Talk:Matthew Manning

Published article for future use

Article from the Independent On Sunday, for future article development: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20021201/ai_n12670905 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above link provided by the editor is now no longer active. 5Q5 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Will work on article referencing

I've done heavy sourcing for the psychokinesis article in the past several years. I'll recheck some of those (books, etc.) to see if I can move some here to support some of the claims in this article. If so and when, I'll remove the editor's "citation required" flags. 5Q5 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also linked the article to Psychokinesis and Automatic writing and therefore removed the top orphan flag. 5Q5 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing information that was left out of the article

The Henry Gordon reference has been selectively used, because this is the full quote:

Ostensibly, one Matthew Manning executes art work while in a trance. Drawings and paintings in the style of Bewick, Rowlandson, Beardsley, Klee, Matisse, Picasso, and other great names began to appear over the walls of his rooms and then all over the ceilings. He was visited by the spirits of these greats — according to Manning.

In an article in the San Francisco Examiner, Manning claimed that an art expert with Sotheby's gallery in London had said that one of the Picasso's he had drawn looked like an original, and that Sotheby's would have vouched for that if they hadn’t been told that Manning had done it. Fellow skeptic and psychic investigator James Randi decided to follow up on this story. He wrote to Sotheby’s. A reply by a Sothby’s official declared the claim "absolutely not true." He wrote that the various drawings done by the "spirits of various artists" had all been rendered by the same hand, and that they were very clever but not very convincing forgeries of existing works.

Manning made another claim in the London Daily Mirror. He had made a drawing of a monkey "while in a trance," and published it in his book, The Link. It had caused great excitement at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, he said. It was similar to a Savery original that was in their vaults and had never been published. Randi sent another letter. A reply from the museum cleared up the matter. The drawing had been published, first in 1905 and again in 1965. It was still available. And the original was on display to the public, not locked up in a vault.

These are only two items that were investigated. How many people will take the time and the trouble to check upon the myriad claims made by phony psychics? It is so much easier to sit back and say, "Hey, isn't that fantastic? This guy works miracles." It's more exciting, more out of the ordinary — makes for more stimulating conversation. It's also a lot of hokum.

Extrasensory Deception: ESP, Psychics, Shirley MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs. pp. 101-102. I will also search for other references. Goblin Face (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How did Booth bend metal?

The article suggests that Manning bent metal by lightly stroking it. Can someone who knows about this say more? The obvious way, which I'd guess is the way that Booth described, is that you first prepare the metal to be bent by bending it so that it is almost broken, so that then very little force has to be applied for it to break. That could not explain demos like that in the picture (more details are given on the picture page itself), where in some cases non-standard objects like the key in the photo were supplied in the session itself so there was no opportunity to prepare the key beforehand (or to obtain an identical key that could be substituted). The key concerned was much stronger than your average spoon (keys generally have to be) and would be very difficult to bend without a tool, and it is difficult to imagine this being done without anyone spotting it, though doubtless your typical sceptic will say that he did have a hidden tool and was so skilled at his deception that he actually could bend keys with this tool without anyone noticing. And again, if people supply their own items to bend it can't be done using special alloys whose shape can be changed by applying heat, another magicians' trick. Anyway, can anyone add some clarity as the article doesn't give much away. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Key Warper and other methods - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How is it claimed it is done then, or don't you know? You can't tell anything from those web sites, there's just a claim. However, I've asked GoblinFace on his talk page if he can enlighten us, as he was the person who put the reference on the article page in the first place. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, just advising there are many methods to bend a proffered key without anyone noticing it. Or maybe magicians and performers are really using genuine psychic powers...but I kind of doubt it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

When James Randi 'demonstrated' the metal bending trick before an audience including John Taylor, he did it by swapping spoons. Unfortunately for him Taylor spotted him doing this, whereupon (since he 'always has an out') he said, oh, I wasn't doing the trick for real, I was just showing people how it is done. Curious then that he hadn't announced his intention in such terms beforehand. So if that's the best the Amazing R can do ... . --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Substitution is one method, but there are many others that are quite difficult to detect unless you know exactly what to look for and where to look. Go to a magic shop, ask about key bending, they will explain it to you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm consulting with a group that has some experts in magic in it. One factor is that magicians don't like repeating the same thing a number of times because the more times they do it the more likely they are to be found out. It is also worth mentioning that Manning made no rapid movements as Geller would do, and magicians tend to rely on the speed of movement deceiving the eye. It is a pity that videorecording was not readily available in 1974.

By the way, one person in the group responded 'I'm still waiting for the Spanner (US: Wrench) Warp'. Will any of these methods work on that kind of object? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If this skinny guy can bend them in half, I'm sure I could slightly warp one, especially if I made a slight commotion organizing a group of 10 people to stand around me for 10 minutes ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't he in fact picking up spanners that are already bent (not the ones that friend cameraman is showing to distract you) and pretending to bend them, then holding them up in triumph? My scepticism indicator is flashing rapidly (how are you getting on 'slightly warping' spanners yourself, by the way -- any success so far?). --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the magician John Booth he discusses Matthew Manning on quite a few pages of his book Psychic Paradoxes, but this is what he writes on page 57-58 regarding metal bending, I have bolded the part which is directly relevant to Manning:

Stroking lightly a borrowed key, nail or spoon, with his fingers, even when others hold it, the metal appears visibly to bend upward under psychokinetic influence. The warping effect has been achieved not only by various magicians and British psychic Matthew Manning (consult his book, The Link, Colin Smythe Ltd., Great Britain, 1974), but also by school children in Japan and England. The trick has become so popular, thanks to Mr. Geller, that conjuring shops are selling a "key warper" for $3. 50. The stunt can also be managed by a mixture of brute strength, misdirection and skill of hand. One is reasonably safe in challenging any lay audience to detect the fact that chicanery is in progress. The twist is usually put into the metal object secretly, seconds or minutes before the bending appears to happen. Pressing it against a chairleg or table top, inserting it into a warper or even the hole in a house key, while restlessly moving about, enables the dirty deed to occur before the audience realizes it. Shrewdly, the psychic-bender awaits a propitious, unguarded moment, later, for the denouement. Picking up the key or spoon again, and holding it casually so that it appears unharmed, the curvature is disclosed slowly and impressively, without any physical pressures, by the manner of drawing the fingers away from the object or rolling the object to bring the twist into view. Other techniques for secret bending are introduced depending on the circumstances and opportunities to create varying effects. The illusion of visibly bending is generated in part working upon the suggestibility of the persons assisting.

As you can see there are a number of ways of performing the trick. The article on spoon bending also contains other useful information and further references on the subject. Goblin Face (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. What one notes immediately is that the quote 'Stroking lightly a borrowed key ...' refers to a spoon appearing to bend upward, rather than actually bending, some kind of optical illusion. That clearly does not apply where the object can be examined properly afterwards, as was done in the Manning investigations (in my case the key was handed back to me directly afterwards, and you have photographic evidence to prove it was bent -- unless you're going to complain that I've somehow jinxed your vision by the way I took the photo). So it seems to me that whatever reason you may want to invoke for saying it was a trick, the 'gentle stroking' one isn't one of them (assuming I have read that extract correctly). --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote you've put in bold is very interesting, because it could be interpreted in a different way, viz. that people are able to bend spoons etc. psychokinetically in this way. I have a little knowledge of this because I attended a 'metal-bending party' once after a parapsychology conference. The idea is that a relaxed atmosphere will get people out of their usual state of consciousness and allow their latent psi powers to emerge. People are encouraged to visualise the metal getting soft, and then to stroke it gently imagining it is bending. There is no doubt that for many people the spoon etc. did bend, and the question is whether the process made them imagine they were applying less force than they actually were. Anyway, it seems to me at rate quite possible that under certain conditions many people have this skill, and what Booth writes almost confirms this.
There's possibly interesting psychology here: at the start there was great enthusiasm which may have contributed to success. Manning made an interesting point in this regard, saying you must not only want the process to work, and believe in its possibility, but also expect it to work. Expressed differently, he is saying confidence is a factor, and we all know how important confidence is in situations such as jumping across a stream -- if we are all uncertain as to whether we will make it to the far bank that makes it less likely that we will succeed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Goblin face. Yes, my first reaction when I saw Brian's key was "Key Warper" being used without much finesse because only the end of the key is bent. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look a little more closely, you'll see that in fact there are two bends (the second one is about half way along the straight section of the key). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. I can put two or even three bends in a key using my unearthly powers. Sometimes I like to take a few moments to examine a number of keys and select one that has the right molecular vibrations. Or if I put a key in each hand, one bends, as if it's drawing energy from the metal of the other. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm!!! Perhaps you'd like us all to benefit from sight of your powers by putting a video of yourself doing this on to YouTube (ideally you could bend a few spanners for us as well). No fancy editing now, but you are allowed to wear a mask for anonymity if you wish. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to, but like Manning and Geller, etc. I don't have full control over my powers. I may be able to bend a spanner into a pretzel, or nothing at all will happen. The fact that I can't perform on command should indicate that my power is genuine. I should not have to explain how these mysterious forces unknown to science work. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine ;-) ! But science is catching up, in fact it did a long time ago but the world slept and didn't notice: see Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality. We are currently working on a more advanced and more general theory and hope to publish this before you get your own demo on to youtube.
PS: Stand by for a dramatic announcement, just in! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Booth was referring to Manning's metal bending feats described in his book The Link. What Manning performed in front of Josephson was probably a different trick but there are no references that discuss this so there's really no point in debating this, we can't put original research into the article only sourced content and only Booth speculates on Manning's metal bending trick that he why he has been used as a reference on the article. It is indeed suspicious that only the end of the key is bent. The most detailed book which discusses many of these tricks for bending keys is Gellerism Revealed: The Psychology and Methodology Behind the Geller Effect by Ben Harris (you can see a photo here [1], you don't need anything else - this is the manual to key bending, unfortunately hardly anyone has read the book. There are photographs on nearly every page of the book and various different methods described. I recommend buying that book. It probably contains the trick Manning used but it does not refer to Manning so we can't use it on the article. Just out of interest for further background reading into the subject also see this by Joe Nickell [2]. Goblin Face (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a brief account of the Toronto tests in http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Matthew_Manning.htm. I suggest that as a good reference to include in the article. I'd like to add that I don't think Manning was acting in a way consistent with the various tricks that have been suggested; however, I do not in any way expect that statement to convince any of the sceptics! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sentence in question read: "The magician John Booth has written Manning's metal bending is a magic trick performed while lightly stroking the object." Using the word "by" makes it sound like the stroking is the part of the trick that bends the metal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes that should probably be changed. As for Josephson's website that he linked to it isn't reliable. The website he gave also says Manning attracted poltergeist activity and communicated with spirits etc - do you believe that as well Josephson? It is an occult website written by a conspiracy theorist who has written a bunch of pseudohistory books. We should use something more reliable if we are to include Josephson in the article, a published book would be better. Here are some comments from David Marks on Josephson and Manning:

In his book The Link, Manning presented his own story about poltergeists and other strange happenings that took place at home and at school from the age of eleven. Like Geller's My Story, The Link is an autobiographical account and, although it makes fascinating reading is of minimal evidential value. Manning described how, after watching Geller perform on television, he discovered that he too could bend cutlery and other metal objects. Physicists, like Nobel laureate Professor Brian Josephson, F.R.S., and mathematicians, like Dr. A. R. G Owen, flocked to study Manning's miracles. Josephson is reported by the Daily Mail of London to have concluded: "We are on the verge of discoveries which may be extremely important for physics. We are dealing here with a new kind of energy." The introduction to The Link promises a series of learned papers "following research on Manning's powers by twenty-one giants of science" in Toronto during June and July 1974. Twenty-five years later we are still awaiting these publications with great interest. Paraphysicists seem to be perpetually "on the verge of discoveries" and no closer to actually making any.

David Marks (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books. p. 100. Goblin Face (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Marks is just as prejudiced as the author of the web page I linked to, and unlike the latter he resorts to exaggerated journalise ('flocked to study Manning's miracles'). The invitation was to a conference on psychokinesis and I no more flocked to it than I would to any other conference on a subject I was interested in. The web page merely summarises what is in The Link and is thus a valuable secondary source. Re 'research on Manning', the only actual research was an investigation into how Manning's EEG might be altered when he was attempting to perform psychically and I believe this was published. I've checked the Introduction to my copy of The Link and I cannot see anything about a 'series of learned papers'; perhaps there's some confusion with the publisher's blurb? Most parapsychologists would not agree with Marks' statement about being perpetually "on the verge of discoveries" and no closer to actually making any; that is just an attempt to persuade the crowd of his unscientific PoV. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is three editions of The Link, the first published by Henry Holt & Company in 1975, also seems there was another edition put out by Holt in the same year with a different cover picture but note the third edition from 1987 has a different title The Link: Extraordinary Gifts of a Teenage Psychic, this book probably contains different content. I am not sure which one Marks was referring to. I will investigate this but not right now. I am sorry that you feel Marks is a biased or unscientific writer but Wikipedia editor opinion doesn't really matter on this because if it's a reliable source by policy it's a reliable source and in this case it is. I will search for other sources and cite them here. Goblin Face (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The version I have, given to me by Manning, was published by Colin Smythe of Gerrards Cross in 1974. The title is the same as yours, except for a 'The' before 'Extraordinary ...' which is on a new line, and the introduction was by Derek Manning (Matthew's father?). I've checked these details (except for the author of the introduction) on our University Library catalogue, so it wasn't that I was given a prepublication version, it really was published in 1974. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Reports on investigations

First of all, I had missed the fact that a report on the investigations carried out at the 1974 Toronto PK conference was published along with the proceedings — it is at the beginning of the issue (p. 191) before the other papers, and not listed in the index. Besides this, more extended investigations were conducted in May-June 1977, and these have now been put on the web, at http://www.williamjames.com/MatthewManning.pdf. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity ?

Why the ethnicity of the person has been mentioned ? It is irrelevant on the content of the article and its claims for or against. It should be removed especially when the whole concept of "caucasian" is questionable. Noseball (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Healing

Why nothing about his healing work? He is much more famous as a healer nowadays than as a spoon-bender. freakypete (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)