• 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.

Card tricks and Sherlock Holmes.

Donn

Philosopher
Donn
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
7,758
Location
In my head.
I freely admit that I want; nay, need; to know how the card trick that Randi and the Astronaut did was done.
Just imagine how disappointing a Sherlock Holmes story would be if the solution to the puzzle were never revealed...
Well, the same goes (in my book) for magic shows/tricks. I know that they are tricks (not being of the woo-woo inclination) and when I cannot figure them out it leaves a bad taste in my mind and I generally go "off" further magic tricks.
It's the same as reading that Sherlock Holmes novel and then discovering the last few chapters have been torn out; the "satisfaction factor" is destroyed and I am left adrift on a vague sense of betrayal.

What do you think? Have I missed some point or other?

Aside from my personal, burning desire, to know the rational steps behind the trick; I present another case:
How is your average non-sceptic (like most of the world out there) supposed to develop a sense of scepticism if they never get shown the process behind the tricks?
I understand that there is some kind of "magician's code" and that many legitimate conjurers earn a living from these tricks and would not (and cannot) reveal their secrets, but there is still an element of irony in the case of James Randi and the JREF.
It's a little like a science-teacher telling a class about physics and chemistry but then refusing to demonstrate the experiments that then prove the theory.
Those students, like a non-sceptic, could very well conclude that something supernatural and magical has happened.

I guess, in short, I mean that revealing a trick should be for a magician what revealing the process behind the physical world is to a teacher.

So, your response? (how much trouble am I in now, I wonder?)
Donn
 
Anyone have any clues as to how the trick was done?



Previously to his leaving Earth on this mission, I'd instructed him to take with him a sealed deck of cards for this miracle we were about to perform Where did he get his pack of cards? Perhaps an accomplice of Randi could have ensured he got a doctored deck?.....I asked him to now unseal his deck of cards, discard the jokers and any advertising material, Why? and I told him I'd do the same with my own new deck of cards.....we both had to shuffle our decks thoroughly..... I told him that I would place my deck of cards beneath the table at which I was seated, that I would remove one card at random, and that I would replace it into the deck turned over, then return the deck to its box. Randi, of course, would know how to select a particular card I asked Ed to do the same, and.....he did so.

At that point, Ed had selected a card, unseen, and had replaced it into the deck, turned over. He of course had no idea of the identity of that card. Is Randi allow to lie here, after all it's just a card trick I had done the same, and now we were both sitting facing cameras and holding card decks, with all the cards sealed inside. Sealed?? I asked Ed to now remove his deck of cards and run through it until he came to the turned-over card, which he was to show plainly to the NASA videocamera. Did Randi see this card? Did he need to? Feeling appropriately confident, I did the same, removing my pack from its box and running slowly through it on until one card was seen with its back to the camera. Lo! Both of our cards, it turned out, were exactly the same — the 7 of diamonds!

Yes, you should be asking whether Dr. Lu was "in" on the modus operandi of the trick. He was not. Again, is Randi permitted to lie All he knew was that he was to take a sealed new deck of cards with him into space, and that I'd instruct him when the time came. Down on Earth at the JREF library, I had called in a reporter — Hector Florin — and photographer Candace West from the Miami Herald newspaper as witnesses, and they monitored everything. Well, they probably monitored only what Randi allowed them to monitor - he certainly would not have allowed them to see how the actual trick was accomplished



Well, I don't know. If Randi is not permitted to lie and if the astronaut was not in on it, I don't know the trick was done.

BillyJoe
 
The accomplice supplying a doctored deck seems the closest guess. Although, he went through that deck to discard the jokers so he would have (should have) noticed if the cards were all the same, or odd in any way.
What I know about card tricks could fill a thimble.

And, yeah, I don't think James would lie. That just wouldn't be cricket!
 
Donn said:
And, yeah, I don't think James would lie. That just wouldn't be cricket!
Click to expand...
No it's not cricket, it's conjuring......I'm going to pull a rabbit out of this empty hat.....LIAR, you are going to PRETEND to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat....

But are all sorts of lies acceptable for a conjuror?

BillyJoe
 
On the wider topic, if a certain spoonbender (let's call him Ug for want of some other grunt) comes to your town and dazzles your friends and family with seemingly miraculous mentalist feats. Let's say Ug performed the "sealed cards" trick and now your friends are all a-woo-woo and because you have no idea how the trick was done you cannot prove to them that it is merely mundane and not magic.
You are out of the picture; irrationality 1, scepticism 0.

I think that the closed-door policy about the inner workings of many magic tricks detracts from the already difficult work of keeping that candle-light burning against the demon-haunted darkness.

...
 
I enjoy trying to figure out magic tricks, and I have a theory as to that particular trick (which is not new) is done. I don't know for sure, of course, and I certainly can't replicate the effect.

But really, from a skeptical point of view it doesn't matter one little bit. The message to take home from stories like this one is that any layperson can be fooled by a sufficiently skilled performer with sufficient control over the scenario. Whether you are a skeptic or not.

That's why we don't rush out to join the cult of whichever con artist comes up with a trick we haven't seen before. Because we know we can be fooled, and so we don't jump to conclusions about how things were done.

It doesn't matter how it was done. The point is, clever people can do things that seem impossible. So what seems impossible might well be a clever trick.
 
The description of the trick is not complete, I think; perhaps intentionally so.

I don't know how it was done, but I can think of one very easy way that it might have been done. And that's assuming that the astronaut's deck really was a new, untouched, unprepared deck and that the astronaut was not in on it. I hope and think that when Randi is speaking in the Commentary, he has stepped outside his performing persona and so speaks only truth. If not, I'm highly disappointed.

BTW: I won't reveal the method I suspect, but you can figure it out.

Print a copy of the Commentary, take it to your local magic shop, have the dealer read the description, and offer to pay for the effect.

Take some money with you.
 
There is one way to perform this that is common and very simple. I assume that the standard way this trick is performed is the method he used. If my assumptions are correct then Mr. Randi has told no lies in his description of this trick and there are no important details left out. The cards that the astronaut had was undoubtably a new, untouched, unprepared deck and I am quite sure that the astronaut was not in on it.

As Garrette has suggested you can go down to your local magic shop and purchase the effect. They will probably even demonstrate it for you before you buy it.

Anyone could do it with about 5 minutes of practice. I learned how to do it in about 10 minutes, but then I'm a little slower than most.
 
Are the following relevant.....

1) The jokers were removed from the deck.
2) The card was 7 diamonds.
3) After shuffling the cards were returned to the box.
4) The astronaut and then Randi revealed their turned-over card.

My intuition is that 1 and 4 are relevant but that 2 and 3 are not

BillyJoe
 
But Randi's card was also turned around, back showing...
Whatever the trick, and I do take the hint that it should be paid for...
I still wonder why Randi even did this whole NASA hookup-thing. So, we all know its a trick, so what?
My original beef is that without the solution to the trick it is merely irritating and of no use in the fight against fakers.

Ah, it's a fine line. A strange commonality held between magicians and those on the top of the pyramid; they both use magic tricks and they both keep the secrets. Before you flame me, I do know the difference and henceforth I drop the subject - it's just a pity, I think.

BTW - There is no magic shop in my small town - any online resources you can suggest?

Donn
 
Donn,

If Randi can do exactly what others do who claim paranormal powers and state that it was only a trick, people will hopefully be less swayed by the feats of the self-proclaimed paranormalist.

BillyJoe

PS: I don't think it actually works for most believers but may save some fence-sitters.
 
Donn,

If Randi can do exactly what others do who claim paranormal powers and state that it was only a trick, people will hopefully be less swayed by the feats of the self-proclaimed paranormalist.

BillyJoe

PS: I don't think it actually works for most believers but may save some fence-sitters.
 
There are so many ways it could have been done.

However, since you are a Sherlock Holmes fan, you should recognize this: "I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

All the "data" we have is anecdotal. That is to say, basically zero.


It's the same as reading that Sherlock Holmes novel and then discovering the last few chapters have been torn out; the "satisfaction factor" is destroyed and I am left adrift on a vague sense of betrayal.
Click to expand...


That's OK. I think most if not all the copyrights have expired, so most if not all the stories are online. :)
 
T'ai Chi strikes with blade-like kung-fu logic once again. I am overwhelmed!

Still; sans evidence, and stumbling over piles of anecdotes leaves me wondering what Randi has demonstrated on this one, and what I have learned.
 
Well, people have tried to come up with various justifications for the trick. For me, it was entertaining and that's enough. I always enjoy stories like this about Randi's adventures and I think it's nice that NASA cooperated.

As to how it was done, I will try to abide by Randi's desire about not discussing how magic tricks are done, but I hope a bit of speculation is within the rules.

Item 4 in BillyJoe's list of relevant assumptions looks to me to be pretty close to essential:

"4) The astronaut and then Randi revealed their turned-over card"

If Randi had done the trick without that I think it would be in order to consider some supernatural powers at work or at least that a not completely correct description of what happened was provided.

As it is, I have a simple explanation in mind, but it might be too simple and perhaps would have been detected. I also have a somewhat more complicated explanation in mind that would involve modified cards (only on the ground). My guess is that this is the kind of thing that a qualified magician could rattle off ten possibilities without stopping to catch his breath. So my paltry two guesses (with a few additional permutations) are probably not the right ones.
 
There is one way to perform this that is common and very simple. I assume that the standard way this trick is performed is the method he used. If my assumptions are correct then Mr. Randi has told no lies in his description of this trick and there are no important details left out. The cards that the astronaut had was undoubtably a new, untouched, unprepared deck and I am quite sure that the astronaut was not in on it.
Click to expand...

Note to anyone who wishes to buy it, it is usually sold under the name the invisible deck. It is often performed with the volunteer shuffling an imaginary deck, and naming whatever card he wants.

Assuming this is the trick used, Randi's description is slightly misleading on a couple of points. It says that Randi used a 'new' deck. It wasn't new, it had been prepared in advance. I won't say how.

Secondly, his description implies that Ed Lu showed his card to the camera face down then Randi showed his card faced down, then both showed their cards face up. In the invisible deck trick, the magician doesn't show his face down card until the volunteer has shown his card face up.

Ed Lu's deck was ordinary, new, and unprepared, I can tell you that much.
 
Peter Morris said:

It says that Randi used a 'new' deck. It wasn't new, it had been prepared in advance. I won't say how.
Click to expand...


Yeah, see, and that is why 'explanations' of magic tricks can't really be analyzed, because, in a very real way, the 'explanations' are part of the trick.

I guess technically it could be a new deck, just not a regularly arranged deck.

If you are a competent observer on the scene, you better ask to see the other deck of cards, before any switches can be made, and examine it. This would reveal the m.o. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom