Alexis Didier French clairvoyant

[Craig B]

Didier was 21 years old when he was tested by Robert-Houdin yet he outsmarted him.

Would you agree then that if Didier was a magician utilizing trickery, he must have been one of the greatest magicians of all time?

I would agree that if he outsmarted Robert-Houdin using supernatural forces he was the only authentic wizard of all time.

 

[dropzone]

BillSkeptic, riddle me this: In the USA we have the saying, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Didier apparently made a living as somnambulist, showing he had no ethical problems with using his skills to make money, but he never became the richest man in France, which would be ever so easy if he really had the Second Sight. Why not?

 

[Pixel42]

The father of modern magic was easily bamboozled? What makes you say this?

The remarks about him by Houdini etc quoted earlier in the thread.

And has been pointed out, even Penn and Teller can't always work out how another magician is doing a particular trick. If Didier invented a new type of trick it's not difficult to believe that another magician who didn't know it could be fooled by it. "The father of modern magic" suggests a pioneer, not an all knowing infallible genius.

 

[Lukas1986]

I am not a expert on Alexis Didier but after reading a blog post about him he was not so successful. He was not able to convince everyone even when he convinced Houdini:

Alexis and Marcillet stayed in London until the end of the summer, and where invited for private cessions by aristocrats; Lord Adare was one of them. They met skeptics too,convinced some of them, but needless to say, they could not convince Dr. Forbes, the leading skeptic figure, and Dr Elliotson[1]’s greatest enemy.

Source: http://goalhypnosis.blogspot.sk/2012/02/most-famous-somnambulist-of-his-time.html

So even when Houdini was not able to explain it and thought it was not produced by his art, he was not able to convince skeptics of that time. Which shows he had some losses and not only wins.

 

[Pixel42]

Robert-Houdin, not Houdini.

 

[BillSkeptic]

The remarks about him by Houdini etc quoted earlier in the thread.

These remarks though have been disputed (see my post above). Houdini took his name from Houdin, was a huge fan of him. He only turned against him after he was denied permission to visit Houdin's grave.

Whilst on tour in Europe in 1902, Houdini visited Blois with the aim of meeting the widow of Emile Houdin, the son of Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, for an interview and permission to visit his grave. He did not receive permission but still visited the grave. Houdini believed that he had been treated unfairly and later wrote a negative account of the incident in his magazine, claiming he was "treated most discourteously by Madame W. Emile Robert-Houdin." In 1906, he sent a letter to the French magazine L'Illusionniste stating: "You will certainly enjoy the article on Robert Houdin I am about to publish in my magazine. Yes, my dear friend, I think I can finally demolish your idol, who has so long been placed on a pedestal that he did not deserve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini

 

[dropzone]

Read his book, bro. It's not some petty gripe but a thoroughly researched demolishment.

 

[Pixel42]

Regardless of whether either praise or criticism of Robert-Houdin is warranted, the fact remains that any magician, even good ones like Penn and Teller, can be fooled by a trick with which they are unfamiliar. Robert-Houdin's endorsement of Didier can be plausibly explained by assuming that Didier knew at least one trick that Robert-Houdin didn't. There is therefore no good reason to think that Didier had genuine paranormal abilities. Unless someone invents a time machine so that Didier can be properly tested, there is nothing more that can be learned.

 

[BillSkeptic]

Regardless of whether either praise or criticism of Robert-Houdin is warranted, the fact remains that any magician, even good ones like Penn and Teller, can be fooled by a trick with which they are unfamiliar. Robert-Houdin's endorsement of Didier can be plausibly explained by assuming that Didier knew at least one trick that Robert-Houdin didn't. There is therefore no good reason to think that Didier had genuine paranormal abilities. Unless someone invents a time machine so that Didier can be properly tested, there is nothing more that can be learned.

Yes I agree with this. But what I am saying is, Alexis Didier was literally a 20 year old kid when he was tested by Robert-Houdin but he managed to get one over on a very experience and talented magician.

Didier grew up from a poor household, there is no evidence he attended magic shows. I am not saying he had paranormal powers. If we go with the fraud hypothesis he must have been a very talented magician to have convinced the 'father of magic' from a trick he must have invented himself. But certain users here seem not to even consider this possibility. Instead they claim Houdin was an easy dupe. Should we not give credit where it is due?

This whole thing is extraordinary in itself.

 

[BillSkeptic]

Read his book, bro. It's not some petty gripe but a thoroughly researched demolishment.

I have read the book. It is riddled with errors and there is an entire rebuttal to the book by another magician almost page by page, but perhaps this belongs on another thread.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes I agree with this. But what I am saying is, Alexis Didier was literally a 20 year old kid when he was tested by Robert-Houdin but he managed to get one over on a very experience and talented magician.

Didier grew up from a poor household, there is no evidence he attended magic shows. I am not saying he had paranormal powers. If we go with the fraud hypothesis he must have been a very talented magician to have convinced the 'father of magic' from a trick he must have invented himself. But certain users here seem not to even consider this possibility. Instead they claim Houdin was an easy dupe. Should we not give credit where it is due?

This whole thing is extraordinary in itself.

I know a lot about historical weaponry, but I am a layman there are people out there that devote their lives to this subject.

If I happened to be talking to a professor of this subject and knew a fact he did not, would you assume I had supernatural powers? It's the exact same thing, someone could know hundreds of times more information than me but if they happened not to read one book I have, in going to know something they don't.

 

[dropzone]

Houdini's book is just to show that Robert-Houdin is an unrelible witness.

 

[dropzone]

I have read the book. It is riddled with errors and there is an entire rebuttal to the book by another magician almost page by page, but perhaps this belongs on another thread.

Undoubtedly, but do you have a link to that book?

 

[steenkh]

Yes I agree with this. But what I am saying is, Alexis Didier was literally a 20 year old kid when he was tested by Robert-Houdin but he managed to get one over on a very experience and talented magician.



Didier grew up from a poor household, there is no evidence he attended magic shows. I am not saying he had paranormal powers. If we go with the fraud hypothesis he must have been a very talented magician to have convinced the 'father of magic' from a trick he must have invented himself. But certain users here seem not to even consider this possibility. Instead they claim Houdin was an easy dupe. Should we not give credit where it is due?



This whole thing is extraordinary in itself.

What exactly are you asking us to do here? A young Didier was able to convince an experienced hand that he had paranormal powers. It all happened a long time ago, and we have no reliable sources for what happened. Are we supposed to believe that Didier really had paranormal powers because Robert-Houdin thought so, or what?

You claim to be skeptical, and yet you do not seem to accept the obvious conclusion that Robert-Houdin was fooled by someone who could do a number or two that Robert-Houdin did not know.

It has been pointed out that even the most experienced hands today can be fooled, so what is your problem with this conclusion?

 

[BillSkeptic]

What exactly are you asking us to do here? A young Didier was able to convince an experienced hand that he had paranormal powers. It all happened a long time ago, and we have no reliable sources for what happened. Are we supposed to believe that Didier really had paranormal powers because Robert-Houdin thought so, or what?

You claim to be skeptical, and yet you do not seem to accept the obvious conclusion that Robert-Houdin was fooled by someone who could do a number or two that Robert-Houdin did not know.

It has been pointed out that even the most experienced hands today can be fooled, so what is your problem with this conclusion?

You have obviously misinterpreted my posts slightly, I am not arguing for paranormal powers - I am giving credit to a man who managed to 'fool' the father of magic. If we go with the hypothesis that Didier managed to fool Robert-Houdin by a trick, do you accept Didier was a very well trained magician? A 21 year old peasant kid duping an experienced magician, 'the father of magic', do you not acknowledge that this itself is rather spectacular and worth researching? One question comes to mind, how did he do it?

 

[BillSkeptic]

Here is what Eric Dingwall wrote in his conclusion about Didier's abilities:

"The evidence for the paranormal acquisition of information seems to me to be very strong: the travelling clairvoyance also and the discovery of lost objects can be linked with it; and the evidence for thought-transmission cannot just be put on one side. It is true that a good deal of the sealed letter reading and ecarte playing is very suspicious, as ample evidence exists that, in the majority of cases at the time, successes in these directions were almost certainly due to faulty blindfolding and other sources of error. But many of the phenomena with both Alexis and Adolphe seem to me to be of a different order from those reported with other somnambules; and even if we go so far as to assume that the sitters were merely getting back what they told the subject without knowing what they were doing, it would not account for correct facts being given which had to be verified later."

Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena: France, 1968, p. 205

Dingwall was Honorary vise-president for The Magic Circle and a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

 

[Craig B]

@ BillSkeptic

In #75 you're not arguing for paranormal powers. In #76 you cite a commentator who does claim such powers on Didier's behalf. Please make up your mind and please stop talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

 

[Craig B]

Here is what Eric Dingwall wrote in his conclusion about Didier's abilities:



Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena: France, 1968, p. 205

Dingwall was Honorary vise-president for The Magic Circle and a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Eric Dingwall^WP was an extremely interesting person, it seems. Link to wiki biography above. Definitely worth a read.

 

[BillSkeptic]

@ BillSkeptic

In #75 you're not arguing for paranormal powers. In #76 you cite a commentator who does claim such powers on Didier's behalf. Please make up your mind and please stop talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

I quoted a former member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who believed Didier had paranormal powers. I am not agreeing with what he wrote I wanted to see what users here think about Dingwall's conclusion. A user on this thread said no reliable sources discuss Didier. Would you agree Dingwall is a reliable source?

 

[BillSkeptic]

Undoubtedly, but do you have a link to that book?

It is called Where Houdini Was Wong (1950) and the subtitle is A Reply to "The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin".

http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Where_Houdini_Was_Wrong

Irish magician Victor Farelli wrote it. It is not online.

Magician Jean Hugard also wrote a small book. I don't have it currently. But here is a review:

Erich Weiss so admired the great French magician, Robert-Houdin (regarded by many as the father of the modern style of conjuring) that he adopted the stage name of Houdini which he believed meant “like Houdin.” All this changed, with his first visit to Paris. Houdini learned that the widow of Robert-Houdin was living in a suburb. Without any advance announcement, Houdini appeared at her doorstep. He presented his card to the domestic who answered the door. The domestic took the card to the mistress only to come back saying, “Madame Robert-Houdin does not know a Houdini.” The card was then unceremoniously returned, leaving Houdini enraged at the perceived insult. Seeking revenge, Houdini wrote The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin. Here he accused the French conjurer of falsely claiming the invention of many of his illusions, and charged that Robert-Houdin’s autobiography was ghost-written by a Parisian journalist.

Jean Hugard, a magician himself, knew Harry Houdini. He admired his ability to get publicity for himself, but “was not enthusiastic about Houdini’s technique as a magician or his reliability as a historian of magic.” In his book, Hugard examined the charge that Robert-Houdin took credit for illusions that had been invented by others. He wrote, “It is an axiom in the ethics of magic that one is allowed to use another magician’s trick provided than an original improvement is added to it…When a magician invents a new presentation for an old trick, he is completely justified in claiming that presentation as his own invention.”

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2038139900?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1