Illusionists

On Skeptiko, Michael Larkin links to a video showing the illusionist Dynamo apparently putting his hand through a plate of glass in a jewellery shop to grab a necklace, and asks whether it was just a trick or real magic:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/be...ost-123805

The YouTube video showing the performance is here:



Another YouTube video suggests how this (at 2:03) and some of Dynamo's other illusions were produced:



I think the explanation is correct - that the whole thing was set up in advance, that the glass plate had a hole in it, initially concealed under the tray, and that the plate slid to the right to allow him to put his hand through the hole. I'd guess that the mechanism was activated by his leaning on the tray with his left elbow, and that the plate slid back again when he raised his elbow, slightly jerkily. His pose looks very awkward, though in any case his left arm has to be positioned to hide the hole sliding back and forth.

But I wonder whether anyone here thinks it may have been real magic.

It kind of reminds me of some of magician David Blaine's effects. In the polished tv broadcast there are some rather grandiose effects. But when he does similar things casually in the street, it is much more low-key. What I gathered from that, after some fairly basic research was that the dramatic levitation effects were done in the classical way, with hidden wires, while in the street he was limited to standing on one tiptoe which from a certain camera angle (behind and to one side) looks like levitation.

I also recall another video I saw of Blaine. We actually want to be deceived, it's part of the fun. There was an effect involving piercing his body with a metal skewer. The interviewer was shocked, appalled, saying something like, this isn't magic, you're just poking holes in yourself (please stop!) or something like that.

[Laird]

I'd guess that the mechanism was activated by his leaning on the tray with his left elbow

Or maybe by a foot pedal?



I think it would have to have been the other (right) foot though - he seems to be leaning to the left.

I think the explanation is correct

You're probably right. It would be easy to test: put a mark on the glass and ask him to repeat the trick. Strange that nobody noticed the glass move, but the guys seemed to be a fair distance from the trick and...

the whole thing was set up in advance

...that would mean that Kimberley is in on it, at least to the extent of agreeing which item to pick. If so, she's a good actress, which is perfectly plausible.

But I wonder whether anyone here thinks it may have been real magic.

May have been? Sure. Was? Probably not - the explanation you shared seems much likelier.

Or maybe by a foot pedal?

Yes, maybe a foot pedal's more likely. 

I think the cleverest thing about the trick was using a sheet of glass, because if it's clean the motion won't be visible. But Kimberley had to be in on it, unless he had similar devices set up for every display case in the shop.

As to the original question, if it were "real" magic, then there would be no need to shield the active hand from view with the other hand. So, no: clever trick but of course it's a trick.

If the glass jewel case is a trick, not only Kimberly would have to be in on it, but also the shop -- if indeed it actually occurred in the shop, and maybe even if it didn't, since the shop owners have been silent about it.

I remember one American illusionist (can't remember which) causing a huge bus or truck to apparently disappear. The explanation was all down to colluders and post-facto video manipulation.

Frankly, I don't know whether he's just a very skillful illusionist or there really is something funny going on. And frankly, I don't really care much either way. It just distracts from the amazingness of everyday things such as the phenomena of the living world.

If the glass jewel case is a trick, not only Kimberly would have to be in on it, but also the shop -- if indeed it actually occurred in the shop, and maybe even if it didn't, since the shop owners have been silent about it.

Yes, certainly the shop owners would have had to be in on it too.

I think the high degree of collusion required means that sceptics have a very weak case when they cite illusions like this to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab.

I think the high degree of collusion required means that sceptics have a very weak case when they cite illusions like this to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab.

I highly doubt skeptics with any knowledge of magic tricks would cite illusions like this to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab. I think skeptics usually assume that magicians create illusions to match the setting in which they are performing. Since this was a made-for-video illusion, it is very reasonable to think that the shop and the actress are in on it (since nothing else would be required, other than a staged magician's prop). For a lab "performance", obviously the mechanisms for achieving the "trick" would be specific to the lab setting, the specific set up of the experiment, the degrees of freedom that exist for the magician, how much advanced warning the magician was given about the setup, etc. 

Not all magic tricks requires stooges, so I hardly think the presence of stooges or a staged prop in a specific illusion means that skeptics would then insist that stooges or staged props must be present during lab experiments, or that stooges or staged props in a random magic act somehow explain how a magician might fool a parapsychologist in a lab experiment when stooges and staged props are virtually impossible.

That said, I have to agree with you that any skeptic stupid enough to cite this type of illusion to to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab would have a very weak case. I just think that's a bit of a straw man argument.

I highly doubt skeptics with any knowledge of magic tricks would cite illusions like this to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab. I think skeptics usually assume that magicians create illusions to match the setting in which they are performing. Since this was a made-for-video illusion, it is very reasonable to think that the shop and the actress are in on it (since nothing else would be required, other than a staged magician's prop). For a lab "performance", obviously the mechanisms for achieving the "trick" would be specific to the lab setting, the specific set up of the experiment, the degrees of freedom that exist for the magician, how much advanced warning the magician was given about the setup, etc. 

You may be right. I'm not sure sceptics are always quite as fair as you suggest, though.

Yes, certainly the shop owners would have had to be in on it too.

I think the high degree of collusion required means that sceptics have a very weak case when they cite illusions like this to suggest that experimental parapsychologists would be easy to fool in the lab.

This has been a bit of a source of frustration for me over many years. Starting with Randi who followed Geller around showing that he could reproduce Geller's feats therefore Geller was using conjuring tricks. When I watched Randi do the trick it was never as convincing as Geller and never as comprehensive. For example, Geller would perform his metal bending on items the audience had brought with them while Randi relied on an item in his possession - if my recollection is correct.

Anyhow, the point is that the claims made by illusionists and mentalists rarely - if ever - live up to some of the outstanding examples of reported psi activity. I'm thinking of Derren Brown and his seance debunking or even Houdini and his debunking of D D Home. When you look deeper, the pretenders never recreate the original feat under the original conditions.