Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

September 08, 2016 08:20AM
Quote
~lyser
No brother, not at all impossible. I'm not trying to "prove" anything, but the knowledge is out there.

If you have an interest in mentalism, then I suggest checking out some of the YT stuff on Darren Brown, Bob Cassidy, and Richard Osterlind, among others. Specifically, I think you will find the "disclaimers" used by Osterlind and Brown to be of interest.

Also, check out some back story on Banachek. He WAS studied by scientists.

I asked you, not at all rhetorically or in a confrontational manner (at least that was the intent), if you were the guest and could therefore confirm that no pre-show or stooge work was involved, would you be impressed/amazed/entertained? I ask because I am interested in your answer, not trying to prove a point one way or another.

As mentioned, it would have to be some serious, extensive, bullet-proof supporting evidence. I'd have to know, first hand, that there were zero pre-show interactions between the mentalists and the judges, staff or anyone related to the show. It would have to be iron-clad proof that they never interfaced, and that the mentalists just couldn't possibly know a thing the judges would say, write down or do, before the show. And, I'd have to have iron-clad proof there were no technological aids/tools to give away the answers -- and even then, I'd very likely doubt myself for believing any of it still.

Again, I see it as impossible, literally, from a physical, logical and scientific point of view. Science hasn't even found a way yet to garner exact thoughts when the patient is hooked up to brain wave devices. Strapped in. Geared up. Like some Sci-Fi vision of mind control. It can only detect "activity" and graph that. It can't discern actual thoughts yet. It can't see language or numbers.

Sorry, but IMO there is no way on earth that a person can instantly come up with the exact numbers, people or places we see claimed on AGT and elsewhere. It's just not possible, without clever tricks, arrangements, tech aids, or a process of elimination.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

Billy_T770September 08, 2016 03:41AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

~lyser537September 08, 2016 04:43AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

Billy_T481September 08, 2016 05:38AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

~lyser522September 08, 2016 06:05AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

Billy_T550September 08, 2016 07:09AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

~lyser507September 08, 2016 07:41AM

  I would be impressed..

sstrams497September 08, 2016 07:48AM

  Re: I would be impressed..

~lyser463September 08, 2016 10:15AM

  Good to see you, too, ~lyser!

sstrams514September 08, 2016 11:22AM

  Re: Pet Peeve: There's "magic" and then there's magic.

Billy_T487September 08, 2016 08:20AM

  Always good to see you

LesBaker524September 08, 2016 09:06AM

  Re: Always good to see you

~lyser494September 08, 2016 10:16AM

  Why yes I am

LesBaker503September 08, 2016 12:39PM

  Another angle on this: I call it the JJ Abrams effect.

Billy_T580September 08, 2016 08:31AM

  Re: Another angle on this: I call it the JJ Abrams effect.

~lyser572September 08, 2016 10:13AM

  Re: Thanks, Lyser

Billy_T508September 08, 2016 04:40PM

  Hmmm, well....

JamesJM531September 08, 2016 10:34AM

  Re: A belated redirection.

Billy_T505September 08, 2016 04:35PM