Ennobling Magic

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
observer
Posts: 299
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 5:32 am
Favorite Magician: Harry Kellar - Charlie Miller - Paul Rosini - Jay Marshall
Location: Chicago

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby observer » December 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm

performer wrote:
observer wrote:
performer wrote:<> far more interesting to watch than some sober, competent but pedestrian magician who does his tricks well but does not grab our attention because of the dullness of his or her personality. <>.


Well, but there are hundreds of things of which that would be true.


I have no idea about "hundreds of things". I don't know anything about them. I am talking about MAGIC which I do know rather a lot about.


Yes but you see, if that is where the bar is set, then it isn't so much a matter of raising the bar, as a matter of picking it up off the floor ...

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 15th, 2017, 11:48 pm

observer wrote:
performer wrote:
observer wrote:
Well, but there are hundreds of things of which that would be true.


I have no idea about "hundreds of things". I don't know anything about them. I am talking about MAGIC which I do know rather a lot about.


Yes but you see, if that is where the bar is set, then it isn't so much a matter of raising the bar, as a matter of picking it up off the floor ...


Sorry old chap, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Perhaps you could translate?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 16th, 2017, 9:27 pm

This chat caused me to review my "Impromptu Book Test", and I found a number of things wrong with the blog post. I have corrected the errors, but I thought, Why don't I share this with my constructively critical friends in the forum? Maybe they can find a few more.

https://jkeyes1000.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... book-test/

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 16th, 2017, 11:19 pm

I haven't read it properly yet but the name Chan Canasta brought back a lot of memories. His book test was fantastic and utterly brazen. Laymen would talk about it for weeks on end everywhere I went. They all said, "He must have a fantastic memory" but of course there was more to it than that. Brazen nerve and audacity for one thing!

I still remember the time a Goya painting was stolen from an art gallery. He went on TV and stared into the camera and told the thief to put it back. It was presented as an experiment of mind control. Alas it was one of his many failures. Not only did the thief not replace the painting Scotland Yard were waiting for him at the BBC and promptly took him into custody for questioning. They suspected he had stolen the painting in order to put it back later!

I don't think he told much in the way of lies. In fact he did the opposite and it wasn't always appreciated by magicians of the time. He virtually exposed the classic force on the Parkinson show and got massive rounds of applause for it! And it seems he did the Giant Memory test on TV (I didn't see it) and then exposed how to do it! Naturally there was an outcry about it but Harry Stanley told me of a conversation he had with Canasta about it. It seems that Chan said to him, "Why are all the magicians making a fuss about it? It is nothing. An old thing. I first learned it in Hebrew School! They are making a fuss about nothing!

He was absolutely riveting to watch. A bit too long winded for me but I think he had to be since he had to fill in so much time on television with a very limited repertoire. He would do the same tricks every week but disguise them in some way. Instead of using 5 cards he might use 7!

He would do four tricks in half an hour---three would go wrong--one would work and laymen thought he was terrific! Figure that one out!

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 676
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 17th, 2017, 2:27 am

Jolly good stories and observations, Performer, about this fascinating man, who as you say, was "absolutely riveting." The secret to his being such a hit despite (or perhaps, in part, because of) 75% of his tricks going awry? Perhaps his name provides a clue to the formula for his success:
CHAn = CHArm & CHArisma

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 17th, 2017, 8:45 am

Yes, he certainly had that. What fascinated me at the time was that around the same period Al Koran also had a television series. He did much better magic, he was a superb performer and had a much bigger repertoire. Every trick worked and he was very slick indeed. However, I noticed that he didn't have the same strong reaction from the public that Chan Canasta did. I expect the magicians liked him better but that was about it. His best stuff was when he cut down on the mentalism and did superb close up magic in his series. But even with all that Canasta was more popular with the public and had a much stronger impact.

I tried to figure out why and I came to the conclusion that he was TOO good! Too slick. Too perfect. Nothing went wrong. Somehow this affected his credibility. With Canasta the public TOOK FOR GRANTED that he was the real thing! I have never ever seen that with a mentalist before or since. There is always some suspicion there is a trick. Not with Chan Canasta though. The fact that so many things failed made him seem more credible. They assumed he either had a powerful memory (that seemed to be the most popular explanation among the public) or that he was a master of psychology (which he actually was) or body language or something along those lines. And of course many people thought he was psychic although he always claimed the opposite. Nobody called him a magician although they sort of thought he was ---kind of.........

Anyway, here he is at work for those that haven't seem him. This was done a few years after he retired. He came out of retirement for this one show and he was better than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoq9sE7zic0

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 17th, 2017, 10:09 am

performer wrote:Yes, he certainly had that. What fascinated me at the time was that around the same period Al Koran also had a television series. He did much better magic, he was a superb performer and had a much bigger repertoire. Every trick worked and he was very slick indeed. However, I noticed that he didn't have the same strong reaction from the public that Chan Canasta did. I expect the magicians liked him better but that was about it. His best stuff was when he cut down on the mentalism and did superb close up magic in his series. But even with all that Canasta was more popular with the public and had a much stronger impact.

I tried to figure out why and I came to the conclusion that he was TOO good! Too slick. Too perfect. Nothing went wrong. Somehow this affected his credibility. With Canasta the public TOOK FOR GRANTED that he was the real thing! I have never ever seen that with a mentalist before or since. There is always some suspicion there is a trick. Not with Chan Canasta though. The fact that so many things failed made him seem more credible. They assumed he either had a powerful memory (that seemed to be the most popular explanation among the public) or that he was a master of psychology (which he actually was) or body language or something along those lines. And of course many people thought he was psychic although he always claimed the opposite. Nobody called him a magician although they sort of thought he was ---kind of.........

Anyway, here he is at work for those that haven't seem him. This was done a few years after he retired. He came out of retirement for this one show and he was better than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoq9sE7zic0


And here is Chan's Book Test.

https://youtu.be/-VE702mUTE0

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 17th, 2017, 10:30 am

Ironic that the phrase revealed is "I hereby call him a damn liar!" She was probably referring to Brad! I bet that is why you posted it!

Jack Shalom
Posts: 488
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Jack Shalom » December 17th, 2017, 10:35 am

Another version of Chan's book test, post retirement:

https://youtu.be/5jqiQ2kr3Os?t=1m58s

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 17th, 2017, 1:11 pm

Indeed. That is what I meant when I said "brazenness". He screwed up but not really. I imagine he screwed up just like that about 50% of the time and it didn't make the blindest bit of difference. That was the trick the laymen used to talk about more than anything else.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 676
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 17th, 2017, 2:52 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:Another version of Chan's book test, post retirement:

https://youtu.be/5jqiQ2kr3Os?t=1m58s


Okay, so Chan must have had the gift where people wanted to believe in him to the point where they would ignore that which could be discerned by simple observation and/or common sense. I mean, after Chan asked the host what page he was thinking of and the host told him, "106," Chan even said something along the lines of "OK let's turn to page 106," and then he clearly did so and got his glimpse of the 6th line. Yet, the reaction of the host and the enthusiastic response of the audience would suggest that this flew completely by.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 17th, 2017, 5:19 pm

as someone said, give them an experience they value more than knowing the method and they will work to maintain that experience - they will strive to maintain the deception even becoming willfully complicit to it

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 9:47 am

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
Jack Shalom wrote:Another version of Chan's book test, post retirement:

https://youtu.be/5jqiQ2kr3Os?t=1m58s


Okay, so Chan must have had the gift where people wanted to believe in him to the point where they would ignore that which could be discerned by simple observation and/or common sense. I mean, after Chan asked the host what page he was thinking of and the host told him, "106," Chan even said something along the lines of "OK let's turn to page 106," and then he clearly did so and got his glimpse of the 6th line. Yet, the reaction of the host and the enthusiastic response of the audience would suggest that this flew completely by.


"Believe in him". Exactly. Because he was more realistic than most magicians, more willing to admit fallibility. And you may also note that his book test did not require lying.

Chan knew that fumbling was one of the best kinds of misdirection. If the audience thinks the game is over and you've lost, no one will be scrutinisng your behaviour.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 10:08 am

he said there was no way he could know the page the person was thinking of. that's is clearly a lie. of course there is a way.

your statement that he is more realistic than other magicians reveals again your ignorance of magic history, especially of that in great britain.

of course we have another example of a magician who admitted fallibility,
one who had no issues with lying, and one that hardly came off as realistic - and unlike canasta, people all over the world heard of him and he is still known today having literally changed the way we think about parts of our culture - i'm of course referring to uri geller.

but please, don't let your complete lack
of information and experience stop you.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 18th, 2017, 10:13 am

Here we go again..............

Just when I thought that I had masterly changed the subject and peace was about to reign!

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 18th, 2017, 10:24 am

There was one difference between Geller and Canasta. Many people believed Geller was real but many didn't. Virtually everybody in Britain believed Canasta was the real thing since his claims weren't quite so extreme. And Canasta failed very frequently whereas Geller only failed when he was forced to. All the sceptic zealots and jealous magicians went after Geller but they never went after Canasta. All Canasta got criticised by magicians was for the fact that half of his tricks went wrong! And the fact that he would occasionally deliberately expose some of them!

Mind you I often think that sceptic zealots like the rather silly JREF foundation have as much relevance as the Flat Earth Society. Nobody takes the blindest bit of notice of them anyway.

Canasta and Geller had a lot in common actually. Both had loads of charisma, talent, audacity and talked with funny accents.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 10:48 am

Brad Henderson wrote:he said there was no way he could know the page the person was thinking of. that's is clearly a lie. of course there is a way.

your statement that he is more realistic than other magicians reveals again your ignorance of magic history, especially of that in great britain.

of course we have another example of a magician who admitted fallibility,
one who had no issues with lying, and one that hardly came off as realistic - and unlike canasta, people all over the world heard of him and he is still known today having literally changed the way we think about parts of our culture - i'm of course referring to uri geller.

but please, don't let your complete lack
of information and experience stop you.


He spoke the truth when he said he didn't know Parkinson's page number. All he knew was what page he TRIED TO FORCE ON HIM.

And I am old enough to remember when Uri Geller burst onto the scene. I was a young subscriber to Genii, back when Bill Larsen, Jr. was the publisher. I recall thinking him a fraud even then, although I couldn't have been more than ten or twelve years old.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 10:58 am

if you force something, you know it. that's why it's called a force. had he been successful he would have been undeniably lying.

of course, he has the page picked by riffling through the pages. You don't care for that do you. lame was the word i believe.

but who cares that you thought gellar a fraud? your opinion of him is irrelevant to the claim - here is a man who is the opposite of all you claim a magician should be, and he is by far more successful than any who you try to hold up as an example (though you have yet to find one that manages to actually hold true to your claim)

heck, you even admitted you almost never perform and when you do you can barely manage to keep it together - so on what grounds should we give anything you say any credence?

but please, continue shoveling the dirt onto yourself in that hole you've been digging.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 11:12 am

Brad Henderson wrote:if you force something, you know it. that's why it's called a force. had he been successful he would have been undeniably lying.

of course, he has the page picked by riffling through the pages. You don't care for that do you. lame was the word i believe.

but who cares that you thought gellar a fraud? your opinion of him is irrelevant to the claim - here is a man who is the opposite of all you claim a magician should be, and he is by far more successful than any who you try to hold up as an example (though you have yet to find one that manages to actually hold true to your claim)

heck, you even admitted you almost never perform and when you do you can barely manage to keep it together - so on what grounds should we give anything you say any credence?

but please, continue shoveling the dirt onto yourself in that hole you've been digging.


You are a classic case of the sort who PROJECTS his own faults onto others.

No, again. He knew what he hoped Parkinson would choose for s page number, but there is indeed no way for him to have known what the host actually decided.

And you speak of my lack of credibility, when you are an arrogant and self professed liar?

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 11:24 am

the master debator calls another arrogant.

that's a hoot

if you are attempting to force a page you can't say there is no way for you to know what page they have thought of.

perhaps you should get out one of your dictionaries again and look up the word force and know.

perhaps had he tossed in a skillfully placed lie he would have been more successful like gellar.

or not

but when you tell the person who you have forced a page that you can't know the page, you are lying.

hey keyes. i'm thinking of a word that describes your position.

can you get it?

two syllables.

oh - i'll give it to you: groundless

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 11:29 am

but to be accurate - i don't believe chan is forcing the page per se. he is using the idea in erdnase where he merely glimpses the page that is shown fractionally
longer to the spec than any other. As he fidgets with the book he gets the info he needs re lines and words. it's basically berglas with a book.

in this case it would also be a lie to say there is no way for him to know what page was selected. It's the only page that can be clearly seen.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 11:41 am

Brad Henderson wrote:but to be accurate - i don't believe chan is forcing the page per se. he is using the idea in erdnase where he merely glimpses the page that is shown fractionally
longer to the spec than any other. As he fidgets with the book he gets the info he needs re lines and words. it's basically berglas with a book.

in this case it would also be a lie to say there is no way for him to know what page was selected. It's the only page that can be clearly seen.


Still wrong, Brad. And stubborn as ever, trying to hammer that square peg.

The only way Canasta could have KNOWN what Parkinson was thinking of is to have actually read his mind.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 12:42 pm

and as he can't actually read minds, ten he is lying.

face it keyes, you dug yourself into a hole and made the mistake of reminding everyone about your baseless position.

if i look at the same page you looked at, you can't very well say there is no way i can know the page you are thinking of - we looked at it together.

and how is miscalling a page damnable but inaccurately counting lines (the same technique used by razzle operators,
the con men you so detest) fair ball?

you were doing better when you were confessing how inexperienced you were.

do more of that. Speak on what you actually know.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 1:34 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:and as he can't actually read minds, ten he is lying.

face it keyes, you dug yourself into a hole and made the mistake of reminding everyone about your baseless position.

if i look at the same page you looked at, you can't very well say there is no way i can know the page you are thinking of - we looked at it together.

and how is miscalling a page damnable but inaccurately counting lines (the same technique used by razzle operators,
the con men you so detest) fair ball?

you were doing better when you were confessing how inexperienced you were.

do more of that. Speak on what you actually know.


You are the one in the hole, Brad.

Canasta merely said that he didn't know Parkinson's number. Which was true. He "forced" page 80, but the host chose a different one.

Unlike the Hoy test, the volunteer is actually allowed to make up his or her own mind.

Knowing this could happen, Chan was prepared to go again. He opened to page 106 AFTER IT HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED and caught a glimpse of the sixth line.

He never denied that he had a pre-determined number in mind. Only that he positively knew which page the volunteer preferred.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 2:34 pm

no. said he couldn't know what number the person thought of. that is an untrue statement. there are many ways he could know that number including the techniques he employed

don't you get tired of being wrong?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 3:33 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:no. said he couldn't know what number the person thought of. that is an untrue statement. there are many ways he could know that number including the techniques he employed

don't you get tired of being wrong?


What you are describing is "mind reading". No one but a true psychic could know what another is thinking. And even if you were able, he or she could deny it.

You are apparently trying (in vain) to equate "forcing" a number with "knowing" a volunteer's free choice. If you were in Chan's place, what would you do--argue with the participant?

"Listen! I know what number you chose. You can't do this to me! Yes, I said you had a 'free choice', but I lied. I forced it, page 80! You have no choice. This is my trick and I make the rules!"

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 4:59 pm

how is it a free choice if it's a force?

you really don't know much about magic do you.

but the contention isn't the claim it was a free choice. he said i couldn't know what page you were thinking of. that is untrue if he is forcing or if he is merely glimpsing the page that stands out the most.

but you prove my point - for your demand to remove 'lying' from the magicians tool box it necessitates meaningless distinctions that no real person would ever care enough to think about - especially when they can't know you are lying in the first place unless you are, as you seem to have admitted to, incompetent.

but nice touch avoiding the issue raised by his miscounting of the lines. If that's fair game then so is the hoy miscall.

thanks for playing.

try again harder next time.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 676
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby MagicbyAlfred » December 18th, 2017, 6:00 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:as someone said, give them an experience they value more than knowing the method and they will work to maintain that experience - they will strive to maintain the deception even becoming willfully complicit to it


It is an important point, and one which would seem to be solidly supported by the Canasta/Parkinson video posted by Jack.

That being said, having watched the video again several times, I believe the audience's conviction that they had witnessed something extraordinary and their desire to see him succeed was further boosted by the coalescence of two significant factors which Chan masterfully brought into play:

(1) Time misdirection. After Chan asked the host what page he had selected and the host said "106," Chan audaciously said, "OK, Let's turn to 106 of the book." (paraphrasing). He then took the book from the host and did precisely as he said he was going to do - opened to 106 - and he then got a gander at the 6th line. But then, he immediately distracted everyone's attention onto a detour by saying, "But let me ask you a question, were you at any point thinking of any other page?" (again I'm paraphrasing). The host said that yes, he had also thought of page 142. That is when Chan chimed in that he (Chan) had been thinking of a different page (i.e. 80). He then handed the book to the host to look up line 6 on page 80 and to read the line - which was "to the shop" - the words Chan had announced earlier as being the words on line 6 of the (then-unknown) page the host had selected. That is when Chan stated "I failed" in that he allegedly believed the page selected was 80. Only then, after all of this business, the passage of significant time, and the allowance of memories to dim, did Chan say that he knew the words on line 6 of 106, and he proceeded to say what they were, followed up by the host opening up to 106 to confirm, and thus, yet more time was eaten up since Chan's earlier look at page 106.

(2) Chan's apparent vulnerability and admission of failure. Bringing his very formidable acting abilities, and understanding of human nature to bear, Chan's apparent failure and his multiple "candid" admissions that he "failed" had the psychological impact of the audience wanting him to succeed. The audience related to his apparent vulnerability and imperfection, and his admission of "failure" and this had them completely on his side and pulling for him.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 6:22 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:how is it a free choice if it's a force?

you really don't know much about magic do you.

but the contention isn't the claim it was a free choice. he said i couldn't know what page you were thinking of. that is untrue if he is forcing or if he is merely glimpsing the page that stands out the most.

but you prove my point - for your demand to remove 'lying' from the magicians tool box it necessitates meaningless distinctions that no real person would ever care enough to think about - especially when they can't know you are lying in the first place unless you are, as you seem to have admitted to, incompetent.

but nice touch avoiding the issue raised by his miscounting of the lines. If that's fair game then so is the hoy miscall.

thanks for playing.

try again harder next time.


Your wilful ignorance of the facts is annoying, Brad. It's just a form of denial.

One may employ a "force" to the best of one's ability and still fail. It is an attempted force when you allow the volunteer to make up his own mind.

Therefore, owing to the distinct possibility that he or she will defy your suggestion, you cannot be certain. Thus it is true that you do not know.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 7:11 pm

but he didn't say he 'didn't know' he said he 'couldn't know' - which is untrue.

and then again, if it's not a lie if the spec could mess up then the hoy ruse isn't a lie because they could always open to the wrong page.

see, your point that started the thread is groundless because it requires the audience to have a semantic argument not even possibly knowing a deception has even occurred.

or as we say - your position is groundless

but tell me, why is miscalling a page a damnable lie but miscounting to the line (using a conman's ruse) acceptable ?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 7:58 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:but he didn't say he 'didn't know' he said he 'couldn't know' - which is untrue.

and then again, if it's not a lie if the spec could mess up then the hoy ruse isn't a lie because they could always open to the wrong page.

see, your point that started the thread is groundless because it requires the audience to have a semantic argument not even possibly knowing a deception has even occurred.

or as we say - your position is groundless

but tell me, why is miscalling a page a damnable lie but miscounting to the line (using a conman's ruse) acceptable ?


If he could not be certain, then he could not know.

To have KNOWN what was printed on the "force page" is not the same as to have KNOWN what number Mike Parkinson would utter. The proof of that is that he got it wrong.

When you mention the miscalling of a line, are you referring to the older video that I gave a link to?

In that one, he appears to have simply miscounted. My understanding is that Chan had a photographic memory. I suspect that in this early rendition, he committed an entire page to memory FROM EACH BOOK on the shelf, and "pushed" that page number .
He might have honestly got the line number wrong.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 8:48 pm

your understanding of a lot of things seems to be baseless, so i don't know why you would expect this to be any different.

just because you can fail at something doesn't mean that something isn't possible.

could he have known the page he was thinking of? yes. obviously so - as evidenced by the fact that he has gotten it correct in the past.

the fact that you have to dance these semantic games proves your original claim is baseless.

shouldn't have stuck your neck out with the lying claim. pride cometh before the fall, and all.

and he miscounts the lines. just as bad as having miscalled a page.

what's the kids say today?

oh - bye, felecia.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 18th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:your understanding of a lot of things seems to be baseless, so i don't know why you would expect this to be any different.

just because you can fail at something doesn't mean that something isn't possible.

could he have known the page he was thinking of? yes. obviously so - as evidenced by the fact that he has gotten it correct in the past.

the fact that you have to dance these semantic games proves your original claim is baseless.

shouldn't have stuck your neck out with the lying claim. pride cometh before the fall, and all.

and he miscounts the lines. just as bad as having miscalled a page.

what's the kids say today?

oh - bye, felecia.


No, Chan could not have "known" what page a volunteer chose. He could only have guessed. Or hoped.

I think it is overly polite to say that the Hoy method is a mere "miscall". It is a fiction.

There is no reason to believe that Chan Canasta deliberately got anything wrong. He probably tried to get it right the first time, but knowing how imperfect his technique was, he was ready to redeem himself.

Whether he memorised the page the night before, or just caught a glimpse of it on stage, it would still be phenomenal to isolate "line six" or "line twenty-one" with precision. It is no wonder that he was slightly "off" on occasion.

And even a true psychic (could we find one) would make mistakes OF THE VERY SAME KIND. Even a real clairvoyant isn't necessarily going to be good at counting the lines he sees in his mind. Thus there is effectively no difference. In both cases the performer is envisioning the page and doing his best to identify the specified line.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 18th, 2017, 10:28 pm

except when he miscounted the lines he was lying - just as when the magi miscalls the page. he is doing the worst of the examples of lies you condemn - using an untruth to convince someone something happened.

and yes, he COULD know what page the spec was thinking of. Obviously - as evidenced by the fact he regularly presented the trick. if it were truly impossible then we wouldn't be discussing a method!!!!!

is this when you pull out a dictionary and tell us we can must use the 8th definition of the word 'could'?

and how do you know a 'real' psychic would make these mistakes? you 1( admit they don't exist and then 2) proclaim their specific limitations. trying to have your cake and eat it too?

and who said he intentionally got it wrong the first time????? please leave the straw men in the fields.

not that a performance without lies proves that 1) magicians don't lie or 2) that lies hurt a performance or 3) that audience can know the performer lies if they are competent. But i love that even in your examples you can't provide any evidence to support your claims.

bye felecia.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 19th, 2017, 9:11 am

Brad Henderson wrote:except when he miscounted the lines he was lying - just as when the magi miscalls the page. he is doing the worst of the examples of lies you condemn - using an untruth to convince someone something happened.

and yes, he COULD know what page the spec was thinking of. Obviously - as evidenced by the fact he regularly presented the trick. if it were truly impossible then we wouldn't be discussing a method!!!!!

is this when you pull out a dictionary and tell us we can must use the 8th definition of the word 'could'?

and how do you know a 'real' psychic would make these mistakes? you 1( admit they don't exist and then 2) proclaim their specific limitations. trying to have your cake and eat it too?

and who said he intentionally got it wrong the first time????? please leave the straw men in the fields.

not that a performance without lies proves that 1) magicians don't lie or 2) that lies hurt a performance or 3) that audience can know the performer lies if they are competent. But i love that even in your examples you can't provide any evidence to support your claims.

bye felecia.


Once again, you demonstrate that Logic is not your strong suit.

To know is to be certain. In this case, we are talking about knowing NOT what page number Chan tried to force (of course he knew that), but which number the volunteer arbitrarily cbose. He could have seen a different number than the force, and he could have imagined that he did. He could have pretended to have seen "106". And that is the reason why Chan could not possibly be certain, and therefore the reason why he wasn't lying.

Logic does not dictate that you may be certain of something just because it happens frequently. It rather dictates that you must be uncertain if it doesn't happen every time.

On what basis do you presume that Chan lied about the line count?

And why would he?

It is more reasonable to suppose that his ability to estimate the right line was less than 100%. Especially considering the fact that they are not numbered! Try it yourself, Brad. Take a quick look at a page and immediately determine which is line nineteen.

How do I know that a psychic would make the same mistakes? Logic, once more.

A psychic would be someone who had the power to VISUALISE things. He or she could SEE the page, but there is nothing about psychic phenomena that could possibly enable someone to count the lines better than anyone else.

And you only prove my point (that you project your faults onto others) when you suggest that it is I who cites ALTERNATE definitions of words. That is what you have done all along.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 10:38 am

again with the semantic games.

he said there is no way he could know the page the man was thinking of. that is an untrue statement.

that statement suggests there is no mechanism for him to possibly know it. that is simply untrue.

and why do you think it's an attempted force and not just the erdnase technique but with a book?

you claim he has a page in every book memorized. that would make him a liar when he says he hasn't had any contact with the books or doesn't know what they are

and why must a psychic visualize things? have no not heard of clair-audio psychics? and who is to say a psychic would make mistakes? that isn't a logical leap. as you DONT know what a 'real psychic' would do - admitting as you have no even knowing if one could be found - you cannot say what one wouldn't it couldn't or would or should do, can you?

once again you take your baseless 'opinion' and offer it up as truth.

that hasn't been working out so well for
you, has it?

and i know he miscounted because you can see him do it. yes, he estimated the position incorrectly and then to cover it - brace yourself - he LIED. he did no different from the hoy miscall He miscounted the lines he did exactly what you condemn poor liars of doing - trying to convince the audience that something happened when it didn't.

once again, you have shot your self on the foot.

so much for master debating. though i'm not surprised your wounds are self inflicted.

performer
Posts: 2368
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby performer » December 19th, 2017, 10:57 am

This is hilarious! Brad is never going to convince jkeyes and vice versa. So who are they both trying to convince? Us of course! The snag is that isthe rest of us are well past caring any more!

I must admit to getting great amusement over the matter though!

As for "real psychics" I know rather a lot of them. Alas none of them do book tests so I am not able to clarify anything on their behalf.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 11:09 am

well, i need only refer the audience to david britland's book on canasta where he confirms that the page was NOT forced but glimpsed exactly as with erdnase technique AND he miscounted the line.

he also addresses the 'understanding' that chan had a photographic memory and attributes it to people drawing uninformed conclusions about his work - as we have seen done here.

and he confirms that canasta LIES. He shares a story from basil horowitz where in performance he denies use of the exact technique employed. So keyes can blather on all he wants about his 'understandings' and 'assumptions', but the information is already out there and has been for ages.

i just wanted to get keyes to reveal his ignorance before revealing what is already known.

hey keyes - you did it wrong

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 294
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby jkeyes1000 » December 19th, 2017, 11:12 am

Brad Henderson wrote:again with the semantic games.

he said there is no way he could know the page the man was thinking of. that is an untrue statement.

that statement suggests there is no mechanism for him to possibly know it. that is simply untrue.

and why do you think it's an attempted force and not just the erdnase technique but with a book?

you claim he has a page in every book memorized. that would make him a liar when he says he hasn't had any contact with the books or doesn't know what they are

and why must a psychic visualize things? have no not heard of clair-audio psychics? and who is to say a psychic would make mistakes? that isn't a logical leap. as you DONT know what a 'real psychic' would do - admitting as you have no even knowing if one could be found - you cannot say what one wouldn't it couldn't or would or should do, can you?

once again you take your baseless 'opinion' and offer it up as truth.

that hasn't been working out so well for
you, has it?

and i know he miscounted because you can see him do it. yes, he estimated the position incorrectly and then to cover it - brace yourself - he LIED. he did no different from the hoy miscall He miscounted the lines he did exactly what you condemn poor liars of doing - trying to convince the audience that something happened when it didn't.

once again, you have shot your self on the foot.

so much for master debating. though i'm not surprised your wounds are self inflicted.


Again, the hypocrisy.

You are the one playing tbe semantics game. Trying to characterise an attempt at predicting what page the volunteer will choose as a means of knowing it.

I did not claim thst Canasta memorised a page in every book. I said that I suspect it. Largely because I couldn't see where he might have double-checked the page in the older video. Although I might not have scrutinised it closely enough. In any case, I'm not at all sure that he said he had nothing toi do with them prior to the show. I recall only that he suggested that it was unlikely for him to have memorised the entire book.

"And who is to say that a psychic makes mistakes? That is not a logical leap."

Yes it is. When we use Logic, we first DEFINE OUR SUBJECT. Within the definition of psychic phenomena, there is nothing said relating to one's ability to count. Therefore, one may see (or hear, or otherwise perceive) data, and yet be no better at processing it than anyone else.

What might a psychic do in order to correctly identify a particular line? It is inconceivable that such a person could do more with his or her "gift" to mentally enumerate the lines in a book than someone who merely had an excellent memory.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3636
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Ennobling Magic

Postby Brad Henderson » December 19th, 2017, 12:39 pm

you suspected it and you were wrong.

this is what happens when you rely on your limited knowledge and lack of experience.

and he doesn't attempt to predict what page tney will look at. He looks at the same page they look at. You don't even know how the trick is done and you are trying to draw conclusions based on the wrong method!

he said i couldn't know what page you are thinking of - that is untrue. He COULD know by just looking at it at the time they look at it - which is exactly the method.

it's a lie

just as miscounting the page is. Or what of the moment when he literally hands playing cards to one of the participants? you condemn the hoy test because the magician tells them what page and word to look at, but canasta literally hands him two cards and tells them what they are at the end

you don't pick your examples very well.

and again, you are trying to spin matters. 1) you claim a real psychic would have a hard time knowing what line is what. But why? if the psychic has the ability to see a thought of page in their mind and count down to the line requested and over to the word, why would they be wrong? if i can count then why wouldn't the psychic be able to? counting is not the psychics skill. And the fact that a psychic has this odd ability to know what can't be known, why would they get it wrong? you say it's logical they would, but why? show me the accepted, proven, scientific text on what real psychics do and where it says that all psychics make mistakes like this. you may as well have said we all known dragons are green because logic says they must be.

and a psychic ISNT someone with a good memory. the psychic sees what cannot be seen. once again you are confusing method and effect. You are thinking like a magician.

a psychic can get their information from many sources, perhaps they have an angel that whispers in their ear. Maybe they pick up vibrations. neither of which require counting.

but that doesn't change the fact (as corroborated by britland) that canasta miscounted to the line. Why he would have gotten it wrong is irrelevant. The issue is that he did what you condemn users of hoy of - lying, specifically miscalling. he miscalls the line number.

heck, by you logic if i'm going to use the hoy ruse i'm not lying because maybe when i looked at the page number i accidentally saw the wrong one and just happened to call out the force page. I mean, if a psychic seeing a page in their mind could reasonably count to the wrong line (and that isn't lying to you) why couldn't i as a mind reader make the same sort of mistake and see the wrong numbers at the bottom of the page? my eyesight isn't so good, you know.

so again, your position is groundless.

oh, and then there is the interview in The People that canasta gave in 1960 where he openly lies about what he does methodologically. this is in part what has led to you flawed 'understanding' of his photographic memory.

once again keyes, you really should try and to know SOMETHING about the subjects you post on. maybe spend less time making videos in your car and get out there and actually perform some magic for real people.

it certainly can't hurt - you.


Return to “General”