Indian Rope Trick

[AtheistExile]

Yes, Garrette, we've already agreed that the original claim was a hoax.

As an aside:

So you're in the middle of a move, huh? I hope you're moving to a roomier home . . . then you can have more bookshelves . I've moved to both bigger and smaller homes and it's always a drag when moving to a smaller home and realizing I'll have to store some books in boxes in a shed or garage. Plus, sheds and garages are more prone to moisture and vermin and books can be damaged or ruined.

When I moved (permanently) from California to the Philippines, I gave all my books away. There's a 100% tariff on imported items here so I had to sell my cars, motorcycle, collectibles and furniture on eBay.

Sorry guys, I don't mean to derail the topic, so please do not reply to this.

 

[AtheistExile]

Dan Dennett explains how the real Indian rope trick is done.

The original claim of the Indian rope trick is a modern example of mythology in the making. As I understand it, the part about the boy refusing to come down and his father climbing up after him and chopping him up is derived from Indian folklore.

The part about them disappearing up the rope and the dismembered boy reconstituting himself in the grand finale, is icing on the fabled cake.


Of course, the original claim of the Indian rope trick is a hoax. But then again, all magic tricks are hoaxes in one form or another. I think that, technically, this trick is replicable in a controlled environment, like a large stage with all the equipment and things the magician would need. But outdoors? Without any visible support? Impossible.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think it's reasonable to speculate that the trick can only be achieved by supporting the rope from above (requiring a mechanism in the ceiling, or up a tree, or something) or by supporting the rope from below by means of some kind of pole or rod. Barring modern machinery this means someone in a box or underground space feeding a pole up the rope.

The fact that it's traditionally a child doing the climbing indicates to me that the materials involved only allow a fairly light person to climb the rope or the whole thing would fall over.

The black and white video looks to me like it's someone faking up the footage to show what the original trick was supposed to have looked like. The shot of the rope being thrown into the sky looks to me like a reversed shot of the rope falling down, indicating that they had a crane or similar to hold the rope up with.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, Garrette, we've already agreed that the original claim was a hoax.

As an aside:

So you're in the middle of a move, huh? I hope you're moving to a roomier home . . . then you can have more bookshelves . I've moved to both bigger and smaller homes and it's always a drag when moving to a smaller home and realizing I'll have to store some books in boxes in a shed or garage. Plus, sheds and garages are more prone to moisture and vermin and books can be damaged or ruined.

When I moved (permanently) from California to the Philippines, I gave all my books away. There's a 100% tariff on imported items here so I had to sell my cars, motorcycle, collectibles and furniture on eBay.

Sorry guys, I don't mean to derail the topic, so please do not reply to this.

I'm always up for a short derail. Complicated move situation based on eminent domain and the house we are purchasing being in a financial maze I do not fully comprehend, all resulting in a dual-move: current move to much smaller rental home pending move at an unspecified date to the permanent home which paradoxically is larger but less suited for book display given the prevalence of dormers at a lower height than usual, preventing use of my normal 6 foot bookshelves. End result is I will still have books in storage, possibly more than before. It is a heavy burden, indeed.

 

[jhunter1163]

I just read a book about Houdini; it mentioned that there were versions of the Indian rope trick being performed around 1910, IIRC. I don't have the book with me now (I'm at work): I'll provide a cite when I get home in an hour or so.

 

[jhunter1163]

Wikipedia explains that the ORIGINAL CLAIM of the Indian rope trick was a hoax. But, obviously, it inspired others to actually figure out ways to perform the trick because we have at least one old black-and-white video and one modern color video of the trick being performed outdoors, in front of an audience, without a tree or other upright in sight. I know for a fact that the trick has been performed at least 2 times because they've been preserved on video at least 2 times.

This appears to be the case. There's no reliable report of the trick being performed before Wilkie's article of 1890; I found an advertisement for Howard Thurston in the New York Post of April 24, 1910 which refers to it (behind a paywall, sorry, but it's there).

http://www.fold3.com/document/212542502/

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.

 

[Garrette]

It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.

Sure. Just climb this rope, see? This one right here, and take a look around up there. I'll be right behind you. The sword? Don't worry; I carry it for emergencies only. Go ahead, climb.


Bit more seriously: iirc, your "etc., etc., involves reassembling and reanimating the boy, possibly in a basket? Man, I need to get my books unpacked...

 

[Soapy Sam]

I understand that the correct name for this is now "The Native American Rope Trick."

 

[Pup]

I understand that the correct name for this is now "The Native American Rope Trick."

Um, it's dots, not feathers.

On the topic of whether the disappearing/hacking version could ever be done, some thoughts...

There's no requirement it be done in daylight. Disappearing against the night sky, lit from below by smoky torches, is a different ballgame.

There's no requirement the boy actually climb the rope. As far as I know, toys like this are ancient: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzOXvP0_gKg A life-size toy leaves the boy on the ground awaiting reassembly.

There are always distractions to keep the viewers' attention toward the ground and away from the invisibility at the top of the rope. While the boy is invisible, the master is on the ground shouting. While the master is up there, severed limbs are hitting the ground.

It may be that the full rope trick has never been done. But I'm not sure it would be impossible to do.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's the first clip:

This one definitely looks faked to me. The first thing I thought when I saw it was that the rope staying up looked like reversed footage of the rope falling down.

And the second:

How this one is done seems pretty obvious, no?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.

I saw Paul Daniels do this in the 80s, although I can't find the footage on YouTube. The difference is that he did it in the dark and there was never a close-up of the end of the rope. My guess, even at the time, was of a crane.

 

[Checkmite]

It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.

Exactly, it never happened; the entire trick as originally described is just a bit of fakelore. Using the description of the "trick", magicians have since been able to figure out ways to make a rope rigid enough for a child to climb at least partially, and they've called this the "Indian Rope Trick", but obviously reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Exactly, it never happened; the entire trick as originally described is just a bit of fakelore. Using the description of the "trick", magicians have since been able to figure out ways to make a rope rigid enough for a child to climb at least partially, and they've called this the "Indian Rope Trick", but obviously reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible.

As I said in the post immediately above yours, I've seen it done by Paul Daniels. And, far from being impossible, even as a kid I could work out how it was done.

 

[Checkmite]

As I said in the post immediately above yours, I've seen it done by Paul Daniels. And, far from being impossible, even as a kid I could work out how it was done.

You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference. Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.

 

[Pup]

You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference. Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.

Is there evidence that people claimed the legendary trick was done outdoors in the daytime?

This whole issue seems like the problem with someone saying, "David Copperfield could make the Statue of Liberty disappear," and someone else saying, "That's impossible. The statue weighs a zillion tons and is fixed on a permanent foundation. It could not have happened."

Well, they're both right, of course. When people describe magic tricks, they typically leave out the crucial qualifying factors that make the trick possible, because that's how tricks are designed to be remembered.

Just hearing the description, someone might imagine the Statue of Liberty disappeared in broad daylight within view of everyone looking out their windows in Manhattan. A person may not say, without lots of questioning and prompting, the crucial point: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were with me on a boat at night, and the statue was hidden from us for a bit before it disappeared and reappeared, and I don't know whether anyone else could still see it when it disappeared for us."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference.

Difference from what? Nobody in this thread has suggested that the trick must be performed in the light. In fact, the Wikipedia article explicitly says that in the original descriptions of the trick that the top of the rope is "out of view", which means it must be obscured by something like darkness or smoke.

Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.

No, outdoors.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.

Yes, that's been established since post 4. I was replying to your statement
that "reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible".

Just hearing the description, someone might imagine the Statue of Liberty disappeared in broad daylight within view of everyone looking out their windows in Manhattan. A person may not say, without lots of questioning and prompting, the crucial point: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were with me on a boat at night, and the statue was hidden from us for a bit before it disappeared and reappeared, and I don't know whether anyone else could still see it when it disappeared for us."

Well, I obviously don't want to get in to how it's done (and I must say that I don't know other than by watching it, but I think it's blindingly obvious), but I will say that there are helicopter shots of the statue not being there, and I highly doubt that anybody on the platform (not boat) was actually amazed in any way, shape or form.

 

[Checkmite]

Difference from what? Nobody in this thread has suggested that the trick must be performed in the light. In fact, the Wikipedia article explicitly says that in the original descriptions of the trick that the top of the rope is "out of view", which means it must be obscured by something like darkness or smoke.

It is true that the original counts don't seem to mention daylight - I do not know where I got that impression. However, you are wrong about your suppositions regarding the original descriptions. "Out of view" might mean darkness or smoke was obscuring the top of the rope; however, it might also mean the top of the rope vanished into a low fog or into the clouds, or that the rope was so tall the top was too high to see, or (as with my initial interpetation of the trick when I first heard of it) that the rope and the people who climbed up it disappeared in midair through some mystical invisible aperture. Given that the same Wikipedia article notes that some of those accounts described the dismembered body parts slowly crawling back together on the ground until they rejoined together into a whole, living person, I'd caution against trying to draw any conclusions about what the descriptions must imply about whatever exactly it was the witnesses were relating.

Yes, that's been established since post 4. I was replying to your statement
that "reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible".

I still maintain that it is. Given that our earliest accounts were from periods when it was extremely unlikely for magicians in rural villages between towns in India to have access to stage mechanisms, cranes, large underground chambers from whence assistants could thrust long poles up through decoy ropes, rolling platforms on tracks or cameras with which to create illusions, and so forth, I don't think any "Indian Rope Trick" performed today using these techniques can honestly be said to be a performance of the trick as originally described.

Perhaps I worded my original statement badly. Nitpick over it if you wish; however, my actual assertion (perhaps better worded) is that this "trick" did not historically exist as a trick that was ever actually performed, but merely as a legend or fable, and that any of the myriad versions or attempts one might have seen within the mid-to-late 20th century and beyond are not the "Indian Rope Trick" as passed down through the trade (or whatever), but purely modern and recent inventions - magicians reading the legend and building an effect that resembles, to varying degrees of skill, their interpretation of that legend.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is true that the original counts don't seem to mention daylight - I do not know where I got that impression. However, you are wrong about your suppositions regarding the original descriptions. "Out of view" might mean darkness or smoke was obscuring the top of the rope; however, it might also mean the top of the rope vanished into a low fog or into the clouds, or that the rope was so tall the top was too high to see, or (as with my initial interpetation of the trick when I first heard of it) that the rope and the people who climbed up it disappeared in midair through some mystical invisible aperture.

I meant for clouds and fog to be included in "smoke", but I should have been clearer on that point. I don't think "too high to see" is credible, as the original description has the fakir throwing the rope up and it staying where he threw it. I wouldn't count someone disappearing from the top of a rope as the top of the rope being out of sight.

Given that our earliest accounts were from periods when it was extremely unlikely for magicians in rural villages between towns in India to have access to stage mechanisms, cranes, large underground chambers from whence assistants could thrust long poles up through decoy ropes, rolling platforms on tracks or cameras with which to create illusions, and so forth, I don't think any "Indian Rope Trick" performed today using these techniques can honestly be said to be a performance of the trick as originally described.

It's not a performance of the trick using the same techniques that would have had to have been used were it not made up. But, then, it's made up so any performance using those techniques would be impossible, because those techniques do not exist.

However, the trick can be performed as described, as the descriptions do not include a breakdown of methodology.

Perhaps I worded my original statement badly. Nitpick over it if you wish; however, my actual assertion (perhaps better worded) is that this "trick" did not historically exist as a trick that was ever actually performed, but merely as a legend or fable, and that any of the myriad versions or attempts one might have seen within the mid-to-late 20th century and beyond are not the "Indian Rope Trick" as passed down through the trade (or whatever), but purely modern and recent inventions - magicians reading the legend and building an effect that resembles, to varying degrees of skill, their interpretation of that legend.

Which is something that was established right at the start of the thread.

 

[Pup]

Well, I obviously don't want to get in to how it's done (and I must say that I don't know other than by watching it, but I think it's blindingly obvious), but I will say that there are helicopter shots of the statue not being there, and I highly doubt that anybody on the platform (not boat) was actually amazed in any way, shape or form.

Hmm... I'd say my statement is still pretty close to holding true, though: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were... on a boat at night."

The cameras on the boat could mimic the people on the boat, in the sense that they could be aimed in any direction just as the people could look around and either see only the inside of the boat itself or the empty area where the statue once was, while the cameras in the helicopters could not mimic the pilots' view without spoiling the illusion.

It does point out, though, that magicians manipulate the way people describe tricks. From the audience's viewpoint, the boat-passengers might say, "And there were even helicopters up there filming the missing statue." From the magician's viewpoint, he might say, "And we need to have some helicopters flying up there to make sure the illusion works."

And that's about all I can say about that.