Its always some trick babe. There's no such thing as real magic.
Edit- Jesus that link has a Zillion ads.

Using magic, clearly.

Sorry, hammered at the airport bar again.

I'm sure it's easy to figure out. I just have to watch Amanda Holden a couple more times
before I report back.

Hi Claude...

Just as in the IM world, there are a LOT of people who will gladly tell you "answers" even though they have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT -- same holds true int he magic world.

I have been in the magic world since I was 8. Well over 40 years.

The "answers" given above this post are BUNK.

*ANY* card (except ace of spades) could've been named.

When well posted magicians watch videos like this, they are AMAZED in a different way.
And that is this... HOW CAN "WORLDLY" PEOPLE (like the judges, in this case) have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE of ANYTHING in the magic world -- to the point where they will be STUNNED (as you were), AND think the magician in question HAS amazing abilities they they have "NEVER SEEN BEFORE!!!" -- when the truth is, that trick is IMMEDIATELY available in ANY magic store, for $20.

Yes, it is a great, vastly superior trick (more on that in a minute), but it has been performed ZILLIONS of times all over the world by RANK AMATEUR magicians (many under the age of 10), all over the world, ever since it was first invented and marketed to magicians! (in the mid-late 90s)

From the perspective of the magic world, to see "the world" suddenly "stunned beyond belief" by something "so unique and different" (when it is NOT new or unique, and requires almost no "talent") is like if you were to walk out there, do a SIMPLE SUMMERSAULT, and have the world leap to its feet in total AWE of you. You can see how that REACTION would AMAZE those in the gymnastics world, yes?

Now, back to that card trick in particular. I am known in all corners of the globe (in the magic world, not the "regular" world), for my magic inventions. For many years I travelled the world to magic conventions, selling my inventions.

That particular invention (that card trick, which is NOT my invention), caught my eye the second it came out. I called the inventor to DOUBLE CHECK that it actually was + did what he claimed it did. I IMMEDIATELY sensed that it would become a CLASSIC, so I ordered A LOT of them (A LOT of them!). At that exact time I was just about to go to europe to another convention. I took this huge bunch of this trick with me -- and I took one of them to LEARN IT ON THE PLANE.

Then, at the convention, I "debuted" the trick (giving the real inventor full credit, of course -- we magicians are REAL STICKLERS about giving proper credit to inventors!!!!!). It was a total SELL OUT!

Since that initial convention, I went on to sell THOUSANDS of them via my demonstrating it all over the world at conventions. I sold so many of them, and became so attached to the trick (as well as my own inventions), that there are STILL some magicians who MISTAKENLY think *I* was the inventor of this trick.

Hope that helps.

-- TW

PS: If your amazement of the magic in the video is about some other trick he did in that segment, let me know + I can shed some light on that if you want -- but, I do stick to the "oath" of not revealing methods to laymen.

A little googling told me using this -

Magic Cartoon Deck Trick From Magic Makers - Amazing Card Magic Anyone Can Do!: Amazon.co.uk: Toys & Games

There's more than one video on youtube showing how the trick is done although I'm not going to post any here. Funny thing is I never seen the trick before and figured it out straight away. I'm lying really, even after watching a couple of the reveal videos I'm still a little stumped on something but no bother.

These "explanation" posts make me laugh + laugh.

After he picks up the cards and starts shuffling through them one-by-one, there are 3 seconds that we do not see the cards (in his hands or on the monitor) that he could have pulled the switch, before the camera focuses back in on the deck.

Notice he counted about 9 cards. Assuming he only needed 6 or 8, and any extras were just for show, he could have gotten the one he needed and moved it to the bottom of the deck.

I enjoyed this. Watched it earlier. For the bank notes, you can just see them folded in half and tucked away under the leftmost fully presented drawn one. Around 2:29-30. Then he's handing the drawn bills out, and the eyes are on those not whatever else he's doing. Actually, we never see his hands again for the rest of that bit. They cut to the audience and the judges.

PS: Stop with the "switches" and the "added card(s)" already! -- Completely NOT required for this trick.

There's a term in the magic world you guys need to be aware of. It is "CLEAN."

A magician strives to make his tricks (magicians call them effects) as "CLEAN" as possible.
Clean means there are few (or, ideally NONE) parts of the effect where the viewer can "hang" an explanation. If there's nowhere to "hang" any explanation, then the viewer must conclude it was (ahem) "magic." -- Of course we all know it's NOT real magic, and it of course MUST have been accomplished by actual mechanical, explainable, real-world means.

But that's just it. It's the magician's job to -- as much as possible -- ELIMINATE any possibility for an explanation of what has happened.

In that respect, the magician in the video could have done a better job of SEALING OFF the possibility for people like you guys to come up with all your fanciful (and totally INACCURATE) explanations. In other words, he could/should have presented it in a more "clean" way.

The guy in the video could've made it more clear + obvious that ANY card could be named (thus "sealing off" the possibility of viewers actually believing CRAZY ideas like "subtle psychological influence" (hahahahaha) -- and maybe he should have made it more clear + obvious that he was not adding or removing ANY CARDS during the entire thing, thus "sealing off" the possibility of THAT being a possible explanation.

By the way, in the magic world, if you can come up with EXTREMELY clean routines, then you can potentially fool other magicians!

Magicians have the ability to THINK in a very particular way. The more you do it, the more you increase your ability to think in that way. That's why it's VERY difficult to fool well posted magicians (as in the Penn + Teller show with that premise).

You guys are not magicians, so you are not used to thinking in that way at all.
That's why you see the same video I see, yet you come up with what I know are RIDICULOUS explanations.

Has nothing to do with better or worse mind -- just DIFFERENT way of thinking.
Using your "normal" ways of thinking is NOT gonna work when the challenge is figuring out how a trick is done. You are entering a fight TOTALLY UNARMED. You're only gonna succeed in embarrassing yourselves.

-- TW

PPS: If you want to see some lessons in creating "clean" magic routines, see this person...
Richard Osterlind

His routines are SO clean, they often fool magicians. They are simple, direct, and (seemingly) have NO POSSIBLE explanation cuz there's "CLEARLY" no place AT ALL to even BEGIN to "hang" an explanation on!!! Some of his routines appear to be JUST PLAIN MAGIC. I know -- I have been BADLY FOOLED by some of his stuff -- and I am known for not getting fooled very easily at all -- cuz I've been in the biz for so long.

Conversely, I have had the pleasure of fooling other magicians -- many of whom were big names, and "should" have known better. While fooling other magicians is not a goal, really -- it is a very delicious feeling when it happens! One of my inventions (a rope routine) is SPECIFICALLY designed to fool other magicians.

He just have to change the last card. The other ones doesn't matter.

I think I'll keep watching Amanda Holden.




TW,

I think you should explain instead of being haughty.

Dan

I hate these shows.
Leave it to Claude to get me watching one!

No -- I fully understand that we are not discussing "real" psychic abilities here.

But... we ARE discussing someone claiming to have a "special" ability.
I am telling you that (similar to BOGUS claims SOME PEOPLE MAKE of being truly "psychic"), DB's claims of having a DIFFERENT kind of special ability, is ALSO BOGUS.

And he's using the same conjuring methods to try to "prove" HIS claim of "special abilities."

Simple. Yes?

-- TW

PS: No confederates needed in what Kreskin does with finding the check. COULD, of course, be done with a stooge -- but, in his case, he "really" does it!!

A little lesson in critical thinking...

A LARGE PART of critical thinking is the ability to assess what is REALITY.
Then making that bit of REALITY the cornerstone, the true north, the zero line, upon which ALL ELSE is built, and/or compared to.

Once that CORNERSTONE is firmly established as absolutely TRUE, SQUARE, AND PLUMB, then ALL OTHER INCOMING DATA MUST BE BENT SO IT FITS IN WITH THE CORNERSTONE. No exceptions!

Unfortunately (and unsettlingly), that's not what happened in the case of the bmx video.

The baloney LIE was set as the unbendable cornerstone. Then all else was bent to fit THAT!
That is not critical thinking. It produces FALSE conclusions!

When I do MAGIC, I fully expect the REACTION (of intelligent adults) to be...

"WOW! I have no idea HOW he did that -- (but it sure WASN'T real magic!)"

(kids react differently, because they DO believe that REAL magic exists! Just as they believe that Santa Claus exists)

The adults are using critical thinking -- since the cornerstone is: Real magic does not exist, then what they are seeing MUST be accomplished by some OTHER means. They know they DON'T know what those means are -- but they ALSO KNOW, there is NO WAY to bend the cornerstone that REAL magic does not exist.

Hence the RATIONAL reaction, using critical thinking...

"WOW! I have no idea HOW he did that -- (but it sure WASN'T real magic!)"

Now, let's look at DB... using these "what-if" scenarios...

1) "I am DB, and I can accomplish these AMAZING stunts, because I am PSYCHIC!"

Rational reaction, using critical thinking:

"WOW! I have no idea HOW he did that -- (but it sure WASN'T real psychic abilites!)"

2) "I am DB, and I can accomplish these AMAZING stunts, because I am FROM SATURN!"

Rational reaction, using critical thinking:

"WOW! I have no idea HOW he did that -- (but I know he sure ISN'T from Saturn!)"

So...

Why is the reaction to THIS scenario so different?!?

2) "I am DB, and I can accomplish these AMAZING stunts, because I am amazingly skilled at ninja, super subtle people-influencing skills that no one else can do!"

ACTUAL (unfortunate) reaction, NOT using critical thinking:

"WOW! I have no idea HOW he did that -- (so I guess it MUST be because he has because he has ninja, super subtle people-influencing skills that no one else can do!")"

Unfortunately, that is witnessing a pretty much OBVIOUS LIE (outrageous claim), and giving it the "cornerstone of reality" trait, THEN continuing on from there!

You are DOUBTING the things that should be BELIEVED,
and BELIEVING the things that should be DOUBTED!

That is what political scientists, and George Orwell call, "Friggin' Scary S--t!"

It's people like that who eventually end up with a clipboard, dutifully counting the fellow citizens, as they get loaded into the CATTLE CARS!

-- TW

PS: And yes -- in most of his stunts, HE IS CLAIMING TO ACCOMPLISH THEM VIA "super subtle people-influencing skills." No amount of BACK-PEDALING can change that.

In that DB bmx video, up until they reveal the bike, DB is using pure NLP, from the initial 'handshake interrupt' through to the story telling, anchoring and suggestion. (listen to his dialogue)

Now I don't know what techniques Timothy may be alluding to but it is perfectly feasible that it was done without 'stage magic'.

Post on another forum I found discussing this (it was a forum of magicians) -- includes part of an interview DB did with a Magician...


You might ask, "What's the harm? Leave the poor guy alone. It's only a bit of fun."

There are three problems. First, any TV performer has a contract with the audience. In this case, Derren's contract is based on a claim to perform effects based on psychology, but this is simply not the case .... Viewers are left with a false understanding of psychology and an exaggerated idea of what is achievable through the power of the mind.

Derren says, "Giving explanations, which we do some of the time, is not about patronising people. It's about playing to people's intelligence." It is actually about misleading people. Having spoken to several very bright people, it is clear that they are completely taken in by the false explanations.
...
The second problem is that Derren's show taints the science of psychology. He makes statements about psychology and what can be achieved with the human mind, but they directly contradict scientific knowledge.
...
In one programme, Derren places twins in a "heightened state of synchronicity". One twin thinks of a number between 1 and 1,000 and the other, with her eyes closed, writes down the same number! The clear implication is that this is an illustration of some deep scientific psychological phenomenon ... Derren is making a mockery of science. Furthermore, the fake demonstration even takes place in a laboratory to give it the veneer of authority.

The third and most serious problem is that this programme taints factual television. Channel Four makes dozens of brilliant factual programmes each year, but this series misleads and appears to elevate magic to the level of science.

See the highlighted point. Whenever there's a thread here about Derren Brown, people will vehemently deny that the bogus explanations are meant to be taken seriously, and to mislead about science - while in the very same thread other posters will be vehemently arguing that the 'explanations' are real!


Originally Posted by Ashles
He hasn't claimed they are the result of NLP.
Everyone alway assumes he has said this (or they assume he is using it) but he states in his book Tricks of the Mind that he has never claimed to use NLP.

I haven't read Tricks of the Mind, but in that case he told a demonstrable, barefaced lie (which I find seriously unsurprising). To take the first example that came to hand, there's this interview with Jamy Ian Swiss in 2003:
Quote:
JAMY: What's the difference between people's unhealthy decisions based on a self-described psychic's claims, or people making life decisions based on their misunderstanding of what are in essence a mentalist's super-normal psychological claims?
DERREN: Years ago the issue was whether or not you told people it was psychic because people were prepared to believe in psychic ability--and how far down that road do you take them. Now we're in a situation where we're into pop psychology, and NLP [Neuro Linguistic Programming], all these huge industries, and people are prepared to believe in that, and maybe in a way that's the new psychic realm.
JAMY: Right. A substitution of one set of false claims for another set of false claims.
DERREN: Yes, in one way, but no in another way.
JAMY: Well, I want to take a course in photo-reading. I want to take a course in body language. Is that more or less misleading or dangerous than now I want to take a course in how to improve my ESP? What's the difference? Is there a difference?
DERREN: The difference is presumably that you can do a course on body language and you can do a course on photo-reading and you will learn a bit about body language and learn about photo-reading.
JAMY: What exactly would you learn in a course on photo-reading?
DERREN: I've done a course on photo reading and you learn "photo reading"--speed reading techniques.
JAMY: So you're referring to speed reading and memory techniques there.
DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.
JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.
DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.


I've always considered Geller and Brown to be two sides of the same coin (and was taken aback at the depth of loathing of Geller and adulation of Brown that I found in this forum). Geller and Brown are showmen - magicians with a brilliantly successful personalised schtick. As a side-effect of their success and their favoured mode of deception, both are (unfortunately) powerful purveyors of pseudoscience. Brown's shtick is particularly clever, because it uses a deception-within-a-deception - the pretence of being a friend to scepticism by honourably eschewing 'paranormal' claims, but substituting equally bogus 'psychological' explanations.

______________________________________

Note: All of the above (correct-thinking stuff) was written by some OTHER magician, not me!

-- TW

Where are the videos of the OTHER expert practitioners of these ninja NLP, super subtle people-influencing skills. Surly there must be dozens of people who can do this, right?
All DB is doing is demonstrating what is possible, right?
He's not the ONLY one who can produce these AMAZING results, is he?
Where are the videos of other people doing it?
Please post them here!

Even just 1 or 2.

Please.

Prediction: No takers.

-- TW

NEVER thought I'd say this but I wish Claude would chime in on this thread to add some SANITY to what some have said (clung to, really) in this thread!

-- TW

PS: It's the using Claude's name and "sanity" in the same sentence that I never thought I'd say.

OK, I'm back from watching Amanda Holden.

My biggest problem is that we are watching videos.
Therefore, we are assuming that they are not staged or edited, and making conclusions
from that point.

I think that when it comes to Derren Brown and NLP..., there are two deceptions going
on:

1) He does employ the verbal and non-verbal techniques of NLP and Social Engineering
(Social Engineering in the Kevin Mitnick Kevin Mitnick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hacker
sense of the word). But, he does it IMO, to lead the people who try to explain him to believe
and argue in that direction. A verbal and print sleight of hand.


2) Also, he uses it when he is one to one with the participants in his tricks. But, it does not control
them in some ninja way. It merely distracts their attention - much like a stage musician gets
the audience to look right while the left is doing the technique. An example is in the BMX trick
when he shook the actors hand and placed it kind of awkwardly on the table and still held it.

Or, where he's giving the people the paper money and asking them unrelated questions so they are engaged with him and not the transaction so much. (I don't believe he got the jewelry for paper though.) Also, he's a friendly, chatty guy - part of the way Mitnick gained info he should not have gained.

With the BMX one, I'd have to see him do it live - not a video with an actor. If it is just a envelope switch, how did he get the participant to write "BMX bike" and "leather jacket" and not remember
he did write both sometime near the event? Or, how did the participant not get so freaked out that he looked for a forgery of one of the notes? "I don't write my "L"s that way", or whatever.

Overall, I'd say that with his tricks, like the BMX and the paper money ones, are him doing "magic"
in the modern video era. Mis-directs to make video viewers think they saw something amazing.

Where he is filmed live, as in the Britain's Got Talent video, he just does normal tricks that he is
talented with.

I GUESS I can still participate in this thread, as long as I can filter out the "chem trail-er" "crop circle" types.

From a long-time, well posted magician's point of view...

1) To unravel many of these mentalism *TRICKS* (which is what they are -- no matter what PSEUDO-SCIENCE BS explanation accompanies them!!! -- a TURD is not a leg of lamb, no mater how many sprigs of mint you stick in it!!!), you need to know about what is called "pre-show work." If you don't know about THOSE methods, you (meaning anyone) is operating from that unfortunate "colossal cavern of ignorance." If you wanna TRY to catch up, do a google search of "mentalism" and "pre-show work." But it's a HUGE area with HUNDREDS of methods that takes practitioners many years to master, etc.

About "camera tricks"...

The general rule among magicians was, anything using the camera is fair game, SO LONG AS IT ACCURATELY DEPICTS WHAT SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY SEE IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY *THERE*.

Again, you gotta KEEP IN MIND that when well posted magicians see magic (or mentalism -- though that is a different magic *discipline* (think GP versus Dentist or car mechanic vs. auto body shop)), they IMMEDIATELY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON -- and they can tell immediately if the performer has "cheated!"

Now then the question becomes, if this is all based on deceptions (think LIES, basically), then how can there be "cheating??"

Aha!

That's where magicians DO have some ethics! Honor among thieves!

The magic community is VERY TIGHTLY KNIT -- VERY! A magician cannot fart without the whole magic community knowing about it. THAT IS WHY we are such sticklers about who invented what, etc. There are many magi's with ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge of where every little sleight + method ORIGINATED, etc. And if a magi publishes something that does not METICULOUSLY "give credit" to ALL that have preceded him (re: the sleight or method in question), then it is SERIOUSLY frowned upon!

To maintain one's rep in the magic world, one must NEVER transgress one of these stated, and often UNWRITTEN "laws!"

Most people have no idea this is what the inner climate is, in the magic world.

So it is with the topic of "camera tricks" and "editing" etc.

Many years ago, David Copperfield got into some trouble (the trouble negatively affected his rep -- and that process started IMMEDIATELY -- AS THE TV SPECIAL WAS AIRING! Not the next day, but in that SAME mili-second the "transgression" was aired!!)

The transgression was -- for the first time -- a new "gray area" was created re: "editing."

It wasn't strictly a CAMERA TRICK -- but what DC did was to COMBINE different performances of a certain trick, so it looked as if it was ONE performance of the trick. Why did he do that, and what was the "transgression?" He did it to further DISGUISE the real method(s) of the trick.

What he did was, do the "same" trick several times, but each time, he used a DIFFERENT method -- each method CANCELLING OUT THE OTHER! So, yes, each CLIP of the final "total" was filmed "legitimately" and DID portray what someone would ACTUALLY SEEN, if they were actually THERE -- for THAT PARTICULAR CLIP.

BUT -- when all edited together (the DIFFERENT METHODS all strung together seamlessly, in the EDITING ROOM), THAT combination was CORRECTLY deemed by the magic community to be "CHEATING." Combined, that was NOT an accurate representation of what would've seen if one were actually there.

I vividly remember watching that TV special myself, and IMMEDIATELY shouting at the TV, "THAT'S NOT RIGHT!" when I saw it.

Now, since that time, the editing envelope has been stretch A LOT! Just as with the general "morals" of society, Magician's "ethics" have deteriorated.

(note: that's the problem many of us have with Derren Brown. -- He's "cheating" because he is BSing the public into believing his pseudo-scinece BULLCRAP explanations of his stunts. We can all see clearly what he's doing. He's doing what Uri Geller did -- except he's replaced Geller's FALSE CLAIMS with another set of FALSE CLAIMS. In the magician's code --that's "cheating." Making conjuring tircks seem like *legitimate science* -- and, as you see in this thread, lots of people believe -- and even DEFEND -- the bullcrap!!)

Semi-related...

Criss Angel has "cheated" A LOT in terms of camera tricks.

He uses stooges A LOT -- mostly as "audience representatives" who are making sure there's "no trickery" for you, the viewing audience. That's "cheating."

He also routinely (especially re: levitations) "cheats" by keeping some stuff out of view of the camera, that would be SEEN (+ heard) by someone, if they were actually there -- LIKE A HELICOPTER or CRANE!

When you combine that with stooge "audience representatives" by the DOZEN, you are getting INACCURATE info when you see the resulting videos of the stunts.

(as in, "maybe he's just using a helicopter." -- "No, that can't be it, because look at all the audience volunteers there -- surly THEY would see the helicopter + point it out -- so that can't be how he does it!")

In short, there are certain ways of deceiving that are considered "fair game" and there are others that are considered "cheating." Some performers care about this, and some don't. We magi's know who's who!
(hint: DB is one of them) Don't get me wrong -- I LIKE DB + think he's VERY CLEVER! It's the part where he's "cheating" (the constant pseudo-science FALSE explanations), that I have a problem. Many magicians share my view. He's "cheating." Deceiving the public about HOW he's achieving his stunts.
He is not saying "I'm not gonna tell you how I do this." He's saying, "I *AM* gonna tell you how I do this." Then... just plain LYING about that. He's trying to make something that is NOT legitimate (pseudo-science *FANTASIES* -- yes, FANTASIES), into something that seems to be legitimate. THAT type of deception is considered "cheating." Just as it was when Geller tried to do it in the 70s.

One is "deceiving" people, for the purposes of entertainment. The other is out-and-out DUPING the public!

-- TW

PS: PLEASE stop with the "joy to behold" NLP, super subtle ninja mind-control + HYPNOTISM nonsense, please. NONE of that is happening! NOT needed + not possible! You are doubting what you should believe, and believing what you should doubt. It's not pretty.

Further reading (for those who seek the actual truth in the matter)...

http://www.secrets-explained.com/derren-brown/nlp

http://www.skepticink.com/notung/201...-derren-brown/

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/.../does-nlp-work

and this one, written by DB himself!...

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/claim-claim-2/
(here it's clear that DB doesn't want to "cheat" (as I have defined it, above) -- but AT THE SAME TIME, he cannot come right out and SAY plainly that his pseudo-science explanations ar 100% BOGUS, cuz his whole CAREER is based on that lie! -- so he straddles the line as best he can)

By the way -- if any of you want to attain a similarly "miraculous" and little known skill (might very well get YOU on a [country]'s Got Talent TV show!!) -- do a search for...

>>>> "Georgia Magnet" <<<<<

That's something that's due for another "go 'round!"

Look it up.

Very easy to do -- yet appears to be a totally AMAZING, UNEXPLAINABLE skill!

Looks SUPERNATURAL!

-- TW

Just wanna mention -- you are misusing the word, "mentalism."
A "mentalist" is someone who performs "mentalism"
the same way a magician is someone who performs magic tricks and magic shows.

They are both pre-assumed to be fake (which they both are).

"Mentalism" is a sub-category of magic. Most magic dealers also sell mentalism effects (tricks + routines), that mentalists buy.

-- TW

Ah, I do a little "disappearing" act and come back and find upstart magicians trying to take my place.

Even more fun (real explanations or misdirections?):
It looks like it's from a 2 season TV Series. There are a lot of episodes,
so you can spend even more time on this subject.

About 20 minutes in, the trick about another dimension makes an important point
about what the camera can see.


Seriously, it looks helpful.

Breaking The Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed S02E07 - YouTube

Dammit Claude, I can not believe that you are ignoring my presence here.

Hi exrat...

What persuading?
All I was trying to do was have a certain person publicly retract what turned out to be utter rubbish, instead of continuing to blindly DEFEND it!!!

Tim - You have no tact, you use insulting language to make your argument, and then you tell those you're trying to persuade to your "truth" how to go convince themselves you're right.

Seems kind of arrogant to me.

If you want to convince them you're right, it's up to you to convince them, not up to them to convince themselves. If you don't want to do that because of some magician's code of ethics, then quit trying to bully him and let it go.

That's another problem, you don't know when to let it go. Why is it so important to you that Mark publicly admits he was wrong? You're making yourself look bad.

In my opinion, it's not Mark that should say "sorry guys," it's you. Comparing him to a Nazi clipboard holder as people are loaded into cattle cars is a disgusting and vile comparison.