One way or another, that’d take skill, but I’m guessing that he put the balls in your hand before you made the fist.
People overestimate their ability to detect the planting of objects in their hands, and cards planted in their pockets (although it’s a bit more difficult to plant a car or a cat). Magic isn’t about technique, it’s about the effect, the appearance of something unnatural to the audience, which may be based on elaborate techniques or nothing at all. Magicians do use plants, but just because you can’t figure out how a trick is done except for using a plant doesn’t mean that’s how it’s done. Even a trick which may use a plant may be done in some other way that doesn’t use a plant.
There are a few reason plants are avoided in magic acts; the magician doesn’t want the use of a plant to be obvious, if simply appears to be the only way a trick can be done it will tend to dissatisfy the audience, which may be the basis of this thread; plants are risky, the magician may not be able to control the selection process and in order to avoid problems the use of the plant becomes more obvious; and a further reason not usually considered is the cost, plants need to be paid and trained, magic is a business and the cost of plants is high. For big show stage magicians that cost is reasonable, for so many more magicians it’s an impractical expense.
On a show I saw about pickpockets, they explained it by saying your brain could only handle a certain number of inputs at one time. Anything else would be thrown away. The magician may be talking, you may be flustered being on stage, the magician is touching your shoulders or arms, etc., all of which are occupying your brain’s attention. Things that only have small sensations, like something being slipped into your hand or pocket, don’t make it to your brain’s attention center so you don’t realize it happened.
For the subway trick, I would assume that the brain’s attention is being very diverted by this stranger interacting in a physical way. I’m guessing he grabs the participant’s hand to fold it into a fist, and the brain is too overwhelmed with everything to feel something being slipped in at that time.
The number of actual tricks is lower than the number of apparent tricks. Part of being a truly great magician is the performance that covers a trick.
To use card tricks as the simplest example, there are a number of ways to execute a force, a technique meant to allow the spectator to choose a card they think is random but really isn’t. A skilled magician may know four different forces - but you can make it LOOK like a hundred different tricks. If you start the whole charade knowing the spectator’s going to “pick” the six of diamonds, you can plan a limitless number of tricks. You can have the six of diamonds appear in his pocket, or have it painted on your own chest, or delivered in an Amazon package, or have pizzas delivered with the 6 and a diamond cooked on to them in pepperoni slices.
Just saw this, I didn’t say google it, I said YouTube it. There are actually about 5000 hits when you do that, and most of them are obviously irrelevant. Clicking the top result would have been fine but I’ll make a link for you so it’s easier
This way to Portal
So you can see it, and make your own mind up if you want. Even though it was super easy to find for yourself and you’re just being deliberately difficult. So our back and forth is done now. I’ve given you more than you would give me. In terms of respect, that is.
Fair enough, I guess because I don’t mind being insulted and because I use the word “chickenshit” as an adjective rather than a noun (just a synonym for “afraid”) I misstepped on that one. I’ll try to be conscious of that sort of thing from now on.
Flimflam means either speaking insincerely or nonsensically, or using lies and double talk to swindle someone.
The Catholic bit was referring to how the Catholic Church presents themselves as everything that is good and holy in the world, meanwhile they get filthy rich off the faithful, they have the greatest library of hidden books and secreted knowledge anywhere in the world, and they have all those child molestation scandals under their belt too… and a long history of doing whatever they could to cover them up rather than ex-communicating priests left, right and center.
Hopefully that clarifies my meaning. 
An extremely low-rez straightforward showing and promoting of the act is all you’ve got? This is the best you’ve got for evidence that he uses plants?? What the hell are you seeing in that video that nobody else is?
If you’ve got something better(and anything else probably would be better than that You Tube link) please tell us about it.
NM.
Moderator Note
Dr. Hackenbush, religious jabs are not permitted in General Questions, especially off topic ones. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our rules and FAQ before continuing to post. No warning issued, but don’t do this again. Stick to the basic topic.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
See, I knew you didn’t deserve to be condescended to the way you were. Boy did that grate my cheese.
Most of the time Copperfield is actually a good enough magician to not need plants. He really has got the skills, but when he missteps into cornball emotional narratives or big illusions to end the show, sometimes he’ll use a plant, if not a plant then an “instant stooge”, but for the sake of slickness I think Davey boy will go with the plant.
I already linked to the Portal trick for… someone else, but in it you can see a trick that could be performed without the use of a stooge, however he would have had to go through the “portal” by himself and the suspension of disbelief would be quite weak. Since taking someone through a portal “magically” is a scientific impossibility as far as we currently know, the only alternative is a stooge and his stooge dad. Otherwise it could go either way with the other participants, the trick can be done without an entire cast of stooges. It’s just that once you know two people are definitely actors, what’s to stop DC from going full Criss Angel on us and filling the entire audience with stooges? That’s the biggest shame about Copperfield. He’s a good magician, but his reliance on emotional narratives and corny music and big finishes means he’s done a few questionable things that undermine his good work. I kinda like how since he needed a stooge to go through the trick with him for suspension of disbelief he decides “fuck it, I’ll go whole hog” and he incorporates the sentimental narrative for the emotionally uplifting finale. But it’s also super super dorky.
I’ll give them a more thorough read in case there was anything I skimmed over. I did have a look at the rules, I was aware of not slandering religions, but if you had not pulled me up on this point I would not have even considered what I said to be a religious jab. Although consider it taken on board. I’ve never met a Catholic (many of my friends are Catholic) who isn’t disturbed by the scandals the Vatican has been wrapped up in, so I didn’t think it would be a sensitive allusion since it’s been such an “open secret” for such a long time. I thought it was a really apt analogy. I know you know disliking police corruption is different from having disdain for the law and law-abiders, and I believed that distinction was as self evident as the distinction between church corruption and Christ and Christians. Didn’t think I would offend anyone, and probably figured that if I did I could explain that I had no intention of insulting the faith itself. Otherwise I’d have looked for another way to illustrate my point and will from now on. Thanks for the precautionary heads up, especially since to me, this was a bit of a grey area.
What you can do is copyright the non-trick parts of the trick, the choreography, patter, specific choice of props (colour and so on I guess). That’s how come Teller successfully sued someone (pretty sure [url=Penn and Teller magician to sue over 'stolen' trick]this is the same story you mean[/url). But you still can’t copyright the actual trick. I guess one of the reasons is that it’s probably difficult to assess just how different the tricks are, really.
I think Copperfield gets a pass on that. He is a real, skilled magician. His specials did sometimes include a big, made for tv trick, but I think that was just a way for the show to generate some buzz. He was also pre-Chris Angel, David Blaine. Now that the public is inundated with phony, camera trick crap, I bet Copperfield would avoid doing anything that could appear to be a camera trick if he were to do a new special.
I wonder if you can patent one?
I believe it is possible, depending on the trick, (for example, if you create some novel device or process to create an illusion), but the patent itself will contain a description of your novel device or process, hence making your secret public. At least that’s how it is in my understanding.
Although, there’s public and then there’s public. Most people don’t go digging through patent records. At least, it’s a lot fewer than the number of people who buy books and watch TV shows on “Magic’s Secrets Revealed”, and those don’t stop magic shows from being entertaining.
Regarding the chalkboard trick, it’s a lot simpler than that. There’s a person on a ledge behind the chalkboard. The swaying is them reaching or climbing around to the front in order to write on it. Most of the board is pre-written, like a Mad Lib. The writer just takes dictation from the woman.
The stage hands aren’t sneaking the writing in, they’re sneaking the writer out. When the chalkboard comes directly upstage, it’s covering the retreat, and the curtains closing seals off the escape.
…or so I believe.