Thursday, November 12, 2015

... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting the Difference

Series with Dimond Brothers: 
On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting Difference

Video commented on
(or start of it, since it is long)
“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists

Intro and first minutes
"these acts are impossible for a human being to perform without the assistance of a spirit or spirits"

Are you sure of that? Btw, I have not yet seen the video.

3:59 cards - sleeves?

Does not look like that, but if it looked like it, it would be a bungler.

I tried to learn this kind of sleight of hand, never came any way, and I consider this as due to my clumsiness.

4:31 Here is the explanation of wikipedia:

Wickipeejuh : Bian lian (face changing)

4:58 He doesn't even touch his face ... BUT, does he touch his hat?

"The actor can pull down a mask which has previously been hidden on top of his head, changing his face to red, green, blue or black to express happiness, hate, anger or sadness, respectively."

If there is a mechanism tied to the hat, he can avoid touching the face as such.

5:23 "Only" three days?

That is MUCH more time than I spent on any magic trick those months or years before becoming a Christian when I was interested.

If the trick is to learn one or two or three very exact gestures, like biking, you don't expect the learning process to take months or years.

5:29 Here obviously he is making a mechanism work by the shake on his head.

5:48 You did NOT mention any camera taking him from the SIDE so as to discover if when flapping the cape he touches some protruding part of the hat?

6:10 "You can see that there aren't any masks in the hat they wear".

You can rather see that there aren't any masks lying about loose in the hat they wear. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Have they ever allowed anyone in the audience to actually touch and manipulate their hats?

With your attitude, the cokaine and heroine pushers should just hope for a man like you to become policeman and to do the job without a dog. A dog could sniff the stuff, if trained, but you are not the guy to spot the hiding place by sight.

7:34 Slow down the recording?

Anyone tried the technique called ultra rapid?

In celluloid film, you can take normally 18 or 24 images per second.

BUT if you instead take 48 or 96 images per second and show normally 24 images per second, you do purposefully slow down the viewing, since the uptake was more detailed.

The magicians who "admit" using spirits are very probably not admitting but bragging.

They are not concerned with Catholic moralists who would take such a claim as an admission, they are concerned with the public who will be tickled.

Of course that is sinful too, but not half as bad as actually doing what they brag and you say "they even admit".

11:25 Not yet sure how DC does that table act, but I think screwing the cloth in the middle may have involved screwing a button.

If those putting their fingers on it are in fact part of a conspiracy, they could be hiding magnets in the finger tips. [on, perhaps, rather than in] Just ONE suggestion, not sure it is the right one.

12:45, a little before.
The house of prostitutes struck by a lightning and ALL the prostitutes killed?

I do not believe the story.

To me, he has not collected a piece of a house recording a judgement of God, to me he has made a few shackles and made up a wild story.

You seem to be proud of NOT reading Tolkien, but someone who had might not be as gullible as to believe his story.

AGAIN, he is not admitting very bad spiritual contacts he has had, he is inventing stories for fun, which in this connexion might even be sinful stories, but not as sinful as actually collecting such a memorial of a judgement of God (even presuming God would so judge prostitutes!) and debasing the wood which had touched their deaths with invocations of real demons.

As I was unable to post yesterday, since internet time broke off, I did a research on Barclay House, none of the wiki articles with that name fitted the diescription given by Copperfield.

Have you EVER tried to verify in a news article if that house and that fire after a lightning struck ever existed and happened?

Again, though it may be sinful to pretend to be fiddling with items from such a house for magical purposes, it is very much less sinful than actually doing so, so how about verifying D C is as culpable as he claims for show biz purposes?

There was in Sweden a man who was condemned to psychiatric treatment after murders with cannibalism according to his own confessions. THEN one day he confessed a murder he simply COULD not have committed and gave details that demonstrably WERE not true, this invalidated all his confessions (but alas not the mental treatment which had prompted them, except for first?) and now he is a free man.

If there never WAS such a house, if NO brothel burned down killing all the harlots in a fire after a lightning, then D C CANNOT be guilty of fiddling with remains of such a house either. Ever tried that kind of fact checking?

Vaticancatholic to me
No, it's through the assistance of spirits, as the video explains. To deny that is to demonstrate your blindness and dishonesty.


My response I have been watching the first minutes of the video, and so far you have demonstrated your blindness as detectives.

Note very well that I do very much NOT deny there is a spiritual world.

I do NOT in principle deny the possibility of magic in the extremely sinful sense, as in asking evil spirits to do false wonders for you.

I have made myself a target of mockery in "Enlightened" France because I think a priest of Ceres conjured up a demon that took a shape consisting of minerals and by moving which the demon "ate" up persons (though the minerals can hardly have been digesting it), and this monstrosity fled only because the demon was afraid of St Front, bishop of Perigueux.

I also believe that the hydra which Hercules and Iolaus are said to have killed was a demonic illusion, but one which really happened, and one which is the same demon as is shown in Apocalypse as a beast with several heads, or at least a demon taking same sort of shape.

After that I am less sure whether it was granted to Hercules and Iolaus to kill the bodily shape of that demon by strength and firebrands or whether Hercules had a deal with the father of lies, according to which the monster disappeared when Hercules had been there so that he could pass as having been the monster killer. I do believe he killed monsters of non-demonic basic natures.

I only think that you are HASTY in judging where the demonic is.

I think there were thin masks of cloth hidden within that inside stuffing of the hat, and I think the horns on most hats have a function in making a nudge of the head work the change of a mask. The horns are movable, and act like amplifiers of the nudge. When ALL masks finally go OFF and the real face appears, each time the face was hidden behind a fan so that he could have made a closer gesture without this showing. It may also have been a second slower, since two seconds the face was covered by a fan.

This is NOT a case like irreducible complexity of cells.

In other cases, the face was coloured, and then the fan would have been hiding the washing off by water, when the face finally appeared.

And I notified them : Here is the post about this debate:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting the Difference

Vatican Catholic to me
You are a blind, faithless and foolish. Just the Mat Franco 'tricks' alone prove that you have a darkened mind. The problem is that you think you are wise, but you are actually quite dumb in God's sight (a fool), as your numerous previous errors and fallacious comments have illustrated. You are of the Devil.

Me to them
"You are a blind, faithless and foolish."

God bless you too!

"Just the Mat Franco 'tricks' alone prove that you have a darkened mind."

Or that I am still on David Copperfield.

"The problem is that you think you are wise"

No, usually I think just that I am right.

OK, I may well have been wise when reading BERGOGLIO in ASCII Code, according to St John's words.

"but you are actually quite dumb in God's sight (a fool)"

What Bible or Traditional verse or other locus would you base that on?

I have not said "there is no God", for one. But perhaps you accuse me of saying it "in my heart" rather than with my mind?

"as your numerous previous errors and fallacious comments have illustrated."

None of which you have successfully condemned. Your defense of Feeneyist condemnations of me would also condemn a passage by St Pius X. And do NOT give me the canard that he never wrote the passage on "soul of the Church", he did.

Also, you would have to condemn not only Newman, but also Busenbaum whose Medulla Theologiae Moralis he quoted.

But that is ONE supposed "error", and you spoke of "numerous ones".

"You are of the Devil."

Christ said His disciples would hear that from Pharisees. God bless you too!

No comments: