Oh, man--I didn't even think about that! ops:

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

There are really two different threads going on here. One says let's produce a low-budget video that can be sold opposite Bart Sibrel's moonmovie, and the other says let's go get Tom Hanks and make a big-budget Hollywood-style production. My previous comments were based on the low-budget scenario. However, if this could be turned into large production with the backing of a major Hollywood figure, then we're talking about a completely different animal. I think it's certainly possible to produce something interesting, entertaining, and with wide appeal, but not on a shoestring.

I actually heard Teller talk on NPR yesterday, on a piece about the controversy over a museum's revealing the secret to one of Houdini's signature tricks. You can listen to the segment here. Interestingly, Teller doesn't seem to think that revealing how magic tricks are done is a big deal; in fact, he says that the argument is really about who gets to tell Houdini's story. (Possibly P&T think the magicians' code of secrecy is BS? ;-) )

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Interestingly, Teller doesn't seem to think that revealing how magic tricks are done is a big deal

If you've seen their show in Las Vegas -- which I highly recommend, by the way -- then you know for sure that Penn and Teller don't subscribe to the "never reveal a trick" philosophy. A good portion of their show is revealing the simpler tricks.

The show begins with one of the standard escape illusions. Teller is sealed in a sturdy wooden box which is then placed inside another box. Normally this is where a curtain would be drawn, but instead Penn tells the audience that if they want to preserve the magic of the illusion, they should close their eyes until he tells them to look again.

Now the audience has been invited (nay, practically demanded) to venture up on stage prior to the show and inspect the equipment. I took them up on it. I figured I'm an engineer; I've designed and built all kinds of things. If anyone can find the gimmick, I can. Further, I work in stagecraft too, and I know most of the mechanical and optical tricks that happen on stage and in motion pictures. Well, I couldn't see how the box was gimmicked, so I sat down. And you'd better believe I kept my eyes open during the illusion. Sure enough, Teller extricated himself from the box by sliding it open in a way no one was likely easily to understand from a mere inspection.

In another segment they do the dismemberment illusion -- where the subject's head and body parts are seemingly disconnected and placed in separate containers. They do it once with the standard apparatus, then they do the illusion again using an apparatus that is geometrically equivalent, only transparent.

The show ends with the famous double bullet-catch. They don't reveal how that one is done. But if you've been paying attention during the show, you know that they're not really catching a bullet in their teeth. Of course I know how the trick is done, but it's still exciting to watch. I know how all the opticals in Disneyland's Haunted Mansion are done, but that doesn't mean I stop going to Disneyland.

There's no real danger in revealing the secrets of magicians because the same tricks continue to work even after people know about them. Magic is based partly on misdirection -- sending your attention to one place while doing something off in a corner. Even people like me who are accustomed to trying to see through misdirection are fooled. Misdirection, skillfully attempted, will always succeed because by definition it is to avoid attention. It doesn't matter where specifically that attention is focused as long as the crucial bit happens elsewhere.

That's why sleight-of-hand magic today gives you the double whammy. Instead of palming the coin in the way taught in the elementary magic handbooks, the coin is palmed in a new and interesting what that just looks like the old way. The trick is now to make the viewer think he knows how a trick was done, but to surprise him with a new twist. It's still misdirection, just not the misdirection he anticipated. And that's still the definition of misdirection.

Magic is partly based on preconceptions. If you see a scantily clad girl walk behind a curtain and emerge from the other side, do you immediately question whether the girl that emerged was the same girl who entered? Likely she was not. All the dismemberment illusions are based on the audience's preconception of the geometry of the human body. The sword box is designed to make you think there's just no room for the subject in there, but of course there is. Everyone knows how to saw a woman in half. The trick is to do it a different way, but the principle is still the same -- change the shape of the human body. Teller gets out of the box because I had a preconceived notion of how the box was constructed. If you see a screw head at the intersection of two boards, wouldn't you naturally assume the screw was the fastener holding the boards together? What if it's just a screw head glued to the board?

Magic is partly based on optical illusions. At our local amusement park they do spooky stuff on Halloween. They have a great mirror gag that's still convincing as close as four feet away. You'd swear you were looking at a talking, disembodied head. There's a reason for all that smoke and dim lighting. It keeps you from seeing the wires. My interest in lighting leads to me pay attention to how illusions are lighted, and that extends to amusement park rides. You can only ride Indiana Jones so many times before your mind wanders into how they achieve the illusion.

You know the part of that ride where the Jones automaton is hanging from the rope just before the big ball rolls toward you? The car backs up and then drops down a chute. Or does it? It drops, yes. But does it back up? No, it doesn't. Reversing a ride vehicle is an engineering nightmare, so you don't do it. Instead, everything around you -- the walls and ceiling -- moves forward and the hydraulic motion base tilts you ever so slightly forward. I've ridden that ride a hundred times and didn't know about that one until one of the engineers revealed it in a book I read.

Your brain is conditioned to believe that big things are stationary and little things move. It's conditioned to judge distance based on relative scale.

Another common lighting effect that we use a lot in theater is the "black wash". Put an audience in a dark room and let their eyes adjust. Dimly light the stage. Now flash a bright light directly into their eyes for a split second. What happens? The audience is essentially blind for about 2-3 seconds, even though they won't believe that they are. With practice you can make a whole bunch of things happen in those few seconds. I've made people disappear right in front of someone's eyes by dropping them down a trap during a black wash. Black washes are commonly used in automated rides to distract and disorient you at key points.

Why do I mention this stuff in a lunar landing hoax context? Because misdirection, optical illusion, and preceptions are the key factors in the mistakes made by conspiracy theorists in analyzing evidence. They are misled or mislead the reader. They fall for common optical illusions made somewhat less common by the presumption of an "exotic" and unfamiliar context. They consistently apply common, but wrong, preconceptions (i.e., shadows should be parallel). You have to have a little of the magician's art about you in order to see through these arguments. Magicians are experts in human behavior and human nature. They know how to manipulate those intangible factors and seemingly do the impossible. Conspiracy theorists are magicians too in the sense that they know what they can get away with and what preconceptions they can use.

The difference is that the audience knows a magician is a fraud, and they're okay with that. They pay to be knowingly fooled. The conspiracy theorist wants to be taken seriously. He wants you to believe he really is sawing the woman in half.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

FWIW, I mentioned doing an Apollo Hoax episode of "BS" to Teller in January during the last Amaz!ng Meeting. All he said was, "Interesting". He was exhausted after doing a show and helping with the meeting, though. Maybe next year I'll do more to chat them up.

Unfortunately the last time I spoke to Teller was before the Bull[exhaust] show, so I haven't approached him on it. I'm definitely interested in participating in such an episode, should it be made. Given that Penn and Teller seem interested in portraying the proponents of the irrational as clowns, I'm sure Kaysing and Rene would definitely fit that bill for them. And since they tend to ambush-interview the irrationals, there might be some perverse satisfaction in seeing Bart Sibrel get a taste of his own medicine.

Tactics aside, I think Penn and Teller, as illusionists, have more personal expertise in the appropriate fields here than they do in some of the other fields they've covered, where they rely more on outside experts.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You should definitely do that, Phil. Or maybe you could get in touch with them sooner. (If you can't get past their insulation from the public, maybe you could ask James Randi to talk to them about it?)

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Aaaaaagh! Curse you, JayUtah. I saw their show when I was in Las Vegas last January for The Amaz!ng Meeting 2 (and can strongly support Jay's endorsement). I'm sure I paid attention to the show, and didn't get any clues for how the bullet-catching trick was done.

I won't get you to spoil it by explaining it, but I'd sure like a clue or two.

Please?

Hint: The trick doesn't work if you don't video the marking of the bullet. Any more would be a spoiler. Send e-mail to webmaster@clavius.org if you want to know the whole story.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I thought this thread could use a bump--I think it will be interesting to see how accurate our speculation about the content and impact of a Penn and Teller's BS debunking episode turns out to be.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I think we're back to the problem mentioned way earlier--a lot of people don't get Showtime. my mother does; I do not. if I'd thought about it, I could've asked her to tape it and mail me a copy, but I'm not sure she would have. and I am definitely not someone who needs it debunked for me; someone who did wouldn't go out of their way to watch the show.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And nobody ever e-mailed me about the bullet trick.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just returning to video suggestions...

For what its worth, I have Lightwave 3d. I'll gladly get some graphics/animations done for demo purposes or titling. I was very profficient 6 years ago, but I am now fairly rusty, although I recently built a skylab mesh from scratch which looks quite OK.

Also, the Honeysuckle Creek guys are very easy to talk to. If you go to Coiln McKellar's tribute site, and tell him what you are planning, he'll point you in the right direction.

www.honeysucklecreek.net

One other thought...getting Capricorn 1 director Hyams to do the same as Jay suggested for Ron Howard in stating that the movie is a work of fiction. (He might even get territorial over the fact that unauthorised use of stills from his film are used to prop up the HB claims)

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Dwight