>> ^marinara:

i don't expect people to know this, but fluoride in the water acts just like the active part of the prozac molecule (the Fluoxetine) molecule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozac


Maybe most people don't know it because there's no actual evidence of it? Just more CT whackery...like chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and grays living in underground cities.

Sadly, most people clearly don't know enough about chemistry to realize that sodium flouride is a totally different animal than Flouxetine. The structure of chemical compounds has far more to do with their effects than the composition. Or else there would be no difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, "Would you like one lump of tar, or two in your tea?"

(example stolen from a post in James Randi's forums, and modified slightly).


NONE of which has the slightest bearing on this video. My apologies for allowing/assisting the diversion.

Homeopathy is one of the biggest frauds and scams going.

And for some reason retards still buy into it for some reason...

Love James Randi, he's got a couple different speeches about it on youtube, but he's right when he calls it a 'mental retardation when people are unable to even discern such a simple scam'

Thanks, that was very informative! Now I understand the bleach thing
>> ^Boise_Lib:

A link about Homeopathy from James Randi (posted by @bamdrew).
http://videosift.com/video/James-Randi-explains-Homeopathy

A link about Homeopathy from James Randi (posted by @bamdrew).
http://videosift.com/video/James-Randi-explains-Homeopathy

>> ^spawnflagger:

.. my guess is that each card has a metal strip(s) embedded in different spots, and the top cap of his Super Sharpie is a strong magnet. notice that he waves it around several times, front and back, before making his actual guess. If the magnet is strong enough, he wouldn't have to touch the paper to still be able to feel a slight tug.
I say it's in the cap, because he removes the cap and sets it aside before writing on the envelope - this way it wouldn't accidentally "stick" to the envelope.
comments welcome...

I like spawnflagger's magnetic sharpie idea. If this isn't how the trick is done, it certainly could be done this way.

Um... He most definitely is a magician. A damn good one. He's been performing for over 60 years.
>> ^jmd:

Some how I don't think the trick is as complex as you guys make it out to be, he isn't a magician, this isn't a show. Its prolly something stupidly simple, and yes it may be because he knows the person.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Jinx:
I'm pretty sure he actually got the + and o the wrong way around. He rotates the card when he picks up the envelope from off the floor. I think. As for how he predicts which two cards, well I don't know.

He doesn't. Pay attention to which way it's facing when he pulls it out. The plus sign should be on the side of his left hand where his four fingers are. He moves it to the other hand, and it would be on the thumb side. Then he grabs it in the other hand, again on the four-finger side, like when he first pulled it out. Just watch closely.


I did. He does. When he switches hands the second time it goes thumb side to thumb side. Watch it again.

Besides... he wouldn't obviously peak at the cards, then close the thing and wave it all around if he wasn't switching the sides.

>> ^Jinx:

I'm pretty sure he actually got the + and o the wrong way around. He rotates the card when he picks up the envelope from off the floor. I think. As for how he predicts which two cards, well I don't know.


He doesn't. Pay attention to which way it's facing when he pulls it out. The plus sign should be on the side of his left hand where his four fingers are. He moves it to the other hand, and it would be on the thumb side. Then he grabs it in the other hand, again on the four-finger side, like when he first pulled it out. Just watch closely.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).
Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.
Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".
Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.
Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. It all goes back to credulity--each person decides for themselves how much evidence they require to believe something. I think for the vast majority of people the evidence against the matchbox trick is overwhelming. The same can't be said for the case against most religions--the people who feel the evidence is overwhelming (or put another way, that there isn't enough evidence to justify their belief) are atheists. The problems are deciding what constitutes "evidence" and the fact, as I mentioned above, that people believe in religions for a host of other reasons besides the evidence (personal experience being probably the foremost).

Back to the original point, calling people idiots neither adds anything constructive to the discussion nor is it really even true for most people (either religious or atheist).

So he's feeling through the envelope? (still sealed closed at 5:30 when he marks the outside of it)

If the texture/braille were raised high enough for this... might be hard to miss as the audience guy

>> ^antonye:

THIS
You only have to learn 5 characters of Braille.
It's why they go face in - to ensure that the Braille on the card backs is outermost.
It's why he could tell which way round they are if pressed.
It's why it works 100% of the time.
>> ^Payback:
There's different textures of the back of the cards, he feels them.

THIS

You only have to learn 5 characters of Braille.
It's why they go face in - to ensure that the Braille on the card backs is outermost.
It's why he could tell which way round they are if pressed.
It's why it works 100% of the time.

>> ^Payback:

There's different textures of the back of the cards, he feels them.

>> ^waynef100:

the trick is making the audience believe he is not friends with the audience member.


never seen a comment that fits the avatar pic better :-)

>> ^Payback:

There's different textures of the back of the cards, he feels them.


I don't think he'd get the order wrong then. It's possible the cards are slightly different weights, and there's a hidden scale on the desk. I just don't think it's necessary, nor would it prove his point.

I still think it's a combination of his prior odds, and some common mentalism techniques (such as card forcing). I just noticed, for instance, that the circle and the plus are the bottom two on the deck before the deck is handed to the participant. There can only be so many ways of shuffling 5 cards, and he's careful to make sure the participant always holds them face down. That combined with some human behavioral norms (shuffling in certain ways, preferences for choosing cards in particular deck positions) could be biasing the odds even further in his direction. He might even be able to listen to how the cards are shuffled (for instance, to know how many cards taken from the middle to the ends, or ends to the middle, or end to end). Once you add up all these little biases, I bet his odds of getting at least one card are near perfect, and getting both is far higher than you'd think.

>> ^Sagemind:

@bmacs27
He clearly says that his chances of guessing the cards are 100% so he knows he'll get it right EVERY time. Just because he doesn't reveal his method doesn't mean there isn't an actual method in place.
He's debunking Mentalism, he couldn't do that if he was wrong eight times out of ten!


But that's the point. He's only "wrong" 3 times out of ten.

I mean, there are plenty of ways to do this with a trick but I don't think he cares to. Most of the audience fools themselves into being impressed with the odds by their own poor math. They think he only has a 20% chance to do something he has a 70% chance of doing.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, he does get the order wrong before flipping it.

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.

Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".

Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.

Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.