Nina Kulagina and documented psychokinesis

So it can only be his Chi energy.
If by "Chi energy" you mean perhaps something he puts at the bottom of the crumpled paper, then sure, I'd think that reasonable. As soon as the narrator said that they went outside for the demonstration my alarm-bells were going off. Somewhere where the temperature might be, you know, hotter than the air-conditioned interiors... hot enough for, you know, something to ignite, maybe?

In my view it's some chemical compound for sure, and not just paper. Some form of phosphorous is most likely. Paper doesn't ignite nor burn the way it does in the video: it looks chemically-assisted, there's a release of far more smoke than you'd get from just newspaper, (if it was Chi igniting the paper you would just have paper burning, and the smoke would only start after a noticeable period. Try it yourself). You'll also note the way he "crumpled" the newspaper intially was entirely consistent with him crumpling it around something. So it looks fake.

Even ignoring my analysis, your "it can only be his Chi energy" is simply wrong: any magician worth their salt can show you how it could be done (if magicians were in to showing you how their tricks worked). Now, if he could repeat this demonstration in a lab-controlled environment, that would be good. But all we're left with is a single video that does not leave the demonstration open to further investigation. How convenient.

So find us a video of a lab-controlled demonstration, if you can. Otherwise... meh.
;)
 
As soon as the narrator said that they went outside for the demonstration my alarm-bells were going off. Somewhere where the temperature might be, you know, hotter than the air-conditioned interiors... hot enough for, you know, something to ignite, maybe?

Or simply not wanting to set the indoors on fire and smoke it up. If you were going to ignite a newspaper with your open hand, wouldn't you do it outside?

In my view it's some chemical compound for sure, and not just paper. Some form of phosphorous is most likely.

How does phosphorous ignite? Just by itself when in contact with paper? We clearly see in the video he merely wads the paper up. There is nothing inside of it. At that point the paper would've burst into flames. Instead we see it happen only as he touches the paper with his open hand. Nothing is added to the paper. It simply ignites from his Chi energy.

there's a release of far more smoke than you'd get from just newspaper, (if it was Chi igniting the paper you would just have paper burning, and the smoke would only start after a noticeable period. Try it yourself).

Pretty sure smoke starts before anything bursts into flame. That's my experience at least.

Even ignoring my analysis, your "it can only be his Chi energy" is simply wrong: any magician worth their salt can show you how it could be done (if magicians were in to showing you how their tricks worked). Now, if he could repeat this demonstration in a lab-controlled environment, that would be good. But all we're left with is a single video that does not leave the demonstration open to further investigation. How convenient.

I've never seen a magician ignite a wadded up newspaper with his open hand. And it's a typical copout by skeptics to demand everything be conducted in a lab. If you won't believe it when you see it done on film, then a lab will make no difference. You'll simply accuse the lab of faking their results, and so on and so on. How convenient. ;)

Addendum: I just watched this video of phosphorous igniting. It is very distinctive in emitting sparks and a white flame. Not the red flame we see in the video. It also ignites within seconds when in contact with air. There is no way there could be a piece of it there hidden somehow without it igniting immediately. The newspaper only ignites as he puts his hand over it.

 
Last edited:
Nope...he crumples up the newspaper and puts his open hand on the newspaper and is obviously not adding potassium manganate and glycerin at any point. And the reaction of glycerin with potassium manganate produces a distinctive sparkly white flame unlike the paper which simply lights on fire. See below.. So it can only be his Chi energy.

Wrong, both fires are pretty much the same. Debunked.
 
And it's a typical copout by skeptics to demand everything be conducted in a lab. If you won't believe it when you see it done on film, then a lab will make no difference. You'll simply accuse the lab of faking their results, and so on and so on. How convenient.
The point of lab-controlled experiments is precisely to remove all possible trickery. It's why so many charlatans refuse to do them, and why no psychic phenomenon has ever been demonstrated in a suitably-controlled lab.
Addendum: I just watched this video of phosphorous igniting.
Noone is suggesting that it is a lump of phosphorus that is being used.Try looking up phosphorus dissolved in carbon disulfide. You can paint it on to paper and once the carbon disulfide evaporates, the phosphorus ignites.
Try this video (from 1948) and appreciate the similarity:

I await you arguing that because it is not 100% identical to the "chi" demonstration that it can be dismissed. ;)

But remember, the point is not that anyone is saying that it definitely was some form of phosphorus, only that this is one possible way of achieving the same result. There are possibly others. Just go ask a magician. The point is that since there are less extraordinary means, one should not jump to "it can only be Chi!"
Believe it is Chi if you want. You're not harming anyone by simply believing it, after all.
 
You can paint it on to paper and once the carbon disulfide evaporates, the phosphorus ignites.

The newspaper belonged to the film makers. We see Jack tearing a sheet of it and wadding it up. There was no time for him to paint some chemical on it that would moments later ignite. Unless you want to accuse the film makers of hoaxing it all and editing out the moments he prepped the newspaper. I find that all too unlikely. To me Jack exudes the utmost integrity and credibility, even regretting "showing off" his abilities for the film makers.

The point is that since there are less extraordinary means, one should not jump to "it can only be Chi!"

There's not many means left once we accept what the video shows, of Jack simply igniting a newspaper given to him by putting his open hand over it. Everything else assumes some secret insertion of a chemical, which he clearly didn't do.

Believe it is Chi if you want. You're not harming anyone by simply believing it, after all.

This striking case, along with the other three posted in this thread, suffice to prove to me that humans can sometimes emit, either voluntarily or nonvoluntarily, non-physical PK energy that has noticeable physical effects on various objects. I WILL believe it based on these cases and will indeed do nobody any harm in doing so. Tks!
 
Last edited:
It beats your logic that it therefore can't be his Chi energy. Did you see him shocking all the people who touched him? Do you think they were faking it?
You're still not understanding the false dichotomy thing.

I get that you desperately want it to be Chi, but there are many other potential explanations. For example, how did you rule out intervention by ghosts? How did you rule out alien intervention? How did you rule out other chemical reactions? How did you rule out trick paper? How did you rule out a faked video? etc. etc.
 
You're still not understanding the false dichotomy thing.

I get that you desperately want it to be Chi, but there are many other potential explanations. For example, how did you rule out intervention by ghosts? How did you rule out alien intervention? How did you rule out other chemical reactions? How did you rule out trick paper? How did you rule out a faked video? etc. etc.
I ruled out all that by watching the video. A man who has trained for years in Qijong places his palm over the newspaper and exerts his chi and it ignites. That pretty much clinches it for me. Anything else is just disingenuous attempts at debunkery.
 
This thread reminded me of what happens when a Chi master tried his magic vs an actual fighter.
Enjoy your fantasy, MR.
 
I ruled out all that by watching the video. A man who has trained for years in Qijong places his palm over the newspaper and exerts his chi and it ignites. That pretty much clinches it for me. Anything else is just disingenuous attempts at debunkery.
Then, by your own words, you extend that out to everything you post here that "clinches it" for you and that any attempt from anyone to show you facts and evidence will always be considered "disingenuous attempts at debunkery"

Congratulations! You have reached the pinnacle of confirmation bias. Your work here is done, you have successfully, severely and irreversibly brainwashed yourself, isolated and diminished of any chance for redemption. You are minister without portfolio forever to wander in the land of Nod.

Look at the bright side, when dementia eventually sets in, no one will notice.
 
Then, by your own words, you extend that out to everything you post here that "clinches it" for you and that any attempt from anyone to show you facts and evidence will always be considered "disingenuous attempts at debunkery"

Duh yeah. I only post the evidence I find convincing. Why would I do otherwise?
 
Duh yeah. I only post the evidence I find convincing. Why would I do otherwise?
Yes, but it was the other part you admitted, the fact that no matter what anyone says or presents to you, it will be flatly ignored, no matter how wrong you might be. We already know you're deluded but to just seal yourself up in a bubble benefits no one, least of all you.

So, what's the point of you even being here?
 
Yes, but it was the other part you admitted, the fact that no matter what anyone says or presents to you,

The moment something is properly debunked I'll admit it. But simply making up possible scenarios based on no evidence whatsoever isn't debunking anything. So I remain convinced of the evidence just as I should be..
 
Back
Top