What do you think? Can someone who's experienced tell me if this is the real deal? Cause even a lot of the well-known people like Trebor Seven don't do anything this dramatic. (Which I do wonder about, if they say it's possible--you'd think they'd have the necessary experience by now.)
EDIT: In this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgSr7H6j4_U) someone in the comments pointed out that a fly (?) disappears from the table at 0:46. The weird thing is there doesn't seem to be any other kind of cut there or anything, and the fly (or whatever it is) moves into the frame in a weird way earlier in the video. Anyone have any thoughts on that? When I first saw it I was thinking "aww it obviously vanished, that means it's fake :(" but then I noticed how nothing else seems to cut like that.
-- Edited by flarn2006 on Saturday 1st of September 2018 06:15:33 AM
By looking image by image, the fly flies very quickly, there is no video cut. The way the object moves, it's more like a magic trick with invisible thread.
At 0:46 it just vanishes from the table in a single frame. Also, are you sure he's using thread? He does some stuff that wouldn't work if it was thread; look at the comments.
What do you think? Can someone who's experienced tell me if this is the real deal? Cause even a lot of the well-known people like Trebor Seven don't do anything this dramatic. (Which I do wonder about, if they say it's possible--you'd think they'd have the necessary experience by now.)
...
Being well-known doesn't help there.
Also, why would you trust someone else telling you what is and what isn't possible? That would only spoil the adventure ;).
Perhaps you would like to try the following:
Watch the videos while concentrating on the object, trying to feel the psi fields and imagining that it's you levitating the object.
I did feel the psi on at least some of the videos, so for me it's real enough to be of help.
__________________
The unreal hath no being; there is no non-being of the Real; ~Krishna
A stable-minded person will neither hug nor hate the world, he will take things as they come.
Good point; I was just going by the fact that the most well-known people who do tutorials would probably statistically be among the best at what they're teaching. I was more expressing surprise that the people who do more dramatic stuff aren't the more well-known among them.
Am I debunking the previously posted YouTuber by showing an illusionist/mentalist video which seems similar? Perhaps I am, or perhaps the debunking video is a mechanical way to achieve the same effects.
Is this levitation video real?
I think that it doesn't matter whether the videos are real, because you cannot prove the veracity one way or another. I think videos can be useful if they inspire you, & much more useful if the video author tells you how to replicate what was seen. So, my main point is to trust your own direct experience above videos. This means practice more & spectate less.
Start small with psi experiments that you yourself can replicate & verify; making a real experience for yourself which no one can take from you. Rely on that direct personal experience as a foundation to build upon. Add more complex & powerful experiments over time, if you find it interesting. You may discover if you are disciplined, that your direct experiences surpass what is shown in these videos, or what you may have even considered:)
__________________
"Worry about self delusion, after you have succeeded." -Owltwelve
Great point about it not mattering whether or not a specific video is real; that makes perfect sense. Though part of it was that I'm real curious what exactly the real.thing looks like, and I'd really like to see. If anyone knows of any videos that you think are likely real and do show something real dramatic like the ones I linked, please share! The one you posted is real interesting, owl. I guess it makes sense that it would look similar to that, if that video is real.
Do you think that levitation video with the monk is real? You'd know better than me; haven't you seen the real thing in person? Again, not that it matters if that specific video is real, but if you think it looks enough like the real thing to be indistinguishable at the very least, then I know what it looks like. :)
One thing I'm curious about in that video; the guy says "I know you don't want to teach me" or something to that effect. But why not? Why wouldn't they want to teach him? (Also how did he find that monk? If he found an opportunity to witness it, couldn't I as well? But I guess on second thought if I have to stand back then I might as well just be seeing a convincing magic trick.)
Even if I told you I thought the monk video is real; that still is not the same as you yourself knowing that it's real, it's just hearsay & belief. You could chase videos or demonstrations for years & get no closer to actually doing it yourself. Don't depend on videos; make it your business to levitate by your own will. I can tell you what I've experienced & how to replicate the same experiments; then the rest is on your on work ethic.
There are essentially two methods of levitation:
1. Biofield/chi levitation, which depends on ecstatic energy density.
2. Concentration & absorption on a substance(there are many such substances) which would lead to decreased mass or buoyancy.
These separate methods may possibly be combined; I'm personally investigating. Though in either case, the effort is deep. Therefore, as I mentioned it's helpful if you start smaller to build a foundation of personal experience to build upon:)
__________________
"Worry about self delusion, after you have succeeded." -Owltwelve
Interesting that you distinguish the two methods. I haven't thought about it like that. I used to consider energy density as the effect of concentration & absorption.
@flarn2006: It's cool that the same can be derived from the scientific method as well.
The results would be so "surprising" that it warrants a lot of independent replication experiments. Also, there are a lot of unknown factors affecting the replication that still need to be figured out. Only when the methodology is more-or-less clear, does it make sense to publish the results for peer review (basically verification that no experimental errors or methodology mistakes slipped in).
Thus far we only have the hypothesis (human levitation is impossible) and a few scattered experimental results that seem to indicate that the hypothesis does not hold water. However, since the experiments "published" thus far are so difficult to replicate that there is still the doubt whether or not the experiments were conducted correctly. Whether there's a person claiming it's true or not, doesn't make any difference. Just need more independent experiments and some ingenuity to figure out a good methodology for reproduction.
Edit: That's my take on the healthy scientific skepticism.
-- Edited by Sussch on Sunday 2nd of September 2018 12:53:36 PM
__________________
The unreal hath no being; there is no non-being of the Real; ~Krishna
A stable-minded person will neither hug nor hate the world, he will take things as they come.
There is this guy who made himself known in 2008 for his levitation of a pencil.
In the first video he shows as best he can that there is no rigging. The second video is more impressive.
Attention because it is not Vincent De Tarle in the 2 videos. The guy in the videos was BenPK. I remember that Vincent kept the videos of BenPK and his progress in telekinesis. He also kept the BenPK exchange on a forum about these 2 levitation videos.