Miskatonic doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His statement was factually wrong.
Yes, I do. :rolleyes:
Hardly that. I argue from my own knowledge of conjuring.
Figure this - it’s a magic show, performed by a magician. It’s supposed to be impossible. If it were actually possible to do it, then it wouldn’t be a magic trick.
Straitjackets are designed by people who have a detailed knowledge of human anatomy. They are supposed to prevent certain movements. Nobody is flexible enough to escape from one. Claiming the ability to get out of one violates the science of human anatomy as it is known.
Tone it down, Peter Morris. If you have a dispute with Mr. Miskatonic, take it to another thread. While you’re posting here, keep it civil and leave out comments like this or the one about “your god James Randi.”
I don’t believe he deserves to lose his money. Just because he isn’t smart enough to know better doesn’t give anyone a free license to rip him off. He was ripped off plain and simple. He deserves the full extent of the law to get his money back.
Con artists count on the fact people will be too embarrassed to go to the police. This guy deserves to be congratulated for going to the police and getting another con artist off the streets.
You are incorrect, Peter. Today, perhaps, you could start studying escapology.
And you would learn that it is entirely possible to escape from an unaltered straightjacket. It is not a magic trick, but rather a related effort.
Here is a brief set of instructions on how.
I do urge you to give it a try. But don’t try Houdini’s method. It’s a bit severe.
Oh, I know a bit about escapology. I’m an amateur magician, as I said.
As for your link, please consider what it actually says:
In other words, make sure that the jacket isn’t securely fastened to begin with. This wouldn’t work in real life. Trained medical orderlies putting someone in a jacket would spot anyone trying that sort of thing. That method would only work in a magic trick, where the assistants pretend not to notice.
You do know that little bit of information is the same as given as root cause in any escapology method? Handcuffs, straightjackets, whatever. Heck, horses use it. It’s not strictly necessary. But it does help.
If you want, you could try Houdini’s method. It also works, no matter how tight the jacket is tied. Do you call that a magic trick? Very well, then it is a magic trick. Tra la. But the straightjacket is tied properly, and it is not gimmicked. And yet, the man is free.
How the hell is saying “If you were stupid enough to fall for it, you get what you get” NOT intellectual bigotry?
Why the hell should someone who makes their living out of tricking people not be punished?
But, more importantly, why the hell is this an either or situation? Throw the psychic in jail for stealing, but don’t give back the money since he was obviously willing to part with it.
I don’t actually believe that Houdini did it that way. I’m not even sure that it would work.
Have a look at this. A trick originated by Houdini, and copied by many other magicians, including Randi. Is this achieved by trickery, or genuine skill at picking locks, do you think?
Whether escaping from a straight jacket is a feat of skill or trickery is immaterial to the thread. James Randi openly bills himself as a stage magician, which is widely known and expected to be entertainment that relies on trickery not arcane magics. James Randi would freely and openly profess himself to have no magical powers. Psychics may be forced by law to include a disclaimer that they are only entertainers, but it’s fairly clear that they only do this because they are forced to. From how they act and how they present themselves (outside of the disclaimer), the presumption is that everything is real. Popular conception of anyone who bills himself as a psychic is that he is someone who believes himself to have control of real arcane magic, otherwise he wouldn’t bill himself as a psychic, he’d bill himself as a stage magician like our own Ianzin does.
Though your phrasing disguises it, what you’re actually asking here is whether there should be a special class of fraud which is *legal *so long as (1) it is **obviously **a fraud to most people, and (2) its targets are unusually naïve and easy to take advantage of. While of course it’s natural to feel as if the mark in this case got what was coming to him, to actually answer “yes” to that question seems bizarre.
Aside: I’d advise everyone not to engage Peter Morris on any topic which is related to James Randi in even the most tangential, trivial way. He has proven himself (most famously here) to have an axe which is so in need of grinding that it completely precludes the possibility of helpful discussion.
Oops, I see that I linked to the 6th and final page in that thread by accident; I meant to link to page 1. It doesn’t really matter, but I didn’t mean to imply that there was anything special about that last page.
What do you do with the money then? Let the government take it for themselves? Let the psychic keep it and have it waiting for them when they get their slap on the wrist punishment?
Also remember that people to not exist in a vacuum. That money might be that person’s alone, but it also might be crucial savings for a spouse, or a college fund for his kids, etc.
James Randi is a conman. What he does is tell stories in which he has gone up against phony psychics and beaten them. Then he collects people’s money. Here’s the thing - most of the stories he tells are lies, and obvious ones at that. In my opinion this makes him just as scummy as Sylvia Browne
The above referenced thread is an incident in which I set out to expose Randi for the liar he is. What I got was a lot of hate from Randi supporters who already knew that he’s a liar, and support him for it.
This is why I got annoyed with a certain person’s comments in this thread. He has shown that he’s not exactly good at spotting when he’s being scammed. He’s not really in a position to make informed comments here.
I intend to keep on fighting ignorance among Randi’s supporters. They may hate me for it, but I’ll do it anyway.
Sorry, but hiding your insults by saying they’re about “a certain person” does not allow you to keep making them. This is a formal warning to knock it off.