have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

[Azrael 5]

You haven't debunked anything. You merely offered an opinion that it's not likely. The entire studio audience could be plants, for all you know.

What are you talking about now? There was no frisbee throwing on the show,as for his live shows(where such random actions do take place) it's too ludicrous an option to even consider a reply.

It was said earlier in the thread that it had been proven that Brown used camera trickery for the [edit]Lottery[/edit] trick. But has it? I know that a very good case has been made for it being a camera trick (so much so that he even mentioned it himself when providing the "real" explanation in the final programme), and it's the explanation I personally favour, but can we really say that it's an established fact?

Especially as, compelling though the evidence for camera trickery is, there is also one teeny bit of counter-evidence - that of the smooth apparently autonomous motion of one of the balls upwards on the left side of the screen. That doesn't seem to fit the split-screen hypothesis.

But if it has been unequivocally established somewhere that it was a camera trick, could someone tell me where?

No it hasnt been established as a fact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...compelling though the evidence for camera trickery is, there is also one teeny bit of counter-evidence - that of the smooth apparently autonomous motion of one of the balls upwards on the left side of the screen. That doesn't seem to fit the split-screen hypothesis.

On the contrary, the small movement is surely just what you'd expect to see in the fade from a still to a live picture, if one of the balls had been replaced in a slightly different position.

<edit> And no, it'll never be unequivocally established how the trick was done.

 

[Drs_Res]

He should have just bought a Lottery Ticket and won. Getting the check from the Lottery would be the proof that he got it right.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Just read that Tim Minchin will be popping up on tomorrow night's episode - apparently about whether people can be induced to make false confessions.

 

[Stray Cat]

No it hasnt been established as a fact.

I don't think it has to be established as a fact. Camera Trickery is the Null Hypothesis, there to be falsified by anyone with a mind to prove otherwise.

 

[Stray Cat]

Just read that Tim Minchin will be popping up on tomorrow night's episode - apparently about whether people can be induced to make false confessions.

I caught Tim Minchin's song about critical thinking the other week... classic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wFRBOPTQDc

 

[Drs_Res]

He actually thought that the "real" explanation that he used up with was pretty bad.

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9X-1ROdk4#t=37m19s

 

[John Albert]

What are you talking about now? There was no frisbee throwing on the show,as for his live shows(where such random actions do take place) it's too ludicrous an option to even consider a reply.

"Too ludicrous"? You're kidding, obviously. Do you really think a magician with a TV show would be ideologically opposed to using plants to fool the audience? So you seroiusly think there's some "purity of the art" issue involved?

As I said, the entire audience (or the vast majority of them) could be plants. It's not at all uncommon on TV magic shows. I'm not saying they're definitely paid stooges, but there's no reason they couldn't be people DB has found to be amenable to playing along just for the attention.

Otherwise, how do you propose he does it? You can PM me again if you don't want to post your hypothesis publicly.

(Know that if you say something like "force of personality," "subliminal suggestion" or "NLP," I'm going to laugh right in your face.)

He actually thought that the "real" explanation that he used up with was pretty bad.

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9X-1ROdk4#t=37m19s

Yeah that "wisdom of crowds" explanation is total BS.

Just read that Tim Minchin will be popping up on tomorrow night's episode - apparently about whether people can be induced to make false confessions.

See, this is precisely the kind of subject he ought not to be fooling around with and spreading woo about, because it has dire social consequences in the real world. It's a well-known fact that innocent people are bullied, coerced, or tortured by police into confessing to crimes—even murders—that they did not commit. It's not a magic trick. Iit's not show business. It's very real, and it happens every day in police stations all over the world.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

On the contrary, the small movement is surely just what you'd expect to see in the fade from a still to a live picture, if one of the balls had been replaced in a slightly different position.

No, then you'd see it fading from one position to the other, not moving from one position to the other.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, then you'd see it fading from one position to the other, not moving from one position to the other.

Do you have a link to the footage? I seem to remember it was a pretty small movement, in terms of screen lines, and am I right in recalling the original programme was not shown in high definition?

<edit> There appear to be any number of versions on YouTube, though most in pretty bad quality. I'd say the movement was only about the width of a single picture line, so I can't see how you would discriminate between a movement from one position to the other and a mix from one picture to another.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He actually thought that the "real" explanation that he used up with was pretty bad.

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9X-1ROdk4#t=37m19s

This is region-locked and I can't get it to work with a proxy. Is there any chance someone could tell me what he actually says?

 

[Azrael 5]

"Too ludicrous"? You're kidding, obviously. Do you really think a magician with a TV show would be ideologically opposed to using plants to fool the audience? So you seroiusly think there's some "purity of the art" issue involved?

As I said, the entire audience (or the vast majority of them) could be plants. It's not at all uncommon on TV magic shows. I'm not saying they're definitely paid stooges, but there's no reason they couldn't be people DB has found to be amenable to playing along just for the attention.

Otherwise, how do you propose he does it? You can PM me again if you don't want to post your hypothesis publicly.

(Know that if you say something like "force of personality," "subliminal suggestion" or "NLP," I'm going to laugh right in your face.)

*snip*.

What audience? What effect?
On the one hand you mention frisbees,then studio audiences ,then onto plants.Well you've officially lost me.Maybe start again and explain WTH you are discussing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Too ludicrous"? You're kidding, obviously. Do you really think a magician with a TV show would be ideologically opposed to using plants to fool the audience? So you seroiusly think there's some "purity of the art" issue involved?

As I said, the entire audience (or the vast majority of them) could be plants. It's not at all uncommon on TV magic shows. I'm not saying they're definitely paid stooges, but there's no reason they couldn't be people DB has found to be amenable to playing along just for the attention.

You were talking about live shows. If the entire audience of a live show were stooges, then Brown wouldn't make any money from ticket sales, which would kind of defeat the object.

See, this is precisely the kind of subject he ought not to be fooling around with and spreading woo about, because it has dire social consequences in the real world. It's a well-known fact that innocent people are bullied, coerced, or tortured by police into confessing to crimes—even murders—that they did not commit. It's not a magic trick. Iit's not show business. It's very real, and it happens every day in police stations all over the world.

I'd say it's probably worth watching the episode before condemning it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Do you have a link to the footage?

I can't find a good-quality one, no.

I seem to remember it was a pretty small movement, in terms of screen lines, and am I right in recalling the original programme was not shown in high definition?

It was a long time ago, and I honestly can't remember whether it was HD or not. Yes, the movement was small but large enough, I think, that a fade would have been distinct from the ball physically rising up. Which is not to say that a ball which had been wedged in a little too tight couldn't have risen up after the fade, but I don't think it supports the split screen hypothesis.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The stuff I'm finding on YouTube suggests to me that the movement is only of the order of a single picture line and it's too shaky to tell if the movement happens in a single frame or not. I think any impression given of the ball smoothly rising was created in the mind of the viewer, and what actually happened was a simple switch between pics of a ball in one position to another.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Just read that Tim Minchin will be popping up on tomorrow night's episode - apparently about whether people can be induced to make false confessions.

Preempting the show, here's a mindhacks article on false confessions for anyone interested in this sometimes weird behaviour:

http://mindhacks.com/2011/08/12/false-confession-fishing-in-the-lab/

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The stuff I'm finding on YouTube suggests to me that the movement is only of the order of a single picture line and it's too shaky to tell if the movement happens in a single frame or not.

That's really not what I get from it.

I think any impression given of the ball smoothly rising was created in the mind of the viewer, and what actually happened was a simple switch between pics of a ball in one position to another.

I disagree with that, too.

 

[Stray Cat]

The stuff I'm finding on YouTube suggests to me that the movement is only of the order of a single picture line and it's too shaky to tell if the movement happens in a single frame or not. I think any impression given of the ball smoothly rising was created in the mind of the viewer, and what actually happened was a simple switch between pics of a ball in one position to another.

You are correct.
Somewhere on my old hard drive, I have screen shots of the movement.
If I find time later, I can dig them out.

 

[AdMan]

He actually thought that the "real" explanation that he used up with was pretty bad.

Both the embedded video and the link to YouTube go to the pertinent spot in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9X-1ROdk4#t=37m19s

This is region-locked and I can't get it to work with a proxy. Is there any chance someone could tell me what he actually says?

He says something to the effect that the "reveal" show was meant to have a twist at the end in which it would be clear that it had actually been a trick, but that with the scrutiny the original show received he realized they couldn't do it like that (exactly why not, I don't quite get), and it came across as if he really did want people to believe it had been done via the "wisdom of crowds", which was not his intent.

He says it's the one thing he's done that he's not happy with at all.

 

[Azrael 5]

Although it may be urban legend,there was reports of footage filmed prior to show of children on a London bus holding up the numbers for the lottery draw in advance!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...Brown-predicted-Lotto-result-before-Xmas.html