Richard Kaufman wrote:I agree with Mark in the sense that the male spectator's freely-chosen number was not the number heard by the audience. Whether it was a gimmicked microphone or ventriloquism is beside the point. We know exactly how the trick worked because IT IS THE ONLY WAY the trick could have been done. In trying to make it perfect enough to fool P&T, they made it Too Perfect.
ll contestants have to work with Mike Close for ages on their routines, and he knows exactly how everything works. I can see how, in the moment, this might have fooled P&T, but given that we've figured it out in a few minutes, I believe that they, too, would have figured it out if given more time (and who knows how much was edited out). Penn could have simply asked the performer: "was the number spoken by the male spectator the same number we in the audience heard"--and the question is obvious because it's the only way the trick could have worked. I find it hard to imagine that this did not cross Penn's mind. Contrary to popular belief, he actually knows as much or more about magic than Teller at this point.
This is so much fun, Richard. What a stimulating discussion!
I hope you will allow me a few more observations, in the interest of Magic Analytics.
I have been doing some research on the frequency with which certain words MATCH EACH OTHER in various ways. For instance--I have discovered that, of the numerals from one to fifty-two, ten are MONOSYLLABIC (1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12); eleven are BISYLLABIC (7,13,14,15,16,18,19,20,30,40); twenty-eight are TRISYLLABIC (11,17,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,38,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,49,51,52); and only three are QUADROSYLLABIC (27,37,47).
Note that 47 was the number chosen. The odds of a random volunteer uttering the correct number of syllables is therefore THREE TO FIFTY-TWO. Just about the most discouraging statistics imaginable. And yet, here we are, suggesting that the second volunteer moved his mouth in a way at least reasonably close to that of someone saying FOR-TY-SEV-EN.
The general consensus seems to be that he actually said "SEV-EN-TEEN". Even if that were true, the odds are merely twenty-two out of fifty-two. In other words, less than half a chance
Then there's the physical movement of the lips, mouth and jaw. I estimate the likelihood of approximating the enunciation of any given numeral is about 20% (even worse).
I honestly can't tell whether the man's mouth uttered "47" or "17", but the chance of a participant appearing as though he might have spoken the number we heard are so bad that no magician, regardless of skill, could reasonably hope to dub a piece of audio that adroitly--timed perfectly to play precisely as the man spoke.
Now compute the odds of a volunteer obediently refraining from looking into the camera (say, to show his face to friends and family back home, or to look to a companion in the audience, as folks often do).
And something else bothers me. Is it not TERRIBLY IRONIC that Ms. Emily made a joke out of asking the participants not to react? A joke (as hers) is meant to produce a spontaneous emotion. How then might the inventor of this trick expect compliance, in the event that a volunteer is shocked to hear someone else's voice supplanting his or her own?
I don't see any unusual response in the second volunteer's manner. Those who think they spot it are a bit ambitious I think.
Likewise, why would he (I'm thinking of Mr. Hart) invite another volunteer to witness the rubbish AT CLOSE RANGE?
Martin Hart has denied that the mic was rigged, in one of his comments under the other video (implicating The Mic Theory). But then again, he
suggests there were no stooges either. One way or the other, he is being less than honest about this.
I've probably got more to say, but I just thought you might want to consider these additional points.
