Peeking Behind The Curtain: How You Think The Tricks Were Done

[marketdoctor]

 

Yeah, I was confused again by Penn's insistence on a deck switch being part of the secret. It's like two weeks ago when he was baffled by the phone book page...

 

I think P&T are biased toward how THEY would do a trick (which is why until today you didn't see The Four Aces*--too many variants).  A deck switch is *a* way to do this trick, but not the only way.  It's where they might be most vunerable, especially if (as said upthread) you try to win on a technicality by having what looks like a deck switch (palm, cull, etc.) but is just a fake-out.  That's why I think the guideline of "one way to figure out the trick" should be bent; I think they should have a more formal rule ("three wrong guesses and we're fooled.")  Of course, I like the way they give magicians an option of saying "you have it" without having a trick be revealed, as long as everyone is up front about it.

 

 

. So he'll have two cards that are crimped, punched, daubed or something that he can feel to indicate which card was selected.

 

If the blindfold was actually infrared goggles, daubing the cards with infrared ink would be perfect.  That would explain the cross-cut as part of the move, too.  A shaved deck would be harder to give to a spectator after as a souvinier, but crimps or scratches might work, since all the cards are blank--so someone wouldn't know two were slightly marked that way.

 

(It's a great trick, and done well, so I'm not sure--and with more than one way to do it, it's a good trick for this competition.)

 

* For those new to magic, The Four Aces is to magic what The Aristocrats is to comedy--a lot of ways to get to the punchline.

Edited August 25, 2015 by marketdoctor

[Amarsir]

He simply knows what the selected card is (a number of ways to do this, even if it's a real blindfold*), pulls ONLY THAT CARD out of an indexed deck in a jacket pocket (or somewhere hidden), and palms it in.  He could even use a shaved/marked Chosen Card, and not give that card away.  

 

So, here's where I am on the Josh Jay trick. I've considered the possibility of palming in a card from an index. That's originally what I assumed it would be. The problem is with how he knows what the card is.

 

I'm completely the other way around from you. I'm content with any of several explanations for how he figured out the card. But I saw absolutely no opportunity to pull from an index. That's why a deck switch made sense because if you're going to do something I didn't see you might as well have moved the whole deck. Index is the next logical choice but where? Even if the camera cut was kind to him, P&T would have seen an opportunity, no?

[marketdoctor]

 

But I saw absolutely no opportunity to pull from an index.

 

True, though swapping in a whole new deck would be even harder.  I didn't see any obvious reaches into a jacket or sleeve, though that's what made the trick as good as it was.  I'm not sure how/where that part of the trick was done.  (Could he have had a photo printer hidden somewhere to print out the selected card?)

[Charlesman]

His hands were below the table at one point, maybe an index taped underneath? Not sure.

[carruth00]

I didn't see him palm a card in.. I looked for that very closely as i was convinced that was the method. I have it DVR'd a went back and watched it numerous times. The question is.. how did he know the 4 of diamonds would be selected? It bothered me that the audience member was selected beforehand. That indicates there might have been collusion or a little pre-show work. When a card trick seems a little too impossible, the solution is often something we wish it wasn't. The bottom card was obviously 'marked', a short card or whatever.. so he could determine eight cards were shifted to the bottom. Since the whole premise was a magic trick for a blind girl, perhaps the cards were braille. Once the card directly beneath the former bottom card was determined, counting the remaining cards gives you the thought-of card. If he knew beforehand that the four of diamonds was to be selected, all this 'counting' was unnecessary. That leaves the four being secreted in after the value and suit was determined -or- a gaffed deck. Once the two packets were reassembled with the bottom eight cards there was still a degree of 'searching', as if he was looking for the four. Unless there was an opportunity for him to secret in the four via a camera cut, I suspect the cards were gaffed. I know he gave away the deck, but THAT might have been when a deck switch occurred. He could still claim no deck switch DURING the effect. There was obviously a little period of time not shown after the end of the trick and the time the spec walked off stage. There was not enough time to gather all the cards, unless a few seconds was edited out as unimportant..     

[theatremouse]

It bothered me that the audience member was selected beforehand. That indicates there might have been collusion or a little pre-show work.

It almost bugged me too, but at the same time, to keep our goodwill for the nature of this type of show, I am assuming for now it was pre-selected in the "we're not going to waste airtime on it and production was asked to ask someone to participate when the audience filled in". And not "pre-selected" in the sense of a flashing sign reading plant. On the other hand, we've seen enough people pull an audience person in the moment, so it's a little weird that this one was just...there. Still I think in either case it's equally possible to be a plant and/or pre-show whatever, so at the very least I don't think the pre-selecting on its own is any more likely to be shenanigans than walking into the audience and grabbing someone who could have just as easily been selected earlier too but just allowed to sit in a seat first.

In this case it really did read to me like an edit for time.

[carruth00]

Something tells me the audience member was picked beforehand so he could be 'instructed' politely to avoid picking a court card.. as the audience might be confused by it's value. This would eliminate 16 cards Joshua would have to deal with if he were searching for the selection after the cards were divided and placed on the table.  I don't believe the audience guy was an actual shill. I DO believe the audience guy was given a different deck from the one used. And I do believe some of the cards were double-facers.. blank on one side and numerical on the other..  

[The Crazed Spruce]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the plaid shirt that Jade pulled out of the audience was a plant. He finished the knot around her thumbs in such a way that she could slip it off and on easily. The rest comes from practice, showmanship, and talent.

[opus]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the plaid shirt that Jade pulled out of the audience was a plant.

 

I always ​think someone from the audience is a plant. Are there certain signs to look for?

[Amarsir]

I'm pretty sure the guy in the plaid shirt that Jade pulled out of the audience was a plant. He finished the knot around her thumbs in such a way that she could slip it off and on easily. The rest comes from practice, showmanship, and talent.

Is that even necessary though? Holding the thumbs the right way would let it be tied tight, then loosen upon rotation. And as Penn hinted at, the right type of rope will hold it's shape enough to slip back in.

[SomethingClever]

Yeah, I would doubt that the audience member is a plant. I don't know the exact method on this, but I've seen enough similar tricks to think it's definitely possible to hold the thumbs in a way to slip them out. The key isn't so much slipping the thumb out as it is getting it back in and not look like you did anything. 

[marketdoctor]

 

I always think someone from the audience is a plant. Are there certain signs to look for?

 

The hard part is that plants, by their nature, try to blend in.  If it's a very cold day and they don't have a coat, that's a sign, but otherwise it's hard to tell.

Magicians don't use plants as much as you'd think, in part because it's more impressive to use someone that other people in the audience know, and in part because it's sort of lazy. (Also more can go wrong; the magician is slightly less in control and has a complication if the plant forgets his/her lines.)  Occasionally they're used for comic and/or extreme effect (like costume changes), but even then they have to be last, because anyone else pulled from an audience becomes suspect.

 

As a rule, if a magician can do a trick without planting or prepping someone, they will.  OTOH, "warm" readings, where a magician/mentalist/fake psychic knows something about their audience, are more common.

[Amarsir]

The other thing about using plants is that you're requiring someone to feign ignorance, which is harder than it sounds.  They very frequently go overboard. Penn says you can always tell a plant because they're the ones who walk up on stage like they've never seen stairs before.

 

That said, I will hereby reveal something about P&T's stage show.  I'm putting it in tags even though this is a spoiler thread because I don't want to spoil a trick people haven't seen yet, and this is from their live show not Fool Us:

 

There are 1.5 things they currently use a plant for.  (Both of which I spotted in advance, neither of which was hurt by it IMHO.)  The first is Teller's appearance onto the stage. There's a chest which is open to the audience during pre-show, and people can go up on stage and pose for photos, etc. When the show starts, Teller emerges from it. The last audience members on stage reposition the chest in the process of taking a selfie, and that's when Teller loads himself.  The 1/2 a time is Teller himself in disguise for another trick.

[ennui]

Any thoughts on the "Tiny Plunger"? But maybe I don't want to know. It was cute.

[Amarsir]

Any thoughts on the "Tiny Plunger"? But maybe I don't want to know. It was cute.

As I recall, my impression was that it's accomplished via holes in the "wrong" cards.  The plunger can't create a seal if there's a hole so you could line up a bunch of punctured cards and it would cut down to the one without a hole.

 

I'm not overly confident on that, but it's what I remember thinking at the time.

[SomethingClever]

As I recall, my impression was that it's accomplished via holes in the "wrong" cards.  The plunger can't create a seal if there's a hole so you could line up a bunch of punctured cards and it would cut down to the one without a hole.

 

I'm not overly confident on that, but it's what I remember thinking at the time.

 

The method is a lot cleaner than that. A spectator could examine all the cards in the deck. A magician could examine...well, almost all the cards :).

[scootypuffjr]

This is a spoiler thread - spill!  :-D  I'm the kind of person who doesn't like a mystery, I literally want to know how the magic trick is done.  Doesn't bother me a bit to have the answer, I can still appreciate the artistry and the thought that went into the illusion.  I was able to look up a trick I saw on AGT involving a crumpled empty soda can apparently refilling and resealing itself and and am still stunned and impressed at the cleverness of the answer many months later.  A wonderful trick and I appreciate it all the more knowing how it was done.  Unfortunately I have not been as successful in researching other tricks.  Any and all reveals anyone is willing to share will be MUCH appreciated by me!

 

And since it's not fair for me to ask for answers and not provide one myself, here is an explanation of the soda can trick - you can find lots of videos by googling "empty soda can refill trick", but here it is in writing:

 

http://www.goodtricks.net/everlasting-soda-magic-trick.html

Edited September 11, 2015 by scootypuffjr

[The Crazed Spruce]

Any thoughts on the "Tiny Plunger"? But maybe I don't want to know. It was cute.

My theory? Magnets.

[Charlesman]

Any thoughts on the "Tiny Plunger"? But maybe I don't want to know. It was cute.

 

 

 

One card is bent. Like, almost domed: the center is higher than the 4 corners.

 

Take a single flat playing card, and place the thumb and forefingers of both hands in the exact center of the card. Holding tightly, drag the fingers to opposite corners. Then do it again to the other two remaining corners, so you've dragged an "X" across the card between your fingers. You'll end up with a bent card, either bent with the center of the back of the card higher or the face of the card higher, depending which side was up when you started.

 

Now the card will act as a spring, basically. Push down and it'll pop back up.  It can do it with enough force to slightly lift a whole deck. The plunger itself doesn't do anything, it's just mime.

 

Penn named the technique: check out something called a "breather crimp" and you'll figure it out.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Charlesman

[SomethingClever]

You've got part of it, but that's not really how it works. A crimped card definitely doesn't act as a spring.

 

The plunger can pick up multiple cards, as long as you're picking it up off a close-up pad (or another soft surface). You can't hold them for a long time, but Van Der Waals forces will hold the cards together on the plunger momentarily. The more cards, the more quickly they'll fall (you can see how briefly he picks up the whole deck. In order for this to work, however, the deck has to be in pretty good condition, because the cards have to sit very closely together to stick when you pick them up. However, if all the cards in the deck are in pretty good condition except for one, say, a card that someone put a crimp in, then you've created a space, and all of the cards above that crimped card will stick to the plunger. The trick, then, is getting the crimped card underneath the 15 cards, or underneath the selection.

 

A good breather crimp is almost undetectable if you don't know what you're looking for. You can put one in an almost new deck and not leave a noticeable gap when the cards are set down, and I've had friends hold the card in their hands and examine it and not notice anything. 

[Amarsir]

That makes sense, but it also seems unreliable to me when you're willing to put the plunger in someone else's hands. A crimp would stop the cards from sticking together too far down, but I wouldn't be assured that the bundle won't break too high once in a while.  But if you have an out, I'd have to agree it's reliable enough and undetectable enough to be a very good trick.

[MsTree]

This is a spoiler thread - spill!  :-D  I'm the kind of person who doesn't like a mystery, I literally want to know how the magic trick is done.  Doesn't bother me a bit to have the answer, I can still appreciate the artistry and the thought that went into the illusion.  I was able to look up a trick I saw on AGT involving a crumpled empty soda can apparently refilling and resealing itself and and am still stunned and impressed at the cleverness of the answer many months later.  A wonderful trick and I appreciate it all the more knowing how it was done.  Unfortunately I have not been as successful in researching other tricks.  Any and all reveals anyone is willing to share will be MUCH appreciated by me!

 

Agree 100%!! Good to know I'm not alone.

 

Thanks for the soda can spoiler :-)

[marketdoctor]

 

You can't hold them for a long time, but Van Der Waals forces will hold the cards together on the plunger momentarily

 

You can also buy professional decks with different finishes on them (matte vs. smooth, for example), so there might be a finish that is slightly stickier.

That all said, it's a really cool trick with lots of good pieces (my guess is the tiny plunger is much more well-crafted than it appears to be).

 

ETA:  apparently I was way off about that; thanks, SomethingClever.

Edited September 14, 2015 by marketdoctor

[SomethingClever]

This is what it is. That's it, nothing tricky to it. I've gotten them in Walmart or Target for a buck apiece. You can do it with a normal bicycle deck of cards (provided they're in good enough shape).

 

Also, your more professional finishes on cards are going to be smoother, not stickier (stickier is bad bad bad for card handling). Honestly, there's not a huge difference between really high end cards and the bicycle cards you buy off the shelf at any store. They fan a little smoother, and you can definitely feel the difference if you're someone who handles cards all the time, but the difference is marginal.

[Amarsir]

Scott & Puck with the bars.

For the bowling ball I was confident that the bar fittings at the top and bottom slide sideways. The bars are staggered enough to imply that and it'd be simple to lock them in place for the prover attempt. The cuffs do make that more complicated though.

It could still be accomplished via trick handcuffs but I don't know if we lost sight of his hands long enough for that to happen. I'd have to watch again to see. A nice trick though.

[marketdoctor]

For the bowling ball I was confident that the bar fittings at the top and bottom slide sideways.

 

 

That was explained by Penn's veiled comment about the topography, and when Jonathan was trying to push the ball, two bars were more forward than the others.  The handcuffs could work if the bars slid forward enough at the bottom to have a small gap for the handcuff chain to get through (it need not be enough for his hands; they were still cuffed; you just need to get the chains through.)  That could even work with a pair of handcuffs borrowed from a police officer.  

 

Ironically that joke about "bedroom handcuffs" gave them an option, I once saw in a store handcuffs with a trick release as a safety option for people who wanted "safety".  (I didn't buy them, but I know they exist.)

 

Same episode, for the "find one of 52 decks", it was a clever way of decreasing the odds, but the deck that was used was the only deck that was unsealed (shredding the other decks hid this evidence.)  

 

I think for the coin magic, the way to gimmick them other than a shell (and nice use of turtles, btw!) is with magnets, or with something that would stick to his ring.  It was well done no matter what, though.

[Taeolas]

Actually for the 52 deck, I believe in some of the closeups you could see that some (all?) of the decks had been opened, or at least the seal broken. Still he should have pointed that out and maybe let Jonathan verify it. Then again, I don't think he let Jonathan handle any deck BUT the one his card was in (at least not until after he was searching for the right deck), so maybe that was important to the trick?

 

Of course since P&T couldn't easily see the other 51 decks from their seats, they might at first suspect the sealed difference as a key element; I wonder if they can do some 'obvious information' fact checking during their deliberations. 

[Totale]

The unfortunate camera angles after (and when Jonathan was checking the bars during) the Scott and Puck trick made it obvious that the bars were staggered, and while it didn't totally give the trick away it diminished it for the TV audience, anyway.

[Taeolas]

Penn and Teller's 1 minute egg. I've been thinking on that trying to decide how it was done. My best guess is that Teller has an empty egg shell in his hands. So when Penn is loading the first egg into his hands, it's all going into that shell. That's how Teller's hands keep so clean and the new egg is also so clean. (Teller 'pretends' to catch some yolk falling out the bottom to reinforce the illusion but nothing is actually getting out). His hand rubbing after may be a way to tape over the hole or something so the egg looks complete after, or to at least get it into the right position for the reveal. Of course, Teller smashes the 'new' egg after the trick so the evidence is destroyed. 

 

Suzzanne's Bandaid trick, I admitted in the show thread I wasn't paying attention closely, but I suspect I know what happened. The J-padding was over a pre-marked heart bandaid. When she put the J on Jonathan's hand, she removed the J padding, leaving the Heart padding behind.

 

Then she reveals the Heart bandaid, but before putting it on her head, she replaces the heart pad with the J pad. More patter and then the reveals. Since the heart was replaced by the J, both bandaids are fully examinable and wouldn't show tampering unless you look closely. (If she just put the J over the second Heart, the bandaid couldn't be examined since it would be obvious the pad would be doubled up or have something under it). 

 

Of course, I'm probably completely wrong since I wasn't watching closely.

[Porterest]

Season 3, ep 1: Sherlock Holmes trick. Could the glasses be retrofitted somehow to work? I have no idea, but it was fun to watch. 

[The Crazed Spruce]

2 hours ago, Porterest said:

Season 3, ep 1: Sherlock Holmes trick. Could the glasses be retrofitted somehow to work? I have no idea, but it was fun to watch. 

Maybe it's printed in a special ink that looks white to the naked eye, but only appears if the light hits it in a certain angle.

[Amarsir]

2 hours ago, The Crazed Spruce said:

Maybe it's printed in a special ink that looks white to the naked eye, but only appears if the light hits it in a certain angle.

Oh that's clever. He put reading glasses on! Of course that's it! Very smart, Spruce.

[Monty]

Yeah, that's my theory, too. He didn't have an extra book, but he could have had extra glasses besides the ones at the end that didn't have lenses in them.

[jbrecken]

He could have been wearing contacts, or maybe the fake glasses were a real headset and an offstage accomplice was telling him the answers.

Edited July 14, 2016 by jbrecken

[Taeolas]

Watching the trick closely, the first few times it does seem like his glasses have glass in them. But I'm not sure how he does the final part. It looks like there are lenses in them but there isn't really a chance to pop the lenses until he proves the glasses are fake too. Very impressive trick in any case, and a justified proof too. If Penn basically guessed a (book) swap or memorization, and he confirmed it was neither of those.

[Charlesman]

He sells the book trick for $80, I doubt it involves an accomplice or special contacts.

(It's now how it's done, but, it'd be neat if it was just in braille :)  )

Edited July 14, 2016 by Charlesman

[SomethingClever]

I'm inclined to believe it's something with the glasses, because those suckers sure look like they have lenses in them until the very end. Watch around the 6:10 mark, and you can see light refracting through the lens. I'll be damned if I can figure out when he pops those out though, because it sure doesn't look like he has any opportunity to do so.

[greyhorse]

New to this show and only caught the last part.  As I said in the episode thread, I don't see the point of the show if we're not told how they were done.  Hoping to get some insight into the tricks I saw.

Woman who disappeared in the box and then reappeared behind Penn and Teller.  I did get that Penn was saying to the magician about how they have worked with the blonde model before and they couldn't keep themselves from "staring" at her and they hoped that she didn't realize they were "staring".  He emphasized staring so much that I went back and watched in slow motion.  I'm guessing that the hands that go above the box and chained in are fake?  It seemed a little odd transition when the other model went from above to grab a hand, it just didn't seem right.  Then I'm guessing she slipped out the side on the left where the prop guy was standing, and hid in the stairs which all of a sudden were covered with a black cloth when at first they weren't.  So Penn must have been trying to tell the magician that the "stairs" (and not "stares") were the key to the trick.

As far as the audience writing down stuff on a paper and the magician making it appear in a box... I think it's obvious that he planted the golf ball suggestion in his pile of papers.  And Penn did talk about how the magician kept saying the height of the box was higher while the actual distance to the floor seemed to go down, as evidenced by not needing a stool to reach the top.  What does that have to do with it?  Was the bottle hidden in the pole and it somehow got pushed into the box which had an opening at the bottom?  Have no clue.

[Charlesman]

If you know the code words, they do explain how the tricks are done. Magician's code prevents them from saying it outright :-)

 

Lady in the box: there's actually a second woman hiding on the right side of the box. It's the second woman's hands that are cuffed on top, she pushes them up and out. That's why they look a little off center. The blonde hides in the staircase the assistant is on when she puts on the cuffs. You'll notice there are two staircases rolled up, and one is much bigger than the other with a black painted 'dead space' under it, that's where the girl hides. 

Bottle trick: yep, he uses the 'devil's handkerchief', which already contains a bunch of identical cards all reading 'golf ball'. Alyson collects real cards, but they're in a separate section she can't reach when she picks a golf ball one. The bottle with the ball is in the pink box the whole time, from the start of the trick, which is why it's never shown empty. Then, the magician had to put the pink box on the pole. He stood on the chair to do it. First, he dragged the chair into position. The empty bottle he showed Penn was secretly in his hand, and he "ditched" it into a pocket hanging off the back of the chair. Then he put the box on the pole and the trick was set. Penn called out there's no reason to use the chair if he can reach that high at the end, other than to use it to "ditch" the first bottle. 

(the devil's handkerchief is basically two identical handkerchiefs sewn together on three sides. One side is open. When you fold up all four corners, you can pull open the inside part and reach inside and it looks like you're just reaching into the middle of the 'bag' you've created. He had Alyson put all the audience cards on the handkerchief, folded it up, then held open the inside part where she reached in. There were 20 or so 'golf ball' cards already in that part. When he unfolded it it was all the audience cards again with his all hidden in the middle pocket.)

Edited July 17, 2016 by Charlesman

[Monty]

The best is when the magician refuses to acknowledge Penn's hint (which will sometimes take the form of saying the name of the magician who originated whatever technique is being used) so Penn has to be specific and give the whole game away. I feel like that happened more often in the first season.

[Christina]

I don't remember the act, but during the first season, a magician made it through on a technicality. Penn knew how he did it, but didn't explain it well as he was trying to not give it away. They had to have the person who knows how the act was performed to rule on if they were fooled. It was clear when watching it that Penn knew how he did it but didn't say it in such a way to give it away, and he got through. It may have been when they were in Britain and the winner returned to perform in Las Vegas. Even Penn seemed disappointed because they were sliding by on a technicality when that magician knew they hadn't food Penn and Teller. 

There was another one who wanted to argue about how a watch trick worked, but the same person behind the scenes ruled that he did not fool Penn and Teller. He was trying to split hairs, I think, hoping for a technicality like the first guy. 

[Amarsir]

7 hours ago, Christina said:

There was another one who wanted to argue about how a watch trick worked, but the same person behind the scenes ruled that he did not fool Penn and Teller. He was trying to split hairs, I think, hoping for a technicality like the first guy. 

Watch guy I understand him wanting to go to the mat. He was very polite about it and "gimmicked watch" is a pretty vague answer.

The one from the first season that comes to mind was the team with the silhouettes where the statement was "deck switch" and the reality wasn't so much a switch as it was adding cards. Which seems like a technicality, especially when he turned his back.

It reminds me of something Penn said in his podcast a few weeks ago: they changed the rules a little bit this season so that you can't disguise your method by having 4 other obvious methods. If there's a known method and you didn't use that method, you need a prover that will demonstrate you didn't use that method. So we'll see if that comes up.

[greyhorse]

So I've been trying to google the multiplying bottles trick, and it seems that there are magic kits that have these special bottles.  Very hard to find any actual explanation, all I see are websites to buy the bottles and grainy you tube videos of the trick.

I'm guessing from reading some of the comments of the kits that the bottles are actually not glass but aluminum?  So are they collapsible?  Still not really understanding how it works, how they "collapse" without the audience hearing anything, etc.  And how does the glass collapse?   Can anybody here please share with me?

[Christina]

I think, but don't know for certain, that the bottles are slightly different sizes and fit together like Russian nesting dolls, and he reaches down from the top of the paper cylinder, into a hole in the top of the bottles, and with slight finger pressure is able to release the center-most bottle. He does it several times, each time releasing the next bottle shell. I imagine that if you were able to hold the bottles, you would be able to see that they have no bottom, a hole in the top for his finger to go into, and are egg-shell thin, as is the can. there is a reason that they are placed the way there are and not in a line so you can't tell the slight difference in sizes.

I've seen the trick performed but never actually got close enough to view the bottles. He did the trick really well, and his commentary added to the trick, which it didn't the time I saw it live. I can see why the producers thought it would make a good trick to film, although I wish they would have let him do whatever it was that he thought would fool them. Maybe, he'll get to come back.

[Charlesman]

That's absolutely how it is done. Hollow bottomless bottles that nest together. They are very finely made as to be very thin with the pro models, so more can nest inside. 

You'll notice that at the very end, when the table was full, there was a bottle up front just to left of center that was a good inch or more shorter than the ones behind it. 

The whole routine takes lots of practice and deft handling, which Penn correctly praised. Guy was flawless. 

[greyhorse]

Thank you so much!  Ah, yes, now I understand!  Watched several of the YouTube videos and now completely see how it is done.  As others have said, it's probably more of giving the magician exposure rather than he actually thinking he could fool Penn and Teller, since this is obviously a well known trick.  

[scootypuffjr]

Can I just say how very, very much I love this thread? As I said somewhere in here previously, I am the sort who wants to know how the trick was done, and knowing doesn't diminish my pleasure or admiration of the magician's ingenuity and artistry one bit - if anything, it makes me admire them more, as the explanation is generally fairly banal. I wanted to take a moment to thank everyone here who contributes to it for helping to satiate my curiosity - thank you!.

[Charlesman]

I still don't know the full details behind Shawn Farquhar's book trick, but I can rule out a few things and provide some info. It has nothing to do with the glasses. The trick can be done without them entirely, they may have been added to the routine just to mess with Penn and Teller as a red herring. There is no book switch, and the blank one is not written in invisible or UV ink. 

Additionally: the trick cannot be performed while surrounded. There are 'bad angles' that would give away what he's doing. Being seen from the side and from at least a few feet away is the best way to perform it, so the back-to-back staging is actually slightly necessary. Also, the 'real' book isn't entirely kosher either. A magician who was hired to perform at a meeting of Sherlock Holmes fans asked Shawn if this trick would be good for that job, and was warned that a true Holmes fan might notice something odd about the book. Also, any intelligent reader who spends too much time with the book might notice something weird about it too. 

The book does contain some real Holmes material though, real characters and maybe some passages, but there's definitely something off about it. 

 

(Way back in the 80s, Penn and Teller put out 'Cruel tricks for dear friends', which contained a 'fake' book for a similar trick. You'd get the victim to pick up the book, open any random page, and read the first sentence to themselves and concentrate on the imagery. You would then proceed to draw what they were thinking. You'd always just draw a roundish shape with short lines coming off in all directions. The book had been rigged; it contained real stories (written by Penn and Teller) but with the top sentence of every page added to have an image that could roughly pass for the drawing: a spider, an exploding volcano seen from above, long plant leaves growing out of a pot, chuthulu's mouth, an octopus, etc. The sentence was constructed for each page to 'fit' the next sentence of the story below it, carried over from the previous page, but if you actually tried to read the book without skipping over the top sentences it would make no sense. Like, if the real sentence spanning two pages was: 'Peter grabbed Wendy by the wrist (page break)  as he leaned out the window' the book might read 'Peter grabbed Wendy by the wrist (page break) saw the mouth of the exploding volcano beneath the helicopter (line break) as he leaned out the window'. As long as you only read the top sentence and maybe one or two more, max, nothing seemed odd. But if you tried to read a couple of pages, it would stick out immediately. Something like that is going on here with the Sherlock book.)

[greyhorse]

I turned the episode on at about the 20 minute mark, and only saw the tail end of the trick with the cartoon stick figures, so not sure what that was all about.

The Lance Burtonish production with the woman in the metal cage disappearing and "passing" through the metal.  I commented in last week's episode thread about how I grew up watching David Copperfield specials and one of the illusions I always remember is him walking through the Great Wall of China.  Immediately when I saw that she was going to disappear, I thought of that trick.  Penn made a comment about how sometimes light does funny things.  I know that for Copperfield's trick, the light and the shadow was supposed to fool you into thinking he was still there.  I think the theory was that he hid in the corner outside the beam of light to not make a shadow, while another performed did the shadows, allowing him to hide in the floor of the platform.  Still never understood though how the second performed got into the box (or in this case, the metal cage) without anybody seeing him/her.  I'm guessing she must have disappeared in the platform, although it seemed rather small.  Penn also made a comment about how the disappearing woman was barefoot and the other woman had shoes on.  When she was dancing before disappearing, you could see that she was higher up on the circle cage than when the screen went up and then you saw her shadow.  The shadow feet were much more on the "bottom" of the cage.  Does being barefoot allow her to climb up the metal cage and hold herself there?  Not sure at all.

The Asperger's deadpan humor guy.  I didn't really enjoy it.  Never liked that Steven Wright (?) type of delivery and humor. But I'm guessing he forced the Lentils card somehow through sleight of hand, and then perhaps the handkerchief is again some trick handkerchief that has a pocket in it where he can put in the lentils?  Or he just palmed a bag of lentils?

The Penn/Teller/Eisenberg card tattoo trick.  Is this a similar concept?  Somehow force a card on Allyson?  Must be, I see no other way.

[The Crazed Spruce]

9 minutes ago, greyhorse said:

Still never understood though how the second performed got into the box (or in this case, the metal cage) without anybody seeing him/her.  I'm guessing she must have disappeared in the platform, although it seemed rather small.

That's Stage Magic 101. Platforms for these tricks are designed to look from the audience to be smaller than they actually are. A small, thin person could easily fit in a storage compartment there. The trick was very well done, but there was nothing in it that really surprised me.