What might have been the trick?

[Weak Kitten]

I would love to challenge a spoon bender to bend one of the utensils I inherited from my grandmother. She was a caterer and the blasted things are practically indestructible let alone bendable. Also their pattern is very noticeable and completely out of production. They would make great test spoons. Frankly I would be impressed if someone could bend them at all with just their hands let alone their mind.

 

[geni]

A competent engineer (as someone has already pointed out) would not have suspected acid or magnets.

They probably would. Missdirrection isn't a common option in an engineers toolbox so they are more likely to consider hidden mechanical options or half remebered chemistry.

 

[joesixpack]

They probably would. Missdirrection isn't a common option in an engineers toolbox so they are more likely to consider hidden mechanical options or half remebered chemistry.

Actually, when you put it like that I would have to agree with you. Though I think an engineer would dismiss the idea of a magnet, he may spend a lot of time chasing red herrings like acid or some concealed heat source (maybe that was what the "couldn't have hidden a cigarette" BS was about?).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I would love to challenge a spoon bender to bend one of the utensils I inherited from my grandmother. She was a caterer and the blasted things are practically indestructible let alone bendable. Also their pattern is very noticeable and completely out of production. They would make great test spoons. Frankly I would be impressed if someone could bend them at all with just their hands let alone their mind.

Apropos to this post in particular and the thread in general. I once saw Randi interviewed on a (Canadian) TV show. Randi and the interviewer sat across a small table from each other and the camera was set up at the side so you could see them both in profile. Randi offered to "psychically" bend a key for the host. Randi took the key and continued in small talk with his host. At some point he reached down under the table with his visible-to-the-camera hand and used a crack between the leg of the table and the table as a lever to bend the key. The interviewer was completely unaware of this and expressed absolute amazement when Randi then began to expose the key to show it "bending".

The interviewer could have easily continued to believe in Magical Key Bending if Randi had not 'fessed up.

 

[Brattus]

Well I believe if an observer of a magic trick is looking for the magic they will see it every time.
Spoon bending is a very simple trick that has been completely explained decades ago.

Seek and ye shall find.

 

[davefoc]

I'll add to that. It's just like it's not reasonable to assume other reports are correct. Any skeptic should be able to recognise the fallibility of perception and recollection.

In unrelated news, here's a little card trick:

Oh cripes, I've seen that before and I fell for it again. I must have been distracted because I was looking for the gorillas.

Everybody seems to be cautious about revealing spoon bending type magic tricks in this thread, apparently out of fear of violating either the spirit of the rule or the actual rule against revealing how magic tricks are done in this forum. This thread is covering what is a gray area for that rule and despite being around here for about 8 years I'm still a little uncertain exactly what the policy is with something like spoon bending.

I don't know exactly how it is done and I'm not sure I could fool anybody if I tried it but I think I know the general technique and it is so obvious that it hardly needs revealing, but I guess out of an abundance of caution I won't say anything beyond that I think what is going on can be observed in the video somebody posted above.

 

[Stomatopoda]

This has me wondering... would it be possible to make a nonmetallic, rigid spoon with a coating to make it appear metallic? Would be hilarious to see one of these "telekinetics" shatter it accidentally in the prep stage of the trick.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I have never understood spoons as a psychic "tool" except that they are easy to put up your sleeve and easy to bend when nobody is looking. You can then hide the stem when doing the "bending" after you have pre-bent it.

A good exercise for "psychics" would be to bend a spoon by holding the stem and pushing the bowl of the spoon down with their thumb. A practiced person with strong hands could bend a spoon very quickly with a bit of easy misdirection. Bending by using a different body part may be needed for thicker spoons.

 

[joesixpack]

Oh cripes, I've seen that before and I fell for it again. I must have been distracted because I was looking for the gorillas.

And there IS a gorilla in it, too! I noticed one thing from that video, and it was your "gorilla" remark that made me pay attention. I missed all the other switches though.

 

[Senex]

When I was in college I shamelessly stole Uri Geller's routine. Bending silverware, nails, all manner of metal was my specialty. It is much easier than you think to pull off. However, I often had the same audience and some of them were engineering majors and engineering majors are the worst audience because they don't like to be fooled and they would stare at my hands (and let's face reality -- silverware and keys don't bend on their own, they might be easier to bend if you understand leverage than your audience might think, but you still need a fraction of a second of misdirection.) I resorted to gimmicks and screwing with my friend's silverware when they weren't looking the day before they had a party because you can't use the same techniques in front of the same audience and be successful even if you don't suck.

Anyway, rest assured Uri bent keys and silverware in a very mundane manner. You would be shocked how non-creative his methods were/are (does he still perform?).

 

[Beth]

I'll add to that. It's just like it's not reasonable to assume other reports are correct. Any skeptic should be able to recognise the fallibility of perception and recollection.

In unrelated news, here's a little card trick:

Very cool! Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed it.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

This has me wondering... would it be possible to make a nonmetallic, rigid spoon with a coating to make it appear metallic? Would be hilarious to see one of these "telekinetics" shatter it accidentally in the prep stage of the trick.

It should be possible to have a glass spoon made, silvered like a mirror to make the surface metallic, then plated with iron or nickel to make it appear like a steel spoon. You'd need to find a lampworker, and a high school level chemistry teacher could do the rest. (tollen's test for ketones, IIRC leads to silvering any glass in the test solution)

Crack! Owwwwwww!

 

[TjW]

Possibly more entertaining would be something like a fiberglass spoon: you could bend it, but it wouldn't stay bent.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Possibly more entertaining would be something like a fiberglass spoon: you could bend it, but it wouldn't stay bent.

That would play into Geller's trick though. It seems to me I've seen displays where he's 'bent' the spoon, then 'straightened' it back out before giving it back. If you shake it around enough, they eye can't tell if it's bending or not, and suggestion does the rest. Give him one that actually flexes, and he'll flex it and pretend it's magic flex.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

For sheer amusement, nothing would beat letting Geller try to bend a plutonium spoon.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, when you put it like that I would have to agree with you. Though I think an engineer would dismiss the idea of a magnet, he may spend a lot of time chasing red herrings like acid or some concealed heat source (maybe that was what the "couldn't have hidden a cigarette" BS was about?).

I disagree. An engineer (of course somewhat depending on which field of engineering) will know the approximate melting/softening temperature of steel and realize that the spoon would be untouchable. An engineer would know that normal magnets can't bend objects. An engineer would know that acids that can attack and weaken stainless steel in seconds will burn right through your skin.

Finally, most engineers are trained troubleshooters. However, there is the possibility that engineers might add such stuff into an explanation to cater for lay readers. That still does not add to the credibility of the story.

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

Well I believe if an observer of a magic trick is looking for the magic they will see it every time.

Not always...

 

[Carn]

I've been a semi-pro magician for several decades. I can assure you that it is not reasonable to assume the report is correct.

So in summary, if the report would be correct, one would have to assume that Geller has some supernatural ability?

I ask, because the source of that report is convinced that it is correct and concludes therefore that Geller is somewhat real. As i cannot convince the source, that the report might be incorrect, i was curious whether it might contain errors or tricks.

Or assuming a well lit area, could trickery bend a spoon given to the magician just before and returned immidiately afterwards with the magicians hand and arms being constantly observed from several directions and without the magician engaging in obviously distraction attempts like talking ans so on?
(That are the conditions the source thinks are met in the report.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

So in summary, if the report would be correct, one would have to assume that Geller has some supernatural ability?

Not at all. There is still room for the skilled illusionist, and Geller is certainly a skilled illusionist.

I ask, because the source of that report is convinced that it is correct and concludes therefore that Geller is somewhat real. As i cannot convince the source, that the report might be incorrect, i was curious whether it might contain errors or tricks.

It does not help that the source is convinced. Convincing the audience is a central part of an illusionist's work.

Or assuming a well lit area, could trickery bend a spoon given to the magician just before and returned immidiately afterwards with the magicians hand and arms being constantly observed from several directions and without the magician engaging in obviously distraction attempts like talking ans so on?
(That are the conditions the source thinks are met in the report.)

A single light-post is not a well-lit area, regardless of its power. Quite the contrary, in fact: A very strong single light-source will leave even darker shadows.

The talking and all the flourishes of the archetype stage magician are not important in distraction. They are more part of the general image. There are plenty of stage magicians who don't do it.

I have recently watched a 'stage' magician do a long row of very impressive tricks (although spoon-bending was not among them). He was in a well-lit area (multiple light sources, all around) he was sitting in the midst of an audience of 40 or so people, he was wearing tight-fitting clothes, he did not make any obviously unnecessary moves, and he spoke very little. Yet nobody spotted a single trick.

Doesn't it make any impression on you (and your source) that numerous state magicians report to have repeated Geller's tricks? - For what I assume is code of the trade, few perform with that particular trick, but many can do it and have shown it to limited audiences.

Hans

 

[GeeMack]

So in summary, if the report would be correct, one would have to assume that Geller has some supernatural ability?

No. The report can be reasonably assumed to be incorrect. And even if it is correct on all claimed observations, there are innumerable details of the event which have been omitted. It would be irrational by any stretch of objective judgement to assume Geller has some supernatural ability. There is no evidence to suggest he has.

I ask, because the source of that report is convinced that it is correct and concludes therefore that Geller is somewhat real.

So? Billions of people believe in invisible supernatural beings, gods, entities that can do way more magical things than bend tableware. And there's no objective evidence to suggest any of them are real either.

As i cannot convince the source, that the report might be incorrect, i was curious whether it might contain errors or tricks.

In my forty plus years of performing magic and hearing hundreds, maybe thousands of witnesses' descriptions of tricks they've seen, I've never heard a single one that didn't contain errors or omit relevant details... even descriptions by other magicians who knew the methods employed. That's part of the deal with magic tricks... and witnesses... and reports.

Or assuming a well lit area, could trickery bend a spoon given to the magician just before and returned immidiately afterwards with the magicians hand and arms being constantly observed from several directions and without the magician engaging in obviously distraction attempts like talking ans so on?
(That are the conditions the source thinks are met in the report.)

So if we start by assuming unicorns can fly, can we say it's true that unicorns can fly? The question is silly. The report is bogus. Of course the description of the actual method is left out of the report. The witness didn't observe that part. That's why the trick was successful.

The spoon bending trick is a trick. Really. Always. The method is easily discovered all over the Internet, by reading any of several dozen books on the subject, or by talking to any of the thousands of people engaged in the hobby or profession of magic. If you or your pal wants to believe it's real, you will. But you almost have to expend considerable effort to avoid the truth, that being the fact that spoon bending is a magic trick.