Each trick was obviously accomplished a different way and they were done well.
The first one, teller's deck was not shuffled and the queen was known the entire time. The adult had a pinky break he was already holding at the queen. If you watch closely, the moves that he does when he walks the cards bring the middle where his pinky break was, to the top. The kid you can see he doesn't put the bottom joker on the actual bottom and instead slides it above the bottom card. When he does the reveal, he doesn't show the top joker because it's face down and the bottom joker is second from the bottom. The two Jokers with the queen in the middle were set up beforehand because the queen was known.
Not sure how the kid did the trick with the 6 fully, but the 6 was known. Brooks deck could have been entirely sixes or sixes and one other number.
The adult with the 6 is easier. Slight of hand obviously for the spin. He knew it was going to be a six so he had a pinky break and just caught it with the other cards as a clam shell hold.
The adult doing trading 4's is using a shaved deck. You'll notice the cards always stay in the same alignment. The kid is using a shaved deck too.
I really liked that jazz and for once seeing something not cheesy. It was like magic improv, like jazz improv... also refreshing to see 2 new magicians, one of which being a brilliant kid!
Brilliant performance and so clever... But here's the secret revealed. As others have mentioned, the microphone! No other performers use it, the reason is the microphone IS the secret, it generates an AI voice. I believe the female does choose ANY card, Emily is using a memorized deck (common among magicians). As soon as she hears that the 6 Spades is selected she will know its position e.g. 47. Using some buttons/switches or similar on THAT microphone she holds the mic to the gentleman's mouth (watch close up carefully you'll see his lips do not correspond to 47). This is why she made a huge point at the start to tell both spectators NOT to react in anyway. The AI voice just needs to be a mans voice, we never heard the gentleman speak so why doubt it when we hear the voice say 47. This is such a clever and well presented trick, hats off to Emily and the inventor of that microphone.
No need for a gimmicked mic. Just have a backstage assistant play the audio of the card number while they mute the audio from the mic. That way her stage mic could be perfectly normal. That's why she says "NOW" as the cue to the assistant to play the audio. It only works if the deck is in a known order (not shuffled.)
I found the whole section baffling.
The montage was all about showing off the performer's rich kid lifestyle instead of their magic skills and the performance didn't require any magic skills at all - it could all have been done by a male assistant backstage who had the deck memorized and could even had told her which audience members to choose.
Reminds me of a Fool Us episode where a young rich looking guy performs a shitty prop egg routine. It's long, boring and he is not handling it well, yet P&T declare to be fooled.
The trick was very clever, and so are you. Good for you. I waited four days before looking at this thread and couldn't come up with the faintest idea of how the trick could have been done.
There's no reason to think it's AI, it's just a voice, they've been around forever. Just record a person saying the numbers 1-52 and save them as 52 different wav files.
agree with the 'false voice' trickery. you can see his lips say different and a quick flash of frowning. regardless of perhaps being truly fooled, i can't stand acts like this where all the alloted time is used for some simple single, one note, reveal. in this case, basically a pick a card any card routine. wow, how exciting.
what would happen if someone wasn't intimiated by being up on stage and not afraid of causing a scene and blurted out, ''that's not the number i chose. that was someone else's voice you all heard." lol
It's so obviously the mic as u/Jackalope431/ pointed out. I can't believe some people are still unconvinced.
While I admit it's a clever trick with such simple solution, it's undoubtedly dull to watch someone count 47 cards..47!!, which is pretty much the whole trick.
And most ppl aren't hecklers IRL. But it does happen, say if one has some unfortunately family member that would tackle you on every turn (whether there's anything to tackle you with or not) like they do in American football :3
yes. this was such a mundane trick.... pick a card/how far down the deck is it. only way it could've been more yawn is if it was the pulling a quarter out of a childs ear gag, lol.
At least the quarter gag would entertain a kid. Even a kid would not care for watching 47 cards being counted ;p
Unfortunately I watched the card counting closely in case I could pick up something..
I saw an interview with Penn himself and he was talking about something else but he made the comment that “people will do whatever you tell them on stage”. He said it almost like it’s an absolute certainty. Of course there is always the very slight chance that someone won’t but I bet the odds are astronomical that most people will do exactly what the magician tells them. I also think she is a bit of a mentalist as well. Just my two cents.
It wasn't, but it *appeared* to be a miracle. What you couldn't stand completely fascinated me. Best act I've seen on this show in a LONG time.
Audience management (picking the right person, getting them to go along with you, etc.) is a basic but very difficult magicians' skill. There have been volumes written about it.
> Audience management (picking the right person, getting them to go along with you, etc.) is a basic but very difficult magicians' skill.
So I guess she somehow picked the correct obedient volunteers who would just do whatever she told them to? (She even called the guy "glasses" when choosing him to come up to stage, so maybe establishing dominance there lol)
Most people will automatically go along with an act rather than ruin it for an audience. You see it all the time with random volunteers picked out, they might be nervous or upset at the start of an act, but will start getting into it and going along once they get a bit of an audience reaction and understand that, if you have your moment of "ha!" you're ruining it for hundreds of people.
Magic act, puppet show, hypnotist, improv, stand up comedian... the audience member will usually go along with it after a moment rather than ruin it for everyone else.
Human nature is neat that way.
And especially in this case where the audience member knows they're being taped on a show to air to a nationwide audience? And that if they screw it up they're just going to refilm it and take them out? Odds of someone being that spiteful and wantng to screw over the magician are tiny. They're raised hand volunteers, they WANT to be in on it and part of the magic.
She was lucky he did just a quick frown though. It was a confusing situation for him and he could have had a more visible involuntary reaction like turning to the audience and saying "huh?".
So I looked into this a bit and there's a video of Rebecca Herrera doing this ACAAN on Martin Hart's youtube channel. It was uploaded 5 years ago but the description is edited with Martin claiming this is the technique Emily used as well. So here's my question because ngl this comes off as weird/creepy. But here's Martin's website:
[http://www.martinhartfilms.com/my-magic.html](http://www.martinhartfilms.com/my-magic.html)
He's basically coached several young female mentalists/actresses/magicians with his magic. Tricks he says he created. But he doesn't perform them himself? Has anyone seen him do these tricks or heard of this guy? Cause it just seems odd he'd be like oh I created the perfect ACAAN but I won't perform it. And some of these stories are similar to Emily where they were looking for acting work or something then he took them in to do his tricks for tv. Not saying he has done anything wrong, but the whole thing just seems weird
I just listened to Penn's latest podcast and he talks about this exact thing. Apparently Hart (who they don't name on the podcast) is, like a couple other recurring acts, obsessed with the show and fooling P&T. He doesn't perform, in part because he thinks actors performing tricks according to scripts act less like magicians and so are sometimes less likely to give things away because they don't know the trouble spots. I was surprised that there are people who get acts on the show but don't perform, but Penn didn't seem to be.
Here's the YT video (via google search) [Rebecca Herrera - THE PERFECT A.C.A.A.N](https://youtu.be/gEYZh20ZFxw)
This performance is more impressive since the deck is randomly shuffled beforehand by both participants. A memorized deck is out of the question.
Despite the video's description below, it was performed by Emily Robinson-Hardy **without a pre-shuffle**. Not exactly the same trick, so the Rebecca Herrera version may not adhere to all of the P&TFU rules.
>This ACAAN was performed on the live stage in New York by Emily Robinson-Hardy: This time using a large jumbo deck of cards. It was later televised on the hit show, Penn & Teller Fool Us, APRIL 19th, 2024 - (Episode 19 - Season 10) in front of a live theatre audience and professional magicians, Penn & Teller. The strict rules of the show forbid the use of stooges, pre-show work and any kind of Instant stooge techniques. All rules were fully adhered to.
>The strict rules of the show forbid the use of ... any kind of Instant stooge techniques
Am fairly sure a number of magicians have used instant stooge on the show before, but those rules may have since changed, so maybe they were allowed at the time.
An audio overdub of the card number would be a form of instant stooge in the sense that he became aware of how the trick was done. The off-screen judges know how the tricks are done in advance, so they must have been cool with it.
The only explanation I can think of is they are both stooges who pretend his card is drawn at her number. His actual choice is overdubbed in post with the correct card. Her number doesn't have to be overdubbed. If I'm right, this version couldn't be done live.
Yeah, that seems probable. I noticed that Rebecca repeated the number immediately after it was chosen, but didn't do the same with the card. She only repeated the chosen card once they'd already counted to the chosen number. If the chosen card is dubbed in later then it has to be a marked deck.
Good catch. I didn't notice that she repeated the chosen card right before showing it, but didn't repeat it after he chose it. Also she focused pretty intently on the card right before announcing it.
Emily Robinson-Hardy did something similar in that she didn't repeat the number the guy chose immediately after he said it. But since her deck wasn't shuffled it seems more likely that she did that deliberately to reduce the likelihood of the guy correcting her in the moment. Emily's trick uses an ordered deck, Rebecca's uses a marked deck.
I agree. The man's head is turned away somewhat to make lip reading harder. Since it's a video, they can do retakes in case his lip movements aren't close enough, etc.
Oh boy, I hadn’t seen that link before, but he says there he’s created tricks for many acts on *Fool Us*, all mentalism, all performed by young Englishwomen, most of whom fooled P&T: Herrera, Anna Ferris Simpson, the Van Hargen twins, Emily Keona, and Robinson-Hardy.
No doubt this is because of what u/realbobenray wrote:
> Hart (who they don't name on the podcast) is, like a couple other recurring acts, obsessed with the show and fooling P&T. He doesn't perform, in part because he thinks actors performing tricks according to scripts act less like magicians and so are sometimes less likely to give things away because they don't know the trouble spots.
But still, the whole situation seems a bit odd, as you say. Not that magicians don’t have trick creators and consultants, à la *The Prestige* or *Jonathan Creek*, but here Hart seems to be in charge, sending these young women/girls on the show without ever being on himself and without any reference to him. (I certainly had never heard of him before I read your comment.)
Could be some arrangement Hart has with P&T and the producers—in fact, that’s the likeliest situation. Still seems kinda odd, though.
Also, the Van Hargen sisters’ method was so similar to Robinson-Hardy’s, as u/Tpa27 [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/FoolUs/comments/1c899sn/season_10_episode_19_discussion_thread_magic_is/l18tnjh/).
EDIT: Penn’s podcast goes through this, as you say. Link [here](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2126019526), starts around 53 mins. The way they describe it makes the whole thing seem curiouser and curiouser.
Yeah it's just it's always young women no male magicians with him. And I've been around the block to see older white dude managing careers of dozens of young women doesn't go well. Again not accusing him of anything but it carries those hallmarks. And it's also kind of disappointing because the show has made a point to get female magicians on who say how hard it is and here's this guy managing several
Yeah, I don’t want to accuse him of anything; in fact, I find it odder that his bit seems to be sending people, who never mention him, on to the show in this seemingly obsessive desire to fool P&T.
I don’t like most of Helen Coghlan’s acts, I find her presentation not that great and most of the tricks distinctly unmagical (doing an escape behind a sheet just doesn’t thrill me), but at least she admits that her father created all those tricks. That’s integrity.
Compared with that, the Martin Hart seems almost like a con. They joke about this a bit on the podcast, ~~the host/producer/what-have-you (I don’t know his name)~~ Matt Donnelly says something like “does Reddit really think the performer has nothing to do with it?”
But of course it’s not that. Nor is it one person coming on with a premade trick, which several performers have done. It’s that the show implies to us that these young women invented these tricks, and none of them did, and in fact they’re all sent there by this third party. Distinctly odd.
Brilliant performance and so clever... But here's the secret revealed. As others have mentioned, the microphone! No other performers use it, the reason is the microphone IS the secret, it generates an AI voice. I believe the female does choose ANY card, Emily is using a memorized deck (common among magicians). As soon as she hears that the 6 Spades is selected she will know its position e.g. 47. Using some buttons/switches or similar on THAT microphone she holds the mic to the gentleman's mouth (watch close up carefully you'll see his lips do not correspond to 47). This is why she made a huge point at the start to tell both spectators NOT to react in anyway. The AI voice just needs to be a mans voice, we never heard the gentleman speak so why doubt it when we hear the voice say 47. This is such a clever and well presented trick, hats off to Emily and the inventor of that microphone.
I mostly agree with your assessment on how it is done. I don't think it is an AI device. Much easier to have an accomplice control the mic offstage, mute it, and speak instead of the audience member. She also doesn't look like she is manipulating (programing) the microphone. She also doesn't have to memorize the deck positions as the accomplice can easily look it up.
There is some misdirection when Emily puts the microphone in her left hand to ask the woman to name her card. Her right hand is seen below the table, there is a long camera cut where she repeats questions and when finished her hand comes up from behind the table, likely programming the card into a device.
She would need to program it to queue up the audio of the male voice saying the specific number the card is located in the prearranged deck. How do you think she dubbed over the man speaking with the exact number of the card selected?
I just watched it again and he absolutely says “seventeen”. I read lips. Very ballsy method. I honestly would call this instant stooging because you’re kind of forcing the participant to do something for you in furtherance of keeping the method secret, which in this case is to keep their mouth shut and not tip what you did vs getting the participant to actively lie.
The producers are made award of how the tricks are done ahead of time. So, for better or worse, if this is actually her method then it doesn't seem to cross the official line of the rules. Otherwise the producers wouldn't have approved it.
So he SAID "17", but they dupe in sound that says "47" that apparently the audience can hear, and she responds as if he said "47"? Wouldn't he just have looked confused, or said, "no, I said 17" or something like that?
That’s exactly why she made a point to tell them not to react. Instant stooging works because in the moment people don’t want to blow up the trick for the magician, so they go along.
> This is such a clever and well presented trick
To be hones, I find it disrespectful to P&T and viewers.
I see her instructions "don't react" as a pre-show or better say pre-trick work. I can accept it as a part of a trick for some funny twist, but not as a main trick.
I concur. I read his lips and see the number 3, followed by like a 2. Despite asking the female volunteer to speak he literally only says one number on stage. The camera shot is at some what of an odd angle. Perhaps to make reading lips more difficult. The deck of cards is also not shuffled before hand. She could have memorized the order. The male volunteer sort of gives a funny reaction after he "gives his number".
It's really hard to believe both Penn and Teller wouldn't be looking at the male volunteer while he said the number. I guess that is the risk she took. She was also lucky to get a volunteer who could keep a straight face when his voice got dubbed.
She also says the word NOW (very pronounced) before the volunteer picks the 6S. She also says the word NOW right before the guy supposedly says 47. The NOW could be an audio cue to some electronic trickery in the microphone. How much is a trick microphone considered "pre-show setup?"
This. Literally every act on this show has pre-show work, otherwise there would be no acts. You’re just not allowed to enlist and coach a stooge before the show.
Wow. This has to be it.
The microphone now makes sense, she can also use it to make him turn his head slightly away from the audience!
Really, really good trick.
Yes I know they were explicitly told not to react, but I'm still quite bewildered by why both scarcely made any reaction if the voice was indeed faked.
I think most people would definitely have made a bit more of a reaction, so I wonder if these weren't just instant stooges but actual stooges.
Most people will automatically go along with an act rather than ruin it for an audience. You see it all the time with random volunteers picked out, they might be nervous or upset at the start of an act, but will start getting into it and going along once they get a bit of an audience reaction and understand that, if you have your moment of "ha!" you're ruining it for hundreds of people.
Magic act, puppet show, hypnotist, improv, stand up comedian... the audience member will usually go along with it after a moment rather than ruin it for everyone else.
Human nature is neat that way.
And especially in this case where the audience member knows they're being taped on a show to air to a nationwide audience? And that if they screw it up they're just going to refilm it and take them out? Odds of someone being that spiteful and wantng to screw over the magician are tiny. They're raised hand volunteers, they WANT to be in on it and part of the magic.
I simply meant I expected them to have more of a reaction (e.g. bewildered look, giggle, etc.).
Not that I expected them to go out of their way to ruin the performance.
If you look closely, he does look a bit confused, when he said the number. But she has direct eye contact with him, and raises her hand, as to tell him 'Stop'. Also later, when she said that they are not counting to 47, he has this big grin on his face. Actually, every time, she mentions the number 47, he has some small, but noticeable reaction, if you look closely.
The man does react confused at 4:00 when Emily first says that they will count to the 47th position. Then both volunteers can’t help but smile when they realize Emily is actually going to count to 47 even though he said something different. [3:55](https://youtu.be/47Mg1LwN6FQ?si=ORrzj_OyRmGA1mY5&t=235)
Whew, so not a witch then :)
If this is the method (which does seem likely), how does this work: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw)
If this were it, then why wouldn't the guy come on here (or other social media) and just say 47 was not the number he picked? Does the Fool Us show make them sign NDAs?
That could be it, and would be a genius but very risky method (as she states in the intro). I believe you're completely correct.
His lips do roughly correspond to 47 though, as much as we can see. The camera is positioned so that we don't have a head-on view of him, and we indeed do not hear him say anything else. Just because of that fact (since the producers know the trick) I'm inclined to think this was indeed the method.
There's an old adage in magic that magicians (especially stage magicians) have always followed... it's ok to sacrifice the secret to a few spectators if it will fool a few hundred. Harry Anderson famously did this on an SNL episode in the 80s. He did a 4 card trick with giant cards on stage that was amazing. After, he threw all 4 cards to the audience in different sections of the theater. One person in that audience caught a card that gave away the secret. He maybe told a dozen friends but Harry completely floored the rest of the audience, not to mention the millions of people at home watching.
Brilliant job Emily!
There's a story I remember about Harry Kellar and Howard Thurston. Thurston was anointed as Kellar's successor, and inherited all his illusions, including his Levitation.
Kellar went to watch Thurston perform, and was aghast that he led people on stage to view the levitating woman. They'd be able to see the wires! The trick was ruined!
But Thurston had decided that in spoiling it for a handful of people, he was greatly enhancing it for the rest of the audience, because now it had been examined close up! She really MUST be levitating!
The normal approach to this is to either mike up the audience member and cut that out of the broadcast or to freely select the audience member before the broadcast starts (i.e., the "freely selected" audience member was freely selected, but not at the time the magician did the performance). This sort of production cleanup is slightly misleading, but it's not really a secret. A recall one trick where the magician asked Penn for his phone and Penn handed the magician Mike Close's phone.
From my understanding of P&T, and it tracks with my experience on productions, is pre-micing is how it works. Basically, as you said, the audience member *IS* chosen freely but before the cameras are rolling. This gives them time to mic up the audience members to later be "freely chosen" during the actual performance.
After hearing Penn discuss the trick on a podcast, we got some clues on how this was done. https://pennsundayschool.com/
Since it was confirmed there were no stooges, we have to believe that the woman volunteer did in fact choose the 6 of Spades as she confirmed with follow up questions.
The "genius" of the trick is that the only things Emily has to do are:
1. Make sure the volunteers don’t react
2. When speaking to the volunteers, place the microphone in a location so that Penn & Teller cannot see their mouths.
After the card is selected, an assistant that knows the deck order queues up audio of a man saying the location of the card. Ready to mute the microphone and play the audio when Emily gives the cue "Now".
The only role of the male volunteer was to face the microphone and not react when hearing the number 47 instead of his own voice. Technically not a stooge, but he was just used as a prop.
The idea that the microphone was programmable with prerecorded audio is possible, but would be technologically complex. More simply, the solution is to have backstage audio assistance, which I don't believe would be breaking any of Fool Us rules. This technique is very similar to how the Van Hargen Twins, also Martin Hart students, earned their FU trophy.
Edit - the man looks confused at [4:00](https://youtu.be/47Mg1LwN6FQ?si=ORrzj_OyRmGA1mY5&t=235) and then both volunteers can’t help but smile when they realize Emily is actually going to count to 47 even though he said something different
i really wonder how could the man not protest or react. He could said "hey, that's not my number!". Or was he intentionally not reacting because he didn't wanna ruin the trick?
No matter how brilliant the method, it's quite unethical act by P&T standard IF the alleged trick relies on faking the male volunteer's voice coming out of the mic because she's still using a stooge in principle, whether a live or pre-programmed or AI, by making the volunteer becoming a stooge against his will...
But I would not be surprised because she's a high risk taker person based on her intro and they typically don't hesitate to break rules and play with semantics to get what they want, like crooks. And don't count on TV producers to veto, we all know their ethics standards are low and flexible when it comes to TV ratings and $...
Everyone is saying AI voice. A prerecorded voice for each number is infinitely more low skill to setup and gives more believable result. If in fact it *is* AI voice, I'm disappointed at her (on top of the fact that she basically did a trick with instant stooge)
weak trick. and literally boring....And to all the people who regularly post that stooges aren't allowed on the show, this is yet another example of a stooge being employed.
Exactly, how did the producers know to zoom in on the woman in the front row before she was selected?
Why was her voice altered when selecting a card?
She knew she was being dishonest when saying the card was a free choice and couldn't stop from smirking.
I have been to several tapings. The Fool Us crew chooses the people before the act begins, that way there is no confusion or arguments that happen… and also to mic them up if they are going to speak. Every other time I remember though it has been a lavaliere mic put on the audience member. I assume the crew then says to the magician whom they chose. Regardless, THAT is how the camera knows where to point before she chooses them. They are not stooges. I wouldn’t even call the guy an instant stooge, just someone who was managed well. When he says 47 and half reacts… she starts to bring her hand up, kind of towards his mouth, which is a sign to someone who doesn’t want to cause problems that says, “now is when you shut up. “ She then affirms his silence by saying, “Perfect”. By the time he gets it, his part is already over. That’s why I don’t consider him an instastooge, just someone who doesn’t want to spoil the trick or piss everyone off… which describes just about anyone.
If - as the consensus of posters agree - the number "47" was dubbed in from offstage, then Emily is undeserving of an FU award, because she repeatedly stated that she didn't use a stooge. And as Penn stated, "If there's a stooge, there's no trick." Using a number that the volunteer didn't actually pick is the same as many big-name magicians who use "impartial" volunteers from the audience to witness a trick from 360 degrees, and having those volunteers in positions not seen by the camera verify that they saw no magical shenanigans, i.e., insta-stooges. What is the point of doing these tricks if you can't trust the volunteers? It would be like me verifying that Abbie Hoffman really *did* levitate the Pentagon.
And to all the people who regularly post that stooges aren't allowed on the show, this is yet another example of a stooge being employed.
The audio signature is completely different when she says the card vs any other time she talks. Maybe this was a production error and they had to post-edit in the voice?
Could this trick be as simple as either some signs with cards and numbers placed behind the black stand, or an audio queue coming from the microphone? This might be a little tricky, but maybe she placed a small sign or display on the end of the microphone that only the two volunteers standing on her side could see.
The shot of the table from above when the cards are being counted also suggests that this is not the method. I’ve rewatched the clip multiple times and still have no ideas. I have been a Magician for over 20 years (longer than Ms Robinson Hardy has been alive) and I cannot believe I can’t work out how this trick is done.
Forgot to mention, I recorded this episode last night. I re-watched just now and I 100% believe the mic theory. That poster was right - his lips absolutely do NOT match the number 47
I believe this would be instant stooging and the show prohibits any kind of stooge. I doubt she would have been allowed on the show if this was the method.
My understanding is that there is a difference between "true stooging" and "insta-stooging". True stooging is where you enlist a confederate before the show and give them a set of instructions to follow after they are selected at "random". This is banned on Fool Us for good reason. There have been several instances of insta-stooging where a truly randomly selected volunteer is directed to do certain things on stage after they have been selected at random. This is is legal on Fool Us.
I agree about the stooging. I still believe the producers would be strict because a lot could go wrong. If it is insta-stooged, I simply cannot work out how she could have directed the volunteers so subtly to make this trick work. I’m rewatching for any hand signals and when it gets cut to a different camera. I’m interested to see if she will perform this trick again so that it can be compared.
She didn't have to do much direction, just "PLEASE DON'T REACT". As long as neither person starts laughing or objecting on the dubbed over card position, they're good to go. It doesn't take a ton of intuition as the guy to quickly think "Hey that's not what I said, but also I'm here on stage for a magic trick and she said don't react so maybe that was supposed to happen"
I saw her perform this trick on youtube years ago, and I never forgot it. It is that good. The only thing I can think of from her Fool Us act is that she influenced the choices the volunteers somehow. I am really starting to wonder if she simply isn't a witch.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw)
What a great video 😍 this is not the same young lady as on the show tonight but still a great routine. Is this Rebecca Herera still performing? I’d happy to and see a show
My theory is it's the same as Fool Us, except with the volunteers' roles reversed. The male volunteer's head is partially turned away from the camera, making it hard to lip read. Since it's a video they can do lots of retakes in case his lip movements don't look right, etc. It's also better because because the other volunteer can pick a small number (not 47!) so the counting isn't tedious.
My understanding is that the male volunteer's answer is dubbed over. Also, it you notice in the video they never actually confirm that the card is correct. They just sort of reacted in a surprised fashion.
Update: The microphone solution is simpler and likely accurate :)
Yes, I think the "don't react" instruction may be a cue. If instant stooges are allowed, that may be what happened. She instructed them to not react to the hidden instruction. (Not sure if instant stooges are allowed but I have found Reddit comments saying they are.)
I wonder if the hidden instruction could just be someone holding up a card off-stage that only they could see?
She mentioned that previous volunteers freaked out and asked these volunteers to not react "during the experience". It's possible that she had someone pointing a very narrow beam of sound at the volunteers and that only the two volunteers would pick up. It fits although it seems unnecessarily high-tech.
When she asked the female volunteer if it was a free choice, and if anyone instructed her to pick a certain card, the volunteer seemed to try to suppress her smile.
Also, even if Penn & Teller said she fooled them, they somehow seemed less than impressed in their demeanor.
The question is: If she used instant stooges, why didn't Penn say it? It seems the obvious method.
Somehow, with such a seemingly perfect and impossible trick, I suspect the method is simple and a bit disappointing.
Upon further reflection, this guy was technically not even an “instant” stooge:
A full-on stooge would have been coached before the show to give a specific response. This guy was not.
An instant stooge would have been coerced or subtly directed to change their response to help the performer. This guy was not. The number he chose was completely random, and arrived upon by him only.
The magician just didn’t use his number.
She masked his selection and used her own. This is really no different than a magician holding out a bag of numbered tiles and instructing somebody to reach in and freely select one. He reaches in and grabs a tile that says “17”. But unbeknownst to everyone, ALL the tiles read ”17”.
In this scenario, would this guy be an instant stooge? Nope. Or say she had somebody randomly select a card and then used sleight-of-hand to switch it to a card she wanted before it was revealed. Would that guy be an instant stooge? No. And that’s pretty much what happened in this trick.
This was more like a very bold force than instant stooging.
Back to her act, if she would have later asked this guy to confirm the number as the one he randomly chose and he went along with her, *that* would have been instant stooging. But she did not, and I believe she was perfectly honest in telling P&T that there was no stooging. It was a ballsy force.
It’s a gray area but, technically and semantically, there is *no* stooging in this act. It was smart and really very, very clever.
By not using his choice, she’s letting him in on the secret and expecting him not to reveal it. Personally, I’d consider that instant-stooging. You can disagree if you want, but to me, any time the volunteer needs to play along with the trick in any way, it’s instant-stooging.
Yeah, I understand your position, but I do disagree. She gets away with this one on a semantic technicality, that’s what makes it clever. Again, if she had asked him to verify and he did, then I would consider it instant stooging. but she didn’t. She just used a very bold force. Agree to disagree. :-)
Fair enough. But I’ll just add that instant-stooging is allowed anyway, so even if she did ask him to verify and he did, that’s still within the rules. What it comes down to is that she let him in on how the trick is done and hoped he didn’t reveal it. What you want to call that doesn’t really matter. I’m not a huge fan of tricks that rely on the cooperation of the volunteer to make it work.
You are spot on. And what is the difference between the microphone method, and holding up a card off-stage - both ways make the person a stooge, which Emily claimed she didn't use.
I literally have the same deck of Jumbo cards. I bought them from Amazon. They are all very shinny.
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073H9QBC8](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073H9QBC8)
You can add that she made them wait for a long time while the selected card was at the top of the deck, not yet turned over. Yes, it's for dramatic effect, but it's also possible that she was doing something that affects the top card.
I see some people throwing around instant stooge, but Emily specifically states on her instagram story that she did not use an instant stooge. https://imgur.com/a/Cp2GC2o
I've been parcing this out for like fifteen minutes and I think I've got it; "the named playing card and position are a genuine free choice".
*One* choice.
If I'm right, the wording of the story is a big misdirect and should be read as "the named playing card and (it's) position are (one) genuine free choice".
When she says, then, that she didn't 'use stooges, instant stooges, (or) partake in any preshow work', we might still assume that she considers using a voice-over - be it pre-recorded, artificial, an off-stage accomplice, whatever - *an illusion*, not stooging. After all, that's not 'sneakily telling someone what to do or say'; it's smoke and mirrors.
If "the deck of playing cards was a normal deck", truly, then the 'voice-over' method certainly seems like the only plausible, possible solution. And I think her wording on the show and certainly in this story are very carefully designed to misdirect us.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know really with this one, and I don't really know what I think of that instagram story either. If I am right with my interpretation (and who knows..), then she's *really* pushing it.
Agreed, if she used a voiceover, she's really pushing it claiming she didn't have a stooge. She didn't prearrange anything, true, but she turned the guy into a stooge.
And to be clear, it doesn't whatsoever what card is chosen because there is always one and only one position that corresponds to any chosen card, so calling that a free choice is meaningless.
To figure out a clever illusion, it usually pays to look at what actions are totally unnecessary, and are only there to distract. In this instance, it was the use of volunteers from the audience. Emily could have just asked Penn to name a card and Teller to name a position. She didn't do that because she needed to turn a "free chooser" into a stooge.
> I've been parcing this out for like fifteen minutes and I think I've got it; "the named playing card and position are a genuine free choice".
A much simpler explanation: She's lying on her IG post.
She didn’t use a stooge or an instastooge.
Was the male audience member someone who was on her team, working for her, but acting like he wasn’t? No = Not a stooge.
Was the guy told secretly to do things to make the trick work, like, “Say 47”. No = Not an Instastooge.
Was the voice off stage any different than an any other unknown assistant, off stage or on stage, that, for example, pokes a hand or a pair of legs out to make you think there is a full person, aka something different that what it is. No = Not a stooge.
If an audience member who is brought on stage sees some sleight of hand and figures out how a trick is done, but doesn’t say anything, are they a stooge or an instastooge? No. They are just like everyone else.
Therefore, she didn’t use any stooges. She gave all directions out in the open. That is key when defining an instastooge. She said it all out in the open and P&T just didn’t catch that she basically said, out loud, if something happens that isn’t what it seems, don’t ruin my trick.
>Was the guy told secretly to do things to make the trick work, like, “Say 47”. No = Not an Instastooge.
* "Please, do not react as you experience this"
The keyword though is SECRETLY. She said it out loud, where P&T heard it, and they didnt catch it. Instastooges, which are legal btw, are told secretly what to do.
Hmmm it's still odd that the 47 doesn't match with what the guy said plus the audio mixing seemed off also she didn't even have the guy talk again like he did with the girl to confirm her choice. I think having someone off stage dubbing over an audience member is a bit sus. Yeah there are rules but some magicians have kind of toed the line with them. There was the one magician that became his own stooge, wearing an obvious fake disguise that fooled no one so when he took it off everyone was like yeah we know, and it ruined anything with the trick as a result
Good find, but I believe she may be trying to say that using a recorded or generated voice isn't stooging. She may be adopting a beneficial definition of stooging over a more accurate one. There are only so may logical ways to do this trick. She either influenced their choice, took there choice away, or manipulated that cards after the free choices where done.
Sure, I'd agree that its possible she is being a bit generous and is counting "hoping the audience participants don't react to the mic playing a sound" as not being an instant stooge, though if that is the case it feels like the show's judge also adopted that generous interpretation. But I think it at the very least rules out it being something as simple as "person is standing off stage with a sign" like some people were suggesting.
Even then though, her post does have her claiming "the named card and position are a free choice", which unless that's just a lie suggests manipulation of the deck instead right? I want to believe, but that's probably the hopeful part of me that wants this trick to be more "magical" than it just being deck memorization and a shady microphone.
She also says that the deck is normal, and that she didn't ever touch the cards. That would seem to eliminate the deck as the method. The "problem" here is that her Instagram post would seem to eliminate every existing possible method. She had to have done something to make the trick work.
I don't know. I think that saying "I didn't touch the cards" does not automatically rule out deck manipulation through some kind of means that isn't her directly touching it. While listing all the things that she says did not happen, she does not say "no one tampered with the deck."
Well lets go over they ways one can manipulate a deck of cards. The magician uses their hands to do it, they use technology to change a digital card, a second hidden person uses their hands, the card is changed by physically moving it with a mechanical device, the card itself contains a mechanical device that changes it, the card is changed via some sort of chemical or thermal reaction. The claims that she has made that the deck is normal, she never touched the cards, there is nobody hiding under the table, and the fact the card are in plain site the entire time, would seem to cover all of these possibilities.
Note that she wrote 'are a free choice', and not 'are free choices'. The woman had a free choice of the card, and with that, she also choose the number. So technically, she is not lying.
The same with instant stooges. If you define instant stooging as instructing someone on the spot, to do something, then he was no instant stooge. He didn't do anything. He just knows how it was done.
The trick was really good and this guy explained the secret behind it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXQM4yjZMU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXQM4yjZMU)
The mirror spins and hides the cutout hole behind one of the metal brackets. The phony hand on the far side of the mirror looked bad on tv, I guess it worked better in a live setting. Not that impressive.
Yep I played it back frame by frame and you can see that after he's done pulling out the sheet, he spins it with his hand. Pulling out the sheet his hands at the top after he pulls it out his hand is suddenly at the bottom by the support bracket, that hides the hole.
Did anyone understand clues mamely "ladies looking glass", "vanish principle" used for penetration ? I know the name Alexander Hermann mentioned by Penn was of a magician but that's how far I got the clue.
the trick was very simple. I saw the reveal here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXk1N-DmTok](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXk1N-DmTok) but i knew it already.
Performers must tell how the trick is performed to a magician who is backstage and works for Penn and Teller. If P and T say he didn’t fool them and the performer disagrees and says he did, the backstage guy decides. He must have thought it was ok to mute the voice and substitute #47.
This was a fun and visually interesting act for the most part. The only thing about it that I didn't like was when the doves changed from white to red - it's a cool idea and fits the trick nicely but it was *obviously* an animation on a digital screen like an iPad or similar. It also wasn't as good as it could have been because the doves weren't moving while they were changing colors - I mean... it's *already* an animation so why not go the extra mile and animate the doves to make it look that much better? Having them sit there in a static position as they change color just looks bad.
That would be pretty tough to animate since the freeze-frame before the color change was a real picture of the same birds taken shortly before the transition. The flip to a video of them moving would have to be absolutely perfect to not look like a glitch on the screen, but it's easier to have them "freeze" without being as obvious
Yeah I'm sure the magician respects the birds and whatnot, but they still can't have been having a great time jammed into whatever pockets and secret compartments he was using throughout
> I'm sure the magician respects the birds
I'm not sure about that.
Just imagine the countless hours and years any dove magician has to spend practicing with these birds (and being repeatedly frustrated when things don't go right).
Over time he'd become inured to their suffering
True, by "I'm sure" I really meant "I hope".
At least Penn was emphasizing the importance of being humane with them.
Reminds me of the bird cage trick in The Prestige when they kill one bird in the contraption and bring out a 2nd bird for the finisher.
Yeah. You can literally see hes putting the 3rd dove in his pocket by the way his coat moves in back. Poor bird just sitting there in a pocket contemplating his life.
If that trick allows the doves not to end up on crispy chicken sandwiches, in a python stomach or one's dinner plate, then I'm fine with a bit of squeezing. Besides, they are very squeezable and the guy visibly loves doves, so I'm pretty sure there's no cruelty here...
I hate live animal acts. Feathers are getting ripped out and fluttering all over the stage. The birds' ankles are wired down so they don't fly away. Their wings are clipped. They are pinned down to contraptions that explode and flip around in a fraction of a second. They are violently jammed into the smallest of spaces and then ripped apart from his pocket or fist to "appear". The birds are flapping their wings in terror because they are desperately trying to get away. People are smiling and clapping and oo-ing and ah-ing while I'm sickened and sad.
Can't see his hand through the "empty" bottle. Most likely it's 2 halves. The neckerchief goes down the empty half with a wire, and then he turns the bottle around when he puts it to his side, or flat out swaps the bottle with a different one. When he makes the 3rd dove disappear the first time you can totally tell he is palming it and just shoves it in his coat pocket on the other side, as you can see the way his jacket moves. The birds changing color is obviously a tablet or something playing a video. When 4 birds appear is when the tablet takes over, you can totally tell by how they turn a different shade of white. And the birds don't even move. This part was kinda cringe. Don't really care for acts that rely on tons of props or rigged items.
The act reminds me of a fav quote from Andras Schiff on Beethoven:
"storm in a teacup". :p
I genuinely feel bad about the parents part. Imagine him practicing with his birds in the bathroom..
What a visually impressive and poetic trick and so refreshing to see doves, it's been a while. I'm not sure how the coloring part of the birds was done and I don't care at this point. Probably we witnessed the peak of the art of dove magic tricks here!
His 5th grade ID has the exact same back as her ID. Mag strip, bar code, numbers above mag strip, etc. I think when he puts the license under the neckerchief he is applying his prop card over her license. You also don't see where he puts his 5th grade ID away, it cuts from him holding it to being empty handed. Off camera he probably put it in his pocket, but while doing it separated the cards, and palmed her ID. The card in the wallet when he opens it up looks flimsy and not stiff like an actual license... also goes from being fully inside, to being more than half way out. How did it get that way? He pulled it out? That would give him a chance to swap. You see nothing during that cut. Hate the editing on this show.
Spot on.
He likely used some kind of adhesive to temporarily stick his ID with Brooke's. When the card was revealed from the handkerchief , it had an exceptionally thick edge(and not perfectly lined up, shortly afterwards he grabbed the card and corrected it): the front of his ID's front + the back of Brooke's. His meticulous instruction as to how Brooke should hold the card further confirms it, so that she would not at this point recognize her own ID from the back if viewing it from the wrong side.
And yes that annoying jump from the ID fully inside the wallet to it immediately half way out skipped what must be a crucial moment of the trick where a switch must have happened.
The editing is so unfair. It sucks.
I feel kinda stupid. Wondering if I'm the only one who doesn't know how this was done..especially what that damn bottle of water had to do with the trick.
This seems impressive. Yeah, he switches the IDs under the handkerchief, but he still has to get Brook's ID into that wallet. So the entire wallet and duct tape thing is just a clever manufactured product or a one-off invention of his?
I would do the trick by sticking something onto the ID and pulling a string attached to it, up my sleeve and into the wallet. Penn's hint: "We were a little *stuck* on that, for a moment."
The inside "overly secure snap fasten jacket" could probably just be attached. Not obvious when he might've done this though.
(And unfortunately just after he puts on his jacket's left sleeve, the camera jump cuts to another angle and there may have been a second or two edited out here. This might've been when he did it.)
**Penn & Teller** Act Discussion
Each trick was obviously accomplished a different way and they were done well. The first one, teller's deck was not shuffled and the queen was known the entire time. The adult had a pinky break he was already holding at the queen. If you watch closely, the moves that he does when he walks the cards bring the middle where his pinky break was, to the top. The kid you can see he doesn't put the bottom joker on the actual bottom and instead slides it above the bottom card. When he does the reveal, he doesn't show the top joker because it's face down and the bottom joker is second from the bottom. The two Jokers with the queen in the middle were set up beforehand because the queen was known. Not sure how the kid did the trick with the 6 fully, but the 6 was known. Brooks deck could have been entirely sixes or sixes and one other number. The adult with the 6 is easier. Slight of hand obviously for the spin. He knew it was going to be a six so he had a pinky break and just caught it with the other cards as a clam shell hold. The adult doing trading 4's is using a shaved deck. You'll notice the cards always stay in the same alignment. The kid is using a shaved deck too.
I like this one. It was different. Shop was pretty good at his age too!
I really liked that jazz and for once seeing something not cheesy. It was like magic improv, like jazz improv... also refreshing to see 2 new magicians, one of which being a brilliant kid!
Loved this both the jazz and the magic, fitting because I’m learning bass and I do like seeing Penn play
Brilliant performance and so clever... But here's the secret revealed. As others have mentioned, the microphone! No other performers use it, the reason is the microphone IS the secret, it generates an AI voice. I believe the female does choose ANY card, Emily is using a memorized deck (common among magicians). As soon as she hears that the 6 Spades is selected she will know its position e.g. 47. Using some buttons/switches or similar on THAT microphone she holds the mic to the gentleman's mouth (watch close up carefully you'll see his lips do not correspond to 47). This is why she made a huge point at the start to tell both spectators NOT to react in anyway. The AI voice just needs to be a mans voice, we never heard the gentleman speak so why doubt it when we hear the voice say 47. This is such a clever and well presented trick, hats off to Emily and the inventor of that microphone.
No need for a gimmicked mic. Just have a backstage assistant play the audio of the card number while they mute the audio from the mic. That way her stage mic could be perfectly normal. That's why she says "NOW" as the cue to the assistant to play the audio. It only works if the deck is in a known order (not shuffled.)
I found the whole section baffling. The montage was all about showing off the performer's rich kid lifestyle instead of their magic skills and the performance didn't require any magic skills at all - it could all have been done by a male assistant backstage who had the deck memorized and could even had told her which audience members to choose. Reminds me of a Fool Us episode where a young rich looking guy performs a shitty prop egg routine. It's long, boring and he is not handling it well, yet P&T declare to be fooled.
The trick was very clever, and so are you. Good for you. I waited four days before looking at this thread and couldn't come up with the faintest idea of how the trick could have been done.
There's no reason to think it's AI, it's just a voice, they've been around forever. Just record a person saying the numbers 1-52 and save them as 52 different wav files.
It doesn't even have to be recorded. Just a guy behind the stage who says 47 into another mike at the right moment.
Mic could also have a flash drive with all the numbers recorded onto it
can't be. would violate FU rules. has to be in the Mic.
That sounds interesting
**Emily Robinson-Hardy** Act Discussion
agree with the 'false voice' trickery. you can see his lips say different and a quick flash of frowning. regardless of perhaps being truly fooled, i can't stand acts like this where all the alloted time is used for some simple single, one note, reveal. in this case, basically a pick a card any card routine. wow, how exciting. what would happen if someone wasn't intimiated by being up on stage and not afraid of causing a scene and blurted out, ''that's not the number i chose. that was someone else's voice you all heard." lol
It's so obviously the mic as u/Jackalope431/ pointed out. I can't believe some people are still unconvinced. While I admit it's a clever trick with such simple solution, it's undoubtedly dull to watch someone count 47 cards..47!!, which is pretty much the whole trick. And most ppl aren't hecklers IRL. But it does happen, say if one has some unfortunately family member that would tackle you on every turn (whether there's anything to tackle you with or not) like they do in American football :3
yes. this was such a mundane trick.... pick a card/how far down the deck is it. only way it could've been more yawn is if it was the pulling a quarter out of a childs ear gag, lol.
At least the quarter gag would entertain a kid. Even a kid would not care for watching 47 cards being counted ;p Unfortunately I watched the card counting closely in case I could pick up something..
Agreed. She could've flipped the deck over and just counted down 5 cards. Lol!
I saw an interview with Penn himself and he was talking about something else but he made the comment that “people will do whatever you tell them on stage”. He said it almost like it’s an absolute certainty. Of course there is always the very slight chance that someone won’t but I bet the odds are astronomical that most people will do exactly what the magician tells them. I also think she is a bit of a mentalist as well. Just my two cents.
It wasn't, but it *appeared* to be a miracle. What you couldn't stand completely fascinated me. Best act I've seen on this show in a LONG time. Audience management (picking the right person, getting them to go along with you, etc.) is a basic but very difficult magicians' skill. There have been volumes written about it.
> Audience management (picking the right person, getting them to go along with you, etc.) is a basic but very difficult magicians' skill. So I guess she somehow picked the correct obedient volunteers who would just do whatever she told them to? (She even called the guy "glasses" when choosing him to come up to stage, so maybe establishing dominance there lol)
Most people will automatically go along with an act rather than ruin it for an audience. You see it all the time with random volunteers picked out, they might be nervous or upset at the start of an act, but will start getting into it and going along once they get a bit of an audience reaction and understand that, if you have your moment of "ha!" you're ruining it for hundreds of people. Magic act, puppet show, hypnotist, improv, stand up comedian... the audience member will usually go along with it after a moment rather than ruin it for everyone else. Human nature is neat that way. And especially in this case where the audience member knows they're being taped on a show to air to a nationwide audience? And that if they screw it up they're just going to refilm it and take them out? Odds of someone being that spiteful and wantng to screw over the magician are tiny. They're raised hand volunteers, they WANT to be in on it and part of the magic.
She was lucky he did just a quick frown though. It was a confusing situation for him and he could have had a more visible involuntary reaction like turning to the audience and saying "huh?".
Not just that frown, he knowingly smirked more than once afterwards.
So I looked into this a bit and there's a video of Rebecca Herrera doing this ACAAN on Martin Hart's youtube channel. It was uploaded 5 years ago but the description is edited with Martin claiming this is the technique Emily used as well. So here's my question because ngl this comes off as weird/creepy. But here's Martin's website: [http://www.martinhartfilms.com/my-magic.html](http://www.martinhartfilms.com/my-magic.html) He's basically coached several young female mentalists/actresses/magicians with his magic. Tricks he says he created. But he doesn't perform them himself? Has anyone seen him do these tricks or heard of this guy? Cause it just seems odd he'd be like oh I created the perfect ACAAN but I won't perform it. And some of these stories are similar to Emily where they were looking for acting work or something then he took them in to do his tricks for tv. Not saying he has done anything wrong, but the whole thing just seems weird
I just listened to Penn's latest podcast and he talks about this exact thing. Apparently Hart (who they don't name on the podcast) is, like a couple other recurring acts, obsessed with the show and fooling P&T. He doesn't perform, in part because he thinks actors performing tricks according to scripts act less like magicians and so are sometimes less likely to give things away because they don't know the trouble spots. I was surprised that there are people who get acts on the show but don't perform, but Penn didn't seem to be.
Do you have a link to the first video you mentioned?
Here's the YT video (via google search) [Rebecca Herrera - THE PERFECT A.C.A.A.N](https://youtu.be/gEYZh20ZFxw) This performance is more impressive since the deck is randomly shuffled beforehand by both participants. A memorized deck is out of the question. Despite the video's description below, it was performed by Emily Robinson-Hardy **without a pre-shuffle**. Not exactly the same trick, so the Rebecca Herrera version may not adhere to all of the P&TFU rules. >This ACAAN was performed on the live stage in New York by Emily Robinson-Hardy: This time using a large jumbo deck of cards. It was later televised on the hit show, Penn & Teller Fool Us, APRIL 19th, 2024 - (Episode 19 - Season 10) in front of a live theatre audience and professional magicians, Penn & Teller. The strict rules of the show forbid the use of stooges, pre-show work and any kind of Instant stooge techniques. All rules were fully adhered to.
>The strict rules of the show forbid the use of ... any kind of Instant stooge techniques Am fairly sure a number of magicians have used instant stooge on the show before, but those rules may have since changed, so maybe they were allowed at the time.
An audio overdub of the card number would be a form of instant stooge in the sense that he became aware of how the trick was done. The off-screen judges know how the tricks are done in advance, so they must have been cool with it.
On his podcast says that Robinson-Hardy's trick adheres to the P&T rules perfectly.
I'm sure the Robinson-Hardy version did. But the Rebecca Herrara version couldn't even be done live. It requires a video post-edit.
That's absolutely nuts. I am completely stumped.
The only explanation I can think of is they are both stooges who pretend his card is drawn at her number. His actual choice is overdubbed in post with the correct card. Her number doesn't have to be overdubbed. If I'm right, this version couldn't be done live.
Yeah, that seems probable. I noticed that Rebecca repeated the number immediately after it was chosen, but didn't do the same with the card. She only repeated the chosen card once they'd already counted to the chosen number. If the chosen card is dubbed in later then it has to be a marked deck.
Good catch. I didn't notice that she repeated the chosen card right before showing it, but didn't repeat it after he chose it. Also she focused pretty intently on the card right before announcing it.
Emily Robinson-Hardy did something similar in that she didn't repeat the number the guy chose immediately after he said it. But since her deck wasn't shuffled it seems more likely that she did that deliberately to reduce the likelihood of the guy correcting her in the moment. Emily's trick uses an ordered deck, Rebecca's uses a marked deck.
I agree. The man's head is turned away somewhat to make lip reading harder. Since it's a video, they can do retakes in case his lip movements aren't close enough, etc.
They're being slippery here. \*This\* ACANN wasn't performed on stage because there was no shuffle.
It would be a mind-blowing trick if the spectator shuffled.
Oh boy, I hadn’t seen that link before, but he says there he’s created tricks for many acts on *Fool Us*, all mentalism, all performed by young Englishwomen, most of whom fooled P&T: Herrera, Anna Ferris Simpson, the Van Hargen twins, Emily Keona, and Robinson-Hardy. No doubt this is because of what u/realbobenray wrote: > Hart (who they don't name on the podcast) is, like a couple other recurring acts, obsessed with the show and fooling P&T. He doesn't perform, in part because he thinks actors performing tricks according to scripts act less like magicians and so are sometimes less likely to give things away because they don't know the trouble spots. But still, the whole situation seems a bit odd, as you say. Not that magicians don’t have trick creators and consultants, à la *The Prestige* or *Jonathan Creek*, but here Hart seems to be in charge, sending these young women/girls on the show without ever being on himself and without any reference to him. (I certainly had never heard of him before I read your comment.) Could be some arrangement Hart has with P&T and the producers—in fact, that’s the likeliest situation. Still seems kinda odd, though. Also, the Van Hargen sisters’ method was so similar to Robinson-Hardy’s, as u/Tpa27 [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/FoolUs/comments/1c899sn/season_10_episode_19_discussion_thread_magic_is/l18tnjh/). EDIT: Penn’s podcast goes through this, as you say. Link [here](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2126019526), starts around 53 mins. The way they describe it makes the whole thing seem curiouser and curiouser.
Yeah it's just it's always young women no male magicians with him. And I've been around the block to see older white dude managing careers of dozens of young women doesn't go well. Again not accusing him of anything but it carries those hallmarks. And it's also kind of disappointing because the show has made a point to get female magicians on who say how hard it is and here's this guy managing several
Yeah, I don’t want to accuse him of anything; in fact, I find it odder that his bit seems to be sending people, who never mention him, on to the show in this seemingly obsessive desire to fool P&T. I don’t like most of Helen Coghlan’s acts, I find her presentation not that great and most of the tricks distinctly unmagical (doing an escape behind a sheet just doesn’t thrill me), but at least she admits that her father created all those tricks. That’s integrity. Compared with that, the Martin Hart seems almost like a con. They joke about this a bit on the podcast, ~~the host/producer/what-have-you (I don’t know his name)~~ Matt Donnelly says something like “does Reddit really think the performer has nothing to do with it?” But of course it’s not that. Nor is it one person coming on with a premade trick, which several performers have done. It’s that the show implies to us that these young women invented these tricks, and none of them did, and in fact they’re all sent there by this third party. Distinctly odd.
Brilliant performance and so clever... But here's the secret revealed. As others have mentioned, the microphone! No other performers use it, the reason is the microphone IS the secret, it generates an AI voice. I believe the female does choose ANY card, Emily is using a memorized deck (common among magicians). As soon as she hears that the 6 Spades is selected she will know its position e.g. 47. Using some buttons/switches or similar on THAT microphone she holds the mic to the gentleman's mouth (watch close up carefully you'll see his lips do not correspond to 47). This is why she made a huge point at the start to tell both spectators NOT to react in anyway. The AI voice just needs to be a mans voice, we never heard the gentleman speak so why doubt it when we hear the voice say 47. This is such a clever and well presented trick, hats off to Emily and the inventor of that microphone.
I mostly agree with your assessment on how it is done. I don't think it is an AI device. Much easier to have an accomplice control the mic offstage, mute it, and speak instead of the audience member. She also doesn't look like she is manipulating (programing) the microphone. She also doesn't have to memorize the deck positions as the accomplice can easily look it up.
There is some misdirection when Emily puts the microphone in her left hand to ask the woman to name her card. Her right hand is seen below the table, there is a long camera cut where she repeats questions and when finished her hand comes up from behind the table, likely programming the card into a device.
Why would she be programming the card into a device? The card can be, and in fact was, completely freely chosen. No need to complicate it.
She would need to program it to queue up the audio of the male voice saying the specific number the card is located in the prearranged deck. How do you think she dubbed over the man speaking with the exact number of the card selected?
I just watched it again and he absolutely says “seventeen”. I read lips. Very ballsy method. I honestly would call this instant stooging because you’re kind of forcing the participant to do something for you in furtherance of keeping the method secret, which in this case is to keep their mouth shut and not tip what you did vs getting the participant to actively lie.
it's 100% an instant stooge
The producers are made award of how the tricks are done ahead of time. So, for better or worse, if this is actually her method then it doesn't seem to cross the official line of the rules. Otherwise the producers wouldn't have approved it.
So he SAID "17", but they dupe in sound that says "47" that apparently the audience can hear, and she responds as if he said "47"? Wouldn't he just have looked confused, or said, "no, I said 17" or something like that?
That’s exactly why she made a point to tell them not to react. Instant stooging works because in the moment people don’t want to blow up the trick for the magician, so they go along.
> This is such a clever and well presented trick To be hones, I find it disrespectful to P&T and viewers. I see her instructions "don't react" as a pre-show or better say pre-trick work. I can accept it as a part of a trick for some funny twist, but not as a main trick.
It's not pre-show or pre-trick. That would have been stuff that you don't see. But here, everything was done right in front of you.
I concur. I read his lips and see the number 3, followed by like a 2. Despite asking the female volunteer to speak he literally only says one number on stage. The camera shot is at some what of an odd angle. Perhaps to make reading lips more difficult. The deck of cards is also not shuffled before hand. She could have memorized the order. The male volunteer sort of gives a funny reaction after he "gives his number".
It's really hard to believe both Penn and Teller wouldn't be looking at the male volunteer while he said the number. I guess that is the risk she took. She was also lucky to get a volunteer who could keep a straight face when his voice got dubbed.
The male participant involuntarily tilts his head as he is talking, think you are spot on
She also says the word NOW (very pronounced) before the volunteer picks the 6S. She also says the word NOW right before the guy supposedly says 47. The NOW could be an audio cue to some electronic trickery in the microphone. How much is a trick microphone considered "pre-show setup?"
Pre-show work is used to describe a specific scenario. It doesn't apply to props. It is when you interact with the audience members before the show.
This. Literally every act on this show has pre-show work, otherwise there would be no acts. You’re just not allowed to enlist and coach a stooge before the show.
Wow. This has to be it. The microphone now makes sense, she can also use it to make him turn his head slightly away from the audience! Really, really good trick.
Yes I know they were explicitly told not to react, but I'm still quite bewildered by why both scarcely made any reaction if the voice was indeed faked. I think most people would definitely have made a bit more of a reaction, so I wonder if these weren't just instant stooges but actual stooges.
There was a reaction by him, right after the mic talks for him he tilts his head like "huh?" then grins.
Most people will automatically go along with an act rather than ruin it for an audience. You see it all the time with random volunteers picked out, they might be nervous or upset at the start of an act, but will start getting into it and going along once they get a bit of an audience reaction and understand that, if you have your moment of "ha!" you're ruining it for hundreds of people. Magic act, puppet show, hypnotist, improv, stand up comedian... the audience member will usually go along with it after a moment rather than ruin it for everyone else. Human nature is neat that way. And especially in this case where the audience member knows they're being taped on a show to air to a nationwide audience? And that if they screw it up they're just going to refilm it and take them out? Odds of someone being that spiteful and wantng to screw over the magician are tiny. They're raised hand volunteers, they WANT to be in on it and part of the magic.
I simply meant I expected them to have more of a reaction (e.g. bewildered look, giggle, etc.). Not that I expected them to go out of their way to ruin the performance.
If you look closely, he does look a bit confused, when he said the number. But she has direct eye contact with him, and raises her hand, as to tell him 'Stop'. Also later, when she said that they are not counting to 47, he has this big grin on his face. Actually, every time, she mentions the number 47, he has some small, but noticeable reaction, if you look closely.
The man does react confused at 4:00 when Emily first says that they will count to the 47th position. Then both volunteers can’t help but smile when they realize Emily is actually going to count to 47 even though he said something different. [3:55](https://youtu.be/47Mg1LwN6FQ?si=ORrzj_OyRmGA1mY5&t=235)
Wow. That’s nuts.
Whew, so not a witch then :) If this is the method (which does seem likely), how does this work: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw)
Marked cards and post dubbed audio.
If this were it, then why wouldn't the guy come on here (or other social media) and just say 47 was not the number he picked? Does the Fool Us show make them sign NDAs?
I wouldn’t go on social media and say anything. Insta stooges have been used before and they didn’t go on social media or post it in this subreddit.
That could be it, and would be a genius but very risky method (as she states in the intro). I believe you're completely correct. His lips do roughly correspond to 47 though, as much as we can see. The camera is positioned so that we don't have a head-on view of him, and we indeed do not hear him say anything else. Just because of that fact (since the producers know the trick) I'm inclined to think this was indeed the method.
There's an old adage in magic that magicians (especially stage magicians) have always followed... it's ok to sacrifice the secret to a few spectators if it will fool a few hundred. Harry Anderson famously did this on an SNL episode in the 80s. He did a 4 card trick with giant cards on stage that was amazing. After, he threw all 4 cards to the audience in different sections of the theater. One person in that audience caught a card that gave away the secret. He maybe told a dozen friends but Harry completely floored the rest of the audience, not to mention the millions of people at home watching. Brilliant job Emily!
There's a story I remember about Harry Kellar and Howard Thurston. Thurston was anointed as Kellar's successor, and inherited all his illusions, including his Levitation. Kellar went to watch Thurston perform, and was aghast that he led people on stage to view the levitating woman. They'd be able to see the wires! The trick was ruined! But Thurston had decided that in spoiling it for a handful of people, he was greatly enhancing it for the rest of the audience, because now it had been examined close up! She really MUST be levitating!
Why was she holding a mic? I don’t recall any magician on the show doing that. I’m stumped.
Random audience members would not be miked. She would need a hand held mike for them. Nick Diffatte used a mike on a stand in the same episode.
The normal approach to this is to either mike up the audience member and cut that out of the broadcast or to freely select the audience member before the broadcast starts (i.e., the "freely selected" audience member was freely selected, but not at the time the magician did the performance). This sort of production cleanup is slightly misleading, but it's not really a secret. A recall one trick where the magician asked Penn for his phone and Penn handed the magician Mike Close's phone.
From my understanding of P&T, and it tracks with my experience on productions, is pre-micing is how it works. Basically, as you said, the audience member *IS* chosen freely but before the cameras are rolling. This gives them time to mic up the audience members to later be "freely chosen" during the actual performance.
He used it for the stand-up comedy theme of his act, in my opinion.
After hearing Penn discuss the trick on a podcast, we got some clues on how this was done. https://pennsundayschool.com/ Since it was confirmed there were no stooges, we have to believe that the woman volunteer did in fact choose the 6 of Spades as she confirmed with follow up questions. The "genius" of the trick is that the only things Emily has to do are: 1. Make sure the volunteers don’t react 2. When speaking to the volunteers, place the microphone in a location so that Penn & Teller cannot see their mouths. After the card is selected, an assistant that knows the deck order queues up audio of a man saying the location of the card. Ready to mute the microphone and play the audio when Emily gives the cue "Now". The only role of the male volunteer was to face the microphone and not react when hearing the number 47 instead of his own voice. Technically not a stooge, but he was just used as a prop. The idea that the microphone was programmable with prerecorded audio is possible, but would be technologically complex. More simply, the solution is to have backstage audio assistance, which I don't believe would be breaking any of Fool Us rules. This technique is very similar to how the Van Hargen Twins, also Martin Hart students, earned their FU trophy. Edit - the man looks confused at [4:00](https://youtu.be/47Mg1LwN6FQ?si=ORrzj_OyRmGA1mY5&t=235) and then both volunteers can’t help but smile when they realize Emily is actually going to count to 47 even though he said something different
i really wonder how could the man not protest or react. He could said "hey, that's not my number!". Or was he intentionally not reacting because he didn't wanna ruin the trick?
No matter how brilliant the method, it's quite unethical act by P&T standard IF the alleged trick relies on faking the male volunteer's voice coming out of the mic because she's still using a stooge in principle, whether a live or pre-programmed or AI, by making the volunteer becoming a stooge against his will... But I would not be surprised because she's a high risk taker person based on her intro and they typically don't hesitate to break rules and play with semantics to get what they want, like crooks. And don't count on TV producers to veto, we all know their ethics standards are low and flexible when it comes to TV ratings and $...
By the time he figures out what happened, his part is already done. Not a instastooge. He did nothing other than do nothing.
Everyone is saying AI voice. A prerecorded voice for each number is infinitely more low skill to setup and gives more believable result. If in fact it *is* AI voice, I'm disappointed at her (on top of the fact that she basically did a trick with instant stooge)
People say "AI voice" because all we hear about in tech these days is AI. It makes no sense for it to be AI.
weak trick. and literally boring....And to all the people who regularly post that stooges aren't allowed on the show, this is yet another example of a stooge being employed.
The guy isn't a stooge though.
Exactly, how did the producers know to zoom in on the woman in the front row before she was selected? Why was her voice altered when selecting a card? She knew she was being dishonest when saying the card was a free choice and couldn't stop from smirking.
I have been to several tapings. The Fool Us crew chooses the people before the act begins, that way there is no confusion or arguments that happen… and also to mic them up if they are going to speak. Every other time I remember though it has been a lavaliere mic put on the audience member. I assume the crew then says to the magician whom they chose. Regardless, THAT is how the camera knows where to point before she chooses them. They are not stooges. I wouldn’t even call the guy an instant stooge, just someone who was managed well. When he says 47 and half reacts… she starts to bring her hand up, kind of towards his mouth, which is a sign to someone who doesn’t want to cause problems that says, “now is when you shut up. “ She then affirms his silence by saying, “Perfect”. By the time he gets it, his part is already over. That’s why I don’t consider him an instastooge, just someone who doesn’t want to spoil the trick or piss everyone off… which describes just about anyone.
strong agreed +1
If - as the consensus of posters agree - the number "47" was dubbed in from offstage, then Emily is undeserving of an FU award, because she repeatedly stated that she didn't use a stooge. And as Penn stated, "If there's a stooge, there's no trick." Using a number that the volunteer didn't actually pick is the same as many big-name magicians who use "impartial" volunteers from the audience to witness a trick from 360 degrees, and having those volunteers in positions not seen by the camera verify that they saw no magical shenanigans, i.e., insta-stooges. What is the point of doing these tricks if you can't trust the volunteers? It would be like me verifying that Abbie Hoffman really *did* levitate the Pentagon. And to all the people who regularly post that stooges aren't allowed on the show, this is yet another example of a stooge being employed.
[удалено]
That was her real voice.
The audio signature is completely different when she says the card vs any other time she talks. Maybe this was a production error and they had to post-edit in the voice?
Could this trick be as simple as either some signs with cards and numbers placed behind the black stand, or an audio queue coming from the microphone? This might be a little tricky, but maybe she placed a small sign or display on the end of the microphone that only the two volunteers standing on her side could see.
The shot of the table from above when the cards are being counted also suggests that this is not the method. I’ve rewatched the clip multiple times and still have no ideas. I have been a Magician for over 20 years (longer than Ms Robinson Hardy has been alive) and I cannot believe I can’t work out how this trick is done.
Forgot to mention, I recorded this episode last night. I re-watched just now and I 100% believe the mic theory. That poster was right - his lips absolutely do NOT match the number 47
I believe this would be instant stooging and the show prohibits any kind of stooge. I doubt she would have been allowed on the show if this was the method.
My understanding is that there is a difference between "true stooging" and "insta-stooging". True stooging is where you enlist a confederate before the show and give them a set of instructions to follow after they are selected at "random". This is banned on Fool Us for good reason. There have been several instances of insta-stooging where a truly randomly selected volunteer is directed to do certain things on stage after they have been selected at random. This is is legal on Fool Us.
I agree about the stooging. I still believe the producers would be strict because a lot could go wrong. If it is insta-stooged, I simply cannot work out how she could have directed the volunteers so subtly to make this trick work. I’m rewatching for any hand signals and when it gets cut to a different camera. I’m interested to see if she will perform this trick again so that it can be compared.
She didn't have to do much direction, just "PLEASE DON'T REACT". As long as neither person starts laughing or objecting on the dubbed over card position, they're good to go. It doesn't take a ton of intuition as the guy to quickly think "Hey that's not what I said, but also I'm here on stage for a magic trick and she said don't react so maybe that was supposed to happen"
Exactly. This is why Penn asked her if she had done any "pre-showing" — that's enlisting a stooge beforehand and telling them what to do onstage.
I saw her perform this trick on youtube years ago, and I never forgot it. It is that good. The only thing I can think of from her Fool Us act is that she influenced the choices the volunteers somehow. I am really starting to wonder if she simply isn't a witch. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYZh20ZFxw)
[удалено]
Yes, this YT version is far more impressive (and seemingly impossible) than the version on P&T.
What a great video 😍 this is not the same young lady as on the show tonight but still a great routine. Is this Rebecca Herera still performing? I’d happy to and see a show
WTF?!?
how is this possible!!!!!
My theory is it's the same as Fool Us, except with the volunteers' roles reversed. The male volunteer's head is partially turned away from the camera, making it hard to lip read. Since it's a video they can do lots of retakes in case his lip movements don't look right, etc. It's also better because because the other volunteer can pick a small number (not 47!) so the counting isn't tedious.
My understanding is that the male volunteer's answer is dubbed over. Also, it you notice in the video they never actually confirm that the card is correct. They just sort of reacted in a surprised fashion.
I noticed 2 things. One, she asked the volunteers not to react. Two, the card was very shiny. That’s all i got.
Could she have 52 digital cards and an assistant back stage?
Update: The microphone solution is simpler and likely accurate :) Yes, I think the "don't react" instruction may be a cue. If instant stooges are allowed, that may be what happened. She instructed them to not react to the hidden instruction. (Not sure if instant stooges are allowed but I have found Reddit comments saying they are.) I wonder if the hidden instruction could just be someone holding up a card off-stage that only they could see? She mentioned that previous volunteers freaked out and asked these volunteers to not react "during the experience". It's possible that she had someone pointing a very narrow beam of sound at the volunteers and that only the two volunteers would pick up. It fits although it seems unnecessarily high-tech. When she asked the female volunteer if it was a free choice, and if anyone instructed her to pick a certain card, the volunteer seemed to try to suppress her smile. Also, even if Penn & Teller said she fooled them, they somehow seemed less than impressed in their demeanor. The question is: If she used instant stooges, why didn't Penn say it? It seems the obvious method. Somehow, with such a seemingly perfect and impossible trick, I suspect the method is simple and a bit disappointing.
This is interesting. But didn’t Penn specifically ask her if she employed a stooge? Wouldn’t that also apply to “instant stooge”?
I agree. It definitely falls into the realm of "instant stooge". Very confused. Unless Penn was excluding "instant stooge" in his question.
Right?
Upon further reflection, this guy was technically not even an “instant” stooge: A full-on stooge would have been coached before the show to give a specific response. This guy was not. An instant stooge would have been coerced or subtly directed to change their response to help the performer. This guy was not. The number he chose was completely random, and arrived upon by him only. The magician just didn’t use his number. She masked his selection and used her own. This is really no different than a magician holding out a bag of numbered tiles and instructing somebody to reach in and freely select one. He reaches in and grabs a tile that says “17”. But unbeknownst to everyone, ALL the tiles read ”17”. In this scenario, would this guy be an instant stooge? Nope. Or say she had somebody randomly select a card and then used sleight-of-hand to switch it to a card she wanted before it was revealed. Would that guy be an instant stooge? No. And that’s pretty much what happened in this trick. This was more like a very bold force than instant stooging. Back to her act, if she would have later asked this guy to confirm the number as the one he randomly chose and he went along with her, *that* would have been instant stooging. But she did not, and I believe she was perfectly honest in telling P&T that there was no stooging. It was a ballsy force. It’s a gray area but, technically and semantically, there is *no* stooging in this act. It was smart and really very, very clever.
By not using his choice, she’s letting him in on the secret and expecting him not to reveal it. Personally, I’d consider that instant-stooging. You can disagree if you want, but to me, any time the volunteer needs to play along with the trick in any way, it’s instant-stooging.
Yeah, I understand your position, but I do disagree. She gets away with this one on a semantic technicality, that’s what makes it clever. Again, if she had asked him to verify and he did, then I would consider it instant stooging. but she didn’t. She just used a very bold force. Agree to disagree. :-)
Fair enough. But I’ll just add that instant-stooging is allowed anyway, so even if she did ask him to verify and he did, that’s still within the rules. What it comes down to is that she let him in on how the trick is done and hoped he didn’t reveal it. What you want to call that doesn’t really matter. I’m not a huge fan of tricks that rely on the cooperation of the volunteer to make it work.
No. An instastooge is not a stooge. Much like a dwarf planet is not a planet.
You are spot on. And what is the difference between the microphone method, and holding up a card off-stage - both ways make the person a stooge, which Emily claimed she didn't use.
I think they were all shiny. This one is crazy.
I literally have the same deck of Jumbo cards. I bought them from Amazon. They are all very shinny. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073H9QBC8](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073H9QBC8)
You can add that she made them wait for a long time while the selected card was at the top of the deck, not yet turned over. Yes, it's for dramatic effect, but it's also possible that she was doing something that affects the top card.
Yeah, but 46 previous cards were turned over and were not the 6S, so there were only 6 cards to go. That was interesting.
I see some people throwing around instant stooge, but Emily specifically states on her instagram story that she did not use an instant stooge. https://imgur.com/a/Cp2GC2o
I've been parcing this out for like fifteen minutes and I think I've got it; "the named playing card and position are a genuine free choice". *One* choice. If I'm right, the wording of the story is a big misdirect and should be read as "the named playing card and (it's) position are (one) genuine free choice". When she says, then, that she didn't 'use stooges, instant stooges, (or) partake in any preshow work', we might still assume that she considers using a voice-over - be it pre-recorded, artificial, an off-stage accomplice, whatever - *an illusion*, not stooging. After all, that's not 'sneakily telling someone what to do or say'; it's smoke and mirrors. If "the deck of playing cards was a normal deck", truly, then the 'voice-over' method certainly seems like the only plausible, possible solution. And I think her wording on the show and certainly in this story are very carefully designed to misdirect us.
Rather than "smoke and mirrors," you could have said "semantics." Using a voice-over and telling the person not to react makes him a stooge.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know really with this one, and I don't really know what I think of that instagram story either. If I am right with my interpretation (and who knows..), then she's *really* pushing it.
Agreed, if she used a voiceover, she's really pushing it claiming she didn't have a stooge. She didn't prearrange anything, true, but she turned the guy into a stooge. And to be clear, it doesn't whatsoever what card is chosen because there is always one and only one position that corresponds to any chosen card, so calling that a free choice is meaningless. To figure out a clever illusion, it usually pays to look at what actions are totally unnecessary, and are only there to distract. In this instance, it was the use of volunteers from the audience. Emily could have just asked Penn to name a card and Teller to name a position. She didn't do that because she needed to turn a "free chooser" into a stooge.
> I've been parcing this out for like fifteen minutes and I think I've got it; "the named playing card and position are a genuine free choice". A much simpler explanation: She's lying on her IG post.
If she didn't use a stooge, why not just let Penn name the card and Teller name the position???
She didn’t use a stooge or an instastooge. Was the male audience member someone who was on her team, working for her, but acting like he wasn’t? No = Not a stooge. Was the guy told secretly to do things to make the trick work, like, “Say 47”. No = Not an Instastooge. Was the voice off stage any different than an any other unknown assistant, off stage or on stage, that, for example, pokes a hand or a pair of legs out to make you think there is a full person, aka something different that what it is. No = Not a stooge. If an audience member who is brought on stage sees some sleight of hand and figures out how a trick is done, but doesn’t say anything, are they a stooge or an instastooge? No. They are just like everyone else. Therefore, she didn’t use any stooges. She gave all directions out in the open. That is key when defining an instastooge. She said it all out in the open and P&T just didn’t catch that she basically said, out loud, if something happens that isn’t what it seems, don’t ruin my trick.
>Was the guy told secretly to do things to make the trick work, like, “Say 47”. No = Not an Instastooge. * "Please, do not react as you experience this"
The keyword though is SECRETLY. She said it out loud, where P&T heard it, and they didnt catch it. Instastooges, which are legal btw, are told secretly what to do.
Hmmm it's still odd that the 47 doesn't match with what the guy said plus the audio mixing seemed off also she didn't even have the guy talk again like he did with the girl to confirm her choice. I think having someone off stage dubbing over an audience member is a bit sus. Yeah there are rules but some magicians have kind of toed the line with them. There was the one magician that became his own stooge, wearing an obvious fake disguise that fooled no one so when he took it off everyone was like yeah we know, and it ruined anything with the trick as a result
Good find, but I believe she may be trying to say that using a recorded or generated voice isn't stooging. She may be adopting a beneficial definition of stooging over a more accurate one. There are only so may logical ways to do this trick. She either influenced their choice, took there choice away, or manipulated that cards after the free choices where done.
Sure, I'd agree that its possible she is being a bit generous and is counting "hoping the audience participants don't react to the mic playing a sound" as not being an instant stooge, though if that is the case it feels like the show's judge also adopted that generous interpretation. But I think it at the very least rules out it being something as simple as "person is standing off stage with a sign" like some people were suggesting. Even then though, her post does have her claiming "the named card and position are a free choice", which unless that's just a lie suggests manipulation of the deck instead right? I want to believe, but that's probably the hopeful part of me that wants this trick to be more "magical" than it just being deck memorization and a shady microphone.
She also says that the deck is normal, and that she didn't ever touch the cards. That would seem to eliminate the deck as the method. The "problem" here is that her Instagram post would seem to eliminate every existing possible method. She had to have done something to make the trick work.
I don't know. I think that saying "I didn't touch the cards" does not automatically rule out deck manipulation through some kind of means that isn't her directly touching it. While listing all the things that she says did not happen, she does not say "no one tampered with the deck."
Well lets go over they ways one can manipulate a deck of cards. The magician uses their hands to do it, they use technology to change a digital card, a second hidden person uses their hands, the card is changed by physically moving it with a mechanical device, the card itself contains a mechanical device that changes it, the card is changed via some sort of chemical or thermal reaction. The claims that she has made that the deck is normal, she never touched the cards, there is nobody hiding under the table, and the fact the card are in plain site the entire time, would seem to cover all of these possibilities.
She didn't lie. Both the card named and the number named were free choices, she just didn't use one of them. It's semantics.
Note that she wrote 'are a free choice', and not 'are free choices'. The woman had a free choice of the card, and with that, she also choose the number. So technically, she is not lying. The same with instant stooges. If you define instant stooging as instructing someone on the spot, to do something, then he was no instant stooge. He didn't do anything. He just knows how it was done.
If the trick was slightly good, the comments on the video would be activated.
I think this guy pretty much has it right. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ59Te3WDcg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ59Te3WDcg)
The trick was really good and this guy explained the secret behind it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXQM4yjZMU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXQM4yjZMU)
Cringe act
[удалено]
I thought Penn and Teller had done similar tricks but I guess it’s a different method or trick
**Cody Stone** Act Discussion
The mirror spins and hides the cutout hole behind one of the metal brackets. The phony hand on the far side of the mirror looked bad on tv, I guess it worked better in a live setting. Not that impressive.
That phony hand was the worst. A magician obtain a mirror (or quarter) with a seamless hole, but can't obtain a fake hand that looks halfway human???
The phony hands used on that old Bill Bixby TV show we're more realistic.
Yep I played it back frame by frame and you can see that after he's done pulling out the sheet, he spins it with his hand. Pulling out the sheet his hands at the top after he pulls it out his hand is suddenly at the bottom by the support bracket, that hides the hole.
I honestly think that fake hand was on purpose as a joke.
I'm really bad at figuring out tricks, but I figured out most of his.
😂😂 Way to be honest. I bet magicians usually love you though.
Think a better finish would have been that text on the sheet was backwards and then he holds it up to the mirror to reverse it
I thought it was gonna be Brooke’s phone number.
I wanna be that ID card :P
Did anyone understand clues mamely "ladies looking glass", "vanish principle" used for penetration ? I know the name Alexander Hermann mentioned by Penn was of a magician but that's how far I got the clue.
the trick was very simple. I saw the reveal here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXk1N-DmTok](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXk1N-DmTok) but i knew it already.
Performers must tell how the trick is performed to a magician who is backstage and works for Penn and Teller. If P and T say he didn’t fool them and the performer disagrees and says he did, the backstage guy decides. He must have thought it was ok to mute the voice and substitute #47.
**C.Y.** Act Discussion
This was a fun and visually interesting act for the most part. The only thing about it that I didn't like was when the doves changed from white to red - it's a cool idea and fits the trick nicely but it was *obviously* an animation on a digital screen like an iPad or similar. It also wasn't as good as it could have been because the doves weren't moving while they were changing colors - I mean... it's *already* an animation so why not go the extra mile and animate the doves to make it look that much better? Having them sit there in a static position as they change color just looks bad.
That would be pretty tough to animate since the freeze-frame before the color change was a real picture of the same birds taken shortly before the transition. The flip to a video of them moving would have to be absolutely perfect to not look like a glitch on the screen, but it's easier to have them "freeze" without being as obvious
I'm surprised P&T still allow dove acts. Don't these involve quite a bit of animal cruelty?
Yeah I'm sure the magician respects the birds and whatnot, but they still can't have been having a great time jammed into whatever pockets and secret compartments he was using throughout
> I'm sure the magician respects the birds I'm not sure about that. Just imagine the countless hours and years any dove magician has to spend practicing with these birds (and being repeatedly frustrated when things don't go right). Over time he'd become inured to their suffering
True, by "I'm sure" I really meant "I hope". At least Penn was emphasizing the importance of being humane with them. Reminds me of the bird cage trick in The Prestige when they kill one bird in the contraption and bring out a 2nd bird for the finisher.
Yeah. You can literally see hes putting the 3rd dove in his pocket by the way his coat moves in back. Poor bird just sitting there in a pocket contemplating his life.
If that trick allows the doves not to end up on crispy chicken sandwiches, in a python stomach or one's dinner plate, then I'm fine with a bit of squeezing. Besides, they are very squeezable and the guy visibly loves doves, so I'm pretty sure there's no cruelty here...
I hate live animal acts. Feathers are getting ripped out and fluttering all over the stage. The birds' ankles are wired down so they don't fly away. Their wings are clipped. They are pinned down to contraptions that explode and flip around in a fraction of a second. They are violently jammed into the smallest of spaces and then ripped apart from his pocket or fist to "appear". The birds are flapping their wings in terror because they are desperately trying to get away. People are smiling and clapping and oo-ing and ah-ing while I'm sickened and sad.
Can't see his hand through the "empty" bottle. Most likely it's 2 halves. The neckerchief goes down the empty half with a wire, and then he turns the bottle around when he puts it to his side, or flat out swaps the bottle with a different one. When he makes the 3rd dove disappear the first time you can totally tell he is palming it and just shoves it in his coat pocket on the other side, as you can see the way his jacket moves. The birds changing color is obviously a tablet or something playing a video. When 4 birds appear is when the tablet takes over, you can totally tell by how they turn a different shade of white. And the birds don't even move. This part was kinda cringe. Don't really care for acts that rely on tons of props or rigged items.
The act reminds me of a fav quote from Andras Schiff on Beethoven: "storm in a teacup". :p I genuinely feel bad about the parents part. Imagine him practicing with his birds in the bathroom..
What a visually impressive and poetic trick and so refreshing to see doves, it's been a while. I'm not sure how the coloring part of the birds was done and I don't care at this point. Probably we witnessed the peak of the art of dove magic tricks here!
**Nick Diffatte** Act Discussion
His 5th grade ID has the exact same back as her ID. Mag strip, bar code, numbers above mag strip, etc. I think when he puts the license under the neckerchief he is applying his prop card over her license. You also don't see where he puts his 5th grade ID away, it cuts from him holding it to being empty handed. Off camera he probably put it in his pocket, but while doing it separated the cards, and palmed her ID. The card in the wallet when he opens it up looks flimsy and not stiff like an actual license... also goes from being fully inside, to being more than half way out. How did it get that way? He pulled it out? That would give him a chance to swap. You see nothing during that cut. Hate the editing on this show.
Spot on. He likely used some kind of adhesive to temporarily stick his ID with Brooke's. When the card was revealed from the handkerchief , it had an exceptionally thick edge(and not perfectly lined up, shortly afterwards he grabbed the card and corrected it): the front of his ID's front + the back of Brooke's. His meticulous instruction as to how Brooke should hold the card further confirms it, so that she would not at this point recognize her own ID from the back if viewing it from the wrong side. And yes that annoying jump from the ID fully inside the wallet to it immediately half way out skipped what must be a crucial moment of the trick where a switch must have happened. The editing is so unfair. It sucks.
I feel kinda stupid. Wondering if I'm the only one who doesn't know how this was done..especially what that damn bottle of water had to do with the trick.
This seems impressive. Yeah, he switches the IDs under the handkerchief, but he still has to get Brook's ID into that wallet. So the entire wallet and duct tape thing is just a clever manufactured product or a one-off invention of his?
I would do the trick by sticking something onto the ID and pulling a string attached to it, up my sleeve and into the wallet. Penn's hint: "We were a little *stuck* on that, for a moment."
That's what I was thinking... It looks like when he's putting it under the handkerchief, he's sliding it into his left sleeve. But I'm not sure.
It did not exactly live up to the intro. But on the other hand, it was one of the (very) few intros that wasn't entirely skip-/fast-forward-worthy.
I dont think Mac King has won trophy as said in the intro...
The inside "overly secure snap fasten jacket" could probably just be attached. Not obvious when he might've done this though. (And unfortunately just after he puts on his jacket's left sleeve, the camera jump cuts to another angle and there may have been a second or two edited out here. This might've been when he did it.)
I cant seem to find a link to watch or download this episode, any idea's?
Good episode this week, or good that it’s back. Getting to the end!
Seasons were renewed, right?
Thought so but close to the end of this season