[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I think not, buckaroo.
[/QUOTE]
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy. It could be. Pynchon wrote V. in 1963, and The Crying of Lot 49 in 1966. Predates your Banzai Boys by a couple of decades.
[QUOTE=Garula]
If he really did have telekinetic powers, he could have tried to repeat it using a different control. To be honest, I was kind of disappointed that Randi didn’t offer to try a different control when Hydrick made up that excuse. A clear plastic sheet placed between him and the phone book would have worked. Or perhaps a pinwheel. I find it hard to believe something so colorful and jovial as a pinwheel would interfere with psychic abilities!
[/QUOTE]
Hydrick might have been able to avoid turning a single pinwheel, but still hit a corner of the page - his breath control techniques were pretty phenomenal - still, it’s a nice visual.
[QUOTE=Garula]
I took a look at the confession. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t give enough info to prove its authenticity. An airdate would be nice, as would the name of the TV special on which it aired.
[/QUOTE]
I saw a part of it, as Hydrick made UK Channel 4’s Fifty Greatest Magic Tricks. Hydrick came in at 34. Coincidentally the show’s reviewer is Ian Rowland, better known here as Ianzin, who is not too impressed at Hydrick’s inclusion.
I have the show on VHS somewhere. I recall it showed Hydrick’s martial arts school, among other things, where plenty of people paid to learn his telekinetic skills…
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Are you thinking of this, from askeptic’s link?
Or maybe this Wikipedia article?
[/QUOTE]
I saw both shows when I was a kid. I thought I remember “That’s my line” showing the microphone part on the show but maybe I’ve created the image in my head. Or maybe I’m psychic! How do I test for that?
[QUOTE=Garula]
I took a look at the confession. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t give enough info to prove its authenticity. An airdate would be nice, as would the name of the TV special on which it aired. Personally, I think it’s probably legitimate, but for the sake of heading off any “it’s a hoax, he never really said that” arguments, it would be nice to authenticate it.
[/QUOTE]
The exposure and confession is available in book form - the author is Dan Korem - I have a copy on my shelf. I realise that’s not the same kind of evidence as a video clip of Hydrick appearing on a screen and admitting he’s a fraud, but I think the whole thing has been established beyond any reasonable doubt now anyway.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
The exposure and confession is available in book form - the author is Dan Korem - I have a copy on my shelf. I realise that’s not the same kind of evidence as a video clip of Hydrick appearing on a screen and admitting he’s a fraud, but I think the whole thing has been established beyond any reasonable doubt now anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Plus somebody might even have provided a link to where the actual video confession can be purchased. Oh, wait, I did. I must be on more ignore lists…
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy. It could be. Pynchon wrote V. in 1963, and The Crying of Lot 49 in 1966. Predates your Banzai Boys by a couple of decades.
[/QUOTE]
Directly after the Growing Excited Company, but indirectly both.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Plus somebody might even have provided a link to where the actual video confession can be purchased. Oh, wait, I did. I must be on more ignore lists…
[/QUOTE]
I saw that! I was just backing you up.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I saw that! I was just backing you up.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I guess I am just a little sensitive since I posted a link to the confession early on and people just kept talking about it like it was not an admitted hoax. I kept checking my link to see if it went where I thought it did…
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Sorry, I guess I am just a little sensitive since I posted a link to the confession early on and people just kept talking about it like it was not an admitted hoax.
[/QUOTE]
The GQ was about whether the test shown in the video was a valid test. Whether the performer had or didn’t have psychic abilities was and is irrelevant to the thread. (No offense. I’m just saying.)
The closest we have come so far is Mangetout’s observation that there was no evidence of static cling when the pages were turned, but doesn’t rule out the possibility.
So ideally, I would like to know about how many more pounds per inch of pressure would need to be exerted on a page of paper if it had some basic static cling holding it closed, versus no static cling?
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
The GQ was about whether the test shown in the video was a valid test. Whether the performer had or didn’t have psychic abilities was and is irrelevant to the thread. (No offense. I’m just saying.)
[/QUOTE]
No offense taken. And you make a very good point. I did completely miss the call of the question. I must have skipped that last sentence. I will now quietly slink away since I have little knowledge of the physics involved. (or of the physics not involved) Apologies to all.