Derren Brown interview

[entropy]

Mind-reading? No, just head games (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/27/news/profile.html)

[Dr Adequate]

In another, an undertaker hands him a stack of photographs of people, some of them dead, some living, and Brown successfully separates them into "deceased" and "live" piles.Actually, it was the other way round ... the undertaker separated them, and the photographs were then turned over to show "dead" or "alive" on the back.

This is not totally unlike a certain genre of card trick. But with more atmosphere.

Somehow, the story's got turned round so as to make it much more spooky and mysterious than it is. And then published in the New York Times.

Interesting.

[The Mighty Thor]

A clever twist, I guess, on the trick of "willing someone" to sort red and black cards from a deck into two piles without looking at them -- a trick that Randi does with great aplomb.

Am I misremembering if I say that this was called "the trick that fooled Churchill" -- or was it Houdini?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B
Somehow, the story's got turned round so as to make it much more spooky and mysterious than it is. And then published in the New York Times.
[/B]

I'm sure this happens a lot but, having watched a lot of Derren Brown's stuff on T.V, he does seem to do some pretty spooky things. Maybe, spooky is the wrong word. He does at lot of things that put my brain in the frustrating state of not being able to come up with anything approaching a detailed explanation as to how he does them (beyond the facile, selective editing -though if there is any evidence that this is the case it would stop my head from spinning). This is not true for any other type of magic trick that I am aware of or for "paranormal" phenomena; I can always find a plausible explanation. The drawing of the dress in the article is a good example. I am quite aware that the number of things we are likely to draw in such circumstances is a lot smaller than intuition suggests and that we can be influenced by all sorts of subtle clues, but to the point of determination? Similarly, I have come across nothing in Psychology to suggest that one can garner any but the vaguest information from eye movements.

Can anybody point me to information that will help me understand how Derren Brown's tricks work (I realise we may not be able to discuss the mechanics of his tricks here)? I am so intrigued by them that I am actual willing to pay money to learn how they are done and , except for the set of magic tricks I bought when I was seven, that just never happens to me.

[Azrael 5]

Its all smoke and mirrors with Derren Brown-not literally.He uses same techniques as other magicians,with more psychology than most.If you are interested in his techniques mainly for the sake of it then you won't get very far,otherwise Magic Cafe (http://www.themagiccafe.com) is a good forum with people who will reccomend reference material.

An example from that interview and the dress drawing,Derren gave her a piece of paper.Now was it attached to a pad,or a clipboard(Id say so)But Derren would direct her mind so that such things become forgotten and she thinks all she did was draw on a piece of paper.;)

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
A clever twist, I guess, on the trick of "willing someone" to sort red and black cards from a deck into two piles without looking at them -- a trick that Randi does with great aplomb.

Am I misremembering if I say that this was called "the trick that fooled Churchill" -- or was it Houdini?

It was Churchill.He was so impressed the magician-cant remember who it was now,might have been Harry Green-repeated it twice! ;)

[LW]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
It was Churchill.He was so impressed the magician-cant remember who it was now,might have been Harry Green-repeated it twice! ;)

Paul Curry. (Unless I've jumbled up my memory).

[LW]

Originally posted by Throg
Can anybody point me to information that will help me understand how Derren Brown's tricks work (I realise we may not be able to discuss the mechanics of his tricks here)? I am so intrigued by them that I am actual willing to pay money to learn how they are done and , except for the set of magic tricks I bought when I was seven, that just never happens to me.

Perhaps the two books that he has written might be a good place to start... However, I understand that neither of them is aimed at beginners (I've read only the second one, Absolute Magic and that is about psychology of magic and not tricks). They are sold on some magic bookstores.

[Garrette]

Both of Derren's books are excellent, but neither will give a beginner any idea of the actual mechanics of what he does.

Try going any online magic dealer (I recommend penguin magic or Hank Lee) and searching the Mentalism section for books. You should find plenty to set your mind at ease.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by LW
Paul Curry. (Unless I've jumbled up my memory).

Paul Curry invented the trick LW; Harry Green performed it.;)

A good book to start with on the Derren Brown road is 13 Steps to mentalism by Corinda,its considered the Holy Grail for such things. :D

[LW]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Paul Curry invented the trick LW; Harry Green performed it.;)

Might be, it's been a couple of years since I read about that occasion.

A good book to start with on the Derren Brown road is 13 Steps to mentalism by Corinda,its considered the Holy Grail for such things. :D

Followed by Anneman's Practical Mental Magic. But read Corinda first.

[Throg]

I appreciate the various references and suggestions. Thanks.

[Garrette]

Throg: Check pm.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Throg
I'm sure this happens a lot but, having watched a lot of Derren Brown's stuff on T.V, he does seem to do some pretty spooky things. Maybe, spooky is the wrong word. He does at lot of things that put my brain in the frustrating state of not being able to come up with anything approaching a detailed explanation as to how he does them (beyond the facile, selective editing -though if there is any evidence that this is the case it would stop my head from spinning). This is not true for any other type of magic trick that I am aware of or for "paranormal" phenomena; I can always find a plausible explanation. The drawing of the dress in the article is a good example. I am quite aware that the number of things we are likely to draw in such circumstances is a lot smaller than intuition suggests and that we can be influenced by all sorts of subtle clues, but to the point of determination? Similarly, I have come across nothing in Psychology to suggest that one can garner any but the vaguest information from eye movements.

Can anybody point me to information that will help me understand how Derren Brown's tricks work (I realise we may not be able to discuss the mechanics of his tricks here)? I am so intrigued by them that I am actual willing to pay money to learn how they are done and , except for the set of magic tricks I bought when I was seven, that just never happens to me.

If you want to find out about magic tricks, I've found that the best way is to buy some. I often buy tricks just to see how they are done. The simplicity (but ingenuity) of some never fails to amaze me.

For example, the trick with the sorting of red and black cards can be paid for and downloaded as a mpg which gives the instructions. There are also demo videos you can watch at http://www.penguinmagic.com/

For Derren:

Pure Effect by Derren Brown £32.50
Pure Effect by Derren Brown

This is a fantastic book if you wish to learn deeper magical concepts! If you are looking for a simple book of tricks, you should choose a different book!

Derren Brown, the most radical and original new thinker in the world of mentalism, will take you from excellent close-up magic to the most powerful mind-reading you have ever seen. With flamboyant wit, Derren explains the secrets and techniques that he uses to amaze the experts, drawing from hypnotic skills and breathtaking psychological artistry. This is brand new mindreading without compromise; no use of billets, envelopes or nailwriters will be found within these pages. This is a book for the serious thinker who would normally disregard 99% of a magic book's contents.

Hardbound With Dust Jacket, 168 Pages

Available from www.emagictricks.co.uk

You might end up with a new, fascinating (but expensive) hobby :)

[Kopji]

"Journalists tend to be very easy to do this with," he said.


Last line of the interview.
That's so funny.

[T'ai Chi]

"Derren Brown, the most radical and original new thinker in the world of mentalism, will take you from excellent close-up magic to the most powerful mind-reading you have ever seen. With flamboyant wit, Derren explains the secrets and techniques that he uses to amaze the experts, drawing from hypnotic skills and breathtaking psychological artistry. This is brand new mindreading without compromise; no use of billets, envelopes or nailwriters will be found within these pages. This is a book for the serious thinker who would normally disregard 99% of a magic book's contents."


Talk about patter...

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jzs
Talk about patter...

Talk about lying through his teeth,lol
;)

[richardm]

Just a note about Pure Effect: It's a great book, but not for the beginner. Moreover, if you're hoping to find out how he does the things he does on the telly you're likely to be disappointed. There are a couple of psychological card forces in there - otherwise it's lots of card tricks, and quite a bit about aspects of presentation.

If you already have an interest in magic it's a great read, though.

[Azrael 5]

Throg if you are just interested in finding out how ,then I really think you should just enjoy the entertainment and not try buy books just to see how Derren does it.However you may be genuinely interested in magic/mentalism,in which case read,read,read.
No offence. ;)

[Nucular]

Re: Pure Effect, the title says it all really - it's a really, really great book, brilliantly written, and, although it won't tell you how to do the things he does, it does go into a lot of the presentation/audience psychology bits of his act.

I really loved the bit about what mindreading looks like: usually, it looks like a performer going "erm..." and then naming a card, which, without going into detail, is somewhat different to what Derren does.

Incidentally, I'm going to watch Derren Brown on stage tonight - oooh ooh pick me! [/donkey from shrek] :D

[JPK]

Good morning Throg.

I agree with many on this thread that state, that while what DB is doing does come across spooky, they are tricks that are being wrapped up in a wonderfull bit of showmanship.
I found a website (http://www.subliminalpersuasion.co.uk/) that might interest you.
The site offers a couple of on-line books for sale. I have purchased them. They are very informative. The site gives a possible explaination of one of DB's tricks in the art museum.

JPK

[Ashles]

Originally posted by JPK
The site offers a couple of on-line books for sale. I have purchased them. They are very informative. The site gives a possible explaination of one of DB's tricks in the art museum.
I'd always wondered about that one. I really want to watch that again now to see.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'd always wondered about that one. I really want to watch that again now to see.
I've watched that special many times. He is an excellant showman. He also does a great job of missleading you into believing the trick is being done one way when it is not. I would love to see him live.

JPK

[Throg]

Originally posted by JPK
Good morning Throg.

I agree with many on this thread that state, that while what DB is doing does come across spooky, they are tricks that are being wrapped up in a wonderfull bit of showmanship.
JPK

I have absolutely no doubt that they are tricks. Even if I were prone to believing in the paranormal (I am not) Derren Brown makes it quite clear in his programmes that they are tricks (which I think is laudable). I just can't figure them out and I feel like it is a distinct intellectual handicap. Thanks to the many links people have provided in this thread, I have hope that I can no overcome my handicap.

Interestingly, there was a TV programme on channel 4 recently in which it was revealed that the most complained about programme on channel 4 last year was DB's "seance". Why because, he was playing with evil forces. This despite the fact that DB made it clear several times throughout the programme that it was all trickery. How do you deal with people like that?

Thanks for the link.

[andycal]

How do you deal with people like that?

Ahhh, the most difficult question of all....

I've given up on reason so now I just poke them with a stick.

[Azrael 5]

I wouldnt pay too much attention to that website nor books on NLP-didnt see the art gallery effect,someone PM it to me or summat? Derren uses traditional magic techniques wrapped up in modern presentation and with a hint of psychology.I mean people on line have guessed he did RUssian Roulette via NLP and psychology-would you risk serious harm/death on being able to influence someone to put a bullet in the required chamber via NLP!? Or even Hypnosis(thats another theory)?
;)

[JPK]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I wouldnt pay too much attention to that website nor books on NLP-didnt see the art gallery effect,someone PM it to me or summat? Derren uses traditional magic techniques wrapped up in modern presentation and with a hint of psychology.I mean people on line have guessed he did RUssian Roulette via NLP and psychology-would you risk serious harm/death on being able to influence someone to put a bullet in the required chamber via NLP!? Or even Hypnosis(thats another theory)?
;)

I agree totally. The explainations of some of DB's tricks that are on that website point out that there are several ways to accomplish these tricks and that like any good magician they have a way to make it work even when it doesn't go according to plan A.

JPK

[Throg]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I mean people on line have guessed he did RUssian Roulette via NLP and psychology-would you risk serious harm/death on being able to influence someone to put a bullet in the required chamber via NLP!? Or even Hypnosis(thats another theory)?

Well, not serious harm to me, anyway. ;)

[feyd rautha]

it is very simple how his tricks work, he uses stooges and fakes. my proof is the Russian roulette trick or do you believe that one was not staged? and if he staged that one he sure has no problem of fooling his audience on all(many of) the other ones.


anyway it is entertaining and clever even though it is staged.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
it is very simple how his tricks work, he uses stooges and fakes. my proof is the Russian roulette trick or do you believe that one was not staged? and if he staged that one he sure has no problem of fooling his audience on all(many of) the other ones.
anyway it is entertaining and clever even though it is staged.

The Russian Roulette trick is a very famous one,and is genuinely dangerous.It has been performed by many famous magicians and does not need stooges.Your response is typical of poeple who cant figure it out so cry "stooge" instead.
;)

[feyd rautha]

yeah i know nothing and you are so clever azrael!

And it was, in fact, a good trick: a very, very clever trick: an amazing trick. I don't know how he did. Derren Brown announced that he was going to shoot himself on live TV, and everyone took him seriously. Three million people tuned in to watch history being made. Newspaper commentators cued up to condemn the irresponsible stunt, to discuss what it said about the society of the spectacle, to wonder whether it showed that 'reality TV' had so inured us to the distinction between reality and fiction that we needed to see 'real' death to have a thrill. Are we like the Romans in their last decadence, having nothing but bread and crocuses? Does Brown's act hasten the day when Channel 4 will show a hanging live from Guantanomo Bay?[2]


How did he do it? How did he get us all to take him so seriously so easily. One would think he had some sort of ability to control peoples minds



And then some police officer points out that there was a special effects team specializing in pyrotechnics on hand, and everyone feels let down.

I call that staged or a scam!

Btw. I dont give you the link because you are so clever you will find it by yourself.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
And then some police officer points out that there was a special effects team specializing in pyrotechnics on hand, and everyone feels let down.

Derren Brown...the Jersey Parliament out there got into big trouble out there for letting it happen.

Wouldn't put pressure on the Police to make some "safe" story up would it?

Derren Brown
We couldn't say anything about it[firearms aspect] as there was this potentially massive police enquiry hanging over it.
All the arguments that came out against it all fell a bit flat.Like all the people were stooges,or it was a blank bullet,and all those things,that in themselves couldn't explain it

Yes,I am clever but not psychic.So kindly post the link you refer to.
Here's one for you;no doubt more stooges? Scary gun (http://www.mentalismunlimited.com/Roulette.html) ;)

[Dragon]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
it is very simple how his tricks work, he uses stooges and fakes. my proof is the Russian roulette trick or do you believe that one was not staged? and if he staged that one he sure has no problem of fooling his audience on all(many of) the other ones.


anyway it is entertaining and clever even though it is staged. No. Your ignorance of how the tricks might be done without stooges is not evidence, still less proof.

I had the pleasure of seeing DB live recently. I believe he often uses "psychology" as misdirection and that most of what he does is "magic". I do not believe he uses stooges. He doesn't need to. One of the people who went up on stage when I saw him live was, coincidentally, a colleague of my wife. She was definitely not a stooge.

From his website (http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/) Derren Brown is a unique force in the world of illusion - he can seemingly predict and control human behaviour. He doesn’t claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship. He said in the live show that he gives himself permission to deceive with "applied psychology, magic, misdirection and showmanship" but that he does not use stooges.

Think about it - if he did he would inevitably be found out - with dire consequences fo his career.

[feyd rautha]

i did not say he uses stooges for all of his tricks. i myself tried succesfully to put a picture or a playingcard into someones mind with suggestion, so i know he is not a total fraud.

but there is a difference.

in his messiah show he put people out of conciousness without touching them. you people laugh about the yellow bamboo-guys and believe that derren is the real deal??? what is this, some kind of superspeed-hypnoses?

i dont know exactly what tricks he performs on stage maybe the kind of trick he does not need stooges for?!


another great example imo. is the taxi-driver searching for the london eye while parking left of it. so this can be archieved with NLP or suggestion? i hope i never meet a master of this skills.


@azrael
i wont spend 40 bucks for this secret, but if you know how the russian roulett is done please send me a pm. if not, at least i am sure it was not done with suggestion alone, that is good enought for me, what kind of trickery was involved is not so much of interrest to me(i tip on a staged gun).


last but not least it is a well known fact that David Blaine makes his tricks succesful in the editingroom(at least the levitation) so why should it be diffrent with derren?

Dont forget i am a very big fan of the man(russian roulette was the finest hour of tv i ever saw) but i just cant believe him like i used to anymore.

i really think he could win the million dollar challenge, though not with psychic skills but with trickery, that would be fun.

[Azrael 5]

i wont spend 40 bucks for this secret, but if you know how the russian roulett is done please send me a pm. if not, at least i am sure it was not done with suggestion alone, that is good enought for me, what kind of trickery was involved is not so much of interrest to me(i tip on a staged gun).

My point in that link was to show you Russian Roulette is a trick and can be achieved without the use of stooges! Now you are claiming you don't believe it was just suggestion! Make your mind up!
No,it wasnt suggestion its a trick.
last but not least it is a well known fact that David Blaine makes his tricks succesful in the editingroom(at least the levitation) so why should it be diffrent with derren?

Thats a fair point,but David Blaine is a crap magician,and Russian Roulette was live anyway. ;)

[andycal]

in his messiah show he put people out of conciousness without touching them. you people laugh about the yellow bamboo-guys and believe that derren is the real deal??? what is this, some kind of superspeed-hypnoses?

Are you for real? Just to check - you're not another sock/troll or somesuch are you?

Just look at that paragraph and then use all your powers of mouse control to read back a bit and you'll see that no-one here is suggesting that Derren Brown has any special powers.

The Bamboos say "We have mystical powers", Derren says "I don't have any mystical powers at all. None. Not a sausage. I use tricks, illusion and psychology and stuff".

No-one here is saying anything different.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
i did not say he uses stooges for all of his tricks. Really? Originally posted by feyd rautha
it is very simple how his tricks work, he uses stooges and fakes. my proof is the Russian roulette trick or do you believe that one was not staged? Not "some of his tricks", but "his tricks".

So either you were unclear in your first post or now you're back-pedalling.
It has been explained to you how the Russian roulette stunt is just a trick, no stooges required - so, do you now retract your accusation, or do you have some other "proof" that Derren Brown uses "stooges and fakes"?

Originally posted by feyd rautha
i really think he could win the million dollar challenge, though not with psychic skills but with trickery, that would be fun. No.
Firstly, I very much doubt that DB is doing any tricks that Randi is unaware of.
Secondly, DB and Randi admire each other and are in contact.
I think DB is more likely to work for the JREF than try to win the challenge, he certainly appears to share many of Randi's opinions on "psychics" etc.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by JPK
I've watched that special many times. He is an excellant showman. He also does a great job of missleading you into believing the trick is being done one way when it is not. I would love to see him live.

JPK Exactly. As you'd expect, he does this in the stage show as well. I think I actually worked out one of the tricks, which was typically disquised with lots of "psychological" showmanship.* It involved picking black or white balls out of a bag and then lying or telling the truth accordingly.
I you really want to see him live, he's on tour in the UK until the end of May. What about a cheap flight to Scotland or the North of England? (You should get a much better deal there on accommodation than in London or the South.)



*I'm not even an amateur magician, so I could be wrong.

[CodeComplete]

I had a few documents, before my hard disk crashed, that explained how some of Derrens tricks could be performed. (I guess they were written by other magicians and so may not be the actual techniques). When you read these 'secrets' it illustrates how good a showman he is and how blatant some of the tricks really are!

I agree that Blaine uses a lot of off camera gimmicks and stooges to achieve some of his effects. I met someone who crewed on one of his shoots and he was very disparaging.

Using Derren as an example of how someone can create the illusion of 'psychic powers' leads me to think that it would be possible for someone to beat the JREF challenge using such trickery. If they did the win the JREF million it would never validate the existance of psychic powers but simply they were good enough to deceive James etc.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by CodeComplete
Using Derren as an example of how someone can create the illusion of 'psychic powers' leads me to think that it would be possible for someone to beat the JREF challenge using such trickery. If they did the win the JREF million it would never validate the existance of psychic powers but simply they were good enough to deceive James etc.
But when someone is using tricks they control the environment and situation to a level where the can use their trickery.

In the JREF challenge the protocol is kept as simple as possible and is designed to prevent trickery in any way. Most tricks work on a surprisingly smal number of basic principles all of which Randi is a master.

Any psychological tricks Derren uses would entirely negated by a good experimental protocol, as would more mechanical and standard trickery.

Of course anyone who reckons they can trick Randi is just as entitled to the money as a genuine paranormal claimant.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
in his messiah show he put people out of conciousness without touching them. you people laugh about the yellow bamboo-guys and believe that derren is the real deal??? what is this, some kind of superspeed-hypnoses? Not "out of consciousness" --- he made them fall over.

The point of that trick was that pentacostal preachers do this to congregations all the time, without using stooges, and attribute it to the Holy Spirit. (I've had this happen to me. I was not a stooge. Can anyone remember if I ever started a thread on this?) DB (claims to have) demonstrated that the same thing can be done just by psychological techniques, without the aid of the Third Person of the Trinity. If we suppose that it can't be achieved by such techniques (and that therefore DB must have used stooges) then we're led to two remarkable conclusions:

(1) Derren Brown hires stooges thirty at a time, and they all keep their mouths shut.
(2) Since what they do can't be reproduced by psychological manipulation, these pentacostal preachers must be the real deal.

[Azrael 5]

Im going to see him tomorrow night so no doubt there'll be around 1,800 stooges all ready primed.;)

[Throg]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Throg if you are just interested in finding out how ,then I really think you should just enjoy the entertainment and not try buy books just to see how Derren does it.However you may be genuinely interested in magic/mentalism,in which case read,read,read.
No offence. ;)

I have the misfortune to be genuinely interested in pretty much anything but yeah, I think it's fair to say I am interested in magic and, at the moment, in mentalism in particular.

I'm one of those sad people who just has to know how all the special effects were achieved in films, too. I do enjoy Derren Brown's schtick as entertainment as well. So pity me, but not too much.

[andycal]

I'm going in April with a bunch of mates. We're going to fight over who's Moe.

Moving away from the stinky joke, if you saw him on his previous tour, I'd be interested in knowing if it's radically different...

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Im going to see him tomorrow night so no doubt there'll be around 1,800 stooges all ready primed.;) No. Just a few specially trained in throwing and catching monkeys. It's the only logical conclusion.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Dragon
No. Just a few specially trained in throwing and catching monkeys. It's the only logical conclusion.

I half understand that post Dragon..but monkeys? ;)

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I half understand that post Dragon..but monkeys? ;) You'll see tomorrow. :)

[feyd rautha]

you people seem to not want to understand my words as always when someone critises one of your darlings, nothing new to me.

i said he uses stooges and fakes for his tricks. that does not mean he uses stooges and fakes all the time, in my understanding.

maybe the problem is that english is not my first language.

what about the guy on the public phone falling asleep after derren says a few words to him or again the most obvious use of a stooge the taxidriver not beeing able to find the london-eye while parking left of it at close distance? if not stooges how is this possible???

[Ashles]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
you people seem to not want to understand my words as always when someone critises one of your darlings, nothing new to me.

i said he uses stooges and fakes for his tricks. that does not mean he uses stooges and fakes all the time, in my understanding.

maybe the problem is that english is not my first language.

what about the guy on the public phone falling asleep after derren says a few words to him or again the most obvious use of a stooge the taxidriver not beeing able to find the london-eye while parking left of it at close distance? if not stooges how is this possible???
So, just to check, you personally don't know of another way this can be done so you have decided it must definitely be stooges? Is that right?

Now I don't know whether he uses stooges or not. But just because I don't know how it was done doesn't mean I have to immediately assume stooges.
There have been many magic tricks in the past I did not know how were done.

For example there is one done by David Blaine where a passer by on the street writes down a name on a piece of paper and holds it in their hand and David Blaine pulls up his sleeve and the name is written there.
How could that possibly be done without stooges?

Also, Derren Brown makes a very big deal of not using stooges. He'd look very silly if anyone ever came forward exposing him.

Just because you don't know how it's done doesn't mean he is using stooges. It's not about criticising our "darlings" merely that there is a very good chance that a professional magician and mentalist such as Derren has more tricks in his repertoire than you or I are aware of.

[Garrette]

feyd rautha,

I don't think the issue is a misunderstanding. You write clearly enough, I think.

The issue, at least for me, is your seeming insistence that since you personally can think of no other method than the use of a stooge the method must therefore be a stooge.

I think there is an official term for that fallacy, but it escapes me. I call it the arrogance of ignorance.

What others are saying (at least, what I am saying now) is that while the use of stooges is one possible explanation, it is not the only mundane explanation, nor even the most likely.

There are many magicians and mentalists on this forum; I am an amateur one. I know quite a bit about magical and mental methods, but I do not know how Derren Brown did the things described here. I have no doubt, though, that there are those on this board who do know either how it was done or how it might have been done without stooges.

The fact that they won't reveal the method to me does not lead me to conclude that it must have been stooges.

ETA: Ashles beat me to it

[Azrael 5]

Regarding the London Eye effect,without revealing the exact method(cause I dont know it,lol)I believe it is called anchoring,and is a hypnotic suggestion effect.What about when Paul Mckenna makes someone believe a broomstick is their girlfriend-they can clearly see it isnt,so why do they smooch with it? Oh.I know..stooges.
Yes,David Blaine uses camera edits to enhance his effects,but thats one example in a whole industry of magicians.Whats the phrase,don't tar everyone with the same brush.;)

I believe a member on here a while back(can't recall who)claimed the girl in the spirit cabinet on Seance was a stooge,just because she said she never threw the tambourine out.

For the benefit of the few:Derren Brown is a magician ;)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Yes,David Blaine uses camera edits to enhance his effects,but thats one example in a whole industry of magicians.Whats the phrase,don't tar everyone with the same brush.;)
And even camera edits sometimes don't make a trick invalid.

For example the 'name on the piece of paper' trick I mentioned above is a great one.

You can perform it on anyone, even including the crucial bit that David Blaine edits out, and the subject will still be amazed.

[andycal]

Originally posted by feyd rautha

maybe the problem is that english is not my first language.



Take a look at the forums, check out some of the posts and you'll find that to turn up here and just make wild accusations about something that you know little about is just plain stupid.

Making a claim like "I don't get how 'x' is done, it must therefore be 'y'" is just crazy.

There are many things that magicians do that are hard to explain, or look impossible - what's the point in doing them if every Tom Dick or Harry knows exactly how it's done?

[Azrael 5]

It appears I cant link a pdf attachment on here so....Derren Brown live review (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=110916&forum=15&2)
Go there and download the file,if you have Adobe acrobat(its free to downlaod anyhow)
:D

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Im going to see him tomorrow night so no doubt there'll be around 1,800 stooges all ready primed.;)

So how was it?

Did he you for any part of his act?

Did he do his mediumship part? (Like on T.V.)

Sharon

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Sharon
So how was it?

Did he you for any part of his act?

Did he do his mediumship part? (Like on T.V.)

Sharon

Look at the post above yours.:D

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Look at the post above yours.:D

I did Azael but I can't download the file. It tells me windows can't open this file bah, bah blacksheep. It's pointless someone coming along telling me to press this that and the other as I really have no clue ( and to many viruses in the past) to understand what to do.Put me in a room with a hundred 5-11 years wanting lunch and I don't bat an eye-lid. Tell me to fghhjrytrtrkytr ( computer language) and I go to pieces. So...go on, just a quickie, was it good, did you get picked, was mediumship featured?

Sharon:(

[Azrael 5]

Download adobe acrobat-its free!

Especially for you (http://www.adobe.com.au/products/acrobat/readstep2.html) ;)

[subpers]

It all depends on how you define a stooge. DB uses a principle called "dual reality" in which the participant & audience experience different things - some might call the participants in these situations stooges.

From a previous post:

"I believe a member on here a while back(can't recall who)claimed the girl in the spirit cabinet on Seance was a stooge,just because she said she never threw the tambourine out."

Yes, I too believe that she was a stooge, though not in the spirit cabinet, but rather during the actual seance near the end. The look on her face was total shock when she saw the video, and I believe that this is a piece of sheer genius by DB. I do not believe that she threw out the tambourine at all. The camera is conveniently positioned directly above the cabinet so that not only can you not see the girls face (you assume it's her because of the clothing), but you also cannot see the audience, etc either. I believe that this was filmed prior to the event and with a different person. Listen to DB when the girl comes out of the cabinet & they're going to watch the tape "does this need rewinding" he says - A (supposedly) live TV show thats been rehersed to death and he needs to ask? More likely this is a subtle and indirect suggestion to the viewer that you are about to watch something that was only just filmed.

Why bother? If your stooge later goes to the press and claims "I was a stooge and did (something I'm not going to divulge) in the seance - but I really didn't throw out the tambourine, & I can't explain how that happened" - doesn't give her much credibility does it?

To me it's just typical of the subtle & ingenious way that DB operates, but the throw away line was unnecessary & hints strongly that this is the case.

Just my theory on it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Yes, I too believe that she was a stooge, though not in the spirit cabinet, but rather during the actual seance near the end. Do you mean the ouija bit, or maybe the Victorian seance? You're a new poster --- hi, welcome to the forums --- but stick around and you'lll learn that for ouija, or pendulum dowsing, or such stuff, we don't need no stinkin' stooges. Look up the ideomotor effet.

This is why so many people do this stuff, and really believe in it. You misunderstand believers totally if you think they're just cheats.

Derren Brown demonstrated a common way to psychologically manipulate people... and you say "stooges" 'cos you don't know how it's done?

[subpers]

...I don't say stooge because I don't know how it's done, I say stooge because I do know how it's done. I'm not talking about the ouija board - quite how you came to that conclusion is beyond me, particularly as I specifically said "the seance." The girl "assisted" in the victorian seance at the end - have a look at who's holding the letter.

People seem to forget that DB is a magician, nothing more & nothing less. If you accept that & view everything that he does from this perspective you can see how he does his effects (if you know what you're looking for). I'm a magician too, heck I've even written some books on it.

[Dragon]

subpers,

Welcome to the forum!

Just so we're all clear here, what do you mean by "stooge"?

[andycal]

There's a problem here. Derren Brown says "No stooges are used during the production of this program".

So, is he lying? Or by stooge do we mean an 'assistant'?

[subpers]

Hello,
thanks for the welcome.

A stooge is traditionally someone who is in cahoots with the magician/mind reader/psychic, etc before the performance. That is, the performer & stooge have planned & practised what will happen & both know whats going to happen once that the stooge is called upon.

With reference to DBs performances I mean a stooge as someone who will "assist" in the performance, but who may not know this before being selected. You might suspect that it is a dangerous thing to do, to use someone to assist in a trick, but this seems to be a favourite technique of DBs. His effect "Lift" (which was removed from pure effect) uses exactly this principle of dual reality, as did the synchronised wine drinkers at the dinner party in his first TV series. The people participating are being "instructed" as the trick is performed, and are therefore working with the magician to acheive the effect. They are not stooges in the traditional sense of the word because they have had no prior coaching.

This principle seems to be at work in much of series 2 (in my opinion), but on one or 2 rare occassions the "traditional stooge" does seem to have been used. In the Victorian seance this is probably quite legitimate, because of course, fake Victorian mediums themselves also used helpers. If you're recreating a Victorian seance, then it may become desireable to use exactly the same methods that they used to achieve the original effects. In particular during the seance itself, some of the effects cannot be acheived without help - for example, a luminous object floating requires someone to physically &/or mechanically move it.. If it isn't DB doing this then its someone else (unless you want to believe that the spirits really were present). Also, the letter containing the information that the "medium" predicted requires outside help - that would be a stooge more in keeping with the traditional version.

[andycal]

Sounds fair. I think then that we can make a distinction here and all be happy.

My understanding of a stooge, me being a viewer in the audience would be someone who is called upon stage who has prior knowledge of the trick and assists in making it work.

For example, if I do a card trick, I may have primed a friend to make certain noises, gestures etc. to indicate what card someone has taken from the pack (assuming the friend can see the card).

Thus, the friend is in on the act (but giving the impression that they're not) and is therefore a stooge.

If DB takes five people, then gets one of them to help with the act using a 'dual reality' technique, then I can't see how the victim can be termed a stooge. He's simply using his skill to alter what this person believes/behaves.

Likewise, if he uses someone else from the crew to do something (such as pull a wire to make a ball rise), this person is not a stooge - they are assistants.

In which case he doesn't use stooges as such, he doesn't need to.

[Azrael 5]

subpers are you a member of themagiccafe? Regardless I wish to take issue with your claims of stooge.You state Derren uses stooges,and did in Seance with spirit cabinet.Please explain if the girl wasnt in on it and the film was someone else pre-recorded-who threw the tambourine? I know magic principles and without divulging secrets(not allowed on here)I cant see a method for taking a tambourine from someones hand and throwing it with force out of the cabinet.Except for another person being there,which there wasnt.
I have watched this effect,and the video clearly shows Derren kicking the tambourine back in-as he did in real time.In the identical same place both times.Whats the odds of something being thrown blindly and landing in the precise spot both times?
Derren could not know what clothes the girl would wear for filming(assuming she wasnt picked at random)gloves,scarf,position of body.Too many variables to replicate.He would need an identical girl,hairstyle,clothes etc.
Sorry unless you can cite evidence he used the girl as an instant stooge, or that it was someone else on the playback I dismiss your claims.
Regarding "Lift" that isnt a stooge in any sense of the word.Dual reality,yes,but the spectator does not "go along with the performer" Surely they would just stand up and say "You were standing [MAGICIAN SECRET ] thats how you did it"
;)

[subpers]

I don't quite understand what you mean when you state:

"Regarding "Lift" that isnt a stooge in any sense of the word.Dual reality,yes,but the spectator does not "go along with the performer" Surely they would just stand up and say "You were standing [MAGICIAN SECRET ] thats how you did it""

That is how the effect is performed & the assistant doesn't stand up and say "You were standing [MAGICIAN SECRET ] thats how you did it" - how are they not "going along with the performer?"

As for the cabinet, a) have a closer look at the construction more carefully. b) The girl isn't holding the tambourine in her hands, she reaches over and picks it up then throws it out. c)If she is a stooge why would her clothes be randomly picked by her?

[Azrael 5]

Can you post proof for your theories.If not then you are just guessing and the subject gets nowhere.;)

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Download adobe acrobat-its free!

Especially for you (http://www.adobe.com.au/products/acrobat/readstep2.html) ;)

Thankyou Kind Sir:)

Sharon

[Azrael 5]

Just while subpers is coming up with some more wild theories,here is a quote from Derren Brown on stooges:
It's absolutely vital that the spectator you see in the show has the same experience of the effect as when they watch it on TV. I can't go chopping bits around, or they'd have a good reason to complain. Equally, aside from how artistically replulsive it is, I can't go employing stooges. Whatever we could pay them would be nothing compared to what a paper would pay for their story. And also, we can't go filming a street routine a hundred times and then just show the few that work. We'd have 95 sets of people (in front of whom I had repeatedly humiliated myself)complaining that their bit wasn't shown because it didn't work; and financially and logistically it's not possible. It takes ages to set up and shoot these things.
Nutshell closed.
;)

[pjh]

There's an important distinction used by magicians to do with the word stooge. Normaly a stooge is an accomplice of the magician who is pretending to be a regular joe member of the public.

In this sense, Debbie McGee or a hidden extra who moves a ball when the lights are off are not stooges.

However, magicians while saying they do not use Stooges, use an other term 'Instant Stooge'. These are regular audience members who at some stage of the show go along with the magician.

An example: Magician gets 2 people from the audience, gets one to pick a card and the other is going to read that persons mind.

So let's say the magician forces the 8 of clubs (And always does). The magician now gets the other audience member to 'read that persons mind'. Unseen by the audience, he will show the card to just the 'mind reader' (maybe its written on the palm of his hand). Now the audience member is an 'Instant Stooge' - he's on stage, lights glaring, the magician is charismatic and charming, you'd be *amazed* how many people will go along. It's slightly risky, but in the rare cases where the person won't play along the magician has plenty of ways to rescue the trick.

In this sense *all* Stage Hypnosist subjects are all Instant Stooges, does anyone honestly believe that you can 'suggest' to another human being that they're a dog - and in any meaningful sense they actually are?

[pjh]

Derren could not know what clothes the girl would wear for filming(assuming she wasnt picked at random)gloves,scarf,position of body.Too many variables to replicate.He would need an identical girl,hairstyle,clothes etc.
Sorry unless you can cite evidence he used the girl as an instant stooge, or that it was someone else on the playback I dismiss your claims.

Summary of trick:

Girl is put in a curtained enclosure along with tambourine on table, curtains closed, tambourine comes flying out. Girl denies she threw it out. Derren has a camera mounted over head looking down into the curtained enclosure, connected to video recorder. Tape is rewound, girl is seen to throw out the tambourine, she is dumbfounded and still denies she has any memory of doing it.

As far as I can see we only have 3 options:

1. Girl is lying, she did throw the tambourine out and remembers doing so.

2. Girl is telling the truth as she knows it, but she actualy did throw the tambourine out, but Derren using his leet Hypno and NLP skillz has made her have no recall of said event.

3. We were treated to a lovely misdirection, where going to trouble we can barely conceive of, Derren was able to film a similar girl wearing similar clothes, film the actual throw long before, and the tambourine was actually thrown by an unseen accomplice 'hidden behind the curtain'

Option 1 is by far the simplest, but option 2 is far fetched beyond belief. There is no way that you can tell another human to forget something and they actually do. Anyone proposing such a theory must be able to conceive of a test where this could be proved. I'm not asking you to conduct the test I'm asking you just to propose how an independent observer could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this has occurred

[subpers]

Which is why I proposed number 3. I still insist the girl was a "stooge" in the seance at the end.

[TheBoyPaj]

I remember that my immediate impression was that it was a prerecorded video, but that was only because I had seen a similar method used on Jonathan Creek a few weeks before.

[andycal]

2. Girl is telling the truth as she knows it, but she actualy did throw the tambourine out, but Derren using his leet Hypno and NLP skillz has made her have no recall of said event.

Isn't this pretty much most of his act? Like when he makes the guy on the train forget his stop? Paul McKenna did a similar thing with Richard Hammond on Top Gear, he made him forget how to drive a car, what a steering wheel is etc.

Isn't it just standard pattern interuption?

[pjh]

Isn't this pretty much most of his act? Like when he makes the guy on the train forget his stop? Paul McKenna did a similar thing with Richard Hammond on Top Gear, he made him forget how to drive a car, what a steering wheel is etc.

No, no and thrice NO!

NLP does not exist, it is a made-up thing. These people are 'predending' Just imagine a world were this was true. No one could be convicted in court if a professional nlper could 'pattern interrupt' the witnesses as they went in.

If this is true, then it shoul be possible to devise a Scientific test to prove it. My point is that even as a thought experiment how can you prove to a third party that you have genuinely forgotten something.

NLP is total and utter bullsh*t

[andycal]

Ok, just to get things into perspective, I'm with you on the whole NLP thing. I'm not suggesting that it could be used in a court of law etc...

But back to pattern interruption, it is possible to make someone forget something for a bit. I've done it myself, just interrupt them mid coversation or when they're concentrating on something and wham, they're all over the place. Doesn't last long, but it can spook people.

The girl had been put in a stressful situation, was concentrating on stuff and there was ample time for DB to do something to interrupt it and make her forget.

That's not to say that only five minutes later she remembered but because of the whole event didn't say anything else. Can you imaging if ten minutes later she said "Y'know, I did throw it out, I remember now". By this point she is caught up in the act.

I guess now she is a 'stooge', but she wasn't a willing stooge at the beginning, she merely got caught up in it.

[pjh]

The girl had been put in a stressful situation, was concentrating on stuff and there was ample time for DB to do something to interrupt it and make her forget.

Oh please ...

If you and me are having a civilised conversation and you do something strange sure I'm going to stop. If it's bizarre or shocking enough then I may even forget what we were talking about.

If I walk into a room and get interruped then sometimes I may even forget why I went into the room.

Big deal. If that's your 'pattern interrup' well then fine, but I don't see why it's even worth talking about.

For what DB did (with the woman in the curtains) would have required:

a/ Her 'pre-triggered' - A la 'Korean brainwashing' to throw the tambourine out (without her being aware the impulse is planted) How surreal is that - an Impulse for her not to tolerate an 'evil tambourine' in her presence!

b/ As she performs the act of throwing the tambourine she self erases the memory.

Are you aware that films like 'Paycheck' and 'The Manchurian Candidate' are FICTION, not documentaries of 'Real life reconstructions'!

[Azrael 5]

Im going for 2.I dont believe she was in on it and lying,and 3 is just far too much trouble to go to.I do not believe she was in on it,theory 1.
At some point today im going to re-watch and see what I can pick up.

[TheBoyPaj]

An example of Mr Brown's act, for those who are not aware what we are talking about:

http://www.pagetworld.plus.com/derren.avi

For the record, I do not think this has anything to do with NLP or suggestion.

Edited to add a letter. One stinking letter!

[andycal]

Originally posted by pjh
Oh please ...

Are you aware that films like 'Paycheck' and 'The Manchurian Candidate' are FICTION, not documentaries of 'Real life reconstructions'!

For the love of...

Ok, I haven't seen either of those films, I'm not saying that people can have their memory erased by the use of psychological techniques or red laser pens (I have seen MIB!).

I have no idea what it would have required for DB to have performed the trick (or what the Korean thingy is). However, if pattern interruption works in some way, then could it be used in the seance? You are saying no, I am saying "I don't know".

At the moment, I still think that '2' is the more likely answer, but that doesn't mean I believe in NLP or any other strange claim. I think it's possible using normal human behaviour and for the life of me I can't see anything odd in that.

[andycal]

Nice one Paj, I'm just watching the DVD with comentary on.

By the way, I too don't think NLP has anything to play here, but I can see why pjh might be thinking that as I replied to a quote that did mention it.

No, I think he uses standard stage distraction, nothing more, nothing less. I also think that the tamborine trick can be explained in the same way.

[andycal]

I think this sums it up from DB...

It's more about getting them to believe they can't remember than having them forget...

[Azrael 5]

Cant view the clip Paj,which effect is it? What's your view on Seancegate? ;)

[andycal]

It's on the tube, getting people to forget their stop. He explains it clearly on the DVD - quite enlightening, haven't listened to it before.

[subpers]

Making people forget things like their name for a few seconds is just an old stage hypnotists trick, that's not to say that you need to have hypnotised them, just to interrupt them in their train of thought. Its perfectly natural and nothing remotely impressive.

As for option 3 being far too much trouble, lets consider it within the bounds of reality for a minute. Your a magician who wants to create an effect where someone is placed behind a curtain & then apparently instantly hypnotised and told to relax. You want it to appear that they have then picked up an object, thrown it over the curtain, and then completely lost their recollection of having done it, or to just lie and say they didn't do it.

How do you do this? You can't non verbally tell them that you want them to throw the object out & then lie, you can't "NLP" them into doing it, and even if you could you can't erase their memory. You'd have to rely on them spontaneously knowing what you wanted them to do, & then lying convincingly enough afterwards that they could fool everyone else into believing them. Or use a stooge (though I'm not suggesting she was a stooge in this part).

The obvious way is to put the girl in the cabinet, have a hidden person throw out the object, and then show the pre recorded video. This is not a great effort. Stage magicians produce effects that are far more complex than this routinely.

However, my suggestion is that he did this because the girl was a stooge in the seance part of the show, and this is a kind of insurance for DB - If the girl did spill the beans, the fact that she couldn't explain what happened in the cabinet would be far more impressive than the revelation of stoogery itself.

You might not believe that this is a likely scenario, but in a show like this, live or not, you would need to guarentee that the effects would work, not rely on NLP, suggestion, or anything else. There has to be a physical way to make sure that the effects will happen as planned, and the only way to do that is with traditional magic.

[pjh]

Derren is a magician. He is misdirecting you not only with the trick but with the means as to which it is achieved.

Now when this comes up we always come back to these 2 effects - 'The London Eye' and 'The Tube'.

I cannot explain how these are achieved, except to say the following.

You *cannot* wave a hand in front of someones face and make them forget one specific thing (his stop) then touch them on the forehead and have that memory return.

When confronted with someone as charming a Derren with a TV crew - some people will go along with it for a bit of a laugh (and shock! horror! to get on TV!). Stage hypnotists have been earning a damn good living off this basic premise foir years.

[subpers]

pjh, I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, but it is actually possible to make someone forget their name, etc in this manner for a few seconds. It has to be done just right, it won't work on everyone, and it isn't anything new. Try it out and see what happens.

[pjh]

We'll have to agree to differ on this. I accept that someone could me made forget what they came into a room for or, what I do all the time- 'What WERE we just talking about?' but their name, sorry no.

By the way, I don't think that there was any need for a stooge in the final Seance section - what makes you think the woman needs to be a stooge - the envelope could easily have been switched by the 'unknown ball moving enity'. They were all holding hands and there was that big final jump with lots of screaming. What specifically are you saying couldn't be achieved without a stooge?

[subpers]

If I remember rightly, and I think I do, the objects on the table moved causing the jumping around, etc, before the "medium" was asked a number of questions. Assuming that she answered with the first things that came into her head (ie, she wasn't told what to say), then the letter had to be finished, ie the details filled in, whilst everyone was again sat down & not distracted by the moving objects. This means that the girl with the letter would have to substitute the first envelope with the one containing the completed letter whilst the home movies of Janes childhood were being shown, thereby making her a stooge.

[Dr Adequate]

Magicians regularly do sealed envelope tricks wthout the aid of stooges. Just 'cos you can't think of any other way of doing it...

I have to wonder what happened to the letter during the seance. They were all holding hands, remember? Was she gripping it tightly with her knees, or did she put it down somewhere?

Next time DB performs on TV, someone had better video the show.

[taxexile]

Originally posted by subpers
pjh, I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, but it is actually possible to make someone forget their name, etc in this manner for a few seconds. It has to be done just right, it won't work on everyone, and it isn't anything new. Try it out and see what happens.

Subpers; what are the steps I need to follow to reproduce this effect? You sound like the person who can specify this as you have used it many times. Please share with us the exact technique which you say works. In exchange, I can provide some programming language code of which i am an expert in... something logical and reproduceable. I look forward to you writting in this forum the technique so we can all try it out and see what happens. I am fascinated what the 'it' is and the way it has to be done right; after all, it isn't anything new is it?

[subpers]

You know, your standard response of "Just 'cos you can't think of any other way of doing it..." is becoming rather tiresome. I am well aware of the methods used by magicians to do these effects, and in this case it requires "outside help". The problem here is that you don't know any way of doing it, and consequently your answers reflect your ignorance. Before commenting on a subject like the method used to achieve the effects in the seance you might like to make sure that a) You remember enough about the sequence of events to offer a sensible & plausible explantion, b) you have some knowledge of the methods employed by magicians to achieve the results that you've witnessed, and c) you can offer an alternative solution, not just "I don't believe that" with no qualifier.

Trying to debunk something without any knowledge whatsoever is just plain foolish.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with your explanation of how the effects were achieved. For example, you state that magicians have other methods of performing a sealed envelope trick, so I'd have to assume that you can offer a valid alternative. Explain how the letter in the envelope contained exactly the facts that the medium arrived at if it wasn't furnished after she'd answered the questions randomly.

[subpers]

I'm not going to write it in this forum, it is contained in a book that I wrote & currently sell. There are a multitude of other books containing this method, so you can readily find it if you want to. Try 7 Deception by Luke Jermay for example, if you'd like a different version to mine.

[taxexile]

Originally posted by subpers
I'm not going to write it in this forum, it is contained in a book that I wrote & currently sell. There are a multitude of other books containing this method, so you can readily find it if you want to. Try 7 Deception by Luke Jermay for example, if you'd like a different version to mine.

That's why i offered an exchange; which also would be available in printed form. It's a shame you try to use this as a sales opportunity. Imagine if I enquired about simple laws of motion and that was the response. I've found in all cases where information is hoarded for a cost, it's all BS! Which is why it's hoarded! You call someone ignorant for not giving a detailed explanation! Classic case of projection! You have contradicted yourself, and you are a hyprocrite.

[subpers]

I'm not trying to use it a sales opportunity - if I were I wouldn't recommend someone elses book would I? It is an old stage hypnotists trick - go and read some books on stage hypnosis and you'll find it there. It's not difficult to locate, it is very well documented. I'm not going to give away for free, something that I sell. That's hardly hypocrisy. I have given details explanations of how I think it was done, I'd rather hear an plausible alternative than "Derren doesn't use stooges coz he says so."

[taxexile]

Originally posted by subpers
I'm not trying to use it a sales opportunity - if I were I wouldn't recommend someone elses book would I? It is an old stage hypnotists trick - go and read some books on stage hypnosis and you'll find it there. It's not difficult to locate, it is very well documented.

I'm sorry. I must apologise. I have accademic qualifications. I don't accept referals to papers unless they are cited. If you were truely knowledgable you would cite; if you were ignorant yourself you might say something along the lines of "I know something you don't. I suggest, instead of me telling you, that you go look it up yourself. It's so well documented!!". Hypocrite!

Incidentally, next time, to avoid a sales opportunity, dont refer to your own book. Just refer to other peoples. Then it isnt a sales opportunity. You did though; so don't try and pull the wool over my eyes

[subpers]

There's no need to pull the wool over your eyes, they're already firmly shut. Don't call me a hypocrite because you can't be bothered to get of your arse and find out for yourself. I've already given you the name of one book and author that explains the technique - what more do you want?

[pjh]

There is a lesson here about taking anything a magician does as proof of anything.

I have said before that I have a problem with good old Derren in that he goes out of his way to convince the general public that he is doing more than magic.

I think the ultimate proof of this is that he's on TV at all, if Penn & Teller or Paul Daniels wanted to do a Loaded gun russian roullette trick there is no way they would have gotten a one hour prime time live special. He went out of his way to imply that what we were seeing wasn't a standard magic trick, it was all about how he chose the person that mattered. This is complete and utter crap, the trick works because the trick works, it doesn't matter who he chose.

He recently appeared on Comic Relief doing the effect where he guesses again and again which hand a person is holding a coin in. A quick poll in work and everyone truly belived that he was doing what he said he was doing, ie reading her body language. None had even considered that he wasn't actually doing that (ie he was using another means to determine which hand the coin was in).

Derrens genius (if you want to call it that) is that he's very succesfully misdirected the audience not just with the trick, but with the means as to how the trick is achieved.

Derren may use "Applied Psychology" in his show, but no more so then any magician who understands how to misdirect and fool people.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Before commenting on a subject like the method used to achieve the effects in the seance you might like to make sure that a) You remember enough about the sequence of events to offer a sensible & plausible explantion... I trust you have followed your own advice, and can therefore give us a blow-by-blow account of the proceedings, including an answer to my question: where was the envelope during the seance?

[TheBoyPaj]

To be fair, I don't think subper's comment is an advert. He didn't mention the title and you don't even know his real name!


I'll record all the relevant bits of the show and make them available later on today.

[subpers]

Thanks. It wasn't an advert, it was the reason that I'm not going to post it on here - otherwise I'll be accused of making up excuses for not posting it.

[subpers]

I actually jotted down the events as they unfolded. Briefly:
the spirit cabinet with the girl,
then the video,
then the bloke in the cabinet.
Then 1 girl is seperated from the group & choses a room to sit in.
then the photos come out & the 12 participants pick one after following a long sequence of instructions from Derren that will, if followed correctly, end up on the same photo irrespective of starting point.
Next was automatic writing giving the city London.
Then the ouija,
then its revealed that the room the girl chose was the "spirits" room
then the seance. A medium is selected by handing round cards,
then "jane" makes her presence known by ringing the bell etc.
everyone screams and jumps up.
then the spirit speaks through the medium & answers questions.
then the video & letter opening which corresponds exactly with the mediums answers.
Then "Jane" is shown to be alive & well.

I believe that the envelope was in the girls inside jacket pocket, though I didn't jot that down & am working from memory.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I'll record all the relevant bits of the show and make them available later on today.

Just noticed that I can't do this. It's gone from TiVo. I have still got "Messiah", but that's no help.
:(

[Dr Adequate]

Subpers --- I meant the sequence of events involving the seance and the opening of the letter, including who handled the envelope, etc. I remember the order in which he did the tricks, but that's hardly relevant, is it?

I don't agree with your analysis of the trick. If you wanted to reproduce the effect using a stooge, there's every reason why your stooge should be the 'medium' rather than the person with the envelope. It guarantees that you get a good performance out of the medium, rather than risking mere hysterics: instead, you can prearrange to have her say the sort of things an affectionate brother might reminisce about in a letter. You can write the letter leisurely beforehand, rather than having someone in the next room scribbling away. And there's no need to try to get away with a substitution in a room full of people: the trick has "no moving parts". Why do it the hard way rather than the easy way? Whether or not DB uses stooges, I think we can agree that he's no fool. If he used a stooge, it was the 'medium'.

[TheBoyPaj]

And the medium was chosen by picking cards?


"Awooogah! Awoogah!"

[subpers]

The stooge would have to be either the medium or the person holding the letter. I suggest the person holding the letter because of the spirit cabinet involvement, and the reasons stated earlier. You have 12 people, why use the same person for several bits?
If the stooge was the medium and she admitted it, the whole thing would fall apart, there would be no mystery left. By subjecting the stooge to an experience that she couldn't explain, you have at least some insurance.

I wouldn't expect DB to do anything the easy way. There are plenty of magicians out there, if DB just did things in the same way as everyone else he wouldn't be where he is today. Its the difference in his performances that make him stand out.

At least we now agree that there was probably a stooge.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by subpers
[B]The stooge would have to be either the medium or the person holding the letter. I suggest the person holding the letter because of the spirit cabinet involvement, and the reasons stated earlier. You have 12 people, why use the same person for several bits?

Because it makes her a suspect, so everyone's watching her instead of the real stooge.

I wouldn't expect DB to do anything the easy way. There are plenty of magicians out there, if DB just did things in the same way as everyone else he wouldn't be where he is today. Its the difference in his performances that make him stand out.

Well, his presentation is different, so what does it matter is he uses the same old methods? I can't tell you the number of tricks I've bought and, on finding out the secret, said "Is that it?". Sometimes the easy way is all it takes.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
If the stooge was the medium and she admitted it, the whole thing would fall apart, there would be no mystery left. By subjecting the stooge to an experience that she couldn't explain, you have at least some insurance.(1) Why would the stooge be baffled? Under your hypothesis, she gets the letter after the seance. This isn't going to leave her puzzling "how did she do that"?

(2) Any stooge coming forward is going to crush DB's career like an anchovy in a neutron star.I wouldn't expect DB to do anything the easy way. There are plenty of magicians out there, if DB just did things in the same way as everyone else he wouldn't be where he is today. Its the difference in his performances that make him stand out.That's presentation. You've given no compelling reason why the stooge should be the girl with the envelope, rather than the 'medium'.At least we now agree that there was probably a stooge. Half right... you agree, I don't.

I want to see the trick again before I say "probably" anything.

[Azrael 5]

Originally poted by subpersI wouldn't expect DB to do anything the easy way. There are plenty of magicians out there, if DB just did things in the same way as everyone else he wouldn't be where he is today. Its the difference in his performances that make him stand out.

He uses all the same methods as magicians(having just seen him live I can assure you of that)he just disguises the methods in good presentation.

I do not believe that she threw out the tambourine at all.
So how did it end up in the audience?I have studied the performance moments ago,there was a solid wall behind the spirit cabinet and no one stood there when the curtain was drawn,so no third party is possible.

I don't say stooge because I don't know how it's done, I say stooge because I do know how it's done.

So tell us,and also tells how you know.

Oooh look at this http://www.subliminalpersuasion.co.uk
A Complete breakdown of 2 Derren Brown effects explains the scripts, theory, etc. Includes a full explanation of all of the Methods
Why would you want to reveal secrets(your own or anyone elses)IF you are a magician? Im sure Derren Brown wouldnt be very happy neither.Doesnt this constitute theft? :(

[feyd rautha]

Take a look at the forums, check out some of the posts and you'll find that to turn up here and just make wild accusations about something that you know little about is just plain stupid.

Making a claim like "I don't get how 'x' is done, it must therefore be 'y'" is just crazy.

There are many things that magicians do that are hard to explain, or look impossible - what's the point in doing them if every Tom Dick or Harry knows exactly how it's done?


i dont make wild accusations, i know how every major trick is done, except some of derrens.

you are an arrogant fack, i will ignore you in the future.

[andycal]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
i dont make wild accusations, i know how every major trick is done, except some of derrens.

you are an arrogant fack, i will ignore you in the future.

Yay! Somehow I feel part of the family now!

My arrogance and your knowledge aside, the problem here is one of evidence. You could be anyone. Just coming on here and saying 'I know how it's done' means nothing (it could be seen as arrogant and 'fackish').

So far, we have people saying they know how it's done and DB unfortunatley can't defend himself 'cos he's not here (actually, he might be...)

The best we have is that a lot of people have seen him and have studied the tapes and don't agree with your explinations. You're just going to have to put up with it until someone can prove it either way.

Mind you, if you choose to ignore me based on my post then you've not got much of a constitution, blimey, in the land of the Jref it was tame...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
i dont make wild accusations, i know how every major trick is done, except some of derrens.

you are an arrogant fack, i will ignore you in the future.
Wow. Every major trick by every magician except for Derren Brown?

Could you reveal the secret of Pann and Teller's bullet catching trick then?

[Azrael 5]

Where's subpers vanished to? subpers,the magician who gives away secrets online,secrets which aren't even his.The same person who has written bookes on magic,but falls at the very first hurdle of magic:dont reveal secrets!
To quote Delia Smith "Where are yer...come on lets have yer"
feyd rautha,Im still waiting for a sufficient explanation of how Derren Brown uses stooges.Also you must be very knowledgeable in magic,as Ive been intersted in magic for 25 years and still dont know how every trick is done..unlike you!

[subpers]

Azrael,
Be careful what your saying. The tricks I sell are my own versions of well established conjouring tricks, and as such I have every right to sell them, just as many other performers sell their own versions. There isn't much new under the sun, most magic is just a variation on a theme. You'll also find a multitude of other performers who produce books revealing how they achieve their effects, so I guess they've all failed then - including DB? He has 2 books out, and a very educational video as well that reveales the secrets behind his very successful card repertoire.

[subpers]

Dr Adequate,
You seem to be having difficulty following what I'm saying, so just once more, to answer your questions:

(1) Why would the stooge be baffled? Under your hypothesis, she gets the letter after the seance. This isn't going to leave her puzzling "how did she do that"?

The letter contains information that the "medium" has revealed only a short time previously, so either a) The medium is the stooge and just repeats parrot fashion, the information that is contained in the letter, or, b) the girl holding the letter is the stooge and she switches the envelope for one prepared after the mediums predictions. Assuming the stooge is the girl with the letter, then she would, if she reveals the letter switch, still be baffled because she couldn't explain how the tambourine came flying over the curtain because SHE DIDN'T TOUCH IT! This in itself would be far more bewildering than the revelation of a letter switch. I'm sorry but using the medium is just way too amateurish, and should she reveal this later then his career would be finished - It would leave nothing unanswered and kill the mystique.

(2) Any stooge coming forward is going to crush DB's career like an anchovy in a neutron star.

We already know that he uses "assistants," as per lift. I don't imagine that he wants this revealed either, but he still does it. By providing the "helper" with a real "miracle" that they can't explain (like, for example, the woman in series 2 who stops every time DB puts his hand up, and she herself then stops a passerby in the street from an elevated window, by simply saying "stop"), he provides himself with some breathing space. Imagine her going to the press "Yes okay, that's how he made you stop, but how did you make the girl stop?" - Ermmmm. I don't know, I just did.

Right.


"That's presentation. You've given no compelling reason why the stooge should be the girl with the envelope, rather than the 'medium'."

Yes, exactly. Because of his presentation. If he relied on performing like a rank amateur who can only think in one dimension, then he wouldn't be so successful, and wouldn't succeed in baffling even well established professional magicians as well. Instead, like you, he'd be arguing on here that "he couldn't have done it like that because it sounds a bit too complicated, and he knows a much easier way" - the same way that everyone else can come up with too.

[subpers]

To quote one of your previous posts:

"He uses all the same methods as magicians(having just seen him live I can assure you of that)he just disguises the methods in good presentation."

& then:

"So how did it [the tambourine] end up in the audience?I have studied the performance moments ago,there was a solid wall behind the spirit cabinet and no one stood there when the curtain was drawn,so no third party is possible."

Is there not some contradictory thinking at work here?
On the one hand he's a magician using conjuring tricks cunnigly disguised by the presentation, yet in the very same post you've changed from conjouring being the method because you think it isn't possible! Either you're now saying that he did, in fact, perform a feat of mind control on the girl that is little short of miraculous, or that she is a stooge? Or are you going to revert back to him using the methods that other magicians use, but you can't figure it out?

I can assure you that it is possible to conceal someone in a cabinet like that, it is constructed in such a way to only make it seem it impossible. If you could clearly see where someone might be hiding, it wouldn't be very impressive would it? That's the point of doing the trick in the first place. To fool people.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Dr Adequate,
You seem to be having difficulty following what I'm saying.... And that post did not make your opinions any more coherent. Personally, I put that down to your opinions rather than your writing style.

I have amply proven that the only way you could think of to do the trick is not the only way or even the best way. A tiny bit of thought suggests another, as I've shown.

You can't deny this, but what you are banging on about is fairly obscure.

[subpers]

No, any fool could have come up with your method. It's so transparent that it isn't even worth considering. No magician outside of a high school would even contemplate it.

The simple fact is that you can't think in more than one dimension, and bemoaning that you can't understand my point is nonsense, unless you can't understand plain english and simple logic.

But then again.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
No, any fool could have come up with your method.But you didn't. Are you a subfool? It's so transparent that it isn't even worth considering. But you didn't think of it. No magician outside of a high school would even contemplate it. And yet the two methods produce an identical effect.

Why should Derren Brown have used the first method that sprang to your mind and the only one you could think of? The simple fact is that you can't think in more than one dimension, and bemoaning that you can't understand my point is nonsense, unless you can't understand plain english and simple logic.

But then again. I must confess that when I pause from reading Karl Popper's The Logic Of Scientific Discovery to answer your incoherent, rambling posts in which you try to explain that you're right about something I've proved you wrong about, my level of comprehension drops. But I do not attribute this to any deficit in my powers of understanding.

Rather, I attribute it to your habit of talking nonsense. This is what I was laughing at (or, in your quaint jargon, "bemoaning").

BTW: I have taught logic at university. You're not even close.

[Azrael 5]

subpers,a few points.Give away or sell any of your own secrets you like(why should I be careful,by the way?)but I post again your quote:
A Complete breakdown of 2 Derren Brown effects explains the scripts, theory, etc. Includes a full explanation of all of the Methods
Well..?
Also...I don't say stooge because I don't know how it's done, I say stooge because I do know how it's done.
So do tell when Derren Brown or Objective productions told youtheir methods?
Im telling you,there wasnt anyone else in that spirit cabinet.As for this letter thing,Ill have to re-watch the end bit again and come back.

Oh..lastly a re-post but important I think:
;)It's absolutely vital that the spectator you see in the show has the same experience of the effect as when they watch it on TV. I can't go chopping bits around, or they'd have a good reason to complain. Equally, aside from how artistically replulsive it is, I can't go employing stooges. Whatever we could pay them would be nothing compared to what a paper would pay for their story. And also, we can't go filming a street routine a hundred times and then just show the few that work. We'd have 95 sets of people (in front of whom I had repeatedly humiliated myself)complaining that their bit wasn't shown because it didn't work; and financially and logistically it's not possible. It takes ages to set up and shoot these things ;)

BTW New Series Trick of the Mind on E4 10.30pm.Full of stooges,no doubt. ;)

[subpers]

Would that be a quote from Derren. Do you think he's telling you what he wants you to think?

[subpers]

You haven't proved me wrong dr inadequate. I looked at the performance as a whole, and to me, the likelihood is that my solution is correct. I had obviously surmised that the medium may be the stooge, but it is highly unlikely, particularly as it is too bland for words, and the girl with the letter had already partaken in the spirit cabinet. This would appear to be part of the MO of DB effects, to provide something that isn't explainable to the assistant. If you know what you're looking for you could review the previous series and see where it was occuring, but because you don't know what you're looking at you come up with the banal to explain away the truly magnificent.

Like I said, any fool could come up with your method, but there aren't many fools in DBs position.

[subpers]

Azrael,
Rewatching the video won't help you at all. You're not going to see anything that you didn't see the first time. Might I suggest instead that you watch the sequence of the girl being put in the cabinet, the tambourine flying out, etc. Time each individual event, no matter how insignificant, exactly, to the second, from the curtain closing to it opening again. Then watch the "video replay". Time it again, and see if the events correspond EXACTLY - they will have timed it as far as is possible to correspond, but it is virtually impossible. Remember that the events are filmed real time, even though they are shown from a different angle - a single non correspondence will confirm my opinion - if not - and I totally trust you to be objective (we want the facts, not to win petty arguments) - then I'm wrong & I'm prepared to hold my hand up & say so.

That seems to be the fairest & most scientifically minded way to get to the bottom of this - do you agree?

[subpers]

In addition,
perhaps you could look at exactly the position of the hands on the knees, the clothes, the way the hair is tied back, the positioning on the chair, the swing of the curtains, the time it takes the curtains to settle, DBs attire, etc, etc, etc. The ideal obviously would be to have 2 TVs, one playing the effect as it happened, the other the replay in sychronisation, to see what happened, but I'm willing to wager that even the overall time from curtain shutting to opening will differ by at least 3/10ths of a second - which obviously can't be the case if if it's the same clip.

[Azrael 5]

if not - and I totally trust you to be objective (we want the facts, not to win petty arguments) - then I'm wrong & I'm prepared to hold my hand up & say so.
So you are changing your mind now? Originally,you stated it was done by stooges-youknew this,now you are saying you might be wrong.
The next time I see Derren Brown,I will print this thread off and give it to him.Maybe..just maybe he'll come here and answer his critics,or at least own up.Then again....:D

[subpers]

No dummy, Im not changing my mind. I said right at the beginning that the girl didn't throw out the tambourine - someone hidden in the box did it. She later stooged by swapping letters. As you said earlier "I watch this a few moments ago", I can only assume that you have the video. So, I'm offering you the chance to obtain definitive proof that I'm right - but you're obviously too stupid to even understand it. If the video of the original event isn't exactly the same as the video replay, by timing, positioning, clothing, or anything else, then they aren't filmed at the same time.

God give me strength. If you're the kind of people that adjudicate in the $1million challenge then Randi should be bankrupt by now.

You'd be better off joining the most haunted forum. That ones full of muppets too.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
You haven't proved me wrong dr inadequate. My username always sorts the boys from the men.I looked at the performance as a whole, and to me, the likelihood is that my solution is correct.Enjoy your complacent little ego trip then. I had obviously surmised that the medium may be the stoogeThis is a usage of "obviously" which I was previously unaware of.but it is highly unlikely, particularly as it is too bland for wordsYou'll find that many tricks are simple when you know how they're done., and the girl with the letter had already partaken in the spirit cabinet. This would appear to be part of the MO of DB effects, to provide something that isn't explainable to the assistant. If you know what you're looking for you could review the previous series and see where it was occuring, but because you don't know what you're looking at you come up with the banal to explain away the truly magnificent.That's an interesting lie.

What I have in fact done, as everyone on this thread can see, is come up with another way to do the trick besides the way you claimed it must have been done.

Your own knowledge of magic I judge by the fact that you would think a stupid and clumsy use of stooges "magnificent".Like I said, any fool could come up with your method, but there aren't many fools in DBs position. No. And as I've pointed out, only a fool would use the stupid method you propose when he could use a much safer one to achieve exactly the same effect.

[subpers]

Listen Inadequate,
If you'd read the posts prior to yours you'd have seen that I've offered the only scientifically proveable way to determine once & for all whether I'm talking bollocks or not. You can sit there flapping your tongue in any kind of gibberish that you like - it still doesn't make you right. If someone has the tape then they can do exactly what I've asked and we'll know for sure - no conjecture, no surmisation, no guesswork - only fact.

Problem is, no one seems to have the intelligence to realise it. I stand the risk if someone does this of being proved totally wrong - but I don't care because I know I'm right. So how about holding off the nonsense that you keep drooling out all over the thread until someone goes away and does what I've suggested. I'd post the results myself but you'd only accuse me of making it up.

The problem is that you're too stupid to realise exactly how stupid you are.

[Dr Adequate]

Now I think of it, although the two proposed methods use the same number of stooges, your method would seem to involve more people (surely at least one more person) knowing that the mechanism of the trick involves the girl with the envelope being a stooge, and so carries at least twice the potential risk of someone blowing the gaff.

Can you suggest a way round this?

[Azrael 5]

Insulting people via the internet subpers is very immature.But from someone who rips off other magicians I expect no less.But thing is ,putting your identity online is silly when doing such things.Websites with paypal and credit card links all lead back to you.
Grow up or get banned.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Listen Inadequate,
If you'd read the posts prior to yours you'd have seen that I've offered the only scientifically proveable way to determine once & for all whether I'm talking bollocks or not. You can sit there flapping your tongue in any kind of gibberish that you like - it still doesn't make you right. If someone has the tape then they can do exactly what I've asked and we'll know for sure - no conjecture, no surmisation, no guesswork - only fact.

Problem is, no one seems to have the intelligence to realise it. I stand the risk if someone does this of being proved totally wrong - but I don't care because I know I'm right. So how about holding off the nonsense that you keep drooling out all over the thread until someone goes away and does what I've suggested. I'd post the results myself but you'd only accuse me of making it up.

The problem is that you're too stupid to realise exactly how stupid you are. Grandiose, paranoid, abusive and hysterical. Well, well.

It didn't take you long to go to pieces.

This 'logic' thing you mentioned --- showing that the girl with the envelope was not a stooge in the tamborine trick does not seem to increase the likelihood that she was a stooge in the seance.

[Azrael 5]

They all revert to type in the end Dr A.Its almost as if I predicted it :D

[JPK]

Good afternoon all.

Ignoring all of the insults and accusations here, does anyone have this on video? If so have they done as
subpers suggests about timing the original and the replay events as they occur to insure that the replay was infact a replay?


JPK

[subpers]

The video replay is the only way to know for sure. Unfortunately, these 2 only want to either deliberately misinterpret what I've said, or ignore it and talk about a lot of nonsensicle conjecture.

Being the Jref forum I'd have expected better.

As for dim brain azael or whatever, don't accuse me of ripping people off or you'll find yourself in deep trouble. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, but libel is libel and ignorance is no defence.

[subpers]

The problem with you inadequate, is that you just don't get it. Number of stooges doesn't matter, the games up if only one stooge blows the gaff. Professionals, not the throw away assistants, but the ones writing the letter to be swapped, the ones moving the objects, the ones hidden in the cabinet, will work with a number of magicians over their career. It's their livlihood, they don't talk about what they do. Short term jobbers, people pretending to be mediums and reading off a script do. You need insurance, and you need something that persuades not only anyone they might tell, but they themselves, that they didn't understand what was happening.

Someone watch the video carefully, time the events, and come back with the results. That is the only way to provide conclusive evidence.

[Azrael 5]

subpers how many times do I need to re-quote you,here again from your website:
A Complete breakdown of 2 Derren Brown effects explains the scripts, theory, etc. Includes a full explanation of all of the Methods
Id like to know how that is not ripping people off.

Back to Seance.The girl(medium)doesnt need to be a stooge(neither do I think she is one.I saw Derren Brown do Seance on stage last year,similar thing a dead person's home,Job,name etc. were all predicted and then shown to be correct in a manner that couldnt be faked.I still say anyone crying stooge lacks imagination.As Dr A pointed out ,there are easier and less risky methods to switch out envelopes and the like.

Lastly the ones hidden in the cabinet, will work with a number of magicians over their career.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Paparazzi/PDVD_000.bmp
There for all to see is my reasoning as to why its impossible for a third person to be in the cabinet.Where is he? Laying in the drapes? Crouched under the chair? ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
The problem with you inadequate, is that you just don't get it. Number of stooges doesn't matter, the games up if only one stooge blows the gaff. I'm not sure that anyone capable of posting this in the first place is capable of understanding what's wrong with it.

Listen... carefully...

If a given action has a risk of a certain negative consequence, then the more often you take that risk, the greater the likelihood of that consequence.

Since, as you are now coming to understand, "the games [sic] up if only one stooge blows the gaff", it follows that only employing one stooge is safer than using two, which is safer than using three, which is safer than using four... because the chances of any one stooge talking (and that's all it takes) increases with the number of stooges.

Do you see?

Try not to posture and prance around so much. Your abilities do not justify it.Professionals, not the throw away assistants, but the ones writing the letter to be swapped, the ones moving the objects, the ones hidden in the cabinet, will work with a number of magicians over their career. It's their livlihood, they don't talk about what they do.Because no newspaper would pay them to. They would however pay to prove that DB uses stooges. Short term jobbers, people pretending to be mediums and reading off a script do. How about people pretending to be a bona fide member of the public hanging on to an envelope? This is not behind-the-scenes stuff. Why is she not a "short term jobber" in your world of making it up as you go along?You need insurance, and you need something that persuades not only anyone they might tell, but they themselves, that they didn't understand what was happening.So for example if the stooge was the 'medium', she'd have seen all the other tricks, which she wouldn't be able to explain, including, for example, the two demonstrations of the spirit cabinet.Someone watch the video carefully, time the events, and come back with the results. That is the only way to provide conclusive evidence. For the nth time, will you explain how proving she didn't stooge in one trick proves that she stooged in another?

[Azrael 5]

Picture 1 clearly shows girl in cabinet-alone as DB pulls curtain around behindhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Paparazzi/8f101750.bmp

Picture 2 shows girl watching video replay of "herself"? throwing tambourine.You can see her face tilted back towards cctv camera.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Paparazzi/spirit3a.jpg
Now how can you say its a different girl,given this.

[subpers]

Firstly.
"Back to Seance.The girl(medium)doesnt need to be a stooge(neither do I think she is one.I saw Derren Brown do Seance on stage last year,similar thing a dead person's home,Job,name etc. were all predicted and then shown to be correct in a manner that couldnt be faked.I still say anyone crying stooge lacks imagination.As Dr A pointed out ,there are easier and less risky methods to switch out envelopes and the like."

I saw that too. A completely different effect using hot reading. Of course it was faked, otherwise he's the real mccoy, and obviously he isn't. I don't care what you think is less risky, in the overall makeup of the effects, its is more risky to use a fake medium. thats what everyone is looking for, not fake videos, swapped letters, etc.

[subpers]

Secondly:
"There for all to see is my reasoning as to why its impossible for a third person to be in the cabinet.Where is he? Laying in the drapes? Crouched under the chair?"

your sarcasm only shows your ignorance. This is a publicity shot - what do you want? It isn't even necessarily the same cabinet.

[subpers]

Inadequate, if someone popped up and said I've been a paid professional with DB for years, they'd fall over themselves to pay. You simply do not understand, nor have the capacity to look at this in more than one dimension.

[subpers]

Finally Azrael, the photos prove NOTHING! I've already told you how to prove this once & for all - if you have the tape - and you must have as you "watched it moments before" - go and time the initial in cabinet bit, then the video replay. Its the only way to know. Posting irrelevent stills & publicity shots mean absolutely nothing. Why are you persisting with this when you know how to find out for sure? Do you really want to know or do you want to cling onto some half baked misguided view of the whole event? Why are you even here on this forum if you can't perform a simple experiment to KNOW THE TRUTH once and for all?

Just do the experiment and post the results.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Inadequate, if someone popped up and said I've been a paid professional with DB for years, they'd fall over themselves to pay. You simply do not understand, nor have the capacity to look at this in more than one dimension. Ah, yes, the usual monotonous whining abuse, meaningless gibble and unsupported assertions.

Well, if it's all you've got, it's all you've got.

[subpers]

Of course inadequate, there is one fatal flaw with your idea. Suppose the medium is the stooge. She has to know the relevant information before she's called upon. Supposing she's already sold her story to the papers and told them exactly what she's going to say before she does it (only take 20 seconds on a mobile) - then he's well and truly knacked - Game set & match. Thats why only a one dimensional amateur like you would think of using such a poor, unimaginative, and totally naff method.




FOR THE FINAL TIME, JUST WATCH, STUDY, & TIME THE VIDEO - THAT IS WHERE THE PROOF LIES.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by subpers
Of course inadequate, there is one fatal flaw with your idea. Suppose the medium is the stooge. She has to know the relevant information before she's called upon. Supposing she's already sold her story to the papers and told them exactly what she's going to say before she does it (only take 20 seconds on a mobile) - then he's well and truly knacked - Of course, the girl changing the envelope could also contact the newspapers in advance and say "DB will give the envelope to me to look after --- that's because I'm a stooge, and it's my job to switch the envelopes", but of course this didn't occur to you because, well...Game set & match. Thats why only a one dimensional amateur like you would think of using such a poor, unimaginative, and totally naff method.
:dl:
Wow, you even brought your own rope.FOR THE FINAL TIME, JUST WATCH, STUDY, & TIME THE VIDEO - THAT IS WHERE THE PROOF LIES. For what I am very much afraid will not be the final time, will you explain how watching the video will allow me to discover which, if either, of the two girls was stooging in the seance trick?

[Janice]

Derren Brown is a magician, a brilliant one at that, but he does not work in the way that a medium does, I have never seen him give a demonstration of mediumship, so that is the difference.

[subpers]

Either you don't understand, you don't want to understand, or you can't read. I said right at the beginning that the girl with the letter might go to the press, hence her "miracle" in the cabinet.

How many times do I need to repeat the same things before it'll sink through your thick skull.

Watch the video & time it, and then you'll see for sure. Your obstinate refusal to do the plainly obvious proves categorically that you don't want to know the truth. You just want to argue the same irrelevent points over and over again when it's clear that it will get nowhere.

All that you're doing with this constant stream of gibberish, even after I've given you the key to finding the truth (even though it may prove me wrong), is to show your ignorance & prove how closed minded you are.

AGAIN, WATCH THE VIDEO, TIME THE EVENTS, AND YOU'LL KNOW THE TRUTH.

If you can't do this simple task, then just wait for someone else to do it for you, but by constantly raising points that deliberately misinterprate what I've said, you just look like a fool.

Not only have I offered a method for performing the trick, I've also offered a method to prove me wrong. You can't even manage to do that between you. All that you've offered is a lot of unqualified & unsubstantiated personal speculation, which ultimately counts for nothing. You are the typical forum couch potatos - you've never done anything, you don't know anything, and you want everyone else to do all of the work for you while you sit on your arse flapping your tongue and filling the forum with gibberish.

Grow up.

[Dr Adequate]

If only hysterical abuse was a substitute for reasoned argument, how very very right you would be.

As it is, it just makes you look like a bad loser.

Is there anything else you'd like me to prove you wrong about?

[subpers]

Well, maybe you could perform the simple expiriment and prove me wrong, then maybe I'd be a loser. Unfortunately I think that you are even more simple than the experiment.

I'd have thought that the jref forum would be full of people that wanted to rationally test hypotheses to see if they were true or not. Instead we have the amatuer dramatics & hysterics of inadequate & her gang who can't even operate a stop watch.

Ho hum.

[Dr Adequate]

I notice that you are still ducking this question: Originally posted by Dr Adequate
For what I am very much afraid will not be the final time, will you explain how watching the video will allow me to discover which, if either, of the two girls was stooging in the seance trick? ... and substituting your usual temper tantrums, abuse, grandiose self-importance and gibble.

Well, I guess you should stick to what you're good at.

[Azrael 5]

Oh..its a publicity shot now is it? Actually thats a screen grab.From the actual programme.No third person.See the last grab..you can clearly see it is the same girl throwing the tambourine!
For someone who claims to know so much about magic you suprise me.Without giving too much info away-Derren "Forced" every bit of info that was in the letter! The name,town occupation.There didnt need to be a switch of envelopes or a stooge.I simply do not believe he uses stooges(as in accomplices..not instant stooge as in lift-even then Im not 100%)
Someone..sooner or later will cough.

[JPK]

good morning.

Is it possible to get a video of this performance? I have a dvd of DB "Inside Your Mind" but the trick you are talking about is not on it.
JPK

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by JPK
good morning.

Is it possible to get a video of this performance? I have a dvd of DB "Inside Your Mind" but the trick you are talking about is not on it.
JPK
You cant buy it jpk but I can send you a copy if you wish.PM your address to me and we can sort it.;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by subpers
Of course inadequate, there is one fatal flaw with your idea. Suppose the medium is the stooge. She has to know the relevant information before she's called upon. Supposing she's already sold her story to the papers and told them exactly what she's going to say before she does it (only take 20 seconds on a mobile) - then he's well and truly knacked - Game set & match.

That's assuming, of course, that it really was transmitted live. Which, of course, wasn't necessarily the case.

Thats why only a one dimensional amateur like you would think of using such a poor, unimaginative, and totally naff method.


Oh, give it a rest with the abuse, eh?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Janice
Derren Brown is a magician, a brilliant one at that, but he does not work in the way that a medium does, I have never seen him give a demonstration of mediumship, so that is the difference.
Did you not see Messiah then? He gave a demonstration of mediumship on that programme. A very effective one.

So are you still sure he doesn't work the same way?


And I have been enjoying the spirited debate between subpers Dr A and Azrael, but I feel subpers has made a mistake.
He states:
I can assure you that it is possible to conceal someone in a cabinet like that, it is constructed in such a way to only make it seem it impossible. If you could clearly see where someone might be hiding, it wouldn't be very impressive would it?
But Azrael's picture shows that it just couldn't be possible. It's just a frame with a curtain on it.
Then subpers says:
your sarcasm only shows your ignorance. This is a publicity shot - what do you want? It isn't even necessarily the same cabinet.
It clearly isn't a publicity shot, and subpers argument seems to be hinging solely now on the claim that this is a different cabinet.
But Azrael has screengrabbed the shot so that argument doesn't work.

So subpers I am interested to know, given that the image is actually of the cabinet, if you think there is any way a person could be concealed in it?

[richardm]

I'm kind of baffled as to why a third person would be required to be in the cabinet anyway. Veracity of the video notwithstanding it would seem fairly trivial to make the tambourine fly out from a distance if required. Certainly the later sheaf of paper didn't look like it was being chucked by a human hand.

No, I'm definitely voting for "Evil forces that we don't understand being channelled from the Other Side".

[Azrael 5]

Publicity shot.Thats a good one,subpers! What next,aliens made her do it?
Its a frame with a velvet curtain around it,with space around the back and a brick wall.I have posted two screen grabs.Please save them to your machine and draw some squiggly lines to show where the third person is hiding.Not asking for Tony Hart standard...just show me and the rest of the class where the third person is.Then Im going to patent the illusion and sell it to David Copperfield. :D

[Azrael 5]

TV Announcer voice:"We are sorry for the break in this thread,but while subpers gets over his embarrasment at being wrong...here's some music"

:D

[TheBoyPaj]

Just to reopen this issue, I had a look at the "Spirit Cabinet" footage tonight. I've tried to do a comparison of the outside views and cctv view of the event. I'm pretty sure there is something dodgy.

I'll post my evidence tomorrow, so until then I'll leave you in suspenders.

[Azrael 5]

Oh no,that doesnt mean subpers will be back does it...?;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Right. For those who did not see the programme, we are discussing Derren Brown's Seance. Look back at the thread for discussions about the Spirit Cabinet. The question is, was the girl behind the curtain a stooge, or did someone else throw the tambourine.

I dont know the answer, but something doesn't add up.

(Thanks to Azrael for supplying the video)

The original sequence, unedited, can be seen here:

http://www.pagetworld.plus.com/seance1.wmv

My analysis can be seen here:

http://www.pagetworld.plus.com/seanceanalysis.wmv


Comments?

[andycal]

Wow! Kudos to you Paj, fantastic work...

I'd be interested in DB's thoughts on this marvellous piece of analysis. I'm going to watch it a few more times before I comment...

[Nucular]

Wow! Now that is interesting...

It does appear that there is a discrepancy, but the foot in the centre and the swish of the curtain look absolutely identical - I can't think how such a clever edit and/or reconstruction could be done... but then something's going on, isn't it.

Unless the version showed to the audience was slowed down to half speed for a couple of seconds after the curtains closed for some reason? Maybe to get us all looking at the wrong thing again... Can't quite see the version they've got on the screen clearly enough to see if that's a possibility or not.

I'm going to be thinking about that all night! Nice one, Paj :clap:

[Azrael 5]

Er...I cant see it.The file I mean,not the difference.Ive got Windows media player as well! Help.

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes, the curtain swish is very similar. If you look closely (on a hi-res version) you can even see it billow a little as Derren adjusts it a second time, just as in the live version. If this was pre-recorded, it was very well choreographed.

To be honest, I don't know if it's fake. Apart from the big gap, it looks identical.

Azreal - it's encoded with a Media player 9 codec. Are you sure you're up to date?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Yes, the curtain swish is very similar. If you look closely (on a hi-res version) you can even see it billow a little as Derren adjusts it a second time, just as in the live version. If this was pre-recorded, it was very well choreographed.

To be honest, I don't know if it's fake. Apart from the big gap, it looks identical.

Azreal - it's encoded with a Media player 9 codec. Are you sure you're up to date?
I dont know.Ill have to update and see.subpers has gone rather quiet.I guess his third man conspiracy just wore him out.;)

[Azrael 5]

Ok,I upgraded codecs and have seen it.Very cleverly put together paj,how did you do it? Anyway,the 2.86 seconds mmm..I dont know what to think.What would be the point? We've established no third person,she definetly threw it;cannot think what this proves.Also I dont see why there would be edits in the repeat,I have a live recording(quality not as good-thus why I re-recorded the repeat)so will check.
Seancegate continues.....;)

[feyd rautha]

dr adequate can blablabla as long as he wants, subpers explained it in a logic way and i believe he knows what he is talking about.


the big question wasn´t one stooge or two stooges it was stooges or no stooges.

so derrenboy lied to you, get over it! i thought on a sceptics board this issue would have been clear faster than it was, but it seems to be for some people here being right is more important than beeing true.

[TheBoyPaj]

Ask yourself how that last post added anything to this thread.

[feyd rautha]

not much for sure, but it was not my first post on this thread and i wanted to wrap up a little and declare my position on the ongoing discussion. further i wanted to express my disapointment of the ongoing discussion. further i have not watched your video before my last post.

so lets get back on topic:

now that i´ve seen your analysis i have to say:great job!

i think we can say it is evidence that derren used a bit more than suggestion or speedhypnosis to archive this trick.

By the way to ensure that stooges don´t start to talk to the press or anybody wouldn´t it be possible to let them sign contracts to not do so???

i think cooperfield and all the others sure had assistants who knew how their big tricks(lady liberty, chinese wall) are done(inbetween ofcourse everybody who wants to know it can simply google it) and were forced to keep silece via contract, why should this not work with derrens stooges?

[Kopji]

My non magical guess...

Both tricks are probably done the same way, if we determined one, both would be known.

Ok the obvious possibility: She could be simply lying, (Darren seemed to already know her name at the beginning.)

But that's no fun.

***********

This could be done with use of a bluescreened version of the booth recorded ahead of time and carefully timed recording.

I counted almost exactly the same number of seconds between when he closes the curtain and an item moved OR was thrown. Both the falling tambourine event and thrown event seem precisely timed to the final closing of the curtain, about 5 seconds till the event.

So a bluescreen version could recorded in advance. A seated person is filmed dressed in chroma-key blue, except for a black sleeve and hand. (A recording is made of an arm moving the tambourine.) Sitter is chosen to approximately match the filmed sitter's arm.

Possible Clue: Can we see enough 'horizontal film' tambourine detail when it is scooted on the floor to notice if the orientation is the same during downward playback? The idea here is that the downward filmed tambourine is not the same as the horizontal filmed thrown one.

How to move the 'real' tambourine then? If the problem is reduced to only this, seems like something magicians do regularly. :rolleyes
Could have been moved by a third person behind the screen after it was let down. -shrug-

Anyway, the needed Video streams:
Input 1: Carefully timed recording of a blue-screened person with only a visible arm moving tambourine.
Input 2: Real time image feed of only the sitter with the rest of the room masked.
Output: The taped image of the arm moving the tambourine, but with only the 'real' sitter superimposed on the blue mask. This saves any fancy subtracting of movement in the booth, since it is all 'recording'.

The motion of closing the front screen seems suspiciously theatrical, masking a switch of video?

Note the downward video does not show the area behind the screens at all. This would hide a person there.

I should watch more tv.
http://www.seanet.com/Users/bradford/bluscrn.html

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Kopji
Ok the obvious possibility: She could be simply lying, (Darren seemed to already know her name at the beginning.)

They were selected in advance. I think Derren said that they were chosen for their "suggestibility". It would not be difficult to choose someone who looked broadly similar to a member of the production crew when dressed appropriately.

Of course, unless the students' wardrobe was chosen for them, they would have to observe what the girl was wearing in time to film the CCTV footage, and then hope that she didn't take off her gloves before the live show!

I'm pretty sure that the CCTV reel does not "run slow" to account for the 2 second delay. If you watch the left hand film, the tambourine appears shortly after Derren adjusts the curtain. The girl would have been reaching out to pick it up while he was adjusting it. On the right hand side, she does not start to move until he has finished adjusting it (it's hard to see this adjustment on the small screen. The unedited version might be clearer)

[pjh]

Kudos to TBPaj, a lovely bit of analysis.

- Please folks, it just ain't possible to program people to throw tambourines out of cabinets and auto-erase the memory. As long as we're not claiming a paranormal explanation then I'm quite happy for Derrens techniques to remain a mystery.

- I didn't remember it from the original, but Derren clearly gets her to confirm 'That it's not an actress dressed like her' Either Derren's got some balls or there is another way of doing this that he's misdirecting us away from.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well he certainly has balls. But that's no more sneaky than telling someone "now, you could have picked any card, correct?" when you know otherwise.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Kopji So a bluescreen version could recorded in advance. A seated person is filmed dressed in chroma-key blue, except for a black sleeve and hand. (A recording is made of an arm moving the tambourine.) Sitter is chosen to approximately match the filmed sitter's arm.

You've watched too many George Lucas documentaries,methinks :D
The difference feyd rautha is the people in Derrens effect weren't paid crew or assistants(like Copperfield has)they were members of the public.
In the picture I posted higher up the thread we see the girl watch the cctv footage,and she is clearly(on monitor)turned in such a way her face is visible.If it werent her,that would be a risky thing to show,no? ;)
I dunno ,if I ever get the opportunity I would love to show Paj's footage to Derren.Can that footage be downloaded paj?

[Kopji]

It is her when she sits, but it it still her after the front curtain is pulled? She only assumes it is her because it is her face seen later, and she watched herself enter the booth.

I think it's a good possibility that the tambourine seen from the down looking camera and the front looking one are different items.

Using some kind of screen or mask would be a nod to the classic mediums who probably used an old fashioned version of the technique.

The little bit at the end about 'rewinding the film' is odd. This would almost certainly be a digital recording:
No film, no rewinding.

Whatever, I think Brown's awesome. This works at several levels...

[Kopji]

Yeah I'm about ready for both a 'Hitchhiker's Guide' AND a 'Star Wars' fix.

Ohm!

[richardm]

Originally posted by pjh
- Please folks, it just ain't possible to program people to throw tambourines out of cabinets and auto-erase the memory.



And yet people are happy to crawl around the stage pretending that they've been hypnotised into thinking they're dogs...

As long as we're not claiming a paranormal explanation then I'm quite happy for Derrens techniques to remain a mystery.


Me too - to an extent! I think that it would be best to keep them a mystery, so long as he tells me how it's done ;)

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Kopji
Yeah I'm about ready for both a 'Hitchhiker's Guide' AND a 'Star Wars' fix.

Ohm!

Was reading some film books about those movies today,too much green screen in the latter and the former? Well....

Well done richardm,I always wondered what the diference was in stage hypnosis(doing things as told and the spirit cabinet instruction.I fear we'll never get to bottom of it.If it is possible to programe her to throw the tambourine,he wouldnt need a sttooge/switch of girl.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I fear we'll never get to bottom of it.

Probably not. Paj's video was interesting though. I did try to judge whether the tambourine emerged from a different part of the curtain on the two frames, as well as at a different time, but it's too hard to be certain.

[Azrael 5]

Can I ask(well I have done anyway)what would be the point in whatever Derren has done regarding the discrepancies? Also are we taking into account time delay of different recorded media/format? ;)

A bit confusing,sorry.

[TheBoyPaj]

You mean, the video tape may have been running slow?

Well, possibly. But it seemed to match when the tambourine hit the floor.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
You mean, the video tape may have been running slow?

Well, possibly. But it seemed to match when the tambourine hit the floor.

Good point.Hadnt considered that.Doh! So what is the suggestion paj? What is he hiding? ;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, I said before that I thought "fake video" when I was watching live.

I was watching the wall behind the cabinet to see if there could have been a hidden door through which an accomplice could sneak when the curtains were closed. It's a pretty rough wall. Peeling paint etc. There could have been a panel.

Of course, getting into the cabinet without the girl seeing you is another matter. Hopefully she kept her eyes closed?

My gut feel is that the girl is not a stooge. But I tend to agree with pjh. So long as people recognise that Derren's not superhuman and he is merely tricking us all stupid, then I'm happy. I think he's brilliant.

[TheBoyPaj]

Unfortunately, I've had to remove these videos as my ISP complained about the bandwidth. I wasn't even aware I had a limit, but I busted it yesterday.

Hopefully everyone who wanted to see them has managed to do so by now.

[Azrael 5]

Would have liked to have saved it somewhere,alas I didnt.Anyway of you getting this to me paj?

Also I have created a thread on Derren Brown official forum(boy you should see them on there!!) simply titled Seancegate,asking what happened in the missing 2.86 seconds! Watch their little brains fry as they try to understand,lol.

Seancegate (http://www.derrenbrownforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=173280#173280) ;)

[pjh]

NLP for Dummines (I kid you not) enters the amazon.co.uk top 100. I wonder how far this new craze will run, and how much Derren (well maybe not intenionally) is to blame?

NLP for dummies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764570285/ref=br_lf_li_1_2/026-3086547-2549236)

[taxexile]

Originally posted by pjh
NLP for Dummines (I kid you not) enters the amazon.co.uk top 100. I wonder how far this new craze will run, and how much Derren (well maybe not intenionally) is to blame?

NLP for dummies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764570285/ref=br_lf_li_1_2/026-3086547-2549236)

Oh I don't know. Anyone who buys into NLP after at least 18 years of life is either pampered excessively by their parents or really is a dummy (in which case the book is apt)

Mr B is on record as saying:
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html
JAMY:Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.

DERREN:Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned.



and


http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/185_derren2.shtml
I’ve attended NLP courses and things like that, and although there’s some interesting and useful aspects to them, they’re generally so evangelically packaged and full of self-fulfilling nonsense that it put me off. If you haven’t come across that way of thinking, it can, perhaps, be life-changing. But if you’re reasonably adept with other people and have a level of self-awareness, then it seems to suck the life out of those things. The classic example is people who learn ‘rapport skills’ and then use them on you; it can be extremely irritating to have all your body language mirrored back at you in an attempt to enter a rapport – and the irritation is the complete opposite of what’s intended. Also, the idea that each movement in body language always has the same meaning regardless of context is false. A person who scratches his nose may not be lying – he may just have an itchy nose.



Hmm, let's put it this way; if Paul Daniels said, in order for him to perform a trick he was going to use some MOQ, and you believed him, would you go out and seek the first MOQ qualified (not by any acadamically recognised organisation of course!) practicioner and seek their wisdom for application in your life? I knew one person who did that.... I have nothing left but pity for them

[BPScooter]

Hi, this is really great. I do want to see DB but I live in USA and all that I can find for $$ purchase is UK DVD. I don't need to see books yet, I just want to see some real live DB. Check it out for myself. The only sites I find are in UK pounds. Is there a DB DVD available in US $?. I paid top $ to see P&T on DVD (BS) and also in LV. I love the mentalism. I wanted to tell Teller "More Mentalism" but all I could mumble was "bhrm..jm" and shake his hand and get an autograph at the Rio.

So if anyone knows where it's best to get DB on DVD, without an overseas transaction, thanks in advance.

[Azrael 5]

BP Scooter PM me I can help you see what u seek :D

[chillzero]

I've read this all with great interest, and I wondered about something noone else seems to have thought of.

In case it matters, I have been unable to open the 2 clips, so am not able to verify what I am about to suggest.

It may be the case that a pre-recorded video is shown of a girl/ arm/ stooge/ ...whatever... throwing the tambourine from the closet.

It is certainly the case that a tambourine is thrown from the closet as we watch.

Now, there has been a lot of energy expended on whether or not a 3rd person was actually physically in the closet at the 'live' recording (I choose to remain undecided on whether or not to believe anything DB has to say), and this 3rd person threw the tambourine.

In the world of magic, is there seriously, absolutely NO other way an object could be moved from one place to another, without human intervention??? Honestly??? :confused:


I must say, I enjoy most of what I see of DB, but I found myself once staring at the tv open mouthed in awe of a trick. I was completely confused for some moments, and then remembered how annoyed I was to discover the editing behind Blaine's levitation. From that moment I decided to suspend belief on Derren Brown as well, no matter how convincing he seems.

I would love to meet him, because I watch him with people on the street, and I'm convinced he couldn't do it to me. I hate people getting into my personal space, and I really loathe being touched by strangers, and he does that A LOT. I think I would get irritated by him tugging my wrist and elbow.

That said, I think the lawful community have a lot to be thankful for, that he, and Penn and Teller, and so on, have all chosen to come into the public domain with their abilities. :D
How many crimes are possibly committed, that people aren't even aware of, by others such as these - undercover, as it were.
Or... perhaps the public aspect is all a big cover up for Derren and the rest... :eek:

[TheBoyPaj]

If anyone is able to host the videos, I will be glad to PM you a location where you can download them. The analysis one is about 9Mb, and the unedited one is a little smaller, I think.

Unfortunately, my ISP won't let me make them publically available.

[pjh]

try myfilebin.com (http://www.myfilebin.com/) it's fairly quick to setup an account and you can have 20MB for free.

[TheBoyPaj]

Thanks to Darat, the videos are now available on his server.

The unedited reference video:

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/seance1.wmv

And my analysis:

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/seanceanalysis.wmv

[Azrael 5]

I'll link these to DB forum,thanks Darat.

[JimTheBrit]

Repost: Falkenstein & Willard spirit cabinet trick (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/Falkenstein/Falkenstein.avi) (.avi, 36Mb, 3mins, DivX codec - player here (http://www2.divx.com/divx/player/index.php)).

[Metullus]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Thanks to Darat, the videos are now available on his server.

The unedited reference video:

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/seance1.wmv

And my analysis:

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/seanceanalysis.wmv
Very cool work, Paj! I'm still baffled, though.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
dr adequate can blablabla as long as he wants, subpers explained it in a logic way and i believe he knows what he is talking about. A remarkably clear analysis of my error. I am indebted to you for your insight. I wasn't sure where I was going wrong, but when you told me I could "blablabla as long as I want", suddenly my mistake was evident.

I'm sure the other readers of this thread had just the same experience.

The "logic way" (do you mean "logical"?) in which subpers explained himself to me, who have merely taught logic at one of my local universities, had likewise passed us all by --- until you mentioned it.

We're all convinced now, aren't we, boys and girls?

And "i believe he knows what he is talking about". Well, there's an argument that's always convinced us in the past.

* sighs *

[Open Mind]

Interesting discussion, I raised the issue in an earlier topic but didn’t pursue discussing exactly how it was done as I thought it was against the forum rules here....

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52190&highlight=Derren

My objection to Derren Brown's Séance program remains the same, what the public are told represents a Victorian séance techniques used in program doesn’t really match the type of phenomena in any interesting historical case



Derren says immediately after trick …..


This is what used to happen in many Victorian séances, the mediums would produce phenomena which were fraudulent, but she wasn’t really a fraud because she had no memory of doing it, she had no awareness of doing it, she absolutely believed these were real . it is called …(unconscious fraud)


Am I correct in assuming the two words cut off from video are ‘unconscious fraud’? ….. in my opinion this is anything but an example of unconscious fraud, as she most probably didn't throw the tambourine. (and if she did it was most probably conscious). The least likely explanation is the one Derren wants us to believe ......

....... now his deception is perhaps ethical if he claimed he was doing a magic trick, it is not however ethical to imply all Victorian seances were fraudulent by using a camera trick.

Of course to most skeptics that doesn't matter since they have already made their minds up all victorian seances were fraudulent, so an inaccurate representation of fraud still seems justifiable to them ...... but it isn't ......

The most important thing to realize is that however much you guys are impressed by Derren Brown’s Seance .. if written down, it would make inferior reading to some of the famous accounts of Victorian seances.....Derren has hand selected young impressionable students, none are allowed to examine the props, etc. ......now compare this with victorian famous scientists, doctors, lawyers and ...... magicians ......who were present and often could not explain the phenomena they witnessed .... were the victorian just better magicians than today? .....

There seems to be double standards amongst skeptics, they applaud Derren for his trickery, but he is misleading the public with grossly exaggerated mental techniques, just as they accuse Uri Geller of similar .....they tolerate Derren because he is apparently on the opposite side exposing seances and mediums (but it doesn't particularly match the victorian seances) .

Similarly victorian Daniel Dunglas Home is vilified by skeptics (called a fraud but there is no real proof of fraud in his case ...... never caught, assuming he cheated) his feats are vastly more impressive than Derren Browne yet I don't hear skeptics acclaim Daniel Dunglas Home as one of the greatest magicians in history?

However they claim Houdini as on of the greats, he used surrogates? He started as a fake psychic? Again he is applauded by skeptics for exposing seances, however skeptics aren't willing to consider he was perhaps committing fraud too ....his assistant James Collins allegedly confessed that he did indeed plant the ruler in seance to make medium look fraudulent on Houdini's orders. "I chucked it in the box myself. The boss told me to do it." Houdini was perhaps exposing mediums by making them look fraudulent?

The most amazing thing about the paranormal is the bizarre ambiguity that occasionally surrounds some cases... ... sometimes it gets so bizarre that the only remaining sane explanation is the paranormal is committing the fraud and everyone else is being deceived :eek: ;)

[TheBoyPaj]

I gotta say I agree with Open Mind on this point.

A similar thing happened with the Messiah programme. Derren did a mind-reading trick where someone drew a picture and he guessed what it was. But he implied that he was using suggestive language to influence the drawings ("don't go overboard" etc)

It seems likely, however, that he used more traditional magician techniques to learn the contents of the drawing. It's more reliable than verbal suggestion and observant viewers noted that we never saw him speak the words. It's as if they were dubbed on afterwards.

If Derren wants to expose frauds, I applaud him for that. but I'd rather he didn't feed us false explanations. What's wrong with just saying "I used a trick, but I'm not telling you what it was"?

[pjh]

I'm with OM on this

If the public thought Derren was doing Magic Tricks (Albeit clever ones presented in a different way) he'd have as much chance of being on UK TV in 2005 as The Two Ronnies ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Rod Hull and Emu. :)

A similar thing happened with the Messiah programme. Derren did a mind-reading trick where someone drew a picture and he guessed what it was. But he implied that he was using suggestive language to influence the drawings ("don't go overboard" etc)

If Derren *had* done this as above then it would have been a truly impressive trick. If you have access to a Messiah tape have another look, the 'Suggestion bit' (Overboard, sail through) is an edit-suite overdub.

Now here's the rub ... evryone agrees that using camera tricks makes TV magic about as impressive as radio ventruiliquism, but the Derren lovers argue the camera tricks are only being used to misdirect the method. This is total BS in my opinion.

Perhaps his biggest con is his famous 'Advertising Logo' where he gets some ad types to come up with a Logo (consisting of a number of motifs) , which (suprpise suprise) Derren already has in a brown envelope.

Fine, we've seen the draw a picture trick a thousand times, however Derren now shows a video of the taxi ride the ad-guys took to get there. Derren has placed all the elements that they eventually draw as props they see (and are influenced by on a subconcious level) on the journey.

Excect - a second more skeptical 2nd viewing of the video shows that the props were never there, its an edit job after the fact. Mr Brown - that really is poor.

[Azrael 5]

What's wrong with just saying "I used a trick, but I'm not telling you what it was"?

Its not as interesting.The layperson feels better,I think,if they think they have an idea how its done.
The thing about Derren that irks somewhat is it's beginning to become apparent that he he using edits to make a trick look better or to achieve it in the first place.This is the thing most magicians disliked about David Blaine.

Open Mind,with regards DD Home if he was so genuine why de he always peform his party piece(levitation out of windows into adoining rooms)in the dark in his own house(I believe)? Did he float down the high street in the daylight? NO. Its on a par with most seances-what people thought happened didnt.Why did he impose strict rules for his phenomena(people were to stay in one particular spot)? Just because he fooled a magican or two doesnt make him genuine.

[The Mighty Thor]

Open Mind: were the victorian just better magicians than today?

No. But the scientists were poorer scientists. Crookes' and Lodge's scientific work was brilliant for the times in which they lived, but it did not adequately equip them for paranormal investigations. In addition, they were both biased believers with ulterior motives. Sceptics have learned more "tricks of the trade" since those times.

Anyway, why are you going on about Daniel Dunglass Home when you say you only believe in "weak" psi effects? Do you think floating out of one upper-story window and in through another is a weak effect?

Open Mind: his assistant James Collins allegedly confessed that he did indeed plant the ruler in seance to make medium look fraudulent on Houdini's orders. "I chucked it in the box myself. The boss told me to do it." Houdini was perhaps exposing mediums by making them look fraudulent?

"Allegedly confessed" is the key point.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by pjh
Now here's the rub ... evryone agrees that using camera tricks makes TV magic about as impressive as radio ventruiliquism, but the Derren lovers argue the camera tricks are only being used to misdirect the method. This is total BS in my opinion.

Well, the seance show was a different deal to his "trick of the mind" series. The idea was to demonstrate how a group of hysterical seance attendees could be conned into thinking it's real.

In that context, the camera trick (as we seem to be assuming it was) is still impressive because it was designed to fool people who were sitting in the same room. He didn't have the luxury of an edit suite to con those students, it all relied on preparation and rehearsal.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by pjh
Except - a second more skeptical 2nd viewing of the video shows that the props were never there, its an edit job after the fact. Mr Brown - that really is poor.

That's interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Drooper
That's interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?

My understanding on the Ad execs trick is that the props were seen by them,but the tape of their journey was shown to them before and not after their journey.Thus more influencing than it seems.But even then I've been told thats not even how it was done-I dont know how anyway.;)

[Janice]

Derren is a brilliant magician but that's it. His tricks are great entertainment, and that is what he is a showman, he is no more able to disprove paranormal activity on tv, as other TV mediums are able to prove it's existence, but he is very entertaining all the same.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Open Mind,with regards DD Home if he was so genuine why de he always peform his party piece(levitation out of windows into adoining rooms)in the dark in his own house(I believe)?


Not true and half true. The famous account took place at 15 Ashley Place, the home of Mr. S.C. Hall, room of Lord Adare…… according to the witnesses it took place in bright moonlight .... also I didn't say he was genuine, I cannot know, I wasn't there :)



Did he float down the high street in the daylight? NO

Well there were claims of Home levitating in daylight too but you will regard these as anecdotal, which is fair enough. However please note Daniel Dunglas Home publicly criticized other mediums for performing in pitch darkness, much to the annoyance of his contemporary mediums, he was implying he was genuine and they could be fraudulent. Home’s most important séances were not in pitch darkness these were in dim gaslight, candle light or moonlight ......in many accounts the witnesses claim or imply they could see fairly clearly.


. Its on a par with most seances-what people thought happened didnt.

I don’t think so. No one can satisfactorily explain what was occuring with any degree of confidence, during DDH's trials in the laboratory of Scientist William Crookes, as has been admitted by several skeptics and latter day magicians

’ Hyman has acknowledged that several long-term research programs have produced results for which no normal, reasonable explanation has been given. This was admitted for modern day research as well as for studies conducted over 100 years ago. Hyman has stated: “It is true that no one who has studied the reports of seances by Home or Crookes’s accounts of his tests on this medium has come up with plausible ways he could have cheated� (Hyman, 1989, p. 286). Hyman thus admits that the Home mediumship was a true enigma for which no satisfactory scientific explanation has been given.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Articl...HymanReview.htm’



Why did he impose strict rules for his phenomena(people were to stay in one particular spot)?

He didn’t, many investigators reported he seemed most agreeble to their terms under test. He did however turn down some request for trials but during trials seems to have been agreeable


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
No. But the scientists were poorer scientists.


I don't really think so ...... Crookes, Lodge, Wallace, etc. service to science dwarfs the achievements of most of their later psychologist critics. ..

Science has evolved, method of detecting fraud have evolved, so it is fair to wonder how they could have been tricked .... however it falls well short of proving it actually occured.
.
In addition, they were both biased believers with ulterior motives.

No proof whatsoever.


Anyway, why are you going on about Daniel Dunglass Home when you say you only believe in "weak" psi effects?

Yes I believe in the claims of evidence for weak ESP mental phenomena, I have also stated on many occasions that if macroPK exists, in my opinion it is not under the control of the human mind or willpower (as magic acts often give the impression to the public) Note : Daniel Dunglas Home also never claimed to be able to control what phenomena occured or what took place, he claimed an external invisible intelligences were producing phenomena and many of his seances produced nothing. He also implied mediums producing phenomena upon command like tricks were fraudulent.....


Do you think floating out of one upper-story window and in through another is a weak effect?

No, but I have not said D.D. Home was genuine either … I do however object to debunking claimed phenomena with illogical, flawed explanations........ I am making the point magicians of his day and today have struggled to replicate what Home did under the circumstances he achieved it.


"Allegedly confessed" is the key point.
Point accepted of course. However do remember that all the skeptic accusations of William Crookes being a liar, fraud, gullible idiot, sex maniac, adulterer, crank, brain poisoned by thallium ….don’t have any evidence at all, the allegations were made by people who witnessed nothing, after Crookes was too dead to reply, sue, etc.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Not true and half true. The famous account took place at 15 Ashley Place, the home of Mr. S.C. Hall, room of Lord Adare…… according to the witnesses it took place in bright moonlight .... also I didn't say he was genuine, I cannot know, I wasn't there :)



Actually, not true at all. Ashley Place, now a business building, was not owned by S.C. Hall, but was a series of apartments, one of which was owned by Mr. S.C. Hall but the other (among others) owned by Lord Adare. The sitting in question did occur in Adare's apartment, but it has been shown that the moon was "new" at the time of the sitting, not full. The date originally given by Adare was incorrect, as admitted by himself.

Home spoke to the sitters that the spirits were planning something...of which he did not know. He told them not to leave their seats, which is obviously suspicious. He then went to the next room, and in a short while was observed to appear at their own window. In order to do this, assuming he had gone out the window at the next room, he would have needed to cross a 7 foot gap between windows. This is not inconcievable by normal means.

In fairness, it should be stated (and is usually not in skeptical accounts), Home then took Adare to the other window, whereupon he lifted into a perpendicular position to the floor and then flew out the window, which was (according to Adare) only open about a foot.

One should always check the original source material in these matters... in this case "Experiences In Spiritualism With D.D. Home" by Lord Adare.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by dharlow
Actually, not true at all. Ashley Place, now a business building, was not owned by S.C. Hall, but was a series of apartments, one of which was owned by Mr. S.C. Hall but the other (among others) owned by Lord Adare. The sitting in question did occur in Adare's apartment, but it has been shown that the moon was "new" at the time of the sitting, not full. The date originally given by Adare was incorrect, as admitted by himself.

Home spoke to the sitters that the spirits were planning something...of which he did not know. He told them not to leave their seats, which is obviously suspicious. He then went to the next room, and in a short while was observed to appear at their own window. In order to do this, assuming he had gone out the window at the next room, he would have needed to cross a 7 foot gap between windows. This is not inconcievable by normal means.

In fairness, it should be stated (and is usually not in skeptical accounts), Home then took Adare to the other window, whereupon he lifted into a perpendicular position to the floor and then flew out the window, which was (according to Adare) only open about a foot.

One should always check the original source material in these matters... in this case "Experiences In Spiritualism With D.D. Home" by Lord Adare.

But why should we believe Adare? He had a book to sell, after all.

[The Mighty Thor]

OpenMind: Point accepted of course. However do remember that all the skeptic accusations of William Crookes being a liar, fraud, gullible idiot, sex maniac, adulterer, crank, brain poisoned by thallium ….don’t have any evidence at all, the allegations were made by people who witnessed nothing, after Crookes was too dead to reply, sue, etc.

How do you know? You weren't there.

Arthur Conan Doyle was a clever guy, yet he believed in fairies.

If Crookes did today what he did then, he would probably face sexual abuse charges. Things were very different in his time. A "street urchin" would never be believed over a repected scientist. Crookes got what he wanted from the mediums (puerile sexual contact and supernatural anecdotes) and they got what they wanted (money and patronage), IMO.

OM Yes I believe in the claims of evidence for weak ESP mental phenomena, I have also stated on many occasions that if macroPK exists, in my opinion it is not under the control of the human mind or willpower (as magic acts often give the impression to the public) Note : Daniel Dunglas Home also never claimed to be able to control what phenomena occured or what took place, he claimed an external invisible intelligences were producing phenomena and many of his seances produced nothing. He also implied mediums producing phenomena upon command like tricks were fraudulent.....

So macroPK that is not under control of the the human mind or willpower is what exactly? Ghosts? Spirits? Poltergeist?

[The Mighty Thor]

Somebody needs to write a book: "Sex in the Victorian Seance."

[Azrael 5]

Well,well,well.It had to happen I guess.Ive now been banned from Derren Brown forum,lol,no idea why as yet.But I suspect member Mr Twain is involved.Either that or Seancegate has ruffled a few feathers.
*sigh*

[Open Mind]

Dharlow,

'One should always check the original source material in these matters... in this case "Experiences In Spiritualism With D.D. Home" by Lord Adare.

I welcome correction :) I knew it was not Home's house as an above poster had implied and it was a Lord .. someone so out of pure laziness I did a google internet search for 'Lord, Dunglas, levitation' which the very first webpage says ....


http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/mystical/DanielHome.htm

It was during this time, in 1868, that one of Home's most legendary events occurred. During a séance at the home of Mr. S.C. Hall (at No. 15 Ashley Place), Home demonstrated his abilities before a crowd of people. Home effortlessly floated across the room, passed out an open third story window, and returned the same way he left. Lord Linksay recorded the event:

' I was sitting on December 16, 1868, Lord Adare's rooms in Asley Place, London, S.W., with Mr. Home and Lord Adare and cousin of his. During the sitting, Mr. Home went into a trance, and in that state was carried out of the window in the room next to where we were, and was brought in at our window. The distance between the windows was about seven feet six inches, and there was not the slightest foothold between them, nor was there more than a 12 in projection to each window, which served as a ledge to put flowers on. We heard the window in the next room lifted up, and almost immediately after we saw Home floating in the air outside our window. The moon was shinning full into the room; my back was to the light, and I saw the shadow on the wall of the windowsill, and Home's feet about six inches above it. He remained in this position for a few seconds, then raised the window and glided into the room feet foremost and sat down. Lord Adare then went into the next room to look at the window from which he had been carried. It was raised about 18 inches, and he expressed his wonder how Mr. Home had been taken through so narrow an aperture. Home said (still in a trance) " I will show you," and then with his back to the window he leaned back and was shot out of the aperture head first, with the body rigid, and then returned quite quietly. The window is about 70 feet from the ground. '



I couldn't remember the name 'Adare' I may have been mislead by the above introduction. Actually I do also have the original accounts in an old book somewhere, not sure if it is the same book as yours though but I am happy to trust your correction without checking up.

[Azrael 5]

Back on subject of Seancegate,here's a quote from forumadmin on Derren Brown's official forum.
Spoken to DB. The clip you saw WAS the genuine footage from inside the cabinet. If there were any time discrepancies, that will be because the sequence from outside the cabinet, which we see first, presumably isn't a continuous shot and cuts back and forth a little. An extra couple of seconds could quite easily slip in or be cut out.
Mystery solved? ;)

[TheBoyPaj]

I was banned too. Seems we might have got too close.

I feel bad now.

[Azrael 5]

We didnt reveal any secrets though paj.We merely prompted further investigation.Didnt know you were banned!
Oh youre PM inbox is full cant send you a reply.;)

[Azrael 5]

There is a mutiny on there now! A couple of members on our side.
;)

[Open Mind]

Spoken to DB. The clip you saw WAS the genuine footage from inside the cabinet. If there were any time discrepancies, that will be because the sequence from outside the cabinet, which we see first, presumably isn't a continuous shot and cuts back and forth a little. An extra couple of seconds could quite easily slip in or be cut out.


Deary me :) A dignified silence would have been more appropriate. Or why doesn't he just claim the psychological magic part was kidding on the girl? :(

I'd like to thank Boypaj, or whoever went to effort to make the video.......I'm not in favour of revealing magic tricks either (nor has it been fully revealed ) but in this case the video is justified

[Azrael 5]

Theboypaj has to take the credit. I just created the doubt,and Seancegate,lol.
Seems to have ruffled DB's feathers....;)

[pjh]

Paj -
Were the video clips removed again? the 2nd links don't seem to work anymore?

[TheBoyPaj]

It seems Darat has been punished for using too much bandwidth, as did I.

Sorry Darat!

[Azrael 5]

Lets get them back up.Anyone? I dunno how or if I can do it.

[subpers]

Its amazing. When I (yes, me) first proposed this theory, everyone took great delight in putting the boot in on me - couldn't possibly be true. When someone actually bothered to time the event as I (yes, me) suggested, it suddenly became apparent that I was right - even though you still don't get the point of doing it. Then all of a sudden you (yes, you) have all done a fantastic job unravelling the mystery!

You're unbelieveable.

[subpers]

And Azreal, whats all this "we didn't reveal any secrets though" - WE! You were one of the staunchest complainers who, if I remember rightly, had a copy of the seance & couldn't even think open mindedly enough to be bothered timing it!

[Ashles]

Yes subpers I remember you explaining the trick to us.
Originally posted by subpers
Is there not some contradictory thinking at work here?
On the one hand he's a magician using conjuring tricks cunnigly disguised by the presentation, yet in the very same post you've changed from conjouring being the method because you think it isn't possible! Either you're now saying that he did, in fact, perform a feat of mind control on the girl that is little short of miraculous, or that she is a stooge? Or are you going to revert back to him using the methods that other magicians use, but you can't figure it out?

I can assure you that it is possible to conceal someone in a cabinet like that, it is constructed in such a way to only make it seem it impossible. If you could clearly see where someone might be hiding, it wouldn't be very impressive would it? That's the point of doing the trick in the first place. To fool people.
Yup. Exactly as you called it.

Hidden person in cabinet.

[subpers]

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not? In the beginning, no one had even thought that there was anything amiss here - according to Azael (or whatever - sorry), it was all done by subliminal persuasion - even the "contents of the letter were all suggested verbally," but once that someone actually timed the video, as I suggested, they found exactly what I had predicted. Only then did the attacks stop & people like Azael actually had the ordacity to post on the Derren Brown forum about the missing time - the very person who "didn't need to time it because he/she could SEE that it was the same person" - Suddenly taking the credit for something they had vehemently opposed for the ENTIRE thread to the point of proof!

People may still not believe or understand the reasoning behind my theory, but it is a case of a clever combination of "invisible compromise" & "dual reality" to achieve a confusingly convicing outcome. I don't actually see people on here following the logical reasoning for the original assumption, or following it to it's necessary conclusion - the need for it to hide later events, but still, they seem happy to bask in reflected glory with no reasoning as to the necessity of the deception in the first place.

Anyway, the dissenters are conspicuous by their absence, and I'm sorry if I sound like a big headed gloater, but I knew that I was right all along, because, fundamentally, I'm more intelligent than everybody else, and have more knowledge, skill, & ability than anybody else in the whole World when it comes to dissecting magic (or as Azael or whatever, & dr inadequate, et al, want to believe, real mind control) feats.

THE END.

NA NA NAA NA NAH!

PS thats just a joke after I've been to the pub - except about me being the best - thats all true.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by subpers
PS thats just a joke after I've been to the pub - except about me being the best - thats all true.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm the best. That's why I'm still up watching election coverage.

But just to clarify do you now agree that there wasn't really someone hidden in the 'cabinet', and it was done by a different method?

[subpers]

No.
The lost time shows that clearly the girl didn't throw out the tambourine - so who did? The idea of a cabinet that looks open and impossible to cheat is a nonsense - otherwise why the need for the cabinet in the first place? It conceals the mechanism by which the trick is achieved. The camera above appears to reveal this, but it is obviously a misdirection, you don't conceal the method with one hand, only to reveal it with the other.

Derrens style is to hide his method in the confusion of psychology, NLP, & other modern "sciences," but at the end, he is still performing magic, it's just that it's dressed for the 21st Century rather than the 19th.

The cabinet conceals the mechanism that allows the performance to appear psychological, the camera re inforces the misdirection & hides the true nature of the trick, which is a traditional, run of the mill, stage magic effect.

No matter how slowly a video runs, or how the scene is cut, you can't lose or gain 2.8 seconds from a 5 second continuous feed (5 seconds head on, 7.8 seconds from above - all apparently with no cut or edit).

Once that you have eliminated the impossible, all that remains, however improbable, must be the truth - Sherlock Holmes / Sir AC Doyle (Spiritualist believer - Doh!)

[subpers]

By the way, thats 5 seconds from the curtain closing to the tambourine flying over the top head on, as compared to 7.8 seconds between the curtain closing & the tambourine flying over the top from top down. Its not possible to time the tambourine falling off the table, because in the replay it cuts to the audience at the most inconvenient of times.


Obviously, a slow running video would also scew the sound & it'd sound r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w as well as looking totaly naff too.

PS I also suggested looking for positioning of hands, etc, & suggested the ease of fitting someone in similar clothing (particularly if the girl is a stooge later & is "wardrobed.")

[Ashles]

So you refuse to give up on your person-hidden-in-cabinet-theory? Even though it is only a thin steel frame?

Fine.

Obviously as the concept you being incorrect is not an option in your mind so there is little point in continuing to ask you your opinion on anything.

[TheBoyPaj]

I'd like to point out that I am still not sure that the missing time is proof of a hidden person. It's a persuasive argument (arf!), but the tape could have run slow for some reason.

As for getting a person into the cabinet, once the rear curtain is closed someone could sneak up from behind. The wall behind the cabinet is covered with some peeling wallpaper. It looks pretty rough. It could conceal a hidden door. The third party could simply hide until the front curtain is closed, and stick their arm through a hole in the rear curtain to manipulate the tambourine.

Just guessing, mind.

[Dr Adequate]

So subpers has successfully managed to forget why we were laughing at him.

May I refer him to this thread?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by subpers
I'm sorry if I sound like a big headed gloater, but I knew that I was right all along, because, fundamentally, I'm more intelligent than everybody else, and have more knowledge, skill, & ability than anybody else in the whole World when it comes to dissecting magic (or as Azael or whatever, & dr inadequate, et al, want to believe, real mind control) feats.

THE END.

NA NA NAA NA NAH!

PS thats just a joke after I've been to the pub - except about me being the best - thats all true.

:) Well I admit you were smarter than me, I knew it was almost certainly a camera trick but suggesting someone with the video timed the two versions for evidence never crossed my mind ....

As for the tape running slow ..... it is far too much for such a short clip .... if Derren won't admit it ....perhaps Derren would prefer to claim a paranormal cause affected camera? ;)

[subpers]

Maybe thats the answer. Maybe there's something to spiritualist mediums after all & he's trying to misdirect us away from that;)

Anyway, he's still the best performer in the country (or World?), and his ideas & presentation are so good that even with the clear (?) discrepency of the timing, people are still scratching their heads wondering how he did it (except me, even if no one agrees with me:D ).

[andycal]

I agree with the above in most respects, although he cocked up royally at Birmingham a couple of weeks ago. It was embarrassing because if you know even a little about magic he exposed a technique.

For anyone who's seen his latest show, it's the bit where he gets people on stage and when he's sent them back to their chair, he 'hypnotises' one of them to find the name of the first person they kissed. Goofed up and chose the wrong person.