• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

Not really. I'm willing to admit mistakes and I have watched segments again.
My original point was that he said that someone not hypnotized would not do that. That was BS.


Good, but what do you mean not really? What I said was exactly what happened.

I dunno why you bring up other aspects of the acid throw with me, it's not relevant here, and I haven't commented on them, I just corrected the facts that you missed on your first viewing.


I would say he is walking a thin line in the same way that a psychic tells you it's for "entertaiment only". They aren't fooling us. They want people to believe it's a real deal and use the disclaimer to come out of hand.


I agree, it's a thin line, but there's a crucial difference though.

Ask Sylvia Browne if she is a real psychic and see what happens.

Ask Derren Brown if he has paranormal powers or even believes in paranormal powers and see what happens.


If I were to call him a good skeptic, I would expect him to go all the way. Not just partially obscure behind subtleties and not switch personas when his audience is split.


I dunno, when he puts on his skeptic cape he is awesome, when he puts on his woo-flirting-cape he is entertaining. I like his show, I like the mixture. But sometimes I feel he leaves important stuff out. But, in the end, he always come clean in real life.

Sure, no problem. Off the top of my head, right at this very site there was a segment on swift where they showed a segment from TAM (dont' recall which one) where P&T talked about his lottery stunt and exposed it.

Notice what Teller actually says about Brown before the trick is showed...



Then I can easily correct you (since you asked earlier), Derren had at least done Messiah, explained ideomotor effect and critisized astrology on his TV shows and was openly skeptic in his book Tricks of The Mind way before the lottery episode.

Out of interest, I'd like to see the the video clip, linky?

And for perspective, surely you know that Randi, P&T, etc. think highly of Derren Brown? For perspective, here's a quote from Randi:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/061507.html#i11

Excellent news! The prominent UK performer Derren Brown, only available to UK audiences until now, will be seen this summer on our Sci-Fi Channel. This man is a highly inventive and very strong performer of mentalism, an illusionist who weaves fascinating stories into his mind-blowing shows. As soon as dates are decided, we’ll run his schedule here..!


That was the first quote I stumbled on, but I'm sure it's not difficult to find more of those...


Sure, Derren did a couple of skeptical shows, then he does this show which is anything but. I don't cherry pick his performances to say that just because he did a couple of good stuff it makes the bad ones go away.


He's done more than a couple excellent skeptical shows, no reason to belittle that.

Ps. too many typos, time for bed!
 
That is exactly what he did.Who knows more about magic,me or you? Just because I wont reveal the secret(against rules of forum anyhow)doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I don't see any reason to believe you know more than me; and I can't tell whether or not you're wrong because you won't "reveal" the sekrit.

It is a simple point of fact that you have as much evidence that your notion, whatever it is, is "right" as I have that mine is right.
 
I agree, it's a thin line, but there's a crucial difference though.

Ask Sylvia Browne if she is a real psychic and see what happens.

Ask Derren Brown if he has paranormal powers or even believes in paranormal powers and see what happens.

Ask Derren Brown if he can hypnotize people into doing his bidding, and see what happens.

It is the same, actually; it's just that his woo isn't psychic powers, it's pseudopsychology. In all of his disclaimers about how the show is occasionally "misleading", he's never once straightforwardly said that he doesn't actually believe his bogus "psychological techniques" really do work as claimed on the show. At most he's admitted that they're merely "embellished".
 
Sure, no problem. Off the top of my head, right at this very site there was a segment on swift where they showed a segment from TAM (dont' recall which one) where P&T talked about his lottery stunt and exposed it.
No some douche with his face painted(why?)"exposed" it, Is that the method? Only Derren and his team know.Likely it's one way of doing it.But P&T didnt expose anything,Teller is a friend of DB.Also I disagree with their stance on magic secrets.

Notice what Teller actually says about Brown before the trick is showed...
Yes,not sure what you mean but but Teller was saying Derren was exposing frauds and BS.
Sure, Derren did a couple of skeptical shows, then he does this show which is anything but. I don't cherry pick his performances to say that just because he did a couple of good stuff it makes the bad ones go away.
A couple?!! Messiah,Seance,Miracles For Sale,Derren Brown Investigates..
:rolleyes:

Oh how I am supposed to describe what he is, when he isn't even sure, "Magician isn't right, but psychic isn't right either." Derren likes to keep it vague as it adds to the mystique of his character. "The fun of it often is just implying things. Regardless of if your Paul Daniels or David Blaine, its about who you are rather than your tricks. I think magic should get under people's skin a bit, you shouldn't just be a jokester."

"Some woman rang me up and wanted to know the lottery numbers, and she had only seen me do a card trick! It's one of those things that I like to keep ambiguous, and allow people to make up their own minds, which means you get some people who think everything is fake, and the other extreme say this man can tell the future. Its a bit risky, at least if it was just magic people could tell...but then I may be like Paul Daniels."

Bolding mine for emphasis.
http://www.nowt2do.co.uk/feature.php?id=6

If he was doing card tricks etc no-one would watch. His latest specials Heist onwards have bored me tbh as I'd much rather watch him do his stage shows.But the crux is he deliberately blurs the line to keep people guessing ,keep it interesting.
 
That is exactly what he did.Who knows more about magic,me or you? Just because I wont reveal the secret(against rules of forum anyhow)doesn't mean I'm wrong.


I've always been skeptical of that BMX segment. While I could believe that through repeating cues you could get a person to say they wanted a BMX bike, (instead of the leather jacket as they had written down before the show) I have a hard time believing they would forget they had originally written "leather jacket" and act as if they had no clue why they would ever have wanted one.

The more likely result, IMO, would be to blurt out "BMX Bike" but upon reflection say, "I have no idea why I said I wanted a bike. I originally wrote down leather jacket."
 
Last edited:
I've always been skeptical of that BMX segment. While I could believe that through repeating cues you could get a person to say they wanted a BMX bike, (instead of the leather jacket as they had written down before the show) I have a hard time believing they would forget they had originally written "leather jacket" and act as if they had no clue why they would ever have wanted one.

The more likely result, IMO, would be to blurt out "BMX Bike" but upon reflection say, "I have no idea why I said I wanted a bike. I originally wrote down leather jacket."


Hmm... perhaps you are approaching this effect from the wrong direction... ;)

I won't say more. :D
 
He chose the BMX bike from the start.

Sleight-of-hand. The "leather jacket" choice was a plant placed there by DB to make it look like he'd changed his mind.

That much is obvious. It's an old magic trick.

The questions are, how did he fake the handwriting, etc. and how did he know about the BMX bike in the first place?

Knowing he wanted the bike might have been accomplished through a "hot" reading of some kind, or even pocket-picking. He might have found examples of Simon Pegg's handwriting somewhere.

The fact that DB uses video editing, camera tricks, etc. opens up a lot of possibilities.
 
Last edited:
He chose the BMX bike from the start.

Sleight-of-hand. The "leather jacket" choice was a plant placed there by DB to make it look like he'd changed his mind.


Then they must have edited out the part where he says, "I wrote BMX on the paper. I remember that. They must have switched it out somehow."

But that would have ruined everything.
 
He chose the BMX bike from the start.

Sleight-of-hand. The "leather jacket" choice was a plant placed there by DB to make it look like he'd changed his mind.

That much is obvious. It's an old magic trick.

The questions are, how did he fake the handwriting, etc. and how did he know about the BMX bike in the first place?

I'd considered that possibility but rejected it for one reason: that the stupid "shoulder tap" routine would not have been compatible with anything besides a "BMX" bike. There's no way you could do it with a person who genuinely wanted, say, a leather jacket; you couldn't build a conversation out of repeating those syllables. So we're left with the idea that Brown invented this routine and then asked hundreds of people to choose a gift and blew them all off until he happened to find someone that wanted a "BMX bike". I find it tough to swallow. Far easier simply to script it.

But even allowing that's what happened - it illustrates the problem with his type of showmanship that puts me off. Pick another show in which similar pranks are pulled on people - say, "Just For Laughs". People are genuinely surprised, shocked, or convinced to go along with silly things seriously; but at the end of the prank the "accomplices" all come out and point to the hidden camera and everyone has a "gotcha" laugh. Heck, when a stage magician stuffs a lady in a basket and skewers her with a dozen swords, the trick isn't over until the lady is brought out of the basket and the audience can see she's just fine, and that although they may not know how it was done, obviously it was a trick.

That kind of "reveal" is conspicuously absent from Brown's shows. The way it should go is, after letting our BMX fan sit there and mentally stumble about mystified for a while about why he doesn't remember wanting or writing down a leather jacket, Brown would come out and say "look - we're pulling your leg. You really did write 'BMX bike' and we just switched the envelope as part of the trick; don't think this 'psychological' baloney I just rattled on about actually works in real life." But that doesn't happen in his shows; for all we can tell, Brown lets them wander out of his studio absolutely convinced that he used some genuine psychological mojo on them. How is this acceptable for the sake of entertainment - and for that matter, what's entertaining about it? It's an odd and unfinished performance; the equivalent of skewering the lady in the basket with a dozen swords and then just wheeling the whole piece off stage, leaving the audience to "wonder" if the magician just killed somebody in front of them.
 
He chose the BMX bike from the start.

Sleight-of-hand. The "leather jacket" choice was a plant placed there by DB to make it look like he'd changed his mind.

That much is obvious. It's an old magic trick.

The questions are, how did he fake the handwriting, etc. and how did he know about the BMX bike in the first place?

I'd considered that possibility but rejected it for one reason: that the stupid "shoulder tap" routine would not have been compatible with anything besides a "BMX" bike. There's no way you could do it with a person who genuinely wanted, say, a leather jacket; you couldn't build a conversation out of all those syllables. So we're left with the idea that Brown invented this routine and then asked hundreds of people to choose a gift and blew them all off until he happened to find someone that wanted a "BMX bike". I find it tough to swallow. Far easier simply to script it.

But even allowing that's what happened - it illustrates the problem with his type of showmanship that puts me off. Pick another show in which similar pranks are pulled on people - say, "Just For Laughs". People are genuinely surprised, shocked, or convinced to go along with silly things seriously; but at the end of the prank the "accomplices" all come out and point to the hidden camera and everyone has a "gotcha" laugh. Heck, when a stage magician stuffs a lady in a basket and skewers her with a dozen swords, the trick isn't over until the lady is brought out of the basket and the audience can see she's just fine, and that although they may not know how it was done, obviously it was a trick.

That kind of "reveal" is conspicuously absent from Brown's shows. The way it should go is, after letting our BMX fan sit there and mentally stumble about mystified for a while about why he doesn't remember wanting or writing down a leather jacket, Brown would come out and say "look - we're pulling your leg. You really did write 'BMX bike' and we just switched the envelope as part of the trick; don't think this 'psychological' baloney I just rattled on about actually works in real life." But that doesn't happen in his shows; for all we can tell, Brown lets them wander out of his studio absolutely convinced that he used some genuine psychological mojo on them. How is this acceptable for the sake of entertainment - and for that matter, what's entertaining about it? It's an odd and unfinished performance; the equivalent of skewering the lady in the basket with a dozen swords and then just wheeling the whole piece off stage, leaving the audience to "wonder" if the magician just killed somebody in front of them.
 
I'd considered that possibility but rejected it for one reason: that the stupid "shoulder tap" routine would not have been compatible with anything besides a "BMX" bike. There's no way you could do it with a person who genuinely wanted, say, a leather jacket; you couldn't build a conversation out of all those syllables. So we're left with the idea that Brown invented this routine and then asked hundreds of people to choose a gift and blew them all off until he happened to find someone that wanted a "BMX bike". I find it tough to swallow. Far easier simply to script it.


Of course the easiest way to present an "amazing" magic or mentalism performance is to script everything, and have actors performing the key spectator roles.

But no performer would get anywhere by doing this sort of thing. Derren Brown certainly hasn't.

Of course they're tricks. There's no such thing as real magic or real mind reading. But they're not stooges just reading lines.
 
Last edited:
Of course they're tricks. There's no such thing as real magic or real mind reading. But they're not stooges just reading lines.


But Brown doesn't present it as magic or mind reading. He presents it as manipulation ... as if anybody who knew the technique could likewise lead any other human being to a predetermined conclusion just as Brown (supposedly) did.
 
I'd considered that possibility but rejected it for one reason: that the stupid "shoulder tap" routine would not have been compatible with anything besides a "BMX" bike. There's no way you could do it with a person who genuinely wanted, say, a leather jacket; you couldn't build a conversation out of all those syllables. So we're left with the idea that Brown invented this routine and then asked hundreds of people to choose a gift and blew them all off until he happened to find someone that wanted a "BMX bike". I find it tough to swallow. Far easier simply to script it.


Again, you've got it backwards.

I'm not a stage magician, so I'm rather fuzzy on the details of how this might be pulled off, but here's my take on it:

At some indeterminate time before this trick is pulled off, one of DB's "people" somehow determines, through some method of social engineering, what Simon Pegg's handwriting looks like. Maybe they're sent out to pose as a fan and obtain an autograph, asking that it be addressed to a name with some of the same letters as the words "Leather Jacket," like "Heather Lee Jackson" or something. This part might have been done days, weeks or months in advance. Then, a handwriting specialist is hired to write the words "Leather Jacket" on a piece of paper, forged in Simon Pegg's handwriting. The paper is folded up and placed inside a little manila envelope.

Simon Pegg is presented with an identical piece of paper and envelope, maybe even a pen, along with explicit instructions to write what he wants for his birthday, to fold the paper, put it inside the envelope and autograph it along with the date and time.

See where I'm going with this?

At some point prior to the filming, Simon Pegg's pockets are picked. This might be done under the pretext of the wardrobe department fitting him with a specially-tailored outfit for his celebrity appearance on DB's show. I'm sure a movie star would not be suspicious in the least about such a detail for a high-profile TV appearance.

Anyway, while he's being measured for his outfit, his dressing room is searched, the sealed envelope is discovered in his wallet in his pants. It is recovered, opened, and the ringer is then dated by the handwriting specialist with the same date and time, then replaced in his wallet just as the original had been. This part would have to be done very quickly.

DB is then informed of the gift that Simon Pegg is expecting. A production assistant is sent out to buy a BMX bike, and DB sits down and composes a little monologue involving words associated with bikes to "examine" afterward, in his fake, pseudoscientific "explanation" of how the trick was done.

The number of levels to this trick is nothing short of astounding. It's all about the little details!

One question: how did DB know to get a red BMX bike?

Maybe there was some form of follow-up to the social-engineering portion. I don't know. Simon might have even told them outright what it was he wanted.

Just so everybody knows, this is all pure speculation, so it should not be in violation of any of the JREF Forums rules as I understand them.


Pick another show in which similar pranks are pulled on people - say, "Just For Laughs". People are genuinely surprised, shocked, or convinced to go along with silly things seriously; but at the end of the prank the "accomplices" all come out and point to the hidden camera and everyone has a "gotcha" laugh. Heck, when a stage magician stuffs a lady in a basket and skewers her with a dozen swords, the trick isn't over until the lady is brought out of the basket and the audience can see she's just fine, and that although they may not know how it was done, obviously it was a trick.

That kind of "reveal" is conspicuously absent from Brown's shows. The way it should go is, after letting our BMX fan sit there and mentally stumble about mystified for a while about why he doesn't remember wanting or writing down a leather jacket, Brown would come out and say "look - we're pulling your leg. You really did write 'BMX bike' and we just switched the envelope as part of the trick; don't think this 'psychological' baloney I just rattled on about actually works in real life." But that doesn't happen in his shows; for all we can tell, Brown lets them wander out of his studio absolutely convinced that he used some genuine psychological mojo on them.


But this is a magic show, not a candid-camera prank show like Punk'd.

It's a magic show, so they have to keep that air of mystique. Most magicians rely on some form of ideological misdirection as well as the mechanical slight-of-hand. Not everybody can be Penn & Teller, you know. Within the context of the show, it's all "magic," the supernatural, mysterious unknown, the inexplicable, etc. Derren Brown just chooses to couch his tricks in this pop-psychology woo instead of supernatural or ESP woo. It's merely an "update" of the old traditions; that's the only difference. Because it's a magic show intended as entertainment, I'm not too bummed out that he does that.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should also be looking for evidence that John Edward is using cold reading techniques, instead of actually contacting the spirits of the dead?





Using stooges is an age-old and very common practice among mentalists. There is abundant evidence of this.

On the other hand, being able to hypnotize somebody into doing something like committing murder outside their own control, causing them to have no recollection of several days of their lives? Do I even need to mention that is an extraordinary claim?

And what is that old saying about extraordinary claims?

There's a difference between "It's well known that mentalists use stooges", and "It's well known that this particular mentalist uses stooges". As people were making the second claim, I was asking for evidence of the second claim.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom