I cant wait for next weeks show, I want to see how easy we are to manipulate. I am a firm believer that tv is a key tool for manipulation so it will be interesting to see. I think derren really exposes how easy it is to control people.

Heres a thought for all of you and UK tv viewers on here can check it if you tune an analogue tv to say BBC 1 then a TV with freeview or sky both digital services there is about a 2 second delay.

I did not see the program maybe someone who did can coment on this!

When you were seeing the draw being done, the TV he watched was getting the digital signal out of view one of his team watched the analogue version put the numbers on the balls (if they were not shown before the draw)out of view then he walked over and guess what the right numbers.

Like I say I did not see the show but if the numbered balls were not shown before the draw that may have been the way it was done!

[edit on 11-9-2009 by wmd_2008]

I notice on the video on page 2 the camera zooms into the tv showing the first 5balls. Plenty of time to get the first 5. Then the camera focus on Brown and only about half of the ball. Plenty of time to get last few ones as Brown writes them down.

The diversion of the tv is what enabled him to pull this off IMO.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jam321]

There's no way he fixed the machine, he had meetings with Camelot prior to the whole thing about what they could and couldn't do. I'm actually surprised that they let him go that far to be honest as it does bring the security of the lottery into disrepute.

The maths / crowd thing is bunk, the coin thing was a lead up to get you believing in it - show you one true thing, then show something similar but in fact wildely different.

I feel a little short changed to be honest as it probably boils down to some simple technical trick rather that something impressively pyschological. I thought the thing with the knife and the cups was good though - where on earth did he get that guy from?!

My original thoughts were that as he was standing at the tele, the left side of the screen was frozen, like an image, which would allow anyone behind the image to do as they like, without being spotted. Then as he walked back from the tele it was unfrozen with the right balls waiting to be shown. But the camera wasnt on a tripod which resulted in a lot of shaky movements. So that rules out that theory. Otherwise the left side of the screen would be still while the right side was shaking about.

I believe this guy is very clever. But I just cant get my head round predicting the lottery. It leaves far too much to answer for in regards to security! And as far as i'm concerned it is absolutely impossible to predict 6 numbers from 1 - 49. There's no way about it. Its totally random! Therefore any amount of maths involved just isnt plausible! The only way to predict something so random is to actually see the numbers before they actually came out!

So that has me baffled!

I also thought this lottery thing was great for publicity. It was a great way to start his series, its created a lot of buzz about his work and whats to come. None of his other events would of created this same buzz. Everyone is struggling with money at the moment with the whole credit crunch and all that so people are hoping for a win on the lottery now more than ever in my opinion. Thats why this worked so well...

As for some of his other stuff he uses really deep psychology. Which is extremely clever. Subliminal messages and all that.

Like the knife in the cup, he said it would only work by making sure he was actually scared. And you could tell he genuinely was, even in the movement of his feet. As for the subliminal messages all I could think about was towards the end he said; you've done 7 so far. Then he mentioned the number 9, the number 4, 3, 2, and 1. Which I think played a part in the pattern he chose.

Looking forward to the next event though, see how it pans out...

At the end of last night's show he basically admitted to (by archly denying-or not admitting to it) getting eight sets of 100 gram balls made, (the numbers he wanted, the normal balls weigh 80g) and added them to all the machines, then removed them immediately afterwards.

Of course Camelot would collude with him in this. It raises the lottery's profile, and will cause lots of people to play who wouldn't otherwise.

Thats what I believe aswell. Its his only option! Obviously he knew the numbers of the balls that he was putting in, then worked out the maths to get those numbers so that when that group of people carried out his equation they got those numbers. Then they left were stunned for the camera when they actually came out. Which made it look even more realistic.

I also thought it was quite a coincidence that no one won the jackpot on that draw.

Also at the end of the show he basically explained how he fixed the machine but at the same time left you thinking did he or didnt he?

What i dont understand about his random numbers/number of people is.... how do you get such a low number such as 2?

Surely if its the average since you cant go below 1 then everyone must of predicted around 1,2,3 otherwise the average would never be below 24 area.

That method makes no sense at all, the predicted numbers would always be around the middle and never one extreme or the other and make it impossible to predict the low 2.

I think it is more likely the fixing camelot OR it was a lame camera trick and he just wants to surround it in mystery. The knife/cups thing was insane...

Derren Brown aka The Riddler... very entertaining show, he has a very good sense of humour aswell.

He should try it again this time write the numbers on a card, hold them while the numbers are coming out and then when its finished turn the card round and show the world what he had written down. Easy!

IMO...what he done was fake! I also don't like the friday night Actors who where playing along with the game as well!

Tsom87

Like I said in an earlier post. I believe he knew the numbers well before the draw and the maths lesson with the group. Then worked out a sort of equation to get each number, so that when he met with the group they were non the wiser of what numbers they were going to end up with, but Derren did. Then he got them to carry out the equation knowing what numbers he'd get them to end up with. This way he also got a reaction from the group which could never be achieved with low paid actors and they walked away telling everyone in amazement of what just happened.

I mean it wouldnt be worth the risk 1 of them walking away then pulling the a few weeks later on how it actually happened. Thats why I believe their reaction was genuine.

Originally posted by FAQAmerica
What i dont understand about his random numbers/number of people is.... how do you get such a low number such as 2?

Surely if its the average since you cant go below 1 then everyone must of predicted around 1,2,3 otherwise the average would never be below 24 area.

You thinking of totals here, but say the guesses were just 6 people...

A) 1
B) 2
C) 3
D) 2
E) 3
F) 1

1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 12

Divide that by 6 to get the average (mean), which is 2. You can do the same with 24 people just the same.

So it can work out to any of the values.

I don't buy the method though, I don't believe that this kind of crowd-sourcing can be effective on something that is just random.

I watched it again with a friend who works on stages all the time, and whose father is a cameraman.

He said that the boxes in the background look just like ordinary "power distros". This is just like an industrial version of a power strip (multiple outlet extension).



He didn't think they look suspicious, I know somepeople thought they might be part of the trick, or even stuff like the lasers that would 'paint' the balls, or for projecting images onto the balls...

He thought that the picture shaking was very dubious. He said that even with a camera slung under the arm, or hand-held, there should never be that much, unless the guy has Parkinsons, or is deliberately doing it for effect (like in drama shows where they want it to look more frantic). Especially when it's a professional camera guy.

Something I've seen other people point out, is that at the start of the show, he did a cut away to the back of the room, which showed a man with a camera.

Perhaps, that was inserted footage, to give a reason for the shakiness. Perhaps in reality it was a regular TV camera on wheels that can be rolled around, and kept very very still when needed.

The shakiness could be added on very late in the chain, it's a very easy effect to do in real time, and might help cover up when they do the actual switch.

A way to do the switch that can be done in realtime, and not even much technology, would be a subtractive filter. You can subtract one image from another in real time, and if the images match you will get a pure black on that view. You can use that to make sure you are aligned as best as possible with the dummy overlay and the main footage. Then when the switch is done, you can just use a realtime fade, added with the shakiness, no-one would notice.

This just assumes very basic equipment. They could be using even more complex real time effects like motion tracking to make the alignment, and a 'morph' type effect rather than a fade, to make it even smoother.

I know this doesn't add any new smoking guns to that the camera trick theory, but I think it fleshes out some details I've not seen anyone cover.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by harpsounds]

So I think we can all really rule out the maths part of it and that the explanation on friday was pretty meaningless...?

Hmm, lots of speculation. I thought it was confirmed to be a split screen editting trick??

[edit on 12-9-2009 by and14263]

Originally posted by harpsounds
I'm looking forward to next weeks show anyway, I really want to know what the detail is of the 'stuck to the sofa' part, I'd like to know if I am susceptible to his suggestion/hypnosis.

Of course you are. You're going to sit and watch it, aren't you?

It can't fail. All you have to do is watch the show. If at any point you stop watching then you've missed something, so naturally "it doesn't count."


[edit on 13-9-2009 by Clickfoot]