Conference hydra::dejavu

I assume you mean the Amazing Randi; AKA James Randi; nee James Randall
Zwinge.

In the 60's Randi was one of the (if not the) leading "escape artists",
which is a specialty of stage magic, founded by Harry Houdini, involves
being locked in chains, trunks, handcuffs etc. then getting out.

Unlike all other forms of stage magic, escape artistry requires physical
strength, stamina and almost contortionist-like flexibility.  While the
former can be maintained with exercise throughout life fairly easily,
the second is more of a problem and the last very difficult.  Escape
artists therefore have to find other specialties later in life.  Most
simply shift to physically less demanding types of stage magic.

Randi instead chose to get out of the business of stage magic.  He tried
his hand at radio broadcasting (he did the midnight talk show on WOR radio
in New York for awhile.  I used to listen to it as a teenager).  And then
decided to follow the lead of Houdini, who went on the lecture circuit.
He would lecture and give demonstrations of the methods of fake mediums.

Randi is a good lecturer and demonstrator.  He is an excellent debunker
of charlatans.  Unfortunately he claims to be something more.

He claims to be an investigator seeking the truth about the paranormal.
He is one of the principal CSICOP people.

Suffice it to say that he attempts to project the image of a scientific
investigator, but his methods are those of a showman.  His training is,
after all, as a stage magician -- a professional deceiver.

Randi has offered a prize of $10,000 to anyone who can prove claims of
paranormal conditions.  He claims to always carry a check for the amount
on him, but refuses to show it to people.  The conditions for winning
the prize sound fair on first reading (I can post a copy if people are
interested) but boil down to:

    1) The claimant is responsible for all costs.
    2) A test is designed by Randi -- at this time the claimant can ask
	for revisions.  Randi may refuse, at which point the claimant
	may back out.
    3) The test is performed.  Randi's judgment is final.  The claimant
	has agreed not to bring the matter to court and has signed all
	rights to the test to Randi -- this apparently includes public
	accounts of the test and certainly includes all films, written
	records, etc.
    4) If Randi wants to, he may give the claimant $10000, otherwise the
	claimant is required to admit publicly that paranormal abilities
	do not exist, i.e. that any claims that (s)he made in the past
	were fraudulent or in error.

Obviously, only a fool would take Randi up on this.  Some have.

Randi's book Flim-Flam is an excellent book, if rather one-sided and
self aggrandizing.  I recommend it as an excellent introduction to some
of the techniques of fake psychics.

A few days ago a note was posted on the USENET network that Randi had
been awarded a fellowship by the MacArthur foundation.  These grants
are given to people to effectively pay their salaries while they do
anything they want.  The grant is $52,000/year for 5 years.  If true
it will be interesting to see if he does anything at all for the next
5 years.


	    Topher

    Re .1:
    
    First, I agree _Flim-Flam!_ is a worthwhile book, but the tone is
    extremely shrill.
    
    Second, it might not be Randi; Houdini named himself after Robert
    Houdin, an excellent stage magician of the late 19th Century (though
    Harry Houdini [actually Erich Weiss] later became disillusioned
    with his namesake).  
    
    It's probably Randi (really James Zwingei [sp]), however.
    
    Interestingly enough, one man _did_ exhibit a "paranormal" ability
    to Randi that apparently was perfectly genuine.  As reported to in
    _Fate_ a few years ago, the man hasd the ability to look at an LP
    record and determine whether it contained classical or popular music
    without reading the label.  According to the report, Randi had severasl
    records with their labels covered and the man got them all right,
    including a ringer.  As best I remember it, Randi was supposed to
    have said, "I don't know how you do it, but you've got something."
    
    Randi, who reads _Fate_ regularly, responded to the report and didn't
    contradict that the person had demonstrated what was said he could
    do [I suspect he unconsciously could see some difference in light
    interference patterns on the grooves, but that'sd another matter].
    
    But Randi didn't give him the check, either.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Re: .2

An interesting nit --

Actually Steve, you've made the same mistake that Houdini made.  The name
of the magician in question was not Robert Houdin, but Jean-Eugene (I think
their is an accent in their somewhere) Robert-Houdin.  Houdini missed the
hyphen, as you did, when he was naming himself.  Also someone had told him
the the suffix "i" in French means "like" (it doesn't, of course).  So his
name is the result of two errors. 

Houdini's disillusionment (no pun intended) with Robert-Houdin, seems to
date from a rather revealing incident.  Houdini was making a triumphant
tour of Europe.  He decided to stop in the small town where Robert-Houdin
had lived and place flowers on his grave.  After that he called on
Robert-Houdin's widow to pay his respects.  Houdini, of course, saw himself
as the widow Robert-Houdin's husband's heir apparent.  She, on the other
hand, was a complete recluse, and didn't know who he was.  She was
apparently quite rude to him -- or at least, that is how Houdini saw it. He
apparently never forgave her, and therefore her late husband, for
humiliating him.  He later wrote a book, which I haven't read, called
something like "Robert-Houdin Unmasked".  From what I hear, Houdini makes
many accusations which boil down to the fact that Robert-Houdin used
tricks, i.e., he was a magician. 

Robert-Houdin was, by the way, a fascinating person in his own right. He is
usually credited with being the founder of modern stage magic. He was, for
example, the first magician to perform in formal attire rather than a robes
or oriental outfit.  He kept abreast of, and attempted to use in his act,
the latest scientific discoveries in chemistry, mechanics, and especially
in electricity.  He was sent by the French government to Algiers -- his
mission was to duplicate the "magical" feats of the Dervishes who were
winning political power there by their use.  He was to prove that the
French were as powerful (and, therefore, as favored by Allah) as anyone. 

Oh yes, he also spent much of his career debunking magicians who claimed
that their powers were supernatural rather than tricks.  So, despite his
disillusionment, Houdini continued to follow in his footsteps. 

	    Topher

    Re .3:
    
    Yes, and Robert-Houdin [mea culpa] _topped_ the Dervishes.  His
    best trick in Algiers was to take an object and place it in a special
    "magic" box.  After removing is to show it wean't difficult, he'd
    place it back in, make a few passes and mutter a word or two, then
    challenge the leaders to have their strongest man try to remove
    the object.
    
    The biggest bruiser they found couldn't.  Of course, the relatively
    lightweight object was made of steel, and the bottom of the "magic"
    box contained an extremely powerful electromagnet ....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Re: .2

Actually, the "record-reader's" abilities were even more amazing than
that.

What he claimed to be able to do was to identify any piece of music in
the classical repertoire by looking at the grooves.  Even Randi had to
admit that he could.

Randi slipped into the experiment an Alice Cooper (no relation) record.
The poor man said that the record contained "just noise" and complained
that reading it gave him a headache.

I read Randi's account in an issue of Skeptical Inquirer that I borrowed
(I will not pay for a copy).  I wondered at the time, and still do, if
Randi had warned the guy that he would not consider the ability
paranormal even if he demonstrated it.  By the way, I do agree with
Randi that this is unlikely to be a paranormal skill; but if he didn't
tell the person this in advance than ethically the prize should be forfeit
in my opinion.

	Topher

    Re .5:
    
    Topher, I've got to disagree with you that the record-reader's skill
    is "not paranormal."  It might not be extrasensory, but is sure
    is not normal, and is indeed beyond what "normal" folk can do.
    
    It seems "paranormal" is as slippery a definition as "psychic" or
    "occult." :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

.6:

Our disagreement about whether record-reading is "paranormal" or not
is one of definition.  Paranormal is another technical term which has
passed somewhat into the popular vocabulary.  It was coined with a
specific meaning in mind, however.

This does not mean that the definition is not slippery.  Whether or
not a particular phenomenon is "paranormal" or not is largely a matter
of opinion.  Furthermore, something which actually was paranormal
yesterday is not necessarily so today (like "bleen" and "grue" in
the famous philosophy of science thought experiment).

You seem to equate "paranormal" with "not normal" or "extraordinary"
but the term means much more than that.

A paranormal phenomenon is one which violates currently understood
*fundamental* scientific laws or assumptions.  The word fundamental
is important: simply showing that someone, for example, can do mental
calculations faster than anyone previously thought possible is not
a demonstration of paranormal ability unless it can be shown that
a fundamental limitation on the speed of computation has been violated.

I am frequently annoyed (mildly of course) when people (mostly critics)
use the label "paranormal" to cover all sorts of things which are not,
e.g., yeti spottings.

So, although I think that the record-reader's abilities are certainly
extraordinary; I do not have any reason to believe that those abilities
violate the current fundamental scientific understanding of the universe.

					Topher

    Re .7:
    
    But Topher ... I believe there's a good case for  telepathy and/or
    clairvoyance using some of the postulates of quantum theory.
    
    One person's "scientifically impoossible" is another's "scientifically
    interesting."
    
    Either way, the guy should have gotten the prize money.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re: .7
    
    Topher,
    
    I'm not familiar with what you were talking about concerning "bleen"
    and "grue".  Could you elaborate?
    
    	Dave

RE .8:
    
    I have good news and bad news.  FIRST THE BAD NEWS --

As it is currently understood, Quantum Mechanics (QM) is mostly a pure
mathematical theory, with a relatively small amount of qualitative theory
attached to indicate what the equations refers to.  The mathematics is not
easily understood in an intuitive way (I should say, right off, that my
understanding of the mathematics of QM is very weak, I'm currently trying
to correct this).  The way QM is done is to use the qualitative parts to
figure out the values for the various variables in the mathematical
formula, then the equations are solved, then a translation back to the
"real world" is done. 

This is, of course, what is done in all of physics, but there is a
difference.  In classical physics, what is represented by the solution of
the equations can be understood in intuitive terms.  When we solve the
central force equations for gravity, for example, and get the equation for
an ellipse, then we can understand that this means that the "planet" in
question is following an elliptical path through space.  According to Bohr
(the author of the currently most widely accepted interpretation of QM)
there is no easily comprehensible model of what is going on what the
equations of QM are solving.  They are too far removed from common
experience. 

There are simplified versions of QM which are applicable under very narrow
conditions.  Some of these have nice intuitive models associated with them.
The best known of these is applicable when you are dealing with large
masses and large distances -- it's called "classical physics", i.e., the
physics which we use every day.  None of these, however, is really QM and
the intuitive models attached to them are not applicable to QM in general,
only to QM applied under the simplified theory's specialized assumptions. 

These simplified versions of QM have been used to try to give
non-physicists some understanding of what QM is about.  This is valuable.
The only problem is that people don't realize that what they are getting is
not a "rough intuitive feeling of QM" but more of a "blindmen and the
elephant" view of QM. 

Books like "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" take these restricted views of QM
and apply them where they are inapplicable, attempting to produce
explanations for psi in QM and/or demonstrate equivalence to metaphysical
or mystical philosophies.  As *metaphor* I think that these are
interesting, creative and very valuable.  *They do not, however, represent
reality*.  That "a city is like a living organism" is a valuable metaphor
does not mean that I should expect to be able to "kill" it by sticking a
knife in the middle of the town square. 

NOW THE GOOD NEWS -- 

There exists two QM theories of psychic phenomena that I know of, which
seem to work on the level of the complete QM theory, which have enough
detail attached to them to actually be useful, and which actually relate to
what has been observed in parapsychology.  One is David Boem's (sp?) theory
of the implicate order, and the other is Evan Harris Walker's non-local
hidden variable theory.  The latter has recently received some experimental
support.  (I have some severe philosophical problems with Dr. Walker's
theory.  I think, however, that the area I disagree with is not central to
the theory.  Dr. Walker on the other hand says it is, and that no changes
can be made or the whole thing falls apart.  This is one of the reasons I'm
trying to learn more about QM). 

Neither of these theories are, however, the standard theory of QM. Adoption
of either of them would require the rejection of elements of the current
fundamental scientific world view. 

			Topher

RE: .9

This is more than a bit off the topic, but what the heck.

The thought experiment goes like this --

Suppose that on a distant planet, which is almost exactly like Earth in
all ways, there are two colors which we will call "grue" and "bleen".  Now
a linguist from Earth who is trying to figure out the language would discover
that "grue" is the same as our green before midnight, Jan 1, 1986 (hereafter,
The Hour) and blue after then.  Similarly, "bleen" is *blue* before The Hour
and *green* after.  Of course the inhabitants don't have words for blue
and green, only grue and bleen, which seem completely natural to them.

Now their scientists go out and start to study things.  They make observations
and make generalizations from those observations, just as our scientists
do.  By this method of inductive reasoning, which is the basis of scientific
reasoning there (as it is here) they discover two things (remember, their
planet is very Earth-like):

	1) The grass is grue.

	2) The sky is bleen.

Every observation made supports these "theories".  More and more data comes
in and it all is in agreement.

Until --

When the scientists wake up on the morning after The Hour:

	1) The grass is bleen.

	2) The sky is grue.

All their observations, which seemed so secure and consistent, were *wrong*.

The basic question is -- how can we justify generalizing from one time to
another?

The obvious solution to this problem is to say that the problem came about
because they were "stupid" enough to use terms which were "obviously"
going to change with time.  This is true in the thought experiment, but
only because we made it that way so it was easy to see the nature of the
problem.

It turns out that our definitions of terms depend on assumptions about
the world which depend, in turn, on induction from our experience.  Any
definition could depend on time factors without our being aware of it.
A simple illustration: what if the definitions of "grue" and "bleen" changed
at The Hour because of a subtle change in their sun or atmosphere?

A more realistic example: the laws of physics which we have derived from
induction on observations, *might* actually depend on the total density
of mass in the Universe being above some special value.  Since the density
of matter in the Universe is decreasing while the Universe expands, we
could cross that threshold at any time, and suddenly, for no apparent
reason, all previous observations are wrong.

The question therefore remains -- since *any* number of observations can
change from apparent correctness to complete error, how can we feel secure
that any generalization can be applied meaningfully to another time?

Think about it --

				Topher

P.S.: I should say, that many philosophers feel that they have a solution to
this.  Many of these solutions are contradictory, however, and other
philosophers feel that *none* of them are correct.  This is, of course,
the nature of philosophy.

    Re .10:
    
    Topher, the point I was trying to make, and this goes back to other
    notes is that the "paranormal" today may be the "normal" of tomorrow
    in that a coherent, straightforward, and relatable-to-other-areas-of-
    known-science theory or discipline is developed around it (like
    electromagnnetism, for instance, after the time of Galileo).  There
    are hints that some of the "paranormal" effects are just beyond
    our current knowledge, and that the right kind of push [quantum
    jump? ;-)] might crystallize the associated phenomena.
    
    My thought is that some people want to disassociate any/all aspects
    of the paranormal from _ever_ becoming part of the normal.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .12:
    
    Here I agree with you entirely.  That is what the reference to grue
    and bleen was refering to.
    
    			Topher

This is just from memory but I had thought that the person who reads
the grooves in records never claimed it was a "para-normal", psychic
or anything else. It was simply something he could do due to long
familiarity with classical music. Thus Randi shouldn't even had him take
a test since he was claiming anything except that it was an interesting
ability. And Yes, I know people who claim that Alice Cooper's recordings
are just noise...:-)

DDA

    re .14:
    
    He must have thought it was somehow paranormal, or he wouldn't have
    taken the test.  The interesting thing is that Randi told him, "I
    don't know how you do it," after testing him under controlled
    conditions and didn't give him the money.
    
    Whether anybody else thinks the ability is or is not paranormal
    (well, at least it isn't "normal" as _I_ understand the term) is
    secondary.  Randi tested him and he passed the test; ergo, he should
    have been able to collect the prize.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Well, Randi was on the Tonight Show Friday night [I think it was a rerun] 
and he had a VERY interesting videotape.

It was about this faith healer in California.  He's apparently the 
'biggest' one in the country.  Randi went to the area where he was taping a 
show with an electronics expert.  He also had the show taped as it was seen 
over the air.  Some interesting things he found:

	1. A truckload of wheelchairs.  These are provided to people who
	have difficulty walking.

	2. Mrs. Faith Healer went through the crowd before the 'show'
	talking to the people and filling out 'healing cards'.

	3. Nobody who showed up in an electric-powered wheelchair was
	chosen.

	4. Of those in wheelchairs that *were* chosen, only the ones who
	were provided one or who Mrs. Faith Healer saw move themselves
	into the pews were selected.

The electronics expert had a scanner trained on this.  You see, Randi 
thought it was awful strange that this man who claimed to have a direct 
line to God should need a hearing aid [real small in his left ear, barely 
noticeable even on closeups].

Well, they discovered a few things.  He may well have had a line to God.  
If he did, God has some interesting properties:

	1. God broadcasts on 39.012 Mhz

	2. God is a woman

	3. God sounds an awful lot like Mrs. Faith Healer

They played the videotape with the tape from the scanner superimposed on 
the audio after they played just-the-videotape-as-we-would-see-it.

It was laughable.  He was claiming divine guidance by calling out names and 
addresses and listing the maladies that these people had.  All the while, 
his wife was coaching him in his ear.  The audience bought it because they 
didn't know that the woman circulating around was his wife.

Randi also said that this was the first time this tape was shown ANYwhere.  
The faith healer [O.V. Something-or-other] did not know about this and the 
Tonight Show would be the first that ANYone, outside Randi's friends, would 
see it.

A $20 million dollar a MONTH enterprise is how Randi categorized most faith 
healers.

I noticed he did not mention the one in Cambridge Mass. who doesn't ask for 
anything in the way of large donations.  He drives a Chevy, is a priest in 
a local curch and makes no real noise.  His name, unfortunately, escapes 
me.

RE. 16
    
>I noticed he did not mention the one in Cambridge Mass. who doesn't ask for 
>anything in the way of large donations.  He drives a Chevy, is a priest in 
>a local curch and makes no real noise.  His name, unfortunately, escapes 
>me.

    
    It might be Fr. Edward McDonough you're thinking of.

    Re .16:
    
    "Faith healing" is a good breeding ground for charlatans.  The more
    flamboyant anyone claiming to have any sort of paranormal powers
    is, the greater degree of skepticism one ought to view them with.
    [Kallis' law of operational sincerity].
    
    Randi's good at detecting charlatans, and to that extent, he's doing
    paranormal research a great benefit.  However, the less critical
    tend to think tyhat just because Dr. Snakeoil is a phony, every
    person said to have paranormal abilities also is a phony....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .17 [Fr. McDonough]

That's the one.  Thanx.

    	Have tests been done on Fr. McDonough's abilities?  What has
    he done, and has it been verified (and I mean by a professional
    medical team)?
    
    	He's probably the only one I would trust.
    
    	Larry
    

    My mother has gone to meetings with Fr. McDonough, she will speak
    the world about him.  I think that he does have a gift, but maybe
    the gift brings the energy of the person to bear on his/her own 
    problems, almost like a spiritual catalyst.

         I saw Randini on Johnny Carson last night.  Johnny asked
    him about channels...Randini replied that it can neither be proved
    nor disproved.
         In general, my opinion is that he is not the type of person
    that I care to have in my reality...he's too limited and narrow-minded
    (in the sense of being negative) for me.
      
     
    Frederick
    

                              < A Magical Note >
    
       This is my first reply to a note,mostly I just read them but
    the title of the book you are looking for is "The Unmasking of
    Robert-Houdin  by Harry Houdini. Published I believe in 1922.  
       If you are interested in the Robert-Houdin story there is a 
    real good book titled "Memoirs of Robert-Houdin King of the 
    Conjurers" it is a Dover Publication and was printed in 1964.
       Before I go any further I should perhaps introduce myself   
    My name is Paul Baird  and I work in  Marlboro MA in Office 
     Services and I am also a member of two magical organizations
    the International Brotherhood of Magicians & The Society of American
    Magicians.  I can be reached on Junior\Dismain or at DTN 262-8464
       I have some photos of the original "Chest of Robert-Houdin otherwise
    known as "The Light and Heavy Chest".  This is the same one that
    he used in Algeria against the Marabouts. This note is getting a
    little long if you need more information get in touch with me.
         
    
    Magically   Paul
    

    re: -.1
    
    Paul, what did you think of the Houdini-Dunninger book about
    his "seance-busting" days?
    
    							Don

     re:- .24 
    
     Don, I have a copy of the book about Houdini-Dunninger and I really
    enjoyed reading about the "sceance-busting". You have to remember
    that Houdini, when he first started performing one the items he
    performed was a spirit type sceance.  I like the way the book was
    set up into individual titles of each event it was easier to   
     reference to a particular item. If you are into the sceance reading
    I am presently reading a copy of "Eusapia Pallidino and Her Methods
      by Hereward Carrington, printed about 1932, I believe, I could
    look it up if you need the exact date. But this was one of the 
     people that Houdini set out to expose, and he did so rather nicely,
    
       However if I am not mistaken the book does not even mention anything
    about Houdini.                                                 
             
       Another good book is the "Houdini Spirit Exposes" by Dunninger
    and  Houdini this one was written around l927 after Houdini's death
    but is compiled from notes by both Dunninger and Houdini,it also
     contains some nice pictures. 
    
    
      If you want to delve further into the spirit area there is another
    book entitled "Hydeville in History" which is about the Fox Sisters
    and the start of the spirit rappings,which is probably the whole
    start of this specialty of sceances. The story of the Fox sisters
    has been told in many volumes on the subject of spiritualism, but
    this book seems to be just about the sisters  and the topic,and
     no other outside stories, I can get you the author and date   
     it was published if necessary, as I have a copy at home.      
         
    
      I hope this answers your question  as I did tend to ramble again.
    
    
    
     With Magical regards,
    
    
     Paul
    
    
    

    Re .25 (Paul):
    
    What?  No mention of _Houdini On Magic_, written by the man himself,
    and edited/compiled by Walter Gibson.  It's a Dover print (maybe
    now out of print), and his seance-busting concentrated on his bouts
    with "Margery," a famous medium of the time who nearly copped a
    prize from _Scientific American_.
    
    Also, in _Dunninger's Encyclopedia of Magic_, which consists of
    a collection of his articles and fillers, there are several cartoon-
    enhanced explanations of seance scams of the times (late '20s and
    '30s).  This has been officially out of print, but can be found
    in a lot of remainder houses.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  In _Houdini On Magic_, a pamphlet, "The Right Way of Doing
    Wrong," where Houdini discusses some of the dishonest practices
    of his day, is reprinted in full.  By today's standards, some of
    the items seem hardly worthwhile (e.g., putting a coating on postage
    stamps for reuse), and others are impractical (using a man on a
    pushcart to steal from a horse-drawn wagon), but in sum, they give
    a fascinating picture of city life in the 1920s.
    
    S

    Re .25 (Steve):
     
    Steve I only mentioned a few of the sources so that the reply would
    not be too drawn out.  You might want to add: "Dunningers Secrets"
    by Dunninger as told to Walter B. Gibson-published in 1974 by Lyle
    Stuart.  A correction from yesterday's note: The title of the book
    about the Fox Sisters should read "Hydesville in History", I left
    out the "S" the author was M. E. Cadwallader published by the  
    Progressive Thinker Publishing House in 1917.  
    
    Another is  "Eusapia Palladino and her Phenomena" by Hereward  
    Carrington . This was published by B. W.  Dodge & co.  1909    
     
    (This is the work that does not mention Houdini)
    
    
    Steve: The "Houdini on Magic" is alive and well as there was a copy
    of it in a  local bookstore I recently visited. I have both the
    Dunninger and Houdini books at home, the one by Gibson I was 
    fortunate enough to have autographed by the author,when I attended
    one of our magic conventions.
    
    Sorry I left it out but didn't want to take up too much space here.
    
    
    By the way: Steve from what source did you get your account of the
    story of the "Light and Heavy Chest" of Robert-Houdin?
      Do you have a copy of the "Memoirs of Robert-Houdin? with an 
    introduction by Milbourne Christopher,it is another of the Dover
    Publications. The account of the this bout with the Marabouts
    is on page 266 & 267 under title of "Travels in Algeria".
    
    
    Well very busy have to go for now,hope any notes I have entered
    sofar have been helpful to everyone.
    
    
    Magically
    
    Paul 
    

    Re .26 (Paul):
    
    >By the way: Steve from what source did you get your account of the
    >story of the "Light and Heavy Chest" of Robert-Houdin?
    
    I believe I read it in _The Encyclopedia Americana_ when I was in
    the tenth grade.
    
    >Do you have a copy of the "Memoirs of Robert-Houdin? with an 
    >introduction by Milbourne Christopher,it is another of the Dover
    >Publications. ..
     
    No, perhaps someday (though my wife dispairs of all the books in
    our house).
    
    >Steve I only mentioned a few of the sources so that the reply would
    >not be too drawn out. ..
      
    Understood.  Yet the Houdini-Margery confrontation is doubly
    interesting because of the parallel politics going on at the time.
    That's the primary reason I mentioned that one.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .26 (Paul)
    
    I first saw the story of Robert-Houdin's trunk in, of all places,
    a comic book -- I must have been 8 or 9.  I have no idea what
    comic book it was in, I vaugly remember that there was a short
    lived comic book about a magician (stage, I'm not talking about
    Dr. Strange, that was later anyway) who faught crime using "magic"
    tricks (like boxing gloves on springs up his sleeves).  It definitely
    included single page articles explaining how to do "magic at home."
    It may have been in an issue of that (I have some friends who are
    avid comic book collectors, I might be able to get more information
    if you want it as a collector of magic-related literature).
    
    Anyway, though I generally don't have a very good visual memory,
    I can still see the picture of the look of shock (no pun intended)
    on the face of an Arab as he tried to release his hold on the trunk
    handle, and also the next frame with Robert-Houdin standing smugly
    on the platform, in his full evening dress, gesturing theatrically
    as the Arabs fled collectively saying something comic-booky like
    "AIIIIIEEEEE!".
    
RE: .28 (Steve)
    
    The whole Margery mediumship is important in the history of
    parapsychology for a couple of reasons.  First, The American Society
    for Psychical Research had originally been founded (by, e.g., William
    James) with a very scientific orientation in the 1880s, and kept
    that orientation for a while.  By the twenties, however, it had
    been "infiltrated" (sorry for the negative sound of that, its the
    most accurate word I can think of) by Spiritualists, who, though
    well meaning, were mostly looking for arguments for their beliefs
    rather than careful investigation.  The whole issue of the authenticity
    of Margery resulted in major confrontations between the two factions
    which resulted in most of the scientificly oriented directors leaving
    and the organization loosing all its scientific credibility.
    
    Second, a young researcher decided to attend a seance by Margery,
    and quickly spotted what he felt were clear indications of fraud
    (not just opportunities, but direct evidence that fraud had taken
    place).  This convinced him that reliable evidence could only come
    out of laboratory experimentation (though he felt that field
    investigations were also very important; but as the basis for
    theorizing not as evidence per se).  He began to systematically
    test some of the assumptions of "Psychical Research" in his laboratory
    with excellent results.  He was, of course, J.B. Rhine who is viewed
    almost universally as the founder of modern parapsychology.
    
    					Topher

    Re .28 (Steve) Houdini published an account of the Margery sceances
    in a pamphlet "Margery the Medium" it is a small booklet of about
    28-30 pages. It shows Houdini on the cover, and in it it goes on
    to explain the methods which Margery used including the bell box
    episode. I have a copy of this and it is very interesting reading.
      The drawings in this pamphlet show up in the "Houdini on Magic"
     book by Gibson,incidentally much of the material that was 
    supposedly written by Thurston,Blackstone, and some of the Houdini
    material was actually (pardon the expression) ghostwritten by
    Walter B. Gibson.
    
        I will send you the pages from the "Memoirs of Robert-Houdin
    that tell of the "Light and Heavy" Chest.
    
    
    
    Magical regards
    
    Paul
    
    
    

    re: .29
      
        Topher, would that have been Mandrake?
    
    
    Frederick
    
     

RE: .31 (Frederick)
    
    Nope.  This comic had a very different feel to it.  Mandrake's effects
    border on the mystical -- when he disappears he *really* disappears,
    or uses super-effective instant hypnosis, or whatever.  Although much
    of the "magic" in this comic was wildly impractical (e.g., the spring
    loaded boxing gloves up the sleeves) every trick was explained.
    
    						Topher

    Re last_few:
    
    If you ask over in the COMICS conference, someone could figure this
    out, probably quickly.  In the old _Detective_ comics, one of the
    "detectives" was a stage magician who fought crime with stage devices
    (he was more or less supplanted in the DC "universe" with Zatarra,
    a magician dressed as all stage magicians were, save for a yellow
    vest and red-and-white-striped four-in-hand tie, who used "magic
    spells" made up of speaking backwards, or at least saying commands
    that read backwards [such as "Aet deci htiw fellif eb ssalg," if
    someone was thirsty], which was sort of half-mystical), but I can't
    recall his name.
    
    Mandrake was/is apparently a super-hypnotist.
    
    Many of the comics used to have at least one page of "educational"
    material, or a centerfold story with no pictures (pure type) to
    enable them to be sent through the mails at magazine rate.  [That
    was under the old postal regulations.]  Therefore, a styory about
    a st age magician "feels"  natural enough.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                     

              <<< Note 172.1 by PBSVAX::COOPER "Topher Cooper" >>>
                              -< Probably Randi >-

>I assume you mean the Amazing Randi; AKA James Randi; nee James Randall
>Zwinge.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>Randi's book Flim-Flam is an excellent book, if rather one-sided and
>self aggrandizing.  I recommend it as an excellent introduction to some
>of the techniques of fake psychics.

I'm reading Flim Flam at the moment, and agree with your observations. It
reminds me of a book I read discussing 'Alternative Medicine' and 'Real
Foods' ("Health of Hoax" by Professor Arnold Bender), in that the tone of
the writer irritated me, but I agreed with the conclusions nonetheless.

Randi uses expressions which are very judgemental, and detract from an
otherwise good read, e.g. "As they sat back with self-satisified smiles on
their faces ...". I know it's a nit, but he doesn't know this, and he uses
this technique a lot. I'm only on the 2nd chapter.

Dougie 

(First time I've replied to a 7 year old note, but I know you're still
around Topher!)

RE: .34 (Dougie)

    Gad, has it really been 7 years, since I wrote that note?

> I know it's a nit

    I don't consider it a nit at all, but a full-grown louse. :-)

    Joking aside, it is a serious flaw -- or rather evidence of such.  It
    shows that Randi is not as interested in presenting facts and letting
    them speak for themselves, as creating an impression.  He sees/reports
    only what he want to, and his purpose would seem not to be to arrive at
    the truth, but to present the truth as he already "knows" it to be (or
    wants you to believe that it is).

    Randi has improved on this score since Flim Flam -- I wish I could
    believe that it isn't just a matter of having learned to appear more
    objective.

				    Topher

Re .35 (Topher):

How has Randi improved?  What evidence?

Enquiring minds want to know ...

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I'm not sure "improvement" is really the right word.

    My overall impression is that he has gotten better about *apearing*
    biased.  His tone has mellowed quite a bit, though I still wouldn't
    describe it as "mellow".  He frequently lets others, such as Penn and
    Teller, play the heavy for him.  In other words, its harder to
    determine his bias without knowing the facts of the case under
    discussion.

				    Topher

Re .37 (Topher):

Would the datum that he's facing (or has faced) a lawsuit have anythibng to do
with his more muted demeanor?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I don't think so.  It seems to have been a gradual process.  He still
    makes direct accusations.  Its just that he relies less on sarcasm.
    I think that he has learned that this "plays" better to the audience
    he's courting.

				    Topher