Silent Running by Ben Harris

[Tom Gilbert]

Not to be a wiseguy, but I wrote off big name endorsements a while ago.

[Roger M.]

A re-read of the full page Genii ad for Crossroads will confirm that no direct endorsements by any big names were offered.

It states that various professionals had been shown the trick........the ad implies a lot more than it actually states as fact.

The double-speak worked on me though, through no fault of those names mentioned as having "reviewed" the trick.......and ultimately totally my fault for reading into the ad something which wasn't there.

Ultimately, you can send a trick to anybody and later state that they "reviewed" it......you don't have to state what they thought of it, only that they "reviewed" it.

[Tom Gilbert]

Ben has dropped a number of names on another forum, but my comment was more general about endorsements. I don't own SR. I did purchase Crossroads and didn't care for it.

[000]

Tom, may I respectfully ask you if you 'tested' the "select a card" on a single human being with a modicum of intelligence?

[Tom Gilbert]

I didn't care for Crossroads and didn't put any time into it. Felt there were other methods and effects much stronger.

[Tom Frame]

Tom, may I respectfully ask you if you 'tested' the "select a card" on a single human being with a modicum of intelligence?

Yes, I tested it on a number of sentient humans and I was able to correctly divine their card without receiving any negative responses. They were quite impressed.

[Bob Farmer]

Now, I'm confused -- and I don't just mean by Jonathan's post. Tom, when you said there were no negative responses, I'm assuming you meant the audience expressed was fooled -- not that when you did the fishing sequence you got three "yes" answers.

That's the other problem with SR -- the possibility of getting three "no" answers when you're fishing for the card. The fishing sequence is binary -- each question reduces the possibles by half. This works for a small number of cards (e.g., 4), but as soon as you use more than 4, you can get a whole string of no answers. The optimal approach for more than 5 cards is to use a binary question for the first query and a majority sort for all further queries.

With 8 cards, you will get a minimum of 1 no answer and a maximum of 2. I know this all sounds complicated but it really isn't.

[Tom Frame]

Bob,

I got all "yes" responses to the fishing statements and the audience was fooled.

[Bob Farmer]

Tom:

The possibility of getting three "no" answers suggests the fishing expedition needs a rethink.

[Jeff.Prace]

Bob,

I do not understand how it is possible to get three "no" answers. No matter the response to the first question, the second question will always be correct.

[Scott M.]

Please don't answer this in the specific because I'm not trying to fish for more of the method than is already revealed. But what (and again, in broad, non-specific terms) is new about "Silent Running"? What kind of concept is being pioneered here? From reading this thread I'm just not getting the nature -- or even existence of -- something new added to these types of routines.

[mrgoat]

Please don't answer this in the specific because I'm not trying to fish for more of the method than is already revealed. But what (and again, in broad, non-specific terms) is new about "Silent Running"? What kind of concept is being pioneered here? From reading this thread I'm just not getting the nature -- or even existence of -- something new added to these types of routines.

The marketing of it was new.

Now it's OK to say things like "yes the demo video would look just like the description of the effect" when clearly it wouldn't look nothing like the effect.

Cool eh?

[Bob Farmer]

Scott:

I think it's clear from the ads and the discussion that "Crossroads" and "Silent Running" involve methods for limiting the metal selection of a card (i.e. the spectator thinks of a card he doesn't take one) to a small range. These methods are the only things that distinguish these tricks from others.

There is also a method (in "Crossroads") for a card index that's interesting but not new (Corinda has a similar idea in 13 Steps To Mentalism).

The argument is whether these are good or bad limiting methods, and your question seems to be are they better than what has come before.

My answer to that starts with the price -- these are expensive booklets. Are they worth it? If you take the same money (and add a few bucks) and buy 13 Steps To Mentalism and T.A. Waters Mind, Myth and Magic, you'll find much better material, and, on a price-per-trick basis, a better deal.

As to methods: there are better ways of limiting the mental selection of cards -- much better ways. For example, check out Eugene Berger's "Thought Sender" on his website or Dai Vernon's, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind."

[Steve Bryant]

I've always been partial to Overcon in the Tsunami mss. It's my understanding that John Kennedy's Mind Power Deck makes this even more deceptive.

[Bob Farmer]

Steve:

Modesty prevented me from referring to my own stuff.

The Kennedy Mind Power deck solves a problem that doesn't exist. I've been using banked decks for a long time and in that entire time no one has ever noticed the banks. The other problem with the MP deck is that the fishing isn't very good. Of course, the fishing is dependent upon the cards used and it is always better to start with the best and most deceptive fishing sequence and fit the cards into that -- not vice versa.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Bob, what's your feeling about taking the ACAAN and replacing the card with a slip of paper that says, "sorry I lost the XXXX" at that position?

[Bob Farmer]

Jonathan -- that is a great idea.

[Bob Farmer]

Or it could say, "David Berglas was already here."

[Mark Collier]

Bob,

I do not understand how it is possible to get three "no" answers. No matter the response to the first question, the second question will always be correct.

And then that is followed by two more questions. I hardly think it is deceptive to say, "your card was red, was it a heart or a diamond?" and try and spin that into a positive hit. If instead you take a stab at the suit with a 50% possibility of a no response, you have a very real chance of getting 3 misses on your fishing trip.

[Scott M.]

Scott:

I think it's clear from the ads and the discussion that "Crossroads" and "Silent Running" involve methods for limiting the metal selection of a card (i.e. the spectator thinks of a card he doesn't take one) to a small range. These methods are the only things that distinguish these tricks from others.

There is also a method (in "Crossroads") for a card index that's interesting but not new (Corinda has a similar idea in 13 Steps To Mentalism).

The argument is whether these are good or bad limiting methods, and your question seems to be are they better than what has come before.

My answer to that starts with the price -- these are expensive booklets. Are they worth it? If you take the same money (and add a few bucks) and buy 13 Steps To Mentalism and T.A. Waters Mind, Myth and Magic, you'll find much better material, and, on a price-per-trick basis, a better deal.

As to methods: there are better ways of limiting the mental selection of cards -- much better ways. For example, check out Eugene Berger's "Thought Sender" on his website or Dai Vernon's, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind."

Bob, thanks very much for the response.

[Bob Farmer]

I guesss that should be the "mental" selection of a card -- not "metal." I was listening to Judas Priest when I wrote that.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Now if "x" over there wanted to impress you as a mind reader and said your card was a heart... how would they be doing?

[Bob Farmer]

I don't understand the question.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Bob, how well does it work in performance to "one off" the fishing - "what if they..." type questions?

[Bob Farmer]

Jonathan: I cannot speak to the fishing sequences in the Ben Harris effects, but I've used fishing successfully for years. The trick is not to make it look like guessing.

The "off-by-one" idea isn't fishing -- it's a prediction. You knew ahead of time -- you're not divining the card now. I have no experience with this idea. Incidentally, I'm told by a very reliable authority that Kenton Knepper did not invent this idea -- it was first used by a Spanish magician.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Bob, by one off I meant that you get another person involved for a moment and ask the volunteer (thinking of a card) - it "THEY" were to say they were psychic and say that your card was a heart or diamond, would you think they might be right? that sort of thing. Some way to take the onus off the fish hook.

[Brad Henderson]

Jonathan, I get what you are saying. It's a clever ruse. Of course, why not just ask them to take a guess and then get the other spec to confirm. I think some guys use that now.

[Bob Farmer]

Yes, that's a great idea. Now that Brad mentions it, I have seen this before. I'd guess Berger, Maven or Conover.

[Bob Farmer]

For those who don't want to chance the Silent Running procedure, check out John Bannon's "Outer Limits/Beyond The Pale" (SMOKE AND MIRRORS pp. 51-58). The fishing is exactly the right way to do it. Also, the manner in which the thought cards are limited to a range is really clever and lights year ahead of the SR method. Finally, the Premonition portion with a prediction is the perfect complement to the first part of the effect.

[Ben Harris]

BOB,

You made the claim about Bannon's effect at the Magic Cafe. Lovely effect, but SR is different. Steve Shufton drew your attention to the pertinent points of difference at the Cafe.

Bob, can I ask if you've now actually read the manuscript rather than just relying on what you'd been told. I know you were offered a complimentary print copy during the course of your initial anti-SR email campaign, but refused it for some reason.

The reason I ask, is your comment about "another problem" -- that you could get three "NO" answers when fishing with SR. If are under that impression, then you have NOT read the ms. (There is a 50% chance that ONE guess may be off, that's all).


NOW:

Poor Tom Frame.

He takes the time to read, learn and think about SR, and then goes out and performs successfully with it. But, that's not good enough. Now you guys seem to doubt Tom's word or veracity, and the same with other reviewers. WHY?

Why? Why doubt Tom. Do you think he's on my payroll, too?

SR PROCEDURE:

The SR procedure is effective and works well. I've used it as a feature, three shows a week for six or seven months.

Consult page 14 of the manuscript for the correct procedure. It's a precursor, and as such is separate from the main effect you intend to LATER perform.

The precursor (SR Procedure) involves a little game of imagination. The spectator is NOT AWARE that they are creating a card (until you suggest doing so at the END), so you CANNOT get caught out with either the number or suit. If you are, then you are not doing this correctly.

At the end of the mind game, the spectator confirms that no one can know the card they IMAGINED in their head.

It is from this moment you suggest, "Well, seeing as you are so good at this, let's take your imagined card, shh don't tell, and try..."


AND...

And please, to those of you who imagine to know things you don't, ALL THE PRODUCT ENDORSEES were privy to the inner work prior to publication and had been involved, back and forth with it's development. Almost ALL HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SEQUEL. To imply that they were duped, or gave endorsements as a favor, is ridiculous and without foundation.

To think people like Looch, Bob Cassidy, Banachek, Marc Paul, Marc Spelmann, Devin Knight, Steve Shufton, Paolo Cavalli, etc would put their names to anything without intimate working knowledge is ridiculous.

I can understand if you personally don't like SR, that's fine. But to be trashing it, and THOSE who have success with it, and those who are creating with it, well...

Respectfully

Ben Harris

[mrgoat]

If you don't like my trick YOU ARE STUPID AND DOING IT BADLY!!!
MY TRICK IS GREAT!

[Jonathan Townsend]

To be fair, what I'd like to see is a video of the item in use, no sound, performer's view, just to watch the audience. That's what I use when considering items.

Watching the faces of those near but not directly addressed, looking for dull eyes, vacant stares, half smiles, slack faces - the usual cues one can see in others patiently watching a commercial while waiting for their TV show to resume.

[Ben Harris]

You are right Mr Goat. WE AGREE!

Some people ARE doing this poorly and blaming the procedure. But I wouldn't call them "stupid" the way you do. You see this everyday with ANY trick. So no news here. Thanks for drawing attention to it. I'd hate to have to pull it from my professional shows because it was crap!

"My Trick is Great" - funny dude. I see the game you are playing and it's not going to wash, dude. I think SR is pretty cool, as do many others. Guess that's why I invested thousands in printing and advertising. Gotta have confidence in your product!

How come you didn't request a refund, Mr Goat? (You, like everyone else had a seven day opportunity to READ, TEST and WORK with SR). PLEASE EXPLAIN.

FASCINATING: the loudest critics don't even own SR and have NOT read it! I was surprised when Bob Farmer tipped his hand revealing he still has not read the manuscript. (After being "told" about the procedure--sans context-- he refused a complimentary full copy. I don't think he WANTS the details after all. His comment above, about the possibility of THREE POSSIBLE NOS, is further evidence that Bob is talking through his hat! READ the book, Bob!).

Now, get back to editing your porn, Damien. We've got another 40 or so SR to ship today. Watch the "wet work" dude!

Benny

[Edward]

There's no reason you should assume anything from an ad.

Wow!!! So why not just blatently LIE!! forget about trying to be honest. I can't believe that statment.

[mrgoat]

Some people ARE doing this poorly and blaming the procedure.

That's right. And some people think the procedure sucks and you misled them in the advertising!

I think SR is pretty cool, as do many others.

And lots of people thinks it sucks too, judging by your own poll on your own site!

That must be painful for you. I understand why you are now being so aggressive. However, you should let it go.

Guess that's why I invested thousands in printing and advertising. Gotta have confidence in your product!

MacDonalds and Coke spend a fortune on advertising. However, they are still selling crappy burgers and sugar water at the end of the day. Ad budget doesn't ever equal quality.

How come you didn't request a refund, Mr Goat? (You, like everyone else had a seven day opportunity to READ, TEST and WORK with SR). PLEASE EXPLAIN.

No need to shout Mr Harris. I usually take more than 7 days to read and effect and place it into my professional review. Surprised you think people can do that. I guess, if I cannot block, script and work up a new effect into an established act in 7 days I must be one of those crap magicians you refer to? Sobeit.

I was surprised when Bob Farmer tipped his hand revealing he still has not read the manuscript. (After being "told" about the procedure--sans context-- he refused a complimentary full copy. I don't think he WANTS the details after all.

Or maybe he thinks it's not very clever?

Now, get back to editing your porn, Damien. We've got another 40 or so SR to ship today.

Lol. So because I do marketing for adult sites, that means I can't think you put out bad products?

Very weak argument, Harris.

I'd just bow out of this, your attacking of people that have an opinion that differs from your makes you seem a tad unhinged. It's OK that all the people on your site voted it was bad. It is OK I don't like it. It's OK Mr Farmer doesn't want a free copy of your effect. I am sure you will still make a fortune selling it to people that believe what you wrote on the advertising.

Just reel your neck in a bit, eh?

[James Cotton]

...dude. ...dude. ...dude!

Benny

Wow. You should work for an advertising agency. That's some pretty hip lingo for a guy in his fifties, daddy-o.

[Bob Farmer]

I have never been offered a free copy of SR. I was sent a free copy of Crossroads. I reviewed Crossroads at Ben's suggestion and told him the selection procedure was lame.

I read a friend's (hard) copy of SR and then ordered a wholesale hard copy (which I haven't received yet). The selection procedure is even lamer.

With 8 cards and a binary sort, you need three responses from the audience to nail a single card, so three nos are not only possible they are mathematically possible. You can reduce the nos by having more outs for the last response -- e.g. two outs --that's what SR uses -- but if you don't use the outs, it's a three-no possibility.

Unfortunately, the cards used in SR are not optimized for fishing and the fishing procedure is binary when it should be binary and majority (e.g., see John Bannon's "Outer Limits/Beyond The Pale" in Smoke and Mirrors for how to do it right).

If you want to limit a spectator's mental selection to a small range of cards and know what those cards are there are many better methods for doing so, including Equivoque (see Eugene Berger's "Thought Sender").

There are good ideas in both Crossroads and SR, but the selection procedures don't qualify. So throw them out, use one that works better (e.g., Bannon's idea or Berger's), then do the tricks explained.

And finally--


DEVOLUTION: degeneration: the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality --wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


"Think of one of these cards."
--Dai Vernon, 20th century, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind."


"Pick a number BETWEEN -- remember BETWEEN, BETWEEN -- one and ten. Now, as I call out 'clubs,' 'hearts,' 'spades,' 'diamonds,' and point to my fingers with my other fingers, keep your eye on my pointing fingers and the fingers they are pointing to and REMEMBER WHAT FINGER, AND THEREFORE WHAT SUIT, THE NUMBER YOU ARE THINKING OF LANDS ON -- AND PUT THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER -- THE NUMBER YOU'RE THINKING OF AND THE FINGER WITH THE SUIT -- AND THEN, AND THIS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT -- REMEMBER THAT CARD."
-- Bob Farmer, 21st century, performing "Silent Running" (slightly exaggerated)

[El Mystico]

Lovely.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Which finger is wearing the suit?

[Ben Harris]

Bob,

You see, you've done it again. Your script (let's call it that) is NOT SR at all. You've missed the point. That's NOTHING like how it should be constructed and I think you know that.

Mr Goat.

I love tussling with ya man. You are great for sales.

Benny