Giving you card guys a heads-up on "Dr. Wendy Woo's Remote Viewing Experiment"!

And soon to come, my own "Intuition Experiment" and "The Casual Object-Reading Demonstration".

Easy - Strong - Possibly Disturbing!


On a side note (but also easy, strong and possibly distunrbing) ... if you guys have not seen Paul Hallas' "One For Rovi" in his "Clever Card Magic" DVD ... run, do not walk to pick this up! I have performed this many times since I've learned it and it's very very powerful!

I am at this point sucessfully holding back my urge to respond to the supposed authenticity of remote viewing so that I can ask about the trick itself:

I am curious as to exactly what the Wendy Woo effect is. Sorry, I just can't figure out the description. I understand that 3 cards are the table. The spectator places a coin (or other object) on one of them. According to the page, what is done is performer "determines, fairly and amazingly which one contains the coin!"

Is the effect that I am able to tell the spectator which card (e.g., "left, "right" or "center") the coin is on? Are the cards randomly selected and I am telling them it is (for example) the "two of hearts" the coin is on?

Please explain the effect in more detail. Thanks!

Re:

You mean, the phrase: "Even though Dr. Wendy Woo can do it for real, [...]"?
...that certainly disturbs me, and would normally cause me to not read any further.

There isn't much in the description, but there's a chance it uses the
same technique used to pick the chosen-of-three card or cups that some effects use. (In that technique, whose name I don't know, the magician must know
how the cards or cups are permuted (or switched around), plus know the initial
location of one of the cards or cups.)

Correct--and I don't care for the appeal to authority in the prior paragraph to bolster that claim.


I wasn't asking Alexandre to reveal any methods or to describe it in such a way that methods could be reverse-engineered. I was just hoping he could tighten up language in the description so I could evaluate how "strong" or "possibly disturbing" it is. $18 isn't a huge amount of money, and it includes a couple of effects, but if I didn't understand what I'm buying, I wouldn't be sending any money.

Friends, lighten up on the RV thing. Don't be so uptight.

The Dr. Wendy Woo Remote Viewing Experiment is not the "Holy Grail" of card work or even Mentalism, but perhaps I made a mistake in placing a "Mentalism" experiment in the "card" section. My bad.

This is NOT a card trick, but a Mentalism experiment of Remote Viewing. If one attempts to perform this as a card trick, you're missing the point and you won't be nearly as successful, and I don't mean with the methodology that Dr. Wendy Woo teaches to fake her abilities, but with the possibility of entertaining anyone with the experiment.

Having said that, I don't think you guys will be interested in my upcoming "Intuition Experiment" and "The Casual Object Reading Demonstration" either. They both deal with cards, but are NOT card tricks and should not be treated and/or presented as such.

:)

I wouldn't be uptight if there wasn't a claim that Wendy Woo can do it "for real." In my opinion, propogating "woo-woo" like RV does real harm to real people, so that is why I don't like the copy for the ad. (Sorry I had to help myself to the obvious pun. If you don't like the pun, have a look at the name to the left and you'll find it "easy pickings" for making puns.


No, I think it was OK. Osterlind is a mentalist who incorporates cards. A magician in an act can suddenly get "real serious" and do a mentalism effect or two successfully. Depends on the person and the act. I really might be interested in this effect--it is just I don't know if I have a correct understanding of what the effect is. Here is my best guess--

(I'll use the words "performer" and "participant" to identify the two people involved)
1) Participant places three cards are place on the table
2) Participant places an object on one of the three cards
3) Performer verbally interacts with the participant in a fair-sounding manner.
4) Performer is able to tell participant which of the three cards (e.g., left, right, center) the object is on.

NOTES: Performer is unable to see the cards or object on the cards. Performer never handles the items. All items can be borrowed. No confederates required.

Is this approximately the effect? If so, I can understand why you perhaps can't go into details about step 3 above, but I just want to make sure I've the the "jist" of the effect right. Sounds like it could be cool.

I don't agree that suggesting Dr. Wendy Woo does it for real harms people in any way. Besides, how do you know she doesn't?

Naturally this has a "method" to it, because it was designed for others to be able to fake Dr. Wendy Woo's abilities.

You are on the right track, but you don't do tons of switching and stuff, and the verbal interaction is throughout. Look, it's a fairly streamline presentation, though where presentation is concerned, there is a bit of psychology involved.

I've been getting very good reviews on this, so if you're interested in a Remote Viewing demonstration using cards, quick and cool, this might be it.



For those of you who like simple and effective card Mentalism, I would like to add that the "Intuition Experiment" is now available.

Also included in the eBook is the 'Casual Object Reading Demonstration".

If it isn't real, then, yes is harms people. Just ONE example--I can give you many others if you'd like--Psychics, RVers, and others consume police resources during investigations with their "leads"--resources that could be better used doing something to actually catch the bad guys out there. Police can be tricked into thinking they might help them or have helped them at some point. (Note also that the psychics and RVers can be self-deluded into thinking they are the real thing--see dowsers for example).

Fair enough. Of course I don't, since maybe she is the "real thing" out of all of the trickers/self-deluded folks, but I doubt it. I say that with high confidence because any well-constructed test of such abilities I've seen that eliminates trickery, is designed to have objective determination of what constititues a hit/miss, is blinded, etc, etc, always ends in disappointment. RV, if real, would have tremendous applications.

Back to the trick though...


Cool. What would you say is the percent you can get on this trick? 75%? Does it depend on the performer's abilities?