I want to start this comment by making it clear that I am a skeptic. Not of you or of PK/ESP in particular but of the truth of things. I have always been that child who had to ask why, and always looked for a deeper meaning. That being said I woud like to know why. You say you don't care what people think of you, or if they believe you. You have written a book about it, but not for the soul purpose of gain... So what made you want to do this? How did you discover you could, what's it's purpose?
@darkstar1087 Jeez, you ask deep questions. Respect. But seriously, I would have to write you an essay to answer those. :-) I recommend you get a feel for my motives and views by watching more videos.
"prayers -faith can move mountains" prayer telekenetic power - prayer changes the electromagnetic fields +/- Let's do an experiment! Collectively with your viewers & 'pray' for something specific......".when two or more gather together--it will be done" Challenge: as an experiment, let's try it whose game? Darryl please take the lead in this experiment. Love ya' peace brother
Can you offer anything that could better explain what happened when all my mind said no you can't do it. Yet something deep within said you must go forward and from some ego driven point i didn't wan't to look weak. But then I began to only compare myself to my own progress and others people began to fade from my view as I work out hard. This is one example and could be done in other ways No?
I love your video's Mr. Isloan. I have read books about how one should create a goal and strive towards it. Then the unconscious mind will work toward said goal. Then the mind begins it's normal everyday life and something strange happens. The goal is reached by some means. I was overweight and out of shape but in two months my goal of one thousand burpees was reached. I had to adapt to my situation and i would call what I did zoning out and focusing on just going forward beyond all my limits.
funny how you had the computer near the bowl during the original glass bowl video, and not in this video. i tried this expirement and blew in the bowls general direction and the foil moved.
@MrAnthonyfilms Then clearly your bowl is warped. I have tested by blowing in my videos. Mine doesn't move. And as you can see, it doesn't move for SEVEN DAYS, despite me moving about the room and casually causing air currents by opening and closing the door.
@MrAnthonyfilms I'm not remotely insecure about what I'm doing, or the truth of it. Nor am I interested in getting people to beleive me. So why would I delete your comment?
@darrylsloan you should want to get people to believe you. if you're right about all of this, its something that should be scientifically analyzed and tested. you say you're doing it, put your money where your mouth is and show the world. seriously i dont know of any publications or tv talk shows that wouldnt want someone that can move shit with their minds on the show. you would make serious cash.
and thats just me coming from religious debates where creationist censor everything.
@MrAnthonyfilms People who write comments like yours seem unaware that PK and ESP have been lab tested for the past century, and it has been consistently documented that something unusual is happening.
@MrAnthonyfilms What a load of tosh ! I have done experiments with this and i have used an hair drier on full speed to blow all around the the glass bowl with no effects. I have also tried temperature control by having the heating on and off within the room used. I have open and closed the door rapidly to change convection currents. No mate, once that glass bowl is in place and the air within it as settled the only external force that moves it is banging the table. You are wrong !
Im atheist, im your friend, oh and just to shut the "trolls" up, and this is just for future reference, put a digital clock next to the expirement. Im not saying this is false or anything im just saying it might b a good idea next time :)
@eCaravanier You're right that a skeptic proposes a ratonal explanation, test it, and walk away. Unfortunately, you're not one of these genuine skeptics.You are, in fact, a pseudo-skeptic.
"because it is a matter or magnetic field"
Aluminum foil isn't magnetic you ignorant dumbass...
Respect dude, you are making me interested in this again. It is extremely difficult NOT to delude one self and succeed in this telekinesis business! I myself am not sure if I actually did it ever, even if there were moments when I thought I did. We humans are very heavily conditioned and confused this probably might be why the results are confused as well... When I did the leave it overnight tests, sometimes the wheel did move most likely because of temperature changes.
@mheckemann That's not sooo simple. Universities are not there waiting for testing the PSI abilities of arbitrary people. :-) But with Darryl's years of preparation and experiments, it should definitely be possible to get into touch with the right folks. Showing the attitude that he seriously want's to be tested under controlled conditions, after having done quite some sceptical experiments in the past himself is probably pretty rare and should find some interested research people.
I was dismayed by the end of this video. I was hoping that at the end of the seven days, you'd put your hand up against the glass and use your PK method--and then it'd finally move. There you were, throughout the video doing the sort of controlled test that PK'ers always fail to make--and then you didn't finish it. :/
As it stands, all you've done is shown that in that particular spot and under those circumstances, the wheel won't move--not that something unconventional moved it at other times.
@Megaritz PK just isn't as predicable and replicable as you want it to be. If it were, it would be confirmed science by now. This video, as it stands, has much more value than you're attributing to it.
@darrylsloan I disagree. If you'd successfully used PK on the psi wheel right at the end of the seven days, without having changed the set-up, then it would be valuable. If you had an off-day when you tried to use PK, then you could wait a day and try again. As it stands, it's distinctly possible that circumstances in earlier videos caused it to move without PK, and differing circumstances in this video allowed it to stay still. I think you're sincere, but overvaluing these tests.
@Megaritz I also was a bit disappointed by this video. I would have expected fast-forward recording, so one could see whether it moves over the days. On the other hand, I have seen enough vids by Darryl where the wheel does not move over some longer period after or between TK is being performed (e.g. 20 minutes), so this is pretty sufficient already, I think.
@LaughingStock71 Seriously, what kind of camera allows 150 hours of unbroken recording time? Taking daily snapshots was the only viable way to film this.
@darrylsloan You've got a point. :-) After all, the end of "Telekinesis improves with practice: No hands demo and tips", with 25 minutes of no movement, was already sufficient... (to me, at least :))
Excuse me, when you first started, did you ever had off-days where it seems you could barely move the psi wheel? Last night I had absolutely amazing results (which I failed to film) but today it seems as though I could only make it shake a bit.
@darrylsloan With an installation where the wheel is behind a window within some sealed room with controlled conditions inside, both the wheel in the inner room and the place outside where you look through the window are watched and recorded 24/7 by a camera, you could go there everyday and try, for days and weeks, until you succeed at least /once/. The cameras would then show exactly one long-time (20 seconds) rotation coinciding with you standing there looking inside. TK proved!
density :) we all vibrate on some level, and cuz level of density of the foil itself is rather low, it can pick up those vibrations coming from a human that you can activly produce with your mind over you nervous system, we all vibrate on certan hz, and if you concetrate inafe on one spot, the concetration of that hz is biger, or like a gain nob you turn i up, and the vibration gets harder... the more you train you concetration the more you will able to do stuff :)
You know, that sounds plausible. So, if this is so, wouldn't we be able to test this by having a telekinetic concentrate on some sort of receiver linked up to a frequency monitor or some such thing?
@darrylsloan Says the pants-on-head retard who thinks showing his tinfoil pyramid not moving throughout a week is a proof that it can move through supernatural phenomenon only.
Congratulations for managing to sell your book though.
@eCaravanier A lovely ad hominem response, because your ego is smarting. You just got owned, and you know it. Go on, throw some more acid in my face, so you can pretend to win the argument. :-)
I'n new to your videos, Mr. Sloan. In fact, it's Nick Dutch who has led me to your channel. He made a video about PK where he referenced you as someone who has done extensive research on the subject.
I have to say that you come off as a very reasonable person. I enjoyed this video very much.
Have your entered in the Randy Foundation 'competition'? Because if we can't test what You are doing, and control the environment when You are doing it, we can't test it, can we? I mean, I could set up similar conditions, and see that it didn't move. But controlling you while it does move, That is the only test really worth doing.
@darrylsloan Exactly! I don't understand why skeptics find it so hard to duplicate your experiments that rules out conventional explanation when they can see the evidence on their own by doing their own experiments. Speaking of duplication, I recorded a psi wheel under a glass with an experimental group and control group and the experiment confirms your conclusion that it is hard for air to get in a glass cover. I will put the video up later.....
When all other possibilties have been removed, whatever remains must be the truth no matter how strange (or something along those lines). Sherlock Holmes - Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle. Like Darryl says, if you have a theory, be prepared to back it up with conventional scientific method to produce your evidence. If you can't accept that this is real, then at least enjoy the possibility. By the way Darryl, Reality Check = 5 stars.
@theghosthunter1983 Is this the burden of proof thing again? Saying that this doesn't exist isn't a claim its the null hypothesis and is impossible to prove, i can collect all kinds of evidence on how unlikely telekinesis is but it still does not prove anything. As for trying it, do you really think i would wade into a debate on the validity of this without first trying it? The fact i couldn't make the thing move proves nothing.
@etherbingedotorg For crying out loud! If you want real evidence of or against Darryl's experiments that show evidence against criticism (e.g. Crooke's Radiometer), duplicate them! Don't just sit your ass there and critcize his experiments as flawed without conducting any experiments to the contrary, so get your lazy ass up, duplicate all his experiments, and if your experiments support/against them, congratulations you have conclusive evidence!
@IceAges14Aces I made a video showing that duplicating such experiments means nothing! its proves nothing and will never prove anything. His experiments are both flawed and pointless because he is doing experiments by himself, how do we know he's not scamming? We don't, there are no outside observers. I could have made my video seem perfectly legit and said i used fairy dust and because nobody observed it you'd have to prove me wrong (which is impossible).
@IceAges14Aces I can also critisize your logic that i need to do tests to prove that he's not using telekinesis. How the hell can you do that? Its why the burden of proof is on him saying that they exist not on me saying probably not. For example what experiment could you do to prove that I didn't use telekinesis? It should be easy since I said that I used a trick. All you can do is show various ways he and i could have done it but not that its what was used.
@rhubis Scientists aren't free from bias/flaws, whether they're in a lecture, research, etc. Project Alpha and the video, "Why most research publications are flawed" are great examples.. Why are you treating Darryl different than scientists? He addresed and ruled out many explanations from the wanna be skeptics (properly called pseudoskeptics) for years via experimentation, yet you assert he doesn't know how to handle an experiment properly???
@IceAges14Aces Ok first off i don't care if its a scientist just as long as its someone that is looking to disprove this but give a fair trial (eg set it up so it can't be faked). it could be all sorts and it could also be that he's faking it (not saying he is). Having the test set up by someone else not associated (like a scientist) would make the videos carry more weight. And as i shown you the test under a bowl is NOT a good test for ruling out other explanations.
@rhubis I hate to tell you this but that isn't a duplicate of Darryl's experiment and by the way, you completely missed the point of this video. The point of this video was to test criticism especially with the so-called,"psi-wheel=Crooke's Radiometer" which supposedly moves depending on the brightness of the light and electromagnetic radiation from the hand. This experiment fails to support such criticism...
@IceAges14Aces As i've said all i did was show that this test means nothing because its so incredibly easy to break in any number of ways. Until a test is done that is set up by outside observers it doesn't matter what steps you take the only person that can know for sure that you didn't cheat is yourself. Why address this various criticism and rule out these various outside sources? You'll still end up with a video that is basically worthless to other people as proof.
There i've uploaded a vid where i move a psiwheel under a glass bowl. If thats what you wanted then fine i've done it. It still proves nothing other than its really REALLY easy to fake.
@rhubis So, basically, it comes down to this: you ask for evidence, and when evidence is presented, you say, "Oh but he's faking it anyway." It's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who assumes the worst about another's character.
@darrylsloan No i ask for evidence and you say this should be good enough when its obviously not. The vid is showing that i can do the same thing by faking. If it was in a sealed jar it would be harder to do, if it was set up by someone else in controlled conditions then it would be impossible. You can't prove this via youtube go get it verified by an outside observer and then i'll think you are credible.
@rhubis What makes you think I care whether you think I'm credible? Serious question. I made it clear in my video that I'm not interested in anyone's belief. My videos either stimulate interest in the viewer making his own experiments, or they don't. For you, they don't, and that's fine. I honestly don't care.
@darrylsloan also in the vid i said this is how it can be done and that its not proof that it wasn't done by psychic powers, just that this is not proof since it is easily faked.
By the way, if I had to take a shot, I'd say you used static electricity. If I'm right, then I would note that Darryl has already discounted that as a possibility in these videos. If not, then I would ask you to tell us how you did it so we can analyze the possibilities.
@NSPride1488 As i said i could have done it any number of ways, i didn't use static electricity but it might have worked. I could have used wire, i could have used heat under the table, i could have used a tube and a hole in the table. It doesn't matter how i did it just that because i could do it in an hour kinda shows how bad this test is.
@NSPride1488 Its why i suggest a while ago that there are any number of better test and the best of all is to go to a scientist (many places are looking for psychic powers) and have an outside observer set up the test.
@NSPride1488 Also i wasn't making the vid to show how he could improve the test i made the vid to say that a youtube vid could never be proof because it could always be fake. I'm a skeptic and a youtube vid would never convince me. A test like i've mentioned would not only convince me but would make it known to pretty much everyone that this was a real thing. Also i could make it move as smooth as Darryl but i kinda rushed and uploaded as quick as possible.
@rhubis ANYTHING can be faked. I could do a sociology experiment and write up false stats. The real problem here is one of character assassination. You pretend to be interested in what I'm doing, then when the findings don't suit your position, you fall back on an accusation of fraud. In any other branch of scientific enquiry, that kind of backpeddaling would be laughable. Try reading Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe." It contains a wealth of lab evidence for you to ignore.
@darrylsloan You do vids on youtube where you answer critism you say telekinesis is real and try and use scientific evidence or at least pretend to. When the simplest experiments that actually provide credible evidence are suggested? Nope sorry too much. Why the hell would you bother with the experimentation and answering critics if you didn't care about looking credible?
@rhubis Why are you asking me these questions? Because whatever I say will be a lie, won't it? ... You see, this is a conversation that has nowhere productive to go.
@darrylsloan yes anything can be faked but at least an experiment that is set up by an outside observer and monitored has a low chance of being fake. If you could do that then i'd be very very impressed and your message would reach many more people.
@darrylsloan So people are supposed to believe you on the basis of easily faked experiments? This is why i'm claiming fraud, you do tests that are easily faked, claim real telekinesis, never do serious scientific tests. Why have you never bothered to show the world outside youtube? Maybe because then you'd actually have to do such tests. You have all these vids promoting skeptism and then cry foul when its pointed towards you.
@rhubis I told you I wasn't interested in people's belief, but you don't seem to hear. Seriously, did you even watch the part of this video where I explain my reason for doing these videos?
@darrylsloan you don't care about peoples belief but make vids answering skeptics? At least let me know if you understand where i'm coming from. Just to be clear i apologise if this is real. I mean nothing by claiming fraud since its just a possibility and its not a slight against you in any way.
@darrylsloan Ok i'll approach this from another direction. If you are honestly seeking the answer to what you are doing then why not go to a scientist and actually get it tested? There is only so much you can do on your own. Not to mention the large sums of money you would get when 'something anomalous is discovered' there isn't a downside to getting this check out by outside observers only upsides. If the person also claims fraud then you don't care what he thinks!
@rhubis You speak as if it's a really simple task to get the interest of a legitimate parapsychologist, doing lab work, here in Ireland. Furthermore, PK is erratic at best, which is probably the main reason why it has been resistant to scientific analysis. I am by no means accomplished at this; I've simply had enough personal experience to make it legitimate, to my own satisfaction - which is why I take the stance of encouraging others to experiment. Make of it what you will.
@darrylsloan Ok i step down from this debate. The consensus is that you wouldn't be able to prove this conclusivly and i could not disprove it. I will continue being a skeptic on this subject. Although I will propose a test for you if you would at least consider it. I also hope that while the debate went awry there are no bad feelings here.
@rhubis We're good. Actually, this was an unexpected turnaround from you. Skepticism is fine, fully expected and respected from my end, as long as it's a forward-looking skepticism that's willing to consider change, not a pseudo-skepticism that is just defending an established dogmatic mindset. I've dealt with the latter too often, and nowadays I just dismiss them. I meant what I said when I stated that I didn't care for people's belief.
@rhubis As I mentioned before, I seriously recommend checking out Dean Radin - even if you just look him up on YouTube. Might give you some food for thought.
@darrylsloan I will but proof is still the most important factor for my belief in anything and nothing short of repeatable testing under controlled conditions will convince me otherwise. And while telekinesis has never actually done this i still have hope that one day someone will prove me wrong. Also i hope you take up my challange and seek out someone to do some testing on this.
@rhubis The most immediate method of proving this to yourself is actually to try it. And by try I mean some consistent disciplined effort over a few weeks. Try the basic method I outline in my "How to do telekinesis" video. Others have reported success.
@darrylsloan You are coming up with an argument that says "you are assuming i'm a bad person and faking this". What else do i do? Assume you are fully 100% correct and don't try to find alternative explanations? Its called the scientific method. You do an experiment and post results. I then duplicated the results and show that you can do the same thing via trickery thus showing one possible way you are doing it. Address this issue and i won't have a problem (its easy enough).
@rhubis Please do not give me that invisible unicorn rhetorical gambit bullcrap. Your claim is not akin to a stupid invisible pink unicorn. Your claim is in fact testable and falsifiable.
@IceAges14Aces If you do want evidence against psychokinesis then: There are no reliable documented cases. The numerous organisations all over the world searching have never found it. No cash prizes offered for demonstrating testable psychic powers has EVER been won. Everyone that has ever come forward to the media saying they can do this stuff has been exposed as a fraud. Does any of this prove psychokinesis doesn't exist? No and there is no evidence that would suffice.
@rhubis On the contrary to your belief, your criticism is also considered unjustified due to the lack of substantial evidence. "I don't have to provide evidence against" - A common misconception. The burden of proof lies on a person possessing an unjustified claim regardless of the conotation. You made a claim; therefore, prove it...
@IceAges14Aces Actually no i said this is probably a scam and that the evidence is not good enough. Go ahead and tell me how i can provide evidence that this is not psychic power. I can link to all kinds of vids that show methods of doing this and not one is proof that its false.
@rhubis Of course this video isn't proof, but it is evidence. Now before you start spreading hot-air in the kitchen, I suggest you duplicate this experiment to see if his experiment has any merit. Let's get experimenting!
The movement of your psi-wheel is nothing at all like Darryl's (his does not wobble back and forth, it turns precisely on its axis). And what's the point of the video if you're not going to tell us how you did it? The whole point was so that, if a genuine problem with his controls was discovered, he could make a point to show that x thing wasn't involved next time.
I do have to give you some credit for actually taking up on the challenge, though, instead of just spewing BS.
@rhubis Sorry that's a bunch of dogmatic, pseudo-skeptical bullshit. If you want to prove me wrong show me the substantial evidence, not prejudices/assumptions. By the way, your argument is fallacious. Saying if telekinesis is real it would have been discovered already is akin to saying in the 13th century if a New World exist it would have been discovered.
good vid! seriously there just pissed because they dont know how to do it! bahaha ... maybe if they could do it they would stfu? prob not they will always have some crap to say, shouldn't let it make ya mad though they are just mad they give up after two experiments because they cant do it.
I really love this video, especially the part at the end. You say the things I also think, but you have a way of phrasing it better than I ever could.
I don't think it was particularly necessary to perform this seven-day test for sceptics on THEIR behalf. If they have the problem believing that this is unbelievable or fake, then they can run tests to prove it.
I believe that it is very possible, after all, I have met Mysterion and right in front of me can bend a spoon and move objects with his mind. It is absolutely possible. People who don't believe have no chance of understanding.
It's still good, though, cause now when the pseudos start their BSing, we have this video we can point to: "Look, Darryl himself let the thing sit out for a week and o air or lights moved it."
@etherbingedotorg I never said darryl is realible than science, my point is that science need to get their shit straight when publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals. What's even more ironic is that these flawed studies get published and get less attention than parapsychological meta-studies where controls and statistical methodology are much more rigorous than orthodox psychology, medical studies, etc.
@etherbingedotorg In any case, I strongly agree with the conclusion that darryl needs to be tested; however, the fact that he failed to do so isn't evidence to dismiss him as a fraud.....
@etherbingedotorg I never said the standard protocols used in the JREF is unreachable by chance. All I said is it is ridiculous to put set the P at 0.001 and 0.000001 level. No, the odds aren't set up in a reasonable way. P=0.001 is a standard in the preliminary tests' protocols, if not, close to it. Furthermore, P=0.000001 is used in the formal tests, even though nobody has made it due to that idiotic double-standard. Don't believe me? Look up the applicants' protocols in the JREF forum...
@IceAges14Aces Ok fine. Screw the JREF for the moment. How about just demonstrating what it is he can do (with the understanding that it doesn't always work, but with patience it eventually does) to a group of actual people? No need for any controls the first time. Just let him have a crack with a few observers. Any objections to that, as a starter?
If we assume that he's not playing a multi-year prank on us (which is entirely possible) the only thing we can learn from these videos is that he doesn't know why what's happening is happening. Going on about "truth claims" is prevarication. Head over to the physics department at your local Uni and let them have a bash at it. I'm fairly sure they'll either figure it out or the experiment won't work under controlled conditions.
@etherbingedotorg There's nothing wrong with my experimental environment, or the controls I've implemented. You're deflecting, which is, of course, what you have to do.
@darrylsloan I don't have enough info to deflect. I got into this with you here several years ago and your response was the same. But in all that time you've yet to attempt this under properly controlled conditions, as far as I can tell! Why is that? You are not capable of testing this properly. That's not a slight. Nobody is. To absolutely rule out any role you're inadvertently playing here is to demonstrate a shocking ignorance of methodological bias and how to avoid it. So find a lab.
@etherbingedotorg Oh, but you do deflect, and you demand that I use a lab without stating a single thing that is wrong with the 150+ hours of data in display here, and you furthermore rely on the suspicion that this is a three-year lie. I know your type. If I went to a lab, there would inevitably be something wrong with that lab, and I would have to do something else to please you.
@darrylsloan Ok. Great. You've got some amazing ability that seems to demonstrate a hitherto unknown force. The catch is you'll only demonstrate this via youtube videos. Sounds completely reasonable to me. I'll make a few phone calls so we can start getting all the physics textbooks rewritten. And you, you racally devil, you need to start preparing your Nobel acceptance speech. Kudos!
@etherbingedotorg If you had done any research into psychic phenomena, you would know that a wealth of experiments have already been done across the 20th century, which statistically indicate that something unusual is happening. Materialists continue to ignore it all, though.
@etherbingedotorg A research being conducted in a lab by scientists doesn't mean the bias is magically gone. I have seen scientific, peer-reviewed lab studies that suffer from methodological, cognitive, and statistical biases. One good example of such are psychological and clinical studies. Most of these psychological and clinical studies suffer from methodological bias (e.g. lack of realism in blindness), cognitive bias (e.g. exaggeration), and statistical bias (publication bias).
@IceAges14Aces Well, whatever errors they may have made these papers are open to scrutiny. You were able to find issues without much trouble, right? Are you trying to suggest that science, for all its faults, is a less reliable system than a guy posting videos on youtube that claim to demonstrate an anomaly which, if genuine, could force us to rethink entire branches of the sciences, but who refuses to properly demonstrate it? I think you believe him on a hunch, and that's it.
@NSPride1488 What kind of experimenter would find a possible effect at the P=0.001 and all of a sudden raise the bar up to P=0.000001??? Seriously, who the hell does that? That's not how science work. Science works by testing a hypothesis, replicating it under large, controlled trials, and drawing a conclusion. Real science is always under falsification, JREF doesn't attempt to falsify, but prove which makes it a pseudoscience...
@NSPride1488 Well-said! The JREF One Million Dollar Challenge isn't really scientific since it lacks replication, and substantial Bayesian Statistics. The tests are corrupted due to the double-standard P=0.001 (1,000 to 1) and if passed, P=0.000001 (million to one), otherwise fail. JREF claims to have expert statisticians; however, such statisticians know that setting the bar that high with small samples is ludicrous and insane. Pseudo-science and bigotry at its finest..
@IceAges14Aces Wrong. They'll accept as a "win" something which could happen completely by chance. Depending on the claim being made, the odds are well withing a reasonable range that someone could luck into completing whatever task has been agreed to. Matching personality profiles with test subjects is the one that comes to mind. All you have to do is go in, perform your skill under agreed-upon conditions to prevent cheating (deliberate or otherwise) and stump everybody.
@IceAges14Aces ...The challenge has clearly stated objective: if someone can do their thing despite the controls put in place to prevent chicanery, they'll hand over a million bucks. Should someone win it's not the same as demonstrating that something paranormal has taken place. The JREF know this and so should anybody with the slightest bit of common sense. They are of the opinion that there is no paranormal. And they've put their money where their mouths are, where it sits, appreciating.
@etherbingedotorg What you told me regarding the objective in the challenge seems to contradict what the challenge really is all about. The challenge is just a challenge for anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal/supernatural under control conditions, nothing less nothing more. In addition, the actual odds of passing the preliminary and formal tests without failing is quite frankly a billion to one. The odds of winning this by pure luck is much more unlikely than winning the lottery....
It's so funny that anyone would have more faith in JREF than Darryl, considering Darryl conducts multiple trials (JREF expects to have ONE SINGLE TRIAL to prove psychic power - stupid pseudo-science), checks for errors, examines possible control faults - and comes off as very credible. Bottom line: Why should we trust Randi more than this guy, who conducts his experiments out in the open, shows us his work area to prove it's not rigged - bottom line is, Randi is like god to the pseudo-skeptics
@NSPride1488 If I'm not mistaken, Darryl is still doing all of this by himself. Unless he's brought in some outside people, allowed them to set up an environment that precludes any trickery to the best of their ability, and still been able to move the foil you can't say that any real trials have taken place. And even if he did manage what I just described, the next step wouldn't be to conclude anything paranormal. Scientists have a great track record when it comes to figuring things out.
Darryl has been very open about every possibility. It doesn't matter if you *think* there is trickery involved or not; it would still have to be done somehow. Considering he's precluded environmental disturbances, magnets, wind, static electricity, heat, strings, air tubes and all this good stuff, feel free to come tell us how he's managing it.
@NSPride1488 Ugh. For the same reason that clinical drug trials don't work unless they're double blinded - even if you think you've taken everything into account and are trying to remain unbiased experience has taught us this just isn't the case. Look. I don't think there's anything to this but only because this is following the same sad trajectory as every other miraculous claim. But I think it would be awesome if I were wrong, and the only way to know is to test this properly.
@NSPride1488 One last thing. I doubt Darryl is trying to con us. But I do wonder why, if he's convinced something weird is happening, he would sit on it for 3 years without looking for advice from people who could set things up so it's dramatically less likely he could be playing a part in the motion. Unless he's knows he can't set up a proper test without relenquishing control himself. And anybody who would sit on something this huge is either an idiot or an asshole.
@NSPride1488 So you want me to guess, but you think my desire to have a look in person, or have other people do it by proxy, is somehow unreasonable? Why should I have to guess? When Edison started making lightbulbs did he force people to guess how he might or might not be doing it? No. He made a bunch of bulbs and said, "here, knock yourselves out. Enjoy reading at night." Darryl's agoraphobia is suspicious, don't you think?
Please quote to me where I said it was unreasonable to want to study this phenomenon, or to want to see it in person. I'd love to know. Well, as for seeing it, why don't you take a trip to Ireland? It'd be a great place to go, and while you're there, maybe Darryl will let you stop by and have a look. But it all goes back to the fact that this doesn't succeed every time. If he failed, you would immediately assume you were right all along, which would not definitely be true.
What you seem to have is a pseudo-religious belief centering around scientists. Who cares who's conducting the study? No, this is not conclusive, scientific, absolute proof of telekinesis, but the man has run multiple trials, examined possible control faults, and has a camera running on him while he's doing it, and he always shows us his work area and his psi-wheel in every video.
@NSPride1488 Quite the opposite is true. Every scientist on the planet would fight to get access to the data, to verify everything was taken into account, to be part of the team that might figure out something that will end up being taught in history classes. As an aside, it's really odd the way you religious people, whenever you disagree with someone's belief, describe it as "religious." "Atheism is a religion etc." Doesn't say much for your faith when you can use it as an insult.
It's a very solid experiment - better than all the crap both career psychic swindlers and pseudo-skeptics like Randi have ever run - and I seriously doubt you can give us one solid reason to actively doubt the authenticity of these tests, other than "they haven't been done under laboratory conditions by men with a piece of paper from a university that says we can trust them." Why would you trust any third party more than your own eyes?
@NSPride1488 Look. There are only 3 possibilities. Either it's a con, or he's been sloppy somewhere without knowing it, or the effect is real. If it's A then he should be taken down. If it's B then he deserves to know. And if it's C he's just discovered something completely outside our current understanding, something any scientist dreams of witnessing firsthand and early. You claim, without evidence, that any success would be brushed aside with excuses. ---------->
debunkingskeptics[dot]com and near-death[dot]org are excellent sites with plenty of info on various scientific studies that have already tested these claims. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who conceded that remote viewing, for example, has already been scientifically proven, but he wants "extraordinary evidence."
And as for calling atheism a religion - I am not religious. I am Pagan; I follow an ancestral tradition. I do not follow any dogma that restricts my thinking.
@NSPride1488 Last thing, for now - I've got to run. But if this is real don't you want to understand it? Don't you want to know what's really going on? To predict, without even a proper examination, that it's simply "paranormal" and therefore not explicable seems like a fairly arrogant position to take, if that's what you currently believe. I'll look at those sites, and the criticism I'm sure is also out there. But if it's been verified, why aren't there 10000 research projects ongoing?
However, pseudo-skeptics follow the dogma that there absolutely must not be anything out of the ordinary in the universe, which DOES restrict their thinking. Hence they are pseudo-religious, not I.
I also don't see how you could claim that something outside of his control is causing the psi-wheel to turn, considering he just let it sit for a week and it didn't move one milimeter.
@NSPride1488 God this is frustrating. I'm not saying that something outside his control is causing (etc.) I'm saying that currently nobody can say for sure that it isn't. I can only speak for myself, trained in science, and the many scientists I know regarding things "out of the ordinary." We are trained not to think like that. It's not in our interests to do so. All we're interested in is what IS. Unsubstantiated predictions of a hushup demonstrate you're not as dogma free as you think.
Currently, nobody can say it for sure, because a guy with a paper hasn't given you his word? Maybe not scientifically, but even you must admit, this is a lot more solid of evidence than most of the crap you get on YouTube. You're not even willing to concede that this is evidence of a sort, if not hard, cold, lab evidence?
@NSPride1488 I'm saying that I'd like to to investigate it properly. And if he continues to refuse to adequately demonstrate these abilities I'll be forced to conclude it's a sham. If I were completely closed-minded I would have no interest in looking into this. I had a look at one of those sites, by the way. In the thread about D on debunkingskeptics the consensus is converging on "conman." The site admin is an oddball - he writes gushing posts but refuses to discuss anything ----->
And there's nothing unsubstantiated about it. The Debunking Skeptics site is full of info on tricks pulled by pseudo-skeptical liars like James Randi to quiet down possible evidence for psi. It's also important to note that I am NOT saying that any scientist in any lab would skew results against psi, I'm just saying that if Darryl couldn't do it, it would give ammo to the skeptics.
In this "battle" between pseudo-skepticism and rationality, the biggest success does almost nothing for our side, while our slightest failure gives a proverbial nuclear bomb to the pseudo-skeptics. That's why it's a waste of his time, since he himself has said he often cannot get results, and if he failed in a lab, reasonable scientists might not take it as a heavy blow against psi, but pseudo-skeptics, with media exposure, would, and it would be very damaging.
I certainly want to understand it. I am a Pagan, and that means I respect and honor science and scientists. I am curious about the world around me. But it is you, not I, who insists that it would have to be called "paranormal." I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. Of course there is a mechanism for it, otherwise it would not happen. I am only saying that it would prove that there are forces in this universe beyond those we affect and perceive with our five senses.
@NSPride1488 Dude, I think the words "paranormal" and "supernatural" are meaningless, at least as they're commonly used. Either something happens or it doesn't. If it does, any lack of understanding on our part doesn't make it any less real or natural. I think you're abdicating your responsibility to form an informed opinion about this - that is, if you care about the truth. Worst case - D is just a conman and there's no way you or I would be able to tell based on the information we have.
Are you even bothering to read my comments? I am agreeing with you for crying out loud... and I still don't get why you won't concede that this is good evidence for psi, though it's perhaps not *scientific* evidence? Even you must admit this is better than the other crap you see around here. Darryl is certainly concerned with making sure the testing environment is rigorous (unless you want to assume he's a liar from the get-go).
I am not the one responsible for any research projects or lack thereof. Your guess is as good as mine, however, there ARE research projects happening in regards to this, and projects that have happened - such as PEAR - and gotten statistically significant results. Or projects like autoganzfeld, that ran thousands of trials and got significant results. There is no reason not to consider the evidence of both sides, and right now, skepticism is quite lacking.
As for not going in to a lab - this isn't a test of gravity that's always go to be true 100% of the time. What if he couldn't reproduce it in a lab? It would be used by pseudo-skeptics as ammunition against psi, even though it's possible he just couldn't manage it that particular time. He himself said it doesn't work that often. Again, feel free to tell us what's wrong with his controls.
@NSPride1488 The proiblem with his controls is that he's set them up. This prevents us from knowing that there isn't something else going on. It might convince him, but it shouldn't convince you. I mean it's fine if you just want to have a little anecdote about a guy who could do these things. But if you want to KNOW, you can't be so sloppy. I've chopped up a quote from that site which people there seem to agree with. It's precisely what I've been saying. Chopped up for length only --->
@NSPride1488 "He...says that he can't do this every time...It could be there is something about the wheel...that has nothing to do with Darryl's ... telekinesis... Perhaps his sucesses are...coincidences. That is not good skepticism. He should be doing experiments to try to falsify his telekinesesis theory. He has no idea if he is deluding himself or not. He is well spoken and makes enjoyable videos, but that is not enough." This is exactly my position. That you disagree boggles my mind.
You are really destroying your credibility here. If you bothered to watch any of Darryl's videos, you'd know he HAS done experiments to try to falsify his theory. Hell, what do you call this video we're on right now? I love the "it could be there is something about the wheel." LOL. Yeah, something about a piece of tinfoil on a pin that makes it move when Dan is sitting and trying, but not when it sits in the middle of his house for seven days straight.
@NSPride1488 You do realize that my comment was a quote from the site you gave me, one which represents the consensus of the thread about him, with the exception of the site admin, who just posts the videos and ignores anything substantial said in the other comments? Instead he just posts another comment about how Darryl is the real deal, generating more frustrated responses, which he then ignores.
There are pseudo-skeptics on that site as well. I think you'll find that not everyone there would agree with that assessment. And I linked you to that site mostly for the resources linking to studies that have been done on psi. And please don't be intentionally obtuse by trying to say I "completely disagree" with the site. You know that's BS, so please keep it to yourself.
@NSPride1488 I get it now. People who agree with you are true skeptics. Those who don't are pseudo skeptics. Are you open to the possibility that you're in the wrong here? I certainly am, although Daryl isn't being very helpful in terms of transparency. I think it would be amazing if such powers existed. But so far they only seem to on little youtube videos. That might be enough to convince you, but it shouldn't be. You're bound to be taken advantage of at some point in your life.
Not true. People who don't follow ridiculous dogma are true skeptics, whether they agree with me or not. You are, in fact, astonished at the highly credible results (NOTE: highly credible, not definite proof) of these experiments because of Darryl's thorough methodology, but not only are so bound up in dogma to admit but, but you also, despite all your claims, cannot name one single possible way this could be faked that he hasn't debunked or precluded. Ridiculous.
After all, it's not going to be much different in a lab, except that you won't be able to see the tests being conducted, and you'll have the word of some guy with a piece of paper that says he knows what he's doing to go on, instead of a live video of repeated experiments that show the work area and examine controls for you to see for yourself.
@NSPride1488 What's with this distrust of all scientists? Do you think that if the 3 or 4 who might take an interest were baffled they would cover it up somehow? What for? Scientists spend their careers looking for anomalies 1/1000th this magnitude. And again, I'm not saying there is some hocus pocus going on with the vids. But surely you understand that we can't know there isn't, and how easy trickery would be. So you've chosen to trust Darryl over the scientists. I trust them equally.
If you would have waited to reply until I was finished posting all my comments, you would see in the third comment I made that I specifically said I'm NOT saying all scientists skew the results, I'm saying pseudo-skeptics, who are unfortunately the ones who get the most media exposure, use results of all experiments in a way that benefits their viewpoint. Many scientists and studies report accurately and get statistically significant results.
@NSPride1488 Because "my own eyes" are nowhere near his demonstrations. All I have is some youtube videos. Surely you don't believe that such things aren't easily faked? Plus, what good does this purported phenomenon do anyone if nobody can study it? Aren't you interested, if it is what he says it is, in possibly understanding what forces are in play? Have you no curiosity?
Are you going to play the fool and act as if I haven't addressed 75% of what you just said ages ago? I know all about video faking and editing. I also know, and HAVE SAID, that is is not 100% scientific proof. What I am saying is that is is very good evidence unless you want to take the position that this man is intentionally lying to you. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your comment because I already addressed all of this many times before now.
The fact is that, because you cannot name one possible way this could have been faked that Darryl hasn't already addressed, you have to resort to your only two retreats: One, the video could have been faked, and two, it hasn't been done in a laboratory, which are both pretty pathetic excuses not to at least say "this is good evidence, assuming he isn't an outright liar, because he has explored all likely control faults and has repeated the experiment multiple times."
And even if he did this in a lab, I'm sure you and others would have plenty of excuses, such as "there were problems with control," or "the results were skewed in favor of psi." There really is no pleasing pseudo-skeptics.
@darrylsloan when are more videos coming?
tannerman9t 6 days ago
I want to start this comment by making it clear that I am a skeptic. Not of you or of PK/ESP in particular but of the truth of things. I have always been that child who had to ask why, and always looked for a deeper meaning. That being said I woud like to know why. You say you don't care what people think of you, or if they believe you. You have written a book about it, but not for the soul purpose of gain... So what made you want to do this? How did you discover you could, what's it's purpose?
darkstar1087 6 days ago
@darkstar1087 Jeez, you ask deep questions. Respect. But seriously, I would have to write you an essay to answer those. :-) I recommend you get a feel for my motives and views by watching more videos.
darrylsloan 6 days ago
"prayers -faith can move mountains" prayer telekenetic power - prayer changes the electromagnetic fields +/- Let's do an experiment! Collectively with your viewers & 'pray' for something specific......".when two or more gather together--it will be done" Challenge: as an experiment, let's try it whose game? Darryl please take the lead in this experiment. Love ya' peace brother
PeopleJustLikeUs 1 week ago
Can you offer anything that could better explain what happened when all my mind said no you can't do it. Yet something deep within said you must go forward and from some ego driven point i didn't wan't to look weak. But then I began to only compare myself to my own progress and others people began to fade from my view as I work out hard. This is one example and could be done in other ways No?
slickrickjohnson 1 week ago
I love your video's Mr. Isloan. I have read books about how one should create a goal and strive towards it. Then the unconscious mind will work toward said goal. Then the mind begins it's normal everyday life and something strange happens. The goal is reached by some means. I was overweight and out of shape but in two months my goal of one thousand burpees was reached. I had to adapt to my situation and i would call what I did zoning out and focusing on just going forward beyond all my limits.
slickrickjohnson 1 week ago
funny how you had the computer near the bowl during the original glass bowl video, and not in this video. i tried this expirement and blew in the bowls general direction and the foil moved.
MrAnthonyfilms 1 week ago
@MrAnthonyfilms Then clearly your bowl is warped. I have tested by blowing in my videos. Mine doesn't move. And as you can see, it doesn't move for SEVEN DAYS, despite me moving about the room and casually causing air currents by opening and closing the door.
darrylsloan 1 week ago
@darrylsloan show some videos of you testing the bowl before the experiment. then we can talk.
MrAnthonyfilms 1 week ago
@MrAnthonyfilms That exists in other videos. Besides, you're either interested enought to experiment with this stuff yourself, or you're not.
darrylsloan 1 week ago
@darrylsloan although i have to say, im surprised you didnt just delete my comment and block me. +1 for not censoring.
MrAnthonyfilms 1 week ago
@MrAnthonyfilms I'm not remotely insecure about what I'm doing, or the truth of it. Nor am I interested in getting people to beleive me. So why would I delete your comment?
darrylsloan 1 week ago
@darrylsloan you should want to get people to believe you. if you're right about all of this, its something that should be scientifically analyzed and tested. you say you're doing it, put your money where your mouth is and show the world. seriously i dont know of any publications or tv talk shows that wouldnt want someone that can move shit with their minds on the show. you would make serious cash.
and thats just me coming from religious debates where creationist censor everything.
MrAnthonyfilms 1 week ago
@MrAnthonyfilms People who write comments like yours seem unaware that PK and ESP have been lab tested for the past century, and it has been consistently documented that something unusual is happening.
darrylsloan 1 week ago
@MrAnthonyfilms What a load of tosh ! I have done experiments with this and i have used an hair drier on full speed to blow all around the the glass bowl with no effects. I have also tried temperature control by having the heating on and off within the room used. I have open and closed the door rapidly to change convection currents. No mate, once that glass bowl is in place and the air within it as settled the only external force that moves it is banging the table. You are wrong !
Majorsixth 1 week ago
I like your PK videos, you've initated me in discovering other abilities that i have, thank you.Subscribed
gosword 1 week ago
Im atheist, im your friend, oh and just to shut the "trolls" up, and this is just for future reference, put a digital clock next to the expirement. Im not saying this is false or anything im just saying it might b a good idea next time :)
KingofMCmodify 3 weeks ago
Why didn't you do the same exact thing as you did on your 2009 video where you 'make your connection' and then put the bowl on?
ToxicatedLum 3 weeks ago
Skeptic = Afraid to believe what is being hidden from us.
GAdvertiseYourself 1 month ago
@eCaravanier You're right that a skeptic proposes a ratonal explanation, test it, and walk away. Unfortunately, you're not one of these genuine skeptics.You are, in fact, a pseudo-skeptic.
"because it is a matter or magnetic field"
Aluminum foil isn't magnetic you ignorant dumbass...
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
Respect dude, you are making me interested in this again. It is extremely difficult NOT to delude one self and succeed in this telekinesis business! I myself am not sure if I actually did it ever, even if there were moments when I thought I did. We humans are very heavily conditioned and confused this probably might be why the results are confused as well... When I did the leave it overnight tests, sometimes the wheel did move most likely because of temperature changes.
cromrke 1 month ago
If you want to know how it works why don't you go to a University and let it be tested there ?
mheckemann 1 month ago
@mheckemann That's not sooo simple. Universities are not there waiting for testing the PSI abilities of arbitrary people. :-) But with Darryl's years of preparation and experiments, it should definitely be possible to get into touch with the right folks. Showing the attitude that he seriously want's to be tested under controlled conditions, after having done quite some sceptical experiments in the past himself is probably pretty rare and should find some interested research people.
LaughingStock71 1 month ago
I was dismayed by the end of this video. I was hoping that at the end of the seven days, you'd put your hand up against the glass and use your PK method--and then it'd finally move. There you were, throughout the video doing the sort of controlled test that PK'ers always fail to make--and then you didn't finish it. :/
As it stands, all you've done is shown that in that particular spot and under those circumstances, the wheel won't move--not that something unconventional moved it at other times.
Megaritz 1 month ago
@Megaritz PK just isn't as predicable and replicable as you want it to be. If it were, it would be confirmed science by now. This video, as it stands, has much more value than you're attributing to it.
darrylsloan 1 month ago
@darrylsloan I disagree. If you'd successfully used PK on the psi wheel right at the end of the seven days, without having changed the set-up, then it would be valuable. If you had an off-day when you tried to use PK, then you could wait a day and try again. As it stands, it's distinctly possible that circumstances in earlier videos caused it to move without PK, and differing circumstances in this video allowed it to stay still. I think you're sincere, but overvaluing these tests.
Megaritz 1 month ago
@Megaritz I also was a bit disappointed by this video. I would have expected fast-forward recording, so one could see whether it moves over the days. On the other hand, I have seen enough vids by Darryl where the wheel does not move over some longer period after or between TK is being performed (e.g. 20 minutes), so this is pretty sufficient already, I think.
LaughingStock71 1 month ago
@LaughingStock71 Seriously, what kind of camera allows 150 hours of unbroken recording time? Taking daily snapshots was the only viable way to film this.
darrylsloan 1 month ago
@darrylsloan You've got a point. :-) After all, the end of "Telekinesis improves with practice: No hands demo and tips", with 25 minutes of no movement, was already sufficient... (to me, at least :))
LaughingStock71 1 month ago
Excuse me, when you first started, did you ever had off-days where it seems you could barely move the psi wheel? Last night I had absolutely amazing results (which I failed to film) but today it seems as though I could only make it shake a bit.
NajeeTheNinja 1 month ago
@NajeeTheNinja Yes, I regularly had off-days, and still do. That's one of the reasons why this is resistant to scientific analysis.
darrylsloan 1 month ago
@darrylsloan With an installation where the wheel is behind a window within some sealed room with controlled conditions inside, both the wheel in the inner room and the place outside where you look through the window are watched and recorded 24/7 by a camera, you could go there everyday and try, for days and weeks, until you succeed at least /once/. The cameras would then show exactly one long-time (20 seconds) rotation coinciding with you standing there looking inside. TK proved!
LaughingStock71 1 month ago
density :) we all vibrate on some level, and cuz level of density of the foil itself is rather low, it can pick up those vibrations coming from a human that you can activly produce with your mind over you nervous system, we all vibrate on certan hz, and if you concetrate inafe on one spot, the concetration of that hz is biger, or like a gain nob you turn i up, and the vibration gets harder... the more you train you concetration the more you will able to do stuff :)
HQDnB 2 months ago
@HQDnB
You know, that sounds plausible. So, if this is so, wouldn't we be able to test this by having a telekinetic concentrate on some sort of receiver linked up to a frequency monitor or some such thing?
NSPride1488 1 month ago
No, actually the skeptic proposes a rationnal explanation, test it, proves his point and then walks away.
Have you ever wondered why your so-called psi wheel is made of metal? because it is a matter of magnetic field, not voodoo magic.
eCaravanier 2 months ago
@eCaravanier Aluminium foil is non-magnetic. Thanks for being yet another pseudo-skeptic who fails to test his claims ... or get his facts right.
darrylsloan 2 months ago 4
@darrylsloan Says the pants-on-head retard who thinks showing his tinfoil pyramid not moving throughout a week is a proof that it can move through supernatural phenomenon only.
Congratulations for managing to sell your book though.
eCaravanier 2 months ago
@eCaravanier A lovely ad hominem response, because your ego is smarting. You just got owned, and you know it. Go on, throw some more acid in my face, so you can pretend to win the argument. :-)
darrylsloan 2 months ago 6
@darrylsloan Also, who knows, maybe you managed to find tinfoil with iron in it...
eCaravanier 2 months ago
@eCaravanier
Really? Really? Just go away. Please, I hate to see anyone make themselves look this dumb.
NSPride1488 2 months ago
I'n new to your videos, Mr. Sloan. In fact, it's Nick Dutch who has led me to your channel. He made a video about PK where he referenced you as someone who has done extensive research on the subject.
I have to say that you come off as a very reasonable person. I enjoyed this video very much.
an0nim0uz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from darrylsloan
Have your entered in the Randy Foundation 'competition'? Because if we can't test what You are doing, and control the environment when You are doing it, we can't test it, can we? I mean, I could set up similar conditions, and see that it didn't move. But controlling you while it does move, That is the only test really worth doing.
Faergen 2 months ago
ok so, i have a short attention span, could I still learn to do this kind of stuff?
SeverumProductions 2 months ago
awesome! :)
shy3151 2 months ago
@darrylsloan Exactly! I don't understand why skeptics find it so hard to duplicate your experiments that rules out conventional explanation when they can see the evidence on their own by doing their own experiments. Speaking of duplication, I recorded a psi wheel under a glass with an experimental group and control group and the experiment confirms your conclusion that it is hard for air to get in a glass cover. I will put the video up later.....
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
When all other possibilties have been removed, whatever remains must be the truth no matter how strange (or something along those lines). Sherlock Holmes - Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle. Like Darryl says, if you have a theory, be prepared to back it up with conventional scientific method to produce your evidence. If you can't accept that this is real, then at least enjoy the possibility. By the way Darryl, Reality Check = 5 stars.
theghosthunter1983 2 months ago 6
@theghosthunter1983 Thanks. Glad you got something from the book.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@theghosthunter1983 Is this the burden of proof thing again? Saying that this doesn't exist isn't a claim its the null hypothesis and is impossible to prove, i can collect all kinds of evidence on how unlikely telekinesis is but it still does not prove anything. As for trying it, do you really think i would wade into a debate on the validity of this without first trying it? The fact i couldn't make the thing move proves nothing.
rhubis 2 months ago
@theghosthunter1983 Sorry i meant the trying it bit to be in response to Darryl.
rhubis 2 months ago
@etherbingedotorg For crying out loud! If you want real evidence of or against Darryl's experiments that show evidence against criticism (e.g. Crooke's Radiometer), duplicate them! Don't just sit your ass there and critcize his experiments as flawed without conducting any experiments to the contrary, so get your lazy ass up, duplicate all his experiments, and if your experiments support/against them, congratulations you have conclusive evidence!
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces I made a video showing that duplicating such experiments means nothing! its proves nothing and will never prove anything. His experiments are both flawed and pointless because he is doing experiments by himself, how do we know he's not scamming? We don't, there are no outside observers. I could have made my video seem perfectly legit and said i used fairy dust and because nobody observed it you'd have to prove me wrong (which is impossible).
rhubis 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces I can also critisize your logic that i need to do tests to prove that he's not using telekinesis. How the hell can you do that? Its why the burden of proof is on him saying that they exist not on me saying probably not. For example what experiment could you do to prove that I didn't use telekinesis? It should be easy since I said that I used a trick. All you can do is show various ways he and i could have done it but not that its what was used.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis Scientists aren't free from bias/flaws, whether they're in a lecture, research, etc. Project Alpha and the video, "Why most research publications are flawed" are great examples.. Why are you treating Darryl different than scientists? He addresed and ruled out many explanations from the wanna be skeptics (properly called pseudoskeptics) for years via experimentation, yet you assert he doesn't know how to handle an experiment properly???
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Ok first off i don't care if its a scientist just as long as its someone that is looking to disprove this but give a fair trial (eg set it up so it can't be faked). it could be all sorts and it could also be that he's faking it (not saying he is). Having the test set up by someone else not associated (like a scientist) would make the videos carry more weight. And as i shown you the test under a bowl is NOT a good test for ruling out other explanations.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis I hate to tell you this but that isn't a duplicate of Darryl's experiment and by the way, you completely missed the point of this video. The point of this video was to test criticism especially with the so-called,"psi-wheel=Crooke's Radiometer" which supposedly moves depending on the brightness of the light and electromagnetic radiation from the hand. This experiment fails to support such criticism...
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces As i've said all i did was show that this test means nothing because its so incredibly easy to break in any number of ways. Until a test is done that is set up by outside observers it doesn't matter what steps you take the only person that can know for sure that you didn't cheat is yourself. Why address this various criticism and rule out these various outside sources? You'll still end up with a video that is basically worthless to other people as proof.
rhubis 2 months ago
There i've uploaded a vid where i move a psiwheel under a glass bowl. If thats what you wanted then fine i've done it. It still proves nothing other than its really REALLY easy to fake.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis So, basically, it comes down to this: you ask for evidence, and when evidence is presented, you say, "Oh but he's faking it anyway." It's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who assumes the worst about another's character.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan No i ask for evidence and you say this should be good enough when its obviously not. The vid is showing that i can do the same thing by faking. If it was in a sealed jar it would be harder to do, if it was set up by someone else in controlled conditions then it would be impossible. You can't prove this via youtube go get it verified by an outside observer and then i'll think you are credible.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis What makes you think I care whether you think I'm credible? Serious question. I made it clear in my video that I'm not interested in anyone's belief. My videos either stimulate interest in the viewer making his own experiments, or they don't. For you, they don't, and that's fine. I honestly don't care.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan also in the vid i said this is how it can be done and that its not proof that it wasn't done by psychic powers, just that this is not proof since it is easily faked.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis
By the way, if I had to take a shot, I'd say you used static electricity. If I'm right, then I would note that Darryl has already discounted that as a possibility in these videos. If not, then I would ask you to tell us how you did it so we can analyze the possibilities.
NSPride1488 2 months ago
@NSPride1488 As i said i could have done it any number of ways, i didn't use static electricity but it might have worked. I could have used wire, i could have used heat under the table, i could have used a tube and a hole in the table. It doesn't matter how i did it just that because i could do it in an hour kinda shows how bad this test is.
rhubis 2 months ago
@NSPride1488 Its why i suggest a while ago that there are any number of better test and the best of all is to go to a scientist (many places are looking for psychic powers) and have an outside observer set up the test.
rhubis 2 months ago
@NSPride1488 Also i wasn't making the vid to show how he could improve the test i made the vid to say that a youtube vid could never be proof because it could always be fake. I'm a skeptic and a youtube vid would never convince me. A test like i've mentioned would not only convince me but would make it known to pretty much everyone that this was a real thing. Also i could make it move as smooth as Darryl but i kinda rushed and uploaded as quick as possible.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis ANYTHING can be faked. I could do a sociology experiment and write up false stats. The real problem here is one of character assassination. You pretend to be interested in what I'm doing, then when the findings don't suit your position, you fall back on an accusation of fraud. In any other branch of scientific enquiry, that kind of backpeddaling would be laughable. Try reading Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe." It contains a wealth of lab evidence for you to ignore.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan You do vids on youtube where you answer critism you say telekinesis is real and try and use scientific evidence or at least pretend to. When the simplest experiments that actually provide credible evidence are suggested? Nope sorry too much. Why the hell would you bother with the experimentation and answering critics if you didn't care about looking credible?
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis Why are you asking me these questions? Because whatever I say will be a lie, won't it? ... You see, this is a conversation that has nowhere productive to go.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan No it can go places. You can answer why an outside observer wouldn't be a good test.
rhubis 2 months ago
@darrylsloan yes anything can be faked but at least an experiment that is set up by an outside observer and monitored has a low chance of being fake. If you could do that then i'd be very very impressed and your message would reach many more people.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis No, I'm pretty sure you would just find another reason to cry fraud.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan So people are supposed to believe you on the basis of easily faked experiments? This is why i'm claiming fraud, you do tests that are easily faked, claim real telekinesis, never do serious scientific tests. Why have you never bothered to show the world outside youtube? Maybe because then you'd actually have to do such tests. You have all these vids promoting skeptism and then cry foul when its pointed towards you.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis I told you I wasn't interested in people's belief, but you don't seem to hear. Seriously, did you even watch the part of this video where I explain my reason for doing these videos?
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan you don't care about peoples belief but make vids answering skeptics? At least let me know if you understand where i'm coming from. Just to be clear i apologise if this is real. I mean nothing by claiming fraud since its just a possibility and its not a slight against you in any way.
rhubis 2 months ago
@darrylsloan Ok i'll approach this from another direction. If you are honestly seeking the answer to what you are doing then why not go to a scientist and actually get it tested? There is only so much you can do on your own. Not to mention the large sums of money you would get when 'something anomalous is discovered' there isn't a downside to getting this check out by outside observers only upsides. If the person also claims fraud then you don't care what he thinks!
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis You speak as if it's a really simple task to get the interest of a legitimate parapsychologist, doing lab work, here in Ireland. Furthermore, PK is erratic at best, which is probably the main reason why it has been resistant to scientific analysis. I am by no means accomplished at this; I've simply had enough personal experience to make it legitimate, to my own satisfaction - which is why I take the stance of encouraging others to experiment. Make of it what you will.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan Ok i step down from this debate. The consensus is that you wouldn't be able to prove this conclusivly and i could not disprove it. I will continue being a skeptic on this subject. Although I will propose a test for you if you would at least consider it. I also hope that while the debate went awry there are no bad feelings here.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis We're good. Actually, this was an unexpected turnaround from you. Skepticism is fine, fully expected and respected from my end, as long as it's a forward-looking skepticism that's willing to consider change, not a pseudo-skepticism that is just defending an established dogmatic mindset. I've dealt with the latter too often, and nowadays I just dismiss them. I meant what I said when I stated that I didn't care for people's belief.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@rhubis As I mentioned before, I seriously recommend checking out Dean Radin - even if you just look him up on YouTube. Might give you some food for thought.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan I will but proof is still the most important factor for my belief in anything and nothing short of repeatable testing under controlled conditions will convince me otherwise. And while telekinesis has never actually done this i still have hope that one day someone will prove me wrong. Also i hope you take up my challange and seek out someone to do some testing on this.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis The most immediate method of proving this to yourself is actually to try it. And by try I mean some consistent disciplined effort over a few weeks. Try the basic method I outline in my "How to do telekinesis" video. Others have reported success.
darrylsloan 2 months ago
@darrylsloan You are coming up with an argument that says "you are assuming i'm a bad person and faking this". What else do i do? Assume you are fully 100% correct and don't try to find alternative explanations? Its called the scientific method. You do an experiment and post results. I then duplicated the results and show that you can do the same thing via trickery thus showing one possible way you are doing it. Address this issue and i won't have a problem (its easy enough).
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis Please do not give me that invisible unicorn rhetorical gambit bullcrap. Your claim is not akin to a stupid invisible pink unicorn. Your claim is in fact testable and falsifiable.
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces If you do want evidence against psychokinesis then: There are no reliable documented cases. The numerous organisations all over the world searching have never found it. No cash prizes offered for demonstrating testable psychic powers has EVER been won. Everyone that has ever come forward to the media saying they can do this stuff has been exposed as a fraud. Does any of this prove psychokinesis doesn't exist? No and there is no evidence that would suffice.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis On the contrary to your belief, your criticism is also considered unjustified due to the lack of substantial evidence. "I don't have to provide evidence against" - A common misconception. The burden of proof lies on a person possessing an unjustified claim regardless of the conotation. You made a claim; therefore, prove it...
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Actually no i said this is probably a scam and that the evidence is not good enough. Go ahead and tell me how i can provide evidence that this is not psychic power. I can link to all kinds of vids that show methods of doing this and not one is proof that its false.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis Of course this video isn't proof, but it is evidence. Now before you start spreading hot-air in the kitchen, I suggest you duplicate this experiment to see if his experiment has any merit. Let's get experimenting!
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@IceAges14Aces You know what? i'm going to take up your challange and duplicate what he does. Brb making a video.
rhubis 2 months ago
@rhubis
The movement of your psi-wheel is nothing at all like Darryl's (his does not wobble back and forth, it turns precisely on its axis). And what's the point of the video if you're not going to tell us how you did it? The whole point was so that, if a genuine problem with his controls was discovered, he could make a point to show that x thing wasn't involved next time.
I do have to give you some credit for actually taking up on the challenge, though, instead of just spewing BS.
NSPride1488 2 months ago
@rhubis Sorry that's a bunch of dogmatic, pseudo-skeptical bullshit. If you want to prove me wrong show me the substantial evidence, not prejudices/assumptions. By the way, your argument is fallacious. Saying if telekinesis is real it would have been discovered already is akin to saying in the 13th century if a New World exist it would have been discovered.
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
good vid! seriously there just pissed because they dont know how to do it! bahaha ... maybe if they could do it they would stfu? prob not they will always have some crap to say, shouldn't let it make ya mad though they are just mad they give up after two experiments because they cant do it.
FireFlies458 2 months ago
I really love this video, especially the part at the end. You say the things I also think, but you have a way of phrasing it better than I ever could.
SteffSoft 3 months ago
wow every one here are nerds
haoliu1999 3 months ago
I don't think it was particularly necessary to perform this seven-day test for sceptics on THEIR behalf. If they have the problem believing that this is unbelievable or fake, then they can run tests to prove it.
I believe that it is very possible, after all, I have met Mysterion and right in front of me can bend a spoon and move objects with his mind. It is absolutely possible. People who don't believe have no chance of understanding.
Apoldelyne891 3 months ago
@Apoldelyne891
It's still good, though, cause now when the pseudos start their BSing, we have this video we can point to: "Look, Darryl himself let the thing sit out for a week and o air or lights moved it."
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg I never said darryl is realible than science, my point is that science need to get their shit straight when publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals. What's even more ironic is that these flawed studies get published and get less attention than parapsychological meta-studies where controls and statistical methodology are much more rigorous than orthodox psychology, medical studies, etc.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg In any case, I strongly agree with the conclusion that darryl needs to be tested; however, the fact that he failed to do so isn't evidence to dismiss him as a fraud.....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
*Darryl, not Dan. Sorry.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
ttyl...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg I never said the standard protocols used in the JREF is unreachable by chance. All I said is it is ridiculous to put set the P at 0.001 and 0.000001 level. No, the odds aren't set up in a reasonable way. P=0.001 is a standard in the preliminary tests' protocols, if not, close to it. Furthermore, P=0.000001 is used in the formal tests, even though nobody has made it due to that idiotic double-standard. Don't believe me? Look up the applicants' protocols in the JREF forum...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Ok fine. Screw the JREF for the moment. How about just demonstrating what it is he can do (with the understanding that it doesn't always work, but with patience it eventually does) to a group of actual people? No need for any controls the first time. Just let him have a crack with a few observers. Any objections to that, as a starter?
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
If we assume that he's not playing a multi-year prank on us (which is entirely possible) the only thing we can learn from these videos is that he doesn't know why what's happening is happening. Going on about "truth claims" is prevarication. Head over to the physics department at your local Uni and let them have a bash at it. I'm fairly sure they'll either figure it out or the experiment won't work under controlled conditions.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg There's nothing wrong with my experimental environment, or the controls I've implemented. You're deflecting, which is, of course, what you have to do.
darrylsloan 3 months ago
@darrylsloan I don't have enough info to deflect. I got into this with you here several years ago and your response was the same. But in all that time you've yet to attempt this under properly controlled conditions, as far as I can tell! Why is that? You are not capable of testing this properly. That's not a slight. Nobody is. To absolutely rule out any role you're inadvertently playing here is to demonstrate a shocking ignorance of methodological bias and how to avoid it. So find a lab.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg Oh, but you do deflect, and you demand that I use a lab without stating a single thing that is wrong with the 150+ hours of data in display here, and you furthermore rely on the suspicion that this is a three-year lie. I know your type. If I went to a lab, there would inevitably be something wrong with that lab, and I would have to do something else to please you.
darrylsloan 3 months ago
@darrylsloan Ok. Great. You've got some amazing ability that seems to demonstrate a hitherto unknown force. The catch is you'll only demonstrate this via youtube videos. Sounds completely reasonable to me. I'll make a few phone calls so we can start getting all the physics textbooks rewritten. And you, you racally devil, you need to start preparing your Nobel acceptance speech. Kudos!
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg If you had done any research into psychic phenomena, you would know that a wealth of experiments have already been done across the 20th century, which statistically indicate that something unusual is happening. Materialists continue to ignore it all, though.
darrylsloan 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg A research being conducted in a lab by scientists doesn't mean the bias is magically gone. I have seen scientific, peer-reviewed lab studies that suffer from methodological, cognitive, and statistical biases. One good example of such are psychological and clinical studies. Most of these psychological and clinical studies suffer from methodological bias (e.g. lack of realism in blindness), cognitive bias (e.g. exaggeration), and statistical bias (publication bias).
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Well, whatever errors they may have made these papers are open to scrutiny. You were able to find issues without much trouble, right? Are you trying to suggest that science, for all its faults, is a less reliable system than a guy posting videos on youtube that claim to demonstrate an anomaly which, if genuine, could force us to rethink entire branches of the sciences, but who refuses to properly demonstrate it? I think you believe him on a hunch, and that's it.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
Obviously it's not psychokinesis. Obviously.
Its ghosts.
CalebBooker 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 What kind of experimenter would find a possible effect at the P=0.001 and all of a sudden raise the bar up to P=0.000001??? Seriously, who the hell does that? That's not how science work. Science works by testing a hypothesis, replicating it under large, controlled trials, and drawing a conclusion. Real science is always under falsification, JREF doesn't attempt to falsify, but prove which makes it a pseudoscience...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Well-said! The JREF One Million Dollar Challenge isn't really scientific since it lacks replication, and substantial Bayesian Statistics. The tests are corrupted due to the double-standard P=0.001 (1,000 to 1) and if passed, P=0.000001 (million to one), otherwise fail. JREF claims to have expert statisticians; however, such statisticians know that setting the bar that high with small samples is ludicrous and insane. Pseudo-science and bigotry at its finest..
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Wrong. They'll accept as a "win" something which could happen completely by chance. Depending on the claim being made, the odds are well withing a reasonable range that someone could luck into completing whatever task has been agreed to. Matching personality profiles with test subjects is the one that comes to mind. All you have to do is go in, perform your skill under agreed-upon conditions to prevent cheating (deliberate or otherwise) and stump everybody.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces ...The challenge has clearly stated objective: if someone can do their thing despite the controls put in place to prevent chicanery, they'll hand over a million bucks. Should someone win it's not the same as demonstrating that something paranormal has taken place. The JREF know this and so should anybody with the slightest bit of common sense. They are of the opinion that there is no paranormal. And they've put their money where their mouths are, where it sits, appreciating.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg What you told me regarding the objective in the challenge seems to contradict what the challenge really is all about. The challenge is just a challenge for anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal/supernatural under control conditions, nothing less nothing more. In addition, the actual odds of passing the preliminary and formal tests without failing is quite frankly a billion to one. The odds of winning this by pure luck is much more unlikely than winning the lottery....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
You should hook yourself up to electricity and power your magnificence that way...
With one lead on each temple you can really power your M--I--NNNN---DDD do it live on YOUTUBE I would watch...
Magcomplex 3 months ago
He must be using his telekinetic abilities to keep it from moving! THATS WHY IT ISNT MOVING!
uberfeeser 3 months ago
wow ur in denial
myhandisburned 3 months ago
@myhandisburned In your world? Yes. In reality? No.
By the way, you should eat your own words, honestly.....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
It's so funny that anyone would have more faith in JREF than Darryl, considering Darryl conducts multiple trials (JREF expects to have ONE SINGLE TRIAL to prove psychic power - stupid pseudo-science), checks for errors, examines possible control faults - and comes off as very credible. Bottom line: Why should we trust Randi more than this guy, who conducts his experiments out in the open, shows us his work area to prove it's not rigged - bottom line is, Randi is like god to the pseudo-skeptics
NSPride1488 3 months ago 2
@NSPride1488 If I'm not mistaken, Darryl is still doing all of this by himself. Unless he's brought in some outside people, allowed them to set up an environment that precludes any trickery to the best of their ability, and still been able to move the foil you can't say that any real trials have taken place. And even if he did manage what I just described, the next step wouldn't be to conclude anything paranormal. Scientists have a great track record when it comes to figuring things out.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Darryl has been very open about every possibility. It doesn't matter if you *think* there is trickery involved or not; it would still have to be done somehow. Considering he's precluded environmental disturbances, magnets, wind, static electricity, heat, strings, air tubes and all this good stuff, feel free to come tell us how he's managing it.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Ugh. For the same reason that clinical drug trials don't work unless they're double blinded - even if you think you've taken everything into account and are trying to remain unbiased experience has taught us this just isn't the case. Look. I don't think there's anything to this but only because this is following the same sad trajectory as every other miraculous claim. But I think it would be awesome if I were wrong, and the only way to know is to test this properly.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 One last thing. I doubt Darryl is trying to con us. But I do wonder why, if he's convinced something weird is happening, he would sit on it for 3 years without looking for advice from people who could set things up so it's dramatically less likely he could be playing a part in the motion. Unless he's knows he can't set up a proper test without relenquishing control himself. And anybody who would sit on something this huge is either an idiot or an asshole.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 So you want me to guess, but you think my desire to have a look in person, or have other people do it by proxy, is somehow unreasonable? Why should I have to guess? When Edison started making lightbulbs did he force people to guess how he might or might not be doing it? No. He made a bunch of bulbs and said, "here, knock yourselves out. Enjoy reading at night." Darryl's agoraphobia is suspicious, don't you think?
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Please quote to me where I said it was unreasonable to want to study this phenomenon, or to want to see it in person. I'd love to know. Well, as for seeing it, why don't you take a trip to Ireland? It'd be a great place to go, and while you're there, maybe Darryl will let you stop by and have a look. But it all goes back to the fact that this doesn't succeed every time. If he failed, you would immediately assume you were right all along, which would not definitely be true.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
What you seem to have is a pseudo-religious belief centering around scientists. Who cares who's conducting the study? No, this is not conclusive, scientific, absolute proof of telekinesis, but the man has run multiple trials, examined possible control faults, and has a camera running on him while he's doing it, and he always shows us his work area and his psi-wheel in every video.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Quite the opposite is true. Every scientist on the planet would fight to get access to the data, to verify everything was taken into account, to be part of the team that might figure out something that will end up being taught in history classes. As an aside, it's really odd the way you religious people, whenever you disagree with someone's belief, describe it as "religious." "Atheism is a religion etc." Doesn't say much for your faith when you can use it as an insult.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
It's a very solid experiment - better than all the crap both career psychic swindlers and pseudo-skeptics like Randi have ever run - and I seriously doubt you can give us one solid reason to actively doubt the authenticity of these tests, other than "they haven't been done under laboratory conditions by men with a piece of paper from a university that says we can trust them." Why would you trust any third party more than your own eyes?
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Look. There are only 3 possibilities. Either it's a con, or he's been sloppy somewhere without knowing it, or the effect is real. If it's A then he should be taken down. If it's B then he deserves to know. And if it's C he's just discovered something completely outside our current understanding, something any scientist dreams of witnessing firsthand and early. You claim, without evidence, that any success would be brushed aside with excuses. ---------->
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
debunkingskeptics[dot]com and near-death[dot]org are excellent sites with plenty of info on various scientific studies that have already tested these claims. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who conceded that remote viewing, for example, has already been scientifically proven, but he wants "extraordinary evidence."
And as for calling atheism a religion - I am not religious. I am Pagan; I follow an ancestral tradition. I do not follow any dogma that restricts my thinking.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Last thing, for now - I've got to run. But if this is real don't you want to understand it? Don't you want to know what's really going on? To predict, without even a proper examination, that it's simply "paranormal" and therefore not explicable seems like a fairly arrogant position to take, if that's what you currently believe. I'll look at those sites, and the criticism I'm sure is also out there. But if it's been verified, why aren't there 10000 research projects ongoing?
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
However, pseudo-skeptics follow the dogma that there absolutely must not be anything out of the ordinary in the universe, which DOES restrict their thinking. Hence they are pseudo-religious, not I.
I also don't see how you could claim that something outside of his control is causing the psi-wheel to turn, considering he just let it sit for a week and it didn't move one milimeter.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 God this is frustrating. I'm not saying that something outside his control is causing (etc.) I'm saying that currently nobody can say for sure that it isn't. I can only speak for myself, trained in science, and the many scientists I know regarding things "out of the ordinary." We are trained not to think like that. It's not in our interests to do so. All we're interested in is what IS. Unsubstantiated predictions of a hushup demonstrate you're not as dogma free as you think.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Currently, nobody can say it for sure, because a guy with a paper hasn't given you his word? Maybe not scientifically, but even you must admit, this is a lot more solid of evidence than most of the crap you get on YouTube. You're not even willing to concede that this is evidence of a sort, if not hard, cold, lab evidence?
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 I'm saying that I'd like to to investigate it properly. And if he continues to refuse to adequately demonstrate these abilities I'll be forced to conclude it's a sham. If I were completely closed-minded I would have no interest in looking into this. I had a look at one of those sites, by the way. In the thread about D on debunkingskeptics the consensus is converging on "conman." The site admin is an oddball - he writes gushing posts but refuses to discuss anything ----->
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
And there's nothing unsubstantiated about it. The Debunking Skeptics site is full of info on tricks pulled by pseudo-skeptical liars like James Randi to quiet down possible evidence for psi. It's also important to note that I am NOT saying that any scientist in any lab would skew results against psi, I'm just saying that if Darryl couldn't do it, it would give ammo to the skeptics.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
In this "battle" between pseudo-skepticism and rationality, the biggest success does almost nothing for our side, while our slightest failure gives a proverbial nuclear bomb to the pseudo-skeptics. That's why it's a waste of his time, since he himself has said he often cannot get results, and if he failed in a lab, reasonable scientists might not take it as a heavy blow against psi, but pseudo-skeptics, with media exposure, would, and it would be very damaging.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
I certainly want to understand it. I am a Pagan, and that means I respect and honor science and scientists. I am curious about the world around me. But it is you, not I, who insists that it would have to be called "paranormal." I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. Of course there is a mechanism for it, otherwise it would not happen. I am only saying that it would prove that there are forces in this universe beyond those we affect and perceive with our five senses.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Dude, I think the words "paranormal" and "supernatural" are meaningless, at least as they're commonly used. Either something happens or it doesn't. If it does, any lack of understanding on our part doesn't make it any less real or natural. I think you're abdicating your responsibility to form an informed opinion about this - that is, if you care about the truth. Worst case - D is just a conman and there's no way you or I would be able to tell based on the information we have.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Are you even bothering to read my comments? I am agreeing with you for crying out loud... and I still don't get why you won't concede that this is good evidence for psi, though it's perhaps not *scientific* evidence? Even you must admit this is better than the other crap you see around here. Darryl is certainly concerned with making sure the testing environment is rigorous (unless you want to assume he's a liar from the get-go).
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
I am not the one responsible for any research projects or lack thereof. Your guess is as good as mine, however, there ARE research projects happening in regards to this, and projects that have happened - such as PEAR - and gotten statistically significant results. Or projects like autoganzfeld, that ran thousands of trials and got significant results. There is no reason not to consider the evidence of both sides, and right now, skepticism is quite lacking.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
As for not going in to a lab - this isn't a test of gravity that's always go to be true 100% of the time. What if he couldn't reproduce it in a lab? It would be used by pseudo-skeptics as ammunition against psi, even though it's possible he just couldn't manage it that particular time. He himself said it doesn't work that often. Again, feel free to tell us what's wrong with his controls.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 The proiblem with his controls is that he's set them up. This prevents us from knowing that there isn't something else going on. It might convince him, but it shouldn't convince you. I mean it's fine if you just want to have a little anecdote about a guy who could do these things. But if you want to KNOW, you can't be so sloppy. I've chopped up a quote from that site which people there seem to agree with. It's precisely what I've been saying. Chopped up for length only --->
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 "He...says that he can't do this every time...It could be there is something about the wheel...that has nothing to do with Darryl's ... telekinesis... Perhaps his sucesses are...coincidences. That is not good skepticism. He should be doing experiments to try to falsify his telekinesesis theory. He has no idea if he is deluding himself or not. He is well spoken and makes enjoyable videos, but that is not enough." This is exactly my position. That you disagree boggles my mind.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
You are really destroying your credibility here. If you bothered to watch any of Darryl's videos, you'd know he HAS done experiments to try to falsify his theory. Hell, what do you call this video we're on right now? I love the "it could be there is something about the wheel." LOL. Yeah, something about a piece of tinfoil on a pin that makes it move when Dan is sitting and trying, but not when it sits in the middle of his house for seven days straight.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 You do realize that my comment was a quote from the site you gave me, one which represents the consensus of the thread about him, with the exception of the site admin, who just posts the videos and ignores anything substantial said in the other comments? Instead he just posts another comment about how Darryl is the real deal, generating more frustrated responses, which he then ignores.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
I really couldn't care less about your quoting other pseudo-skeptics. Fine, why don't you watch this vid: watch?v=aD3BPAbEYsA
That is from this site: fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/
So you know it is not faked; it is not even run on his computer...
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
The fact that you embrace this kind of ridiculous pseudo-skepticism boggles MY mind.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Dude, you recommended the site. And I'm agreeing with them. Why would you recommend I go to a site with which you completely disagree?
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
There are pseudo-skeptics on that site as well. I think you'll find that not everyone there would agree with that assessment. And I linked you to that site mostly for the resources linking to studies that have been done on psi. And please don't be intentionally obtuse by trying to say I "completely disagree" with the site. You know that's BS, so please keep it to yourself.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 I get it now. People who agree with you are true skeptics. Those who don't are pseudo skeptics. Are you open to the possibility that you're in the wrong here? I certainly am, although Daryl isn't being very helpful in terms of transparency. I think it would be amazing if such powers existed. But so far they only seem to on little youtube videos. That might be enough to convince you, but it shouldn't be. You're bound to be taken advantage of at some point in your life.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Not true. People who don't follow ridiculous dogma are true skeptics, whether they agree with me or not. You are, in fact, astonished at the highly credible results (NOTE: highly credible, not definite proof) of these experiments because of Darryl's thorough methodology, but not only are so bound up in dogma to admit but, but you also, despite all your claims, cannot name one single possible way this could be faked that he hasn't debunked or precluded. Ridiculous.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
After all, it's not going to be much different in a lab, except that you won't be able to see the tests being conducted, and you'll have the word of some guy with a piece of paper that says he knows what he's doing to go on, instead of a live video of repeated experiments that show the work area and examine controls for you to see for yourself.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 What's with this distrust of all scientists? Do you think that if the 3 or 4 who might take an interest were baffled they would cover it up somehow? What for? Scientists spend their careers looking for anomalies 1/1000th this magnitude. And again, I'm not saying there is some hocus pocus going on with the vids. But surely you understand that we can't know there isn't, and how easy trickery would be. So you've chosen to trust Darryl over the scientists. I trust them equally.
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
If you would have waited to reply until I was finished posting all my comments, you would see in the third comment I made that I specifically said I'm NOT saying all scientists skew the results, I'm saying pseudo-skeptics, who are unfortunately the ones who get the most media exposure, use results of all experiments in a way that benefits their viewpoint. Many scientists and studies report accurately and get statistically significant results.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@NSPride1488 Because "my own eyes" are nowhere near his demonstrations. All I have is some youtube videos. Surely you don't believe that such things aren't easily faked? Plus, what good does this purported phenomenon do anyone if nobody can study it? Aren't you interested, if it is what he says it is, in possibly understanding what forces are in play? Have you no curiosity?
etherbingedotorg 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
Are you going to play the fool and act as if I haven't addressed 75% of what you just said ages ago? I know all about video faking and editing. I also know, and HAVE SAID, that is is not 100% scientific proof. What I am saying is that is is very good evidence unless you want to take the position that this man is intentionally lying to you. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your comment because I already addressed all of this many times before now.
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
The fact is that, because you cannot name one possible way this could have been faked that Darryl hasn't already addressed, you have to resort to your only two retreats: One, the video could have been faked, and two, it hasn't been done in a laboratory, which are both pretty pathetic excuses not to at least say "this is good evidence, assuming he isn't an outright liar, because he has explored all likely control faults and has repeated the experiment multiple times."
NSPride1488 3 months ago
@etherbingedotorg
And even if he did this in a lab, I'm sure you and others would have plenty of excuses, such as "there were problems with control," or "the results were skewed in favor of psi." There really is no pleasing pseudo-skeptics.
NSPride1488