Anyone see Derren Brown tonight? - Page 5

Beaver Hateman · 16th December 2012, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

"No he doesn't, he says he doesn't.There is no evidence to show he does. He wouldn't lie about that so I believe him."

Fixed your quote.

I wouldn't expect there to be evidence to show he does; he'd have more sense. There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery.

I've said from the beginning, I don't know that he uses stooges. However, the things he has done that go beyond the bounds of what I would expect from a magician, means I don't trust him when he says he doesn't, which means he might, which means there's no point in me wasting my time trying to work out how he has done a trick when he might have done it simply by using stooges. Which removes any entertainment value from his shows.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 16th December 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman

There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery.

Actually, there is evidence. People have extensively gone into the evidence during the trick itself and discussing that would be against forum rules, but there are clues within the advertising of the programme. Remember the advert for the whole series from beforehand where he's standing stock still, talking to camera, yet his right hand is juggling 4 balls? Blatant split-screen. And then there was that advert where he just held a large snowflake over the tray he would, in the programme, put the "prediction" in to. I can't think of any relevance of a snowflake, other than to represent something being frozen, can you?

It's not a direct statement from him or anything but, retrospectively, they're quite blatant clues.

Beaver Hateman · 16th December 2012, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...shock horror lane99 repeats old news!

As a photographer I often shoot with people who have interest in becoming models. I work with a lot of people on Star Now.

http://www.starnow.co.nz/

The majority of these people aren't professional models. The are students, the unemployed, people with an interest in becoming models or actors. Some of them sign up on a whim. Some of them are being serious. Some of them sign up after getting drunk one night and forget they had a profile.

If we take a look at the website cited above: despite the tagline "professional actors" we see that in order to get a listing on the site all you have to do is fill out this form:

http://www.castingcallpro.com/uk/register.php?type=1

Name, address, email. If you have those three things you can register a profile. I know plenty of people who have been out of work for ages who register in all sorts of places looking for work.

If this guy is a professional actor then show us his CV. This only thing listed on this guy's CV is a play in Community College four years ago. He doesn't even have a profile picture for goodness sake: how many castings do you think people get on these sites with no profile pic?

If you think he is a stooge: then provide evidence that he is a stooge. Submitting your name, address and email to a website and having acted in a play in community college is not evidence of being a stooge.

I know you think you've found the evidence to bring Derren Brown down: but this is less convincing than the deleted IMDB profile which is the only other evidence that has ever been offered up.

And here is what Derren Brown has to say, written nearly two months ago.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/d...d-star-1412695

If you wanted to use an actor who nobody knew was an actor, wouldn't you pretty much HAVE to use an aspiring actor who hadn't had any other professional work yet?

It's not like he could have used Sir Anthony Hopkins and expected nobody to notice.

Beaver Hateman · 16th December 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Actually, there is evidence. People have extensively gone into the evidence during the trick itself and discussing that would be against forum rules, but there are clues within the advertising of the programme. Remember the advert for the whole series from beforehand where he's standing stock still, talking to camera, yet his right hand is juggling 4 balls? Blatant split-screen. And then there was that advert where he just held a large snowflake over the tray he would, in the programme, put the "prediction" in to. I can't think of any relevance of a snowflake, other than to represent something being frozen, can you?

It's not a direct statement from him or anything but, retrospectively, they're quite blatant clues.

I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it. Not sure what the point of him doing that was though. Is it that because he gave some clues that it was a camera trick, it was OK to use a camera trick?

As to the technical issues, yes, there could be technical evidence for something like a split screen. but not for stooges. The only evidence there could be for stooges is somebody who had been paid to do a job breaking their contract and jeopardizing their chances of future work by saying so. It's not like it's in the public interest or anything to say so. Anyone who did say they'd been paid to be a stooge on Derren Brown would be a bit of a dick, really, for doing it.

banquetbear · 16th December 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman

If you wanted to use an actor who nobody knew was an actor, wouldn't you pretty much HAVE to use an aspiring actor who hadn't had any other professional work yet?

It's not like he could have used Sir Anthony Hopkins and expected nobody to notice.

...aspiring actors want to act. If this guy, who's only acting credit was as in the ensemble of a community college play four years ago, continued to want to be an aspiring actor, he wouldn't have changed his name on the casting site and there would be evidence of him trying to get acting work elsewhere.

You need to think your conspiracy theory through to its logical conclusion. If this was going to be this actors only role ever he is no longer an aspiring actor.

Quote:

Which is?

Can you reconcile the reverse? That people think that Derren Brown uses camera tricks and stooges and also its not okay that people are fooled by his tricks? Because if you can reconcile that, why can't you reconcile the reverse situation?

Checkmite · 16th December 2012, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman

I wouldn't expect there to be evidence to show he does; he'd have more sense. There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery.

I've said from the beginning, I don't know that he uses stooges. However, the things he has done that go beyond the bounds of what I would expect from a magician, means I don't trust him when he says he doesn't, which means he might, which means there's no point in me wasting my time trying to work out how he has done a trick when he might have done it simply by using stooges. Which removes any entertainment value from his shows.

There's that as well; I suppose it's a fair echo of my own personal assessment of his skill as an illusionist.

When we sit here and say "stooges", it's not - as has been implied by some people's descriptions - a case of us merely throwing up our hands and defaulting to "I can't say how, but surely he must've been using a stooge in some unspecified manner or capacity because I can't think of anything else". That Brown's subjects are simply acting when he "hypnotizes" them is a positive theory - a very specific, working, valid, and 100% plausible theory at that, the most believable and least complicated one there is (Occam's Razor tends to handle the "dual reality" nonsense quite neatly). If Brown's not using stooges, he's doing it the hard way, and sadly the result is completely indistinguishable from the result of someone using stooges which makes me wonder how anyone can honestly expect us to reach a different conclusion.

In (just my) opinion, this makes Brown a pretty poor entertainer. Even when stage magicians obviously must be using stooges, like for the stackable cabinet and sawn-in-half tricks, the trick is still so visually striking in such a way that you're left thinking "OK so surely he used stooges; but how did his stooges do that?". Whereas, once you've concluded that Brown is using an actor nothing about the remainder of the performance is the least bit compelling or thought-provoking.

Beaver Hateman · 17th December 2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...aspiring actors want to act. If this guy, who's only acting credit was as in the ensemble of a community college play four years ago, continued to want to be an aspiring actor, he wouldn't have changed his name on the casting site and there would be evidence of him trying to get acting work elsewhere.

You need to think your conspiracy theory through to its logical conclusion. If this was going to be this actors only role ever he is no longer an aspiring actor.

Maybe he had to sign something saying not to pursue any other acting work for 12 months. Maybe he was planning a break anyway, and they asked everyone about this before they cast someone. Maybe he's just ****. I don't know.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

Can you reconcile the reverse? That people think that Derren Brown uses camera tricks and stooges and also its not okay that people are fooled by his tricks? Because if you can reconcile that, why can't you reconcile the reverse situation?

Because it's a completely different question. It could easily be the case that if he used camera tricks and stooges and if he then said he was using psychology, people might believe him and that would be wrong, certainly. However, I'm not really arguing the "He's as bad as a medium and shouldn't say these things about psychology" position, I'm arguing the "He's a **** entertainer" position.

banquetbear · 17th December 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman

Maybe he had to sign something saying not to pursue any other acting work for 12 months. Maybe he was planning a break anyway, and they asked everyone about this before they cast someone. Maybe he's just ****.

...or maybe things happened just as Brown said they happened. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy.

Quote:

I don't know.

No you don't. There is no evidence he was an "actor" apart from the fact that at college, like many of us, he was in the school play.

Actors want to act. I doubt that Derren Brown is paying this guy's salary for a year. Do you think he was planning a break away from "acting" when his last role was four years ago as part of an ensemble for his school play? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The guy was probably four rows back and sung in the chorus! I've probably got more acting experience than he has based on his CV!

Quote:

Because it's a completely different question. It could easily be the case that if he used camera tricks and stooges and if he then said he was using psychology, people might believe him and that would be wrong, certainly. However, I'm not really arguing the "He's as bad as a medium and shouldn't say these things about psychology" position, I'm arguing the "He's a **** entertainer" position.

Very astute of you to point out that a completely different question is a completely different question.

I asked you though if you can reconcile one position, why can't you reconcile another? You don't think its possible that someone can think that Derrren Brown performs a stage act where he lies and misdirects and when he comes off stage he tells the truth? Are you really not able to fathom that possibility? You can't reconcile this?

Turgor · 29th December 2012, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Archangel

You may wish to watch the Discovery Channels Curiosity: Brainwashed. Same basic idea with the ice bath, similar result.
I can't find a youtube clip of it, however the successful candidate in the Discovery Channels version also showed little to no outward signs of discomfort or response to the ice water either.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...isode4-faq.htm

Q: How cold was the water used in the ice bath test during the Curiosity brainwashing experiment?

A: The water in which the test subjects were submerged was confirmed by a thermal imaging camera to be 35 degrees F (1.7 C).
Q: Were precautions taken to ensure the safety of the Curiosity brainwashing test subjects during the ice bath experiment?

A: The experiment team attached monitors to each person to ensure such critical things as their heart rate could be observed. An EMT was also on hand to ensure the participants' safety.
Q: Did any of the remaining four Curiosity brainwashing test subjects pass the ice bath test?

A: All but one of the subjects failed the test. None of the participants who failed lasted more than 18 seconds in the near-freezing water. The remaining subject lasted an astonishing 2 minutes. Had all four subjects failed, the experiment would have been over.

First of all sorry for holding off my response for so long.

I watched the Derren Brown bit again, but couldn't find any footage of the Discovery Channel program online.

I was expecting to be able to see some changes in skin tone due to blood vessels dilating when the subject's skin started to get too cold, based on personal experience with ice cold dunks outside. But upon further reading I discovered this takes at least 5 minutes usually, well beyond the time I spent outside in and near the water when I go all red from the cold (new years dunk in Scheveningen, only 2 more days to go

), but 3 minutes short of the demonstration.
Also watching the show again I think the lighting would have made this harder to see than in daylight.

I now think my original assessment was probably a very poor one that I made mainly because I don't believe hypnotism can make people do amazing things. But I still don't think anything amazing happened in that show. Maybe someone did sit in ice cold water for 2 minutes, which is uncomfortable but not unheard of, but hypnotism didn't have anything to do with it.

Anyway, I think why this show is not for me is that I do not just believe the effect of the tricks is impossible, I also don't believe they happened the way you're supposed to for the effect to work. And this is what ruined watching Derren Brown's performance on that show for me. The effect failed to amaze me because I didn't think it was there.

16th December 2012, 03:33 AM	#161
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 "No he doesn't, he says he doesn't.There is no evidence to show he does. He wouldn't lie about that so I believe him." Fixed your quote. I wouldn't expect there to be evidence to show he does; he'd have more sense. There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery. I've said from the beginning, I don't know that he uses stooges. However, the things he has done that go beyond the bounds of what I would expect from a magician, means I don't trust him when he says he doesn't, which means he might, which means there's no point in me wasting my time trying to work out how he has done a trick when he might have done it simply by using stooges. Which removes any entertainment value from his shows.
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176

16th December 2012, 04:40 PM	#163
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176	Originally Posted by banquetbear ...shock horror lane99 repeats old news! As a photographer I often shoot with people who have interest in becoming models. I work with a lot of people on Star Now. http://www.starnow.co.nz/ The majority of these people aren't professional models. The are students, the unemployed, people with an interest in becoming models or actors. Some of them sign up on a whim. Some of them are being serious. Some of them sign up after getting drunk one night and forget they had a profile. If we take a look at the website cited above: despite the tagline "professional actors" we see that in order to get a listing on the site all you have to do is fill out this form: http://www.castingcallpro.com/uk/register.php?type=1 Name, address, email. If you have those three things you can register a profile. I know plenty of people who have been out of work for ages who register in all sorts of places looking for work. If this guy is a professional actor then show us his CV. This only thing listed on this guy's CV is a play in Community College four years ago. He doesn't even have a profile picture for goodness sake: how many castings do you think people get on these sites with no profile pic? If you think he is a stooge: then provide evidence that he is a stooge. Submitting your name, address and email to a website and having acted in a play in community college is not evidence of being a stooge. I know you think you've found the evidence to bring Derren Brown down: but this is less convincing than the deleted IMDB profile which is the only other evidence that has ever been offered up. And here is what Derren Brown has to say, written nearly two months ago. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/d...d-star-1412695 If you wanted to use an actor who nobody knew was an actor, wouldn't you pretty much HAVE to use an aspiring actor who hadn't had any other professional work yet? It's not like he could have used Sir Anthony Hopkins and expected nobody to notice.
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176

16th December 2012, 04:43 PM	#164
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Actually, there is evidence. People have extensively gone into the evidence during the trick itself and discussing that would be against forum rules, but there are clues within the advertising of the programme. Remember the advert for the whole series from beforehand where he's standing stock still, talking to camera, yet his right hand is juggling 4 balls? Blatant split-screen. And then there was that advert where he just held a large snowflake over the tray he would, in the programme, put the "prediction" in to. I can't think of any relevance of a snowflake, other than to represent something being frozen, can you? It's not a direct statement from him or anything but, retrospectively, they're quite blatant clues. I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it. Not sure what the point of him doing that was though. Is it that because he gave some clues that it was a camera trick, it was OK to use a camera trick? As to the technical issues, yes, there could be technical evidence for something like a split screen. but not for stooges. The only evidence there could be for stooges is somebody who had been paid to do a job breaking their contract and jeopardizing their chances of future work by saying so. It's not like it's in the public interest or anything to say so. Anyone who did say they'd been paid to be a stooge on Derren Brown would be a bit of a dick, really, for doing it.
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176

17th December 2012, 11:32 AM	#167
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176	Originally Posted by banquetbear ...aspiring actors want to act. If this guy, who's only acting credit was as in the ensemble of a community college play four years ago, continued to want to be an aspiring actor, he wouldn't have changed his name on the casting site and there would be evidence of him trying to get acting work elsewhere. You need to think your conspiracy theory through to its logical conclusion. If this was going to be this actors only role ever he is no longer an aspiring actor. Maybe he had to sign something saying not to pursue any other acting work for 12 months. Maybe he was planning a break anyway, and they asked everyone about this before they cast someone. Maybe he's just **. I don't know. Originally Posted by banquetbear Can you reconcile the reverse? That people think that Derren Brown uses camera tricks and stooges and also its not okay that people are fooled by his tricks? Because if you can reconcile that, why can't you reconcile the reverse situation? Because it's a completely different question. It could easily be the case that if he used camera tricks and stooges and if he then said he was using psychology, people might believe him and that would be wrong, certainly. However, I'm not really arguing the "He's as bad as a medium and shouldn't say these things about psychology" position, I'm arguing the "He's a ** entertainer" position.
Beaver Hateman Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 176

16th December 2012, 05:19 AM	#162
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery. Actually, there is evidence. People have extensively gone into the evidence during the trick itself and discussing that would be against forum rules, but there are clues within the advertising of the programme. Remember the advert for the whole series from beforehand where he's standing stock still, talking to camera, yet his right hand is juggling 4 balls? Blatant split-screen. And then there was that advert where he just held a large snowflake over the tray he would, in the programme, put the "prediction" in to. I can't think of any relevance of a snowflake, other than to represent something being frozen, can you? It's not a direct statement from him or anything but, retrospectively, they're quite blatant clues.

16th December 2012, 05:57 PM	#165
banquetbear Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 364	Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman If you wanted to use an actor who nobody knew was an actor, wouldn't you pretty much HAVE to use an aspiring actor who hadn't had any other professional work yet? It's not like he could have used Sir Anthony Hopkins and expected nobody to notice. ...aspiring actors want to act. If this guy, who's only acting credit was as in the ensemble of a community college play four years ago, continued to want to be an aspiring actor, he wouldn't have changed his name on the casting site and there would be evidence of him trying to get acting work elsewhere. You need to think your conspiracy theory through to its logical conclusion. If this was going to be this actors only role ever he is no longer an aspiring actor. Quote: Which is? Can you reconcile the reverse? That people think that Derren Brown uses camera tricks and stooges and also its not okay that people are fooled by his tricks? Because if you can reconcile that, why can't you reconcile the reverse situation?

16th December 2012, 07:12 PM	#166
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman I wouldn't expect there to be evidence to show he does; he'd have more sense. There's no evidence to show he uses camera tricks either but people seem pretty united in the consensus he used one for the lottery. I've said from the beginning, I don't know that he uses stooges. However, the things he has done that go beyond the bounds of what I would expect from a magician, means I don't trust him when he says he doesn't, which means he might, which means there's no point in me wasting my time trying to work out how he has done a trick when he might have done it simply by using stooges. Which removes any entertainment value from his shows. There's that as well; I suppose it's a fair echo of my own personal assessment of his skill as an illusionist. When we sit here and say "stooges", it's not - as has been implied by some people's descriptions - a case of us merely throwing up our hands and defaulting to "I can't say how, but surely he must've been using a stooge in some unspecified manner or capacity because I can't think of anything else". That Brown's subjects are simply acting when he "hypnotizes" them is a positive theory - a very specific, working, valid, and 100% plausible theory at that, the most believable and least complicated one there is (Occam's Razor tends to handle the "dual reality" nonsense quite neatly). If Brown's not using stooges, he's doing it the hard way, and sadly the result is completely indistinguishable from the result of someone using stooges which makes me wonder how anyone can honestly expect us to reach a different conclusion. In (just my) opinion, this makes Brown a pretty poor entertainer. Even when stage magicians obviously must be using stooges, like for the stackable cabinet and sawn-in-half tricks, the trick is still so visually striking in such a way that you're left thinking "OK so surely he used stooges; but how did his stooges do that?". Whereas, once you've concluded that Brown is using an actor nothing about the remainder of the performance is the least bit compelling or thought-provoking.

17th December 2012, 02:09 PM	#168
banquetbear Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 364	Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman Maybe he had to sign something saying not to pursue any other acting work for 12 months. Maybe he was planning a break anyway, and they asked everyone about this before they cast someone. Maybe he's just **. ...or maybe things happened just as Brown said they happened. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy. Quote: I don't know. No you don't. There is no evidence he was an "actor" apart from the fact that at college, like many of us, he was in the school play. Actors want to act. I doubt that Derren Brown is paying this guy's salary for a year. Do you think he was planning a break away from "acting" when his last role was four years ago as part of an ensemble for his school play? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The guy was probably four rows back and sung in the chorus! I've probably got more acting experience than he has based on his CV! Quote: Because it's a completely different question. It could easily be the case that if he used camera tricks and stooges and if he then said he was using psychology, people might believe him and that would be wrong, certainly. However, I'm not really arguing the "He's as bad as a medium and shouldn't say these things about psychology" position, I'm arguing the "He's a ** entertainer" position. Very astute of you to point out that a completely different question is a completely different question. I asked you though if you can reconcile one position, why can't you reconcile another? You don't think its possible that someone can think that Derrren Brown performs a stage act where he lies and misdirects and when he comes off stage he tells the truth? Are you really not able to fathom that possibility? You can't reconcile this?

29th December 2012, 09:49 PM	#169
Turgor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 277	Originally Posted by Archangel You may wish to watch the Discovery Channels Curiosity: Brainwashed. Same basic idea with the ice bath, similar result. I can't find a youtube clip of it, however the successful candidate in the Discovery Channels version also showed little to no outward signs of discomfort or response to the ice water either. http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...isode4-faq.htm Q: How cold was the water used in the ice bath test during the Curiosity brainwashing experiment? A: The water in which the test subjects were submerged was confirmed by a thermal imaging camera to be 35 degrees F (1.7 C). Q: Were precautions taken to ensure the safety of the Curiosity brainwashing test subjects during the ice bath experiment? A: The experiment team attached monitors to each person to ensure such critical things as their heart rate could be observed. An EMT was also on hand to ensure the participants' safety. Q: Did any of the remaining four Curiosity brainwashing test subjects pass the ice bath test? A: All but one of the subjects failed the test. None of the participants who failed lasted more than 18 seconds in the near-freezing water. The remaining subject lasted an astonishing 2 minutes. Had all four subjects failed, the experiment would have been over. First of all sorry for holding off my response for so long. I watched the Derren Brown bit again, but couldn't find any footage of the Discovery Channel program online. I was expecting to be able to see some changes in skin tone due to blood vessels dilating when the subject's skin started to get too cold, based on personal experience with ice cold dunks outside. But upon further reading I discovered this takes at least 5 minutes usually, well beyond the time I spent outside in and near the water when I go all red from the cold (new years dunk in Scheveningen, only 2 more days to go ), but 3 minutes short of the demonstration. Also watching the show again I think the lighting would have made this harder to see than in daylight. I now think my original assessment was probably a very poor one that I made mainly because I don't believe hypnotism can make people do amazing things. But I still don't think anything amazing happened in that show. Maybe someone did sit in ice cold water for 2 minutes, which is uncomfortable but not unheard of, but hypnotism didn't have anything to do with it. Anyway, I think why this show is not for me is that I do not just believe the effect of the tricks is impossible, I also don't believe they happened the way you're supposed to for the effect to work. And this is what ruined watching Derren Brown's performance on that show for me. The effect failed to amaze me because I didn't think it was there.