You know… none of this explains how it is possible to bend a KEY using only the fingertips. I observed a guy do this repeatedly one night… he refused to say how it was done. I know it was a trick of some kind, but have you ever tried to bend a key? I’m talkin about a normal house key or car key here. The person was also able to bend it back.
I would love to be able to do this… it is a lot more impressive than the spoon-bending trick. Incidentally, the whole reason the person even performed this trick was because we were ‘less than amazed’ at the spoon-bending trick. If you know how this is done, could you please post the method… and I’m gonna try it out so please give details, thank you
I believe for key bending you just need to stick the key into something immovable (like between two bricks, etc) and bend it. The key (groan) is making sure people are looking elsewhere when you do it.
Seriously, the whole thing boils down to making people look where it ain’t.
As to bbeaty’s claims, all you need to do is have someone perform the trick in a controlled environment and people will take you seriously. Randi is out there with the controlled environment and a big reward as inducement. If no one takes him up on it, don’t blame me (or the scientific community) for dismissing it out of hand. Until that happens, it’s all just blowing smoke.
Uh… that’s not it. The trick is not that it’s done by psychic energy or something. The trick is that it’s impossible to bend a key using your bare hands, much less two fingers. I saw it done up close. There was no second key, no leverage, nothing like that. The key actually bends right in front of your eyes. I know what that sounds like, but it’s reality. It’s a trip.
Do you provide your own keys or does he use his own? If he uses his own, perhaps he is using two keys, one bent and one unbent. When he does the trick, he swaps one for the other and slowly inches it up from the palm of his hand to make it appear as if the key is bending, when in fact it’s already bent?
One of the problems with this whole enterprise (that is to say, the one we’re engaged in on this message board) is that there are so many different ways to perform this type of conjuring trick. Without having actually seen what your friend did with the key, or at least a videotape (preferably from multiple angles), there’s no way to say for certain how he was doing it.
One of the things James Randi has repeatedly stated is the importance of including professional magicians in the scientific investigations of this kind. It’s difficult for a scientist to design experiments that conclusively eliminate the possibility of fraud when they don’t know the ways such a fraud could be perpetrated. A conjurer on the staff who does know can suggest reasonable precautions to take against these different options …
The most reasonable response to a general question ‘how is this done’ (eg. for the key trick) is ‘I don’t know.’ This is not an admission that the effect is produced by PK, but merely that it isn’t clear which of many methods might be being used. If, on investigation, it is determined that conditions which would make it impossible to use a conjuring trick prevent the subject from using his PK ability, Occam’s Razor demands that the PK hypothesis be dropped. Prior to such investigation, the presumption must be that a conjuring trick of some kind is being used. One can’t claim certainty in that situation-but it is the responsibility of the claimants to subject their claims to rigorous scrutiny. Until then, I don’t see any reason to take the claims seriously.
Sorry to disappoint you, dna man, but your question about how we magcians do a good magic trick (key bending up close and personal) isn’t going to get very far. Those who know the answer aren’t going to tell (we like to keep our trade to ourselves). Those who are prepared to guess / explain aren’t the ones who know the true facts anyway. Stalemate!
As I’ve said before on these Boards, exposing magic tricks isn’t ‘fighting ignorance’, it’s potentially harming a legitimate form of entertainment as well as its practitioners and audiences. Although it’s true that not all exposure matters, and magic will always survive, exposure sure doesn’t help.
The key, in this case, was probably already bent. What the magician was doing was slowly exposing the bend to you. It looked good, but it was a trick and the main part of the deception may already have been done.
Keep in mind I am merely suggesting one way that the trick could have been performed. There are doubtless many other ways. One of the worse things a potential believer can do is get a “single method suggestion” from a well-meaning skeptic, trot down to the the key-bender/psychic/ho-de-ho and get fooled by a completely different method.
Well, I’m not a professional magician, so I have no qualms about exposing how things are done, at least as much as I know. These are so well-known that it’s not giving away the farm, anyway.
I’m going to list some simple principles of conjuring, albeit in a random-ass fashion.
dna_man, a good magician knows several ways of performing the same trick, and tailors the method to the circumstances. YOU may not be aware that the magician is making the choice of which key or spoon to bend (there’s such a thing called “magician’s force”), but the magician may be very carefully selecting the items even if you think you are.
The average joe does not know how to fool people; the average magician has extensive knowledge. This is why it is unwise to bet on a street shell or card game. Do you really think you can outwit the professional hustler?
Randi has told stories of times he has been “almost caught” when a trick wasn’t going according to plan, but he used another method and the result was a success. A magician usually does a trick only once in front of the same audience, so how are they to know what to expect?
You may not be aware, but studies have shown that no matter how carefully a person thinks he is watching something, a video recording viewed later shows he looked away unwittingly, and that was when the real trick was done. Uri Geller may take an hour of room-hopping, visits to the can, stop one procedure, start another, etc., then someone shouts, “look at that!” and something odd is found to have changed. It was changed long ago, not when first discovered.
It is common that a trick is “done” before it is revealed. The spectator assumes, and even may be told, that it is being done at reveal time, but this is often not the case. My favorite maxim is,Anytime a curtain, screen or other obscuring device is used, you can be pretty sure that the absence of that device would immediately reveal the secret. Watch the Magician’s Secrets Revealed Fox TV series for examples of this; almost every trick relies on the audience being kept ignorant.
As far as spoon & key bending, here are some specifics. If you are the performer, choose a key that has a notch high up near the “handle,” as it will bend more easily. Got a metal chair or coffee table nearby? These have many cracks and nooks where you can insert a key and bend it as if it were in a vise. How about an office file cabinet? Tell them that water makes it work better, then stick it up a bathroon faucet and bend it before they see it. But don’t tell anybody just yet! Cover up the bend for a while, then when the time is right, say, “look, it’s bending!” and slowly reveal it. Tell your audience that it is still bending and they will believe you. They want to believe!
There’s also a gimmick, available in magic supply houses, that is a small, flat, rigid metal tube about 2 inches long. Almost any key stuck in the tube can be bent easily due to the leverage; it’s simple physics. The device is easily palmed and discarded into a pocket. It works only as well as your skills at misdirection provide.
A spoon? When I was kid, I could bend any cutlery in the house (I was a pretty destructive kid), so later when someone expressed astonishment at the feat, I couldn’t understand why. ANY spoon can be bent; some are easier than others. Again, misdirection and distraction.
I didn’t say PK doesn’t exist, just that Halsted didn’t take sufficient precautions. We know this effect can be done by a mundane trick which fools non-magicians.
Also both Mr. Miskatonic and I recall Randi rebutting Halsted’s evidence.
I’ve seen the Statue of Liberty disappear - fake that!
The point about magic is that people are generally poor observers, while magicians are skilled in the art of distraction.
Maybe you don’t remember exactly what happened. Are you a magician? Would you want one present? If not, why not?
Your cite for ‘extreme skeptics RARELY bother to perform experiments’?
Or are you making up facts out of thin air ?
Randi has published details of failed dowsing and ‘reading while blindfolded’ attempts on his site.
I don’t know whether any spoon-bender has tried, but I do know that the $1,000,000 is still unclaimed.
So either spoonbenders have failed, or they have never come forward to be tested.
I’m curious about your belief system.
There are many, many reports that people have been abducted by aliens. If true, this is the most important event in the history of the world.
Yet I don’t hear of any Government or University doing extensive scientific research into this.
In your opinion, is there a conspiracy to hush it up?
Hey, Hasted’s THE METAL BENDERS is online. I was looking for Kit Pedler’s book MIND OVER MATTER, and discovered that the Uri Geller site has Hasted’s whole book. No photos or diagrams, unfortunately, just the text and some published tables:
What would you call SETI then… millions of dollars of equipment and payroll expenses to hush it up? It doesn’t matter how important a discovery would be… if we went around chasing down things that ‘might’ be important if they were true… there would be a lot of time being wasted.
People claim a lot of things. People are well-known liars. People have also been known to mistake one thing for another. In almost every case of alien abduction, there has been serious doubt about the credibility of the witness. In ALL cases of claimed alien abduction that I’m aware of, there has been no hard evidence that couldn’t be faked. Go ahead… post evidence if it’s there, but create another thread.
We are almost certainly ‘not alone’ in the Universe, but no hard evidence of intelligent aliens travelling to Earth has ever been found. There may be evidence of non-intelligent aliens coming to Earth by accident, but it’s impossible to prove that’s what it is since the source of the material and the nature of the life that was present in that material can not be verified.
OK, maybe I totally misread you. If so, I certainly apologize about my remarks about dishonesty.
Or maybe you ARE certain that PK doesn’t exist, but for some reason you wish to hide this? (Just as people distrust the True Believers, I’ve seen many reasons to distrust the “True Disbelievers” who pretend to be proper skeptics.)
Let’s get to the bottom of this. Do you believe that minds can directly affect matter; that some “PK phenomena” are real?
If you believe that PK is possible, which specific PK incidents do you believe to be genuine?
Touche’! Ah, but the best defense is a good offense (at least where politics is concerned.) In a scientific discussion that would be classed as a dishonest debating ploy; an attempt to change the subject in order to hide errors.
You said this in regards to spoon-bending: The real point is that they can’t reproduce the results under proper conditions, and that’s why we never hear any more from them.
Let’s see you support this claim. I’m betting that you can’t, and I’d certainly like to know why you’d say the above.
As for my statement above, I was referring to the common but incorrect skeptic assertion that a huge number of failed parapsychology experiments exist (that’s experiments performed by credentialed scientists, not attempts to debunk earlier experiments.) See for example “A field guide to skepticism” in Radin’s book “Conscious Universe.” I’m familiar with the failed dowsing tests, and earlier failed astrology tests. But these are very rare when compared to parapsychology testing performed by credentialed scientists in professional labs. Radin’s book is a good place to start for reviewing the stronger “pro-PSI” evidence.
I suspect that the professional testing ended in the '80s with Hasted’s work, and that the parapsychologists have moved on to more reliable phenomena (such as RNG biasing.) Why aren’t they interested in the Randi challange? We can’t know their claimed reasons unless we ask them.
My belief system is layed out for all to see on my page FAQ, see:
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, “Never suspect conspiracy where closed-mindedness is a sufficient explanation.” Personally I have little interest in the UFO arena. I think the evidence is way too flakey. Give me plans for a flying-saucer gravity engine, then we can talk! And as for abductions, how can we tell the difference between hypnogogic/hypnopompic experiences and genuine abductions? Look up keywords “old hag” and you’ll find info about similar sleep-paralysis stories going back centuries, but having nothing to do with aliens and spacecraft. Still, I haven’t read the “abductions” literature and am not familiar with the best evidence, so I’m not competent to judge.
On the other hand, we certainly DO hear about Universities doing extensive scientific research into alien abductions. That’s what the whole controversy at Harvard University was all about. Who was that guy, Mack? I think he wrote a book.
Here’s another common “skeptic” myth not included in that MYTHS OF SKEPTICISM article: the belief that opponents of skeptics are stupid, so skeptics neither need to be well informed about the controversies, nor do they need to learn their opponents’ side of the issues.
Another article along the same lines, from Jim Lippard’s skeptic website:
I think you misunderstood my position. I’m all for the scientific approach as represented by SETI. I agree with all your points above.
I was pointing out that anecdotal evidence without any supporting evidence should be treated with caution.
I know you’ll be happy to hear that I have an open mind!
For example, I believe aliens exist somewhere in the Universe (but not that they have found Earth yet). I enjoy science-fiction, especially when it comes true. (Arthur C. Clarke is particularly good for this.)
I want scientific evidence, not just anecdotes.
I’m not sure what the principles of PK would be - but then I don’t know why gravity works either.
My sceptical point (as illustrated by alien abductions) is that people make lots of claims unsupported by physical evidence. When I hear something like ‘Product X will change your life!’ with the small print of ‘not tested in clinical trials’, I suspect a ripoff.
I’m currently corresponding with a polite chap who states on his website that dowsing exists. I asked him why he hadn’t claimed Randi’s $1,000,000 and he said he would ask the best dowser he knew to go for it. No reply since then. The interesting thing was that he was astonished to hear that dowsing had never passed any scientific test - he just ‘knew’ it existed.
Well Randi doesn’t give details of all the failed claimants for his award.
So I’ll change my statement to ‘Nobody with psychic powers has ever passed a supervised test for $1,000,00. Therefore either psychic powers don’t exist, or there is something I’m missing. Psychics claim they have powers - why don’t they take the money?’
(It really bugs me that there is an American Society of Dowsers, yet they won’t come forward to be tested.)
I fully accept your points about not having pre-conceived ideas in science, examining the evidence carefully and not ridiculing people with new ideas.
But I insist that the scientific method sorts out the true advances, and that when no evidence has been found despite repeated claims (such as alien abduction), we can move on to other fields.
Also, one important diffference in testing for psychic powers is this:
If I claim to have a mathematical proof, a new computer program or an more efficient way to collect solar energy, then I can be tested by scientists all over the world. I provide the details (e.g. in a patent) and away they go.
But if I claim a man has demonstrated that he has psychic powers, then other scientists need that man for their tests.
(This would not be a problem if everyone had psychic powers, but I don’t think that has been claimed by anyone.)
P.S. If I had enough money, I’d bump Randi’s prize up to $1,000,000,000. Either we would make an astounding discovery, or people would stop making unscientific claims (hopefully!).
How to detect nut cases, both of the “believer” and “scoffer” type? Well, in my experience I’ve noticed that one central facet is their dishonesty, and a good way to detect dishonesty is to ask them very direct questions. The nut jobs will invariably NOT answer direct questions.
Glee wrote: “I didn’t say PK doesn’t exist, just that Halsted didn’t take sufficient precautions.”
So I wrote: “Let’s get to the bottom of this. Do you believe that minds can directly affect matter; that some “PK phenomena” are real? If you believe that PK is possible, which specific PK incidents do you believe to be genuine?”
Glee wrote: “I know you’ll be happy to hear that I have an open mind!”
An open mind about what? Spoon bending?
Suspecting that you’re a “true disbeliever”, I expected that you would avoid my direct questions.
So, I guess I failed to get to the bottom after all. Do you believe PK mental powers might exist, but disbelieve spoon-softening phenomena? Or not in PK at all? Or do you believe that no PK demonstration has ever been valid? Hidden opinions and refusal to answer very simple questions: NUT JOB SYMPTOM. Skeptics (i.e. truth seekers) on the other hand aren’t desparately avoiding being caught in mistakes or dishonesties, and usually they’ll freely tell you way more than you really wanted to know.
Glee wrote: “The real point is that they can’t reproduce the results under proper conditions, and that’s why we never hear any more from them.”
So I wrote: “Let’s see you support this claim. I’m betting that you can’t, and I’d certainly like to know why you’d say the above.”
And Glee responded: "Well Randi doesn’t give details of all the failed claimants for his award. So I’ll change my statement to 'Nobody with psychic powers has ever passed a supervised test for $1,000,00. Therefore either psychic powers don’t exist, or there is something I’m missing. "
My suspicion was right. You can’t offer any evidence. You were making an unsupported statement. Slinging BS. But hey, you did answer a direct question.
More of my “sermon:” Skeptics are truth seekers. True believers and True Disbelievers are not. The single most important part of Skepticism is absolutely brutal searing HONESTY. No bullshitting, no unsupported statements, no criticizing others but never oneself. All these are direct routes to the enemy of truth seekers, the Confirmation Bias. Why are true believers the way they are? Because they are biased, their strong beliefs cause them to ignore and reject anything that contradicts their beliefs. Yet exactly the same thing drives the Scoffers: if it confirms their worldview it’s good, but if it shakes up their worldview, then it must have been a deceptive magic trick all along.
Good question, I think I’ll try asking some people and see what they actually say. Geller, well he has a thing against Randi and doesn’t really need an extra million. But what about the various parapsychologists? Maybe they refuse the secrecy that seems to be part of the Randi Challenge. Or maybe they need to drag in a hundred people for their statistic-based experiments. Jack Houck could throw Randi a “spoon bending” party, but I don’t know how they could prevent deception. Nudity and cavity searches beforehand?
Here’s another common nut-job symptom: they never read any enemy literature. It might shift their opinions! The true-believers would never read Kurtz or Randi or Shermer. The True DISbelievers won’t read Radin’s book, have never heard of PEAR or the Hyman/Honorton ganzfeld controversy. Neither side wants any hard evidence which might force them to question their beliefs. A truth seeker on the other hand would have gone out and found it already.
For those outside the whole believer/scoffer ruckus, here are two great books, one from each side, both written by professional scientists:
Nice try, but PK claims backed by lab testing are not anecdotal. Anecdotal is not the issue. The methods of science fail because research is discredited when the methods are not 100% proof against magicians. Under those standards almost any scientific discovery can be debunked. (In the Dilbert cartoon, the Skeptic was on his way to debunk the so-called Hubble Space Telescope.) The Randi Challange is one solution, but if angry psychics refuse to deal with Randi even for a million bucks, then it doesn’t work, even if some PSI is genuine.
Parapsychologists abandoned use of “psychics” in the late 70s, early 80s. They did so because of the above, because no experiment can be made 100% proof against intentional deception. Maybe an honest, non-stage-magician psychic is powerful enough to unquestionably move objects and bend metal, but the experimental results are worthless because the subject COULD have been a trained magician all along. Modern parapsychology instead attempts to detect any small PSI effects from large numbers of normal people. That’s what the whole “ganzfeld” controversy was about, and that’s what the PEAR project at Princeton is studying.
Hyman/Honorton ganzfeld (remove viewing) controversy http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html
(Arthur C. Clarke is particularly good for this.)