ERDNASE

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 2nd, 2018, 3:13 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:did keyes just claim there was no content regarding. comportment at the card table?

hey keyes - try reading the book before commenting on it.

there is a reason magicians started pursuing gamblers as models to emulate - they understand things like consistency of action and character far greater than magicians do

what magician hasn’t been influence by the advice regarding changing the moment?

who doesn’t hold their technical bar to lack of suspicion and not mere detection?

Bill Malone once shared that meeting steve forte changed everything for him - that the level of work done by the card cheats far exceeded any in the magic world on multiple fronts, not just technical.

keyes, you don’t know this.

not knowing this disqualifies you from being considered informed in your opinions.


How very Brad of you, Brad. Did I say there was no content regarding comportment at the card table? No, I did not. I said there is a "relative dearth".

hey brad--try reading the post before commenting on it.

Now that I have your attention, I would like to make another observation.

In the opening pages of EATCT, we find this interesting remark--"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".

Think about that. The book is chiefly about card sleights, not gaming strategy. Yet it does suggest a familiarity with the public performance of magic.

If we take the above quote literally, it can only mean that the author had far more experience in legerdemain than in advantage playing.

If what we read is the "sum" of his wisdom, it clearly indicates a deep understanding of the importance of patter, presentation, and panache--but it reveals previous little of the writer's implied gambling exploits.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 2nd, 2018, 4:46 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:In the opening pages of EATCT, we find this interesting remark--"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".
. . .
If we take the above quote literally, it can only mean that the author had far more experience in legerdemain than in advantage playing.

Just to be pedantic, the word "sum" does not appear in the quote.

And further, in the previous paragraph, he says that he is in fact keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose -- so the quote obviously isn't meant to be taken literally.

Read for comprehension.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 2nd, 2018, 5:02 pm

keyes, i disagree with the claim that there is a dearth of any measure when it comes to strategies for the gambler. what sets erdnase apart from so many texts is the incredible depth and subtlety of exactly such material.

that you can’t see it isn’t a reflection on erdnases experience, but your own

magicians wish they knew what the gambler knows. it’s eaay to write elementary tricks when you are living your life amid post graduate level artifice.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 511
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » May 2nd, 2018, 5:24 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
In the opening pages of EATCT, we find this interesting remark--"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".

Think about that. The book is chiefly about card sleights, not gaming strategy. Yet it does suggest a familiarity with the public performance of magic.

If we take the above quote literally, it can only mean that the author had far more experience in legerdemain than in advantage playing.

If what we read is the "sum" of his wisdom, it clearly indicates a deep understanding of the importance of patter, presentation, and panache--but it reveals previous little of the writer's implied gambling exploits.

The topics of the book are card table artifice (i.e. cheating) and legerdemain. The book isn't about gambling strategies (poker tells, when to raise/bluff, etc). Surely you can understand the distinction.

The bulk of the book is on card sleights (including in the legerdemain section). The actual Card Tricks section (performance magic) is not even the majority of the legerdemain section. And even within the card tricks, there are only some that have fully fleshed out patter etc. So your conclusions are completely ill-founded. I wonder if you're reading the same book.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 2nd, 2018, 6:42 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:In the opening pages of EATCT, we find this interesting remark--"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".
. . .
If we take the above quote literally, it can only mean that the author had far more experience in legerdemain than in advantage playing.

Just to be pedantic, the word "sum" does not appear in the quote.

And further, in the previous paragraph, he says that he is in fact keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose -- so the quote obviously isn't meant to be taken literally.

Read for comprehension.


The word "sum" appears in the edition I am reading, Bill.

Erdnase doesn't explicitly say that he is "keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose".

Here is the passage:

"We do not claim to know it all. Many professionals have attained their success by improving old methods, or inventing new ones; and as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property as long as their originators are so disposed.

"We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know."

I interpret that to mean that he has taken nothing from anyone, that all he knows is his own experience. An admittedly difficult boast to believe, but that appears to be what he is claiming.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 2nd, 2018, 7:27 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".
Bill Mullins wrote:Just to be pedantic, the word "sum" does not appear in the quote.

Interesting. So we have "sum total", Mullins says only "total" and in the copy I am looking at it has only "sum":
...the sum of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume,...
Who has a first edition and can tell us what is in the first edition?
Last edited by lybrary on May 2nd, 2018, 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Jack Shalom
Posts: 613
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Jack Shalom » May 2nd, 2018, 7:28 pm

Erdnase doesn't explicitly say that he is "keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose".

Here is the passage:

"We do not claim to know it all. Many professionals have attained their success by improving old methods, or inventing new ones; and as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property as long as their originators are so disposed.


????? That's what he explicitly said in the very words you quoted.

Bob Coyne
Posts: 511
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies
Location: Montclair, NJ

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bob Coyne » May 2nd, 2018, 7:46 pm

lybrary wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".
Bill Mullins wrote:Just to be pedantic, the word "sum" does not appear in the quote.

Interesting. So we have "sum total", Mullins says only "total" and in the copy I am looking at it has only "sum":
...the sum of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume,...
Who has a first edition and can tell us what is in the first edition?

Given that the text says "the sum of our present knowledge..." Bill obviously meant to say that "total" (vs "sum") is not included in the quote. And likewise we can assume that jkeyes1000 intended to give the actual text but accidentally interpolated the extra word.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 2nd, 2018, 7:56 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:Bill obviously meant to say that "total" (vs "sum") is not included in the quote.
In other words, nothing unusual. Bill saying one thing but meaning actually the opposite.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 2nd, 2018, 8:04 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:
Erdnase doesn't explicitly say that he is "keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose".

Here is the passage:

"We do not claim to know it all. Many professionals have attained their success by improving old methods, or inventing new ones; and as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property as long as their originators are so disposed.


????? That's what he explicitly said in the very words you quoted.


No, Jack. In modern vernacular, Erdnase might have said, "In publishing this book we betray no confidences, because we have only ourselves to thank". He is not saying that he is refraining from betraying confidences, but that the act of publishing his own experiences obviates that predicament.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 2nd, 2018, 10:37 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:In the opening pages of EATCT, we find this interesting remark--"...the sum total of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".

Just to be pedantic, the word "sum" does not appear in the quote.

The word "sum" appears in the edition I am reading, Bill.

Doh!! You are right, the word "sum" appears. It is the word "total" which does not. Muphry's Law rears its ugly head.

Erdnase doesn't explicitly say that he is "keeping some secrets which are not his to disclose".

Here is the passage:

"We do not claim to know it all. Many professionals have attained their success by improving old methods, or inventing new ones; and as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property as long as their originators are so disposed.

"We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know."

I interpret that to mean that he has taken nothing from anyone, that all he knows is his own experience. An admittedly difficult boast to believe, but that appears to be what he is claiming.

And I interpret "we betray no confidences" to mean that some have confided certain secrets to him that he does not disclose. If he did not know them, they wouldn't be confidences.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 2nd, 2018, 10:43 pm

lybrary wrote:
Bob Coyne wrote:Bill obviously meant to say that "total" (vs "sum") is not included in the quote.
In other words, nothing unusual. Bill saying one thing but meaning actually the opposite.

Actually, this is unusual. I normally say exactly what I mean. And when I get something wrong, I immediately fess up and correct the record.

Are you willing to correct your repeated statements that Gallaway had "magic books" (plural) in his library? No? Then close your pie hole and go back to your corner.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 2nd, 2018, 10:57 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:Are you willing to correct your repeated statements that Gallaway had "magic books" (plural) in his library? No? Then close your pie hole and go back to your corner.
Uhh, are we cranky today. I have corrected it, but will repeat it for you: Gallaway had magic and gambling books in his library. We have proof he played cards. We have a photo of him making a beautiful fan with rulers. He titled his company theater number "The Magic Wand", and he loves to use magic phrases in his books that have nothing to do with magic:
  • vanished into thin air
  • trick proposition
  • the many tricks they can perform
  • it is not magic
  • like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat
  • magic stick
  • second-sight
  • subterfuge
Sounds like a perfect candidate for Erdnase.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Roger M.
Posts: 1374
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » May 2nd, 2018, 11:12 pm

lybrary wrote:Sounds like a perfect candidate for Erdnase.


Only if you're into:
    Self Deception
    Fantasy presented as fact
    Lying
    Fabricating or modifying evidence on a whim
    Having an ego so large it prevents one from seeing the truth
    Abusing a social thread in a hobby forum to monetize ones business undertakings
    Doing some fairly comprehensive research, and rather than presenting that research as discovered, create an imaginary world of which the original research is only a tiny part


So not even an adequate candidate ... let alone a "perfect candidate".

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 2nd, 2018, 11:36 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:

"And I interpret "we betray no confidences" to mean that some have confided certain secrets to him that he does not disclose. If he did not know them, they wouldn't be confidences."



Bill, Erdnase is not stating that there are "confidences" to betray. He is stating that there are not.

This is not a bi-partite sentence, in which two concepts are expressed--that "We betray no confidences in publishing this book", and "(we are) having only ourselves to thank for what we know". It is a single idea--that "We betray no confidences in publishing this book, AS we have only ourselves to thank for what we know."

Your interpretation would be plausible if it were written in our era, but in 1902, such a construction would be considered poor grammar at best.

Roger M.
Posts: 1374
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Roger M. » May 2nd, 2018, 11:56 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:
Bill, Erdnase is not stating that there are "confidences" to betray. He is stating that there are not.
This is not a bi-partite sentence, in which two concepts are expressed--that "We betray no confidences in publishing this book", and "(we are) having only ourselves to thank for what we know". It is a single idea--that "We betray no confidences in publishing this book, AS we have only ourselves to thank for what we know."
Your interpretation would be plausible if it were written in our era, but in 1902, such a construction would be considered poor grammar at best.


You really need to start backing up the bulls_it you're spreading with some solid references.

Telling us how you *think* things should be interpreted would require that you first had built some respect in this thread ... and with the responses to your posts so far ... it's pretty obvious that "respect" hasn't been offered in your direction to date.

Links and references to support the endless crap you're posing, or STFU.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 2nd, 2018, 11:56 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:Your interpretation would be plausible if it were written in our era, but in 1902, such a construction would be considered poor grammar at best.
Wouldn't be the first time Bill draws his interpretations from today's cultural norms rather than from the time of Erdnase. One of the big errors he and others constantly make.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 3rd, 2018, 12:25 am

jkeyes1000 wrote:Bill, Erdnase is not stating that there are "confidences" to betray. He is stating that there are not.

If he is not aware of the other methods, the "confidences", then it makes no sense to refer to them. Likewise, where he previously says "as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property," it makes no sense to refer to "others" unless he is knowledgeable of them.

And "having only ourselves to thank for what we know" means that these other secrets were learned by him during play, not given to him or read from a book. He obtained them "in the cold school of experience". It does not mean that he only tells what he knows.

Other secrets which he refers to, but does not disclose:
Moving cards from a hold-out to the hands (p. 15)
Methods of ringing in a cold deck (pp. 18-19)
Methods by which confederates may arrange hands for themselves or each other (p. 19)
Secret codes used by players in collusion (p. 19)

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 3rd, 2018, 12:53 am

lybrary wrote:We have proof he played cards.

We have proof that some guy, who probably wasn't Gallaway, referred to playing cards.
We have a photo of him making a beautiful fan with rulers.

No proof it was Gallaway.
He titled his company theater number "The Magic Wand", and he loves to use magic phrases in his books that have nothing to do with magic:
  • vanished into thin air
  • trick proposition
  • the many tricks they can perform
  • it is not magic
  • like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat
  • magic stick
  • second-sight
  • subterfuge

Most of these cannot be proven to be from Gallaway. You don't know who titled the company theater performance -- it may have been Gallaway's boss who did it. And the others are simply figures of speech.

For example, in your own book you use the metaphors "reasonable doubt," "motive, means and opportunity", prosecutor/prosecution, courtroom, jury, "criminal case", convict, evidence, testimony, etc. Are you a lawyer? Have you passed the bar in Massachusetts? By your logic, a reader 100 years from now would believe so.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 3rd, 2018, 1:06 am

Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:Bill, Erdnase is not stating that there are "confidences" to betray. He is stating that there are not.

If he is not aware of the other methods, the "confidences", then it makes no sense to refer to them. Likewise, where he previously says "as certain artifices are first disclosed in this work so will others remain private property," it makes no sense to refer to "others" unless he is knowledgeable of them.

And "having only ourselves to thank for what we know" means that these other secrets were learned by him during play, not given to him or read from a book. He obtained them "in the cold school of experience". It does not mean that he only tells what he knows.

Other secrets which he refers to, but does not disclose:
Moving cards from a hold-out to the hands (p. 15)
Methods of ringing in a cold deck (pp. 18-19)
Methods by which confederates may arrange hands for themselves or each other (p. 19)
Secret codes used by players in collusion (p. 19)


What seems to "make sense" to the modern reader is largely attributable to the idiomatic way in which he was taught to think, speak, and write. The grammar of the early 1900s was different. Schools instructed students on the proper way to construct phrases and sentences. Of course, not everyone was educated alike. Thus we have Erdnase making fun of an illiterate black man. I think we can assume that the author knew the correct manner of expressing himself, according to authority.

Those of you that praise the author of EATCT for his clarity and precision of language will have a hard time persuading me that the quote we are discussing is a good example of this.

I happen to believe that he is adequate in his comprehension of the standard grammar of his day. Not brilliant, but okay.

If your interpretation were right, it would be a glaring anomaly in this otherwise formal context.

If any of you need verification of the proper way for a turn-of-the-century man to write, you haven't read enough old books, magazines, and newspapers, and I'm afraid I haven't the time to be your tutor.

You can sling mud all you want (here I am addressing Roger). But I know my grammar, and I know my old books, at least as well as you know your magic history.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 8:08 am

keyes has proven again and again he knows nothing of magic history, and now he proves he has read little of the book.

If you read the entire book, as Bill has done, you will see that he clearly is referring to holding back moves which are not his to give. This isn’t a case of linguistic customs of the day, this is evidenced by numerous statements throughout the book.

Had you read the book you would see that his advice to magicians is colored entirely by his experiences with what works at the card table - he even directly references this in the introductory chapter on legerdemain.

Erdnase’s insights into magic come from the fact he was a card professional first and foremost.

if you really knew your magic history, keyes, you would know that many of these ideas were largely foreign to magic thinking at the time. It was only after Vernon brought erdnase to our attention and begin teaching, based on that, a natural approach to sleight it hand, that these ideas become part of our history.

So once again, keyes, you’ve gotten it all wrong.

at least you are consistent.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 8:12 am

I spent last evening going over Joe Crist’s new edition of Expert and his very interesting introduction.

He claims his teacher played with Erdnase on at least one occasion.

He also makes a very interesting observation about the perspective issue in the photos which would seem to undermine the claim that they were traced.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 8:53 am

Bill Mullins wrote:
lybrary wrote:We have proof he played cards.
We have proof that some guy, who probably wasn't Gallaway, referred to playing cards.
We have more proof than any reasonable person needs that Gallaway wrote this book: unattributed re-use, linguistic fingerprint, facial recognition via photographic evidence.

Bill Mullins wrote:
We have a photo of him making a beautiful fan with rulers.
No proof it was Gallaway.
We have photographic proof that it is the same person who posed for the photos in "The Monotype System" book. Since we have proof that this was written by Gallaway (see above), and that the person shown on one photo in the book matches Gallaway's face, we can reasonably assume it is Gallaway.

Bill Mullins wrote:
He titled his company theater number "The Magic Wand", and he loves to use magic phrases in his books that have nothing to do with magic:
  • vanished into thin air
  • trick proposition
  • the many tricks they can perform
  • it is not magic
  • like the conjurer who takes white rabbits out of a silk hat
  • magic stick
  • second-sight
  • subterfuge

Most of these cannot be proven to be from Gallaway. And the others are simply figures of speech.
Actually, 4 of the 8 listed above are already proven to be Gallaway's. The others are from the Monotype books for which we have three independent pieces of evidence that he is the author of. So yes, very strong evidence that all of these were written by Gallaway.

Bill Mullins wrote:You don't know who titled the company theater performance -- it may have been Gallaway's boss who did it.
More unreasonable off the kilter arguing from Mr. William Mullins. It was Gallaway's number, he put it together, he titled it, he performed it: "The Magic Wand". It is not something you can deny. We have documentary evidence. The program of the show exists. Reviews exist.

Bill Mullins wrote:For example, in your own book you use the metaphors "reasonable doubt," "motive, means and opportunity", prosecutor/prosecution, courtroom, jury, "criminal case", convict, evidence, testimony, etc. Are you a lawyer? Have you passed the bar in Massachusetts?
Not yet.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 9:02 am

Brad Henderson wrote:I spent last evening going over Joe Crist’s new edition of Expert and his very interesting introduction. He claims his teacher played with Erdnase on at least one occasion.
Really? Then your reading comprehension is beyond bad. His teacher was Joe Artanis. The incidence he is describing from 1903 was with Joe Artanis' teacher, who was a kalderash gypsy who personally knew Erdnase. It is not first hand experience of Joe Artanis. It is a story Artanis was told by his teacher and he passed it on to his student Joe Crist.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 9:44 am

awww. chris likes to call names

i was just curious what you would pick up on - i see no comment about the issue with the perspective on the drawings.

this suggests that you knew that there is evidence to prove that these could not have been tracings- and as you have admitted to reading his intro - you still stick by your fraudulent claims.

and maybe you should read it again. Crist said erdnase was studying with artanis’s teacher, that is true. But the details beyond the story seem to be coming from artanis - how else could he have described him so carefully in mannerism and physical appearance? “Short in height, almost paper thin and somewhat effeminate in his manners (Artanis once described Erdnase to me, saying “He was queer as a three dollar bill, but he liked real women, too.)”

that sounds like personal observations. Not the passing down of hearsay.

regardless you really want to go to the mat over a quibble such as whether it was artanis or artanis’s teacher who met him?

just ignore the entire perspective issue?

and all of the personality analysis based on the text crist provides?

you’re playing your small minded self serving games again chris.

try it on the people who don’t know better

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 10:57 am

Brad Henderson wrote:i was just curious what you would pick up on - i see no comment about the issue with the perspective on the drawings. this suggests that you knew that there is evidence to prove that these could not have been tracings- and as you have admitted to reading his intro - you still stick by your fraudulent claims.
Neither Joe Crist nor his photographer Rosa Polin are illustrators. I rather believe Richard Kaufman and Gregg Webb who have illustrated many magic books. On the point of tracing I believe them more than non-magic-book-illustrators. In any case, even Smith himself commented that these were likely traced. That's the guy who actually drew the illustrations!

Brad Henderson wrote:and maybe you should read it again. Crist said erdnase was studying with artanis’s teacher, that is true. But the details beyond the story seem to be coming from artanis - how else could he have described him so carefully in mannerism and physical appearance? “Short in height, almost paper thin and somewhat effeminate in his manners (Artanis once described Erdnase to me, saying “He was queer as a three dollar bill, but he liked real women, too.)”
We are talking about an event in 1903. Artanis died of a heart attack in 1962 when I believe he was in his 50ies or 60ies or so. That makes Artanis an infant or toddler in 1903. Or perhaps he wasn't yet born in 1903. He could not have personally witnessed the described incidence. Brush up on your reading comprehension boy.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 11:35 am

Hey kid

they are photographers and couldn’t reproduce the images as drawn because of perspective shifts. this wouldn’t have been an issue if they were merely traced.

the photographers are telling you those images could not have been traced from a photograph.

and

i didn’t say that artanis knew him at the time of the story. i said the details BEYOND the story - it appears as if artanis had a first hand encounter with him. but beyond the point - he ain’t galloway b

but hey. english isn’t your first language so it’s forgivable.

will you ask forgiveness?

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24355
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Richard Kaufman » May 3rd, 2018, 11:50 am

You guys are really trying my patience. Cut it out or you'll both get temporary bans.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 3rd, 2018, 12:10 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:He also makes a very interesting observation about the perspective issue in the photos which would seem to undermine the claim that they were traced.


There are some drawings from the Expert's POV (Figs 12, 13, 17, 30, for example) that if they were originally traced from photographs, the camera would have had to have been embedded in the Expert's chest.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 3:17 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:the photographers are telling you those images could not have been traced from a photograph.
With "the photographers" (plural) you mean ONE photographer, Rosa Polin. I have no idea who she is, how good she is, how knowledgeable she is, but I know a thing or two about photography myself. For example, the lens can make a big difference. Which lenses has she tried?

Bill Mullins wrote:There are some drawings from the Expert's POV (Figs 12, 13, 17, 30, for example) that if they were originally traced from photographs, the camera would have had to have been embedded in the Expert's chest.
Easily accomplished with the cooperation of the demonstrator. Fig. 30 for example could easily be taken with a shot over the shoulder. The others can be done with the demonstrator moving his hands a little bit to the side enough so that the photographer can take the picture. Joe Crist's book is perfect proof that it is possible. His photo 12 and 13 demonstrate it. And no, I don't think he had a camera embedded in his chest.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 3rd, 2018, 4:23 pm

The matter of "reading comprehension" has been touched upon (often with a rude finger) a number of times in this discourse; yet never helpfully addressed. I would like to give a brief lesson for the benefit of those in need of remedial advice.

Bill has told me that he doesn't think the following sentence "makes sense" according to my interpretation:

"We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know".

Bill says essentially, that it's silly to refer to "confidences" if there aren't any to betray.

But all we need to do is transpose the first and second halves of the declaration, in order to understand it perfectly:

"Having only ourselves to thank for what we know, we betray no confidences in publishing this book".

That is one of the "funny" things about classic speech patterns. They were based on ancient models, frequently placing the conditional phrase at the beginning.

Let us look at the very first line of EATCT.

"In offering this book to the public the writer uses no sophistry as an excuse for its existence".

Here the author employs the phrase, "no sophistry" in precisely the same manner as "no confidences" a bit further down.

Now, here is the trouble with Bill's logic: he needs to question the credibility of other statements by Erdnase in order to "pound the square peg into a round hole".

In the very same paragraph from which our primary example was taken, we read: "...and the sum of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume...".

While it is quite possible for a writer to be inconsistent in little details, here and there, it is extremely unlikely that such a bold remark would so utterly contradict what was said but a moment before.

And if we can't trust Erdnase to be coherent, how are we to consider anything he claims to be evidence of his identity?
Last edited by jkeyes1000 on May 3rd, 2018, 4:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 4:25 pm

chris.

i had a professor of musicology who once shared the story of two students arguing over how to interpret the presence of a note that did not fit in traditional medieval voice leading rules. The teacher walked up to them, standing over the manuscript, and flicked the errant note off the page.

‘don’t analyze the fly [censored]’

if you want to pick apart these posts for typos then you are a dishonest actor.

and yes, i know you know something about everything. this is why you are so well respected in all these fields.

but i trust a real photographer who has actually tried to replicate the photos.

smith never mentioned photos.

you would think he would have mentioned the photographer who was in the room when he had his meeting. If he were handed photos then he wouldn’t have been paid with check number 1.

you’re grasping at straws - or more literally - your argument rests on a pile of fly [censored].

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 4:27 pm

keyes. so how do you feel the content of erdnase compares with the revelation of similar material of books published at the time?

and considering the moves explained. are there other strategies which a professional would need in order to execute those - are they included or described in expert?

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 5:12 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:smith never mentioned photos.

you would think he would have mentioned the photographer who was in the room when he had his meeting. If he were handed photos then he wouldn’t have been paid with check number 1.

you’re grasping at straws - or more literally - your argument rests on a pile of fly [censored].
Here is what Gardner wrote:
He recognized his lettering on the book pictures, but not the drawings themselves. He thinks it strange he can’t recall doing the drawings, which must have been big job, so probably did them from photographs.
I know, for you it is only some fly [censored]. As usual you are wrong. Smith mentioned photographs.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 4849
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Bill Mullins » May 3rd, 2018, 5:48 pm

jkeyes1000 wrote:Now, here is the trouble with Bill's logic: he needs to question the credibility of other statements by Erdnase in order to "pound the square peg into a round hole".

You can consider the "no confidences" statement relative to a single other statement ("sum of our present knowledge"), and convince yourself that Erdnase did not know any other sleights, secrets, strategies, moves, or gambling psychology beyond what he described in the book.

Or you can read the whole book, and realize that throughout he alludes to things he didn't tell, for various reasons; they weren't "his" secrets to disclose, they weren't relevant to his topic (Card Table Artifice, and Legerdemain), they were secrets that revealed substandard methods and were thus beneath his consideration (perhaps they were "inartistic"), etc. After reading that his adventure with the Back Palm was "another story", do you seriously believe he told us every thing he knew about that sleight? Regarding the 3 card monte -- he reveals the hype, and the bent corner dodge. Do you honestly believe his knowledge of the scam ends there?

And if we can't trust Erdnase to be coherent, how are we to consider anything he claims to be evidence of his identity?

I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't recall Erdnase saying anything that he claimed to be evidence of his identity -- it is a subject which he did not discuss.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 6:09 pm

lybrary wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:smith never mentioned photos.

you would think he would have mentioned the photographer who was in the room when he had his meeting. If he were handed photos then he wouldn’t have been paid with check number 1.

you’re grasping at straws - or more literally - your argument rests on a pile of fly [censored].
Here is what Gardner wrote:
He recognized his lettering on the book pictures, but not the drawings themselves. He thinks it strange he can’t recall doing the drawings, which must have been big job, so probably did them from photographs.
I know, for you it is only some fly [censored]. As usual you are wrong. Smith mentioned photographs.



no. gardner does. gardner concludes based on smith not remembering the drawing that they were done from
photographs.

so, does smith mention getting a stack of photos from him? how were those paid for if smith received check number 1? how does someone who ‘needs the money’ have the funds to hire a photographer to do likely hundreds of shots, develop them, evaluate which work, re shoot . . .

you’d think smith would have mentioned some of that.

and now we have a very talented photographer who has tried to recreate the illustrations and can’t because of perspective shifts.

i know - erdnase hired a cutting edge photographer who had traveled to the future and obtained all the modern lenses and knowledge thereof to be able to do this.

or do you think he just got a beta copy of photoshop?

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 481
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: ERDNASE

Postby jkeyes1000 » May 3rd, 2018, 6:25 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
jkeyes1000 wrote:Now, here is the trouble with Bill's logic: he needs to question the credibility of other statements by Erdnase in order to "pound the square peg into a round hole".

You can consider the "no confidences" statement relative to a single other statement ("sum of our present knowledge"), and convince yourself that Erdnase did not know any other sleights, secrets, strategies, moves, or gambling psychology beyond what he described in the book.

Or you can read the whole book, and realize that throughout he alludes to things he didn't tell, for various reasons; they weren't "his" secrets to disclose, they weren't relevant to his topic (Card Table Artifice, and Legerdemain), they were secrets that revealed substandard methods and were thus beneath his consideration (perhaps they were "inartistic"), etc. After reading that his adventure with the Back Palm was "another story", do you seriously believe he told us every thing he knew about that sleight? Regarding the 3 card monte -- he reveals the hype, and the bent corner dodge. Do you honestly believe his knowledge of the scam ends there?

And if we can't trust Erdnase to be coherent, how are we to consider anything he claims to be evidence of his identity?

I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't recall Erdnase saying anything that he claimed to be evidence of his identity -- it is a subject which he did not discuss.


Last things first: My meaning was not that Erdnase claimed anything to be evidence of his identity, but that his claims are largely what we base our understanding of his character on. Whether he was a gambler, or a magician--a copy fitter or a mining engineer--whether or not he "needed the money", etc.

I am not arguing that the author was accurate in his statements, only suggesting that he was consistent enough to avoid blatant contradictions.

You mention some of the possible reasons for his tangential references to other methods--but deliberately keeping secrets need not be amongst them. He might indeed have thought certain points redundant--and in some instances heard of, or seen, alternate techniques that he had only a feeble comprehension of. Recall the line: "We do not claim to know it all".

Considering his enormous ego, his tendency to boast, I think we can be assured that this is a truthful confession. That if anything, we may suppose even this an exaggeration rather than a humble remark.

And besides, Bill--I wasn't implying that this was all the mechanical knowledge he had. My point was that his inclusion of the presentation in the magic section, and the lack of anything analogous in the gambling portion (i.e., any descriptions of actual playing), would indicate more experience at the former than the latter. And I can't imagine what confidences he might betray by demonstrating these sleights in action at the gaming table.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: ERDNASE

Postby lybrary » May 3rd, 2018, 6:37 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:so, does smith mention getting a stack of photos from him? how were those paid for if smith received check number 1? how does someone who ‘needs the money’ have the funds to hire a photographer to do likely hundreds of shots, develop them, evaluate which work, re shoot . . .
Just because there are more unanswered questions - there always are - doesn't mean the things we do know are incorrect. That is your silly line of argumentation. Smith's reaction makes total sense. He can't recognize the drawings, because they are not his style. This is the one thing he should recognize and remember among all the other things. He must have spent dozens of hours working on it. Yet, he doesn't recognize them. His logical explanation is that he probably did trace them from photographs. Makes total sense except to befuddled Brad.

Brad Henderson wrote:perspective shifts
Can you please explain what that is in the world of photography? You are inventing new terms so I must ask you. Probably another one of your errors stemming from not knowing what you are talking about.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 7:40 pm

look it up on the book you have but whose information you want to ignore.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 3793
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: ERDNASE

Postby Brad Henderson » May 3rd, 2018, 7:44 pm

chris, i’m not befuddled

i’m objective.

drawing red lines is not proof of facial recognition

owning a book your company printed isn’t proof of card handling skills

and saying you did not recognize a drawing is not the same as saying there were photographs. It was a large job as he said. he would have remembered the photos.

and please , the ‘it
could have happened so it must be true’ tactic is the one i learned from you.

none of the things you believe might be true have been proven true.

you have no case.


Return to “General”