What might have been the trick?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I vote for titanium spoons.

~~ Paul

 

[Czarcasm]

Assuming the following report is correct...

Let's stop right there. What report? All I see is an anecdote with little detail. Please provide a link to the original report, or at least tell us where you got it.

 

[John Albert]

Ever wonder why the word "report" is so often used in lieu of "story," "anecdote," "tall tale," etc.?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Good point.

Hans

 

[Carn]

All I see is an anecdote with little detail.

Ok, then reformulate first sentence of thread to "Assuming this anectode with little detail is correct ...".

I do not understand complain about the assumption so much. As i named it assumption, its obvious that there could be errors in it. But what i am interested in is, whether if it does not contain errors even in respect to false memory it would still leave room for a trick.

As to the source, not that reliably. Currently i am curious, whether he realy meant, that Noether lacks understanding in respect to connections between energy conservation and time.

 

[Myriad]

Most misdirection, in sleight of hand, is misdirection about time -- specifically, about the timing (and relative timing) of when changes happen. For instance, in the Penn and Teller cups and balls video posted above, take note of when the balls are under the cups, as compared to when the balls "appear" under the cups as the cups are lifted.

The notion that misdirection is primarily about getting the audience to not see something visible because they're looking away at something else, is itself misdirection. "But I was looking at his hands when the key bent" is of no more significance than "but I was looking at Teller's hands when he picked up the cup and the baseball appeared under it."

Accordingly, permit me to highlight the most problematic word in the spoon bending account:

"I have personally put Geller to the test in front of witnesses, two of whom were extremely skeptical engineers. Geller bent a sturdy, stainless-steel spoon which one of our group had purloined from the Avanti Restaurant in Scottsdale, Arizona only a few hours beforehand. While he bent the spoon, I watched him from behind, out of his sight, my eyes a foot away. Seven others watched from a position in front of him. He did this in the lobby of the Phoenix Convention Center, not on stage where lighting and access could be controlled. When finished he returned the spoon, which our most skeptical engineer immediately examined for signs of heating at the bend, or an acid, or signs of metal fatigue.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Czarcasm]

Ok, then reformulate first sentence of thread to "Assuming this anectode with little detail is correct ..."

No.
First, you tell us whether this actually happened or not. If it did, provide the links. If it didn't, this little exercise of yours is totally useless because you can fill in excuses and details every time someone comes up with a reasonable non-paranormal answer.

 

[John Albert]

Ok, then reformulate first sentence of thread to "Assuming this anectode with little detail is correct ...".

I do not understand complain about the assumption so much. As i named it assumption, its obvious that there could be errors in it. But what i am interested in is, whether if it does not contain errors even in respect to false memory it would still leave room for a trick.

As to the source, not that reliably. Currently i am curious, whether he realy meant, that Noether lacks understanding in respect to connections between energy conservation and time.

Assuming it's correct and complete is actually quite a big assumption.

All he'd need to have done is distract or misdirect the viewers for a couple seconds in order to accomplish the bend. When he's doing the "massaging" thing that gives the illusion of bending before the eyes, it's near impossible for casual viewers to tell if the spoon is still straight or already bent.

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, then reformulate first sentence of thread to "Assuming this anectode with little detail is correct ...".

Assume the Alice in Wonderland story is true...

I do not understand complain about the assumption so much. As i named it assumption, its obvious that there could be errors in it.

The most glaring error is omitting the actual method of performing the magic trick.

But what i am interested in is, whether if it does not contain errors even in respect to false memory it would still leave room for a trick.

It leaves room for a trick. There's no rational reason to consider "if it does not contain errors". It does. The part about how the magic trick was done was not observed by the witness and/or it wasn't described in the telling of the tale.

As to the source, not that reliably. Currently i am curious, whether he realy meant, that Noether lacks understanding in respect to connections between energy conservation and time.

Nonsense. There's absolutely no connection between a common magic trick performed by an often exposed scammer like Geller and some kind of physics mumbo-jumbo about energy conservation and time. Total nonsense.

 

[davefoc]

Carn,
I don't have much to add to what people have said above. I certainly agree with them; spoon bending is a routine magic trick. The spoon is bent and then the bend is hidden and revealed in a way that makes it look like the spoon is being bent during the reveal. Like most magic tricks the skill of the magician affects how difficult it is to determine exactly what is going on.

As to how to bend the spoon surreptitiously:
1. It can be bent completely out of site of the viewer either before the act starts or during the act when the performer uses some kind of misdirection to hide the fact that the spoon is out of sight for a moment. That is the technique used in the video that is linked to below.
2. It can be bent in front of the viewer by masking the bending by holding the spoon in such a way that the bending action isn't apparent. This was the technique used in the video linked to above I think.

As to how to mask the fact that the spoon is bent:
The spoon can be held vertically with the hand over the bent part of the spoon or the spoon can be wiggled back and forth so that it is hard or impossible to see that the spoon is bent. Or as in the case of the video linked to above the bent spoon can be placed between the palms of an audience member who doesn't realize that the spoon is already bent.

Link to video explaining a spoon bending trick
http://www.ehow.com/video_2379541_spoon-trick-explained_-learn-magic.html

Link to Straightdope article on Geller spoon bending:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/660/how-did-uri-geller-bend-spoons

I noticed that James Randi was mentioned in the straightdope article and there was a link to his book on Geller. I thought that was nice.

And if you are still serious about believing that spoon bending is something other than a routine magic trick please don't limit yourself to the above explanations if you look around the web you will find many explanations of spoon bending tricks.

I didn't notice any explanations of fork bending on the web. That might be because fork bending can only be done by real telekinesis so maybe that would be a good place to start in a quest to find proof of the paranormal.

Whatever is being bent though, I think you might ask yourself this simple question: Why isn't the object that is being bent just simply placed on a surface without the performer doing things that preclude a clear view of the object being bent while it is being bent?

 

[John Albert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxWdIQVT_c

Thanks for posting this. Those guys are clearly masters of their craft!

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for posting this. Those guys are clearly masters of their craft!

Randi should get some credit here. I first saw the video from a link on his site. And I certainly agree about the quality of the actors. We met some people from the UK on a trip to Yosemite and one of the things that came up was that video and I am afraid my description did not capture the original at all.

I thought that the video might be enough to end this thread right off the top as Hugh Laurie does such an excellent job of describing how spoon bending is done, but apparently Carn wasn't completely satisfied with Laurie's explanation. But to the degree that it is possible to know things Laurie's implied explanation is correct whether people want to believe it or not.

 

[Carn]

And if you are still serious about believing that spoon bending is something other than a routine magic trick

When did i say that i am serious in believing that?

@GeeMack
There is a connection between a common magic trick by Geller and "physics mumbo-jumbo", at least in this case:
If the same person claims, that he obeserved Geller and it was not a trick because he understands magicians tricks, and that he thought hard about "physics mumbo-jumbo" and found prove that Noether, Hilbert, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, ... (all important physicists after 1905) got physics wrong, conclusions about the persons ability to avoid self-deception can be made.

 

[davefoc]

When did i say that i am serious in believing that?

...

Sorry, I think I got that impression more from the responses to you in this thread than something you said.

So what is your view about spoon bending, why did you start this thread and has this tread provided the information that you were seeking when you started it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..............
There is a connection between a common magic trick by Geller and "physics mumbo-jumbo", at least in this case:
If the same person claims, that he obeserved Geller and it was not a trick because he understands magicians tricks, and that he thought hard about "physics mumbo-jumbo" and found prove that Noether, Hilbert, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, ... (all important physicists after 1905) got physics wrong, conclusions about the persons ability to avoid self-deception can be made.

This appears contradictory, in that someone who truly understands magicians tricks, would never come to the conclusion that Geller's stunts were anything else. No " physics mumbo-jumbo " required..

 

[GeeMack]

There is a connection between a common magic trick by Geller and "physics mumbo-jumbo", at least in this case:

False. Science is a process which requires quantitative objective analysis. Physics isn't about mindlessly dropping names of scientists or flinging around terms like "connections between energy conservation and time". If you have quantitative objective support for your inference that the anecdote about tableware bending involved something other than a simple magic trick, you are encouraged to provide it now. If you don't have any such support, then your inference is indeed nonsense.

If the same person claims, that he obeserved Geller and it was not a trick because he understands magicians tricks, and that he thought hard about "physics mumbo-jumbo" and found prove that Noether, Hilbert, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, ... (all important physicists after 1905) got physics wrong, conclusions about the persons ability to avoid self-deception can be made.

True. Conclusions about the person's ability to avoid self-deception can be made. But it's probably not the conclusion you seem to want it to be. If that person claims to understand magicians' tricks and believes spoon bending has something to do with "connections between energy conservation and time", that person is quite naïve and/or lying about understanding magicians' tricks and/or woefully out of touch with reality.

 

[Alan]

The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Overestimating one's knowledge of how magic effects are accomplished leads to problems when an effect is performed a different way.

 

[Carn]

Most misdirection, in sleight of hand, is misdirection about time -- specifically, about the timing (and relative timing) of when changes happen. For instance, in the Penn and Teller cups and balls video posted above, take note of when the balls are under the cups, as compared to when the balls "appear" under the cups as the cups are lifted.

The notion that misdirection is primarily about getting the audience to not see something visible because they're looking away at something else, is itself misdirection. "But I was looking at his hands when the key bent" is of no more significance than "but I was looking at Teller's hands when he picked up the cup and the baseball appeared under it."

Accordingly, permit me to highlight the most problematic word in the spoon bending account:




Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks.

Using the term "While he bend the spoon" shows several problems, first that the writer did not realize its not important to watch closely while the spoon is bent, but at least watch closely from the moment performers hands get close to the spoon till his hands are both away from the spoon, and especially second as an objective observer one should not make any assumptions about when exactly the spoon is bent and that is incompatible with watching while the spoon is bent, as only after performer is realy finished one could reasonably decide when the spoon bending happened.

@davefoc
My curiosity is satisfied.

 

[Brown]

As far as I know, no spoon-bending has ever been a demonstration of any supernatural ability. That is not to say that it is always a trick! There are times when spoon-bending looks mysterious, but there is nothing mysterious going on at all. For example:

Basically, Crichton discloses a lot of hints in "Travels" as to what's probably going on, but he doesn't seem to be able to put the pieces together.

Let's see... people getting frustrated... a community pile of spoons... bending happens when attention is NOT being paid... Hmmm.

Gee, is it possible that someone takes a spoon from the community pile, and after having no luck with it, bends it out of frustration (or as a joke) when no one is looking, then returns it to its original shape and throws the metal-fatigued spoon back on the pile? Is it possible that someone else picks up that metal-fatigued spoon and finds that it bends easily?

Also, Crichton admitted that there was deliberate bending going on, and that he bent spoons with his fingers.

In the circumstances described, however, there are many indications that there was deliberate trickery afoot.

I add two observations. First, there are some artists out there who know techniques for bending cutlery when the audience is watching closely. Folks like Banachek and Richard Osterlind can teach you techniques for bending ungimmicked cutlery when your hands are being watched super-closely, with no effort needed to distract the viewers' attention. At TAM2, Ian Rowland bent an ungimmicked spoon in full view of everyone ... and if you didn't know what to look for, you would have seen no funny business at all.

My second observation is this: I get a major kick when I hear someone who just got suckered by a simple trick attest to his or her own personal powers of observation. To me, this attestation carries with it a defect in credibility. Usually that defect is a purely honest one, but it is a defect nevertheless.

 

[Mick Houlahan]

The specific mechanics used are not the trick. The trick is making the audience vividly misremember what happened.