After all the “discussion” on the post Spoon bending instructions and pictures and the skeptics requiring from Shannan to record a video of him bending a spoon, here it is. Shannan has recorded the video, sent it to me and I’ve uploaded it to YouTube. Watch the video, decide for yourself if it’s for real, and write in the comments. By the way, the original video is higher quality 640×480 pixels, but YouTube only allows 320×240.
Further discussion on spoon bending is in the forums at Spoon bending discussion.
I hope nobody gets mad at me about posting this but check out the clip:
http://www.hanklee.org/quicktime_movies/ghostspoon.mov
The significance of this (or other similar clips I could have posted) is that this comes from a magic dealer. It’s a demo of a trick that anyone could buy for a few bucks and, with the proper quite mundane skills, perform. No camera tricks — what you see is what someone there would see (if a magician who bought found out otherwise, they would demand — and get — their money back).
Unless you are able to control the situation and know what you are doing you cannot trust that you know what is happening. This is why use of “special subjects” in parapsychology is treated so gingerly in parapsychology — even by those with strong knowledge of prestidigitation. Magicians fool other magicians all the time.
That’s interesting (where did you find it?), but I don’t think that a trick spoon was used in Shannon video. Rather, without proper controls, one could just select a spoon that’s good for the job. A couple of bucks and a few trial runs and you can find a spoon just right for any purpose (after a bit of shopping around, I found a robust looking soup spoon the head of which breaks off — after only bending it back once! It snaps like a twig…).
So, I don’t think that annealing, pre-weakening, or trickery was used. Bending a spoon in loops is just plain easy!
Where did I find it? Its from the website of a magic dealer that I use. There’s at least one more demo video on that site (in fact, a much more impressive one, but with a less convenient URL). I haven’t counted but there are probably dozens of metal-bending tricks for sale from there without demo videos. Other dealers will have others available
Off-hand, I do not know whether this is done with a “trick spoon”. Some “tricks” are sold that do not involve any prop — what you are buying is the knowledge of the technique. You might also be buying a gadget (“gaff”) that makes bending an ordinary spoon easier or more deceptive. Or instructions for making your own such gaff.
The point is not how this particular bending is done (it might even be PK: that it *could* easily have been done conventionally and that therefore we do not have good evidence that it was done using PK does not mean that it wasn’t). The point is that much more convincing demonstrations can be done by trickery and you can’t tell — not by film and not in person unless you can control the situation and know what you are doing (and even then, probably not for certain).
Okay…I haven’t been here for a while…I’m going to ask this questions again. Please, Mr. Rohde, WHAT brand of spoon did you use?
I think I have it (apparently, so do some other people. I’m not the only one who’s curious…).
Please, I’d very much like to know precisely what brand of spoon was being used.
Thanks.
I was in Waikiki, HI recently. There is a street performer named Travis who does this. However, he makes it very hard for anyone to doubt that it is real. He starts by bending a spoon that he is holding by the tip with only two fingers. Then he asks someone in the audience to hold one. I had seen him perform a couple days in a row (a little skeptical that he had planted people in the audience) so I quickly jumped out and voulanteered. While I held the spoon, which was absolutely real, he made it bend! It was totally firm before and after the bend. Not some soggy lead like peice of treated metal. This is the reason that I found this blog.
He did other really cool convincing things too. I don’t know about this video because…well… it’s a video but it can be done.
I hate to have to break this to you, Morgan, but magicians can easily do that. See “The Truth About Uri Geller” and read about Randi’s encounter with Alan Spraggett, for one particularly good example of just how good a magician can be at this kind of thing.
I’ve done this for family members. The tricks quite easy, once learned.
I had a friend hold onto the botton of a fork — and by rocking it back and forth, I made the prongs appear to spring outward. I made it appear as if a key bent when I stroked it. I rubbed a nail, and lo!, it developed a slight bend. I then sat it aside — later, when looked at again, it had bent more, apparently on its own.
I stroked the handle of a spoon — it appeared to curl upward. I’ve done, on several occations, an exact replica of the above Shannon Rohde trick. Not much of a trick — I located what appears to be the brand of spoons he used (they look just the same). It turns out that they can be bent in loops like that quite easily. The video is just a guy bending a spoon with his hands.
To get back to my narrative…then, the finale! I took two spoons. I let the person hold them, and tap the bowls together, to make sure they were solid. I took one (chosen psychically, of course), and, while they held it, I rubbed it — and it got weaker…and weaker…and eventually broke in two.
Note the qualifiers: “appeared,” “apparently.” It seems incredible, but it’s not.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WPxEA_cCm0o
http://youtube.com/irritatedbyGeller
Ah, some sanity! But I must note, I don’t think annealing is necessary. You (or at least I) can simply bend a spoon/fork right out of the box. They just aren’t that strong.
And it looks like Shannon has strong arms…it’s simply a person bending a spoon with their hands. Easy.
It would look 100% more convincing if you bent the spoon with your MIND not ure hands.
http://youtube.com/irritatedbyGeller
makes for an interesting comparison.
LOL! You seriously believe this?
C’mon, you’re not that stupid, are you?
I can’t decide if I think it’s real or not. One one hand, the spoon is thin, and spoons like that are bent easily by firm ice cream(I used to accidently “ruin” spoons by bending them a little scooping ice cream). On the other hand, most spoons, not even ones that thin, don’t bend well THAT much. Like I said, I’m not sure. And why did he rub it for about 17 seconds before bending it? The instructions on the website I’ve seen that told about cutlery-bending (www.fork-you.com) don’t say anything about rubbing, just holding it. Maybe its a different method, but this video looks kinda fake.
There’s something not right about this video. Two tests I would like to see prior the bending and twisting: First have him tap the spoon on a hard surface so we can “hear” the metal and have him scoop some icecream with the spoon prior the whole meditation & bending routine.
Paranormal Investigator
2012 will be a shocker indeed, get ready for a big change people!
I can’t figure out if this is a joke or not. If it is, kudos to you sir.
If it’s not… erm… no, it’s got to be a joke. 🙂
I see…
You can use the power of your mind to first rub the spoon with your thumb, then twist it with your hands.
That is so amazing. I never knew the mind was so powerful that it can move fingers and hands.
You rule man!!
this video wasnt what i was expecting at all…it made me think it was actually just a joke, im pretty sure i can bend a spoon like that. i was expecting the spoon to bend all by itself. not with you focusing then bending it. thats what ive always thought spoon bending was.this didnt really prove anything to me.
Hi Shannan,
Thanks for the instructions and the video. I have practiced telekinesis for years and know about psi energy and how to use it but for some reason I had trouble with spoon bending for years. No matter what I did it didnt work for me. The same day I read your page I could make a coil out of a spoon and it really turned soft in my hands. The key I guess was not looking at the spoon while starting with the first bend, I guess I owe you a big thank you for that 🙂
thanks
reza
hey how about you try make the spoon wilt just holdingit at the tip of the handel
if you can do that i will believe but so far you show no proof and your probably just trying to mock us Wiccans.
Rupert, congradulations on being Wiccan. I don’t think anyone has said or shown anything in any post on this subject about ‘mocking us wiccans’.
I, being Wiccan, and speak on behalf of the rest of ‘us’, feel that you accuse wrongly and make the rest of ‘us’ look bad by saying that. Wether the demonstration is real or not, none of this shows any proof that any faith is being mocked, least of all Wicca. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
To Shannan, I’ve seen the video, and do not believe nor disbelieve you. It does not matter if I do either way. It only matters that you believe. Good luck with everything.
For the Record Rupert, I am not Wicca. My religon is Spiritualism.
There is a difference….
Here’s one for you and your video:
Get a bag of 2d nails, a 2×4, a hammer, a single dice, and a magnet.
Pour the nails onto the table, and with the magnet pick up at least 6 and lay them out in a row, 1 through 6.
Roll the dice and pick the nail represented by the die roll and bend it, the other 5 nails pound into the 2×4. If this is done in a straight forward manner, I don’t think there would be any doubt. AND you can use both hands.
Best regards,
J Bone
Too funny.
Well, you did exactly what you said your were going to do.
1. Meditate
2. Get into a “mind over matter state”
3. Bend the spoon
Anything of a psychic, psychokinetic, or supernatural nature? No. And there was no claim of it either.
I can meditate, get into a “mind over matter state”, and then drive my car — my mind, by way of my hands, are controlling the vehicle, therefore Mind Over Matter.
I can and do bend spoons in the same fashion, anyone can. Now if the spoon bends like the one in the Matrix, now *that* would be something.
If you’re going for a demonstration of psychokinesis you’ll need to say so, and a few more “checks & balances” in the way of 3rd party observers. I want to believe that this can be done via PK, but I haven’t seen anything conclusive.
Best regards,
J Bone
You are thinking of Telekinetic, not Psychokinetic. There is a difference. But thanks for posting
According to, amongst others, Wikipedia these are the same thing. Thanks for not answering.
your question did not require an answer.
Originally, when what were then known as “psychical researchers” wanted a term for the hypotheses that physical mediums were using their minds to make things in the seance room around (as opposed to forming a conduit to allow spirits to do it) they came up with the term “Telekinesis”. Later parapsychologists, extending this beyond the seance room, realized that this coinage was poor and replaced “telekinesis” (distant movement) with “psychokinesis” (mind movement). External groups who were interested (spiritual, entertainment, science fiction, skeptics, etc), generally continued to use the term that was generally considered archaic by the scientific community.
Some individuals in these other groups decided to make a distinction relevant to their view of these phenomena between the two previously synonymous terms. Generally they did not agree on exactly what the distinction was, and the distinction was most frequently introduced, not as new, but as if it were an already accepted, stamped in stone, fact.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using terms, especially archaic terms, within your community to make specific distinctions understood by that community. It happens, though, as here, that members of that community honestly don’t realize that their usage is quite narrow and is not general usage.
No disrespect or criticism — you were attempting to share knowledge, which is a very positive thing — but there is no generally understood distinction between psychokinesis and telekinesis, and there is specifically no distinction in the community that coined both terms (except that when people talk about telekinesis it has a tendency to sound to this parapsychologist, at least, a bit like someone trying to speak King James English).
I feel the rubbing of the thumb was a decoy! he just wanted to divert our attention from the possibility that it could be bent without doing the “mind’ thing at d first place!
kudos to him for diverting our attention!
A spoon made in China. Every once in awhile, at work, I will find a random spoon that doesn’t match the rest of the utensils we have. They weigh next to nothing and are extremely thin. With a little practice, anyone could do this “trick”.
Hi Shannan. Nice video. My son went to a PK party hosted by Jack Houck and I was impressed by the look of the utensils that he was able to bend.
Have you been able to bend the bowl of a spoon? That would be difficult to explain away.
Big Deal! A spoon is relatively fragile. Many women are easily able to bend car bumpers without touching them at all.
ya am having troble with it i do all things all i can do it bend it nerly into a loop tips plz send them to christian_breen@hotmail.co.uk
Oh, I read the Gardner article in one of his many books which consist of collections of his articles. That kind of threw me off, because I didn’t associate the article with the Skeptical Inquirer.
And about my, I guess you’d call it a “sweeping conclusion” (would you?), I’ve done a fair bit of research on the topic and was drawing a conclusion from a lot of cases I’ve looked into (and I make my “research” sound more dignified than the actual perverse curiosity that drives most of my interests).
“Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.” True! I just suck at wording what I mean (at least the first time around). What I meant is that controlled psi experiments come up with a negative results. So that’s not lack of evidence, that’s more like falsification. 🙂 And I “didn’t justify” this conclusion, because this was a blog comment; would have taken up too much space.
And while I’m talking to a real parapsychologist: all parapsychologists refer me (or people in general) to “better research,” but when I follow their suggestions, I never find this “better research,” and eventually wind up back at Geller (not cool!). My conclusion is that I’m talking to the wrong parapsychologists.
So, to get the point, in the process of learning deeper statistics, I’d like to use parapsychology to apply it – so, if I wanted really high-quality psi research, where would I turn to?
Thanks (I hope I’ve cleared up what I mean).
PS. My general conclusion is best summed up by a brief bit on parapsychology in Victor Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis.” I think it was on page 90-93.
“”Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.” True! I just suck at wording what I mean (at least the first time around). What I meant is that controlled psi experiments come up with a negative results. So that’s not lack of evidence, that’s more like falsification.”
No, it is simply a lack of evidence, which is still not evidence of lack (a falsification). It is only a falsification of the claim that “all parapsychological experiments will produce positive evidence of psi anomalies,” a claim which noone is making.
Its the positive parapsychology results which stand as a falsification of the conventional view. The prediction of the conventional scientific theories is that such results will rarely happen. In fact they frequently do even under tight controls.
Go to “http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halosim.htm” (a great site generally, by the way. There you will see many spectacular images of complex, solar atmospheric halos. According to you, if I go outside right now, a sunny day with some sign of high cirrus clouds, and I do *not* see the full halo display then I have “falsified” that the phenomena exist at all. In fact, the halos depend on complex, precise conditions the existence of which can only be deduced on the basis of observing a particular kind of halo (conditions like a particular range of sizes of a particular kind, out of many possible, of exceptionally regularly shaped ice crystals all aligned quite precisely.
Check out Dean Radin’s “The Conscious Universe” or Richard Broughton’s “Parapsychology: The Controversial Science”. For that matter, you might look into “Extra Sensory Perception After 60 Years” by Rhine, Pratt, Stuart and Smith (published in 1940). All of these summarize various areas of research results, discussing the criticisms and covering the statistics in detail.
Choosing one easily available block of evidence, you might check out Daryl Bem’s Ganzfeld articles at “http://www.dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#psi”. Dr Bem was a skeptical psychologist (as opposed to being a “skeptic”) who was brought in by Charles Honorton to evaluate his experimental design. Dr Bem felt that the design was good enough that a positive result would be clear evidence of psi phenomena. He joined the experimental team. The results were positive, as were the replications.
Keep in mind that virtually nothing can be concluded from a post hoc analyses, unless carefully done as in a proper meta-analyses (where the analytic criteria are set before the data is looked at). Also, there is a limit to how much analysis you can do without the raw data.
Of course, if you really believe that an experiment that fails to show an effect proves that no experiment could have shown a positive result (I’m a bit unsure what the happy face meant) then you’ll find a way of teasing the
I suppose that we do, occasionally — everybody does. Do you have any evidence (note: that Martin Gardner says that they do is not evidence) that we do so more than most? Note, we’re talking about parapsychologists by which is meant trained scientists specializing in the scientific evaluation of apparent anomalous communications. (One of the requirements of critical discourse is that people making claims are responsible for demonstrating them).
Out of sheer curiosity, why did you mention the Skeptical Inquirer at the end of your comment?
Let’s see, you were quoting one of the founders of the magazine in question, in an article that he probably (though I don’t know for sure) published there, bringing in argumentative ploys frequently found in its pages. Its reasonable to suppose if you aren’t someone who confuses its strident advocacy with critical discourse then there is someone out there responding with a “right on!” to what you wrote who does.
No reason, I guess.
Ah yes! Some classic “skeptic” argumentation. The essence of the argument:
“Yes this event doesn’t have any particular bearing on the issue (see how even handed I am — I’m admitting that). But I would really like to be able to draw a conclusion anyway — I’m a rationalist which means that I should always be able to make definite statements. Therefore I’m declaring that lack of evidence *should* be equated in this case with evidence of lack — QED, I win.”
This is a favored argument by Randi (he is at times much more explicit about invoking it than you are here), for example. You are using the variant where you make an unsupported claim that this is “representative of the general quality of parapsychological evidence”. Even if this were true it would be completely irrelevant — to make a point you need to refute the best argument, not the poorest or even representative evidence.
I’m not saying, by the way, “you can’t entirely disprove it”, so stop setting me up as a straw man. If this were clearly fraudulent (which it is not) it would still only demonstrate the completely uncontroversial statement that frauds exist. Piltdown man does not disprove the existence of real fossils of archaic human ancestors.
Skeptical Inquirer is not a manual of valid critical thinking. It contains good material and bad — the only requirement is that the “right” conclusions are reached.
Before I continue, I want to peform a bit of perfunctory clarification — I’m not sure if you think that I was using the “heads I win, tails you loose” arguement. I was suggesting that parapsychologists use it. Just hope that at least that much is clear (I couldn’t really tell from your comment).
And the issue is a little more complicated than you make it sound (but you do have some good points, and once I get clarification on this thing I’ll answer ’em to the best of my abilities).
I got a bit tired with the squabbling so I haven’t read all the statements.
I am a parapsychologist. I believe that there is strong evidence of psi phenomena. I believe that I am open minded about any particular demonstration being an example.
There are many people who are deceivers or who are self deceived. I think that it is naive to accept everything that appears paranormal or which is claimed to be paranormal as being paranormal.
I saw nothing particularly convincing in this film of a paranormal event. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t, just that it looked no different than what could be produced quite normally — either through trickery or through self-deception.
I would like anyone who claims to see evidence of fraud to back that up — a mark does not constitute, nor does simple rubbing with a finger, nor does the phenomena not corresponding to what you believe it would constitute if it did exist though you know it does not.
On the other hand, asking people to just believe you when you claim to be doing marvelous things is insulting and frankly, suspicious. When I do a magic trick I want people to suspend belief and enjoy the show. When I do an experiment I want them to be rationally critical.
I’ve seen lots of magicians do better spoon-bending tricks. That doesn’t mean this was a trick — it just means you haven’t shown me anything to lead me to believe that what you did is paranormal. Some of your reactions and language are suspicious but don’t really prove anything.
“Head I win, tails you loose.” I appreciate your comment, but (being the nit-picking person that I am), you also use the tired old statement “just because this one isn’t real doesn’t mean that the others aren’t.” (not precisely what you said, but a paraphrase for clarity). Yes, totally true, but this is representative of the general quality of parapsychological evidence — the “others” that are supposedly real apprear no more real than the “frauds.”
As Martin Gardner points out, it’s a “heads I win, tails you loose” arguement — no amount of evidence seems indicate to parapsychologists in general that there is no psychic phenomena, and the “you can’t entirely disprove it!” arguement crops up. Similar arguements exist for God, and Richard Dawkins deals with that nicely in The God Delusion; absolute proof one way doesn’t mean that a severly strong aruguement one way doesn’t exist.
But like I said, I appreciate your comment, because this video doesn’t represent anything unique.
i can twist it without bendinig it down. like u wich then makes it very easy to my lil bro cud do that wut u just did
that is easy i can do that byt strength alone i can twist the spoon with bendin it down i just hold top and bottom with 2 fingers and twist it ur trickinhg urself.make a video of u bending the bowl of the spoon
You guys are all skeptical
just like the government
just like any “American Citizen” would have been taught growing up
Paranormal things arent real
why?
because the government says so, because skeptics say so
but of corse maby theres a couple people willing to break that “cookie cut grown up” style of life and maby believe this
i mean did any of you idiots see Sony’s PK lab
they said it was positive for paranormal activity but they had to shut it down cause they couldnt incorporate anything into there games
im a 130 pounds , a fucking skinny ass white guy, im 18
i took a thick spoon, almost twice the thickness as say a Denny’s resturant spoon
and gave it to my 230 pound friends (who is not a fatass mind you hes got some strength and sure he could bend maby a half inch at each struggiling attempt than hed have to reposition his hands and try more
i took that damn spoon, did my meditation, found a good emotion channeld, and bent a complete 110 degrees, almost clamshelling the bowl to the shaft part, IN ONE MOTION, i did not repostion my hands once
i hope this gives the idea of whats going on here, its not that were bending spoons and forks with are mind, is that were using are mind to help bend it, and youll find it very easy to bend things that normally people cant do.
i believe shannan no worrys man
id wish we could talk on a messenger or somehing i have sooo much to ask you
Let the skeptics out of there cages now
here comes the flame
=]
When you write that coherantly I’ll reply. 🙂
Best wishes Shannon with the telekinesis. I look forward to seeing you with the spoon with one hand … and watching it bend in the middle. I trust that you do this soon; I am also curious to read the critical comments of the skeptics when they see this video. Then, I’d like to see the Great Randi do the same.
Well, I’d say that Jay learnt something: he conduced a control by letting his muscular friend try to bend the spoon; he then used the psycho kinetic method to achieve an easy bending. Congrats Jay for demonstrating a simple application of the scientific method … and not talking about what should, or shouldn’t, be.