CathInfo.com

In other words, what would be my motivation?

-- to attack the Dimonds (I don't have any ill will toward them)
-- to defend every word of their videos (I'm not a cult follower of them either)
-- to prove that many magic tricks are performed by cooperation with demons?  I already know this.
-- to prove that EVERY trick in their (4-hour) video is?  Don't feel the need to do that (see the above).

I've done just enough to expose that there's a bad will and agenda behind this latest attack on the Dimonds, whether out of personal animosity,our on account of Rationalism and lack of faith (not believing in the spiritual / preternatural world), and those two examples I went through (and wasted 10-15 minutes of my time each) suffice for that purpose.

I saw the guy building the metal structure for levitation (couldn't have happened) and the guy attempting to reproduce the Great Wall of China trick (epic fail due to the conditions I explained).  Both are obvious and transparent fails and could only be accepted as evidence by someone applying confirmation bias and begging the question, for some agenda.

Now, I can't 100% rule out camera tricks, since you can do almost anything with that and video editing software and AI, but many of these appeared to have been performed in front of live audiences.

To the point about "invincible ignorance" mentioned near the beginning of this thread:

No more time than I have already spent on it.  I'm not going to spend hours trying to debunk every debuking attempt, as it's just not worth my time.  As for the time I spend on the internet, I work two jobs, 12 hours a day, 6.5 days per week, and the only way I survive is by taking a mental break every 20-30 minutes on average, looking at some threads, and typing quick responses.  I type very quickly so that I get comments from everyone, including colleagues from work.  I was starting to write some articles for Substack, but just can't find the time to finish them, because they require much more polish than making random posts on CI here that just roll off the top of my fingers, and I just type what I think.  Having debunked a couple of his examples suffices for me to know that he has some agenda and isn't being honest, and I for one know that much of this magic is performed due to diabolical agency, nor am I on some crusade of vitriolic contempt for the Dimond Brothers where I would spent the time just to attack them out of contempt.  So I have no motivation to spend this kind of time on it.  If I had extra time, I'd return to finishing up the Substack articles I started months ago.  You can see on my Member stats that I average roughly 8 posts per day, and if I had to guess, these average maybe 5 minutes per post on the high side.  Some are a bit longer, but others are very brief.  And, as I said, I type very quickly, without any polish or refinement, and not spending much time on it.

Wait, when did you "debunk a couple of his examples"?  Your question of "how did Copperfield get to the other side of the wall" is just that: a question.  If you think mere questions are "debunking" then I don't know what to tell you (especially when I gave an answer to it).  Same thing for Special Head.

You also claim to "know that much of this magic is performed due to diabolical agency".  If you have even a shred of evidence for this, I'm all ears.  But "I don't know how it's done, therefore demons" isn't very convincing to any reasonable person.

I would at least have some respect if you said something like "yeah the Dimond's were quick to condemn some people were just doing mere tricks, and they need to retract those accusations and apologize" but you aren't even willing to do that for some reason.