My mind is blown

Discussion in 'Magic Forum' started by scarecrow1, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. Uhhh, yea, I've been watching this video for a quite awhile now and each time it gets more impossible. He says on his blog (and in the video) that it was not set up and uses no stooges.

    Check it out.

    Another one that blows my mind. I get the last half, but the thought of card kills me. Check it out.

    He has a few other effects on his channel with ridiculously clean thought of card plots.

    Thoughts? (not methods, but sources on similar material [in other words, thought of cards this clean])

  2. That's some killer stuff. Other than that, I don't know what to say.
  3. He must be using stooges. There's no way that you do an ACAAN in the manner he did without using some sort of set-up or a gimmick. Same for the second trick. Clearly the spectator can THINK of any card. 'Think' is the key word. This makes it impossible for anyone else to know what the card is. There's no way for a magician to control a card without the slightest bit of knowledge as to what or where it is. Either he's using stooges, or the tricks are based on blind luck, and they recorded it hundreds of times until it finally worked. It makes no difference, because he still can't do the tricks legitimately in a live setting. Also, their body language really makes the whole thing seem like a set-up. The "secrets" behind the tricks are revealed in their facial expressions, and it's painfully obvious.
  4. I met Miika a couple of Blackpool Conventions ago and he's a superb card magician, plus he recently won the FISM European Championship in the card division. Based on what I know of his work, I would say that I'm confident he could do this under the conditions he's specified. If you think that stooges or blind luck are the only options for making this work, then maybe research some of David Berglas' work and Dai Vernon's thinking on the thought of card.
  5. I know for a fact it is impossible to manipulate a card without ANY idea what it is, or where it is. You can't just walk up to a person, tell them to think of a card, and then control it in any way. It simply isn't possible.
  6. This to me looks like the Berglass effect, no stooges, it's a great think, you guys should check his latest book. :)
  7. Yes and it's gimmicked beyond belief. It isn't possible to do an ACAAN without gimmicks in the manner he did it.
  8. I agree with TeeDee
    this can deff be done, with all the work done out there this may be alot of luck to have the ending he did, but it is possible. granted this could be set up of some sort, but i still think it is nice
  9. You keep saying "There's no way it can be done that way" but you give no explanation to your reasoning. The other members keep throwing effects and ideas out there and all you have to say is "I know for a fact that this can't be done." Before you're so sure of yourself and quick to disagree with everyone, I suggest you research a little more.
  10. Have you heard of Dai Vernon's "The Trick That Cannot Be Explained"? That's just a single example of the work that's been done on controlling a previously unknown thought-of card, from a shuffled and borrowed deck if need be. There are lots more, but you might as well start with that one to get to grips with the concept.
  11. I know the second effect is possible and well withing grasp (read ECT). But I'm still stumped by the ACAAN. Thanks TeeDee, I'll check out that effect out, and thanks for the Dai Vernon reference (whoever said that). Could anyone give me the source for where Dai Vernon talks about the thought of card principal?
    Keep the talk going guys, this is interesting!
  12. THe Trick That Cannot Be Explained is not comparable to the effect in the video in the least bit. You can't compare a trick with an unlimited number of outcomes that needs extensive handling of the deck 90 percent of the time to a trick like in the video, with 52 cards that could be named and 52 numbers. Now, I KNOW that each card doesn't actually have an equal chance of being named, but whens the last time you heard a spectator say 5 of clubs? The video implies that any card REALLY could've been named and any number as well. Under the test conditions, you can safely conclude that either stooges or chance was used.
  13. I did some research. "The Trick That Cannot Be Explained" is not like the trick he did. Vernon clearly manipulates the cards a lot. I'm not saying that the two effects the guy did aren't possible. I'm saying they aren't possible to do the way he did it. It's not the effect itself that's impossible, it's the method he used that's impossible.
  14. I did some research, and the effects are impossible to do in the manner he did them, unless you use gimmicks. This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time. The effects are possible to do, just not possible to do them the way he did. You would need to extensively manipulate the deck, which he clearly doesn't do.
  15. Of course, the trick isn't exactly the same. You said that it's impossible to control a previous unknown thought-of card from an ungimmicked deck, and I was giving an example of a trick in which that happens. To spell out my overall point a bit further, I'm saying is that there are methods which, with some clever and lateral thinking, can achieve the effect that Miika performed. David Berglas performed ACAAN (often as cleanly as this) many times to many different audiences, and was accused of using stooges too.

    I don't mean to be harsh, but if you had to do research to find out what "The Trick That Cannot Be Explained" was, then I would suggest that you aren't that well-versed in the literature, and therefore aren't really in a position to say what is and isn't possible with a deck of cards.
  16. #17 TeeDee, Jul 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2011
    Ah, "implies", you say. Would that be in the same way that if I twirl a wand it "implies" that I'm not palming a coin in that hand? You see my point. By the way, I don't know the specific method for this trick, but I'm just saying that jumping to the conclusion of stooges or chance, is to ignore a huge array of techniques that we as magicians have to work with. I think that, if we're going to discuss another magician's work in this way, the only useful approach is to be as imaginative as possible, and take our minds on the journey of "how would we achieve that effect, under those conditions?". To come back with "stooges or chance" shows a lack of creative ambition, in my opinion.
  17. When I said it's impossible to control a thought of card from an ungimmicked deck, I accidentally left out the part about it's impossible to do it the exact way he did it. I know it's possible using other methods. I had to research because I'm not at all an expert on magic literature. I've only been doing magic for about nine months, so I haven't read a lot of these books. Nevertheless, I still have enough knowledge to know that the second effect is only accomplishable with a different method, which would probably involve manipulation and somehow gaining insight as to what the card is. Miika didn't do anything of the sort. But if I'm wrong and the second effect is genuine, point me in the direction of where it's published. If an FISM champion has an effect that clean and incredible, it's got to be out there somewhere.
  18. That's not really the way things work. I would say "If a FISM champion has an effect that clean and incredible, the last thing they'd want to do is publish it."
  19. you have to think, you only have seen the effect once. what if he did it again, the effect may have changed or been different from what it was on the video

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results