• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Berglass Effect

Senex said:
OK, Garrette, if you are thinking I'm an ass I need to explain myself. (I happen to respect your opinion).

I have looked up "The Berglass Effect" on the Internet. Many times it says "You can't do this trick because there are subtleties beyond your powers."

Bulloney, I am nothing if not subtle. I can perform subtle.

The point is this particular trick is couched in woo. No one knows there is no woo as well as me. I am the most stone cold atheist on this website. Woo is a very negative word to me.

I am just surprised that some people think this trick is better than other tricks.
Click to expand...
Okay. That mostly makes sense; it simply wasn't placed in context, though as AdMan said, you seem to have been inconsistent with how you characterized ACAAN.

I've another comment, but I'll pm it.
 
AdMan said:
Ahem... I think we're getting awfully close to openly discussing methods here... That's a no-no.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a weird rule. While I understand it, it sure makes it hard to talk about magic.

(does it apply to David Blain? I've seen his specials and it's like he's not even trying :D)
 
Furcifer said:
It's kind of a weird rule. While I understand it, it sure makes it hard to talk about magic.

(does it apply to David Blain? I've seen his specials and it's like he's not even trying :D)
Click to expand...

I agree.

I'd say that is is a pointless rule. People in the audience at the show were no doubt guessing. People all over the internet are guessing. There are forums dedicated to magic discussion where people who have good magic knowledge are revealing secrets.

So how is some people on JREF forum guessing about an effect for which they don't know the method harming magic?
 
This Berglass fellow may be a brilliant magician but I'm calling woo if you think he makes use of woo to predict a particular number between one and 52 more than whatever the mode is (the most common number called) and we see three out of three different numbers on youtube called so that is not (evidently) his method).

I'd like to discuss with someone if they feel suggestion is at work. Anyone???
 
Senex said:
This Berglass fellow may be a brilliant magician but I'm calling woo if you think he makes use of woo to predict a particular number between one and 52 more than whatever the mode is (the most common number called) and we see three out of three different numbers on youtube called so that is not (evidently) his method).
Click to expand...


Berglas, not Berglass.

And who here is claiming the trick "makes the use of woo"? Of course it's just a (very clever) trick.
 
Senex said:
I would like to discuss the ability of getting a spectator to say the number 8 instead of saying the number 33. That is in my wheelhouse.
Click to expand...


There are ways to influence the number a spectator chooses "freely," but I think that discussion is out of bounds for this forum. And in any case, that is only half the effect.

It seems most of the research you've done on the effect is by watching YouTube videos. If you're really interested in it, you need to do a lot more than that. In an earlier post I linked to the book The Berglas Effects by David Berglas and Richard Kaufman, which has 60+ pages on that effect alone and is back in print. You may want to check that out.
 
Last edited:
David Berglas is one of the few Magicians (if not the only) I've seen/met in the flesh. He was a guest at some conference I attended quite a few years back in the 90s. Did a little trick which I can't recall. Can't remember who organised it all but a rather nervous Ruth Brandon also gave a talk on her book at the time about Houdini.
 
Another good thing about David Berglas is he worked on Barry Lyndon, one of my favourite movies, as a creative consultant. That movie involves playing cards at a few points, including a sequence about cheating with cards for profit, and a magician at a party. I wonder in what ways he affected the movie. I haven't read the source material yet, although I own a copy.

But about the revealing secrets rule, it is fine to talk about possibilities. It's against the rules to post guides to doing it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234564
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
There are ways to influence the number a spectator chooses "freely," but I think that discussion is out of bounds for this forum. And in any case, that is only half the effect.

It seems most of the research you've done on the effect is by watching YouTube videos. If you're really interested in it, you need to do a lot more than that. In an earlier post I linked to the book The Berglas Effects by David Berglas and Richard Kaufman, which has 60+ pages on that effect alone and is back in print. You may want to check that out.
Click to expand...

60 plus pages and the trick is not fully explained?! Bull-oney. Two pages tops explains any card trick (not including Scarne type sleights (I have expensive books with 60 pages of photos for one sleight I can never do because I am clumsy).

The bottom line is there is a deck of cards on a table and someone picks a number between one and 52 and a chosen card is at that number. No crazy ass Scarne sleights explains this. If the person says "8" and the chosen card is at the eighth spot you win. Any other choice is a failure.

60 plus pages makes this more difficult than it really is.
 
Senex said:
60 plus pages and the trick is not fully explained?! Bull-oney. Two pages tops explains any card trick (not including Scarne type sleights (I have expensive books with 60 pages of photos for one sleight I can never do because I am clumsy).

The bottom line is there is a deck of cards on a table and someone picks a number between one and 52 and a chosen card is at that number. No crazy ass Scarne sleights explains this. If the person says "8" and the chosen card is at the eighth spot you win. Any other choice is a failure.

60 plus pages makes this more difficult than it really is.
Click to expand...


60+ pages because there isn't just one method. You need to think on your feet depending on the situation.
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
60+ pages because there isn't just one method. You need to think on your feet depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

No bulloney, honestly what trick can you now perform that you were unable to perform before reading the book I call woo? I have no idea what that book states but I am willing to say (at risk of bring mocked by people who love that book) that book is full of bulloney. What can you now do you couldn't before?

That book is full of vitamins. It didn't hurt you but it didn't help you either.
 
Senex said:
No bulloney, honestly what trick can you now perform that you were unable to perform before reading the book I call woo? I have no idea what that book states but I am willing to say (at risk of bring mocked by people who love that book) that book is full of bulloney. What can you now do you couldn't before?

That book is full of vitamins. It didn't hurt you but it didn't help you either.
Click to expand...


Given what you just wrote, in addition to your confused and confusing earlier posts, I'd say arguing with you is a waste of time.

See ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom