Ennobling Magic

[Tom Moore]

Your refusal to answer the actual questions asked, combined with your endless self contradiction bores me now. Somewhere in the nonsense you have spewed forth there was an interesting topic to debate but it is abundantly clear you lack the skills and experience (both of real performance and proper debate) to actually further an argument and present meaningful examples such that this topic could be anything other than a complete and total waste of everyone’s time so I will take my leave.

I’ll be over in the corner scribbling Erdnase autographs in all my books if anyone wants me.

[jkeyes1000]

Your refusal to answer the actual questions asked, combined with your endless self contradiction bores me now. Somewhere in the nonsense you have spewed forth there was an interesting topic to debate but it is abundantly clear you lack the skills and experience (both of real performance and proper debate) to actually further an argument and present meaningful examples such that this topic could be anything other than a complete and total waste of everyone’s time so I will take my leave.

I’ll be over in the corner scribbling Erdnase autographs in all my books if anyone wants me.

This comment rivals Brad's highest heap of rubbish

What question have I not answered several times? You asked me what accounted for David Copperfield's success. I replied, "presentation and charisma".

And "endless self contradiction"? I have been perfectly consistent throughout.

Lack of skills in performing and...debating? What is this man smoking?

The video was a joke. Brad asked for one, thinking that it would settle the issue (sort of like the Picasso quote). I humoured him, knowing he would harp on the wretched performance as proof of the falsity of my viewpoint.

It proves nothing that I gave you a terrible video. As I said, the matter cannot be demonstrated that way. Comparing ny best or worst to your best or worst is apples to oranges. That is a waste of time and you can credit Mr. Henderson for that.

[Brad Henderson]

say the difference between "Fetch me that pail of rainwater" (lie) and "DId I see a bucket of rainwater somewhere? That? Oh, good!" is that no one will EVER suspect you of lying. Someome might suppose that there is a "trick" to the miracle (indeed they would be daft as Mark would say, to doubt it) but you need never concern yourself with ad hominem attacks.

of course they will suspect you. because inherent in your suggestion is that in the bucket there is rain water, and unless is tested you will have no effect because you haven't established the initial condition as true.

your case - calling it a bucket of rain water - even if hedged with 'did i see one' still begs the question, is that indeed rain water in it? we know it's a bucket but to establish it is rain water they would have to taste it. and again, you are busted.

this all presumes that a person would know what a bucket of rain water looks like -
or that it would be reasonable for someone to have a bucket laying around. i know two people who actually collect rain water and they don't use buckets like yours - they use large barrels because what good is a small bucket like the one you have anyway?

so there is effectively no difference in either of your examples. nor does one put you on a more solid ground methodologically than the other.

You vaunt of such flawless proficiency that you have no fear of being caught. That is your personal evaluatin of the concept, that it is useless to you because a) you don't think you'll get caught, and b) if you do, you'll just shrug and move on. No big deal

after you get some real world stage time under your belt you will learn how to take advantage of any situation and turn it into a success, even when it does wrong. until then i should point out i never said i've never been caught, only that at any time i have been caught no one has ever accused me or focused on the lie. rather the tend to leave it at pointing out the card hidden in the hand.

you continue to assume that the audience knows you are lying. but you won't acknowledge that the only way they can know is if you are incompetent and at which point you have offered no evidence that they will be disappointed any more that your nonverbal lie was accompanied with a verbal one.

so 1) there is no mechanism for your approach to make a difference 2) there is no evidence that if caught the presence of a lie is more damning than a non verbal deception. so there is no mechanism (unless caught) and no difference even if you are.

so once again you keep repeating the same baseless claim and refuse to back up you statement.

but don't worry, i'll keep reminding you ever time you do it.

Which clouds your judgement in regatd to other performers. This isn't just about you, Mr. Henderson. It's aboutmagicians in general, including those you call "puzzlers".

I would point out that some of the most successful magicians in the world avoid lies for the most part. They might not be as thorough as I would like, and maybe they are not even doing it consciously, but merely acting upon a sense of honour and integrity.

except the two you have named (randi and cooperfield) have not only lied repeatedly, but brazenly. And the two names i have referenced (weber and tamariz) you fail to acknowledge. so you are on baseless historical grounds as well

so you can't back up your claim with theory, reason, historical example OR your own performance examples.

like i said - baseless

I will tell you something, I figured this would happen. That most of you (and especially you Mr. H.) would bristle at the notion that we could aIl stand a little improvement once in a while

i'm all for improvement - but you've admitted that the audience can't tell if you are lying, likely doesn't care if you are, maybe even accepts it part
of the magicians tool box, and even if caught lying you admit you have no evidence to suggest they would care or care more than if caught in a non verbal li


so tell us, how would taking out lies improve anything?

[Brad Henderson]

And it is unimportant to me whether the audience hates or tolerates lies. If they were virtues, why would you need to camouflage them?

if the audience is ambivalent about lies then why would eliminating them lead to a more respectable performance as you claim?

but it's telling that you admit you lack concern for your audience. that says a lot.

but to your question: we camouflage the lie not because it lacks virtue, but to make it a more powerful tool.

palming is a powerful tool, but worthless if you don't know when to palm and how to do so undetected. they must not suspect, let alone detect the moment.

just as you would not put the audiences' attention on your hands when you attempt to palm a card, you don't put the spotlight on the lie.

your inexperience is showing

[jkeyes1000]

Mr.Henderson's debating technique seems to be to litter the page with such a volume of whining and abject cynicism that it will "shock and awe".

I cannot possibly address everything he said in the above comments, but I will try to recall a few of his excuses for salient points.

What I said can hardly be denied, but Brad tries to deny it hardly nevertheless. He claims that despite the fact that I did not lie ("Did I see a bucket of rainwater? That? Oh, good!"), the audience will still suspect me.

Not of LYING, Mr. Hendeson. That was the point. If your counter is that they may yet be sceptical of the practical circumstances, I conceded that on the very next line.

The "difference" is that I have deflected the suspicion that I may be a deceiver, for I have said nothing that could POSSIBLY BE a lie. I have merely asked a question, and created the impression that my actions are a consequence of their advice. This does wonders for allaying any kind of cynicism about my motives. Despite your presumption of my lack of experience, I can asure you it works. For me, anyway. Perhaps you oight to try it before you knock it.

Now, in all fairness. I realise that some individuals just can't manage to fake civility, so it might not be for everyone here.

Let me pause for a moment to reread his scroll of nonsense and see if I missed anything.

[performer]

Damn! You are now on page eight while I am still stuck on Chapter 7. It is a long chapter and I have a bad cold which is hampering my writing. However, I cannot allow this lead to stand and tomorrow I will try to catch up. I have to describe how to do a one hand palm and I am not looking forward to it.

Anyway this thread is becoming more hilarious by the minute.

[jkeyes1000]

I will ty to be concise, Mark, so as to slow the pace of this thread.

Another thing that Mr. H has blatheted about a number of times is that, in my Water Into Wine routine, I "have no effect" because the "rainwater" was not tasted at the outset.

Think about the profound inanity of that remark, ladies and gentlemen. Here I have given you a complete act (and a lengthy one) that blows the typical Water Into Wine trick out of the pond, by not merely changing its ccolour but rendering it a femented and quite potable beverage.

"No effect"?

As opposed to showing a glass of clear liquid (which no one is allowed to taste) and pouring it into another glass, wherein it turns reddish, and no one can...taste it.

O-kay.

And his point is what? That a lie would fix it? They still wouldn't get to taste it, but Brad would razzle dazzle them into thinking they had tasted it?

Uh-huh. Sure....

[Brad Henderson]

so you admit that the lack of lie in no way makes the method any less detectable, but at least they won't accuse you of lying.

so, you're still busted. but at least you can hold your head high, as they tell you how bad you suck, knowing that at least no untruths were uttered

in your experience keyes. exactly how many lay men. when witnessing a magic show. take the time to analyze statements to determine whether they are direct statements of fact or inferred statements of condition and then choose to trust one over the other based on the structure of syntax used?

but, as promised. i will ask again:

how does the audience know you have lied unless you get caught?

as you said your technique doesn't prevent that. so there is not advantage to not lying.

but now you point isn't about lying - it's that any statement that COUlD be a lie should be avoided.

except claims like you have esp
or the ability to read tells or can tell a playing card by weight

THOSE lies are ok. But not other lies

except we aren't talking about lies anymore. it's direct statements.

so here is keyes show

'did i see a bucket of rain water around? oh is that it there? lad will you fetch it?

lad: what?

keyes: a bucket of rain water. did you see one laying about?

lad: who the f~<k has buckets of rain water laying about?

keyes: didn't i see one. maybe over in the kitchen. anyone? anyone see a bucket in the kitchen?

lad: you mean this bucket? that's not rain water that smells like wine

keyes: pick a card?

and to the effect issue: for there to be an effect two things must be established 1) the condition and 2) the result.

your version does a nice job of the result.

but unless i believe that it's NOT wine at the beginning you have no effect. now there are other ways than tasting. but if tasting is your proof you want your condition to be at least as fair.

now i can appreciate the value of using an audience members assumptions against them and this can be a good way to reinforce the initial conditions.

but for that to work, you have to work WITH an audience's assumptions and that requires familiarity.

as no one has 'buckets of rain water' sitting around their house, to think the audience will not wish to verify that there is water inside this weird bucket that only the magician knew was in the room (especially as you told them you were going to turn WATER into wine in your belabored introduction) is niave.

this is why i know you have never performed this trick in real life

now. if at the beginning of the show (not the trick) you went to the kitchen and brought in a case of bottled water, passed some around, and opened one for yourself as you started performing you may be in a position to take advantage of assumptions. when you decided to do you wine trick, you ask them to toss you a couple bottles from those remaining in the case on the floor, open them, pour them and THEN start
your ramble, maybe you would be in a position to build on their assumptions.

though i would still contrive to pour some into a cup that is left in view (actual water) and have them drink from it at some point.

but i'm not here to do your work for you.

[jkeyes1000]

so you admit that the lack of lie in no way makes the method any less detectable, but at least they won't accuse you of lying.

so, you're still busted. but at least you can hold your head high, as they tell you how bad you suck, knowing that at least no untruths were uttered

in your experience keyes. exactly how many lay men. when witnessing a magic show. take the time to analyze statements to determine whether they are direct statements of fact or inferred statements of condition and then choose to trust one over the other based on the structure of syntax used?

but, as promised. i will ask again:

how does the audience know you have lied unless you get caught?

as you said your technique doesn't prevent that. so there is not advantage to not lying.

but now you point isn't about lying - it's that any statement that COUlD be a lie should be avoided.

except claims like you have esp
or the ability to read tells or can tell a playing card by weight

THOSE lies are ok. But not other lies

except we aren't talking about lies anymore. it's direct statements.

so here is keyes show

'did i see a bucket of rain water around? oh is that it there? lad will you fetch it?

lad: what?

keyes: a bucket of rain water. did you see one laying about?

lad: who the f~<k has buckets of rain water laying about?

keyes: didn't i see one. maybe over in the kitchen. anyone? anyone see a bucket in the kitchen?

lad: you mean this bucket? that's not rain water that smells like wine

keyes: pick a card?

and to the effect issue: for there to be an effect two things must be established 1) the condition and 2) the result.

your version does a nice job of the result.

but unless i believe that it's NOT wine at the beginning you have no effect. now there are other ways than tasting. but if tasting is your proof you want your condition to be at least as fair.

now i can appreciate the value of using an audience members assumptions against them and this can be a good way to reinforce the initial conditions.

but for that to work, you have to work WITH an audience's assumptions and that requires familiarity.

as no one has 'buckets of rain water' sitting around their house, to think the audience will not wish to verify that there is water inside this weird bucket that only the magician knew was in the room (especially as you told them you were going to turn WATER into wine in your belabored introduction) is niave.

this is why i know you have never performed this trick in real life

now. if at the beginning of the show (not the trick) you went to the kitchen and brought in a case of bottled water, passed some around, and opened one for yourself as you started performing you may be in a position to take advantage of assumptions. when you decided to do you wine trick, you ask them to toss you a couple bottles from those remaining in the case on the floor, open them, pour them and THEN start
your ramble, maybe you would be in a position to build on their assumptions.

though i would still contrive to pour some into a cup that is left in view (actual water) and have them drink from it at some point.

but i'm not here to do your work for you.

I am quite sure I already stated that I am just as careful about minimising the risk of exposing practical methods. If anyone should detect the wine, which no one has, I would abandon the routine with no scars whatever. No stains to my character, no tipped hand.

Your hyper-critical scrutiny of the introduction to my act is unlike anything I have ever encounteted when performong this trick.

First of all, no one is expecting a magician, as my appearance has not been promoted in any way.

Second, no one knows me, I'm a total stranger to the crowd. In the first moment, no one knows (let alone csres) what I am on about. That is a GREAT ADVANTAGE.

The whole point of the act is that I am a laughably inept, second-rate wizard. Everyone is sceptical about my ability to do anything. When I suggest "conjuring up some more" wine, they tend to be rather blah-zay (I can't find the accent grave on this smartphone).

After a seemingly interminable Comedy Of Errors, I finally manage to turn the "water" red. Which stillI impresses no one. WHO HASN'T SEEN THIS TRICK?

The main reason why they don't bother to qurstion the water is that they have no expectation that it will end up as actual wine. That's the kicker, you see?

[Brad Henderson]

hyper critical scrutiny?

you mean listening to the first two sentences of the trick?

i get it. When you imagine yourself performing this trick you realize that with all those pointless pauses your audience won't be listening either. it's shocking when someone actually does, i suppose.

but tell me, if none of us here found your presentation/method to be convincing why should we believe you when you say this passes muster in the real world? to none of us was the tasting of the wine a kicker, likely because we never tasted it at the beginning. why would that be different for the people who aren't paying attention to
you in the room?

but i see that now that your 'theories' have been exposed as senseless you are back
to flogging your wine trick. i thought we moved that elsewhere?

the way you spin and don't answer anything, coupled with your attempts at distraction and deflection. i think we should start calling you kelly anne.

but let's take a step back - you want us to take up your approach to magic even though you admit that you've had no real financial success doing so, that the only times you perform are for people who don't know who you are, and leave thinking you a bungler (because to assume that one moment will rewrite the emotional memory of your bungling set up is niave)

so you think that we should all adopt what you claim works for your idiosyncratic approach, even though you offer no evidence it works for you let alone anyone else.

uh huh

go on

[performer]

but let's take a step back - you want us to take up your approach to magic even though you admit that you've had no real financial success doing so, that the only times you perform are for people who don't know who you are,

In actual fact most professional magicians have no financial success either even if people DO know who they are! Whenever they tell me how much they earn I always divide by two and subtract $50 to get the correct amount. Still, in any event we are talking art here rather than money. As old Maskelyne once wrote:

"Art is something with which money has no concern"

Mind you I bet the old duffer made sure to count the box office takings every night.

[jkeyes1000]

hyper critical scrutiny?

you mean listening to the first two sentences of the trick?

i get it. When you imagine yourself performing this trick you realize that with all those pointless pauses your audience won't be listening either. it's shocking when someone actually does, i suppose.

but tell me, if none of us here found your presentation/method to be convincing why should we believe you when you say this passes muster in the real world? to none of us was the tasting of the wine a kicker, likely because we never tasted it at the beginning. why would that be different for the people who aren't paying attention to
you in the room?

but i see that now that your 'theories' have been exposed as senseless you are back
to flogging your wine trick. i thought we moved that elsewhere?

the way you spin and don't answer anything, coupled with your attempts at distraction and deflection. i think we should start calling you kelly anne.

but let's take a step back - you want us to take up your approach to magic even though you admit that you've had no real financial success doing so, that the only times you perform are for people who don't know who you are, and leave thinking you a bungler (because to assume that one moment will rewrite the emotional memory of your bungling set up is niave)

so you think that we should all adopt what you claim works for your idiosyncratic approach, even though you offer no evidence it works for you let alone anyone else.

uh huh

go on

Are you speaking for everyone when you say that "none of us" found my presentation OR METHOD adequate?

The Water Into Wine video, I repeat, is not an accurate representation of my presentation. It shows the structure of the routine but gives it in its worst light.

One of the reasons why I am not a pro is that I have a terrible time getting out of bed in he morning, being punctual, and being welI rehearsed.

This banal vid was a lame attempt to reconstruct an act that I hadn't performed in nearly twenty years.

I also sufferr from a number of allergies that plague me wherever I go, and I tend to alleviate them as best I can with my own elixirs

I consider myself an Idea Man and a writer rather than an entertainer. I would appreciate it if you would cease to focus on the red herring that I laid out for you. I thought we had moved past that myself.

As for your suggestion that I avert questions and "spin" my arguments, I think this is just an example of your hypocrisy.
Is this how you lie to your audiences? Make insinuations that you expect no one to doubt, try to "put one over" and quickly end the matter before anyone can object?

If my Water Into Wine has "no effect" then I'm dying to hear how Hoy's Bold Book Test has one. According to you, if the premise can't be verified, then the climax is null. In that case, how can you achieve your effect by LYING about what page was selected? The spectators aren't allowed to see the book until after the mentalist opens it with his own hands and crosses the stage.

In case anyone cares to know more about my problematic performance skills, I will share another vid.This one is a bit funnier, and at least you can hear me distinctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOHhsCOb4gI&sns=em

[Brad Henderson]

ah, so you admit
you have no real world experience on which to base your 'ideas' and 'writings'

that explains a lot.

and what you miss re hoy:

in water to wine the effect is water to wine. so the condition is 1) there is water and the result is 2) there is wine. the audience must believe both things for their to be an effect.

the problem with your approach to hoy is you are focused on the method, not the condition. The effect in hoy is that the performer reads the audience members mind. condition 1) audiences member thinks of a word 2) magician reveals
the word.

nothing about page numbers in there at all.

you seem to think the hoy effect is a page number trick, not a mind reading trick. because of that you put the emphasis on the wrong things.

the effect is: i thought of a word and he read my mind, not i said stop on a page and he told me the page number.

so the secret is to structure the presentation so the audience finds the page number irrelevant.

this can be done. but it's a very powerful secret. not one to be given away freely on the internet.



i

[jkeyes1000]

No, Mr. Henderson, I am not conceding that I have no "real world" experience. Only that my best performances were not recorded on video. My "schtick" depends on the credibility of my (incompetent) character. I always felt that making a big production out of it would undermine that suggestion.

Besides, I am rarely prepared to do a good job, so I wait until I feel fit, which makes it difficult to capture me at my peak.

Your chatter about The Book Test is a pitiable joke, Mr. Henderson. Talk about "spin"!?

[Bill Mullins]

I consider myself an Idea Man

[Brad Jeffers]

Damn! You are now on page eight while I am still stuck on Chapter 7.
I cannot allow this lead to stand and tomorrow I will try to catch up.

Mark,
I am assuming that in each chapter of your book you try to put forth new information and ideas, rather than merely repeat what you have said in previous chapters.
This puts you at a decided disadvantage in this race.
You cannot win.

[performer]

Damn! You are now on page eight while I am still stuck on Chapter 7.
I cannot allow this lead to stand and tomorrow I will try to catch up.

Mark,
I am assuming that in each chapter of your book you try to put forth new information and ideas, rather than merely repeat what you have said in previous chapters.
This puts you at a decided disadvantage in this race.
You cannot win.

I don't quite follow. Why would I repeat what I said in previous chapters? I rather think there would be some disappointed readers if I repeated tips about the glide in the palming chapter.

Part of my trouble with catching up is this is the busy Christmas Season. There is a tendency for magicians to do shows around this time. And I have reason to believe that I am a magician.

[performer]

Oh, I think I see what you mean now. You appear to be saying that people on this thread are repeating themselves. People on this thread are repeating themselves. People on this thread are repeating themselves.

[Brad Henderson]

No, Mr. Henderson, I am not conceding that I have no "real world" experience. Only that my best performances were not recorded on video. My "schtick" depends on the credibility of my (incompetent) character. I always felt that making a big production out of it would undermine that suggestion.

Besides, I am rarely prepared to do a good job, so I wait until I feel fit, which makes it difficult to capture me at my peak.

Your chatter about The Book Test is a pitiable joke, Mr. Henderson. Talk about "spin"!?

tell me how i'm wrong.

but be prepared to back it up, because ONE of us knows how to employ the method successfully, and the other has admitted he doesn't.

[jkeyes1000]

No, Mr. Henderson, I am not conceding that I have no "real world" experience. Only that my best performances were not recorded on video. My "schtick" depends on the credibility of my (incompetent) character. I always felt that making a big production out of it would undermine that suggestion.

Besides, I am rarely prepared to do a good job, so I wait until I feel fit, which makes it difficult to capture me at my peak.

Your chatter about The Book Test is a pitiable joke, Mr. Henderson. Talk about "spin"!?

tell me how i'm wrong.

but be prepared to back it up, because ONE of us knows how to employ the method successfully, and the other has admitted he doesn't.

When did I "admit" that I don't know how to employ a method?

Your hypocritical "spin" is that you tell me that the Book Test is structured in such a way as to make the page selection "irrelevant", yet you reject my argument that my Watet Into Wine is structured in order to make the true nature of the "water"irrelevant

Again: the idea is to lead the audience to believe they are watching a typical "hack" magician performing the TYPICAL Water Into Winr trick. That is, the mere colouration of water to red. Who would expect an incompetent wizard to actualy produce potable wine? They have NO REASON to suspect that the water might be wine, especially as it appears that the water is not mine, but borrowed from the host.

And all without telling a single lie. "No effect"? Try again, Mr Henderson.

[jkeyes1000]

While Mr. Henderson is working out how to respond to my last comment, here is another interesting question:

We know there are a number of readers of this thread that wish to stay out of the discussion. Are they remaining silent because they fear offending me with their disapproval, or Brad?

No need to say. Just something to think about.

[Brad Henderson]

No, Mr. Henderson, I am not conceding that I have no "real world" experience. Only that my best performances were not recorded on video. My "schtick" depends on the credibility of my (incompetent) character. I always felt that making a big production out of it would undermine that suggestion.

Besides, I am rarely prepared to do a good job, so I wait until I feel fit, which makes it difficult to capture me at my peak.

Your chatter about The Book Test is a pitiable joke, Mr. Henderson. Talk about "spin"!?

tell me how i'm wrong.

but be prepared to back it up, because ONE of us knows how to employ the method successfully, and the other has admitted he doesn't.

When did I "admit" that I don't know how to employ a method?

Your hypocritical "spin" is that you tell me that the Book Test is structured in such a way as to make the page selection "irrelevant", yet you reject my argument that my Watet Into Wine is structured in order to make the true nature of the "water"irrelevant

Again: the idea is to lead the audience to believe they are watching a typical "hack" magician performing the TYPICAL Water Into Winr trick. That is, the mere colouration of water to red. Who would expect an incompetent wizard to actualy produce potable wine? They have NO REASON to suspect that the water might be wine, especially as it appears that the water is not mine, but borrowed from the host.

And all without telling a single lie. "No effect"? Try again, Mr Henderson.

the moment you tell them you are about to turn water into wine - because the groomsmen have over indulged - they will want to know it's actually water.

and tell me, along with keeping buckets of rain water in their living room, how many lay people have ever seen a magician attempt to turn water to wine by any means, let alone the allegedly hackneyed one?

again you prove that the only audience that you have ever performed for is yourself in your own imagination.

[jkeyes1000]

tell me how i'm wrong.

but be prepared to back it up, because ONE of us knows how to employ the method successfully, and the other has admitted he doesn't.

When did I "admit" that I don't know how to employ a method?

Your hypocritical "spin" is that you tell me that the Book Test is structured in such a way as to make the page selection "irrelevant", yet you reject my argument that my Watet Into Wine is structured in order to make the true nature of the "water"irrelevant

Again: the idea is to lead the audience to believe they are watching a typical "hack" magician performing the TYPICAL Water Into Winr trick. That is, the mere colouration of water to red. Who would expect an incompetent wizard to actualy produce potable wine? They have NO REASON to suspect that the water might be wine, especially as it appears that the water is not mine, but borrowed from the host.

And all without telling a single lie. "No effect"? Try again, Mr Henderson.

the moment you tell them you are about to turn water into wine - because the groomsmen have over indulged - they will want to know it's actually water.

and tell me, along with keeping buckets of rain water in their living room, how many lay people have ever seen a magician attempt to turn water to wine by any means, let alone the allegedly hackneyed one?

again you prove that the only audience that you have ever performed for is yourself in your own imagination.

You speak with forked tongue, Mr. Henderson. Again.

It was you (was it not?) who assured me that audiences LOVE to be fooled, so much so that they turn a blind eye to methods and a deaf ear to lies.

That audiences don't try to figure out the tricks, they just want to have a "magjcsl experience"?

Yet here you are trying to persuade me that they would be hawkishly sceptical about my routine.

Tut-tut, Brad. You are losing....

[magicam]

We know there are a number of readers of this thread that wish to stay out of the discussion. Are they remaining silent because they fear offending me with their disapproval, or Brad?

My two cents: when someone claims to "have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government" and to have "never lost," I immediately think "impossibly pompous ass" or "troll." That tends to dampen enthusiasm for engaging in meaningful dialogue ...

[jkeyes1000]

We know there are a number of readers of this thread that wish to stay out of the discussion. Are they remaining silent because they fear offending me with their disapproval, or Brad?

My two cents: when someone claims to "have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government" and to have "never lost," I immediately think "impossibly pompous ass" or "troll." That tends to dampen enthusiasm for engaging in meaningful dialogue ...

Very good. Unless of course I am merely stating the facts. They tend to play "Miracle On 34th Street" on tv this time of year. As fantastical as it may seem, a man can sometimes seem to have delusions of grandeur whilst simply telling it like it is.

[Brad Henderson]

When did I "admit" that I don't know how to employ a method?

Your hypocritical "spin" is that you tell me that the Book Test is structured in such a way as to make the page selection "irrelevant", yet you reject my argument that my Watet Into Wine is structured in order to make the true nature of the "water"irrelevant

Again: the idea is to lead the audience to believe they are watching a typical "hack" magician performing the TYPICAL Water Into Winr trick. That is, the mere colouration of water to red. Who would expect an incompetent wizard to actualy produce potable wine? They have NO REASON to suspect that the water might be wine, especially as it appears that the water is not mine, but borrowed from the host.

And all without telling a single lie. "No effect"? Try again, Mr Henderson.

the moment you tell them you are about to turn water into wine - because the groomsmen have over indulged - they will want to know it's actually water.

and tell me, along with keeping buckets of rain water in their living room, how many lay people have ever seen a magician attempt to turn water to wine by any means, let alone the allegedly hackneyed one?

again you prove that the only audience that you have ever performed for is yourself in your own imagination.

You speak with forked tongue, Mr. Henderson. Again.

It was you (was it not?) who assured me that audiences LOVE to be fooled, so much so that they turn a blind eye to methods and a deaf ear to lies.

That audiences don't try to figure out the tricks, they just want to have a "magjcsl experience"?

Yet here you are trying to persuade me that they would be hawkishly sceptical about my routine.

Tut-tut, Brad. You are losing....

when did i say audiences liked feeling fooled?

i said, if you give the audience a feeling more valuable to them than knowledge of the secret, they will fight to preserve that feeling.

the problem is, as your stated approach to magic is the presentation of 'illusions' which are intended to challenge the audience to figure them out, you are unaware that there can be other feelingful responses than mere 'fooling'.

that you equate the feeling of magic with the feeling of fooling tells me everything we need to know. you are not a magician but a puzzler.


this may be the cause of your inability to see beyond methods or empathize/relate to the experience of magic had by anyone other than a magician.

and i don't see what is hawkishly skeptical in actually listening to what you say. You said you would turn water into wine. you then asked for someone to bring you a bucket of rain water. this means they have to 1) find a bucket and 2) confirm it is water. as no one keeps buckets of anything in their living rooms it is hardly surprising that they would want to confirm the content of what is in this bucket clearly planted by the magician.

[jkeyes1000]

the moment you tell them you are about to turn water into wine - because the groomsmen have over indulged - they will want to know it's actually water.

and tell me, along with keeping buckets of rain water in their living room, how many lay people have ever seen a magician attempt to turn water to wine by any means, let alone the allegedly hackneyed one?

again you prove that the only audience that you have ever performed for is yourself in your own imagination.

You speak with forked tongue, Mr. Henderson. Again.

It was you (was it not?) who assured me that audiences LOVE to be fooled, so much so that they turn a blind eye to methods and a deaf ear to lies.

That audiences don't try to figure out the tricks, they just want to have a "magjcsl experience"?

Yet here you are trying to persuade me that they would be hawkishly sceptical about my routine.

Tut-tut, Brad. You are losing....

when did i say audiences liked feeling fooled?

i said, if you give the audience a feeling more valuable to them than knowledge of the secret, they will fight to preserve that feeling.

the problem is, as your stated approach to magic is the presentation of 'illusions' which are intended to challenge the audience to figure them out, you are unaware that there can be other feelingful responses than mere 'fooling'.

that you equate the feeling of magic with the feeling of fooling tells me everything we need to know. you are not a magician but a puzzler.


this may be the cause of your inability to see beyond methods or empathize/relate to the experience of magic had by anyone other than a magician.

and i don't see what is hawkishly skeptical in actually listening to what you say. You said you would turn water into wine. you then asked for someone to bring you a bucket of rain water. this means they have to 1) find a bucket and 2) confirm it is water. as no one keeps buckets of anything in their living rooms it is hardly surprising that they would want to confirm the content of what is in this bucket clearly planted by the magician.

Here we go again with the hypocrisy. Diistinguishing between what you said and my paraphrase of it is mere weaseling.

You were disparaging my METHOD when you said I have "no effect", not my presentation, And my video does not do the presentation justice. So you have nothing to base your judgement on but my method.

You got the idea that I am a "puzzler", someone only interested in the analysis of illusions because I expressed a strong dislike for Hoy's Book Test, and what I consider to be an obvious ( bold) tactic that anyone with half a brain could see through.

My Water Into Wine is not a "bold" routine. It is rather meek. It does not overtly challenge the audience to figure it out. You are falsely attributing this quality to it, and further, you have the temerity to tell me how spectators would react to this approach, despite my own firsthand experience. Which you simply doubt.

Are you asking me to defer to your presumed authority on the subject? Sorry, I don't debate that way.

You've got to work just as hard as I do to prove your case. Good luck.

[Jackpot]

The issue Mr. Keyes initially raised is not without merit, and what he brought up is not entirely new ground. For example in Our Magic Devant wrote: "The bogus scientific explanation is an excellent excuse for a feat of magic, but it should always have a basis of probability -- or rather, possibility. Otherwise, it is a mere insult to the intelligence of the audience, and will be resented by the more educated. It should take a natural physical law as as its basis, and show what wonderful things can be accomplished by that law plus magic."

Mr. Keyes now states, "I consider myself an Idea Man and a writer rather than an entertainer." This was fairly evident early on. It is unfortunate that he implied and made deliberate misstatements to present himself as something else. There is nothing wrong in being an "ideas man".

In his initial post he wrote, "Do you not sneer at a performer that utters a blatant falsehood, do you not consider him a hack? An artless deceiver, no better than a crooked politician?" I do not sneer at Mr. Keyes, but I am disappointed. He had something worth considering and went off a a tangent which discredited himself and ultimately his position.

I am sure he will come back full of bluster and have a number of comebacks. After all, he always wins.

[Brad Henderson]

Here we go again with the hypocrisy. Diistinguishing between what you said and my paraphrase of it is mere weaseling.

You were disparaging my METHOD when you said I have "no effect", not my presentation, And my video does not do the presentation justice. So you have nothing to base your judgement on but my method.

what you have failed to learn is that ones presentation contributes to the effect. You don't have an effect because you fail to establish the primary condition. you can't make a card change unless the audience is convinced they know the cards identity prior to a change.

can you use their assumptions to establish or reinforce the condition? absolutely. but
you are telling me people are more likely
to 'assume' that there is indeed rain water in a bucket just sitting in someone's living
room that the magician points out in preparation his announced water to wine trick as opposed to assuming he actually named the card or page he looked at when they have no idea where that demonstration is headed?

if you knew anything of the body of work surrounding the hoy ruse you would be familiar with strategies that turn said glimpse/call into an ascanio like intransit action that goes unnoticed AND unlike your rain bucket, actually builds on a person's previous experience and expectations

My Water Into Wine is not a "bold" routine. It does not overtly challenge the audience to figure it out. You are falsely attributing this quality to it.

again you reveal your lack of experience in performing for real people. if you say - as you do throughout your entire belabored presentation - that you are going to turn water into wine, the audience will not be impressed unless they are convinced you are beginning with water and not wine.

it's not an issue of challenge. it's an issue of being able to evaluate that magic occurred. though , as to the lack of challenge, your own words belie you below.

You got the idea that I am a "puzzler", someone only interested in the analysis of illusions because I expressed a strong dislike for Hoy's Book Test, and what I consider to be an obvious ( bold) tactic that anyone with half a brain could see through.

i called you a puzzler because stated this.

I consider The Art of Magic a challenge. The performer creates a mystery, and the viewer tries to solve it.

so, there's that.

Are you asking me to defer to your presumed authority on the subject? Sorry, I don't debate that way.

You've got to work just as hard as I do to prove your case. Good luck.

i've back up every claim i've made with reason and example. i've revealed the flaws in your positions and why they are flawed. you have only offered 'an opinion' that you cannot defend with examples of
your own or someone else's work, reason, logic, or anything.

so stop projecting.

[Brad Henderson]

The issue Mr. Keyes initially raised is not without merit, and what he brought up is not entirely new ground. For example in Our Magic Devant wrote: "The bogus scientific explanation is an excellent excuse for a feat of magic, but it should always have a basis of probability -- or rather, possibility. Otherwise, it is a mere insult to the intelligence of the audience, and will be resented by the more educated. It should take a natural physical law as as its basis, and show what wonderful things can be accomplished by that law plus magic."

Mr. Keyes now states, "I consider myself an Idea Man and a writer rather than an entertainer." This was fairly evident early on. It is unfortunate that he implied and made deliberate misstatements to present himself as something else. There is nothing wrong in being an "ideas man".

In his initial post he wrote, "Do you not sneer at a performer that utters a blatant falsehood, do you not consider him a hack? An artless deceiver, no better than a crooked politician?" I do not sneer at Mr. Keyes, but I am disappointed. He had something worth considering and went off a a tangent which discredited himself and ultimately his position.

I am sure he will come back full of bluster and have a number of comebacks. After all, he always wins.

except keyes has stated that he does not oppose lies of the sort referenced above.

[Brad Henderson]

Here we go again with the hypocrisy. Diistinguishing between what you said and my paraphrase of it is mere weaseling.

You were disparaging my METHOD when you said I have "no effect", not my presentation, And my video does not do the presentation justice. So you have nothing to base your judgement on but my method.

what you have failed to learn is that ones presentation contributes to the effect. in other words the presentation IS the method (or at least can be if wielded by a thoughtful, experienced magician)

You don't have an effect because you fail to establish the primary condition. you can't make a card change unless the audience is convinced they know the card's identity prior to a change. just to show a card and claim it changed is NOT an effect.

now, can you use an audience's assumptions to establish or reinforce the condition? absolutely. but for that to work the assumption has to be built on their natural experiences and normal
conclusions.

you are telling me people are more likely
to 'assume' that there is indeed rain water in a bucket just sitting in someone's living
room that the magician points out in preparation his announced water to wine trick as opposed to assuming he actually named the card or page he looked at when they have no idea where that demonstration is headed?

when you ask for a bucket of rain water
we can assume that the black object is a bucket - but why would we assume it is rain water? as i've asked repeatedly, who collects rain water in buckets so small and who keeps them in their living rooms?

you are NOT exploiting their experiences and expectations.

if you knew anything of the body of work surrounding the hoy ruse you would be familiar with strategies that turn said glimpse/call into an ascanio like intransit action that goes unnoticed AND unlike your rain bucket, actually builds on a person's previous experience and expectations

My Water Into Wine is not a "bold" routine. It does not overtly challenge the audience to figure it out. You are falsely attributing this quality to it.

again you reveal your lack of experience in performing for real people. if you say - as you do throughout your entire belabored presentation - that you are going to turn water into wine, the audience will not be impressed unless they are convinced you are beginning with water and not wine.

it's not an issue of challenge. it's an issue of being able to evaluate that magic occurred. though , as to the lack of challenge, your own words belie you below.

You got the idea that I am a "puzzler", someone only interested in the analysis of illusions because I expressed a strong dislike for Hoy's Book Test, and what I consider to be an obvious ( bold) tactic that anyone with half a brain could see through.

i called you a puzzler because stated this.

I consider The Art of Magic a challenge. The performer creates a mystery, and the viewer tries to solve it.

so, there's that.

Are you asking me to defer to your presumed authority on the subject? Sorry, I don't debate that way.

You've got to work just as hard as I do to prove your case. Good luck.

i've back up every claim i've made with reason and example. i've revealed the flaws in your positions and why they are flawed. you have only offered 'an opinion' that you cannot defend with examples of
your own or someone else's work, reason, logic, or anything.

so stop projecting.[/quote]

[jkeyes1000]

Vaunting that you have backed up everything you have advanced with reason doesn't mean a great deal if your reasons are questionable, presumptuous and self contradictory. Nor does merely suggesting that I have failed to do this make it so.

I suspect this is your "method" of lying to your audiences. You have several times implored me to learn the virtue of making someone believe that something has been done (such as the shuffling of cards) when in fact it has not. Let us stop and ask: Just what are these REASONS of yours? A quote from Picasso; an opinion that audiences don't resent lies if you make them fascinating enough; another quote about the EFFICACY of lying to achieve an effect, etc., etc.

These you expect to sway the reader of this thread? I've been saving this since your first riposte, Mr. Henderson. What "truths" do your lovely lies reveal? When you do Hoy's Book Test, for instance. That you can read the volunteer's mind? Or simply that you can convince him of it?

Is that what Picasso meant? Is this what I so obtusely refuse to acknowledge? Is this what makes you so worldly wise?

They might seem "reasonable" to you (and to others of course) but they are still mere opinions. You have yours and I have mine. I don't believe that either yours or mine have sufficient weight to establish a code of ethics.

Summarising (if I may), you defend your position that lies are beneficial because they help to achieve an effect, and help to enhance the "magical experience".

And you oppose my position because you presume that neither may an effect be achieved not enhanced without lies. No, forgive me. That's going too far. You concede that an effect may be rendered marvellous without lies, but you simply adore lying.

Is this pretty much your philosophy or did I miss something genuinely relevant in the foregoing eight pages?

[Jack Shalom]

or did I miss something?

Yes. What a performer says and does on a stage is not lying. Your whole premise is incorrect.

[magicam]

We know there are a number of readers of this thread that wish to stay out of the discussion. Are they remaining silent because they fear offending me with their disapproval, or Brad?

My two cents: when someone claims to "have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government" and to have "never lost," I immediately think "impossibly pompous ass" or "troll." That tends to dampen enthusiasm for engaging in meaningful dialogue ...

Very good. Unless of course I am merely stating the facts. They tend to play "Miracle On 34th Street" on tv this time of year. As fantastical as it may seem, a man can sometimes seem to have delusions of grandeur whilst simply telling it like it is.

In that case, then, perhaps RK in his solicitous mercy will ban self-avowed Infallibles from this board. It really is unfair to us mere mortals -- we can only withstand so many repeated, crushing blows of god-like logic and exposition.

[jkeyes1000]

My two cents: when someone claims to "have engaged in thousands of debates in all sorts of places, on great topics involving Science, Religion, and Government" and to have "never lost," I immediately think "impossibly pompous ass" or "troll." That tends to dampen enthusiasm for engaging in meaningful dialogue ...

Very good. Unless of course I am merely stating the facts. They tend to play "Miracle On 34th Street" on tv this time of year. As fantastical as it may seem, a man can sometimes seem to have delusions of grandeur whilst simply telling it like it is.

In that case, then, perhaps RK in his solicitous mercy will ban self-avowed Infallibles from this board. It really is unfair to us mere mortals -- we can only withstand so many repeated, crushing blows of god-like logic and exposition.

I have treated everyone in this forum according to the manner in which they addressed me. Any grand-standing on my part was "tit-for-tat".

I don't feel I should be blamed for being more capable of retaliating than anyone bargained for.

Nor for trying to give fair warning.

Debating has always been my forte. And I am not boasting of divine powers. There is an art to it, a science if you will.

Fitst rule is, Don't take a position that you cannot defend. Work out all the angles before you start, anticipate every possible counter and be ready to respond swiftly, for he who hesitates is lost.

Second is, Scrutinise your opponent's every word. Most people make foolosh mistskes, especially in long and heated exchanges. Use their circular logic against them when they attempt to outdo themselves.

The problem with Brad (and others like him) is that he thinks he can "give it his best shot", trust in his superior knowledge, and hope that his adversary lacks the ability to discover his numerous faults.


You might suppose that a magician's belief in lying and just "not geting caught" is a good idea. But when the critical observer is dedicated to noting your flaws, it were better to eliminate them.

[performer]

I am not sure that I fully agree with Mr Keyes but I do think he is winning the argument. At any rate I certainly admire his skilled use of words. He is a damned good writer at any rate.

[performer]

In that case, then, perhaps RK in his solicitous mercy will ban self-avowed Infallibles from this board. It really is unfair to us mere mortals -- we can only withstand so many repeated, crushing blows of god-like logic and exposition.

I am also a self avowed infallibile and I do indeed think the rest of you are mere mortals. However, I use ungodly lack of logic and it works quite splendidly if I may say so. As Vernon once remarked magic is not supposed to be logical in the first place.

[AJM]

Debating has always been my forte.

No, it clearly hasn’t.

Best wishes

Andrew

[jkeyes1000]

or did I miss something?

Yes. What a performer says and does on a stage is not lying. Your whole premise is incorrect.

Well if mine is incorrect, then so is Mr. Henderson's, as he quite explicitly claims that "lying" is just another method that magicians may use. I wonder why you direct your criticism solely at me.

If lying isn't lying when magicians do it on stage, then may we infer that deception isn't deception and that top hats aren't top hats?

[Brad Henderson]

You have several times implored me to learn the virtue of making someone believe that something has been done (such as the shuffling of cards) when in fact it has not. Let us stop and ask: Just what are these REASONS of yours? A quote from Picasso; an opinion that audiences don't resent lies if you make them fascinating enough; another quote about the EFFICACY of lying to achieve an effect, etc., etc.

i've answered this. for a magic effect to have occurred we must establish condition a (the beginning state) and condition b (the final or post magic state.)

if, for example, we need the audience to believe the cards were shuffled in order for the presented phenomena to be considered 'impossible' or at least 'interesting' then it is to our advantage to convince the audience that they were shuffled, and the most
convincing shuffle would be one done by them, the audience.

this is not needed in all cards tricks mind you, but for some effects the degree of randomness and lack
of control are critical elements. Sometimes you can't shuffle the cards. that doesn't
matter. all we have to do is convince them the cards were shuffled. We
can use a false shuffle for that. But if i'm a sleight of hand expert then that could be suspect. so let's convince them THEY shuffled the cards.

you might want to familiarize yourself with the work of tommy wonder (and ortiz) esp on conviction v belief if you want
to have this chat.

as to the picasso quote, he seems to be verifying my claim. give the audience something more valuable than the 'truth' (i.e. REALITY) and they will choose
to believe the lie (i.e. protect the illusion and NOT look for the method).

What "truths" do your lovely lies reveal? When you do Hoy's Book Test, for instance. That you can read the volunteer's mind? Or simply that you can convince him of it?

Is that what Picasso meant?

No

No it's not.

you are confusing the lie (i can read minds) for the truth, which could be many things. but you aren't ready for that lesson yet. We first need you to learn that magic isn't a presentation of puzzling illusions to challenge the audience.

And you oppose my position because you presume that neither may an effect be achieved not enhanced without lies. No, forgive me. That's going too far. You concede that an effect may be rendered marvellous without lies, but you simply adore lying.

effects can be achieved without lies, just as effects can be achieved without gaffed cards. the question is why limit yourself?

we have established that the audience doesn't know you are lying unless you get caught. so you suggest we remove a tool from our box that the audience wouldn't know we are using even if we did.

to what end?

some personal morality.

your position is no different from the card purist who eschews sleight of hand. this approach is misguided. it puts the pleasure of the performer over that of the audience.