Indian Rope Trick

AtheistExile

New Blood
A
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
11
I think it was on the History Channel, the other day, that I happened to catch the last half of a segment about the old Indian rope trick. Apparently, the trick is no longer done because the secret has been lost. If you're not familiar with the Indian rope trick, the magician takes a coil of rope and throws it 20 feet up into the air, at which point it instantly becomes as rigid as a pole. A young boy then shimmies up the rope, about half way, then back down. Once the boy is back down, the rope collapses and falls back to the ground, limp as a rope. This is done outdoors in front of a crowd of spectators.

If I understand correctly, the show (I forget its name) offered a reward, in India, for anybody who could successfully demonstrate the trick. One guy performed the trick, but not as impressively as the original. Instead of throwing the rope up in the air, it slowly ascended, then became rigid. The show's host, a magician, tried to get the secret from the Indian magician but failed.

I'm not a magician but I do love to watch magic shows. And I was skeptical that this rope trick was really all that difficult. The diameter of the rope, which must have been 4 inches, immediately suggested to me that the rope could actually be hollow -- a hemp cladding enclosing a 20-foot long tubular bladder that, under high pressure, could be made to instantly go taut and erect. With good timing, the performer could toss the rope up in the air while, simultaneously, his assistant -- hidden underground -- pops the valve on the air tank (fitted to the bottom end of the rope bladder).

But it seems unlikely that this would be sufficient enough to allow the boy to climb up the rope. To permit that, I think the hollow rope would need a rod inserted into it without losing air pressure in the bladder. This presents a problem because of the 20-foot length of the rope. Wouldn't they need a 20-foot hole to hide in?

Not if the rod was sectional. I envision four 5-foot sections of rod with matching "male" and "female" ends that could be inserted up the inflated rope before the boy attempts to climb it.

What do you think? Is this scheme doable? Feasible? How could the rod be inserted without losing air pressure? Is there a better way to do the Indian rope trick?

P.S.
The air bladder would only be needed for the ORIGINAL version of the rope trick. The version of the trick demonstrated on TV could have been done with just metal rod sections.
 
Last edited:
We aren't supposed to reveal methods in JREF. That said, almost any magic trick can be done with more than one method... and has.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
It behooves people, and particularly skeptics, to use this wonderful tool we now have available to us called the Internet to research things as the "Indian Rope Trick".

Not a bad place to start is here: [Indian_rope_trick wiki]

Or just read the post from rjh01. ;)
Click to expand...

Because of the secrecy necessary for the magician's craft, I assumed (rightly) that the secret of the rope trick remains a secret. I did NOT consider that the trick is a hoax that has never actually been performed BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Wikipedia explains that the ORIGINAL CLAIM of the Indian rope trick was a hoax. But, obviously, it inspired others to actually figure out ways to perform the trick because we have at least one old black-and-white video and one modern color video of the trick being performed outdoors, in front of an audience, without a tree or other upright in sight. I know for a fact that the trick has been performed at least 2 times because they've been preserved on video at least 2 times.

OF COURSE it's impossible for a normal rope to suspend and go rigid while a boy climbs up and down it. ALL magic, in the end, is a hoax.

marplots said:
We aren't supposed to reveal methods in JREF. That said, almost any magic trick can be done with more than one method... and has.
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to be revealing the secret of the Indian rope trick because the only ones who have actually done it are magicians . . . and they don't reveal their secrets (except for that one guy who has a TV series exposing the secrets of magic tricks). The OP speculates on how the trick could be done and invites further speculation.

It was supposed to be a fun challenge but I guess most alleged skeptics are killjoys.

rjh01 said:
I suggest that the trick is not much now because it never was done and is impossible.
Click to expand...

Nope, rjh01, it's been done and done recently. As a magic act, it's definitely NOT impossible. As I've already stated, above, all magic is a hoax in a very real sense: distraction, smoke and mirrors, body doubles, whatever.
 
marplots said:
We aren't supposed to reveal methods in JREF. That said, almost any magic trick can be done with more than one method... and has.
Click to expand...

I'm curious: does this secrecy prevent or limit discussion of methods for how to critically analyze claims made by paranormal/woowoo pushers claiming miraculous feats, when such supposed feats could have the use of techniques from or related to those of stage magic as a possible explanation?
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
I'm curious: does this secrecy prevent or limit discussion of methods for how to critically analyze claims made by paranormal/woowoo pushers claiming miraculous feats, when such supposed feats could have the use of techniques from or related to those of stage magic as a possible explanation?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I posted a thread earlier today about magicians who drift into becoming out and out psychics and I don't anticipate having to reveal methods. I'm going to guess it would be OK so long as they weren't identical to those used on stage.

So, for example, say you have someone who is pushing a perpetual motion machine and I suspect trickery. It's not a magic trick per se, so I might very well identify where a magnet could be concealed. "A magnet" isn't really a method, although sometimes, it is. Now I don't know again.
 
Last edited:
AtheistExile said:
Because of the secrecy necessary for the magician's craft, I assumed (rightly) that the secret of the rope trick remains a secret. I did NOT consider that the trick is a hoax that has never actually been performed BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Wikipedia explains that the ORIGINAL CLAIM of the Indian rope trick was a hoax. But, obviously, it inspired others to actually figure out ways to perform the trick because we have at least one old black-and-white video and one modern color video of the trick being performed outdoors, in front of an audience, without a tree or other upright in sight. I know for a fact that the trick has been performed at least 2 times because they've been preserved on video at least 2 times.

OF COURSE it's impossible for a normal rope to suspend and go rigid while a boy climbs up and down it. ALL magic, in the end, is a hoax.



Nobody is going to be revealing the secret of the Indian rope trick because the only ones who have actually done it are magicians . . . and they don't reveal their secrets (except for that one guy who has a TV series exposing the secrets of magic tricks). The OP speculates on how the trick could be done and invites further speculation.

It was supposed to be a fun challenge but I guess most alleged skeptics are killjoys.



Nope, rjh01, it's been done and done recently. As a magic act, it's definitely NOT impossible. As I've already stated, above, all magic is a hoax in a very real sense: distraction, smoke and mirrors, body doubles, whatever.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suggest that a fair bit of confabulation is involved in going from two people disappearing into the clouds, one hacking the other to death, body parts descending and magical rejuvenation; to small girl climbing a few feet up a very thick, short rope.
 
I can't yet include URLs in my posts, but if you go to YouTube and look up "Indian rope trick", you'll find the old black-and-white video I mentioned, as well as the color one (from BBC). There's also one from an old Penn and Teller episode.

P.S.
HEY!! Guess what? I just found a video of James Randi doing a rope trick . . . but not the Indian rope trick. It's on YouTube. Check it out.
 
Last edited:
About revealing the secrets of magic tricks versus speculating on them . . . I suppose somebody could know the secret and pretend to be speculating about it in order to reveal the secret without appearing to be doing so. Anything's possible.

But on the other hand, even if speculation nails the secret dead on, how would anybody know it's the actual method used in the trick?

My reason for even bringing it up on this forum is because the BBC show I saw on TV made a big deal of the "mystery" of the trick and how the secret has been lost.
 
AtheistExile said:
About revealing the secrets of magic tricks versus speculating on them . . . I suppose somebody could know the secret and pretend to be speculating about it in order to reveal the secret without appearing to be doing so. Anything's possible.

But on the other hand, even if speculation nails the secret dead on, how would anybody know it's the actual method used in the trick?

My reason for even bringing it up on this forum is because the BBC show I saw on TV made a big deal of the "mystery" of the trick and how the secret has been lost.
Click to expand...

I'm no authority on it, but from what I've read and heard in magic circles, it's a case of what the audience saw and what actually happened were probably a mismatch. This is fairly common. It's the difference between an "expert eye" and someone who is just enjoying the show.

But that makes for a problem when it comes to duplicating any particular trick. Do I go with the popular description or imitate what I think actually happened? It's like trying to debunk a UFO story. You get the tale filtered through a witness.

If you post the link to the youtube clip of the actual trick being performed (just put spaces in and one of us will "fix" it and repost), we'll at least know we are talking about the same thing.
 
The old, black-and-white, video of the trick can be found here:

youtube com/watch?v=ImSjQZDoixU
 
Last edited:
Of course, I'm relying on memory but, it seems to me that I saw the boy go only about half way up the rope. In the video linked in my previous post, the boy climbed to the top of the rope.

You can see how rigid the rope is by watching the the rope at the boy's feet as he shimmies up it. The rope does not give or bend as the boy applies pressure with his feet, grasping to boost himself up. This suggests a solid, non-pliable core.

The video I linked to does not show the rope collapsing afterwards. As I recall, nobody was holding onto the rope when it collapsed. It instantly went from rigid and upright to limp and falling in a heap on the ground.

In another version found on YouTube, a man stood grasping the rope above his head when the rope collapsed. He shouted something very loudly, then the rope collapsed. In this version, if you look closely (full screen) when the rope collapses, it appears as if somebody, underground, swiftly whipped out the rod upon hearing the magician's loud shout. Plus . . . this version doesn't show the very top of the rope (it's out of frame) during the critical parts of the trick. You can find it here:

youtube com/watch?v=Tx_rqOjZOAg
 
Havent searched Youtube but a few magicians have performed this trick,Doug Henning springs to mind.
 
Regardless if there are variations of the Indian Rope Trick today, there never existed the progenitor many people claim. I recommend this book on the subject. It's been a year or so since I read it, and it is now tucked away in one of many moving boxes for a while, so I can't reference it now, but it is an illuminating work.
 
Yes, Garrette, we've already agreed that the original claim was a hoax.

As an aside:

So you're in the middle of a move, huh? I hope you're moving to a roomier home . . . then you can have more bookshelves :-). I've moved to both bigger and smaller homes and it's always a drag when moving to a smaller home and realizing I'll have to store some books in boxes in a shed or garage. Plus, sheds and garages are more prone to moisture and vermin and books can be damaged or ruined.

When I moved (permanently) from California to the Philippines, I gave all my books away. There's a 100% tariff on imported items here so I had to sell my cars, motorcycle, collectibles and furniture on eBay.

Sorry guys, I don't mean to derail the topic, so please do not reply to this.
 
Olowkow said:
Dan Dennett explains how the real Indian rope trick is done.
Click to expand...

The original claim of the Indian rope trick is a modern example of mythology in the making. As I understand it, the part about the boy refusing to come down and his father climbing up after him and chopping him up is derived from Indian folklore.

The part about them disappearing up the rope and the dismembered boy reconstituting himself in the grand finale, is icing on the fabled cake.


Of course, the original claim of the Indian rope trick is a hoax. But then again, all magic tricks are hoaxes in one form or another. I think that, technically, this trick is replicable in a controlled environment, like a large stage with all the equipment and things the magician would need. But outdoors? Without any visible support? Impossible.
 
Last edited:
I think it's reasonable to speculate that the trick can only be achieved by supporting the rope from above (requiring a mechanism in the ceiling, or up a tree, or something) or by supporting the rope from below by means of some kind of pole or rod. Barring modern machinery this means someone in a box or underground space feeding a pole up the rope.

The fact that it's traditionally a child doing the climbing indicates to me that the materials involved only allow a fairly light person to climb the rope or the whole thing would fall over.

The black and white video looks to me like it's someone faking up the footage to show what the original trick was supposed to have looked like. The shot of the rope being thrown into the sky looks to me like a reversed shot of the rope falling down, indicating that they had a crane or similar to hold the rope up with.
 
AtheistExile said:
Yes, Garrette, we've already agreed that the original claim was a hoax.

As an aside:

So you're in the middle of a move, huh? I hope you're moving to a roomier home . . . then you can have more bookshelves :-). I've moved to both bigger and smaller homes and it's always a drag when moving to a smaller home and realizing I'll have to store some books in boxes in a shed or garage. Plus, sheds and garages are more prone to moisture and vermin and books can be damaged or ruined.

When I moved (permanently) from California to the Philippines, I gave all my books away. There's a 100% tariff on imported items here so I had to sell my cars, motorcycle, collectibles and furniture on eBay.

Sorry guys, I don't mean to derail the topic, so please do not reply to this.
Click to expand...
I'm always up for a short derail. Complicated move situation based on eminent domain and the house we are purchasing being in a financial maze I do not fully comprehend, all resulting in a dual-move: current move to much smaller rental home pending move at an unspecified date to the permanent home which paradoxically is larger but less suited for book display given the prevalence of dormers at a lower height than usual, preventing use of my normal 6 foot bookshelves. End result is I will still have books in storage, possibly more than before. It is a heavy burden, indeed.
 
AtheistExile said:
Wikipedia explains that the ORIGINAL CLAIM of the Indian rope trick was a hoax. But, obviously, it inspired others to actually figure out ways to perform the trick because we have at least one old black-and-white video and one modern color video of the trick being performed outdoors, in front of an audience, without a tree or other upright in sight. I know for a fact that the trick has been performed at least 2 times because they've been preserved on video at least 2 times.
Click to expand...

This appears to be the case. There's no reliable report of the trick being performed before Wilkie's article of 1890; I found an advertisement for Howard Thurston in the New York Post of April 24, 1910 which refers to it (behind a paywall, sorry, but it's there).

http://www.fold3.com/document/212542502/
 
It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
Sure. Just climb this rope, see? This one right here, and take a look around up there. I'll be right behind you. The sword? Don't worry; I carry it for emergencies only. Go ahead, climb.


Bit more seriously: iirc, your "etc., etc., involves reassembling and reanimating the boy, possibly in a basket? Man, I need to get my books unpacked...
 
I understand that the correct name for this is now "The Native American Rope Trick."
 
Soapy Sam said:
I understand that the correct name for this is now "The Native American Rope Trick."
Click to expand...

Um, it's dots, not feathers. ;)

On the topic of whether the disappearing/hacking version could ever be done, some thoughts...

There's no requirement it be done in daylight. Disappearing against the night sky, lit from below by smoky torches, is a different ballgame.

There's no requirement the boy actually climb the rope. As far as I know, toys like this are ancient: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzOXvP0_gKg A life-size toy leaves the boy on the ground awaiting reassembly.

There are always distractions to keep the viewers' attention toward the ground and away from the invisibility at the top of the rope. While the boy is invisible, the master is on the ground shouting. While the master is up there, severed limbs are hitting the ground.

It may be that the full rope trick has never been done. But I'm not sure it would be impossible to do.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

I saw Paul Daniels do this in the 80s, although I can't find the footage on YouTube. The difference is that he did it in the dark and there was never a close-up of the end of the rope. My guess, even at the time, was of a crane.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
It seems that some people, when talking about the trick, are only referring to the part where the magician throws the rope in the air and has someone climb it. But that's just the beginning of the Indian Rope Trick. The actual trick is when the assistant climbs and disappears in the air, then the magician climbs, kills the assistant, body parts fall down from the sky, etc, etc. I don't think anyone has actually managed to reproduce this trick, but I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it never happened; the entire trick as originally described is just a bit of fakelore. Using the description of the "trick", magicians have since been able to figure out ways to make a rope rigid enough for a child to climb at least partially, and they've called this the "Indian Rope Trick", but obviously reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible.
 
Checkmite said:
Exactly, it never happened; the entire trick as originally described is just a bit of fakelore. Using the description of the "trick", magicians have since been able to figure out ways to make a rope rigid enough for a child to climb at least partially, and they've called this the "Indian Rope Trick", but obviously reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible.
Click to expand...

As I said in the post immediately above yours, I've seen it done by Paul Daniels. And, far from being impossible, even as a kid I could work out how it was done.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As I said in the post immediately above yours, I've seen it done by Paul Daniels. And, far from being impossible, even as a kid I could work out how it was done.
Click to expand...

You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference. Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.
 
Checkmite said:
You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference. Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence that people claimed the legendary trick was done outdoors in the daytime?

This whole issue seems like the problem with someone saying, "David Copperfield could make the Statue of Liberty disappear," and someone else saying, "That's impossible. The statue weighs a zillion tons and is fixed on a permanent foundation. It could not have happened."

Well, they're both right, of course. When people describe magic tricks, they typically leave out the crucial qualifying factors that make the trick possible, because that's how tricks are designed to be remembered.

Just hearing the description, someone might imagine the Statue of Liberty disappeared in broad daylight within view of everyone looking out their windows in Manhattan. A person may not say, without lots of questioning and prompting, the crucial point: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were with me on a boat at night, and the statue was hidden from us for a bit before it disappeared and reappeared, and I don't know whether anyone else could still see it when it disappeared for us."
 
Checkmite said:
You related this trick as done "in the dark". As far as I know that's already a difference.
Click to expand...

Difference from what? Nobody in this thread has suggested that the trick must be performed in the light. In fact, the Wikipedia article explicitly says that in the original descriptions of the trick that the top of the rope is "out of view", which means it must be obscured by something like darkness or smoke.

Was it performed indoors? Still another difference.
Click to expand...

No, outdoors.

Again, the initial legend may have certainly inspired modern magicians to try and do analogous things; but the trick never happened as initially related.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's been established since post 4. I was replying to your statement
that "reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible".

Pup said:
Just hearing the description, someone might imagine the Statue of Liberty disappeared in broad daylight within view of everyone looking out their windows in Manhattan. A person may not say, without lots of questioning and prompting, the crucial point: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were with me on a boat at night, and the statue was hidden from us for a bit before it disappeared and reappeared, and I don't know whether anyone else could still see it when it disappeared for us."
Click to expand...

Well, I obviously don't want to get in to how it's done (and I must say that I don't know other than by watching it, but I think it's blindingly obvious), but I will say that there are helicopter shots of the statue not being there, and I highly doubt that anybody on the platform (not boat) was actually amazed in any way, shape or form.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Difference from what? Nobody in this thread has suggested that the trick must be performed in the light. In fact, the Wikipedia article explicitly says that in the original descriptions of the trick that the top of the rope is "out of view", which means it must be obscured by something like darkness or smoke.
Click to expand...

It is true that the original counts don't seem to mention daylight - I do not know where I got that impression. However, you are wrong about your suppositions regarding the original descriptions. "Out of view" might mean darkness or smoke was obscuring the top of the rope; however, it might also mean the top of the rope vanished into a low fog or into the clouds, or that the rope was so tall the top was too high to see, or (as with my initial interpetation of the trick when I first heard of it) that the rope and the people who climbed up it disappeared in midair through some mystical invisible aperture. Given that the same Wikipedia article notes that some of those accounts described the dismembered body parts slowly crawling back together on the ground until they rejoined together into a whole, living person, I'd caution against trying to draw any conclusions about what the descriptions must imply about whatever exactly it was the witnesses were relating.


Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes, that's been established since post 4. I was replying to your statement
that "reproducing the entire trick as initially related is impossible".
Click to expand...

I still maintain that it is. Given that our earliest accounts were from periods when it was extremely unlikely for magicians in rural villages between towns in India to have access to stage mechanisms, cranes, large underground chambers from whence assistants could thrust long poles up through decoy ropes, rolling platforms on tracks or cameras with which to create illusions, and so forth, I don't think any "Indian Rope Trick" performed today using these techniques can honestly be said to be a performance of the trick as originally described.

Perhaps I worded my original statement badly. Nitpick over it if you wish; however, my actual assertion (perhaps better worded) is that this "trick" did not historically exist as a trick that was ever actually performed, but merely as a legend or fable, and that any of the myriad versions or attempts one might have seen within the mid-to-late 20th century and beyond are not the "Indian Rope Trick" as passed down through the trade (or whatever), but purely modern and recent inventions - magicians reading the legend and building an effect that resembles, to varying degrees of skill, their interpretation of that legend.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
It is true that the original counts don't seem to mention daylight - I do not know where I got that impression. However, you are wrong about your suppositions regarding the original descriptions. "Out of view" might mean darkness or smoke was obscuring the top of the rope; however, it might also mean the top of the rope vanished into a low fog or into the clouds, or that the rope was so tall the top was too high to see, or (as with my initial interpetation of the trick when I first heard of it) that the rope and the people who climbed up it disappeared in midair through some mystical invisible aperture.
Click to expand...

I meant for clouds and fog to be included in "smoke", but I should have been clearer on that point. I don't think "too high to see" is credible, as the original description has the fakir throwing the rope up and it staying where he threw it. I wouldn't count someone disappearing from the top of a rope as the top of the rope being out of sight.
Given that our earliest accounts were from periods when it was extremely unlikely for magicians in rural villages between towns in India to have access to stage mechanisms, cranes, large underground chambers from whence assistants could thrust long poles up through decoy ropes, rolling platforms on tracks or cameras with which to create illusions, and so forth, I don't think any "Indian Rope Trick" performed today using these techniques can honestly be said to be a performance of the trick as originally described.
Click to expand...

It's not a performance of the trick using the same techniques that would have had to have been used were it not made up. But, then, it's made up so any performance using those techniques would be impossible, because those techniques do not exist.

However, the trick can be performed as described, as the descriptions do not include a breakdown of methodology.

Perhaps I worded my original statement badly. Nitpick over it if you wish; however, my actual assertion (perhaps better worded) is that this "trick" did not historically exist as a trick that was ever actually performed, but merely as a legend or fable, and that any of the myriad versions or attempts one might have seen within the mid-to-late 20th century and beyond are not the "Indian Rope Trick" as passed down through the trade (or whatever), but purely modern and recent inventions - magicians reading the legend and building an effect that resembles, to varying degrees of skill, their interpretation of that legend.
Click to expand...

Which is something that was established right at the start of the thread.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Well, I obviously don't want to get in to how it's done (and I must say that I don't know other than by watching it, but I think it's blindingly obvious), but I will say that there are helicopter shots of the statue not being there, and I highly doubt that anybody on the platform (not boat) was actually amazed in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I'd say my statement is still pretty close to holding true, though: "The only people and cameras that I know of who saw the statue disappear were... on a boat at night."

The cameras on the boat could mimic the people on the boat, in the sense that they could be aimed in any direction just as the people could look around and either see only the inside of the boat itself or the empty area where the statue once was, while the cameras in the helicopters could not mimic the pilots' view without spoiling the illusion.

It does point out, though, that magicians manipulate the way people describe tricks. From the audience's viewpoint, the boat-passengers might say, "And there were even helicopters up there filming the missing statue." From the magician's viewpoint, he might say, "And we need to have some helicopters flying up there to make sure the illusion works."

And that's about all I can say about that. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom