1873 Colt says:

OK. Let’s just sum this up.
Bullshit
I saw this Escher print forty years ago.
Interesting.
This idiot makes some kind of illusional construction, places a camera in just the right spot, and …… what?

NOTHING HAPPENS.

Why bother us with this DISTRACTION?

I would expect more of a website what is associated with No Agenda.

Otter says:

Thanks Colt, I thought this was REAL before you posted.

Doug says:

What – It isn’t real.

Nooooo – And I thought that this fellow solved the energy crisis!

bobbo, a lover of slow culture living in fast times says:

I can almost buy the water going uphill in the trough as a trick of the camera angle but I don’t get the vertical posts==well maybe if they are actually slanted in the perpendicular to the camera’s focal point? But then how does the top come back to the start?

Ha, ha. Excellent job. The illusion the the year was that four balls rolling uphill and then the camera moves 90 degrees and its obvious how its done. But that trick doesn’t explain this trick, nor how matter expands as it approaches the speed of light.

There are many things the bible does not teach us.

duh365 says:

double waterfalls all the way man!!!

bobbo, a lover of slow culture living in fast times says:

Optical illusion of the year for 2010:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAXm0dIuyug

Only a fool would not enjoy being fooled by these clever divertisements.

Doug says:

Very good fake.
His only mistake is not controlling his shadows well enough.
Watch his shadow in relation to the shadow of the structure.
Interesting video though.

Mikiev says:

“Very good fake.
His only mistake is not controlling his shadows well enough.”

And the waterwheel does an early start, before the water should have reached it… and then starts spinning like the motor-driven fake it is.

No way that small of a stream of water would cause the wheel to spin at 100 rpm.

deowll says:

He did a good job. I know it has to be a fake but the reflection of the upper levels is still there to see. The shadows could be explained by having more than one light source.

I suspect the wheel is actually being driven by falling water. A very light wheel on a freely turning axes doesn’t require much of a push and why bother with a motor when you actually have a stream of water? I don’t see any evidence of a drive for the wheel.

I would enjoy walking around that masterpiece in order to see how he faked it. I’m satisfied the front three posts are touching nothing on their tops. I’m think the last segment is angled up and not on the floor but I’m not able to completely visualize it based on what I’m seeing. I simply can not tell how he’s doing it from this angle.

The_Tick says:

He’s a witch. Burn him.

Animal Mother says:

We see the Virgin Mary in that Escher thingy! Who do we make the checks out to?

dadeo says:

Banacek would need only one angle to debunk this fraud.

Steve says:

# 1
Let’see you do it.

JimD says:

I am Optically Dis-illusioned !!!

Jim Gregori says:

Admit guys… he did a really good job at constructing a 3D from a visual image that’s truly hard to fathom… and to make it work… definitely a great illusion.. nothing faked here. We see it, we hear it, we’re still baffled.