>> The "great Randi" debunks everything whether he has any evidence or
>> not.
>
> Harvey Newstrom wrote: Unfortunately, you are correct. Sometimes he
> scientifically proves his case. At other times, he merely shows how
> he could produce the same effect through deceit. Although this is a
> great basis for a theory, he usually stops there, claims he has
> "proven" his case.
We had a discussion on this sort of thing once before. Someone
asked how the voodoo daddies could break a beer bottle and
devour the pieces. Without knowing how they actually do it,
I suggested something along these lines:
1) Take a real beer bottle, make a mold of half of it using that
epoxy resin stuff. When I say half, I mean lay the bottle on
its side in a pan of resin until the resin hardens.
2) Fill another bottle half full of liquid resin, replace the cap, lay
the
bottle on its side until the resin is hardened, break the bottle,
retrieve the inside half-mold.
3) Take some of that stuff that peanut brittle is made of, only
dont add peanuts, add food coloring instead, two parts yellow,
two parts red, one part blue for a nice dark brown. Pour
some goop in the first mold, place the second mold inside it,
let it harden until you have a candy thing shaped like half a
bottle. Make another half, glue them together with something
you dont mind eating, such as elmers. Hey, it didnt kill us in
first grade, it wont now.
4) In the show, pass around a real beer bottle, get it back
from the audience, open it, devour some of the contents,
pour out the rest, create a distraction, switch the bottle with
the fake, break the candy bottle, devour the pieces.
Nowthen, some voodoo yahoo *could* theoretically save
the effort and actually be eating glass I suppose, but isnt
it sufficient to show that there is a muuuuch easier way? spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:24 MDT