criss angel discussion...

Ok you don't like my other scenarios...

You keep screaming "the audience", "the audience". Well lets take a look at the audiences perspective of the illusion taken directly from the video.



The above image is as close as any live audience member could possibly be....actually on the luxor property. That white dot up there could be absolutely anything.

You say you have other video?

I'll post it for you:



Sure looks like Chris Angel, actually I'll b et $1000 it is CA. Unfortunately not one person live could see the above. The only close-up video avalible of the illusion is provided by the Chris Angel came from footage they recorded in their helicopters and edited in their editing room. Want me to spell it out, they edited THEIR helicopter footage of a balloon to include Chris Angels body.

You naturally assume from watching the video that was put out that the audience is viewing the same thing the Chris Angel camp provided. When in reality the live audience is just watching a tiny white speck above the luxor hotel. It could be anything including a balloon but when you add the "live" edited and computer generated images from the helicopters you naturally assume the the audience is seeing the same thing when in fact all they see is a tiny white dot above the luxor as seen in the first image I show in this post.

Sneaky isn't it?

It's already been proved that he uses camera tricks, computer generated images and creative editing in his other TV illusions the scenario above is completely reasonable and possible.



[edit on 7/26/2007 by kinglizard]

tada.... there we have it.

Great work Kinglizard...

I was going to post those videos tonight ( I can't here at work ), I was reading a site today that explained it exactly the way you did...

no way anyone could tell exactly what was above the Luxor, except for the footage recorded by the helicoptor.

How are you going to compare any of CA's videos to being in a court of law... It's like taking an actor in a serial killer movie into the court room and saying does this look like the man that killed all these women? It's ridiculous....How about this one bring in the eyewitness video from when this happened and asked the court if they can say for an absolute fact that it was he face people were seeing, unless they zoomed in or had eagle vision i highly doubt they'd say yes......

Good work Kinglizard. If i had a WATS it would be yours. This scenario is more plausable than Criss using a gift of spirit and probably a hell of alot easier. So now that you have climbed everest and kicked PR and eyewitness off, what will you do next?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Actually, a cloaked UFO makes MORE sense than an invisible and silent helicopter that raises up and down perfectly without swaying the subject at all!!

EW86...Point well taken.

A cloaked Zetan spacecraft or probe - or a US black projects version of same - would indeed be more plausible than an invisible helicopter in this instance. It would be suicide to attempt to cloak a helicopter because the strong electromagnetic field required and the lack of proper insulation would result in a horrific effect on the crew

I highly doubt that Criss Angel has access to that technology and I have not seen any evidence of a Zetan (or US black projects) connection with him in any way.

Much of the problem here is that many people simply do not have any experience with Gifts of the Spirit. They have not been around people who have a powerful Gift of Healing and/or a Gift of Telekinesis. If they did explore that area of life, they would know through direct experience of the possibility in the first place.

Much like if someone didn't believe in Near Death Experiences, preached against their existence - calling them a fantasy that is generated by the chemicals of a dying brain - and then had one which led to an inner validation that is not based on faith, but on a personal, mind blowing account that is undeniable.

Originally posted by eyewitness86Again: Any rational or likely ways the Luxor event was pulled off with props is welcome. So far no one has proposed a likley theory with odds greater than the supposition we propose. NEXT!!

Agreed.



[edit on 26-7-2007 by Paul_Richard]

if you want rational answers , ask an engineer :

2 very simple and highly plausible mechanisms for elevating mr angel above the apex of the luxor exist

first - a simple rising collum - either hydraulic or pneumatic - on which mr angel stands

dependant on the amount of height avaliable in the spaces below the apex - the collum would be either toped with a polycarbonate extention which would be invisible in the light

or simply edited out of the footage post production - a sufficiently slender colim coild be used to make it imposible for the withnesses to see @ the distance and lighing conditions


secondly - and slightly more complex requires the use of spars - to enable lines to be attached to the preformers harness - enableing him to be raised or lowered at will



see illustration

again the spars would either be polycarbonate - or painted steel - guy lines [ not show ] would allow them to be VERY slender - so they would be effectivly invisible

the lines supporting the preformer would be multi strand dyneema [ as used in sports fishing ] - effectibly invisible even in the lights glare

there you go - not one but two explainations

so please stop babbling about invisible helicopters and other silly distractions

PS - these senarios are offered only as opinions on how i would do it if i wascalled upon to do so

if you want me to offer further opinion on the luxor stunt - i will need evidence - not the edited broadcast segment you offer - i would need to see all the unedited footage from all cameras

plus detaikls of the apex construction , machinery placement , SWL of all beams and members etc etc

you are being incredibly silly to expect peopkle to decuce the precise mechanic of the stunt , merely by watching such an edited broadcat segment

Again, one needs to learn how to be a critical observer

It also helps to be a good psychologist.

Your assertions that all the videos and pictures are edited and that the many spectators to Criss Angel's levitations are all paid off - simply doesn't wash.

Why?

Because prior to the emergence of Criss Angel, many veteran illusionists much older and with a lot more money would have attempted it.

They did not.

They did not because they could not.

They could not because they cannot duplicate that which Criss Angel performs

Take another look at Criss Angel Levitating Above The Luxor Hotel.

In addition to the HUNDREDS - if not THOUSANDS - of eyewitnesses of the event, and that Criss Angel himself has said a number of times that he uses no camera tricks, there is also the video evidence from a list of spectators, all of which verifies that Angel did indeed float above the Luxor.

Those particular spectators who contributed their own independent pictures and/or video footage of the event - and which is shown in the above documentary - are:

Mike from Canada

Nicole from Florida

Starr from Arizona

Anne from New York

Kristen from Texas

Madison from Oregon

Annie from Germany

Savannah from California

Craig from Iowa

Bobbie from Arkansas

Chris from California

Shane from West Virginia

and

Nathan from Ohio



[edit on 27-7-2007 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Your assertions that all the videos and pictures are edited and that the many spectators to Criss Angel's levitations are all paid off - simply doesn't wash.

Neither Kinglizard nor ignorant_ape said anything about the eyewitness's being paid off. In fact, ignorant_ape said nothing about the witnesses at all. Kinglizard on the other hand, was stating that the audience could not even see Criss from their point of view, and were relying on video footage provided by Criss and Co, to complete the illusion.

In addition to the HUNDREDS - if not THOUSANDS - of eyewitnesses of the event, and that Criss Angel himself has said a number of times that he uses no camera tricks, there is also the video evidence from a list of spectators, all of which verifies that Angel did indeed float above the Luxor.

Ya, its called selling your act. How hard is it to believe that someone making money would lie to do it?

Those particular spectators who contributed their own independent pictures and/or video footage of the event - and which is shown in the above documentary - are:

Your list is pointless. A first name and their country or state of origin tells us nothing, and doesnt even allow us to persue them for commentary or a statement.


Edit to add: The fact that you and eyewitness have yet to acknowledge that there are plausible explanations for CA's illusions just shows us that you have already made up your mind, despite any evidence that counters your belief.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by InSpiteOf]

I was the one who said the audience was paid to go along with the trick or illusion.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Take another look at Criss Angel Levitating Above The Luxor Hotel.

onnce again you offer only the slickly edited broadcast segment - i am not interested in watching it again - as it

i want to see what really happened - not just what angel wants me to see

In addition to the HUNDREDS - if not THOUSANDS - of eyewitnesses of the event, and that Criss Angel himself has said a number of times that he uses no camera tricks, there is also the video evidence from a list of spectators, all of which verifies that Angel did indeed float above the Luxor.

Those particular spectators who contributed their own independent pictures and/or video footage of the event - and which is shown in the above documentary - are:

Mike from Canada , Nicole from Florida , Starr from Arizona , Anne from New York , Kristen from Texas , Madison from Oregon , Annie from Germany , Savannah from California , Craig from Iowa , Bobbie from Arkansas , Chris from California , Shane from West Virginia , Nathan from Ohio

a meaningless list of names - unless you can supply contact details so i can ask them independantly what they saw

also i would need to review each of thier footage of the even - unedited - how can i do this ?

if they are truely independant - why can i not find one independant blog account or independantly hosted peice of footage of this ?

all these people saw it - and not one independant comment ? that is the true magic trick - making all those " witnesses " stay silent



[edit on 27-7-2007 by ignorant_ape]

PR, they will NEVER see the video or hear testimony from witnesses and let it sink in. That long and ridiculous diagram about some contraption is just silly. There are NO supports visible and NO WAY that they could be invisible. Are you hanging these massive supprt structures from the same invisible helicopter? Think the major hotels would allow major construction on their properties just so some performer could pull off a trick? Stupid.

The film clearly shows CRISS ANGEL levitating above the Luxor. No props, supports or wires and evident or even possible under the circumstances. Only ONE helicopter; do you think that the spectators, etc, and cameras above would miss another helicopter?

These wild excuses are so banal, so tired..just a rehash of all the other spurious nonsense we have been insulted by for so long; it insults the intelligence for basless and intentional denial to keep being asserted. It is foolish to the extreme to deny one's own senses and the evidence to cling to a dead theory, as the doubters do.

If anyone says that it is not really Criss but some dummy or hologram is being science fiction silly. Watch him move and wave his arms the exact same way he does when levitating elsewhere.

But let's try again: How about this: How about a DAYLIGHT levitation?

I should have seen it coming: Some naysayers will use the fact that it was a night event to bring in the clowns. How about the golf course levitation. Let's hear about how THAT was faked, OK?

Since the Luxor levitation was shot from a greater distance, perhaps I should have used a daylight example to begin with. I underestimated the extent to which the doubter's will descend into the pit of banality and obfuscation and so maybe a new perspective is needed.

Since the Luxor event was not proof enough for the head- in - the - sand crowd, or rather the Luxor event presents the most rabid denier's an excuse to stall and hide the truth for another session, how about we take the golf course video and examine it. PR, would you post it please..? I always screw up the linking stuff, thanks.

Let's see if they can come up with some rational ( which they did NOT in the Luxor debate) reason for denying the truth when THIS video is examined. This is a close up, daylight levitation with staggered witnesses( and please Elavatedone, enough of the ' paid off legions who remain faithful until death ' claptrap, it is tired and worn out and silly. No rational person could possibly believe that paid off people could stay slient forever, no way. Nonsense.

So, lrt's hear the nonsensical ways in which Criss pulled off the golf course levitation, since you want close up witnesses and daylight. SHOW US THE PROPS, SHOW US THE SUPPORTS, SHOW US ANYTHING that says that we should believe that the golf course event is a fake.

No silly maybes like on the previous one, just some non-wiggle and answers please . Daylight, close up and witnesses that are either Acadamy Award level actors, or else they are real witnesses reacting normally to an incredible event.

This is almost like trying to get schoolkids to sit still and pay attention. I feel if we cannot get supposedly rational and serious admissions from the doubters that their view is unsupported by evidence and relies solely on the belief that the event is impossible and therefore there MUST be some prop, even if it IS invisible and not in existence, then debate is over and squabbling will be the end of it.

So far, we have impossible and invisible platforms, wires that hang from nothing, and holograms that move exactly right ,as the excuses. With such a lack of evidence. one might think that the doubters would have more caution about making certain proclamations of certainty, but no, they are bereft of intellectual shame and thus will propose ANY ridiculous scenario, no matter how barren of fact it may be, to cover their own preconceived notions.

Maybe we can get some really good alternatives out of this one. Let's see. Daylight and up close golf course video: Lets hear about this one!

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The film clearly shows CRISS ANGEL levitating above the Luxor.

The film clearly shows a white dot above the Luxor, no live audience member could see anything more than that.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
PR, they will NEVER see the video or hear testimony from witnesses and let it sink in.

No, we will never see the RAW, UNEDITED video because CA and is team have the only copies. We will never hear independant witness testimoney because those witnesses personal information is kept confidential.

That long and ridiculous diagram about some contraption is just silly.

Why? Are you an engineer? Can you tell us specifically why its silly and not possible?

There are NO supports visible and NO WAY that they could be invisible.

Their not invisible, if anything, their edited out.

Are you hanging these massive supprt structures from the same invisible helicopter?

What invisible helicopter? You brought that up in order to discredit us disbelievers.

Think the major hotels would allow major construction on their properties just so some performer could pull off a trick? Stupid.

First, i doubt it would be major construction. If such a device was used, there is probably a way to rig it up so it is portable.
Second, yes I do believe a major hotel would allow this construction or even major construction as you put it, and heres why:
1) publicity. CA brings tonns of it, and the Luxor doesnt have to pay a dime.
2) the cost. CA probaboly had to pay the Luxor for the big scence he caused, and seeing as CA is flithy rich, im sure the Luxor got a good price. 3) the staff got a free show.

The film clearly shows CRISS ANGEL levitating above the Luxor.

Yes, the film show this. What you see on film and what you see in real life often differ. Welcome to 2007.

These wild excuses are so banal, so tired..just a rehash of all the other spurious nonsense we have been insulted by for so long;

It seems to me, you and PR are the ones insulting us.

If anyone says that it is not really Criss but some dummy or hologram is being science fiction silly.
Watch him move and wave his arms the exact same way he does when levitating elsewhere.

What was said by Kinglizard was basically, from the audiences point of view all you could see is a white dot. They were told and assumed that it was CA. For all they know, it is a ballon or dummy. The footage is then edited and CA is dubbed on top of the object. The helicopter crew are the only people that can actually see whats going on.


But let's try again: How about this: How about a DAYLIGHT levitation?

Let's see if they can come up with some rational ( which they did NOT in the Luxor debate) reason for denying the truth

Who decides what is rational? You? Please, youll just brush off whatever comes up as silly, as you have with every other plausible explanation.

So, lrt's hear the nonsensical ways in which Criss pulled off the golf course levitation, since you want close up witnesses and daylight. SHOW US THE PROPS, SHOW US THE SUPPORTS, SHOW US ANYTHING that says that we should believe that the golf course event is a fake.

Sure no problem, you get us the original footage (the tape that came directly from the camera, before it went to post production) and we'll show you what you ask for.

This is almost like trying to get schoolkids to sit still and pay attention.

We feel the same way.

I feel if we cannot get supposedly rational and serious admissions from the doubters that their view is unsupported by evidence and relies solely on the belief that the event is impossible and therefore there MUST be some prop,
You know this part goes both ways. replace doubters with believes and prop with gift of spirit and there you go.

here is the challenge you outlined to us:

1. Explain in an intelligent manner, how the Luxor Hotel levitation was accomplished , if in fact it was not a genuine levitation. Make it sensible and as believeable as assuming that Criss CAN levitate.

2 people took you up on that challenge. The only part of the challenge they did not fufill is the believeable part, because what is believable or not is up to the person reading it. There is no standard of beliefs.

They beat your challenge and you still dont want to admitt that there are rational answers to CA and his tricks.




[edit on 27-7-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
PR, they will NEVER see the video or hear testimony from witnesses and let it sink in.

Instead of projecting your fantasies – please just tell us where to find these independent accounts

Let us actually look at them instead of just telling us we will not comprehend

That long and ridiculous diagram about some contraption is just silly.

It is short and concise – and would work – what more do you want ?

Rising collums and winch lines are commonly used solutions to lifting challenges

You asked for a solution and got it

There are NO supports visible and NO WAY that they could be invisible. Are you hanging these massive supprt structures from the same invisible helicopter? Think the major hotels would allow major construction on their properties just so some performer could pull off a trick? Stupid.

It is not “ major construction “ – it is very simple rigging that would be quick and easy to install – as all components would be made off site

And yes the luxor has motive to act as an accomplice to mr angel – have you not read the news recently ? angel now has a contract to star in a series of 2008 preformances @ the luxor with a circus outfit

The film clearly shows CRISS ANGEL levitating above the Luxor. No props, supports or wires and evident or even possible under the circumstances. Only ONE helicopter; do you think that the spectators, etc, and cameras above would miss another helicopter?

At the resolution shown – and in the lighting conditions present – spars ansd lines of sufficient strength could be present – just because you don’t see them – does not mean they are not there

As an example – you cannot see how he got onto the roof can you ? – there must be a door / hatch right ?

So where is it – point it out on the film

PS – please stopp babbling about invisdible helicopters – it is a silly straw man – I gave you my engineers analysis of how the problem of raising a performer above the apex of the luxor could be solved using mundane technology

And all you can witter about is your silly fantasy helicopter

But let's try again: How about this: How about a DAYLIGHT levitation?

Lets not – why are you attempting to change the topic ?

You brought up the luxor stunt ,

Now you are running away – very cowardly

Lets stick with this one – and get back to those “ independent witnesses “

Originally posted by eyewitness86
how about we take the golf course video and examine it.

The point here is NOT that we can tell you exactly how an illusion was preformed though thus far we have been able to do exactly that. The thing you should take from this exercise is that when viewing an illusion, just because you are unable to tell how it was preformed, shouldn't mean, that the most reasonable conclusion is that the performer is bending and breaking the natural laws of this Universe.

I know you won't take this advice and will continue to see what your faith tell you to see but hey I'm a sucker for futility.

I wish you the best....

PURE HOGWASH!!! Now it is all " altered video ,"eh? The only way to attack now is to claim that all this is tricked film, right? Oh my God we are really getting silly here. If the only way you can naysay is to allege editing of film or construction projects on a grand scale then you are lost.

Do you think that the Las Vegas authorities would allow ANY alteration or adaptation of existing structures without permits ; tested and inspected by experts? I do NOT have to be an engineer to see the obvious: No hotel can allow their roofs to be drilled into and supports attached for some stunt without a major amount of work and permits are ALWAYS needed to change in ANY way the structure or strength of any building.

So, all the people could see was a point of light, eh? Nonsense, the video's show in some cases very clear and obvious shots of Criss and not just a 'dot'. There were witnesses on the helicopter and from other hotel vantage points but you do NOT mention THEM, now do you? No, and here is why: The films show Criss levitating over the Luxor with no props.

YOU say you must have the original video, blah blah..What you are really saying is : " I deny all evidence that does not pass my muster personally, and since I can never be satisfied due to preconceived notions, I will continue to deny the reality of it". Do you believe the official story about 9-11? If so, why? All we have is video and eyewitness accounts and they all point to a set up, obviously.

But will you deny that one story or another about the event is true just because you have not been presented the entire films, unedited? Silly. We HAVE to form opinions based on the OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE and witness statements, just like a cop would investigate a crime. If YOU cannot prove that the video's are altered, edited or changed to reflect a ' different ' view than the apparent, then we can assume that the evidence is NOT faked or altered. What PROOF do YOU have that any editing was done that would make the event seem real when it was in fact a fake? None, that is what you have, none.

Accusations of editing, accusations of fakery, buit NO evidence of such. Has ANY film editor ever come out and said that the films are rigged and that it is all a fake? Why not? Oh, let me guess; it must be because they TOO were paid off handsomely to stay loyal forever, right? Of course no one EVER breaks a contract and so the secret keeps being kept, right? What drivel!!

Since no one wants to look at the golf course video and give a reason, why bother? All the doubters are going to say is that film is not evidence. Try telling that to a judge when the cop pulls you over and his cameras record you drunk and failing a sobriety test. Tell the judge that you insist that he give you ALL of the cop's footage so you could check for editing..good for a laugh at least, eh? YOU would have to demonstrate that the video was altered or edited, not them.

The assumption would be that video, with NO PROOF of editing, is reliable evidence. The burden of proof lies on the allegation of editing, NOT the allegation that the film is as it appears to be. How could Criss pull off the things he does in person if all of the events are staged and faked? A live audience would see the truth pretty fast and Criss would forever be relegated back into the level of a Randi or Copperfield, stage magicians who never ever reproduce Criss' events and never try to.

I will admit that with an attitude like the doubter's, it will be impossible to break down the wall of denial; like I said, the doubter's would assume they were hallucinating if they saw Criss perform right in front of them. Their denial is so deep, so ingrained, that the mind simply will not allow the eyes to see the truth and register it as real. It would cause too much fear and a new paradigm to comprehend for many to accept.

That fact alone is enough to show that no matter WHAT the evidence, no matter HOW MANY eye witnesses testify to the events, no matter how much they lack proof of trickery, they will continue to cling to unfounded and irrational beliefs as it gives them comfort; having one's whole basis for reality upset is a radical thing for many and the stubborn denials we see are only a symptom of the fact that many cannot handle new paradigms.

To deny film without showing that it has been altered is not legit, to deny eyewitnesses without cause, to deny your own instincts without reason, is the mark of a person who refuses to believe what they cannot accept, simple as that. Anyone can make a false claim that it is all tricks of the video, but where is the proof? Where are the people who were on the inside and now want the ' truth ' to be knowm? Where are the legions of actors and witnesses getting ' paid ' to act suprised,etc. who now are wanting to set the record straight? How could Criss Angel inspire such extreme loyalty?

Simple denial of video is not enough; give us some reason to believe that the video is faked, otherwise it stand as evidence. If the Criss video of the Luxor event was being shown in a court of law for,say, a lawsuit of some kind related to the event, it would be considered evidence UNLESS the opposition could present evidence of tampering. No evidence of tampering, no tampering. The assumption must be that the simplest explanation is the right one, given the facts. That is called " Occams Razor ' and is a scientific viewpoint that is quite sensible.

The simplest and most obvious answer is usually the right one, and this is no exception. It is a lot easier to believe that a man can levitate than to believe that massive and constant fakery is being used to deceive those who witness the events; considering that NO AFFIRMATIVE evidence exists that would give the fakery scenario any validity, the sensible assumption is that what we see is what it is.

Those with no intention of EVER believing a story that does not fit their belief system are not neutral observers weighing evidence, they are determined to deny evidence no matter WHAT it is. They WILL not believe, no matter what their eyes tell them, no matter what their sense tell them, no matter what the empirical evidence tells them. So why bother trying to convince the unconvinceable ?

Only those with open minds and spirits can see beyond their noses. For me, it is not even close: Criss Angel performs events that DEFY explanation by conventional means, period.

Originally posted by eyewitness86 Do you think that the Las Vegas authorities would allow ANY alteration or adaptation of existing structures without permits ; tested and inspected by experts? I do NOT have to be an engineer to see the obvious: No hotel can allow their roofs to be drilled into and supports attached for some stunt without a major amount of work and permits are ALWAYS needed to change in ANY way the structure or strength of any building.

did i say they did - no - please drom the lame straw man

the luxor like any modern steel and glass structure already has attachment points built into the structural members

these are already tested and inspected and certified for PPE

this gentleman will be belayed to one :



isnt that clever

as i have already stated - it is not a major structure - it is a very simple set of spars and guys to suppiort winch lines

do you want a full rundown on how to do it ?

as for issues of video editing - if it really is unedited why are you so resistant to the mere notion that we want to see the origional take from each camera and the " witness " videos

what are you afraid we will see ?

video etiting has been shown in several other angel clips - why are you afraid to even address those ?

as for " paid witnesses" - where are the witnesses that where present at the illusion of the woman being cut in two - even paul richards conceds that that trick was simply an illusion -

it would be impossible to have done it without the complicity of the " witnesses " - why have none come forward - it was only a trick right ?

and ms rosa siggins [ the legless woman ] has never spoken of the trick in public / interviews - why ?

you cannot have it both ways

Still no one addresses the fact that other magicians and illusionists would naturally want to be competitive with CA and at least duplicate his feats, if not surpass them.

And yet none of them can.

Not even David Blaine.

Why?

who says the others are not planning the events right now...

getting all the trickery machinery ready...

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Still no one addresses the fact that other magicians and illusionists would naturally want to be competitive with CA and at least duplicate his feats, if not surpass them.

And yet none of them can.

Not even David Blaine.

Why?

why has angel never duplicated blaines feaths ? or copperfeilds ? or houdinis ?

you are confusing " have not " with " cannot " why ?

the simple answe is origionality and stule - no one wantys to be the second to preform a given trick - and no one wants to be seen to be plaigerising ideas