Key facts

  • The explorer covers levitation, metal jellification, fusion-like material claims, and metal disruption.
  • A documented claim means the claim appeared in the source trail; it does not mean the effect is physically established.
  • The strongest current archive verdict is still no controlled independent replication located.

Select a claim category to see the archive status and the controls that would be needed before the claim could move beyond historical documentation.

Claim documented

Levitation and object motion

Footage and source notes
1980s and later footage indexes describe objects lifting, sliding, or being thrown, but most public records lack continuous setup coverage, multi-angle controls, and original tape custody.
Replication status
No controlled independent replication is located in the archive. The effect remains a historical claim rather than an established physical result.
Conventional explanations to exclude
Camera inversion, off-camera supports, wires, static charge, vibration, magnetic forces, and staged object handling all remain candidates unless excluded by instrumentation and custody.
Archive verdict
Documented as a public Hutchison Effect claim; not established as real levitation.

Source trail

  • ESJ apparatus scan
  • FUNET archive index
  • APEC video index
  • Skeptical Inquirer

FAQ

Does the claims explorer prove or debunk the Hutchison Effect?

No. It organizes claim categories, source status, replication gaps, and ordinary explanations so the reader can see what is documented and what remains unproven.

Why are conventional explanations listed?

Extraordinary claims need controls that exclude ordinary causes. Listing candidates makes the missing controls explicit instead of treating video or sample images as automatic proof.

Can a claim move to a stronger verdict?

Yes. Original dated footage, independent custody, instrument logs, blinded sample testing, and repeatable outside-lab demonstrations would upgrade the evidence status.

Sources used on this page