There you go again, putting words into my mouth. You're backsliding into your old scarecrow-building ways.
The things you're attributing to "evidence" are not evidence, nor did I ever present them as such.
The actual facts, as supported by evidence, that I base my opinion on, are these:
Magda Rodriguez is a professional actress and member of the UK Actors Union.
Magda Rodriguez appeared on a professional television production, broadcast nationally in Britain.
The TV show is a magic show that features a well-known mentalist who frequently uses hypnotism in his act.
Hypnotism is a popular meme that is widely believed to exhibit certain visual hallmarks, like an unnatural, robotic posture and a fixed, thousand-yard stare.
Real hypnotism does not exhibit such effects.
On that TV show, the actress was depicted behaving strangely, in the manner popularly associated with hypnosis, performing activities of a fantastic nature (visibly reacting to mistreatment of a voodoo doll on command from the magician).
Derren Brown lied in his introduction to the show when he said that no actors were used, because Magda Rodriguez is in fact an actress.
On that TV show, the fact that Magda Rodriguez is an actress was withheld from the viewing audience.
Now, due to the fantastic nature of the situation, it seems unlikely that her behavior was genuine. Given the fact that she's a professional actress, it's far more likely that her behavior was part of a theatrical performance for the purpose of contributing to the TV show, and that her identity as an actress was withheld in order to make the performance appear real.
You still haven't answered any of my questions, by the way.
Are you arguing that that hypothesis is unreasonable, or that it contradicts the facts I presented above?
Do you have a better alternate hypothesis that also fits the available evidence?
Please quote the post where I said that those particular statements were being presented as "evidence". You can't, because I never said such a thing.
You just made that part up, because if it were true, that completely unfounded assertion would have justified you to accuse me of circular reasoning. But up to that point in the discussion, I had never claimed to have presented any actual evidence to support my position. That accusation was a lie fabricated by you.
The proper thing for you to do at this juncture would be to simply quit lying and admit you misinterpreted my argument. Intellectual dishonesty is a really bad look on a skeptics' forum.
She's a union actress appearing on a national TV production. That's a pretty conclusive indication she got paid for her performance. That's what it means to be in the actors' union. You get paid for appearances on TV. IN other words, hired.
I'll admit that my implication that all the people who apply to be on his show are amateur actors was a hasty generalization, but I'm not going to admit both statements were wrong, because apart from that hasty generalization, both statements were correct.
We know the people applied to be on the show, because he said so in his introduction:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
The fact that the people applied to be on his show indicates some agency was involved in the process. We also know from the BBC investigation into Objective Productions that they routinely employ talent agencies that operate over the Internet soliciting "people keen to appear on television."
I never said it was damning to have people who applied to be on TV on TV. That's a strawman argument. Quit distorting my position to make it appear ridiculous.
My whole point was that soliciting people who want to be on TV creates a situation whereby the entire audience is filled with people eager and motivated to play along with the show. It's a way of gaming the the studio audience to be willingly complicit in the tricks, basically making them "instant stooges."
Anyway, this whole line of discussion about The Experiments is irrelevant.
Use all the semantic technicalities you want to try and restrict the usage of the word "stooge." You can't weasel around the fact that Magda Rodriguez, a professional, union card carrying actress, was employed by Derren Brown for a particularly nuanced hypnosis demonstration that required acting ability.
What's hard for me to understand is why you say I haven't supported my claim when I've provided evidence that she's a professional actress in the UK actors' union, who appeared on Derren Brown's national TV show in the UK, even despite Derren Brown's flat-out denial that he used actors in that particular show.
