Allen,

I grew up watching Kreskin on his TV Shows. I was stunned (gullable youth) when they exposed Kresin. It made a burning impression on me. I understand that he now does not do that bit, but I learned not to trust him and that stuck!

He may have been good with the words, his deception refined at the time, so is John Edwards and Miss Cleo in their own way.

Maybe I was just to gullable and believed in him, then was told that Kresin, Santa and the Easter Bunny were not real all in the same year! It was a long time ago, and I just remember him being exposed as a fake. I did truly believe in him and fought in his defense when other told me he was a fake that all he was doing is magic tricks.

They are my memories, right or wrong.

[quote]He spreads the deck. The guy on the left takes a card from the left third of the spread, the guy in the middle takes a card from the middle third, the guy on the right takes a card from the right third.
DB slowly but surely divines the cards. Very nice presentation.
I'm told that each time that he performs it, it's the same three cards. I'm also told that once he accidentally flashed the deck, and the bottom card was identical to one of the chosen cards.
But other than that, I have no evidence of his "guilt".
Dave
/quote]

Sounds like your right, but I don't mind that if it gets the job done. My psychic power demonstration uses a borrowed deck and I'm able to call out five cards that people are thinking of. It's based on something I read in T.A. Waters and I put a bit of a presentation to it. Everytime I read that book I get something out of it.
Greg

I don't mind that it gets the job done.

But I do mind that he says that he uses no conjuring tricks. It was unnecessary to say it.

And now that he's been found out, all of his effects become suspect. Which is a shame, since some of them are very clever, and would be very plausible, were it not for that suspicion that's now been cast on them.

But that's just my personal reaction to his statement. Others may well react completely differently.

Dave

It is hard to know how to react to this obviously heartfelt response. Somehow your worldview was being shaped by what Kreskin did, only to be dashed when you found out he was a "fake". I can certainly understand how that would generate an emotional reaction of mistrust. But just let me say that if your memories are wrong, and your belief really was just youthful naivete and gullibility, then does Kreskin really deserve your scorn, especially in a public forum, any more than the fellow down at the mall dressed up in a Santa suit? Perhaps Kreskin deserves your scorn less, since guys in Santa suits usually don't employ disclaimers!

Now notice I said if your memories are wrong. I am perfectly willing to admit that Kreskin may have made claims at some point I'm unaware of... especially if they were made in the 60's, since the earliest quotes I have are from the 70's, which is also the earliest I ever saw him perform (via his TV show). I just have been thus far unable to get anyone to produce some actual quotes or sources, in spite of many rather fierce attacks on him. So let me finish my response by looking for some facts:

(1) you say that "they exposed Kreskin". Do you recall who "they" were, and how the exposee occurred? Was this an actual event where he was exposed, or do you just mean when you finally figured out what was really going on, or perhaps the first time someone explained to you what was really going on?

(2) you say you know he does not now "do that bit". What is "that bit" that he used to do that he no longer does? If you mean claiming to be real, many sources indicate he has not done that since at least back to the 70's. Do you mean something earlier? Or do you just mean the carefully worded language? (Because that he is still doing!)

I have always scorned guys in Santa suits.

Allen,

You're "exacting" and I'm "generalizing". I am not (using your words) "scorning" Kreskin. Kreskin is Kreskin to whomever, Copperfield is Copperfield to whomever. It was not meant to make a big deal out of.

Forget I ever mentioned Kresin, and focus on the topic. "No fooling the Public" Kreskin never fooled the public, only me. I forgotten about Kreskin until it was brought up here. Now I wish to forget him again.

It appears I must be exacting in what I say or else I must reap the wrath of magi, I'm sorry..OK, Lighten up, Please.

Sorry, Dennis, as a philosopher, being overly exacting to the point of being a pain in the butt to everyone within earshot is a professional hazard. If you did not mean to make any specific claims about Kreskin, then by all means I will drop my attempt to extract the details from you!



In my opinion, the minimal ethical requirement is that you:

- charge a fee within the market value of entertainment,
- make sure that anyone who makes the effort to critically investigate you will be able to decern that you do not believe yourself to be "the real thing".

I'm not saying a case can't be made for more stringent rules, but I think when you go beyond the above two basic points, you enter an ethical grey area.

I was debating about copperfields show and this topic came up. The issue was when he vanishes to Burmuda (or where ever it was). I am referring to the part on the projection screen.

Andy (who I was talking to) said, "It is great. Finally mixing technology with magic."

At the time, I was having trouble putting into words how against this I felt and why. I have since come up with this analagy:

When you watched the newest Star Wars, you didn't leave the theatre thinking, "Wow, that was magical!" That was the most advanced special effects ever. If a magician spent that much money and used the same resources, he could make his "magic" truely have no explination. But that isn't magic in my eyes.

Camera tricks are for movies. Sure, they look good to the audience, but so what. If George Lucas wanted to fool an audience badly, he could make something in his special effects studio, slap a magical name on it, give it to a magician to use, and it would fool people. It was said that it is all fine if it does its job, fool the viewer. I disagree. If you are on TV representing that something looks the same in real life as it does on TV, you are not doing magic. YOu are simply doing special effects.

Magic and special effects need to be kept seperate if you ask me. Magic should look the same on TV as in person, or it isn't magical.

While we as magicians might think the Bermuda illusion is a fancy camera trick, Copperfield does basically present this same illusion in his live show.

He goes to great lengths to prove that the camera is a live feed...

And as the 'clincher', when he appears in the video, he proves it has to be live by the fact he displays the picture and the initials drawn by the audience.

There is also the stunning vanish of both him and the volunteer that is done over the heads of the audience.

I was talking about when he does it "live." I saw it live. I did love the vanish, but that love stopped when I saw him on the screen.

He is still using camera tricks. Even though I was in the arena, he was still being shown on a screen. As far as I am concerned it would have been far more impressive if he jumped to a different planet (which would be the same general idea....movie-like special effects).

Heck, maybe I would have liked it better. Espicially if it involved Ewoks!