Confusion reigns. You cynically claimed there weren't any photos and "certainly no animatronics". But there are photos. I gave you a link.
You wanted photos of animatronic robot ticklers as proof. Now ya have it. Plus a dozen or more posts by various people who have
been subjected to them and say they're totally amazing. Just the slight glimpse into his atmospheric play room can tell you that.
But now a photo isn't good enough? A picture isn't "good enough for"- what- exactly? I doubt you're looking to buy such a robot. I guess you're just looking for tickle clips?
Well, it does everything he says and more from what Megan and I experienced. The Monks too. But you discuss with all the people posting about it there on Fet
who have experienced it in person. Maybe they'll share their videos. Better yet- just talk to him.
Not to butt in to a conversation, but I think there might have been a slight misunderstanding, and I can see the point Omnifeller might have been trying to make.
The point wasn't that the animatronics didn't exist or were a made up fantasy. The pictures provided clearly show that they exist. What they don't show, is how the animatronics work, and without a live/video demonstration (like the youtube video provided by the OP), it is left to the viewer to theorize and determine how the animatronics meet the specifications that you described.
Some aspects of the design are easy to work out. With the base model of a human-shaped chassis to house the interior motorized components, the body of the robot can be covered with a variety of garments to hide the electronics, allowing for a large number of difderent types of animatronics all stemming from the same mold. Easy to make/customize for whatever setting is utilized during a session. From the Gypsy, I noticed a series of feathers in her palms. I'm assuming the arm and hands are a facade for a motor that spins the feathers in different directions/ speeds, while the arm itself can be moved up or down to change where the feathers will tickle. This reasoning could apply to other implements on other models. Other apects that you mentioned, such as the blinking eyes, moving about the room, ability to change tickle techniques, and speech, can all be easily explained, even by someone with basic knowledge on robotics. The animatronics are likely placed on a platform that can roll about the room, either by following a preprogrammed path, or by being remotely controlled by an operator. Speech can be replicated via a voice recorder on the animatronics, with a few prerecorded bits of dialogue, or by a loudspeaker that the operator can talk through. So long as the mouths of the Animatronics are coverse up, lip syncing and the uncanny valley effect can be entirely avoided. Changing up what speed tools are used, and how they are positioned, can yield the result of the animatronic "forming new tickle techniques", and blinking eyes are likely a cosmetic addition on the head piece (a basic function that almost all animatronics are capable of). I beliebe that it was offhandly mentioned that the animatronics had a video feed camera installed to allow the operator (presumably Mr. Kujman) to see monitor the session and the ticklee.
Of course, some of the other features that were mentioned, such as the animatronics being abe to think, remember information of people, and actively seek out where people are most ticklish, seems a little farfetched for a robot developed with 1990s technology. I believe these might be over-exaggerations on the part of the operator. Rather, the combined features of being able to move about, and having different programmed tickle patterns, are there to sell the illusion of an autonomous, top-of-the-line, robot that lives only to tickle and torment. The finished product is no more advanced than one from a Chuck E. Cheese, and in some cases, probably less so. But it doesn't need to be more advanced. From what I gather, Kujman rather enjoys making participants feel like his events are as real and immersive as possible. As long as his animatronics can sell the illusion of autonomy, and the mechanical devices are providing tickles to the "victims" the the robots are doing their jobs perfectly.
And lest one assume that I am "taking the wind out of Kujman's sails by trying to prove that his machines are a hoax", I assure you that I wish to do nothing of the sort. I'm an engineer. I like to break apart things and see all the mobing bits and pieces and marvel how they work. I follow development of theme parks, shows, and roller coasters to better understand the passion that goes into making/designing these pieces of entertainment, and the elaborate stories crafted by the developers. Breaking things down helps ground inventions in reality and I appreciate better the limitations and how to work around them. So when I see inventions, I reverse engineer them. And when someone says that an image doesn't fully explain how a device works and achieves a multitude of features, I completely understand that.
[Postscript: I'm sure that I would love to be able to see these machines in action, and maybe even visit an event where they were featured. That might be difficult however, due to me living about 5 hours away from New Jersey, so that would be a large distance to travel in a short amount of allotted time off of work. I'm also not particularly ticklish on my body, which might exclude me from being able to even participate in such an event.]