch the actual video
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Again, I'm not denying your disbelief. What I'm denying is that these clips show this man as a fraud, it hasn't been sufficiently proven anywhich way. This documentry is attempting to show that Chi is false, yet don't remove the tablecloth, don't check for magnets, don't check the table (before, during, or after the man was there). They fail to successfully duplicate it.
Plus as the poster you are being inconsistent deleting videos that apparently 'confused' people. confused them in what way?
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"I'm not denying your disbelief"
good. because this has NOTHING to do with my beliefs!
"it hasn't been sufficiently proven anywhich way"
I'm convinced you're either retarded or didn't watch the same clips i did
"This documentry is attempting to show that Chi is false"
no, it shows the man is cheating
"don't check for magnets"
ignorant lie. they DID check for magnets
"don't check the table"
they DID check the table. they showed indentations in it and something protruding to topple the bricks
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Well actually yes it does the belief that this man is a fraud obviously. Well clearly we are watching two different things, if you think that not examining the table, and not giving any type of solid conclusion is empirical evidence.
How did they checked the table? They LOOKED at the table to check it they need to remove the tablecloth and check for springs themselves, all they are giving is merely speculation and guesses.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"you think that not examining the table, not giving any type of solid conclusion is empirical evidence."
Again. They showed indentations in the table. They showed something poking up thru the cloth to topple the bricks. When they moved the bricks NOT on those spots, he failed to topple them. <--Empirical
She provided her own cloth. He failed to shatter the jar. She comments there are weights in the red cloth he used. He admits he needs to use the cloth in order to shatter jar <--Empirical
lennyhipp 1 year ago
You also need to learn the meaning of the word 'empirical', indentations are not springs and if you actually watched the videos you posted you'd see when he places the bricks he folds the cloth downwards so when the brick topples over it moves back into position. Thus nothing is poking up. By the way they were saying the spring jolted up and shocked the brick into moving not that it pushed it over
Yes weights in the cloth not springs in the table you can't shatter a bottle with a weighted cloth
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"indentations are not springs" nobody said they were. I actually described to you five things that made the evidence empirical. Showing something protruding from the indentations and poking the bricks? that's empirical dumbass. "so when the brick topples over it moves back into position" wipe the drool from your chin. that never happened. "By the way they were saying the spring jolted up and shocked the brick" they didn't mention the word "shock" at all. IDIOT, HIS was the weighted one
lennyhipp 1 year ago
You still do not understand what empirical evidence is. First of all to prove that this man is using things in the table you have to check the table. It is common sense and would give beyond all reasonable doubt suitable evidence to accuse him. But weights in the cloth and indentations gives nothing more than doubtfulness it does not give any sort of empirical evidence. In fact indentations are the most silly reason I've ever heard.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
They put a compass over the bowl to show magnets were in the base. <--Empirical
They put a compass on the table and showed magnets inside the table <---Empirical
"How did they check the table?"
They FELT 3-4 indentations in it that he placed the bricks and jar over
See the above FIVE references for empirical evidence
"They LOOKED at the table to check it"
Watch the video I gave the URL for
"all they are giving is merely speculation and guesses"
you sir are an idiot
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Lol, but you've conveniently missed posting the part about the bowl? Plus they also said those indentations had nothing to do with moving the brick. In case you don't know the difference indentations do not = springs.
This video does not give any conclusive evidence, it is merely a magician guessing about what this old man does, guessing. And to use this video as conclusive evidence is just silly.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
NO YOU FUCKING MORON. I already told you what happened. I didn't miss posting it. I accidentally deleted it. HUGE difference. I was up for almost 3 years. I thought all the exposing was done in the first 2 vids, so i deleted the other 4 because:
A) people found it was confusing because they were out of sequence as i explained
B) because i didn't have a translation for the other 4. it's not an easy task to get a stranger to transcribe 44 mins of video
C) i gave you the URL for the missing clips
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"does not give any conclusive evidence"
to everybody who's ever seen it but you apparently it does
"it is merely a magician guessing about what this old man does"
bullshit. the magician explained what was going on, what to look for, and how to check to stop him from cheating. the next day when she employed his suggestions, suddenly he could no longer perform his tricks. hmmmmmmmmm.
"to use this video as conclusive evidence is just silly"
your line of reasoning is just silly.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Wrong, their theory was not that something was poking up, they actually show the man folding the cloth down and that is what moves up.
They never once state that it's the spring that's poking up, and no they do not use the word 'shock'. They say jolt which is the exact same thing.
No he didn't, the magician might be able to explain what was going on if he checked the table but he didn't so it is merely guesswork and nothing more.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr "They fail to successfully duplicate it"
bullshit. they DID duplicate it
"you are being inconsistent deleting videos that apparently 'confused' people. confused them in what way?"
Confused them as they were out of order and IN CHINESE! DUH! The first two clips were edited down from the original 40 mins or so. I took two sections that showed the most debunking. Clips 3-6 showed the entire show. MANY people complained they were out of order despite my explaining in the description
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Actually no they didn't duplicate it successfully, look for the keyword please 'successfully'. And gave the excuse that they had only little time to practice it.
Fair enough if they were in chinese.
Well actually checks for springs and such WAS necessary to prove he was a fraud, how are you supposed to conclude something especially a fraud accusation if you don't have empirical evidence? I mean magnets on the bowl, plus they didn't find any such magnets in the bricks if you watched.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"Actually no they didn't duplicate it successfully"
Actually, yes, they DID duplicate it successfully. SEVERAL times
"And gave the excuse that they had only little time to practice it"
this wasnt an excuse for failure, this was to show they did it EASILY even though they had little practice
"Well actually checks for springs and such WAS necessary..."
It wasn't as i explained with the FIVE empirical evidences.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
No they didn't, they even stated it wasn't smooth and didn't look the same. Thus it was an excuse for failure.
Yes checking the table was quite nessesary. What you are saying is that you can accuse someone of hiding a device in a table because you felt 'indentations', and it's an absolute fact that they hid something in the table. But you don't need to check the table, and you call this empirical evidence? Learn what empirical means please.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
Idiot. They still toppled the brick remotely in the exact same manner he did. Ergo, NOT a failure. Ummmm.. douche. they DID check the table. they showed indentations. they showed things protruding from the indentations to topple the bricks and shatter the jar, and they showed magnets embedded in the table. ALL OF THESE THINGS, and the others i mentioned, ARE empirical evidence.
"and it's an absolute fact that they hid something in the table"
yes it's an absolute fact from the empirical evidence
lennyhipp 1 year ago
No they didn't, the even stated it was not a direct imitation, the brick wobbled a bit because of the spring underneath or something similar, thus they did not successfully imitate it, and gave the excuse they had little time to practice it.
Wrong, the cloth is folded down, they never once state it is a spring protruding.
They did not show any magnets in the table, they did not check the table even once. Well no it's not a fact, and your reasoning behind it is speculation and nothing more.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"how are you supposed to conclude something especially a fraud accusation if you don't have empirical evidence?"
There's PLENTY, you just don't understand what empirical evidence is apparently "I mean magnets on the bowl"
They showed this WATCH THE VIDEO already
"they didn't find any such magnets in the bricks"
IDIOT. They weren't checking the bricks for magnets. they were checking to see if they were ordinary bricks. they already showed something poking up from the table toppling the bricks
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Lol, wait you are saying this man hid something in the table, and the fact that a cloth he had contained weights, and the fact that they felt indentations, (which by the way indentations are common on almost every wooden table you can find), provides empirical evidence, that this man hid something in the table? No offence but that my friend, is foolish.
No, they show him folding down the cloth before he places the brick they never once state something pokes up.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"which by the way indentations are common on almost every wooden table you can find"
big enough to put the whole of your thumb into? you're insane
"they never once state something pokes up"
retard. stop lying and watch the video
the empirical evidence for about the third time:
1) Indentations in the table
2) something protruding from those indentations to topple the bricks
3) when she moved the bricks NOT over the indentations, he couldn't topple them
4) they show indentations under the jar
lennyhipp 1 year ago
5)they show something pushing the cloth up under the jar
6)they show he has weights in his cloth
7)when they use a plain cloth without weights he fails to shatter the jar
8)he admits he must use his cloth for it to work
9)they show magnets in the base of the bowl
10)they show magnets in the table
11)when they use a brand new bowl (without magnets) he fails to move it
<--- HEY STUPID!! ALL THAT IS EMPIRICAL! Just because they didn't strip search him and find the remote control you think it's not
lennyhipp 1 year ago
This is not empirical evidence, not to mention most of which you're not telling the whole truth about.
1) Indentations prove nothing, there are indentations in all wooden tables.
2) Nothing protrudes and this is never stated the cloth is folded down.
3) No, he simply readjusts them so the cloth edges fold down
4) Again proves nothing
5) no they don't
6, 7 and 8) He fully explains this
9 and 11) Where? You conveniently missed it out
10) No they never checked the table
Learn what empirical means
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE: "1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment"
ALL ELEVEN examples i gave you fit the above description.
1)the indentations are large holes. the brick and the jar tricks only work when they are re-positioned over these holes
2)the cloth is never folded. i gave you the EXACT time in the video that shows protrusions pushing the cloth
3)he repositions them over the holes. no folding happens
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Actually no, if you understood the definition you'd see there is no empiricalevidence here just speculation and guesswork I'm not sure if you're blind or just seeing what you're wanting to see.
Well clearly you don't have a clue what indentations are as they are not holes, it was even stated the indentations prove nothing.
Actually yes the cloth is folded obviously you haven't been watching the video.
Well yes it does watch the video and you'll see him folding them.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr Idiot, it is not only empirical, but i explained WHY it's empirical. The ONLY speculation is on the magician's part, and funnily enough, i didn't mention him at all in the 11 evidences. the "normal" indentations you speak of appear to be 1" in diameter and a good quarter inch deep. Yeah... those are normal wooden table features. RETARD. The cloth is never folded, and even if it were, it doesn't explain something CLEARLY poking up to topple the brick and shatter the jar.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE: "1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment"
ALL ELEVEN examples i gave you fit the above description.
1)the indentations are large holes. the brick and the jar tricks only work when they are re-positioned over these holes
2)the cloth is never folded. i gave you the EXACT time in the video that shows protrusions pushing the cloth
3)he repositions them over the holes. no folding happens
lennyhipp 1 year ago
4)it showed the tricks didnt work when the jar and bricks werent over these large holes
5)ignorant lie. 3:38-3:50 and 5:01-:04
6)yes, he admits he can't do it without positioning over holes and using a weighted cloth because mechanism in table needs weight
9-11) stop lying and watch the video already. I already told you I'd ban you if you continued to lie, or continue to refuse to watch the video i gave you the URLs for. It's too bad. I enjoyed ridiculing your retardation.
lennyhipp 1 year ago
No it didn't, lol you've suddenly switched from indentations to holes which again makes you unreliable.
Erm no, why are you lying he never once stated there are any mechanics in the table this is just a THEORY made by the people who are in this video. He explains why there are weights in the cloth so watch the video for yourself already.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"lol you've suddenly switched from indentations to holes..."
hey STUPID. YOU ARE the one that called them holes, i simply agreed with you
"why are you lying he never once stated there are any mechanics in the table"
disingenuous douche, i never claimed he did. i said he admitted his tricks ONLY work when his props are positioned over the holes.
"He explains why there are weights in the cloth"
i NEVER denied this dumbass, it's a really POOR excuse and ONLY makes sense because he cheated
lennyhipp 1 year ago
yes on an old table there are many indentations plus she felt no springs.
1) Indentations prove nothing it is silly, as most wooden tables have indentations.
2) Wrong, the cloth he folded down comes back up. And they never once state this is a spring.
3) They never once state the indentations have anything to do with springs.
4) What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.
Your theory is based on something common to every wooden table.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"yes on an old table there are many indentations"
On an old wooden table there might be a lot of surface scratches and small, SHALLOW dings in it, but ones large enough to put the entirety of your thumb in? and in a few frames later: large enough to put TWO fingers into? you're insane
"plus she felt no springs
she wasn't looking for any
1)...as most wooden tables have indentations
fucking stupid
2) Wrong, the cloth he folded down comes back up
incredibly ignorant and not based on reality
lennyhipp 1 year ago
"And they never once state this is a spring
they werent looking for them
3) They never once state the indentations have anything to do with springs
they don't have to. the spring was ONE possibility the magician suggested
4) What does that prove? Absolutely nothing
it proves you're an unthinking moron
"Your theory is based on something common..."
you're a fucking idiot, holes like the one found in the video make a wooden table pretty useless. my opinion is based on the observable evidence
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Noone stuck their whole thumb down any part of the table because that wouldn't be an indentation that would be a hole, however if you're saying indentations to fit the surface of your thumb into this is common. Well no they don't, watch the video for yourself they state to topple the brick the cloth must be folded over then a spring jolts the brick, hence jolts not pushes, and causes a chain reaction.
Thus a theory, as they did not find any springs it is merely guesswork.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
4:05-4:25 she shows THREE holes large enough to place your thumb into.
"if you're saying indentations to fit the surface of your thumb into this is common"
you're the stupidest person i've ever met. surface scratches and MINOR dents, sure
"watch the video for yourself they state to topple the brick the cloth must be folded over then a spring jolts the brick"
they never mention ANYTHING is folded. they never mention jolt. Something CLEARLY pokes up to push the brick and shatter the jar
lennyhipp 1 year ago
Why did you want me to check that video out to prove your point? If anything it looks convincing especially moving the bowl of water over a plank of wood that certainly isn't explained.
Plus if the table was loaded with springs it would be hard to activate them, if they believe it's springs why don't they simply lift the tablecloth up?
Of course I'm not denying your disbelief it doesn't look completely real, but this video certainly leaves even more questions to the people testing him.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
"If anything it looks convincing especially moving the bowl of water over a plank of wood"
if you think it looks convincing, i have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you. it looks EXACTLY what it is: a bowl being moved across a plank of wood by magnets.
"that certainly isn't explained."
it certainly WAS explained. Look for the original clips on the Chinese Television website. I had 6 clips up, and i thought the other 4 were confusing people. I forgot one of them exposed the bowl thing
lennyhipp 1 year ago