Talk:Statue of Liberty vanishing trick

Untitled

For proving the rotating platform theory try following. You can watch the video once again, and concentrate on the radar screen only, once the curtain is raised you will be able to see a reflection of some stationary light bulb which was set behind audience and the rotating stage ( most probably mistakenly ), reflection on radar screen starts moving anticlockwise, and moves about quarter of a circle and stops (this moving light is a proof that stage was rotating), that is the point where David lowers the curtain to show the empty space, and look at the radar screen again when curtain is raised again to make the statue re-appear, the same light bulb reflection now moves clockwise to return the platform at the prior position.

Poundstone's guess

This is original research so I don't know if it can be included in the article, but I know for a fact that Poundstone's guess about how this illusion was performed is wrong. I went to college at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey where I stayed in the dorms, while my father and grandparents lived in Bayonne. My dad worked in Queens and commuted via the Holland Tunnel, and on Friday evenings he would often pick me up from school on his way home from work to spend the weekend with the family. The way from Hoboken (and the Holland Tunnel) to Bayonne took us on the "Exit 14" spur of the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Statue of Liberty was plainly visible across the water in the vicinity of the exit you would take to get to Liberty State Park -- such as it was at the time -- a view I usually enjoyed. On the night in question (April 8, 1983) he picked me up as usual, but when I looked toward the statue in its usual place I could not see it. I thought I was just tired, and kept staring at the spot thinking I was seeing things. The statue did not come into view the entire time it took us to pass by the area. I did not know about the Copperfield performance at the time, and only later realized that it must have been taking place at the same time we were driving past. Plainly, this cannot be accounted for by a rotating audience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't that have simply been from the Statue's usual illumination being turned off? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What appeared to be the place where it normally would be was brightly lit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Which was part of the illusion - to mock up an identical foundation and light it like the original

That would have been -- amazing. The pedestal is huge. Besides, there were foreground landmarks by which I typically located the statue, and the spot had not changed relative to them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the illusion on YouTube, I'm now convinced that Poundstone was correct, and I must have been misled from a distance by the placement of the lights. They failed to control the local light sources adequately, and so you can see a spot of light move as the platform rotated. There were trees next to the viewing area, but as far as I can tell there are no trees on the part of the island where they appear to have been -- they must have been placed there to enhance the illusion that the platform did not move. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I had an acquaintance in high school who was entirely convinced that Copperfield made the Statue really disappear, by, you know, real magic. I can sleep a little better now knowing you aren't with him, TCC :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping it was something cleverer. Rotating the audience seems... well, I don't know. Sleazy or something. Like he cheated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that some or all members of the audience might have possibly been in collusion with the Coppefield team.

Also in regards to the line that reads "one end of the statue's pedestal base was visible to the live audience at all times", I watched the trick on YouTube, and I did not see the pedestal when the curtain was up, so I suggest removing that line from the article, or at least it should be clarified.

What makes me think Poundstone's guess is incorrect is the uniformity of the the lighting behind the curtain, at the edges of the screen. The angles of the search lights in the background would surely change if the platform was being rotated - unless they were stopped for a moment as the platform turned, and restarted as the stage faced the "new" platform. Looking at the footage, it doesn't seem that they were. Ministry of Silly Walks 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any lighting behind the curtain. It's the light in the foreground moving across the objects closest to the camera (including Copperfield) that makes me sure the stage was rotating. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's true. Underneath the curtain is one of the star points of old Fort Wood.--Brad Rousse 08:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters

On youtube.com you can see a live video made during the trick. In the beginning you can see helicopters above the statue. After trick is over there are helicopters too, so If William Poundstone is right, how could Copperfield move the helicopters? The spectators would heard it! Dagadt

They were too far away to be precisely located by sound. They were part of the illusion, to make the scene appear as if it was unchanged other than the disappearance of the statue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand! Many thanks! Dagadt —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

change?

"Vanish" is not a transitive verb. In other words, you can't "vanish" something. Is this inept phrase the official name for the illusion? If not, this article needs to be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a transitive verb in the magic profession, as applied to a class of illusions, and this is usage of fairly long-standing. If you don't like it, take it to the International Brotherhood of Magicians, but don't whine about it here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's rather cumbersome, but it's a word that has established (and ancient) association with conjuring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation removed

As the speculative method was unsourced, I have removed it in accordance with WP:OR and these guidelines. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Describe the event first

The article really needs a description of how the trick appeared to the audience, before it explains how it worked. As it stands, it doesn't flow well for someone who is not familiar with the trick (or who doesn't remember it well after all these years).--Srleffler (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Method: again

In this talk page consensus was found not to include the info on the method (see above), but an anonymus user included it again recently. I reverted his edit, but Arthur Rubin reverted my revert saying "The source being unofficial is irrelevant; the question is, it it reliable. I consider it close". I disagree, so I ask here: can we consider reliable such a source? Can we present as undisputed fact what is just a speculation? Is it correct to say in the incipit that the illusion is unpublished, and then have a "Method" section? Shouldn't we wait for a new consensus before bringing back something that was decided to be removed? Why allow nonsense like the ring of lights being lit in the open water, and ignore facts like the presence of trees in the audience area? Is an encyclopedia the place where to put explanations to magic tricks by living professionists?

We are all volunteers, but I thin that if everyone starts to interest more about the illusion than the method, than the page could be really improve (at the moment, it is in a very bad state).

I'm not going to take further action before reading what other people think. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I haven't received a response after more than three days, I'm going to remove the badly written and controversial "Method" section, as per most recent consensus (see above). --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is no consensus "above". The question is still whether the source is reliable, not whether it is correct. You have not addressed the question. I'm restoring the method section, per apparent consensus to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the question is as to whether Poundstone is reliable, not "the Straight Dope". There, I have little opinion. Does he, personally, qualify as an expert? And does his book qualify as his expert opinion? I'm not sure, but the the material should remain in place until established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So, "the question is as to whether Poundstone is reliable". I decided to answer the question, and I found what Poundstone said. Here is how he described the illusion (note tham I am retranslating a translation, so I am not using his exact words): "At the beginning of the trick Copperfield raised the curtain, the TV did a pause with advertisements, then it returned to Copperfield, which took more time doing few other tricks to entertain the audience. After about ten minutes he lowered the curtain and...the statue had disappeared! To make it reappear it took other ten minutes with the curtain raised". Unfortunatly, every other person in the word saw the illusion differently, and if he doesn't even know the effect of the illusion, this is enough to say Poundston is an unreliable source. Not to mention that the actual article is reporting his speculation as it were an undisputed fact, and this is against the policies of Wikipedia. I am going to remove the Method section for the reason I have explained. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)