I love these guys that "just know" whats going on.
Criss Angel
- Thread starter Oniw17
- Start date
Umm. Yeah?
Ever seen the video to Magic by the Cars? They do the same thing.
As to the bending and warping...
Ever heard of a box? Or maybe even columns?
Come on, use your brain.
Yeah. Live actors.
W00t.
Umm. Yeah?
It was staged, guy.
The setup was so that there were breaks in the surface here and there. In some parts there were openings underneat that people could swim under. In others, there was wide open spots where people could walk through and let bubbles go up to the surface.
Notice. He steps over those spots.
And, did you like how his shoe just happened to fall off?
And, did you notice that he stepped over that spot?
What are you trying to say here, exactly? I don't get it.
Do you believe he was really walking on water?
(No. You don't believe he's really magic, you say so explicitly. Hmm.)
It was a trick.
Magic is tricks.
That's fine. It's when they're so obvious like that that they are lame.
He puts all the people there as if they lend credence to his magic, but they're all actors.
Umm. No.
The one I'm talking about he sorta swoops up off the ground and into chairs. I think he swooped onto a fountain too.
It was a trick done with wires, obviously.
The problem is that anyone present would see the trick. They were too close for it to be legitimate. Sounds like what you're talking about might be a legitimate trick where the audience is kept far enough away that they couldn't be expected to see the wires and setup.
My huge genitalia?
Earth to James.
All magicians are fakes.
The problem I have with Angel is that the tricks I've mentioned are too extravagant to work in person like he shows. The people present have to be in on it. This amounts to 'tv magic'.
Of course, people are stupid. But the shit he does kinda stretches the bounds of believability. And, the people in the pool were definitely in on it. There is no way they couldn't be. The people observing the levitation trick... I suppose he might have been able to rig it so the wires would be difficult to see, and with a little misdirection, it's possible they didn't know. But, the walking on water bit is a dead giveaway to 'tv magic'.
Did you know there used to be radio magicians?
Last edited:
So. Do you think that he was really walking on water and that the people milling around in the pool were completely mystified?
If so, then you're a sucker.
Do you think he was really *gasp* flying?
If so, then you're a real sucker.
Do you think that he really pulled that lady apart in the park? And do you think that nobody in the crowd had the presence of mind to reach out to touch those legs that were left behind to figure out the trick? (Remember. The sawing the lady in half trick is done on a stage, and the mechanism is hidden in a box. This trick is done in plain site and in touching distance.)
If so, then would you like to buy a bridge?
invert_nexus:
"Umm. Yeah?
Ever seen the video to Magic by the Cars? They do the same thing. "
I have not seen this video, actually. Do you have a link?
"As to the bending and warping...
Ever heard of a box? Or maybe even columns?
Come on, use your brain."
A box of plexiglass that people routinely interrupt with their movements and one woman swims over. Oh and which is stable and doesn't topple over in the middle of the trick, by being placed in a pool with all sorts of liquid pressures exerted on it.
And yes, collumns of plexiglass that do not show at all and are avoided by the aforementioned people in the pool.
"Yeah. Live actors.
W00t."
You have to prove "live actors" beyond "oh my God, could be a fake thing".
"Umm. Yeah?
It was staged, guy.
The setup was so that there were breaks in the surface here and there. In some parts there were openings underneat that people could swim under. In others, there was wide open spots where people could walk through and let bubbles go up to the surface."
So basically "even if the evidence shows the unlikely nature of my things - which now require how many different things in order to work? - I shall still claim this story, without any corroborating evidence".
Simply because you can speculate that it occurred this way, does not mean that it did. Moreover you need one hellavua lot more evidence than conjecture here.
"Notice. He steps over those spots."
I do not recall him stepping over those spots specifically, but I shall look at that.
"What are you trying to say here, exactly? I don't get it.
Do you believe he was really walking on water?
(No. You don't believe he's really magic, you say so explicitly. Hmm.)"
Meaning he steps in spaces which previously were occupied by the descending shoes.
But no, I have no idea how he does this trick, like most of his tricks. But no, of course he is not some God.
"It was a trick.
Magic is tricks.
That's fine. It's when they're so obvious like that that they are lame.
He puts all the people there as if they lend credence to his magic, but they're all actors."
You have to give a lot more evidence then conjecture to justify this claim. Speculation does not imply proof.
Here's a good thing to start: I think some of his tricks were posted from a Youtube link. Let's go over them and see if you can point out specific time marks where you think something was afoot.
At least then we can speak about criticism of the performance on a level that may be able to be demonstrated as true or false.
"Umm. No.
The one I'm talking about he sorta swoops up off the ground and into chairs. I think he swooped onto a fountain too."
Oh, I was thinking of another trick. I am not sure which episode you are speaking about in this one.
"It was a trick done with wires, obviously.
The problem is that anyone present would see the trick. They were too close for it to be legitimate. Sounds like what you're talking about might be a legitimate trick where the audience is kept far enough away that they couldn't be expected to see the wires and setup."
I shall try to find you a video of it. It was rather impressive.
"Earth to James.
All magicians are fakes.
The problem I have with Angel is that the tricks I've mentioned are too extravagant to work in person like he shows. The people present have to be in on it. This amounts to 'tv magic'."
I had meant fakes as in the type of TV foolery you are supposing, not illusionist tricks in the classical sense. Obviously magic is a scam in that way.
"
Of course, people are stupid. But the shit he does kinda stretches the bounds of believability. And, the people in the pool were definitely in on it. There is no way they couldn't be. The people observing the levitation trick... I suppose he might have been able to rig it so the wires would be difficult to see, and with a little misdirection, it's possible they didn't know. But, the walking on water bit is a dead giveaway to 'tv magic'."
You admit that magicians can accomplish tons of things without such TV foolery, yes? Why then do you claim that this specific trick could not be done so close up? Of course, it is hard to imagine how he did it, but what specifically?
"Did you know there used to be radio magicians? "
That I did not know, no. What did they do?
"Umm. Yeah?
Ever seen the video to Magic by the Cars? They do the same thing. "
I have not seen this video, actually. Do you have a link?
"As to the bending and warping...
Ever heard of a box? Or maybe even columns?
Come on, use your brain."
A box of plexiglass that people routinely interrupt with their movements and one woman swims over. Oh and which is stable and doesn't topple over in the middle of the trick, by being placed in a pool with all sorts of liquid pressures exerted on it.
And yes, collumns of plexiglass that do not show at all and are avoided by the aforementioned people in the pool.
"Yeah. Live actors.
W00t."
You have to prove "live actors" beyond "oh my God, could be a fake thing".
"Umm. Yeah?
It was staged, guy.
The setup was so that there were breaks in the surface here and there. In some parts there were openings underneat that people could swim under. In others, there was wide open spots where people could walk through and let bubbles go up to the surface."
So basically "even if the evidence shows the unlikely nature of my things - which now require how many different things in order to work? - I shall still claim this story, without any corroborating evidence".
Simply because you can speculate that it occurred this way, does not mean that it did. Moreover you need one hellavua lot more evidence than conjecture here.
"Notice. He steps over those spots."
I do not recall him stepping over those spots specifically, but I shall look at that.
"What are you trying to say here, exactly? I don't get it.
Do you believe he was really walking on water?
(No. You don't believe he's really magic, you say so explicitly. Hmm.)"
Meaning he steps in spaces which previously were occupied by the descending shoes.
But no, I have no idea how he does this trick, like most of his tricks. But no, of course he is not some God.
"It was a trick.
Magic is tricks.
That's fine. It's when they're so obvious like that that they are lame.
He puts all the people there as if they lend credence to his magic, but they're all actors."
You have to give a lot more evidence then conjecture to justify this claim. Speculation does not imply proof.
Here's a good thing to start: I think some of his tricks were posted from a Youtube link. Let's go over them and see if you can point out specific time marks where you think something was afoot.
At least then we can speak about criticism of the performance on a level that may be able to be demonstrated as true or false.
"Umm. No.
The one I'm talking about he sorta swoops up off the ground and into chairs. I think he swooped onto a fountain too."
Oh, I was thinking of another trick. I am not sure which episode you are speaking about in this one.
"It was a trick done with wires, obviously.
The problem is that anyone present would see the trick. They were too close for it to be legitimate. Sounds like what you're talking about might be a legitimate trick where the audience is kept far enough away that they couldn't be expected to see the wires and setup."
I shall try to find you a video of it. It was rather impressive.
"Earth to James.
All magicians are fakes.
The problem I have with Angel is that the tricks I've mentioned are too extravagant to work in person like he shows. The people present have to be in on it. This amounts to 'tv magic'."
I had meant fakes as in the type of TV foolery you are supposing, not illusionist tricks in the classical sense. Obviously magic is a scam in that way.
"
Of course, people are stupid. But the shit he does kinda stretches the bounds of believability. And, the people in the pool were definitely in on it. There is no way they couldn't be. The people observing the levitation trick... I suppose he might have been able to rig it so the wires would be difficult to see, and with a little misdirection, it's possible they didn't know. But, the walking on water bit is a dead giveaway to 'tv magic'."
You admit that magicians can accomplish tons of things without such TV foolery, yes? Why then do you claim that this specific trick could not be done so close up? Of course, it is hard to imagine how he did it, but what specifically?
"Did you know there used to be radio magicians? "
That I did not know, no. What did they do?
If you watch Chris Angel's videos closely, you'll soon realize there is no magic involved - just a lot of video editing and participants on the payroll.
Although very entertaining, the trick where he cuts the girl in half is a total set-up. Think about it for one minute… That girl moved pretty fast on two arms, especially for someone that has probably never mobilized themselves in that way before. Don’t you think a more convincing reaction would have involved laying on the ground screaming and crying for her mother? Where was she scuttling off too anyway? Check out her facial expressions afterwards.
Still not convinced? Compare her clothing before and after the trick. She had a strap tied around her tummy region – it is tied in a loose bow at the back. After the trick – the strap is much higher and the bow ends are much longer (almost double the length). When did she re-tie it? It’s not even the same girl.
When he passes through the window without breaking it – he makes a point of promising “one continuous shot – don’t cut” – but then he takes at least 5 seconds to remove his shoes – during this time the camera is focusing on his shoes and not the window. Who cares about the continuous shot after that? And the actors are pathetic. It’s like watching paid advertising for a new kitchen gadget – everyone is just amazed but they have a difficult time convincing the home audience.
Walking on water? Again…way too many cuts in the tape. In addition to the woman that swims under him, there is one other that crosses his path (approx 70 seconds into the clip I watched). She passes very close to him, moves across sideways, creating the thinest profile possible. She really looks like she is "squeezing" between two obstructions. It is obvious when you are looking for it.
At the very end, on his last step, he hesitates. He places his foot gently down but doesn’t actually place his weight on it – changes his mind – lifts his foot back up and steps directly on the pool edge. What’s wrong Chris, no support beneath the surface there?
Although very entertaining, no-one actually believes these stunts are real…. do they? For the people he does fool – now that takes real magic!
Although very entertaining, the trick where he cuts the girl in half is a total set-up. Think about it for one minute… That girl moved pretty fast on two arms, especially for someone that has probably never mobilized themselves in that way before. Don’t you think a more convincing reaction would have involved laying on the ground screaming and crying for her mother? Where was she scuttling off too anyway? Check out her facial expressions afterwards.
Still not convinced? Compare her clothing before and after the trick. She had a strap tied around her tummy region – it is tied in a loose bow at the back. After the trick – the strap is much higher and the bow ends are much longer (almost double the length). When did she re-tie it? It’s not even the same girl.
When he passes through the window without breaking it – he makes a point of promising “one continuous shot – don’t cut” – but then he takes at least 5 seconds to remove his shoes – during this time the camera is focusing on his shoes and not the window. Who cares about the continuous shot after that? And the actors are pathetic. It’s like watching paid advertising for a new kitchen gadget – everyone is just amazed but they have a difficult time convincing the home audience.
Walking on water? Again…way too many cuts in the tape. In addition to the woman that swims under him, there is one other that crosses his path (approx 70 seconds into the clip I watched). She passes very close to him, moves across sideways, creating the thinest profile possible. She really looks like she is "squeezing" between two obstructions. It is obvious when you are looking for it.
At the very end, on his last step, he hesitates. He places his foot gently down but doesn’t actually place his weight on it – changes his mind – lifts his foot back up and steps directly on the pool edge. What’s wrong Chris, no support beneath the surface there?
Although very entertaining, no-one actually believes these stunts are real…. do they? For the people he does fool – now that takes real magic!
Last edited:
Senator:
"If you watch Chris Angel's videos closely, you'll soon realize there is no magic involved - just a lot of video editing and participants on the payroll."
All? Or some? For whereas I will admit that it is possible - although I have seen no evidence of such - that all his tricks are "faked", many do not admit of such things.
"Although very entertaining, the trick where he cuts the girl in half is a total set-up. Think about it for one minute… That girl moved pretty fast on two arms, especially for someone that has probably never mobilized themselves in that way before. Don’t you think a more convincing reaction would have involved laying on the ground screaming and crying for her mother? Where was she scuttling off too anyway? Check out her facial expressions afterwards.
Still not convinced? Compare her clothing before and after the trick. She had a strap tied around her tummy region – it is tied in a loose bow at the back. After the trick – the strap is much higher and the bow ends are much longer (almost double the length). When did she re-tie it? It’s not even the same girl."
My answer now comes immediatly after watching the video as presented here:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16299016
Your comment regarding the bow is wrong. She had it tied at that height from the first time she was brought over, and I see no extension whatsoever in anything.
Now it also behooves us to ask how she could walk - and it is clearly the same woman - towards the bench, move her body, and otherwise act normally, if she were actually an amputee without two legs? Unless you're claiming they actually switched out women that look REMARKABLY like one another...And how do you explain the detached limbs moving?
I also see no facial features that indicate anything off about her experience afterwards and some people -do- run when they get in a scary position. Look at how the people jumped back. Is not that another sign of the flight or fight response displayed in the woman? Also, it doesn't take much to propel oneself forward on one's arms.
Whereas I shall admit that this is the most suspicious of any trick he has pulled, this does not simulteneously show that he only does fake-tricks (if this is fake) nor that he uses camera tricks.
"When he passes through the window without breaking it – he makes a point of promising “one continuous shot – don’t cut” – but then he takes at least 5 seconds to remove his shoes – during this time the camera is focusing on his shoes and not the window. Who cares about the continuous shot after that? And the actors are pathetic. It’s like watching paid advertising for a new kitchen gadget – everyone is just amazed but they have a difficult time convincing the home audience."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ekj0LkSod6k
I see nothing disingenius about their reactions. And he takes "five seconds" where the show fastforwards it. Moreover, the windows do not admit of opening (they are not shown to be that type) nor is the pane removed in part (the paper does not cover the whole pane fully and clearly leaves room on the side) and when he passes through they take the paper away within only a second or two.
"Walking on water? Again…way too many cuts in the tape. In addition to the woman that swims under him, there is one other that crosses his path (approx 70 seconds into the clip I watched). She passes very close to him, moves across sideways, creating the thinest profile possible. She really looks like she is "squeezing" between two obstructions. It is obvious when you are looking for it.
At the very end, on his last step, he hesitates. He places his foot gently down but doesn’t actually place his weight on it – changes his mind – lifts his foot back up and steps directly on the pool edge. What’s wrong Chris, no support beneath the surface there?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
The woman does indeed pass right through him, but simply because she turns to face him to (see it most likely) implies nothing whatsoever. Similarly, you forget th swimmer that swims right under him, as well as the man that looked as if he was right there intruding on the steps.
And as for his last step, that he chose to simply walk onto the concrete does not indicate there was no support there. Moreover, the most logical place to have a support would be right there anchored to the side of the pool.
It is also interesting that his jeans do not seem to depress beneath his feet before he steps down.
"Although very entertaining, no-one actually believes these stunts are real…. do they? For the people he does fool – now that takes real magic! "
Some people do think he has real magic. I know full well he is as fake as any other magician, I only proclaim that he isn't using "underhanded trickery" to fool audiences.
"If you watch Chris Angel's videos closely, you'll soon realize there is no magic involved - just a lot of video editing and participants on the payroll."
All? Or some? For whereas I will admit that it is possible - although I have seen no evidence of such - that all his tricks are "faked", many do not admit of such things.
"Although very entertaining, the trick where he cuts the girl in half is a total set-up. Think about it for one minute… That girl moved pretty fast on two arms, especially for someone that has probably never mobilized themselves in that way before. Don’t you think a more convincing reaction would have involved laying on the ground screaming and crying for her mother? Where was she scuttling off too anyway? Check out her facial expressions afterwards.
Still not convinced? Compare her clothing before and after the trick. She had a strap tied around her tummy region – it is tied in a loose bow at the back. After the trick – the strap is much higher and the bow ends are much longer (almost double the length). When did she re-tie it? It’s not even the same girl."
My answer now comes immediatly after watching the video as presented here:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16299016
Your comment regarding the bow is wrong. She had it tied at that height from the first time she was brought over, and I see no extension whatsoever in anything.
Now it also behooves us to ask how she could walk - and it is clearly the same woman - towards the bench, move her body, and otherwise act normally, if she were actually an amputee without two legs? Unless you're claiming they actually switched out women that look REMARKABLY like one another...And how do you explain the detached limbs moving?
I also see no facial features that indicate anything off about her experience afterwards and some people -do- run when they get in a scary position. Look at how the people jumped back. Is not that another sign of the flight or fight response displayed in the woman? Also, it doesn't take much to propel oneself forward on one's arms.
Whereas I shall admit that this is the most suspicious of any trick he has pulled, this does not simulteneously show that he only does fake-tricks (if this is fake) nor that he uses camera tricks.
"When he passes through the window without breaking it – he makes a point of promising “one continuous shot – don’t cut” – but then he takes at least 5 seconds to remove his shoes – during this time the camera is focusing on his shoes and not the window. Who cares about the continuous shot after that? And the actors are pathetic. It’s like watching paid advertising for a new kitchen gadget – everyone is just amazed but they have a difficult time convincing the home audience."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ekj0LkSod6k
I see nothing disingenius about their reactions. And he takes "five seconds" where the show fastforwards it. Moreover, the windows do not admit of opening (they are not shown to be that type) nor is the pane removed in part (the paper does not cover the whole pane fully and clearly leaves room on the side) and when he passes through they take the paper away within only a second or two.
"Walking on water? Again…way too many cuts in the tape. In addition to the woman that swims under him, there is one other that crosses his path (approx 70 seconds into the clip I watched). She passes very close to him, moves across sideways, creating the thinest profile possible. She really looks like she is "squeezing" between two obstructions. It is obvious when you are looking for it.
At the very end, on his last step, he hesitates. He places his foot gently down but doesn’t actually place his weight on it – changes his mind – lifts his foot back up and steps directly on the pool edge. What’s wrong Chris, no support beneath the surface there?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
The woman does indeed pass right through him, but simply because she turns to face him to (see it most likely) implies nothing whatsoever. Similarly, you forget th swimmer that swims right under him, as well as the man that looked as if he was right there intruding on the steps.
And as for his last step, that he chose to simply walk onto the concrete does not indicate there was no support there. Moreover, the most logical place to have a support would be right there anchored to the side of the pool.
It is also interesting that his jeans do not seem to depress beneath his feet before he steps down.
"Although very entertaining, no-one actually believes these stunts are real…. do they? For the people he does fool – now that takes real magic! "
Some people do think he has real magic. I know full well he is as fake as any other magician, I only proclaim that he isn't using "underhanded trickery" to fool audiences.
In regards to the trick seperating the woman in the park.
It is two seperate woman and a variation of sawing a woman in half trick. Of all the tricks this is one that definately didn't require audience prior knowlege.
He simply has a woman who had a defect at birth of not being born with a torso. I'm not sure if it's the same woman I have seen on tv before but there is at least one woman like this that has nothing below the stomach(?) I believe.
The legs woman is a contortionist. put them together and you have a whole body. It would be hard to get them to move together well but with practice you have a magic trick.
Oh... The girl at the feet end would have to be in on it because she actually doesn't pull the feet.
As for the pool trick... he could be moving from plexiglass post to plexiglass post ... why even have a sheet of plexiglass. Though whatever the means the people in the pool would have to be in on it.
It is two seperate woman and a variation of sawing a woman in half trick. Of all the tricks this is one that definately didn't require audience prior knowlege.
He simply has a woman who had a defect at birth of not being born with a torso. I'm not sure if it's the same woman I have seen on tv before but there is at least one woman like this that has nothing below the stomach(?) I believe.
The legs woman is a contortionist. put them together and you have a whole body. It would be hard to get them to move together well but with practice you have a magic trick.
Oh... The girl at the feet end would have to be in on it because she actually doesn't pull the feet.
As for the pool trick... he could be moving from plexiglass post to plexiglass post ... why even have a sheet of plexiglass. Though whatever the means the people in the pool would have to be in on it.
yeah I agree with James. I think lots of people envy him for his success. He did a few things that Blaine did, but he was levitating much higher than David.
But explain this to me: How did he walked down on the side of the casino?? Sure it is cheating after all it is magic but I think the cheating is done in a different way than paid audience.
Also flying through the flames with the bike and disappearing in mid-air, nice live audience, must have costed lots of money...
But explain this to me: How did he walked down on the side of the casino?? Sure it is cheating after all it is magic but I think the cheating is done in a different way than paid audience.
Also flying through the flames with the bike and disappearing in mid-air, nice live audience, must have costed lots of money...
Last edited:
Ok people, I want to learn some family magic tricks like card tricks, coin tricks, hanky tricks etc. that are easy to learn and I could show my family. Ones that one of my family members picks and I show them what one they picked or one where basically they choose the card and I find it out. Or any good ones you know? I would like to impress them. And I’m not a professional card player. Where can I get the actual tutorial for this?
Simple one on Youtube at the moment is "This, that and Other"
Check Youtube for more Visual tutorials on learning tricks.
Check Youtube for more Visual tutorials on learning tricks.
Either you can be mystified by such "magical" events and entertained or you can see the "magic" for what it really is just an illusion to fool you into believing something is happening that really isn't. Entertainment today comes at us in many forms and it is up to each of us to pick and choose which types of entertainment we enjoy to see. I like the wrestling, they really do enjoy hurting each other every week but always seem to be better for the next weeks show...Hmmm.
Except in Vegas, in front of 100s???