This sub is a community of people with strong critical thinking skills, and I have been very confused by some of Max’s tricks, so I thought as a community we could work off each other’s ideas and potentially figure out how these tricks can be done.

This is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUEB-_4qS2s

Quick note: obviously, all of these tricks could be done if all of Kai’s crew were in on it. But in my opinion, the reactions all seemed truly genuine. Granted, all these streamers are essentially actors.

Below, I am going to write how I think each trick was done, along with timestamps and other useful information.

First trick (mentalism) 0:58:
Genuinely no idea! I would say something like a thumb writer or special notepad (although it looks like thin, legit paper to me), but to my understanding, he showed Punga the paper before Kai revealed his number. So help is definitely needed here lol!

Second trick 2:15:
Simply a rough-and-smooth Invisible Deck.

Third trick (string) 4:49:
Thread by Wayne Houchin

Fourth trick (magazines) 6:05:
Fourth trick - the magazine was planted there somehow. Notice how he asks for a long word. That's because on every page all the text contains short simple words except for one word that's longer / more complicated and stands out, therefore it's the only word the person could choose.

Fifth trick (Max’s phone) 9:55–11:45:
Almost certain that his lock screen is some kind of app that, after the first three tries from Kai, would allow him to put in any code and work.

Sixth trick (Kai’s phone) 11:54–12:04:
No idea, other than perhaps he had an informant or even a private investigator. (To those who say this is too far-fetched, even Stevie Baskin, who made the Oz Pearlman video, said it was not out of the realm of possibility. Especially considering the publicity Max got from this video, I would not be surprised if the business he got from all the publicity would pay for the cost of a private investigator and then some.) Not saying this is the method, though, just an idea.

Important: At 12:23, he does the same trick and unlocks the cameraman’s phone.

Seventh trick (dice) 12:54:
Almost certain it is a gimmicked die. I am guessing that somehow, whatever number he rolls would be sent back to Max via vibrations on his phone or another device.

Eighth trick (dice and planted thoughts) — 13:44:
The die is likely the same method as the last one, and Kai’s planted thought was almost 100% done by Mental Voice 1.0.

Ninth trick (Nyel) 15:05:
Simply 0 idea how. It can’t be a gimmicked pad, as the “pad” was Kai’s friend’s hand 😂. It also can’t be a gimmicked pen because they are all looking at it.

Important: At 18:05, Kai, Deshae Frost, and some other dude swear up and down that it is not scripted. This is especially highlighted by the fact that Kai had already been live-streaming for eight days straight at that point, sleeping and all.

Eleventh trick (glass) 19:00:
To my understanding, it must be some kind of non-piercing glass lookalike.

I know this is a lot, but as a community, I really believe we can figure this out! If my hypotheses are wrong, please let me know. Can’t wait to hear what you guys come up with!

​

You get kicked out of the sub if you disagree, btw.

An example of his "hard evidence" that it has nothing to do with him holding the camera

https://www.reddit.com/r/SentientOrbs/s/4DVRNV1KsQ

Please debunk these talking points by Chris Martz

1️⃣ You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius.

2️⃣ What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain.

3️⃣ What makes CO₂ “air pollution”?

The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.”

But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die.

4️⃣ Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare?

5️⃣ The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens?

6️⃣ If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math).

7️⃣ What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know?

8️⃣ If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on?

9️⃣ Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy.

🔟 Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.

https://stephenheins.substack.com/p/a-tribute-to-christopher-martz-ten

A post on X claims that crime is reduced by eliminating poverty, arguing that lower crime rates in wealthier neighborhoods are due to basic needs being met rather than policing or security measures.

A reply challenges this by posting a homicide rates per 100,000 table broken down by household income and race (White, Black, Asian). The reply highlights that Black homicide rates at the highest income bracket ($85,000+) at 15.4 still exceed white homicide rates at the lowest income bracket (under $10,000) at 7.2, arguing that poverty reduction alone will not eliminate the racial disparity in violence.

Is this data accurate, what is its source, and does it support the conclusion being drawn

​Hey everyone,

​I need some help debunking the actual science behind Polyvagal Theory (PVT).

​For some context: An old acquaintance of mine with absolutely zero formal education in psychology, child development, or neuroscience just wrote a "child psychology" book aimed at kids and parents. The entire foundation of this book is built on PVT.

​For those unfamiliar, PVT (proposed by Stephen Porges) basically claims that our autonomic nervous system has a three-tiered evolutionary response to stress tied to the vagus nerve:

​Safe/Social (Ventral vagus)

​Fight or Flight (Sympathetic system)

​Freeze/Shutdown (Dorsal vagus - claimed to be our ancient "reptilian" system)

​I’ve heard that while trauma therapists love using this as a comforting metaphor for patients, actual neurobiologists and anatomists think it's complete pseudoscience with no real basis in evolutionary biology or anatomy.

​Can you guys help debunk the biological claims of this theory? I want to understand exactly why this shouldn't be peddled to parents and kids as hard medical science. Any clear explanations or links to scientific critiques would be awesome. Thanks!

Since before a lawsuit with a former drummer, and an accusation by a self proclaimed prophet rumors about Beyonce and devil worship have been circulating the internet. Help me debunk it. AI summary below:

You can find several detailed overviews and summaries of the legal allegations and general rumors on the web:

* The Restraining Order & Initial Details: For a breakdown of the specific legal filings, accusations regarding dark magic, and the immediate response by the court, read the comprehensive article on [Yahoo News](https://www.yahoo.com/news/beyonce-accused-extreme-witchcraft-former-230821310.html). * Legal Case Dismissal: To see how the legal matter concluded, read the case summary detailing why the lawsuit was permanently thrown out by a judge on [iHeart](https://www.iheart.com/content/2018-10-12-beyonces-ex-drummers-extreme-witchcraft-case-dismissed/). * Cultural and Historical Context: For an analysis exploring why powerful female artists are historically targeted with witchcraft allegations and how pop music imagery gets misinterpreted, view the write-up on [Pitchfork](https://pitchfork.com/news/beyonces-ex-drummer-files-for-restraining-order-alleging-extreme-witchcraft/) or read the cultural commentary provided by [VICE](https://www.vice.com/en/article/beyonce-witch-allegations-kimberly-thompson/).

Would you like to explore any of these specific areas further?

* A breakdown of the Yoruba mythology and artistic symbols she uses in her music videos. * A summary of other famous pop culture figures who have faced similar conspiracy theories. * More details on how the court system handles claims involving supernatural accusations.

edit: Grammar

Claims in the video:

Deaths by natural disasters are down 97% in the past 100 years
Economic loses from catastrophes have declined when adjusted for inflation

Drought levels have stayed steady globally

Hurricanes are steady globally

Polar bear populations have rebounded and are now at record highs (due to restrictions on hunting, how this is relevant idk)

Greenland ice sheets are melting, but it's only a tiny bit

Globally food production is rising

We've gained twice the size of the United States in green area cover from burning oil, coal, natural gas burning (plants love it)

Wildfires are down to historic lows because we've gotten better at suppressing them

Worst heat wave in 1930s, has been steady

Great barrier reef cover has increased

Violent tornados in US are down

Animal extinctions peaked in 1800s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JlaWC0_cjo

are dogs really healthier on a vegan diet I just want to keep my dog in the best possible shape he can be in : https://youtube.com/shorts/XL21Hxy-Y5Q?si=CF0soIp96lyaHBA9

The idea is metaphorically rich: you can put a nut in a jar with a narrow aperture and the monkey will find the nut and stick their hand into the jar to grab the nut. They find that with their hand wrapped around the nut they cannot extract their hand from the jar so they stay stuck with their hand around the nut in the jar, unwilling to let go of their new treat.

I see this story over a lot of the internet and many people claim that it is true. I haven't seen anyone claim it isn't true but I also don't see any videos of a monkey being caught in this way. Nor have I yet found a reliable source of it being used to catch monkeys in the wild. Can we prove or disprove this story?

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2018/03/inside_the_monk.html

I've seen claims floating around social media about this for a while. Personally have went through around 5 failed doomsday predictions, slowly and slowly becoming an atheist ever since.

But you know what? These predictions about 2030-2036 seems interesting. And i want to know what the people of this subreddit has to say.

There's many claims, but for this one, i'll quote a user in reddit that i found on a 2033 christianity post.

"Preface: It is clear that scripture says no one knows the "day" or the "hour". But, we are supposed to be able to recognize the season. In this context, the season is not summer, winter, etc., it is the time period in history where events line up with prophecies. So, here are some data points. They don't "necessarily" mean what they seem to imply because sometimes we misinterpret things God has intentionally left vague so that we will not focus on them.

Major time periods in the Bible

\--- it is about 2,000 years from the Garden of Eden to Abraham

\--- it is about 2,000 years from Abraham to the establishment of the Church at Pentecost

\--- it will be about 2,000 years from Pentecost to around 2030-2033

\--- add the 1,000 years of the Millenium to the end of that and you get a number 7x1,000 which is a curiosity since God tends to like using the numbers 3, 7, 12, 40.

End time prophecies not yet fulfilled (all can easily happen in 5-10 years)

\--- "Mark of the Beast" Implemented broadly. China mostly has this today. The groundwork for it being implemented in many of the first world countries is being laid today. Basically, it is a centralized financial tracking system that will be tied to a social score system so that they track your activities and raise or lower your score based on them. For example, once the Antichrist has gained his power, he can declare that being associated with Christianity lowers your social score making it hard to buy and sell.

\--- Antichrist gains significant international influence. This could happen when countries "accept" rules from an international organization (e.g. The U.N.). The central org makes policies and individual nations integrate those into their laws.

\--- Temple rituals restarted. This obviously could not have happened before 1948 since Israel was not back in their land. They have already trained priests to be able to perform these rituals and they have cast utensils. They even have red heifers now. All they need is a place. Modern construction could build a new building fairly quickly, but that is not required. The first 500 years of the law was in a tent and it can be done that way again.

\--- Knowledge will increase. Knowledge started accelerating in the last 150+ years. But AI will not only be the first dramatic increase on knowledge, it will be the first time that the knowledge will be able to massively impact society and individuals quickly and comprehensively"

This is not my words, i know theres thousands of failed predictions, but the timing is interesting. Especially lately with the surge of conspiracies.

I know its kinda hard to 'debunk' as the points are vague, and just the user's calculation, but i'd like the people of this subreddit contest the points and claims that he made.

Again, im not a conspiracy theorist, i just like seeing conspiracy theorists get debunked.

Thanks!

​I’ve been looking into those "InfoVision" or "Midbrain Activation" videos where kids are supposedly trained to read cards, identify colors, or navigate obstacles while wearing blindfolds. They claim it’s some kind of supernatural ability or third-eye activation, but it’s obviously a performance.

​

​I’m really curious about the actual mechanics behind these tricks. I’m not looking to get emotional about it; I just want to understand the specific methods these instructors use to pull this off.

​

​From what I can tell, there’s clearly more happening than just "magic." I’m interested in the technical side of how they manipulate the situation. For example, how are those specific masks designed to make peeking easier? What kind of cold reading or non-verbal cues are they giving the kids to make them follow along with their movements? It seems like a very calculated illusion.

​

​A clear example of this is a video by Orkun Işıtmak, where he demonstrates how these sessions are structured: https://youtu.be/fOhLfR9gFHI

​

​

I've come across multiple posts on how pineapple acid is almost as strong as stomach acids, so that, while we digest a piece of pineapple we've eaten, it is "trying" to digest us in the meanwhile.

This post should serve as an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/Gys8tuB9YH

I've found no serious explanations on reddit nor on the web. Health websites only describe the chemical composition of pineapple, that contains bromelain and may therefore be used in cooking as meat tenderizer. The bromelain enzyme helps break down proteins in animal meat and is active inside the stomach as well. However, I've not found any indication of it being capable to attack the stomach tissue in any way.

(Please be patient, I'm a beginner in this sub and English is not my first language.)

"""Whites are the LEAST racist group in the world.

So why is the LEAST racist group called the MOST racist?

The best explanation I can come up with is that the racist groups are calling whites racist, for racist reasons.

It's a weapon.

They know whites care about being fair and impartial above all else.

So they hit whites as hard as they can with the "racist card" to make whites doubt whether they are living up to their own standard.

It's racist, predatory gaslighting.

And it's inflicted relentlessly against whites on a mass scale.

Whites, we are the LEAST racist group.

When they call you racist, understand that that's actually THEM.

They're being racist toward you by calling you racist.

You are not racist. They are.

Don't put up with their racist bullshit."""https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/2064609619763155425

Argument: Redlining was a lending practice used by banks and other institutions to classify neighborhoods as higher-risk for mortgages and other financial services. Because many redlined areas contained large numbers of white residents, some argue that a majority of individuals living in redlined neighborhoods were white.

Question: Does historical evidence support the claim that most victims of redlining were white, and if so, how should that affect our understanding of redlining's impact on different racial groups?

Video link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXJxi2zkiOw/?igsh=MWNpaWNseHhvaGQycA==

Reality.revolt is an Instagram account that posts conspiracy-oriented reels. In this one, he tries to cast doubt on the Orion capsule reentry by stringing together several things he finds unusual:

-Astronaut Christina Koch hesitating
-An aircraft circling overhead before splashdown
-No visible steam after the capsule lands in the ocean
-NASA logo missing from one side of the module
-Comment made by Reid Wiseman “This is the first time we’re going to send humans to the moon"
-Astronauts appearing calm and conversational despite supposedly reentering at extreme speeds
-No protection while opening the side hatch
-Hand gestures that he implies have hidden meaning
-Comment made by Sean Duffy “right out of central casting” implying they are actors

The overall argument is that these details collectively suggest the Orion capsule reentry was staged or faked. I’m looking for technical explanations, sources, and rebuttals addressing these specific claims.

I’m looking for input on a flat Earth claim involving the Davis Besse nuclear power station being photographed from across Lake Erie.

The claim is that because the cooling tower can be seen from the Michigan side of Lake Erie, the observation proves there is no Earth curvature.

Source for the claim: Tiktok user Phl@ttruth

The version I have seen usually claims the observation is from about 27 miles away. The problem is that the exact observer location is often vague, and when I check possible public locations near Woodland Beach, Michigan, the farthest reasonable distance I get is closer to about 26 miles.

The cooling tower is listed as about 493 feet tall. In the image used for the claim, the entire tower is not visible. A significant lower section appears hidden, which seems like the opposite of what a flat Earth prediction would expect.

What I am trying to check is whether this is a fair debunk:

1. The claimed distance appears inflated or at least not clearly sourced.
2. The observation does not show the full tower.
3. The missing lower portion is consistent with curvature, observer height, and possible atmospheric refraction.
4. Seeing the upper portion of a tall structure across water is not the same as proving the surface is flat.

Am I missing any important variables here?

The main things I’d like checked are:

Observer height
Exact observation location
Correct tower height
Distance to the tower
How much should be hidden under standard refraction
Whether refraction could explain more or less visibility than expected

I’m not looking for a debate over flat Earth in general. I’m trying to evaluate this specific claim and whether the observation actually supports the conclusion being claimed.

I got a notification a few hours ago, attaching this article (I'm honestly getting kind of sick of Google sending me news stories), saying that due to the reduction of air pollution, the particles in the clouds are smaller, making them less reflective, causing more light to get through, and causing the space below it to heat up. I've spent basically my whole life being told anything besides natural pollution is bad (branches, dead leaves, etc.) So this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Beyond that, I've seen other people complaining about misleading articles from this website.

I have been trying to find any confirmed sources, I have partially debunked this. I keep seeing people online saying that Shrek was based on a wrestler. But no confirmed statements. I do think it’s fucked up saying a man with a condition, looks like an ogre and must be the inspiration behind Shrek.

the movie is not based on him, as said in dreamworks wiki, they based it on the 1990 book Shrek! By William Steig. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek

Book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek!

Also many articles saying dreamworks did not confirm it:

https://extra.ie/2019/09/22/news/the-french-angel-maurice-tillet-acromegaly-giant-shrek#:~:text=Kiara%20Keane,the%20film's%20creators%20at%20DreamWorks.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fact-check-rumor-says-shrek-230000574.html

Article stating dreamworks based his looks on Norfolk people: https://www.suffolkgazette.com/shrek-was-based-on-norfolk-people-dreamworks-admits/

And there’s a rumored photo of Steig and Maurice together, however this is Steig: https://blackiebooks.org/autor/william-steig/

Older photo of Steig found here: https://shrek.fandom.com/wiki/William_Steig

And in the photo of Maurice shaking hands with the man people claim is William, he looks nothing like William, I haven’t found the actual person.

I’m trying to evaluate a public paper by an independent author. The paper presents a two-axiom framework and claims it can resolve the six open Millennium Prize problems. On the author’s LinkedIn page, he also says the framework provides another path to a proof of the Poincaré Conjecture.

What I want stress-tested is narrower:

Does the paper actually provide rigorous support proportionate to these claims, or does it use abstract framework language to sound stronger than what is actually demonstrated?

More specifically, I’d appreciate help identifying:

The first major non-rigorous step

Any category error between formal structure and actual proof

Whether the paper’s scope claims exceed what is really shown

Source: https://www.gjullian.com/the-self-propagating-truth.pdf

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gjullianfk

***OH SH*T here we go again***\*

So I have been seeing a few facebook posts and x (most of them deleted or removed for some reason) reviving these 2 old charts to prove that RFR (whether it'd be 4g,5g etc or whatever) is harmful towards human beings. They state that many of our everyday RFR items are outputting high RFR values like the UW/M2 values that have apparently shown by the sites (like the bio sites) to cause harm to human beings.

1st chart by KatharinaConsulting: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Video showcasing said 2nd chart: https://youtu.be/5Ewv3uXg250?si=_989ywGmZLp_fTtO

Note I remember seeing both of these studies when 5g towers were being burned or riot during the 5g covid-conspiracy. I didn't pay much attention to it then until my curiousity peaked now.

So my personal debunk of this looking at this now after some research (with some search engine AI used to help me)

1. Both charts involves values (uw/m2, microtesla and all that stuff) that are NOT by themselves used to measure how a human interacts with the RFR radiation and determine harm. I believe we use SAR values for that not those output values. In fact I remember a little back then that studies involving the anti-5g and those that are for the 5G using SAR to determine if RFR actually causes human beings harm when they interact with the RFR, but not sure.

2. Both charts that they use to claim RFR harm to humans, they have also used to state that both charts are consistent and the same in their values. But I read the first graph by Katharina and the other one from the video, I notice a contradiction when it comes to their uw/m2 values.

The one from the video shows 0.1 to 6 as low chance of harm to human beings and serious adverse effects to them. But if you look at the chart and its source/guidelines under those same values by Katharina, they DO NOT mention anything about their own values being "low chance of harm" and in fact they state otherwise due to their language used including for non-EHS individuals.