Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

howdunnit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • howdunnit

    This is a clip from a TV series i love.
    For those who know this series, it does not need explaining, for the rest i will set the scene a bit and explain later which series it is from.
    It is a mystery/crime series with a healthy dose of humor.
    spoiler alert!
    This clip, and the one that will follow later, will spoil part of the plot of this episode, i just can not help that.

    The scene is about a woman who has recently lost her lover in a boating accident, an apparent psychic does an impromptu reading and answers five questions.

    there are a few details that make it very plausible that this is the real deal and the woman is completely convinced that her lost lover is alive in another realm.

    Now i am not looking for a discussion about psychic readings, or whether this is an accurate portrayal of one.
    This is obviously a fiction series and of course the writers can come up with very far fetched scenario's.

    What i do want try with this, is illustrating how not knowing how something is done does not mean it is not done with normal means.

    A clip with the explanation of how it was done will follow soon.
    If someone knows how this is done from seeing the original episode, please do not spoil it by telling, everybody else have a guess if you like.

    Also, try to think how you would react if someone would tell you this story as real, especially the detail about the crossword puzzle solution is brilliant.
    Knowing this is fiction makes that harder, but i would like you to give it a try anyway.
    Last edited by sparky; April 13th, 2013, 11:24 AM.

  • #2
    Nobody wants to hazard a guess how this is done?
    If this would be portrayed as a real event, and we would not know there was a natural explanation for this, a thing like this would live on the internet for ever.
    It would be trotted out over and over again as completely unexplainable by natural causes. nobody any thoughts on that?

    From the same episode, this clip shows a classical mentalism trick.
    I will also post a video explaining how it is done later, this one should be a little bit easier to find out how it is done.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nope, no idea how this could be done. I await enlightenment.

      ~~ Paul

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
        Nope, no idea how this could be done. I await enlightenment.

        ~~ Paul
        I am going to hold out just a little bit longer on the first one, i just want to see if someone else wants to react.

        The mentalism trick is explained in this clip, i cannot wait with that one, it is to funny.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by fls
          I thought about something similar to the mentalism trick - multiple buried bottles covering the most commonly asked questions and the psychic 'reveals' only the one which is a good match. But that doesn't work with "gruesome". It is highly doubtful that could be anticipated. The "gruesome" answer suggests that the paper is placed after the questions are asked, and I haven't thought of a way for that to happen yet. Or else it is the woman (not the psychic) who is playing a trick.

          Let me think on this a bit.

          Linda
          I will, but don't waste your time on role reversal or things like that, everybody is who they are portrayed to be
          Nice to see you're back.
          Last edited by sparky; April 14th, 2013, 07:26 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Wait, you mean the "36" trick was just a film editing gambit?

            Film editing ... huh ... who'd have guessed?

            ~~ Paul

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
              Wait, you mean the "36" trick was just a film editing gambit?

              Film editing ... huh ... who'd have guessed?

              ~~ Paul
              I am confused, is this a reaction to a deleted post?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by fls
                We aren't shown how and when the paper is removed from the bottle. Are we ever given those circumstances and was there an opportunity for a substitution?

                Linda
                No we aren't shown when the paper is removed, it is not a substitution trick.
                If you are ok with it, i will post the clip that shows how it is done.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sparky View Post
                  I am confused, is this a reaction to a deleted post?
                  It's a reaction to your post #4.

                  ~~ Paul

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by fls
                    Okay. As long as you have some more. This is fun.

                    Linda
                    This is how it is done, it is from an episode of the series "Jonathan Creek", this one was named "the seer of the sands".
                    I could pull some clips from other episodes, but that would be plot spoiling for people who maybe want to watch some episodes of the series, it is rather good you know.
                    If i do not get to much negative feedback on that aspect, i might look for another similar clip from another episode.

                    If anyone is interested, i can make this one available on some online storage site and PM a link.
                    It is a bit of a mix of a detective/mystery/comedy series, very British, they know how to do such a thing right.

                    The series is full of this kind of "impossible" feats, a lot of them are some form of "locked room" puzzles, the plot revolving more around the "howdunnit" than the "whodunit".

                    Every time somebody here says something like "i cannot possibly see how that is done " i have to think about Jonathan Creek.
                    BTW JC (don't know whether these initials are coincidence?) is played by Allan Davies, some people will know him better as Stephen Fry's sidekick on QI.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A hose job!

                      ~~ Paul

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                        It's a reaction to your post #4.

                        ~~ Paul
                        Oh, i see what you mean.
                        You are right, that may seem a bit disappointing, but i think a lot of explanations of conjurers tricks might be a let down.

                        Although, if a mentalist would play the trick like this, he could claim no film editing was used.
                        Adam does the whole routine every time, so they do not have to edit the footage where they get the 'hit'.
                        I guess that is why they show him doing the whole routine about mentalism at the start of the scene, and then let him say that he is already three days at this.

                        If you think about it, a real mentalist would narrow the chances by, maybe, asking for a number between one and twenty.
                        Or writing different numbers on different body parts.

                        Probably, this scene is more a dramatic vehicle to show the drudgery that comes with doing this kind of tricks.
                        Remember, this is fiction, i threw it in because i thought it was funny, and because the original question did not spark any responses.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wait, I want to see that show. Does PBS show it in the US?

                          ~~ Paul

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Interesting idea in theory, but the rolled paper would expand as you pushed it along the hose. And the plunger would also need to be quite well suited in order to push through such a length of hose. It would also tend to rip the paper as it pushed.

                            Could work in theory, but you would need the exact right components.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by teagueblue View Post
                              Interesting idea in theory, but the rolled paper would expand as you pushed it along the hose. And the plunger would also need to be quite well suited in order to push through such a length of hose. It would also tend to rip the paper as it pushed.

                              Could work in theory, but you would need the exact right components.
                              Agreed. I thought he was going to use compressed air.

                              Perhaps some kind of rolled paper holder at the end of the plunger. It would hold the paper as it pushed, then release it in the bottle.

                              ~~ Paul

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X