Fraser Parker - False Messiah [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Fraser Parker

False Messiah

1

False Messiah

3 out of 13 Souls

2

Fraser Parker

False Messiah By Fraser Parker Edited by Preston Heller

Intuition Publishing, 2015

3

False Messiah

First Printing: 2015 Intuition Publishing Badger's Hollow Chapel Lane Mareham le Fen, Lincolnshire, PE22 7PZ, UK Copyright © 2015 by Fraser Parker All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.

4

Fraser Parker

To My Wonderful Girlfriend Karen

5

False Messiah

6

Fraser Parker

Contents 1.Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 8 2.Foreword....................................................................................................................................... 9 3.Preface......................................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction…………………………………………….….15 A-Prop an essay…………………………………………..17 A Few Words from Kenton………………………….…23 My Pin……………………………………………………..30 O…………………………………………………………….61 TOD O………………………………………………………76 Name Guess………………………………………………89 Star Sign Guess…………………………………..……120 Reverse Name Guess………………………………….123 Star Sign Reverse…………………………………..…138 Bold Number Guess…………………………………..147 Bonus Principle……………………………………..…152 Half Life Equation..………………………………….157 Peter Turner Essay…………………………………...170

7

False Messiah

Acknowledgements Thanks to the following individuals who without their support this book would not have been brought into this realm:

My friend and Mentor Kenton for everything he has done and continues to do, for me. My friend Peter Turner who without his inspiration I doubt I would still be in magic. To Preston Heller, for his help on the editing of this manuscript and his friendship. Good to finally have you in the Souls. Stefan Fleischanderl and Jakob Michaels for helping me to test these effects, their friendship and support. My good friend Ross Tayler for providing the seed for this work to grow out from. My Sister Laura for her support and being my best friend and helping me with self doubt when it rears its ugly head. My girlfriend Karen for understanding what it takes.

8

Fraser Parker

Foreword I first read Fraser's work approximately three years ago. It’s hard to avoid clichés in a discussion of this sort, as they are often the easiest means through which to convey something’s magnitude. Therefore, I shall not try: for me, True Mysteries was a game-changer. Previously, I’d had little love for Mentalism as it is generally performed. I loved watching Derren, and had a keen interest in legitimate psychology, linguistics and hypnosis; however the aesthetic of a suited and booted “corporate-chappy”, fiddling with little bits of paper which he proceeded to tear up for no reason, and utilising convoluted processes (in which alphabet cards were picked, playing cards totalled to get to a word on a page, envelopes were opened in 13 different ways to reveal 26 photos, each of which was double faced, etc) to divine the simplest pieces of information simply never appealed. I doubt it’s hard to see why. Yet here was Fraser, who in three lines of scripting could change someone’s belief in God. In three lines, could make someone colour blind. In just two lines, he could steal someone’s voice. In just one line, could stick a person to any object they were holding. Fraser creates effects ten times as powerful as anyone else, with a fraction of the work. His methods, as I’ve said in the past, are simply elegant. Approximately a year after discovering Fraser's work, I decided to contact him. At first, he was incredibly reserved. Fraser is a deeply private individual, and at first I

9

False Messiah

interpreted this as dislike. Most people would have disengaged at this point, however I was driven to continue these conversations by the small gems Fraser would occasionally leak. A binary cueing technique, for example, that completely altered my ability to proplessly guess what a spectator was thinking… A nonverbal, prop-less, technique to always know the gender of a thought of friend or relative and much, much more… This stuff was powerful! Around this time, I also became exposed to Fraser’s “Memoria” routine, one of the single most beautiful effects I’ve ever performed. Again, new pastures were opened. Playing with Fraser’s ideas, I soon began to develop my own, first simple variations on his work, but soon taking his principles into brand new places. Deciding that this material must be shared, I arranged a Skype session with Fraser. It’s no exaggeration to say that session completely changed my direction in this field. Had we not had it, I may not be writing this. Therefore, I’ll recount to you the precise details of that session. Something was wrong with Fraser’s camera, so we ended up shutting both down and simply talking through the black screen. That conversation went on for nearly 5 hours solid. We covered everything; from the whys and wherefores of prop-less work, to performance philosophy, binary cueing, Eastern philosophy, theatrical technique, our idols, our aspirations. Method was barely mentioned, and by the end we were firm friends. Unusually, I felt the need to prove myself a little. I performed two of my effects to divine a thought of star sign (Scorpio, if I remember correctly) and a 10

Fraser Parker

random object (a Post Box). I like to think I fooled him a little, but what I’m certain of, which was much more important to me, was that I had gained his respect. Our Skype conversations became increasingly frequent. This is where Fraser really began to shape my work. Every time I demonstrated something, he’d remind me of the importance of economy, simplicity and clarity. I started to improve, fast. Soon, we were creating methods together. Two minds really are better than one. Our greatest breakthrough came when Fraser showed me an idea he was developing to gain a thought of word. You’ll find a variation of this, in these pages. The method essentially consisted of forcing a number on a spectator, labelling their fingers, then having them name letters as you touched their fingers. The scripting was such that when you touched the finger that corresponded with their thought of number they’d name the letters from their word. It was convoluted, but it was a massive breakthrough. I’d have been happy with that, but here is Fraser’s real gift: he is never satisfied. He was certain it could be better. We worked together. We cut the scripting, hid it with whispers. Fraser developed an entirely new number force just for this method. I developed a new way of justifying whispers. Fraser found a way of divining the second letter without any additional work, whilst apparently making the process fairer. It got steadily better. Then, over a marathon Skype session, it was finished. I devised a bold method of controlling the placement of the first letter, which eliminated all forcing or position labelling. Fraser then altered his second letter divination to work with this, and out of nowhere, the two of us where capable of guessing any word or name with just 2 or 3 lines of scripting…

11

False Messiah

We knew, as we sat there, that we were the only two people in the world capable of this at that moment. I cannot tell you how that feels. I cannot describe the feeling of excitement and awe that exists at having discovered something like that. That moment is when everything changed. Since Fraser and I have often joked about who came up with what, when it comes to “Ouija”. The giving of clear instructions, disguised by a full “reality re-frame” is a principle I call “Doublethink”. Fraser calls it something new every week. I believe I came up with it, Fraser believes he played a part (I can evidence it in my earlier work, just saying, Fraser!). A friendly rivalry exists, and on-going cajoling occurs on both sides. But in truth none of it matters. Because one thing is for certain: between us, irrespective of who did precisely what, we’d just created something everyone believed was impossible. We no longer had any doubts; we knew we could do anything. The material that’s evolved since has been nothing short of outstanding. We’ve worked together on some things, alone on others. But none of what’s come about could have happened without that “take off”, and that understanding that we can truly do whatever we want. It’s bizarre saying it now; being such close friends and having travelled such a journey together, but Fraser really is one of my inspirations. His drive for 12

Fraser Parker

perfection for its own sake, and for the sake of his audiences is outstanding. He has one of the clearest visions for his art of any performer I’ve seen, and that reflects in his creations. Therefore, I find myself unhesitating in guaranteeing that the material to follow will be some of the best you’ve ever seen. What is contained herein is different. It does not contain compromise. It does not feel unnatural. It is theatrical. It is deceptive. And it will convince your audience that you are capable of reading, controlling or altering their minds. I make that guarantee. I make it, however, on one condition: that you make me a guarantee. Guarantee me that you won’t just read this book. We do that so often and it’s such a waste. Rather, study what follows. Understand why everything is happening. Dissect the principles and read between the lines. I know personally that there’s a lot Fraser wished to hold back. Most of the contents he’s been battling with himself as to whether he should include them. However, that which is not stated is often implicit, and if you look closely, you may well discover some real magic. I wish you the best, with confidence that you’ll enjoy what follows.

Ross Tayler 27th June 2015

13

False Messiah

Preface What you now hold in your hands is a book of real secrets; it is as close to real I have ever come in terms of method – reality is re-framed to be what you want it to be. Please guard these secrets safely. They will allow you to create the illusion of mind reading in the most natural way possible. This book is different from most. It does not consist of disparate effects or unrelated sleights (of mouth). Instead each effect is a subtle re-working of a single principle making this a complete workbook of tools for you to create the miraculous. It is my wish you find all of the subtleties and pieces of gold I first had to discover for myself and that I am now giving to you.

14

Fraser Parker

Introduction The following 'notes' consist of some of my best ideas and work, to date. The fact that I refer to this work as a collection of notes does not mean that the notes themselves will be brief or unfinished, in any sense. I wrote these notes with the intention of creating a book for myself, one that I needed at the time. I imagined a book of real magic or as close to it as possible, in terms of the methods we use. Hopefully, I have managed to create this very object, as evidenced by the fact you are now holding in your hands a book of real secrets. Those of you who are familiar with my work will know to what I refer; methods that exist solely in the words you use and how everyone watching your performance perceives what you do. I knew others would also be interested in such a book if it were to exist, which is why I decided to finally share this work with a few of you. I hope you enjoy the thinking in this book and not only perform the various routines presented, but also take the many ideas and concepts taught herein and apply them to your own work. It is a privilege to be able to continue to push the art form forwards and to be surrounded by such great thinkers of our time, who I am lucky enough to be able to call my friends. Without their work and their willingness for it to be built upon and

15

False Messiah

shared outside of their own releases, none of this latest work would have come to be. I would therefore, like to thank each and every one of you, who has helped in my own journey and been a part of my story, however big or small. I recommend reading through this book in its entirety and re-reading it again a few times before actually performing any of the effects taught. The reason for this is because different principles and concepts are taught in different places throughout the book, which also apply to all of the work, in general. Therefore, reading only a portion of the book will not give you all of the information you will need to perform this material correctly. I suggest re-reading this book a few times, so that you don't miss any of the subtleties of the methods that follow. Every thing you need to perform these effects successfully can be found in the pages of this book. However, I may only give you the secret in a couple of lines. Other times, I will repeat myself and say the same thing in different ways to be sure what I am explaining is clear. There is a lot to consider conceptually, and there are many components working together to create each of the effects in this book, so I feel this way of teaching is necessary. The way to get the most out of this book is to read through it slowly and in order, taking your time to ponder and fully understand each of the concepts on their own as well as how they combine together to create the greater effect. Then you will be ready to perform the miraculous.

16

Fraser Parker

A-Prop: An Essay on Prop-less Mentalism Fraser Parker, August 2015

The performance of Mentalism, as well as how each of us approaches the art form, is very subjective. This means that the methods we feel comfortable using will also vary amongst us. Some will delight in prop-less methods and others will prefer a more classical approach and perhaps still more will prefer to use both. I fall into the later category. I personally use a mixture of prop-less methods and classic technique in my performances. I understand that this work may seem a little presumptuous, as if I mean for it to fly in the face of hundreds of years of common wisdom and methodology. However, you will quickly see that this is not my intention. I simply desire to push the limits of the art form as much as possible. The reason I started out on the path to discovering ways to perform a-prop [a

term coined by my friend Preston Heller to describe this emerging branch of Mentalism], i.e., without any props of any kind or the need for anything to be written down, was because when I first started to study Mentalism I was not happy with what I found in terms of method. I feel this ultimately came from the naivety of youth, a lack of experience and thinking I already knew it all. I have since gone back to classic methods and almost gone completely full circle in my thinking. I now appreciate these older ways of doing things and see their value. At first I thought of these techniques as limitations – why on earth would you need 17

False Messiah

someone to write something down if you were a real mind reader? My initial answer to this question was that you wouldn't. Now I just use the proper justification. What this initial disdain for classic methods allowed me to do in the beginning was to search for what I considered the perfect method. I wasn't sure what this would be but felt that it might involve the use of words and perception to make it work. This led me to the work of Kenton and to me becoming a Student of his and member of his School, which ultimately lead to the work you now hold in your hands. I am not saying what I have come up with is the perfect method or that aprop is THE way to perform. However, if prop-less is how this art form is going to evolve – if future methods will eventually consist solely of the words we use and work entirely through the perception of those watching, then the work in this book is a step in that direction. I feel that it is important to constantly try to push through the boundaries of what is considered possible and in the process find new ways to perform – even if the old ways are still relevant and viable. For me a-prop feels more real and therefore feels more real to my audiences when I perform. If I feel I am using a “real” method then this seems to be transmitted to those who watch my performances. My silent script truly comes alive. This makes my entire performance more believable as I operate from a certain belief about how I achieve these effects. I believe that the method I am using is true to some degree, as it is genuine in terms of using words to change how others perceive reality in 18

Fraser Parker

order to create the illusion of a magical effect or outcome. I prefer this to using standard trickery and then acting. For me it feels as if there is too much of a gap between method and effect with the classic approach. Using words and perceptions to create an effect allows for them to blend together to the point where what you do feels “real” to both yourself and those watching. But this is also a half-truth as we are still using some razzle-dazzle. Even so, I much prefer this approach and find it easier to get across in performance, as it fits my silent script and beliefs towards how Mentalism should be performed and feel to your audience. This, of course, is very personal and brings us back to the point that the performance of Mentalism is very subjective, i.e., each performer will favour different methods and approaches. Another reason I prefer to use a-prop effects, when I can, is the fact that it is often easier to shift perception or move information with words instead of relying on physical methods and standard trickery to achieve the same results. This will not always be the case and you should therefore ascertain which is the correct method for each of the performance settings and situations you find yourself in and use it. As I stated before I use both prop-less methods and more classical methods in performance. I mainly work close up. This in itself may be a factor as to whether or not one favours prop-less over standard methods. Those of you who work on stage may prefer a more 'solid' classical approach due to the fact that a-prop methods can sometimes be unreliable. I 'get' that this is a concern for some, however I don't mind using a method if it only works ninety percent of the time. This fits my performance style as well as the type of performances I give. Working close up you will not have to be one hundred percent correct all of the time and it is 19

False Messiah

much easier to 'brush' away a miss. Failing from time to time in a performance actually helps to 'grow' credibility for your act and overall performance. If it were a trick then why would you fail? You wouldn't. The audience therefore is more likely to assume that what you are doing is not a trick. If I get three effects correct in a row in performance I will purposefully fail on the last effect. I understand that you cannot be seen to get a high percentage of effects wrong, which is why I also suggest mixing these effects with tricks with a more solid outcome. This is also a good reason to combine a-prop methods with more classical methods until you feel you can eliminate them altogether from your performance, if this is your goal. The effects taught in this book will work ninety percent of the time, or more, with the correct performer and performance. What do I mean by this? These effects are driven by the personality of the performer. In order for you to 'get away' with using such bold methods requires that you, the performer, act a certain way – i.e., with confidence. It is essential you are assertive with the spectator to ensure they follow your instructions and that you believe the effect will work. It is also important that you can act as a credible performer. I am not saying you should claim what you are doing is real but you should at least act as if it might be in performance. This will create a believability that what you are doing is in some way real, which will cause the spectator to see the effect as the illusion you wish to create. I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to be assertive when giving your instructions to the spectator. It is essential you are clear and give direct instructions, that the spectator is listening attentively and that they fully understand what it is they are to do. If any of these elements are missing then your 20

Fraser Parker

performance will be doomed to failure before it even starts. This point on the performance of a-prop effects, in great part, comes down to your attitude as a performer. This is hard to put into print. The successful outcome of these effects relies greatly on your ability, as a performer, to communicate your instructions effectively and spell out the effect. After the spectator understands your initial instructions the way we achieve our goal is to believe in it ourselves and act as if what we are doing is real. I am also aware each of you will have your own performance style and will say each of the scripts in this book in your own unique ways. This is how it should be. I have purposefully scripted these effects with a bare bones presentation so that you can more easily adapt them to your own performance styles as well as create additional scripting and justifications for the process if you like. However, I do recommend you leave the structure of these effects in tact – otherwise they will not work. I prefer to use as simplified a script as possible to create my effects, allowing my silent script and what I believe about the effect to do the rest of the work. I would not perform more than one of the effects in this book with the same “reframe” process for the same group. The reason for this is in case they become wise to the method or it fails to work because those watching would now perceive the process from the point of view of illusion. Nevertheless, if you perform one of these effects in between other effects in your set, after gaining credibility, you will find that in this context these effects 'fly'. It isn't necessary to perform these effects 21

False Messiah

alongside others for them to be fooling. I just wanted to mention how combining these effects with others can help further hide the deception. Again, it is the context of your performance, which allows for a successful outcome with these methods. As Doc Shiels says, “Magic is about getting away with it”. In terms of these effects, it is the appearance of the effect itself, which creates the illusion of magic. Each of the components of each effect combines to create something greater than the sum of its parts. The fact that the method exists in words and how everyone perceives the performance and effect as opposed to sleights or moves or physical trickery, is of little importance other than it makes what you do closer to real. If you can gather the confidence to try out these effects for a real audience and listen to everything I have said regarding performing these effects successfully, you will find you hold in your hands the key to performing effects in a way which was considered impossible only a year ago – completely a-prop with nothing written down. I hope this material gets you as excited as it has my friends and me in terms of what is now possible. 22

Fraser Parker

A few words from Kenton As many reading this book may already be aware I am a Student of Kenton and a member of his world famous School. I owe all of my work to him, as I would have not been able to create my own or even begin to try to push the art form forwards without his teachings and guidance as a Mentor. It would feel amiss if he did not chime in and have some input on what I consider my greatest work, so here he is in his own words talking about the power of words in performance, for which he has become known.

A short story from Kenton: I once walked into a huge corporate gig at a Biltmore estate. Loads of other Mentalists and Magicians were there, each showing off how much cooler their doctor's bag of props was than someone else's bag. I walked in carrying nothing. The president of the corporation turned to the booking agent and said, "Where is that guy's bag of props?" The agent said, "He's more like a real wizard. He doesn't have to carry props." I think that says a great deal.

23

False Messiah

Words, Mentality And Their Power in Magic Kenton Knepper, Taken from “Rants 2” Words are symbols. As symbols, they are representative only. Words are not of course the actual things they represent. Yet, we speak as though what is said is physical fact. Words have within them the essence of illusion. Magical performers understand the need to apply these word illusions from everyday life to their performances. People often recall as truth something that has been said even after physical evidence of the opposite. A magician may pick up a deck of cards and palm a card away. But as he sets the deck back down on the table he might say, “I do not want to touch the cards at all. I won’t even come near the cards”. A few minutes later, when the performer produces this palmed card, the audience will be stunned. They will insist that the performer NEVER touched the cards AT ALL. The illusion and power in the words spoken override the physical reality everyone has seen. A wise performer will repeat the words several times; to be sure this idea is firmly implanted as truth in the minds of his or her audience. Another example of magic words is when a word is used to seemingly cancel out what has already taken place. This may be seen as an action that is excused as an “example”. Some languages have specific words for this, such as the word “but” in American English. The word “but” tends to cancel out whatever preceded it. For instance, a performer may palm a card and reach into his outer jacket pocket, secretly leaving the card there. The performer may say to a spectator, “Go ahead. 24

Fraser Parker

Reach into my pocket …” as he mimes this action and leaves the card behind. He continues on, “But I don’t want to do it – YOU do it! Reach inside… what is really in there?” In the moment, some audience members may recall the performer reached into the pocket first, but later – due to the power of words – they will recall that an audience member found a signed card in the performer’s pocket. “He never touched the cards or his pocket at all. We held the cards the entire time and my friend that picked the card reached into the magician’s pocket himself.” The words “BUT I don’t want to do it” tends to minimize that the performer did this very thing. By combining the word-power with a natural pattern, such as presenting a physical example, the manoeuvres appear fair and above board. Another example of the word “but” is as follows: A spectator believes the performer has his card secretly controlled to the top of the deck. The spectator yells out to the performer that this is the case and that the performer should let the spectator shuffle the deck. This would be an embarrassing moment except for those well studied in mystery linguistics. The performer uses the word “but” and replies, “I would let you shuffle, but you see your card is long gone!” and reaches into his pocket to remove the chosen card. The truth is the card actually was on top of the deck as the spectator insisted. The performer did NOT argue with the spectator about his charge. Rather, he began agreeing that the spectator could do as he wished. He said as much remarking, “I would let you shuffle”. This took the spectator off his guard. This did not end the performer’s statement however. He continued on adding the word “but” to cancel out this option saying “…but you see your card is long gone”! This completely throws the sceptical person, allowing just enough time for the performer to palm away the card off the top of the deck and 25

False Messiah

produce it from his pocket, as if to punctuate the end of his statement. A horrible situation becomes proof of the performer’s remarkable ability. These are bold and simple examples, but they illustrate how words change the reality viewed by an audience at any given moment. Far more subtle and in-depth work can of course be found in my Wonder Words series. Association is another mental trait mystery performers must use to their advantage as well. People do not comprehend an item or event in a void. We must bring our personal experiences and history to bear on that which we experience. We experience not so much with the ears or the eyes, but through the mind. Our experiences make for profound illusions. Our associations, while useful, are also the foundation of incorrect perceptions. A performer may walk out on stage with a ceramic cup. Smoke rises from it and he sips from the cup as he speaks calmly and intimately. In nearly an instant our mind begins to wonder if he is merely chatting, or if the performer is about to do something with his cup of tea, sake or coffee. Suddenly the performer remarks he would prefer a smoke rather than a drink. In a flash, the cup is gone and the performer holds a lit cigarette. Without exposing how the performer has made the cup vanish, we can still examine closely what really has us amazed. It is only natural that a cup with smoke rising from it be seen as a hot liquid given our personal experiences and associations in everyday living. Yet the truth is far from this. The cup was empty save for a bit of glue that held a lit cigarette inside of the cup. The smoke rising seemed to be steam from a liquid. Especially is this true as 26

Fraser Parker

the performer keeps the cup in motion a little as he speaks, dispersing any smoke that appears too dense. This combined with the performer putting his lips to the cup helps reinforce the associations we have made in our minds. The vanish of the glass of steaming liquid is now easier to understand. Only the cup need be hidden away. The liquid never was and the lit cigarette was awaiting production the entire time. Our mental associations make wild leaps to assumptions about what we see, hear or feel. A hot poker shown and placed against the neck of an audience member will make them scream – although in truth a performer would never do such a thing. In this case, the mystery performer touched the back of the person’s neck with a bit of ice. The freezing sensation seemed to be extreme heat, due to the person’s mental association. It is now an easy matter for the person to be “healed” by supposed mental powers. The bottom line is this: It is how we perceive that deceives. The Public has been made aware of what they know as “misdirection” but few know the real secret mystery performers call “indirection”. As I have been a pioneer in this matter as well, I can give you a simple taste of how this psychological tool is applied. Mentally we know that any direct statement, verbal or non-verbal, is apt to be challenged. If not outwardly, then in the mind only of the audience will such things be debated.

27

False Messiah

A performer holds an object between his hands. He asks a spectator to hold their hands palm up to receive it. As the performer approaches the spectator, the object vanishes. The spectator is startled and the performer shakes his hand thanking him for his help. Everyone is amazed. But what if this same thing happened and the performer did not shake the spectator’s hand? In a second or two, attention would have focused on the hand that concealed the small object. One of the performer’s hands is clearly seen empty, yet we see the back only of his other hand. This hand would be suspicious and the vanish obvious, save for the use of indirection. Shaking the spectator’s hand with a possible suspicious hand indirectly says this suspicious hand is empty. It would be absurd to vocalize or directly claim this hand is empty. But by shaking hands with the spectator, the audience is indirectly being told the other hand is empty too, and so the vanish impresses all who see it. A bow may be used in a similar manner. The secret transfer of the object from one hand to another is performed as the hands are brought together. This transfer is made back and forth twice. In the process, the audience happens to see out of their periphery view each hand empty. The hands are not directly shown empty, as this would cause direct attention and possible suspicion. But as the hands are seen empty from time to time as the performer bows, the hands are indirectly perceived to be empty. I have used this bowing transfer to fool many well known Magicians and Mentalists. Due to such principles as indirection, suggestion, linguistics and mental influence, 28

Fraser Parker

mystery performers create what appears to be everything from magic to mind reading. Those of us on the cutting edge have made these once obscure principles the new mark of excellence in any mystery performer’s act. Less honest types apply these means to guide others into debt, war, defeat, sickness and ruin. Mystery performers however use the power of their principles to bring wonder and hope back to the world of man.

29

False Messiah

My Pin I will briefly outline the history of this effect, with variations, before teaching my own version. The basic effect is as follows: A spectator successfully uses their intuitive abilities to divine the four-digit pin number to your bank account. This effect and unique premise comes from the mind of my wonderful friend Peter Turner. He was originally using his four digit number force, “Life Equation”, based off a force from Theo Annemann, to divine the spectator's actual bank pin number. The effect later changed to divining a phone unlock code instead of a bank pin number due to the ethics involved with performing something which deals with such personal and potentially dangerous information (more on this later). However, the basic method stayed the same. After forcing a specific number on the spectator he would use Michael Murray's beautiful “Springboard” principle to work out the actual numbers of their pin by getting the spectator to compare each digit of their pin with each of the digits of the four-digit force number. They would tell you how much higher or lower each of the digits of their pin number was compared to each of the digits of the force number, in order, and this would cue you into their actual pin number. I thought this was a wonderful idea and when we met again I suggested he used a single digit force number and get the spectator to compare the first digit of their pin number to this force number and then compare each of the 30

Fraser Parker

subsequent digits to each other. This made it easier for the spectator to follow. We both went away and a few weeks later, after working on it, what Peter came back with was a thing of pure beauty. He applied his principle of “flipping it on its head” to the effect by reversing the process. Now the spectator could guess your pin number instead of you trying to divine theirs. This instantly cleaned up the effect. It made the use of the “Springboard” and the force of the first digit make complete sense from a performance point of view. The process was no longer working against the effect, but with it. If you are not familiar with the effect “Your Intuition” then I suggest getting a copy of the “When in Rome” lecture notes from Peter Turner. The difference between Pete’s effect and my variation is how I deal with the spectator guessing the first digit of my pin number. I do not use a force. This makes my effect more sure fire. I don't say this in any way to demean the original version but simply to point out the main difference between the two. I still use Peter’s version when I want to be even quicker and still have a reliable method and powerful effect. In fact, sometimes I prefer having the built in 'out' from “Your Intuition” play out. This is a beautiful 'out' and ending to the routine, in and of itself. I do not use a force with the following method but instead use a combination of ideas to create the illusion that the spectator is guessing my pin number. They truly have a free choice all the way through the effect, as opposed to the illusion of free 31

False Messiah

choice on which so many effects depend. This is made possible by using another principle, which is the “reality re-frame” concept from “Ouija” by Ross Tayler and myself. It is a billet-less name guess that I apply in a much broader sense to this and other effects in this book. In fact, it is the more general application of this basic concept that makes the following effects, premises and routine structures possible -- all without billets or forces of any kind. I will now outline the basic script used in performance and afterwards, break down each of the deceptions taking place. If simply reading through the performance script fools you then you can imagine how well this plays to an actual audience. Here's the script in full:

“I know you are wondering whether it is possible for me to use these abilities to guess your pin number? Yes, it is possible, but what interests me specifically is whether it is possible for you to use your own intuitive abilities to guess my pin number. “I want you to focus on what you believe the first digit of my pin number is. The only clue I am going to give you is this isn't a very high number. “Okay, the number you are thinking of now, isn't it. So do this for me.

32

Fraser Parker

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from one to zero, changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers... just to make this fair start on the very first number you thought of. “Okay, focus on this first number and change the number [snap your fingers]... change again [snap fingers]... and one more time [snap]. “So now you have a completely different number in mind. True? “And there is no way I could know if this number is the first digit of my pin number or know any of the other numbers you thought of, as you could have changed your mind in any order. Correct? “Can you remember this number? If not then write it down. I will look away. “Just out of curiosity, what was the very first number you thought of?” Spectator: “Three.” “Excellent. It’s a good thing I had you dismiss your first impression, because it isn't that number. 33

False Messiah

“Moving forward I’d like you to just focus on what you feel the second digit of my pin number is. Really trust your intuitive abilities. Is it higher or lower than the first digit you have just written down?” Spectator: “Higher.” “Okay. Exactly how much higher is the second digit than the first?” Spectator: “Two higher.” “You’re doing great. Now focus on the third digit. Is it higher or lower than the second? And to what degree?” Spectator: “Lower. By four.” “Outstanding. And finally focus on the last number. Would you say that it’s higher or lower than the third digit?” Spectator: “Lower. By Two.” “Okay, write this number down as well.” 34

Fraser Parker

“My pin number is 6842. How close did you get?” They will always have written down the exact same four digit pin number you call out as your own at the end of the routine. What's great is that this is all made possible with very little scripting. Your words and acting appear as if what you are doing is true and that is all that is required to create the illusion. This may seem impossible to those unfamiliar with the “re-frame” from the original “Ouija” manuscript. The reason for this is because the deception is so subtle. I will now break the script down and show you the reason we say the things we do and how these words create the overall illusion of the spectator being able to guess your pin number. Within this effect are a lot of other principles and ideas that are applied to other effects in this book. So please read them carefully to fully appreciate everything that is going on in this subtle scripting. Before getting into the method I would like to take a moment to talk about the ethics of revealing information as personal as someone's pin number. This is something that has been talked about at length and is something I'm sure you have already considered with pin number revelations being so popular at the moment. My own views on the subject are as follows. If I am going to reveal something as 35

False Messiah

personal as a pin number I always choose to do this with a phone unlock code instead of someone's actual pin for his or her bank account. This is so that I am in no way putting my spectators in any potentially harmful situations or opening them up to theft. As well as this, a phone unlock code is something that can be changed easily after your performance or a new one can be made up and used on their phone quickly for the purpose of you performing the effect. I also feel that in terms of presentation this makes for a better moment. There is a built in visual element and climax to the reveal when the performer is able to type in the spectator's unlock code directly into his or her phone and everyone can clearly see the phone unlock. However, having said all of this, when dealing with the spectator guessing my pin code I always refer to the four-digit code as my actual bank pin number. I feel I can take that risk for myself. If you don't feel you can do the same then simply change it to something else. The first thing we say to the group of people we are performing for, is as follows.

“I know you are wondering whether it is possible for me to use my abilities to guess your pin number? Yes, it is possible but what interests me more is whether it is possible for you to use your own intuitive abilities to be able to guess my pin number.” This introduces the effect as well as setting up the premise of the spectator guessing your pin number instead of this effect only being about you trying to guess their pin number. It is far better if they use their intuition to guess something instead of you simply showing off your abilities to start. It also gives you the perfect 'out' because 36

Fraser Parker

if the first effect fails you can simply go into any other pin revelation method and reveal their pin unlock code to their phone. What this does is suggest that being able to guess a pin number is entirely possible, but that it takes some practice. It also plants the 'seed' that you may be able to guess one of their pin numbers. This will more often than not, lead to one of them asking you to do this later on, without you having to introduce the effect yourself. The next line we use sets up a beautiful ruse which enables us to obtain the key piece of information we will need later on, for the effect to work.

“I want you to focus on what you believe the first digit of my pin number is. The only clue I am going to give you is that it isn't a very high number.” These words cause the spectator to think of a low number, first. In a moment you will see why this is important. At this point, they have a genuinely free choice of what number to think of and everything fits the premise of the effect perfectly. They are restricted to think of a low number. However, this does not seem like you are being restrictive as you are apparently making it easier and helping the spectator to guess the first digit. Now comes a most beautiful moment in the script. It is a break through in terms of how this and other similar effects are structured -- so they now become possible. You pretend you somehow know, via your own intuitive abilities, that the number 37

False Messiah

they are currently thinking of is wrong and is, in fact, not the first digit of your pin. This is a moment of pure boldness and does require a bit of acting on your part.

“Okay, I can tell you that the number you are thinking of now isn't it. So, please, do this for me...” This creates a moment of theatrical obfuscation, which runs lock-step with the effect and is, in fact, essential for the trick to work. It is this idea of dismissing a thought early on in the routine that allows for this effect and others of similar construction to work. The importance of this ploy will become clearer as we move through the script. Since they appear to be thinking of the wrong number to start off, the required next bit of process appears entirely justified.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine, changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers. And, to make this as fair as possible, start on the very first number you thought of.” What this script does is create a moment of ambiguity between how your words are perceived by the spectator and everyone else. However, this ambiguity only lasts a few seconds before everyone perceives your words to mean the same thing. Because you are speaking directly to the spectator they will perceive these words as instructions that are slightly different to what you will say in a few seconds, imply 38

Fraser Parker

you actually meant. If, at this point, the audience also perceives your words from the perspective of the spectator, it doesn't matter, as their perception will change along with that of the spectator when you “re-frame” and adjust with perception that which has taken place. To the spectator, the previous script is understood as the following instructions:

1.

Count up through the numbers from zero to nine mentally, in

sequential order (zero... one... two... etc.) 2.

Move to the next number every time I snap my fingers.

3.

Start on the first number you thought of (which was dismissed as

incorrect). However, the script is ambiguous enough to also mean the following:

1.

Think only of the numbers from zero to nine (relevant to pin

numbers). 2.

Change the number you are thinking of randomly, every time I

snap my fingers jump to a different number. 3.

To make this fair, start at a random position (your first thought of

number). The spectator will follow the first meaning of instructions due to the fact you are speaking directly to them. They can sometimes become confused as to which set of 39

False Messiah

instructions you mean for them to follow due to the ambiguity in the script, so to ensure they always follow the first and most obvious possible set of instructions, I 'mute' the spectator from the start of the routine. This stops them from verbalizing their confusion at any point and will usually result in them simply following along with the most logical set of instructions, i.e., the first set. The line I use is as follows.

“It is essential that you don't say anything out loud as we do this, unless I ask you specifically, because I don't want you to give away any of your thought processes.” I say this before going into the process outlined above. It is important you are clear about this, as this is one of the potential problems you can encounter with this and similar routines. Remember, spectator management is of paramount importance.

“So focus on this first number and change the number [snap your fingers]... change again [snap fingers]... and one more time [snap].” Each time you snap your fingers, you should act as if you are trying to pick up on the number they are thinking of, to check if they eventually stop on the correct number. I snap my fingers three times. This number always stays constant. However, it should look to everyone watching that the reason I stopped after three snaps is because I could sense they were on the correct number. The number of times I snap my fingers combined with the previous ploy of getting the spectator to start counting from a low number, ensures they will not be thinking of a number out 40

Fraser Parker

of the range of possible numbers for a single digit of a pin number (0-9).

“So you now have a completely different number in mind. Correct?” They seem to have had a genuinely free choice at this point, as the number they are now thinking of is based on their first freely thought of number. This is where the structure of the routine comes into play. You are now in the perfect situation to solidify the notion that you could not know the number they are thinking of, as at this point in the routine you genuinely don't know. The reason these routines work so well is because the way they are structured gives you natural built in moments of confirmation, essentially for free, without the effect ever becoming compromised.

“There is no way I could know if this number is the first digit of my pin code or for me to know any of the other numbers you thought of, as you literally could have changed your mind in any order. Right?” This is a true statement with a lie tagged onto the end of it. The fact you give two statements as one means that when the spectator answers 'yes' to the first truthful statement, they also agree with the lie at the same time. This second statement is the 're-frame' and is the most important part of the script. These words suggest indirectly that you always meant for the spectator to change 41

False Messiah

their mind in a random order. They may feel like they misunderstood your previous instructions, at this point. However, because you have already told them to not say anything, so they don't reveal their thought process, they will not voice their concerns and potentially destroy the illusion. The key to getting this to play is to believe the statement to be true yourself and simply move on. They will now think that you meant for them to change their mind randomly, jumping through the numbers from zero to nine. The fact that you act as if this was always the case creates the incorrect assumption in the mind of the spectator that it doesn't matter what their actual thought process was. They will believe that because if you don't know they misunderstood your instructions then you still couldn't possibly know the number they eventually thought of. Their thought process seems to be irrelevant. This is all understood on a subconscious level, whether they consciously think all of this through or not. Once they agree to the previous statement with a 'yes', they burn down the only bridge back to the true situation and at the same time cement the illusion via their own perception of events. How they perceive what has happened is what fools them.

42

Fraser Parker

Their belief will also match the reality of the audience – as you seemingly do not know the order in which they decided to change their mind. Therefore, this is not a standard “Dual Reality”, where two differing perceptions are created, but is instead a situation where both realities run along the same lines, in terms of the effect created. All realities co-exist to create the same overall illusion. This is the correct way to tie up the “Dual Reality” ploy, so that all is left is the illusion of what you wish to create. Even if the spectator is not entirely convinced by this method then this built in “Dual Reality” ensures everyone else is fooled. Most of the time however, due to the way this effect is structured the spectator will be fooled along the same lines as everyone else watching.

NOTE: This previous scripting for the “re-frame” should be delivered to your spectator as assumed fact. It should be stated as if it is true. This is done somewhat forcefully, with a slight pressure applied to the spectator for them to confirm this is correct. It should seem as if you are simply checking they are following along correctly not actually asking if they feel they had a genuinely free choice. As soon as you get any sign of agreement from your spectator simply move on with the effect.

43

False Messiah

It is the structure of the routine, which makes everything seem completely fair to everyone involved. You can now ask the spectator if there is any way for you to know anything about their thought of numbers and be completely above suspicion as there is genuinely no way for you to know anything at this point in the routine. Their answer only helps further cement the illusion. The difference with this effect compared to what has been done in the past is how we use the “re-frame” principle and apply it to the method itself. This is a first in the art form and an entirely novel concept. Ross Tayler and I are extremely proud to have been able to give this break through to the art, first outlined in “Ouija”. How I apply this concept in this work is similar to Peter's “Not the Ed Marlo Snap Change” from “When in Rome”. I find it interesting that there is a cross over conceptually even though I worked my method out from a completely different starting point. It feels like we are all working within the same limitations in terms of method and because of this are finding similar ways to move the art forwards. As you will see, this basic concept opens up many new avenues for prop-less presentations of Mentalism, previously considered to be impossible. 44

Fraser Parker

Before moving on, I would like to quickly talk about hand gestures. These can help immensely, in terms of ensuring the spectator follows your initial instructions and counts upwards through the numbers in a sequential order. When giving my instructions to the spectator, I always mime in front of me with my hand where each of the thought of numbers is placed in the air, as an example of how I want them to visualize each number. This is done without openly telling the spectator to visualize in this particular way and is more of a subconscious cue for how you want them to think. I point with my fingers at different places in the air, in between the spectator and myself as if placing a 'full stop' where I imagine each of the numbers in front of me. I also move from one side to the other as I create each imaginary full stop. These hand gestures help to reinforce the notion, you want the spectator to count upwards through the numbers in a sequential order. Occasionally, your verbal instruction and hand gestures will not be enough. If they seem confused or start to verbalize that they are unsure what it is you want them to do then simply interrupt them and reiterate the first instructions, but add the word “next” to the script, as follows.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine, changing to the next number every time I snap my fingers. And just to make this fair, start on the very first number you thought of.” This change of scripting is still in-line with the overall illusion you are trying to create, whilst at the same time helping to bolster the notion of the spectator moving 45

False Messiah

sequentially through the numbers. In fact, if you’d like to be quite bold from the start, you can use this scripting instead of the first script I gave you. It is a little less subtle but will still fly right past everyone and still work with the re-frame. So how do you know the number they are thinking of? This is where the previous ploy of dismissing the first number they thought of, comes into play.

“Just out of curiosity, what was the very first number you thought of?” It will seem as if this line is really just an afterthought. Asking for this information will be above suspicion due to the “re-frame” and their belief you could not know in what order they changed their mind. It will not seem to matter if you are told the first number they thought of, as you seem to not know for certain that they counted through the numbers sequentially, starting on this number. You could not therefore, work out the number they are currently on simply by counting up through the numbers yourself, or so it seems to everyone. The fact that you know the spectator counted up through the numbers in order means that it’s easy to work out what number they thought was the first digit of your pin number. What you need to make all this work is the number they first chose, which you have told them is not your first number. From there it is a simple 46

Fraser Parker

case of counting how many times you snapped your fingers, leading them away from the “wrong” number. This is why you always snap your fingers a fixed amount of times. It is a force, which due to the structure of the effect doesn't seem like a force at all. In fact, the exact amount of times you snap your fingers will seem irrelevant to the spectator, during the performance and afterwards. The structure and backwards way each element of the deception is put together, ensure everything looks completely fair throughout the performance of the effect, whilst at the same time making it possible. What is beautiful about the way this is constructed is the fact the method and effect run along the same lines, to the point where there's little difference between the two. The spectator gives us the number they thought of at the start.

Spectator: “Three”. This secretly cues us into the number about which they are now thinking. In the example, if the spectator says the first number they thought of was 3, we simply count three from this number (the amount of times you snap your fingers), and arrive at the number about which they are currently thinking, which in this example would be the number 6. We just go through the same process mentally, they went through earlier. 47

False Messiah

It couldn't be simpler. You then immediately follow up your previous question with this statement.

“It appears I was right in having you dismiss your initial impression, as that wasn't my first number.” This line ties everything together in terms of the effect and makes complete sense from a routine point of view. It also suggests to the spectator, and everyone watching, that this piece of information is inconsequential, even though getting them to ‘voluntarily’ reveal that number underpins the entire routine and makes the effect possible. The fact that you dismiss this number as unimportant means that so will everyone else, which is quite beautiful, as it will never occur to anyone that you need this information to successfully perform the effect. Even if, by chance, they do think that the original number plays some role, it will not be clear to them how it could be of help to you in any way. So you now know the number they believe to be the first digit of your pin number. This means you are now in the perfect position to use “Springboard” for them to seemingly guess the rest of the digits of your pin number (outlined below). Of course they will not be guessing your actual pin number. They will simply be 48

Fraser Parker

making decisions at random and you will be following along mentally to work out the four digit number they write down. Later, you can 'miss call' this number as your pin code. I will now show you how we apply the “Springboard” principle, to this effect, after briefly describing what it is.

The “Springboard” principle is essentially, a way to obtain a piece of unknown information by comparing it to another piece of information, which also seems to be unknown by the performer, but has already secretly been obtained via a force or other such ploy. The fact that the performer knows the first piece means they can easily work out the second, once they know how these two bits of information differ. This is the basic method behind the wonderful “Springboard” principle by Michael Murray. For other brilliant uses of this, see Michael's award winning book, “A Piece of My Mind”. The way we apply this is to get the spectator to compare the information for us, as a result of them using their “own intuitive abilities”. This is the beautiful result of “flipping it on its head” and reversing the effect. It makes asking for this information transparent and seem incidental to the effect.

“Okay, just focus on what you feel the second digit of my pin number is 49

False Messiah

and really trust your intuitive abilities. Is it higher or lower than the first digit you have just written down?” You first ask the spectator if they feel the second digit is higher or lower than the first.

Spectator: “Higher.” They answer and then you ask them to what degree they feel the second number differs from the first.

“And exactly how much higher is the second digit than the first?” Spectator: “Two higher.” What is beautiful is that by simply asking them to confirm their thought process you can immediately calculate what they believe this number is. Because you know what the first number they wrote down was, you can also work out what they believe the second digit of your pin number is when you how they think these numbers differ. It is a simple maths calculation. For example, if you know the first number is 6 and you also know the second number is 2 higher, by their own words, then the answer is 8. All you have to do is mentally follow along with their decisions and remember 50

Fraser Parker

each of the numbers as you repeat this with each digit.

“Okay. Now focus on the third digit. Is it higher or lower than the second? And to what degree?” Spectator: “Lower. By four.” “Okay, finally focus on the last digit. And for some reason this always seems to be the hardest for people to get, so please, really trust your intuition. Now, would you say this number is higher or lower than the third?” Spectator: “Lower. By two.” “Okay, write this number down as well.” Once you have gone through the entire process of having them compare each of the numbers of 'your' pin, it is simply a case of either writing down the numbers you have followed in your head or miss call them as proof they have been able to divine your actual pin number.

“My pin number is 6842. How close did you get?”

51

False Messiah

They will be correct. It will be helpful if you read through this effect a few times. Therefore, I would like to go through the script again in its entirety and add a few comments, so that this is completely clear in your minds before moving on.

“I know you are wondering whether it is possible for me to use my abilities to guess your pin number? Yes, it is possible but what interests me more is whether it is possible for one of you to use your own intuitive abilities to be able to guess my pin number. You now turn to one of the spectators in the group, choose a volunteer and say the following:

“While doing this it is essential that you don't say anything out loud, unless I ask you to specifically. The reason is because I don't want you to give away any of your thought processes.” “I want you to focus on what you believe the first digit of my pin number is. The only clue I am going to give you is that it isn't a very high number.” They will usually go for a low number here such as 3 or 4. This will ensure that the 52

Fraser Parker

first digit of your pin number they arrive at will be a number that can be considered as not very high, such as 6 or 7. If they think of a number higher than 3 or 4 then this presents a potential problem, as the number they arrive at, as the first digit of your pin number, will be a high number, which you have already stated will not be the case. If the spectator mentions this after the fact then just say the following words.

“I meant to say it was a high number. What is interesting about this is you were still able to use your intuition and guess my pin even though I gave you the wrong information.” Most of the time this won't be a problem and the spectator will likely forget you even gave them these specific instructions, to begin with, when you know how they think these numbers differ.

“Okay, I can tell you that the number you are thinking of now isn't it. So, please, do this for me...” This is the bold bluff, which allows us to disregard the number they are now thinking of as unimportant, later on and also allows us to count away from it, in the first place.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine, 53

False Messiah

changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers. And just to make this fair start on the very first number you thought of.” The spectator will now count up through the numbers in order, from the number you disregard as being incorrect.

“So focus on this first number and change the number [snap your fingers]... change again [snap fingers]... and one more time [snap].” When you snap your fingers you should act as if you are trying to figure out the number they are currently thinking of – as if you are helping them to stop on the correct number. However, the number they eventually stop on should still seem to be a completely free choice and one based on their own ”intuitive abilities”.

“So you now have a completely different number in mind. Is that correct?” They will be able to answer this question with complete confidence, as they genuinely do have a different number in mind, at this point.

“And there is no way I could know if this number is the first digit of my pin code or for me to know any of the other numbers you thought of, as you literally could have changed your mind in any order. Right?”

54

Fraser Parker

This is a true statement combined with a false statement. The spectator will agree with you that you couldn't know any of the numbers at this point, as this is true. This helps cement the illusion. They will also now believe the second untrue statement to be true and think that there is also no way for you to know in which order they changed their mind. This also makes back tracking the effect impossible for the spectator as well as everyone watching. Everyone now perceives the effect along the same lines. I feel this is a most elegant solution to this type of effect. The method and effect run alongside each other perfectly to create the illusion with nothing more than the words you use and how the effect itself is perceived. In fact, the words stay the same throughout the performance whether the effect works or not. The only thing that changes is the perception of the spectator, which is temporarily shifted away from the illusion and then shifted back, allowing you to gain the information required so ultimately the effect works. The method is the same as the effect and that is a very special notion to consider. It’s all perception.

“Please write this number down so you won’t forget it. I will look away.” I always get the spectator to write down the numbers as they go, so they don't forget them.

55

False Messiah

“Just out of curiosity, what was the very first number you thought of?” Spectator: “Three.” They will give you the first number they thought of believing it could not help you in any way. In fact, it gives you their first digit. All you have to do is add three to it or however many times you previously snapped your fingers.

“It appears I was right in having you dismiss your initial impression, as that wasn't my first number.” This line causes everyone to dismiss the key piece of information needed for the effect to work as unimportant. This makes the method extremely hard to back track due to the way the effect is structured.

“Okay, just focus on what you feel the second digit of my pin number is and really trust your intuitive abilities. Is it higher or lower than the first digit you have just written down?” Spectator: “Higher.” “And exactly how much higher is the second digit than the first?”

56

Fraser Parker

Spectator: “Two higher.” Because you secretly know the first number you can now easily work out the second, from the information they give you. In this example the first number would be 6, therefore, the second digit would be 8. A tip to remember each number as you go through the routine is to keep on repeating them back to yourself silently, every time you are not reciting the script. The same process is repeated for the third and fourth numbers.

“Okay. Now focus on the third digit. Is it higher or lower than the second? And to what degree?” Spectator: “Lower. By four.” “Okay, finally, focus on the last digit. [And for some reason this always seems to be the hardest for people to get, so please, really trust your intuition.] Would you say this number is higher or lower than the third?” Spectator: “Lower. By two.” “Okay, write this number down as well.” 57

False Messiah

You now simply 'miss call' the numbers you have memorized as your actual pin number.

“My pin number is 6842. How close did you get?” I suggest whispering this information to the spectator. This makes sense from the point of view of the effect and also suggest this must be your actual pin code; otherwise you wouldn't be so careful about sharing it with everyone. Whenever there are two or more numbers the same in the number you know the spectator is thinking of, you can say the following line to help cement the illusion that they have guessed your pin number. Say the number they are thinking of is 2565. You can say the following words, as a convincer.

“I will tell you before revealing my actual pin number that there are two digits the same and these fall on the second and last digits.” You then lean in and whisper whatever four digit number you have both arrived on. They will always have written down the exact same four digit pin number you call out as your own, at the end of the routine – and what's great is this is all made possible with very little scripting – your words and your acting as if what you are 58

Fraser Parker

doing is true, are all that are required to create the illusion.

Re-frame re-cap Something I have played with is re-stating the “re-frame” after the effect is over. As soon as the effect is complete I would simply remind the spectator that they could have literally changed their mind in any order. This may not always be necessary or sit well with the specific effect for which you are using the “re-frame”. However, I feel sometimes it is useful to drive home the false notion of the illusion to help create the false memory of what has taken place in the minds of everyone watching. I used this re-capping of the “re-frame” once after I performed “My Pin” and the spectator agreed saying,

“That's the thing that was bothering me the most. I had a completely free choice.” Thereby completely missing the falsehood of what I was saying and further cementing the illusion with his confirmation of this false truth.

59

False Messiah

Credits 1. Your Intuition - When in Rome - Peter Turner 2. Springboard - A Piece of My Mind - Michael Murray 3. Not the Ed Marlo Snap Change - When in Rome - Peter Turner 4. Ouija - Fraser Parker & Ross Tayler

60

Fraser Parker

O – by Ross Tayler What follows is my go to effect when I need to quickly impress someone with a borrowed deck of cards. The thinking behind this has been called “ingenious” and it is one of the best ways I know of to mentally force a specific playing card. I have even fooled other magicians using this, in combination with other ploys. I think you will agree after learning this effect that it is one of the most beautiful bits of subterfuge that you have seen in card magic. Before getting into the method I would again like to briefly talk about the history of this effect and how it came to be. I originally published a version of this in my first book, “True Mysteries”. Kenton and the School also published a variation in “Mind Reading Lessons”. The basic idea was for the spectator to think of a playing card and then to change it by changing specific details of the card in such a way, that it became possible for the performer to guess the card the spectator would eventually settle on or get very close. These ideas were unfinished at the time and stayed this way for a long time after they were first shared with the magic community.

61

False Messiah

Many years later my good friend Ross Tayler announced to me over Skype that he had an update on one of my older ideas and he wished to share that with me. Naturally, I was very excited to see what he had been working on. We spoke casually for a while and then he proceeded to blow my mind with something he claimed was based off of my work. He had me think of a card. This was a completely free choice. He then got me to change my mind in the fairest way possible and to settle on a different card. I chose the Jack of Spades. He then asked me what card I was now thinking of and without any funny moves he went straight to his top pocket and ever so fairly removed one playing card. It was the Jack of Spades! I was completely floored. There was seemingly no explanation for what had just happened. The conditions were just too fair for this to be possible or even reliable but Ross assured me that the method he was using was both fair and reliable. I wasn't sure I wanted to be let in on the secret, as being fooled doesn't happen to me very often these days. Eventually, it got too much for me to bear and I persuaded him to tip the whole secret to me. Ross briefly outlined what he was doing and it quickly became apparent that what he had done was finish my original idea, which he himself had said this was based on. I got him to tip everything he knew about this break through and we decided to publish it all in what would be his first manuscript. Unfortunately, do to unforeseen circumstances at the time, we had to pull this from 62

Fraser Parker

my website and stop selling it. It came to our attention from our friend Peter Turner that another friend of mine Rus Andrews had just filmed a DVD with similar work on it. Even though Ross had created this without knowing anything about what Rus was doing at the time. At first we decided it would be best to stop selling the manuscript and give Rus the market on this. As what Ross came up with was based off of one of my unfinished ideas I feel that this is the perfect place to finally share some of our thoughts on this ploy. It is with Rus's blessing that I share this work with you. The following work is my handling of the basic version of what Ross shared with me and is how I now use this in close up performances. What this method allows you to do is perform an entirely verbal card force, where the spectator, in their mind, makes all of the decisions. They think of a completely free choice of playing card and then change it, in the fairest manner possible. All of this happens without anything ever having to be said out loud by the spectator or any physical forces needed or props of any kind, other than the one that proves you were correct. I will once again show you the full performance script before getting into the explanation, so that you can see for yourself, just how deceptive this method really is. Please feel free to follow along with the instructions and think of a playing card 63

False Messiah

yourself, as you read through the performance script.

“I want you to think of a playing card but don't make it one that I could easily guess. Okay?” Spectator: “Okay, got one.” “If this is a picture card I want you to change to a number card, if this is a number card then change it to a picture card. You may keep the same colour and suit.” “Okay, done!” “If you are now on a male card change to a female card... if it is a number card that is odd change it to an even number, if it is even change to odd. “So you now have a completely different card in mind. Correct?” “Yes.” If they have followed your instructions correctly the spectator should now, in most cases be thinking of either, the Queen of Hearts if they are female or the Queen of 64

Fraser Parker

Spades if they are male. These are the most common suits thought of by nonmagicians. Most lay audience female members will think of a Heart card when asked to think of a playing card and most males will think of Spades. The reason for this is because these suits are more psychologically appealing in my culture and are easier to visualize. Magicians will tend to go for the more obscure suits, Diamonds or Clubs. As you will see I usually take a bet on spectators choosing either the Queen of Hearts or the Queen of Spades. In any case, the previous scripting will always force one of the four Queens from out of the deck. This leaves you with four “outs” to work with or only two, if you prefer to be a little bolder in performance, like me. You may be wondering how this is possible. I will break down each element of the script so you can see for yourself exactly where the deception lies. This scripting is very convincing, even to other magicians. The difference between this and other verbal forces is that you seem to give the spectator a completely free choice of what playing card to think of, whilst at the same time offering them a free choice to change their mind a few times, to ensure a completely fair choice of card. Why this is such a beautiful method is the fact that the thing that makes this seem completely fair – the ploy of getting the spectator to change their mind a few times – is what actually makes it work.

65

False Messiah

Your words, although appearing to be completely above board and openly fair are what in fact, secretly lead the spectator to think of a specific card. Whilst seeming to offer a completely free choice, they actually secretly limit the choice of the spectator. The first part of the script ensures that in most cases they will be thinking of one of the number cards, to start off with.

“I want you to think of a playing card but don't make it one that I could easily guess. Okay?” You tell the spectator to not think of an obvious choice, which gently “nudges” them away from any of the picture cards as well as any of the aces. They will therefore, more often than not end up thinking of one of the number cards. The odds are in your favour, as there are more number cards in a deck than picture cards. In fact, the best way to think of this method in general is to conceptualize it as always shifting your spectator from a higher odds distribution to a lower odds distribution. In this case, we are using odds based around the different characteristics of a deck. However, this principle can be used for much more than merely forcing a thought of playing card. If you would like to see more on forcing other information, using specific categories, which are unrelated to card magic, then check out Ross Tayler's “Ecrof” manuscript. What this previous line does is restrict the choice of the spectator without seeming 66

Fraser Parker

restrictive. Said openly, your words appear to make the process even fairer whilst in reality they serve to psychologically move the spectator away from the picture cards and aces. The great thing about using such language is the fact that when it is said casually and at the start of a routine, it is easily and frequently forgotten. In fact, that is the wonderful thing about using words as the method in a-prop* effects. Your words disappear after they are spoken, as does the method, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for your spectators to back track what has taken place. They will now be thinking of a number card and suit and will feel like this is a completely free choice. The next piece of scripting ensures they always mentally change to one of the picture cards.

“If this is a picture card I want you to change to a number card, if this is a number card then change it to a picture card. You may keep the same colour and suit.” The first part of the scripting and the first instruction is redundant due to the fact the spectator will most of the time be thinking of a number card at this point in the routine. They will therefore, most of the time, follow the second instruction to 67

False Messiah

change their thought of card to one of the picture cards. What is great about this type of instruction is the fact that both polarities of an action and choice can be stated openly at the same time to create the illusion of free choice, whereas one of these options will always be left unfollowed by the spectator. And because their starting point is always the same, it means we can always guide the spectator's choice towards a specific outcome. We always give two options as a polarity of choice, one of which we always secretly know will have to be taken by the spectator. They will follow the second instruction as well as the instruction for them to keep the same suit and in the process, will change their thought of card to one of the picture cards.

“Okay, done!” This is where a beautiful idea from Peter Turner comes in. He first shared this with me when he showed me what Rus was doing with his similar method.

“If you are now on a male card change to a female card... if it is a number card that is odd change it to an even number, if it is even change to odd.” We now only give the spectator one side of the polarity of choice as an instruction when dealing with the picture cards. As they are thinking of a picture card they can only now either change from a “male” picture card – either a Jack or a King – to 68

Fraser Parker

the “female” picture card – a Queen – or stay on the female card they are on, if they are already thinking of the Queen. The fact that there are two possible male cards – a Jack and a King – and one female card – a Queen – they could be thinking of means that the odds are already in your favour that they will first think of a male card and then change to a Queen. However, to make this sure fire so they always end on a Queen, we only give the spectator one side of the polarity of choice. If they are thinking of one of the male cards then they will follow the instruction for them to change their thought of card to the Queen of that suit. If not, they will simply stay on the Queen they must be thinking of, as there is no instruction for them to do otherwise. We never offer the spectator the choice to change from a female card to a male card. Therefore, they must always end up on the Queen.

NOTE: Sometimes, you may see the spectator become slightly confused, whilst delivering this part of the script. If you see this happening then simply add on the following words, “... Or stay on the card you are on.” They will understand this to mean for them to stick to the Queen. Not only will this end their confusion, it will also seem to add to the fairness of the process.

69

False Messiah

We then instantly follow this one-sided instruction with a gratuitous free choice. The fact that this unfair option is immediately followed by a pseudo “fair choice” ensures that it flies right by everyone. All of the options will seamlessly blend into one instruction to create the illusion of a completely free choice. The spectator will assume they had as much freedom with the picture cards as they did with the number cards. This is working smarter and not harder. The heavy lifting is done with the simple exclusion of one side of the first polarity of the instructions. The fact that this part is then blended in with another completely “fair” two-sided polarity, and that this method exists only in words, ensures that this bold ploy goes by unnoticed and is easily forgotten. In the end everything blends into one and it will seem as if they have had a completely free choice of how to change their minds throughout the effect. However, as you can now see, this is just giving them the illusion of free choice. This choice between odd and even cards is mental misdirection, due to the fact the spectator will always be thinking of a picture card at this point in the routine. Thanks to the previous line and bold ruse they will now be thinking of one of the Queens.

“So you now have a completely different card in mind, yes?”

70

Fraser Parker

Spectator: “Yes.” You can now ask the spectator for the playing card they are now thinking of and reveal it however you wish. As already stated I prefer to only use the two outs – the Queen of Hearts and Queen of Spades. These are the card suits chosen most often by lay audiences, in my culture. This may differ depending on which culture for which you perform. I have found in England, people almost always pick Hearts or Spades, as these suits seem to be more easily recognisable to lay audiences. I will usually place the Queen of Hearts in one of my pockets when performing for a female and have the Queen of Spades placed at a set position in the deck and visa versa, when performing for a male. The hope is that the person I am performing for will name the card in my pocket. If they name this force card then I would simply pull the card out of my pocket and finish. If they name the other ‘out’ I would then go into a version of the any card at any number effect, using the card already set up in my deck. The way I would get them to the correct card in the deck is to use the stop force. I have the force card already placed at the 11th position in the deck. I ask the spectator to pick up the cards and to “Slowly deal the cards face down to the 71

False Messiah

table, one card at a time” and when they get to the 7th card (4 cards before the force card) I casually add on the line “Stop somewhere.” This line is said as if you meant for them to stop sooner and is designed to subtly pressure the spectator to stop on or around the correct card. They will usually deal three more cards. This allows you to reveal the card they stopped on as the card on top of the deck, whilst still allowing you room for manoeuvre. If they deal one more card then expected then you can simply turn over the last card dealt onto the pile of cards on the table and reveal the thought of card this way instead. The reason this works is due to timing. It is a classic of magic and is really easy to perform once you have the correct timing and attitude towards it. If for any reason they decide to deal past the force card then they will usually only deal a few more cards. When this happens you can apply another beautiful ruse from my friend Peter Turner and ask the following question.

“Would you be the type of person who, when given the choice, would deal a couple more cards or take some back?” Usually they will only deal one or two cards past the force card, which is why I use the words “a couple” of cards. I would then tell them to either take a “couple” of cards back or deal a few more, depending on how they answer the previous question. If they take a “couple” of cards back you will usually be in the perfect position to either reveal the top card of the pile on the table or the top card of the deck. 72

Fraser Parker

This is very bold and gives you a beautiful ‘out’ when they deal too far. It is very Chan Canasta-esque in its boldness but I have found this approach works often. This sort of thing is hard to explain in print but what you are essentially doing is forcing the spectator to do the opposite of what they believe you want them to do. It all comes down to your ability to act a certain way. If you need them to deal a “few” more cards then you have to act as if you want them to take some cards back and if you need them to take some cards back then you have to act as if you really want them to continue dealing. If the spectator says they don't want to do “either” then say, “If given the choice,

what would you do?” This seems to add fairness to the process, whilst at the same time allowing you to readjust, if needed. If they deal way past the force card, then you can be even bolder and give the following direction to the spectator.

“Okay, now just take some back to make this completely fair.” This gives me yet another chance to hit their force card, which more often than not comes off. This is how I currently perform an “any card at any number”, when jazzing with a 73

False Messiah

borrowed deck of cards. However, if you don't want to be as bold then you can place the force card on top of the deck and use a reverse count, to create the illusion of the spectator dealing down to the correct position in the deck. The way to do this correctly is taught on the “True Astonishment” box set in an effect called “Extraordinary Proof” by Andrew Gerard. I also use this as my basic out if the card force fails. As I spread through the cards towards myself I simply say,

“Is there any way you could know where (the card they name) is in the deck?” When I find their card I casually cut it to the top of the deck and then proceed, as if nothing had gone wrong. This is how I use this verbal card force. I have one of my planned on “outs” in my pocket or placed off to the side on the table and one in my deck. I can then either call attention to the card placed face down on the table or leave it for a reveal later on. You could use the four Queens as 'outs' and perform this as a “Think of a card” effect. If you were to go down this route, I would suggest having each ‘out’ 74

Fraser Parker

isolated, so that it can be shown to be the only card in that specific place. You may be wondering what happens when they do not follow your instructions perfectly or the verbal force fails. The solution to this would be to simply use the non-force card they name in any other effect. To the spectator you have just had them choose a card in an interesting way or have perhaps, somehow influenced their choice.

Credits 1. Ross Tayler - O 2. Fraser Parker - True Mysteries 3. Rus Andrews – Destination

75

False Messiah

TOD O – by Ross Tayler What follows is a wonderful variation and use for the above card force. This again comes from the ingenious mind of my good friend Ross. The only thing I have changed from how this was first written up is the specific wording we now use. The structure and basic ideas are the same. I simply had to change the script to accommodate the use of the four Queens as 'outs'. The following method allows for a completely mental “Tossed Out Deck” presentation where there is no longer the need for a specially arranged deck of cards to be in play or props of any kind. Everything happens in the minds of the spectators. The method is entirely a-prop and uses nothing but words and perception to make it work. Those of you, who know the classic TOD methodology from the wonderful creator and thinker David Hoy, may already be ahead of me. However, there is a lot more going on in our unique presentation of this classic than may at first be obvious. The following approach allows for some nice theatrical moments, non-existent in the original presentation of this. I will briefly explain the basic concept behind the original Tossed Out Deck and how it works, for those who are unfamiliar with the effect. The performer on stage takes out a deck of cards wrapped with an elastic band at one end. This is to ensure the cards stay together. He then proceeds to throw the 76

Fraser Parker

deck out into the audience for an audience member to catch. The person who caught the deck then instantly follows the directions the performer gave before throwing the deck into the audience. These instructions state that whoever catches the deck is to lift up the cards and break the deck at a random position, take a peek at the face of the card above the break and then instantly throw the deck to someone else in the audience. This process is repeated four or five times and then the deck is thrown back to the performer on stage, where it can be put away. This creates the illusion that each one of the audience members that received the deck is now thinking of a freely chosen playing card. The performer then has the randomly chosen audience members stand. He names four or five playing cards he believes they are thinking of and then, while pointing to the standing audience members one by one, confidently states,

“If I got your card correct, please sit down!” They each sit down and in the process also confirm the performer has accurately read their minds and guessed each of their cards. This is a beautiful effect when performed correctly and is now considered a modern classic, for good reason. It is clear for your audience to understand and can be used to quickly establish credibility if performed as an opener or early on in your show. Not only is the effect very strong the method itself is a beautiful example of lateral 77

False Messiah

thinking. The basic idea behind this effect goes all the way back to “The General Card” principle, first appearing in an unpublished manuscript as early as the 1600's. David Hoy was the first to apply it in this way using the TOD presentation, now synonymous with his name. The way this works is with the use of a special prop – namely a stacked deck of cards – as well as some very sneaky psychology. Originally, this was performed by Hoy using a “one way” force deck with all fifty-two cards consisting of the same card, apart from the face card of the deck, which needed to be a different card from the force card for this to be deceptive. Later, other magicians experimented with using a force deck of three force cards, which repeat through the entire deck. This was to ensure that if any of the audience members were to “riffle” through the cards by accident they would see different cards and not just one force card repeated throughout the deck. This ploy becomes even clearer in the original version of this. As each of the participant's are thinking of the same force card all the performer has to do is mention this force card, as well as a few other random cards, to create the illusion each of the cards named are in fact being thought of by each of the participants, individually. This creates the compelling illusion of thought reading. Each spectator will believe that the other spectators are thinking of the other random cards and they are the only ones thinking of the force card. 78

Fraser Parker

All you have to do is make sure you include the force card or cards, when you state the cards you believe the spectators are thinking of to create the illusion that all of the cards you mention were thought of, even though only the force or force cards could have possibly been thought of. They have all thought of one of the force cards and will therefore sit down regardless of the fact that you also mention cards about which no one is thinking. What is beautiful about the previous verbal card force is the fact that it allows you to perform the same effect as the TOD routine, but completely a-prop. The verbal card force gets each audience member to one of four 'outs' mentally, which effectively does the same job as a forcing deck, without the need for an actual deck of cards to be in play. The main difference between this and the classic version of the routine is in how we now handle the reveal, to allow for the use of the four outs of the same value but with different suits – the Queens. This opens up some very interesting possibilities theatrically, of multiple climaxes not possible with the original physical deck version. I am pleased to say once again that this is a natural outcome of the method working alongside the effect. The potential weaknesses and compromise of the method are turned into strengths, presentationally. They add to the routine and the overall effect instead of hindering it. So that you can get a feel for how this plays to an audience, I will first give an example of one possible performance scripting, before explaining it fully. I will 79

False Messiah

show you the card force in action and then the different possible outcomes to the routine and how to deal with each of those. If you have not yet read the card force outlined above then please make sure you are familiar with it before continuing, else what follows will make little sense.

“Please would each of you stand up for me?” The performer points to five audience members from different areas of the audience. The reason each participant is chosen from a different part of the theatre is to ensure they do not speak to each other afterwards and realize they each thought of the same force card or similar cards. This precaution is also taken when performing the original version of this effect.

“I would like each of you to think of a single playing card from out of a deck, but don't think of an obvious choice.” “So, now you each have a card in mind?” They will confirm this with a “yes” or a nod of their head.

“I want to make this process entirely fair, so there is no way I could have any influence over the cards you will each choose along the way. In order to do that please follow my instructions as they will help ensure that each of you ends up with a completely random and different playing 80

Fraser Parker

card.” “If you are currently thinking of a picture card I want you to change it to one of the number cards from out of the deck. If it is a number card you are thinking of then change it to one of the picture cards.” Wait for the spectators to follow this instruction and confirm they each now have a different card in mind.

“If you are now thinking of a male card change it to a female. If this is an odd number card then change it to and even card. If it is odd, change it to an even number. “Okay, you should now each be thinking of a completely random and different card. Please, each of you just focus on your card for me.” “I am getting the following cards... The Queen of Hearts... The Five of Clubs... The Nine of Diamonds... The Six of Spades... And the King or Queen of Spades.” Point to each of the participants and say the following words to each of them, individually.

81

False Messiah

“If I have your card correct, please sit down.” Every one of the participants will sit down and systematically confirm you read their minds and were able to guess the card about which they were thinking. This is the most likely outcome and will occur most frequently. Here are the other possible outcomes to this effect. One of the participants remains standing.

“Okay, I was a little hazy on the last card. This is a black card, yes?” “Yes.” “Just focus on this card. Is this the Queen of Clubs?” “Yes.” “Thank you. Please sit.” If they say it isn't a black card then you would simply finish this way instead.

“Okay, that's where I went wrong. Just focus on this card. Is it the Queen of Diamonds?” 82

Fraser Parker

“Yes.” “Please sit down for me.” Either way, you can see you will end successfully. The reason for this will become clear in a moment, if it isn’t already. The third way this effect can play out is with two or more audience members remaining standing. This is the scripting for when you have two participants left over. They will either both be thinking of the same card exactly or cards of the same value of a different colour and suit.

“Okay, which one of you is thinking of the black card?” If they both confirm that they are indeed thinking of a black card then you can end in the following way.

“Okay, this is quite interesting. I feel you are both thinking of the same card. Is it the Queen of Clubs?” They will both answer with a “yes” and sit down. You have not only guessed the correct card but also picked up on the coincidence of them both thinking of the same card. 83

False Messiah

If they act indifferent to your query about whether or not they are thinking of a black card then you know they are both thinking of the same red card.

“Interestingly, I feel you are both thinking of the same card by coincidence. Are you both thinking of the Queen of Diamonds?” They will sit down. If one participant were thinking of a black card and the other of a red card then you would finish with the following script.

“Okay, I feel you are both thinking of a similar card which is why I was confused. I feel like you are thinking of the Queen of Clubs and you are thinking of the Queen of Diamonds. If I have named your card, please sit down.” They will both sit down. If there are more than two audience members left standing then you simply find out who is thinking of a red or black card and handle any coincidence, respectively. In either case, you will always be able to name the specific cards thought of by each of the audience members left standing and also reveal any coincidence in terms of participants thinking of the same card, ahead of the reveal. 84

Fraser Parker

Those of you familiar with the TOD and who have followed everything to this point will be way ahead of me. However, I will now explain how each of these reveals works. What is really nice about this method is the fact that the different possible outcomes of certain audience members not sitting actually provides additional subtlety and allows for multiple, different climaxes, with which to end the routine. All of this is made possible automatically with no extra work, thanks to our unique approach to forcing the playing cards thought of by the audience members. These multiple endings are inherent to the method and a natural aspect of it. The different possible outcomes to this effect are actually 'outs' required for the forcing procedure to be effective. However, they only help to increase the impact of the effect. The most common outcome is for each of the spectators to sit down, with no one left standing. The reason this works is because of the exact scripting you use to reveal the “playing cards” of which everyone is thinking.

“I am getting the following cards... The Queen of Hearts... The Five of Clubs... The Nine of Diamonds... The Six of Spades... And the King or Queen of Spades.” These words are spoken to all of the participants as a group. They include two of 85

False Messiah

the most commonly thought of 'outs' from four possible force cards (see previous effect “O”), i.e., the Queen of Hearts and the Queen of Spades, with the other force cards being the Queen of Clubs and the Queen of Diamonds. The Queen of Hearts is stated explicitly in the script and the Queen of Spades is also included in the last piece of scripting,

“... and the King or Queen of Spades.” Not only does this line include one of the commonly thought of force cards, it also sets up the 'outs' when one or more participants stay on their feet. This line creates the idea of you possibly being slightly 'off' on one or more of the thought of cards. It also helps to hide the direct calling out of another one of the force cards and makes your impression seem to be generally centred around the picture cards and much more vague than it actually is. This covers both the Queen of Hearts and the Queen of Spades. Most of the time these are the cards about which each one of your participants will be thinking, therefore they will all sit down. And thanks to the TOD method each of the audience members will think that the others thought of one of the other playing cards you mention. This is the most likely outcome. The illusion is perfect.

86

Fraser Parker

Since two of the four possible cards they could be thinking about are already covered with this scripting, it is now incredibly easy to 'pump' for the correct card with whoever doesn’t sit down. If any of them stay standing then this means they must be thinking of either the Queen of Clubs or the Queen of Diamonds. It is a simple matter of finding out who is thinking of a black card and who is thinking of a red one to be able to easily discern the card they are thinking about. The rest of the presentation is covered perfectly in the script. It looks like you were unsure on the last card of the reveal and need to get the participant or participants to re-focus on their card for you to be able to name it exactly. Because this is already set up in the script it flows naturally in presentation and any of the previously described outcomes in no way appear out of place. You will always be able to end successfully and be in a strong position to name the exact card which each of those still standing are thinking. There is even the added bonus of being able to tell two or more spectators that they have thought of the same card before revealing the specific card that they are both thinking about. This explanation along with the previous performance script should be enough for you to understand everything that is going on with this routine. If you are still unsure then read through the script again and follow along with each of the different possible outcomes until you become confident you understand why the script works the way it does. You may be wondering what happens if one or more spectators still do not sit down. This means they have either not followed your instructions correctly or they 87

False Messiah

originally thought of a picture card instead of the number card required for the TOD presentation and previous mental card force to work. When this situation arises I would simply ask those still standing to sit and accept only being able to divine three or four out of the five cards correctly. This is still an impressive feat. If you prefer you can plan on an 'out' and use an “Invisible Deck” to 'prove' you knew ahead of time that you would fail at this particular moment in the routine, as well as which card or cards would cause you problems. This is twisted logic but with the correct presentation can be very impressive to the audience.

Credits 1. Ross Tayler - O 2. Ross Tayler - TOD O 3. David Hoy - TOD - Bold & Subtle Miracles of Dr. Faust 4. General Card Principle – Unpublished

88

Fraser Parker

Name Guess The following work is something that was only a dream of mine for quite some time. The ability to guess almost any name or word someone is only thinking – i.e., completely a-prop, without the use of billets, tears, peeks or any of the usual ploys -- seemed almost impossible. I knew that if it was possible to guess the name or word your participant was thinking of, with nothing but the words you speak as the method, then I would have to find a way to do it. I spent countless hours working through different approaches to this problem, constantly refining my ideas and in some cases throwing away entire methods. This drive toward perfection eventually lead to my collaboration with Ross and produced the subsequent “Ouija” manuscript. We are both very proud of what we achieved in that work. It is a tool and principle that already has been and will be applied in many different ways in the performance of modern Mentalism. Now I have taken these ideas, expanded upon them, and produced the effects in this book. My work on this now frees up the amount of applications for the “reality reframe” principle as well as giving it a more natural use. By eliminating the need for multiple letters being spoken by the spectator, I have eliminated a potential weakness of “Ouija”, the first billet-less name guess. The following application of the main principle feels more in line with a “psychic” entertainer's presentation than that of a psychological approach. This suits my own preference when it comes to performing. If you prefer a more psychological approach to presentation then the bare bones of the following method can still be 89

False Messiah

applied to your own performances. It is a simple matter of changing the presentation and scripting to suit your own unique style. As with the previous effect, “My Pin”, I have applied the principle of the “reality re-frame” in a much broader sense than in “Ouija” – this time to the alphabet, instead of numbers. The idea of the spectator counting up through a string of information is used but this time the tool is applied specifically to a name guess and the letters of the alphabet. This presents us with unique problems that require specific solutions, which also happen to be found in the presentation. Once again the presentation and method work perfectly together to create the overall illusion of mind reading. The main difference with how the “re-frame” is used in this effect, compared to “My Pin”, is how the needed piece of information is obtained. In “My Pin” the necessary bit of information can be deduced by the performer by casually asking what the first number the spectator was focusing on. This is entirely natural to that specific presentation. The fact the effect has been “flipped on its head” and the spectator guesses information about which you are thinking as opposed to you trying to guess their thoughts, means you can ask what their first thought was and then work out the thought about which they will currently be thinking in the routine. This fits the presentation perfectly and flies right by everyone.

90

Fraser Parker

As the following effect is about you guessing their thought, instead of them guessing yours, this process is reversed. To be able to back track what their first thought was means we have to find a way of asking for the information they will eventually be focusing on as opposed to the thought they were thinking from the start. The piece of information that needs to be verbalized by the spectator is now at the opposite end of the process. This will become clearer as we go through the explanation of this effect. I just wanted to point out the main difference when using this broader version of the “reality re-frame” principle to guess the thoughts of the spectator compared with when the spectator guesses the thoughts of the performer. This reverse way of using the principle also opens up a beautiful possibility for presentation. In the following effect, you will be guessing the name your spectator is thinking of but because of the way you now have to obtain the required information, you also get a free reading off the back of the performance. More on this in a moment. If you haven't already read the previous effect “My Pin” then I suggest that you do so before moving on, as some of the principles already taught, will only be touched upon briefly, in this explanation. I will now outline the full script so you can get an idea of how this will play, in 91

False Messiah

performance. In the following example, imagine the spectator is already thinking of the first name of a female close to them.

“Only speak if I ask you a direct question, so you don't give away your thought process. “I want you to mentally run through the letters of the alphabet from a to z, changing the letter you are on every time I snap my fingers. “So that we start off on the same letter, focus on the first letter of the name you are thinking of and change the letter now [snap fingers]... Change it again [snap]... And again [snap]. “You now have a completely different letter in mind, yes?” “Yes.” “Can you think of a positive characteristic or trait of the person you are thinking of that begins with the letter you are now thinking? If you can't then just say a word you would associate with this person that begins with this letter. 92

Fraser Parker

“Hilarious.” “Okay, I want you to do the exact same thing but this time focus on the second letter of the name you are thinking of and change the letter [snap fingers]... Change again [snap]... And again [snap]. “Can you give me a negative characteristic this time that begins with the letter you are now thinking about? If not then just say a word beginning with this letter, one you would connect with this person.” “Party.” “Okay, just so this is clear. Every time I snapped my fingers, you changed to a different letter. You could have literally changed these letters in any order. Therefore, there is no way for me to just back track or know any of the letters you have thought of previously, correct?” “Okay.” “These characteristics and traits as well as what I sense from you about this person in general, tell me that they are the type of person who... 93

False Messiah

[insert reading here]. “Okay, just focus on the first letter of the name, for me. “Can you count how many letters there are in the name? “Okay, done.” “This is four or five letters?” “Five.” “Okay, just focus on the name. “This is Emily, correct?” You will be correct. Believe it or not, it really is that clean. Most of the time you will be able to nail the exact name, with no more extra fishing using only a few lines of scripting, as in the example above. Not only have you guessed the name of the person they are thinking of completely a- prop, you have also been able to give an accurate reading about this person, as if getting to know them in this way somehow enables you to guess other specific details about them such as their name. This is all made possible due to the fact you can apparently read the mind of the 94

Fraser Parker

person in front of you. As this is very similar to the previous effect, “My Pin”, you may already have an idea how this works. I will break it down for you, so you can see the differences between this and the previous approach of “flipping it on its head” and reversing the process. The effect involves you guessing the thoughts of your spectator instead of them trying to guess yours. This changes how the effect is structured and how you go about obtaining the required information from the spectator. The first thing we do is “mute” the spectator to ensure they don't verbalize any doubts they may have about the process and potentially destroy the illusion.

“Only speak if I ask you a direct question, so you don't give away your thought process”. This means that if the spectator becomes confused or unsure about exactly how you want them to follow the directions, they will not voice their confusion and will simply follow the most obvious meaning of your instructions. This will have them following along perfectly and doing exactly what you need them to do for the effect to work. If at any point they start to ask for clarification of your instructions cut them off 95

False Messiah

immediately by verbally reminding them they are not to say a word, then give your instructions again.

“I want you to mentally run through the letters of the alphabet from a to z, changing the letter you are on every time I snap my fingers. “So that we start off on the same letter, focus on the first letter of the name you are thinking of and change the letter now [snap fingers]... Change it again [snap]... And again [snap.]” To the spectator, the previous script is understood as the following instructions:

1.

Count up through the letters from a to z mentally, in sequential

order (a... b... c... etc.) 2.

Move to the next letter every time I snap my fingers.

3.

Start on the first letter you thought of (which will be the first letter

of the name they are thinking of). However, the script is ambiguous enough to also mean the following:

1.

Think of the letters of the alphabet.

2.

Change the letter you are thinking of randomly, every time I snap

my fingers jump to a different letter. 96

Fraser Parker

3.

So we have a chance of being in sync with each others thought

process, start on the first letter in the name you are thinking of. The spectator will understand the instructions to have the first set of meanings and follow along accordingly. It is only after the “re-frame” that the spectator, as well as the audience, will perceive everything that has taken place, and the instructions, to be in line with the second meaning of your words. The reason they follow along with the first set is partly due to the fact this is the most obvious meaning for your words prior to the illusion of the effect playing out. But during the process you are speaking directly to them and perceptions change. As in the previous effect, you will need to deliver the same had gestures (see “My Pin”) to fully drive home the fact you mean for the spectator to count up through the letters of the alphabet in sequential order. Snap your fingers a few times and get the spectator to seemingly change the letter they are focusing on at random, from the first letter of the name they are thinking of to a completely different letter of the alphabet. Due to the fact they will only be moving up through the letters of the alphabet, and not jumping between letters of the alphabet in a random order, you will be able to essentially follow their thought process. If you find out what letter they settled on you will be able to easily back track 3 letters to also know on which letter they started. This letter will of course be whatever letter you asked them to focus on originally. In this case, they start on the first letter in the name of which they are thinking.

97

False Messiah

The reason we give for the spectator focusing on this letter first is so that we have a chance at getting in sync with their thought process. The effect then is that we are somehow able to follow their thought process and tune in to the changes they have made in their mind. This premise only makes sense in retrospect, after the “reframe”, and will be understood as the basic instruction with which you began. What we are essentially doing with the previous process is shifting the spectator down the alphabet a few places. This allows us to ask them for a letter that is only indirectly associated with their thought of name. It does not necessarily belong in the name as the first or second letter. However, it is related to the spectator’s original letter in terms of a train of thought they had whilst jumping to different letters. So it seems to everyone watching that perhaps it is possible for the performer to follow this thought process in some way. This is implied by the effect and is how the spectator will see it. This possible explanation for how we are able to know the thoughts of the spectator is actually the true situation for now. They have been instructed to move to the following letter in the alphabet, every time you snap your fingers. This means that their thought process is something that can be known. However, this notion will be adjusted in a moment with the “reframe”, which will ensure the spectator is also fooled along the same lines as everyone else. As you snap your fingers a specific amount of times (I personally use three snaps), you will always be able to back track the first letter about which they were thinking. All you have to do is find out the letter they changed to after the snaps 98

Fraser Parker

and count backwards mentally through the alphabet to discover the original thought of letter. As this will guide you to the first letter of the name, or whatever letter of a word you wish to have them focus on, you are now able to divine letters from any word whatsoever, completely a-prop (billet-less) and use these letters as well as other information about the name or word to successfully guess what it is. The way we cover this asking for the letter they change to is to hide it in with a personality reading (more on this later). This fits the premise of a name guess perfectly due to the personal nature of the information being revealed, whilst also providing some time misdirection between when you ask for information and when you reveal the thought of name.

“You now have a completely different letter in mind, yes?” This is a truthful statement. They must agree with you. This line will help cement the idea that they changed to a different letter and help create the notion that it is not possible to back track or discern any of the letters in the name that they are thinking about.

“Can you think of a positive characteristic or trait of the person you are thinking of that begins with the letter which you are now thinking about? If you can't then just say a word you would associate with this person that begins with this letter.” This line is beautiful. Not only does it allow you to ask for the letter indirectly, it 99

False Messiah

also gives you a warm reading for free. Think of it as the spectator performing an “A to Z” style reading for you. Instead of you using the letters of a name to generate a reading, as in other readings systems such as Richard Webster's and the work of Ken DeCoursey, instead you get the spectator to do it for you. This happens automatically when they search their own mind for characteristics and traits of the person they are thinking about. The word they give you tells you information about their personality, which you can then use as a basis for giving a reading. Even if they struggle to give you a word associated directly to their personality, and instead give you any other word, it will still give you some insight into their personality. For example, the word “Party” might suggest they are very social. The fact that you ask for a word beginning with the letter they are currently thinking about ensures the asking stays more indirect. They will name a word and you will instantly know the letter. This helps to hide the method; whilst at the same time sets up the reading situation. Now all you have to do is jump back 3 letters of the alphabet (or however many times you snap your fingers) to work out the first letter of the name that they are thinking about. In our example, they give you the word “Hilarious”. This means that the first letter of the name they are thinking of has to be the letter “E”, since “E” is three letters before “H” (the first letter of the word they name).

100

Fraser Parker

There are two ways you can do this. You can either learn the alphabet backwards and simply count backwards to the first letter in your mind or use a memory “peg” system to instantly know the letter. I prefer to “peg” this information, so that I can recall the correct letter right away with no delay, whatsoever. I find it easier to memorize this information than to try to go backwards through the alphabet, personally. The exact crib and method I use to memorize this information will be outlined later.

“Okay, I want you to do the exact same thing but this time focus on the second letter of the name you are thinking of and change the letter [snap fingers]... Change again [snap]... And again [snap].” This line ensures the spectator will follow the same instructions as before and not change how they mentally travel through the alphabet. The only difference is you now have them start on the second letter of the name they are thinking of. This is so that you can back track to this second letter after they have gone through the process again. In the past I would apply the “re-frame” after I knew the first letter with the hope that the line for the spectator to “do the exact same thing” would be enough for them to continue to follow my previous instructions correctly. However, what would sometimes happen is they would change how they followed the instructions for the second letter so that it made sense from the point of view of the “re-frame”. They would somehow perceive the instructions differently and this would stop them from following the instruction the way they did originally. They would 101

False Messiah

genuinely jump from letter to letter randomly instead of sequentially as desired. It is for this reason I decided to go through the process with the first two letters of the name before applying the “re-frame”. I have found this has no affect on the deceptiveness of the effect itself and everyone is still completely fooled by the method.

“Can you give me a negative characteristic this time that begins with the letter you are now on? If not then just say a word beginning with this letter, you would connect with this person.” They give you the word “Party”. In our example, therefore, the second letter of the name they are thinking of must be the letter “m”. You ask for a negative personality trait this time, to provide some light and shade to the reading you are about to give. This justifies using two letters of the name to obtain different aspects of this person's personality. What is nice about this is the first and second letters will mostly be forgotten about and only the fact they gave you a positive and negative trait, in order for you to give a reading will be remembered. Also, because you now have a positive and negative characteristic, it should be easy to give a reading that falls somewhere in between the polarities of a personality, the information being provided by the spectator themselves. Again, if they struggle to do this (as in the example) then you simply get them to give you any other word they would associate with the target person. 102

Fraser Parker

Now comes the “re-frame”. This is the most important line in the script and is what allows you to get away with what would usually be obvious.

“Okay, just so this is clear. Every time I snapped my fingers, you changed to a different letter. You could have literally changed these letters in any order. Therefore, there is no way for me to just back track or know any of the letters you have thought of previously, correct?” Said with complete conviction this statement will be accepted as truth by your spectator, as well as everyone else watching your performance. If you act as if you believe this yourself, you will convince everyone this is so and in the process change how everyone perceives reality. Your words shift the perception of the spectator so that they now believe you meant for them to jump through the letters of the alphabet randomly instead of sequentially. The way you act is what convinces them of this. They will believe that because you still seem to not know how they actually changed the letters in their mind you were not following along and you could therefore not possibly know what letters they were thinking about. It is this single falsehood and your conviction in it, which creates the illusion and ensures that everyone is fooled along the same lines. You temporarily shift meaning to get away with a “mental peek” of information and then shift the perception of the spectator back to the point of view of the illusion and effect you 103

False Messiah

are literally creating with your words. Everyone will now believe there was no way for you to back track or guess any of the letters thought of by the spectator, even if they were to name the very last letters they thought about. It is hard to believe that this will work, until you actually try it. This may be the boldest thing I have ever performed and I’m still a little surprised it works so effectively. I feel as if this level of deception was always available to us, we just had to learn to apply it to a purely verbal presentation. If Ross and I had not tried to push the envelope or thought it was even possible then we would have never realized just how much you can “get away with” in performance. The fact the method exists solely in the words you use and how what you do is perceived makes this a perfect illusion. Once the effect is perceived a certain way after the illusion is tied up, there is only the illusion you wished to create left over for all to see. I think of this in terms of any other magic trick where sleight of hand and misdirection would be used to conceal the secret. The only difference is now it is a purely verbal technique that shifts perception and uses words to hide the mechanics of what is truly going on. To help with the deceptiveness of this effect I now give a reading to provide time misdirection between the asking for letters and the subsequent revelation of the name. This is not essential. However, I feel it helps hide the directness of the method. It also provides a nice addition to the presentation. This is how I personally use readings; as a way to bolster the effect theatrically and add a more 104

Fraser Parker

“psychic” feel to my performances.

“These characteristics and traits as well as what I sense from you about this person in general, tell me that they are the type of person who... [insert reading here].” Giving a good reading is a very personal and subjective skill of the performer. No two performers will approach readings in the exact same way. I have therefore decided not to give an example of the reading script I may use but have instead decided to leave this to each of you to apply your own preferred reading methods. Trust your own intuition and insights. I have found this piece of advice and the basic secret taught in “Completely Cold” by my friend and mentor Kenton Knepper are all that you need to be able to give a good reading. The reading can be as long or as short as you like. It doesn't really matter how successful you are or how many “hits” you get at this point because the subsequent revelation of the name they are thinking of will confirm everything as true. If you can accurately guess the name then the spectator will assume you must have been correct with elements of the reading, too. They usually convince themselves of this. Due to readings being general enough to fit most personality types this direct “hit” on the name will usually shift the balance in their minds that all or most of what you said is true and they will therefore believe your reading was also accurate. 105

False Messiah

This principle is known as the “confirmation” principle and was made popular by Kenton and Peter Turner.

“Okay, just focus on the first letter of the name for me.” After I have given the reading I now get the spectator to focus on the first letter of the name again. This is done for purely presentational purposes, as well as providing further misdirection away from the method. The fact you need to get the spectator to focus on the first letter, indirectly suggests you don't already know it. However, you are actually in the perfect position to now guess the name they are thinking of, once you have performed a few quick subtleties that will help you to do so. You now know the first two letters of the name they are thinking. With the following subtleties it is now possible to successfully guess the name the spectator is thinking of, most of the time with no extra work. There will only be a few possible names of which they could be thinking. You will often be down to only two. It is for this reason we have the following principles and subtleties to use alongside the main method, to enable you to accurately guess the name. These are additional ploys we always use in conjunction with this effect. I always use these subtleties after giving my reading, to separate them from the process of 106

Fraser Parker

changing letters. This groups them with the actual name guess and ensures everything looks natural.

Abbreviation Ploy The first principle we use before guessing the name involves getting the spectator to abbreviate the name they are thinking of, if this is possible. This principle is used in the “Billet-less Name Guess” (from “Bigger Fish 2” by Peter Turner). It is a way of narrowing down the possible names, although it may not seem it from the point of view of everyone watching, which is why this is such a perfect and subtle principle to use. This works by asking the following question to the spectator.

“Okay, if you can abbreviate the name or make it shorter, please do that now.” This is more of an instruction, which will have the spectator easily find a shorter version of the name and give you confirmation they have done so, or struggle to find one. It is really easy to see when this happens. If you are still unsure whether or not they have abbreviated the name then just simply ask them, i.e., “Did you find one?”

In either case, you now know whether they are thinking of a shorter version of the name or not and this gives you a further clue to use in a moment, when guessing

107

False Messiah

the name. The next ploy we use, straight after this one, is the following principle from my good friend and ingenious thinker Michael Murray.

CUPs - Comparative Uncertainty Principle The basic idea behind CUPs in its simplest form (which Michael has very kindly allowed me to explain in my own work) is for the spectator to mentally count the amount of letters in the word about which they are only thinking. It is then possible to estimate how many letters are in the thought of word based on how long it takes the spectator to complete this task. This is the capacity in which I use this principle in this work. For a deeper understanding of this and for further applications of this principle, get a copy of “A Piece of My Mind” by Michael Murray. You will not be disappointed. We use CUPS by asking the following question to our spectator.

“Can you think of how many letters there are in this name?” Asking this question will cause the spectator to mentally count the letters in their head. The fact you word this instruction as a question ensures they will respond verbally when they have completed this task. Their answer is what cues you into when they are finished counting, which in turn allows for you to make an estimate 108

Fraser Parker

based on how long it took them to silently count how many letters are in the name. If they complete the task quickly then you can safely assume in most cases, they thought of a shorter name of 3 or 4 letters. If it takes them a little longer then this will more than likely be 4 or 5 letters and if it takes them a considerable amount of time then you can assume it is a much longer name, usually longer than 5 letters. I carefully watch how long it takes the spectator to complete the instruction and confirm they know how many letters are in the name and then guess an amount of letters.

“So this is 4 or 5 letters, correct?” I always guess an amount and one above that amount, so as not be too perfect. This usually causes the spectator to actually tell you the amount of letters and will make you seem close. Most of the time you will only be a one or two letters off. If they don't tell you the amount of letters on their own then simply ask for the amount. These smaller pieces of information will not seem to help you guess the name as much as they actually do; therefore it is okay to ask directly for this information whenever you are unsure. We always use this ploy after the previous ploy of getting the spectator to abbreviate the name and not the other way around, otherwise it would throw out the amount of letters for which we are fishing.

109

False Messiah

The answer of how many letters they are thinking of will be invaluable when it comes to guessing the name, so remember the amount.

Repeat it Ploy It is rare that you will find yourself in this position but sometimes even after obtaining the first two letters of the name, using CUPs to know the amount of letters and getting the spectator to abbreviate the name, if it is possible, you will on occasion be left with two possible names to choose between. This is where I would employ a method I first read in “Pure Effect” by Derren Brown. Say you have gone through all of the above process and you are now in a position to try to guess the name. I would simply throw out one of the possible names this could be. For example, “Okay, just repeat this name to yourself over and over...

like... Emily... Emily... Emily.” If they are thinking of “Emily”, e.g., they will “freak out” and you will be able to tell by their reaction that you are correct and you can stop there. However, if they are thinking of the other possible name then your words will seem as an example of how you want them to concentrate on the name. This then gives you another chance at guessing the name. In fact, you will seem to be very close with your first 110

Fraser Parker

guess and for this reason may have to discern between what reaction signifies a direct 'hit' compared to you only being close. My experience has shown me that you will hardly ever end up in this situation, but it is better to be prepared than not. Either way, once you know you were only close you can guess the exact name they are thinking of with complete accuracy. Usually this ploy alone will be enough for you to distinguish between whether their thought of name is a male or female. If you get the gender wrong then you just name the alternative male name. I prefer to find out the gender early on in the routine. This can usually be achieved as a natural product of the routine you are performing. For example, if I ask the spectator to think of someone from their childhood they will usually think of a friend who is of the same sex. If you find it easier you could use an idea from my friend Ross and apply the “repeat it” ploy to the third letter in the name and guess between the two possible names accordingly. Use whichever method you want to guess between a male or female name. If in doubt-- simply ask them for the gender. I have found this is just as effective when performed in the context of the primary effect. So there you have it, a realistic a-prop name guess – i.e., without the use of billets, 111

False Messiah

using only words and the spectator's perception as the method. With this and other methods in this book, I have found that the additional act of reiterating what has taken place from the point of view of the illusion, before going into the reveal, is effective. It also helps create a false memory and ensures everyone views the effect in the correct way. If you miss on the name I suggest simply asking the spectator what it is and moving onto a different effect. I feel it is better to just accept the miss on the rare occasion this does not work, instead of trying to get out of it with a classic method such as using a billet. There has already been too much process to then justify getting the spectator to write down the information. However, when practising this, or if you prefer, you could use a billet and have them write down the name from the start and still use the previous method. You would only need to “peek” the billet if you miss on the name. This would effectively allow you to use the billet as an out if you fail with the a-prop version. Most of the time you will be able to guess the name without any need for outs and if you do miss you will still be seen to be very close with your guess. The spectators and everyone watching will give you almost as much credit for getting close as with a direct hit. In any case, I feel occasionally missing lends credibility to your act. Who, after all, is perfect? I therefore, don't worry about sometimes only getting close or even completely missing occasionally. The only thing left to explain is the crib I use to instantly discern the letters, which 112

Fraser Parker

the spectator is thinking from the first letter and second letters of the word they name (based on the personality of the person they are thinking about). As mentioned above, there are two ways of counting backwards mentally through the alphabet.

1.

Learn the alphabet backwards and fluently, so that you can easily

count backwards however many places you need to move. 2.

Use the 'Peg' mnemonic system to associate the correct letters

together, so that you are able to instantly recall the letter a specific amount of places prior in the alphabet. I prefer to use the mnemonic memory system. I find this is easy to remember when formulated in the following way. Due to the fact that I always snap my fingers 3 times I know the spectator will always move 3 letters away from the letter they think of from the start. This means that when they give me the word beginning with the letter they are currently thinking of – the letter they thought of at the start will be 3 letters before this one in the alphabet. It is therefore a simple matter of memorizing each of these letter correlations to be able to instantly know the letter they started on and therefore the first or second letter of the name they chose. All you have to do is take note of the first letter of each of the personality words they give you and compare it to the target letter in 113

False Messiah

your memorized list. These letter associations are as follows:

d–a e–b f–c g–d h–e I–f j–g k–h l–I m–j n–k o–l p–m q–n r–o s–p t–q u–r v–s w–t 114

Fraser Parker

x–u y–v z–w I then went a litter further and turned these letter associations into words with each of the letters at the start and end of the words respectively to make learning these associations even easier. If you like you can create your own list. Here is the list I use.

DRAMA EYE BELIEVE FOOL CARD GOD HE IF JOG KEY HOLD LILLI MICHAEL JORDAN NOOK OWL PROM 115

False Messiah

QUEEN ROSS STOP TORQ USER VEILS WAIT XRAY UNDERWEAR YAUGHT VIOLIN ZULU WARRIOR Each of these words begins and ends with the correct letter associations. The only exceptions to the rule are when a single name is used. Then the first and second letters of the name carry the correct associations. Also when there are two words used instead of one the beginning letter of each word represent the correct letter associations. These are the words I find easiest to remember. It will probably be easier for you to create your own list of words with the correct letters, to help with its memorization. If using two words you will find the more bizarre and funny you can make those associations the easier they will be to remember, i.e., two objects which would usually not go together or create a silly image in your imagination, such as X-RAY and UNDERWEAR: for this association I would imagine an x-ray photographic print of someone standing in their underpants. 116

Fraser Parker

The only other thing I need to mention about this list of words and the letters you use from the alphabet, is that the letters x, y, and z are unaccounted for. If the spectator thinks of any one of these letters to start with then when they try to count up through the alphabet three places they will come to the end of the alphabet and not be able to continue. They should, in theory, continue counting through the alphabet cyclically and when they reach the last letter move from the letter ‘Z’ to the letter ‘A’ then continue to count from this first letter. However, it is very unlikely the spectator will be thinking of a name with any of these letters as its first or second letter. This means that it will hardly ever be a problem when using names. I have therefore decided to simply deal with it, whenever it crops up in performance, in the following way. If they are thinking of the letters x, y or z then when they start to change the letter with each snap of the fingers, they will eventually reach the end of the alphabet and will therefore begin to have a confused look on their face. This confusion will signify that they are at the end of the alphabet and were therefore thinking of one of the last three letters of the alphabet x, y or z. As soon as you start to see them become confused say the following words to the spectator.

“Okay. Just jump to any letter in the alphabet.” This will seem to be a clarification for how you meant for them to always change 117

False Messiah

the letters in their mind and will act as an early “re-frame”, whilst at the same time solving the problem of the spectator running out of letters for the change. They will now change the letter they are thinking of randomly understanding they are to now jump randomly among letters in the alphabet, as opposed to sequentially. This will cement the illusion completely without the “re-frame” ever having to be employed. However, I would still always use the “re-frame” to be on the safe side. Once the spectator has freely changed to a different letter a few times, you can now safely assume that they will most of the time have thought of the letter 'y' first. Of the three choices, ‘x’,’y’, or ‘z’, ‘y’ is the most likely initial letter in a name. The second most common would be the letter 'z'. You can then use each of the subtleties already described to guess the correct name that they are thinking. If you are dealing with the second letter in the name and come across this confusion then you know the second letter has to be either the letters x, y or z and can guess the most likely fit for the name accordingly and therefore also guess the name correctly.

118

Fraser Parker

Credits 1. Ouija - Ross Tayler & Fraser Parker 2. Not the Ed Marlo Snap Change - When in Rome – Peter Turner 3. Billet-less Name Guess - Bigger Fish 2 – Peter Turner 4. CUPs principle - A Piece of My Mind – Michael Murray 5. Repeat it Ploy - “Pure Effect” - Derren Brown 6. A to Z reading: Ken DeCoursey's "Systematic Seer" 7. A to Z reading: Richard Webster's "Psychometry"

119

False Messiah

Star Sign Guess Naturally, this structure and presentation lends itself perfectly to star sign divinations. The use of a reading based method sits very well with this type of effect and the use of the “re-frame” with a single letter removes any need for “fishing” with multiple letters or anagrams of any kind. I would get the spectator to focus on their own star sign then apply the previous method to the first letter of the star sign to get them to give me a characteristic trait or word they feel would best sum up their personality. This would give me the first letter of their star sign. I would then give a reading based on the word they gave me and then apply the CUPs principle along with the repeat it ploy, if needed, to nail the exact star sign of the spectator. As this is a limited field range of twelve possible signs it becomes incredibly easy to guess the exact star sign with these additional ploys. This can also be used to guess the star sign of a person the spectator is only thinking about. The exact same process applies, i.e., you only need to get the spectator to give you a characteristic or trait of this thought of person, instead of himself or herself. If for some reason they cannot think of a word that would best describe either himself or herself, or the person they are thinking of, say the following words.

“Say the first word that comes to mind that begins with this letter.” 120

Fraser Parker

This is an excellent way of ensuring the spectator can always say a word that begins with the letter they are currently thinking of, during whichever effect you are performing. It implies you are still somehow able to read them via some sort of association of thought that exists in their subconscious, whilst actually giving them an entirely free choice of word. This is all implied with your silent script. It is not always necessary to openly state a justification for your process. As long as you understand it you will be able to perform in a way that is congruent to the effect while at the same time using less words. The following list of star signs shows which signs share the same first letter:

ARIES AQUARIUS CANCER CAPRICORN LEO LIBRA SCORPIO SAGITTARIUS

121

False Messiah

VIRGO GEMINI PISCES TAURUS The star signs, which share the same first letter, group into pairs of shorter and longer words. This makes it easy to apply either CUPs or the “repeat it in your mind” ploy to discern which of the two star signs it is. If you wish to use this method to guess a word instead of a name then this line can replace the personality reading section of the effect and be used on its own.

[For those reading between the lines this is a big hint, at what is possible with these methods]. Simply use this justification for the first three letters of the word then “re-frame”. If the thought of word can be naturally limited with an invisible restriction or belongs to a limited field (such as a star sign being inherently a one out of twelve possibilities) then the process will only need to be applied to one or two letters. The additional subtleties taught above will allow you to discern the correct word.

122

Fraser Parker

Reverse Name Guess Reverse Name Guess is my favourite piece in this book. Its streamlined nature and the fact that you get an effect much greater than the sum of its parts accounts for this. And it’s all done with very little scripting and hardly any work. It’s practically self-working, which is a marvellous thing to consider when you take into account the actual effect and what is now possible from the point of view of method. With no billets, tears, or props of any kind, you can now get the spectator to use their own intuition to guess the name of which you are thinking, completely a-prop with nothing written down (unless you choose to write the name down as proof you are thinking of the same name). The following method is similar to the previous effect, “My Pin”, in terms of its structure with the use of numbers being substituted for letters. If you have not already read “My Pin” you should do so before reading any further, as here I will only briefly touch upon the principles each of these effects share. As you will already be familiar with some of the workings of this effect, I will teach you the method and effect alongside each other, rather than giving you the performance script to begin. To start you are not going to actually have a name in mind. The spectator is going to think of a name they believe you to be thinking and you are going to secretly 123

False Messiah

work out what this name is so that at a certain point you can write down this name as proof the spectator guessed correctly. I introduce the effect with the following words.

“I am thinking of a name. I want you to use your intuitive abilities to try to guess this name.” This sets up the premise of the effect. This effect is about the spectator using their intuition to try to guess your thoughts as opposed to you guessing theirs. We will be applying the “flipping it on its head” principle by reversing the process used to get the effect to work (in terms of how it is experienced by everyone watching).

“I promise this isn't an obscure name or one that is difficult to guess. If you just go into this with an open heart and open mind we should be able to get this to work.” This scripting is especially devious. It seems to mean you are going to think of a name that would be easier for your spectator to guess. But what is truly the case is that this actually makes it easier for you to guess which name the spectator will eventually be thinking. The fact the spectator is guessing your thought, and the process used is in reverse, means this scripting will work in your advantage. If the spectator thinks you are thinking of a more common name, which can be more easily guessed, then they will also think of a name, which will be easier for you to guess. 124

Fraser Parker

The fact you get the spectator to think of a less obscure and more common name helps to narrow down the possible names the spectator could be thinking of later on, which also helps you to work out the name so you can more easily bring the effect to a successful conclusion. There will be more on this later. It also ensures the spectator doesn't feel too nervous about participating and potentially messing up the effect by not following your instructions correctly.

“So first of all, just focus on what you believe the first letter of the name I am thinking of could be.” This line is important from a theatrical point of view, as it suggests they are going to slowly build the thought of what name they believe you are thinking. This is precisely the illusion we wish to create in the minds of those watching. It also allows for the following process, which makes the effect possible. Wait a few seconds for the spectator to follow your previous instruction.

“Okay, it's not that. So do this for me.” This is the same ploy of dismissing a piece of information to work out another piece of information (used in “My Pin”). The only difference is that is applied to letters here instead of numbers.

125

False Messiah

This is not only a theatrical moment which fits perfectly with the effect but is also a beautiful way of setting up the following process, which will eventually allow you to know the first letter they believe belongs to the name you are only thinking.

“I want you to run through the letters of the alphabet mentally, changing the letter you are on, every time I snap my fingers. So that this is fair I want you to start on the letter you just thought of. “So focus on this letter and change the letter [snap fingers]... change again [snap]... and again [snap].” They will now follow your instructions, understanding them to mean they are to: change the letter they are thinking of from the letter you dismissed as incorrect to whatever letter is three places away in the alphabet (or however many times you snap your fingers), moving sequentially and jumping to the next letter in the alphabet every time you snap your fingers. The meaning of these instructions will be changed with the “re-frame” which comes later. The spectator will be thinking of a letter three in front of the letter you dismiss. This means if you know the first thought of letter, you can easily work out the letter they are now thinking. It's a simple matter of mentally counting up three letters in the alphabet from the letter you dismiss. 126

Fraser Parker

“So you now have a completely different letter in mind, yes?” They will agree with this statement as well as the fact you cannot guess this letter, as this is completely true, at this point in the routine.

“There is no way I could just guess this letter or any of the other letters you thought of, as you could have literally changed these letters in any order, yes?” Here is where the “re-frame” comes in. The truthful statement of you not being able to guess any of the letters is combined with an untruthful statement. This causes both to be accepted as true in the mind of the spectator as well as everyone watching. This means the spectator will now believe they had a free choice of how to change the letters and they must have simply misunderstood your instructions before. This means you can now ask the spectator what the first letter they thought of was without raising any suspicion. They will believe that because you “meant” for them to change the letters in any order and that you couldn’t know which way they actually changed the letters, that just counting up through the alphabet to work out the letter they are now on -- would not even occur to you. They are safely ensconced in the illusion of their beliefs. When delivering this specific piece of scripting it is essential you fully engage the spectator and that they hear what you are saying. This goes for all of the effects in this book, which rely on the same “re-frame” in order to fool the spectator 127

False Messiah

effectively.

“Out of curiosity, what was the very first letter you were thinking?” They will tell you the first letter they thought of and this will secretly give you the letter they are currently thinking about. This letter will be three letters after the letter they name, in the alphabet.

“Okay, just focus on whatever letter you just got to.” For example, if they were thinking of the letter “I” they will now be focusing on the letter “L”.

“So you now know the first letter of the name I am thinking.” Here is where you direct the spectator to think of their current letter as the first letter of the name you are supposedly thinking. What happens next is simply beautiful in terms of the economy of method and the effect it creates. This is where the principle of “flipping it on its head” comes into play. The spectator will effectively give you all of the details you need to guess the name they are thinking under the guise of them guessing details about the name you are 128

Fraser Parker

thinking of – a name which in reality doesn't exist yet. It makes this effect practically self-working. These questions being given in a specific order, one after another, creates the illusion that the spectator is gradually discovering details about the name you are thinking of using their intuition so they can eventually guess the name. What happens in the mind of the spectator is that they will usually guess a name after the first of these questions is given and then answer these questions in line with the name they are now thinking. Their answers will then guide you to the correct name that they are thinking. There is a subtle difference between how the spectator perceives the effect and those watching. However, to the spectator it will still feel as if they are guessing your thought of name throughout and will therefore, still be fooled along the same lines as everyone else.

“I want you to allow a name to come to you, as I ask you these following questions.” The specific order you ask the following questions ensures the spectator will be able to think of a name.

“Would you say this name is male or female?”

129

False Messiah

Spectator: “Male.” “Can you abbreviate the name?” “No.” This is the “abbreviation” subtlety, from the previous name guess, used in reverse in terms of how it is perceived by everyone watching. Their answer will narrow down the possible names they could be thinking about and this will, in turn, help you guess the correct name.

“How many letters do you feel this name has?” “Four.” This is the CUPs principle used in a slightly different way. Instead of you trying to guess the amount of letters, you directly ask the spectator for the amount under the guise of them using their intuition. Some of the time you will now have enough information to guess the name the spectator is thinking about, for instance in this example you can now safely presume the spectator is thinking of the name:

LUKE 130

Fraser Parker

Obviously, you would not say this name out loud as if you were guessing their thought of name but would instead either say it or write it down as confirmation that this was the name you were thinking of all along, to stay in line with the effect. Most of the time however, you will be down to a few possible names it could be. This is where I would employ the following ruse to find out which of the possible names they have chosen.

“So just take your time and allow this name to fully form in front of you – just focus on the second letter of this name – this isn't the letter “U”, is it?” The first line creates the illusion the spectator is now thinking of the name for the first time. They will usually have thought of a name as you ask the previous questions due to the fact that they have to answer questions on it. So that they can answer correctly they will usually think of a name early. This is the path of least resistance, which will usually be favoured by the spectator. It is for this reason that we don't stress the fact they are to think of details first and then a name, but only suggest it with the illusion the effect itself creates. Otherwise there is a chance the spectator won't be able to think of a name with all of the variables they give if this is done blindly. Those watching will perceive this first line to mean the spectator is coming up with a name for the first time in real time. The spectator, however, will think you mean 131

False Messiah

for them to visualize the name they are already thinking of in front of them and build the name this way. The second part of the scripting will be understood as you simply checking if the spectator is on the right path. This is essentially “fishing”, but because of the context of the effect it doesn't appear this way. It should look as if you are checking your own impressions for what you believe they are thinking. The way we do this is with a negative question. We ask if a certain letter of the name they are thinking of is a specific letter or not. The use of the word “isn't” allows our response to how the spectator answers our question to always be seen as correct. This ensures the “fishing” appears natural and fits the overall effect.

“Just focus on the second letter of this name – this isn't the letter “U”, is it?” If the second letter in the name they are thinking of is the letter “U” then they will take this as confirmation that they must be thinking of the same name as you – otherwise, how would you know what this letter was? But if they answer with a “no” to this negative statement, it will appear as if you were simply checking to see if your doubt whether or not they are thinking of the correct name, and therefore the correct letter, is unfounded or not. In either case, we instantly follow up with the following script.

132

Fraser Parker

“Okay, I think you may be on the right track.” You then write down the name you believe the spectator is thinking of and finish the effect. The good thing about giving this negative statement is if you “guess” the wrong letter their “no” response doesn't seem to give you any clue as to what the actual letter is. However, most of the time you will be down to two or three possible names it could be. Therefore, all you need is for the spectator to acknowledge whether or not your guess is correct to be able to discern which one of these options is correct. Sometimes you will need to “fish” for a different letter depending on the possible names they could be thinking of in order to be able to narrow it down successfully. You have to make this decision in real time as you are presented with the possible names it could be. This is based on the other information they give you. It is very simple to do and not as hard as it sounds, especially due to the fact they will most likely be thinking of a less obscure name from the start. I suggest writing the name down when it comes to the reveal as it suggests this was always the name you were thinking of and creates the correct build up of the climax.

“There is only one way to prove you got every single detail correct. I am going to write down the name I am thinking of. Look away, so you can't 133

False Messiah

read what I write.” Write the name down on a card or heavy piece of paper (so the name can't be seen through the paper) and slide it in front of the spectator.

“Say the name you believe I am thinking.” Then get the spectator to say the name they believe you are thinking about. They can now turn over the card themselves to reveal both of the names match perfectly. Usually, the spectator will think of a name which does not include the first letters x, y, or z, as names beginning with these letters are very rare in the English language. I therefore don't worry about these letters coming up in performance with this effect. If they do you can usually tell that the spectator is confused when you are giving them the instructions to change through the letters of the alphabet, as they will effectively run out of letters to move to. When this happens just re-iterate the illusion and give direct instructions for them to jump freely to letters in the alphabet at random. Now you can fairly safely bet on them thinking of the more likely letter out of these - the letter 'y' - as the first letter of the name they are thinking. If you are using this in a different language with names that use these letters as first letters more frequently then you could apply the following ruse to ensure the spectator can move through the letters of the alphabet sequentially. Simply add the following line onto the instructions for how you want the spectator 134

Fraser Parker

to change their mind.

“Just to make this as easy for you as possible if you think of the letter z at any point then jump right back to the letter a and continue to change the letters.” This line ensures they will never run out of letters of the alphabet due to the fact you essentially reset the spectator back to the beginning of the alphabet whenever they reach the last letter. The fact that it is framed as making it easier for the spectator ensures this stays in line with the perspective of the “re-frame” which comes later. Therefore, everything fits. This line can also be used in the previous name/word guess, if you so desire. I prefer not to worry about these letters, as names beginning with them are so rare they will only ever be thought of a few times, if that. These names are even less likely with this effect due to the fact you gently “nudge” the spectator into the direction of thinking of less obscure names from the start. It is also important to remember to apply the following script before going into the previous effect or any similar effects in this book. This is to ensure that the spectator does not say anything during the performance that could potentially destroy the illusion your words and performance create.

“Only speak if I ask you a direct question, so you don't give away your thought process.” 135

False Messiah

A few notes on reverse use for “re-frame” I would like to discuss the possible different view points generated from the use of the “re-frame” in combination with the “flipping it on its head” principle. There is a chance that the specific use of the “re-frame” and the way this effect, and the previous effect, “My Pin”, are structured, may create a different opinion in the mind of the spectator compared to the audience at large. The spectator may feel like they didn't really use their intuition to change the letters or numbers to eventually settle on the correct information, but instead feel that you were more in control of the outcome of the effect. The reason for this is because the process does not make complete logical sense. However, even in this worse case scenario they will still have no idea how you would have been able to know any of their thoughts and create the effect. They will still be impressed and usually buy into the premise of them using their own intuitive abilities to affect the successful outcome of the effect. They may feel as if they somehow got close to the correct letter or number using their intuition and then somehow intuitively chose the correct path when changing to a different letter or number. It really doesn't matter if they think this or not, because the overall illusion creates a situation where everything blends into one. All process is seen in terms of effect and because the premise of the effect is the spectator's use of intuition, it follows in their mind, and the minds of everyone else watching, that this is what must have taken place. Since they are to going to take credit for the successful outcome of 136

Fraser Parker

the effect they will not want to take away from the idea that they were the ones responsible for the effect working and they will not dismiss the illusion. Another aspect, which seems to help with the overall deception and impact of these effects, is the fact that the reveal seems to come from out of nowhere. This is true for both of the name guesses as well as the spectator pin guess effect. There doesn't seem to be enough information available to the performer for either of the reveals to be possible which certainly adds to the general impressiveness of these effects. What this does is create a situation where everyone, including the spectator, is more likely to accept and believe what has taken place as real. This makes everyone less likely to see your performance as a trick or to try to work it out. Therefore they will be more likely to see the illusion just how we wish the effect to be perceived by everyone.

137

False Messiah

Star Sign Reverse What follows is a way of creating the illusion of the spectator using their intuition to guess your star sign based on impressions they receive about your personality characteristics and traits. This is done very loosely in terms of how the premise compares to the actual effect. The spectator will first guess a star sign and then use their intuition to guess further things about your personality. This is in the reverse order compared to what is suggested by the premise. However, it will seem as if all of this is taking place together - as one and the same process. Therefore, the fact the premise of the effect and actual process are slightly different, doesn't really matter to the outcome of the effect and how everyone involved will perceive this. This will make more sense in a moment. I will be brief with this explanation, as all of the pieces of the puzzle have been taught in previous effects in this book. This is just one way these tools can be put together. I start off by setting the premise of the effect.

“Are you a believer in the fact certain star signs depict specific characteristics and personality traits of a person, and therefore, it is possible for people in tune with such things to guess the exact star sign of someone they have only just met?”

138

Fraser Parker

This will help create the overall appearance of the illusion of the spectator using their intuition, as well as what they feel about the personality characteristics and traits of the performer (you), to be able to guess your star sign. It is not what will actually take place during the effect. However, it will go some way toward cementing this notion in the spectator’s mind as well as in the minds of everyone watching. Think of it as a contextual “frame” for how you want everyone to perceive your performance. This line also sets up a beautiful expectancy, i.e., something special is about to happen. They can answer this question in one of two ways. If they answer with a “No”, say the following.

“Would you be willing to try something and perhaps have a change of mind?” They will usually agree. If not then just perform the effect for someone else. If they answer “Yes”, say they following instead.

“Excellent. This is exactly what I want to try - with your permission.” This gains rapport and ensures you are not going against the beliefs of your spectator but are in fact working with them - in either case. 139

False Messiah

“I would like you to use your intuition to try to guess my star sign.” “Okay.” “So do this for me. I want you to allow a few different star signs to go through your mind and then just settle on one of these. Use your intuition and go with what feels right.” These words combine with the opening premise to create the illusion the spectator is using their intuitive abilities to guess your star sign after meeting you for the first time. They follow your instructions. When you feel like they have a star sign in mind, confirm this by saying the following words.

“So you have a star sign in mind. Yes?” They should agree with you. If not then get them to focus on one of the star signs they thought of previously.

“We are going to check the accuracy of this guess against what your intuition says about my personality.”

140

Fraser Parker

This line is a perfect way of justifying the following process, which is essential for you to discern the star sign they believe belongs to you. It seems as if you mean for the spectator to check their own impressions in case they want to change their mind. However, what it really means is you are going to get the spectator to go through a process so that you can check they are on the right track. From the perspective of everyone involved this still seems impossible for you to do. However, it allows you to subtly shift the direction of the flow of information so that you can secretly work out the star sign that the spectator is thinking. The process is as follows.

“I want you to mentally run through the letters of the alphabet from a to z, changing the letter you are on every time I snap my fingers. “So that we start off on the same letter, focus on the first letter of the star sign you are thinking about and change the letter now [snap fingers]... change it again [snap]... and again [snap].” What this scripting does is cause the spectator to jump forwards through the alphabet sequentially 3 places from the first letter of star sign they are thinking about.

“So you have a completely different letter in mind now. Yes?”

141

False Messiah

This means that all you need is the letter they are currently thinking of to divine the first letter of the star sign.

“You could have changed these letters in any order. Therefore, there is no way for me to just back track or know any of the letters you have thought of previously. Correct?” This script “re-frames” the previous process and makes it appear completely fair – that there is no way for you to be able to work out any of the letters they thought of previous to the one they are now holding in their mind.

“Can you think of a word beginning with this letter you feel would best sum up my personality? If not then just say the first word that comes to mind that begins with this letter.” They will name a word and cue you into the letter they are currently thinking about, which will in turn tell you what the first letter of the star sign they are thinking of is. For example, they say the word “Open”. This gives you the letter “O” as the letter they were thinking. All you have to do now is use the crib you should already have memorized, from 142

Fraser Parker

the previous “Name Guess” effect, to work out the letter three places back in the alphabet (from this letter) to know the first letter of the star sign. In this example, we would arrive at the letter “L” meaning the two possible star signs the spectator could be thinking of are LEO or LIBRA.

“Okay, I want you to just allow different words you would associate with my personality to float into your mind now.” This line reinforces the idea that the spectator is to work out aspects of your personality in order to verify whether or not their first impressions about your star sign were correct. They will not actually change their mind, but you want to create the illusion that they had a free choice to do so, if they so chose. This process should come before the spectator has fully made up their mind and commits to one of the star signs. However, we are applying it after the fact, to ensure we can work out the correct sign. We only need to imply that the personality traits the spectator is receiving from the performer help give them the correct star sign for the effect to be seen this way by the audience. The spectator will still feel their intuition had something to do with their initial choice and this is just extra confirmation for themselves, and the performer, that they are on the correct path. The spectator may feel they have the choice to change their mind, but because they are never explicitly told to do so, they will stick to their first choice. It should look 143

False Messiah

to the spectator as if the performer is getting them to mentally focus on this information so they can mind read (whether or not the spectator is on track). This is also how the following use of the CUPs principle will appear to the spectator.

“Can you focus on how many letters there are in this sign?” At this point it will look to the audience as if the spectator is still unsure of the star sign. However, to the spectator it will seem as if the performer is trying to double check they are on the right track. The spectator will mentally count the letters in the star sign they settled on at the start of the effect and you will be able to distinguish which star sign, out of the possible pair of star signs, they are thinking about, based on how long it takes them to complete this task. Say they perform this task relatively quickly. You now know the spectator must be thinking of LEO.

“Okay, I feel like you are on the right lines. I will write down my star sign.” This line confirms the notion that you were checking their impressions with your own. Now all that is left to do is write down the star sign you have secretly worked out, 144

Fraser Parker

as proof this is your actual star sign, then ask the spectator what star sign they believe belongs to you. And that concludes the effect.

“So based on your intuitive abilities as well as what you believe my personality characteristics and traits to be – what star sign did you commit to?” This final piece of scripting neatly ties up the effect so it is seen to be in line with the original premise. It will seem to the audience as if the spectator names a star sign they have only just settled on after they used their intuition to work out the characteristics and traits of your personality. However, the spectator will perceive this scripting to be mainly theatrical and understand that they are to say the first thought they committed to before. It will still appear to the spectator that this decision was based on their first impression of you as a personality. Therefore, everyone will be fooled along the same lines. This is another example of the slightly varying realities of everyone involved blurring together to create the same overall effect. Thanks to the subtle script, the only thing those who witness your performance will remember is the effect, which will be the same for everyone. Whenever the spectator happens to guess a star sign that actually belongs to you then I suggest playing it up for all it is worth. If you have a Facebook account, for instance, then it may be worth getting them to add you as a friend so they may check your actual birthday. This will also give you a contact for potential future 145

False Messiah

bookings. This will happen one in twelve times as a coincidence, so you may as well capitalize on it when it does take place. This will offer complete proof that they really were able to guess your star sign and that you are not just reading them so that you can make it appear they knew. Even if they do think that this is the case, it is still an impressive effect – that being that you were able to somehow either influence their choice or read their mind to know what they were thinking. I don't worry about the potential weakness of writing down your star sign after the fact, instead of before going into the process of the effect. However, those who wish to create the illusion that your star sign was written down ahead of time might find using a “swami” or “nail writer” useful. This would create the appearance that you wrote down the star sign they are thinking of before they named it, instead of having to write it afterwards. I prefer not to have to use any gimmicks and simply rely on the writing down of my star sign, before they name it, to convince everyone.

146

Fraser Parker

Bold Number Guess The following use for the “re-frame” is possibly a little too bold. I have not had time to test this out fully yet, but have decided to leave it here for completeness with the hope that you will be able to take this idea even further. I feel this is best suited for numbers and would be too long a process if it were applied to the letters of the alphabet. Essentially, it is a way to secretly divine a single or two-digit number the spectator is thinking, using the principles already taught in this book. It takes advantage of the deceptiveness of the “re-frame” and applies it in such a way that it becomes possible to divine numbers directly, as opposed to the technique having to be used indirectly. The script is as follows. Imagine the spectator is thinking of a two-digit number. This could even be an astrological number, for example, if you are performing Peter Turner's wonderful “Isabella's Star”. First, I would ask the spectator whether this is a one or two- digit number. Then I would give the following instructions to the spectator.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine, changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers.

147

False Messiah

“If at any point you are focusing on either digit of this number I want you to give me a clear 'yes'. Okay? “So focus on the number zero [snap fingers]... Change to the next number now [snap fingers]... Change it again [snap]... And again [snap].” These instructions will be understood to mean the following, to the spectator.

1.

Mentally count up through the numbers from zero to nine, in

sequential order (zero... one... two... etc.) 2.

Move to the next number every time I snap my fingers.

3.

Start on the number zero to ensure we can get in sync with each

other’s thought processes. 4.

If at any point you are focusing on the first digit of the number

being thought of, stop me.

Of course, it is the same process we have used throughout the book, which we 'get away' with using the “re-frame”, which comes later. What these instructions do is get the spectator to stop you when they are focusing on either digit out of their astrological number. They do this by saying the word

148

Fraser Parker

“yes”. Due to the fact you are counting along with the spectator, the number they are focusing on will secretly be known to you. Therefore, when they stop all you have to do is take note of the number you are currently 'on' to know their number. I pause at this point and get them to focus on this number as if I am trying to divine what it is.

“Okay, just focus on this number.” What is beautiful about this is it will subtly suggest I don't already know the number. Why would I need them to focus on the number if it was already obvious to me? I wouldn't. Therefore, the spectator has to assume I don't already know. This starts to plant the seeds of doubt in terms of the process, which will eventually come full circle when you apply the “re-frame”. You now continue the process of counting up through the numbers from zero to nine, starting off from where they just stopped you.

“I want you to do the exact same thing again. If at any point you are thinking of either digit of the number you chose then give me a clear 'yes'. Start on the number you were just focusing on and change [snap fingers]... change again [snap]... and again [snap].” The first line of this script is important. There is a chance the spectator may start to 149

False Messiah

view proceedings from the viewpoint of the illusion we are creating, which we will cement in place with the “re-frame” in a moment, as opposed to how they first perceive your instructions. This is due to your previous suggestion that you couldn't possibly know the number they were thinking about. It is therefore, essential that you always instruct the spectator to follow along in exactly the same way they did before. If they stop you this time then get them to focus on this number again. I would then ask if this is the second or first digit of their number, so as to be able to successfully work out the two-digit thought of number. If they don't stop you then simply continue to mentally count up through the numbers until you get to nine. This will tell you that both digits are the same, if they are thinking about a two-digit number. Instead of this process seeming to be redundant, it will still appear to be relevant and 'fit' the justification you use for the spectator thinking of different numbers alongside the numbers on which they are focusing. I use my silent script to suggest a justification for this process. However, if you want to state it explicitly then feel free to do so. The justification is as follows:

The reason you get the spectator to think of other numbers which do not belong to the number they are thinking of, as well as these actual numbers, is so that you can better tune in and discern between each of the thought of numbers. The spectator focusing on the correct numbers, as well as also thinking of numbers irrelevant to their thought of number, 150

Fraser Parker

helps you to work out these numbers. Now, all that is left to do is apply the “re-frame” to ensure the previous process becomes deceptive.

“Okay, just to re-cap – I got you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine, changing the number you were on every time I snapped my fingers. “And to give me a clear 'yes', if at any point you were focusing on either digit of this number. “You could have literally changed these numbers in any order. Therefore, there is no way for me to just guess any of the numbers you have thought of previously. Correct?” These last two lines do all of the work for you and leave you in the perfect position to reveal their thought of number or use it in another effect without anyone being able to back track how you know.

151

False Messiah

Bonus Principle: Frame Ups, Frame I have always thought the ideas in the “Impromptu frame ups” section of “Practical Mental Effects”, by Theo Annemann, were interesting and worthy of study. These were excellent ways of employing a stooge or assistant to help you pull off a trick successfully and create a miracle in the minds of your audience members. What I found was lacking from these presentations, from the perspective of your assistant – was a reason for you letting them in on the ruse. Other than the standard

“Nudge, nudge... wink, wink. Please do this for me and keep it a secret.” way of getting someone to play along in order to fool the rest of those watching, there was never a good enough excuse for the spectator helping out. I decided that if I was going to employ a stooge I would need a way to make this logical from the perspective of the person acting as an assistant, and make it fit theatrically with my performance. The following is my scripting and justification for using a stooge, at those times I feel like I need to create a sure fire moment which would be impossible without the use of an assistant. I have only used this ruse a few times and suggest you also only use this sparingly. I feel this is best used with effects that rely only in part on an assistant performing a specific job – as opposed to the entire effect simply relying on the fake reaction of

152

Fraser Parker

an assistant. This is because I generally feel lay spectators are not necessarily good actors and will likely blow the ruse or act in an unfortunate and unconvincing way. But I have found a good way of ensuring your assistant acts as convincingly as possible is to get them to imagine they do not know how the effect works and to act accordingly. I would say the following words to my assistant on their own, away from the audience at large, either when no one was paying attention or way before the performance. The script is as follows.

“Do you want to help me to create a beautiful moment of wonder, which will last a life time in the minds of those who witness what we create together?” This begins to frame the stooge situation you are about to set up as something worth while – a beautiful moment, which will never be forgotten. If they reply with a “yes” at this point I continue with the following scripting. If they say

“no” at this point then what you say does not expose anything, as you have not yet explicitly stated that they will be acting as your assistant or be in on the effect. This means you can move on to another effect without anyone being the wiser that you were attempting to stooge someone.

“This means lying about what happens for the rest of your life. I would 153

False Messiah

not usually do this but it is the quickest way for us to create wonder for others. Are you sure you can handle sharing a beautiful lie between just us – for the sake of creating the experience of wonder for others? “It is important you don't ever tell anyone the truth and always act as if the lie is true, forever – otherwise not only will you not only destroy the wonder for those present but also for those who might hear about what happened. “Are you sure you can handle this responsibility?” They will now usually agree to lie for you and to keep what happens a secret. If they won’t agree then just move onto something else. This scripting creates a brilliant excuse for using a stooge. It appears this is simply a short cut for creating illusion or a lie in order to create wonder in others. This wonder is labelled as a worthwhile experience, which makes it much more likely your assistant will not want to tell on you after the fact. They will understand that they need to lie for the rest of their life, for the sake of others’ experience of wonder – which in itself is a wonderful concept. Their compassion for others will put them in a bind where they will never expose what you set up with them. Everything you say appears to be relevant to your performance style – you are using lies and illusion to create moments of wonder – the only difference is you are applying this for the sake of expediency, in order to create wonder in the easiest and most 154

Fraser Parker

economical way possible. There you have it. You can now give instructions to your assistant, to create whatever miracle you choose. I suggest using this alongside other trickery. That way you are not just using this on its own to create a fake outcome. This way your abilities will blend into each other in the minds of everyone watching. If you impress your assistant with other effects then they will believe you can also perform the effect you have set up with them. They will think it was only for convenience that you resorted to using such a short cut. I have not tried this next idea yet but feel it is possible to combine a shorter version of the above scripting with a whisper to stooge a spectator on the spot, i.e., during a close up performance. The way to cover this would be to give a brief reading and say the following words, as a cover.

“I am going to whisper a few things that relate to you personally, in your ear.” It will seem to everyone watching that the reason you are whispering in the spectator's ear, instead of saying it out loud, is because the information is too personal to share with the entire audience. This allows you to give your stooge script without anyone else hearing this is what you are saying. The only thing those watching will hear is the spectator confirming your reading is correct, or whatever 155

False Messiah

you say, with the word “yes”. Then after giving your instructions, you can lean back out and ask a question which seems to relate to their life on a personal level. This helps complete the illusion for those watching that you are giving a reading. The spectator will now fully understand they are to play along and will also go along with you seemingly giving them a reading, if asked about it afterwards. If they don't want to play along and therefore answer with a “no” during the whisper then this response will also fit the readings presentation. I would then just transition into giving them a reading, continue to whisper a few things relating to them personally and then lean out and move onto a different effect. This is of course the use of my good friend Peter Turner's wonderful “Bob” principle, in its application for hiding a method in with a personal reading. I leave this idea here for you to expand upon and play with.

Credits 1. Impromptu Frame Ups - Practical Mental Magic – Theo Annemann 2. Hearing Signs/ Bob principle - When in Rome – Peter Turner 156

Fraser Parker

Half Life Equation I will now show you a relatively sure fire way of forcing a single digit number and how this force can be translated into guessing names as well as pin numbers. I say 'relatively' sure fire because this method like all of the other prop-less effects taught in this book, will require you to perform in a way which demands the spectator to be attentive and follow your instructions correctly. This is covered in the essay at the beginning of this book. The following method is an update on the “Life Equation” by Peter Turner, from his book “Bigger Fish 2”, which itself was based on the old number force found in “202 Methods of forcing” by Theo Annemann. What Peter was able to do was update this forgotten about classic by updating the scripting of the original force. This made it infinitely more deceptive so that it could be performed on a modern audience more effectively. I also considered using this force in my own work before I knew what Peter was doing with it. After seeing his version of the force, I fell in love with it and decided to streamline it for my own use. I am now sharing my work on this, with Pete’s permission. His version required the use of a calculator to force a four-digit number. I wanted to be able to force a single digit number quickly, without the need for a calculator. First, I stripped away half of the force. This made the process a lot quicker to perform yet maintained the deceptiveness of the original update of the force. I then 157

False Messiah

combined this with another principle from Peter; a whisper – to disguise the mechanics of the trick and hide half of the process so that others watching could not easily back track the method. The use of a whisper to hide process is an aspect of Peter's “Bob” principle. The following variation is not meant to replace the original “Life Equation” but to simply offer a streamline alternative. Here is the full script, I use:

“Think of your year of birth for me, just focus on the last two digits. There is no way I could guess this number. I could estimate it but that is all it would be an estimate. Just so that there is no way anyone else who knows you can follow along and give away any information...” This is where you lean in and whisper the rest of the line.

“I want you to add this number and your age together, for me... take your time.” You then lean back out to give the spectator a little time to process your instruction before moving on.

“So you end up at a completely different number. This number is 158

Fraser Parker

personal to you and surrounds your life and nobody else's. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to just guess this number.” What this scripting does is 'force' the spectator to think of the number 115 (at the year of writing). This number will always be the same for everyone you perform for (with the number increasing by one, for every subsequent year after the year of writing and will be one less, if the spectator has not already celebrated their birthday that year). It is easy to work around this and adjust the number by simply asking the spectator whether or not they have already celebrated their birthday this year. You can do this either during the performance, or if you prefer it to be more hidden, long before moving into the effect. The whisper hides half of the process, which ensures others watching your performance will not be able to back track the method by trying the sum out with their own date of birth and age. As they don't know the second half of the equation they will not be able to work out a total for themselves and in the process discover everyone always arrives at the same total. If you are performing one on one then there is no need to apply the whisper. It is the scripting which fools the spectator so effectively. The words you use, along with getting the spectator to confirm the validity of each of your statements, is what cements the notion that all is fair. They will truly believe that because the number they arrive at is based on their personal information, which is different for each person; this number must therefore be random and impossible for you to 159

False Messiah

guess. I then get the spectator to focus on the highest digit of the number they are now focusing on. This makes the process appear even more random, while at the same time allowing you to get them to a single digit number. This force is a truly effective way of getting someone to a single digit number. It is both deceptive and efficient. I will now show you a few different applications in which I have used this number force.

Phone unlock I have used this number force in conjunction with Michael Murray's “Springboard” principle, with great success. The idea to apply “Spring board” to a pin number divination belongs to Peter Turner, as already discussed previously, in the effect “My Pin”. If you read “My Pin” and simply apply “Spring board” in reverse, using the force number as a jumping off point, you should be able to work out for yourself how this is possible. I compare each digit of their phone unlock code to the force number independently and try to guess whether the number they are focusing on is higher or lower, and to what degree, before asking the spectator for confirmation of this information. I feel this covers any problems others have had with having to ask for this information when using this method in the past. It breaks up the asking and stops it being too direct. When working with a four-digit phone unlock code I would try to guess this information on one or two numbers and then simply ask for the information on the other two numbers. 160

Fraser Parker

One line I have found useful to re-iterate the fairness of the proceedings is the following.

“These questions are incidental to me being able to guess the numbers of your code, as there is no way for me to know the number you started with.” I say this line during the process of asking whether each number is higher or lower than the force number and to what degree. After I have worked out each of the numbers of their phone unlock code – whilst carrying each digit in my head – I now type it into their phone and their phone unlocks. If it doesn't unlock the first time then they are likely one digit out with their calculations. I usually just add one to each of the digits and try it again. This is usually caused by a zero confusing the spectator or the spectator forgetting to include their number when counting the difference between the numbers. In either case I get them to focus on the digits of their pin code again. Then type in a pin code with all digits one higher than the one I typed in before.

Voice print a-prop The following method is my solution to performing Ned Rutledge's effect “Voice Print” completely prop-less, without the need for a pen and paper. I first watched Ted Karmilovich perform his version of this classic effect on his “Penguin Live” 161

False Messiah

lecture and liked the effect but didn't like the fact it relied on a special set up of props. The effect is for the spectator to write down a list of names and for the performer to be able to divine which of the names written down is being focused on. They would first write a list of numbers from one to ten down the left hand side of a sheet of lined paper. Then next to one of these numbers they would write a 'target' thought, such as the name of the first person they kissed, followed by them filling in the rest of the vacant number spaces with different random names. The performer would then be able to look at the list and, due to the method, be able to tell which name was written first, and therefore, which name out of the ten names was their first kiss. I wondered if there was a way to achieve the same effect without the need for anything to be written down. What follows is the result of this thinking. I always liked the aesthetics of esoteric palmistry and the old drawings of star signs and lifelines super-imposed onto different areas of a hand diagram. It occurred to me that using the hands and fingers of a spectator might provide a useful tool for creating prop-less Mentalism. After all, people's hands and fingers are readily available at every performance and their use is clearly more organic than the use of additional props. It is for these reasons that I started to think along the lines of how to use the hands of a spectator to gather information. 162

Fraser Parker

The first thing I realized was each of the fingers could be used to represent a different piece of information – in this case, the names the spectator is thinking of. And if I were to label each finger with a number first, I could use a number force to control which finger represented their target thought – the name of their first kiss – and therefore be able to perform the same effect, without anything having to be written down! Instead, you would get the spectator to name different names at random as you touched each of their fingers and get them to say the name of their first kiss when you touch the finger which represents the force number. Not only did this create a solution for being able to create a list without the need for anything to be written down, it also automatically solved how you would be able to divine the target name or piece of information at the same time. Here is the full performance script and method, so that you can fully understand how this works.

“Think of your year of birth for me, just focus on the last two digits. There is no way I could guess this number. I could estimate it but that is all it would be: an estimate. Just so that there is no way anyone else who knows you can follow along and give away any information...” This is where you lean in and whisper the rest of the line.

163

False Messiah

“I want you to add this number and your age together, for me... so you end up at a completely different number. This number is personal to you and surrounds your life and nobody else's. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to just guess this number.” This is the number force. It allows you to get the spectator to a seemingly random number in a few seconds. The silent script for the justification, of why you use a process for the spectator to think of a number, is so that this number is something linked to the spectator personally and therefore, easier for you to read, as opposed to it being a dry piece of information. It also guarantees they will be thinking of a number which is completely ‘random’ and unique to their own life, or so it will seem. I do not state either of these points explicitly and just perform the number force as quickly as possible – in an off hand manner. However, feel free to mention this justification in your script if you like.

“Have you already had your birthday, this year?” “No.” “I didn't think so.” They will now be thinking of a three digit number. In our example, this number will be 114, since they have not already had their birthday this year. Immediately, I get the spectator to focus on the highest digit out of the three digit number they are 164

Fraser Parker

thinking of.

“Can you focus on the highest digit out of this three digit number?” They will respond with a “yes” and will now be focusing on the number 4 (in our example).

“Okay, I want you to just hold out your hand for me. Like this.” Here is where you hold out your own hand in front of you, palm down, as an example of how you want the spectator to hold theirs. Take hold of their hand from underneath, so that your hands are together, palm to palm. This is similar to how a palm reader may hold the hand of a sitter – the only difference being the hand of the spectator is palm down instead of palm up.

“I want you to focus on the name of your first kiss.” Wait for the spectator to get a name in mind and then continue with the script.

“I want you to just remember which finger represents the number you are thinking of.” This is where you label each one of their fingers with a different number. To do that I touch each of their fingers one at a time, sequentially, in the following order: 165

False Messiah

thumb, index finger, second finger, third and fourth (little finger), whilst at the same time labelling each of the fingers with a specific number – using the following script.

“This finger is zero... This is one... two... three... four…” When I get to the little finger I go back to the thumb and apply a different number to each of the fingers in turn.

“five... six... seven... eight... nine.” This allocates each finger with two different numbers. The spectator should now be focusing on a specific finger relative to their force number. In our example the finger they will now be focusing on will be their little finger.

“Just focus on this finger for me, being careful not to give away which finger it is.” I would now hover my other hand over theirs, as if I am somehow trying to pick up on energy of some kind. This is for purely theatrical reasons and is not essential, or necessary, for the method to work.

“Okay, I want you to just say a different name every time I touch one of 166

Fraser Parker

your fingers but when I touch the finger you are focusing on say the first name of your first kiss. Do you understand?” They will respond in a way that suggests they do understand. If they don’t, then go through your instructions with them again.

“Take your time now to think of a few random names you can use, so that you don't hesitate or pause and potentially give away which name this is.” It is essential that you give this instruction when only working with five possible items, so that this does not become obvious.

They will now say a different name every time you touch each one of their fingers (in turn). Thanks to the number force you will be able to divine which name is their first kiss from out of the other four possibilities. If you want to create a larger selection field than five names then you can adjust the labelling of the fingers. Instead of repeating going through the fingers and allocating two numbers to each finger, you can simply label different areas of each finger, namely the phalanges on each side of the knuckles on each finger. This will give you a wider field of labels, which will in turn allow the spectator to name ten names instead of five. 167

False Messiah

Naturally, this can be used for much more than names. In fact, any category can be used that can be applied to different areas of the fingers. If you repeat a few placements then all twelve star signs of the zodiac could be covered. However, I feel it would be better to only include a few of these, such as six or seven, as the spectator will not likely be able to name every one of the star signs anyway. Letters could be used and the process repeated for the first and second letters in a name, alongside the other subtleties for you to be able to divine the name someone is thinking of, without them having to actually say the name out loud. A phone unlock code can be divined by repeating the process for each number of the pin, individually. This technique is only limited to your imagination.

Do I need to mention that if you are well versed in muscle reading, it is possible to eliminate the need for a number force? I thought that would get your attention.

[For more on this read around the subject of “Hellstromism” and TA Waters]. 168

Fraser Parker

Credits 1. Life Equation - Bigger Fish 2 – Peter Turner 2. Number force No. 117 - 202 Methods of forcing – Theo Annemann 3. Springboard - A Piece of My Mind – Michael Murray 4. Voice Print – Ned Rutledge 5. Voice Print Plus - Penguin Live Lecture – Ted Karmilovich

169

False Messiah

Traditional Mentalism vs. Prop-less Peter Turner, 2015 This seems to be an argument that is constantly frequenting the forums and one that ultimately ends the same way every single time, prop-jockeys arguing that the prop-less approach is convoluted and pointless and language junkies screaming that the use of props is out dated and not as impressive. The argument ends in the same way it started and the person that asked the question never really gets a definitive answer to the question they have posed.

I have come to the conclusion that the question never gets answered because there isn't really an answer – only opinions on what is right or wrong.

A lot of people read my material and assume I am an advocate for the solely propless approach and that I never use props at all when I perform.

That couldn't be further from the truth. I just haven't yet taken the time to release my thoughts on how I use props within my act – and the truth is I love each as much as the other. They are perfectly complimenting of each other and should BOTH be used to cancel the other out. I have always said use whatever tool gets the job done in the quickest sense possible in that particular situation. So let me share a few thoughts on how each works to compliment the other.

170

Fraser Parker

Lets take an electronic dice that will thump you (vibrate) depending on the number that is face up to indicate what number the participant is looking at (real time).

Many people never feel guilty about throwing a dice out to be used just as is. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this I was at a wedding as a +1 and a performer, who I didn't know, was doing the rounds using this particular prop.

After he had left the participants started to talk (keep in mind, I never mentioned what I did, so to the people talking I was just another one of them). They came up with several wild conclusions but one of them was that the dice had components in it and could be seen on his watch.

The guy even went as far as saying he had seen them on eBay. If they wanted to it would have only taken a quick Google search to find the prop and any credibility that the performer had would be instantly lost.

This was interesting to me, as a performer, because it opened my eyes to the wild things that people thought was available.

171

False Messiah

Anyway, it’s easy to look in hindsight at the mistakes another performer makes and chastise them for it. I won't do that because I still make many and will continue to do so forever more.

I will however listen, learn and adapt whenever I see something like this and add it into one of my many notebooks and reflect upon it later. Here is such a reflection.

***Tangent alert*** When filming a scene at a location (for example house) a cinematographer will always shoot a wide angle shot (the entire house will be in frame) to introduce the location they are shooting at and then will move to the individual rooms after. The same with advertisements of say a car, they will show several photos of the outside of the car and then show the interior after.

It should be the same with a prop. It needs an introduction; it needs to be logically placed into a context before it is produced.

You may be thinking “Won't that draw attention to the prop?”. The honest answer is yes, but what better way to dismiss it. You wouldn't feel guilty about giving an introduction to things that are non-gimmicked.

172

Fraser Parker

Here is how I would introduce it.

The performer holds his hand up like he is displaying something in the palm of his hand but in reality there is nothing there.

He addresses the participants.

Performer:

"I would like you all to imagine in the palm of my hand there is a dice. Obviously a dice has six sides and is numbered accordingly.

“Lauren, I want you to imagine that this is a real dice. If I throw the dice in your direction you catch it.”

Some people will find it easy to really visualize that there is a dice in the palm of my hand and others will find it more difficult. The reason for this, e.g., is some 173

False Messiah

individual’s thoughts are clouded with all the things that are going on in their social life and it is in no way a representation of their ability to imagine.

“Lauren.”

The performer mimics throwing the dice in Lauren’s direction for her to catch.

“I want you to imagine the dice in your hands. I want you to turn it around a few times and think of a number from one through six. Give me a clear yes when you have done that."

Lauren: "Yes".

Performer: "So I know with you straight away that you changed your mind a couple of times. I think you went for a three.”

174

Fraser Parker

(NOTE TO READER**)

This is where you will pause for a second to see if the participant reacts. If the participant reacts take the hit and move onto the introduction of the prop.

If the participant doesn't react quickly, counter with the following.

"But then you changed your mind, be honest are you thinking of a four?"

Take a few seconds to reflect upon what has just happened. The pause moment is really important. It can be used in so many different contexts. Imagine doing it when divining the colour of a playing card. It would mean you would never miss and you would now have reduced the suits 50%. Anyway, now you have digested that and we are in a situation where you are going to either hit or miss.

Just an FYI, 3 and 4 are the most commonly chosen numbers when they are thinking of a number from 1-6. So there is a high possibility that you will hit. Just to get into the breakdown of the reason why - I asked the participant to think of a number from one through six, this eliminates (in most cases 1 and 6), 2 will seem 175

False Messiah

close to the edge, as will 5. Try it! It’s 'restricting without seeming restrictive'. In any case it doesn't matter if you hit or miss.

First I will deal with the miss and then tell you how I deal with the hit.

The miss

You set yourself up earlier beautifully by saying, "Some people will find it easy

to really visualise that there is a dice in the palm of my hand and others will find it more difficult."

If the numbers miss don't be alarmed just follow up with,

“Lauren, it really doesn't matter that we didn't get it. I believe I know the reason. I did say earlier that people sometimes have a hard time visualising things in a way that makes it easier for me to pick things up. We will try this again but before we do, I think I now have more of a feel for you as a person.

176

Fraser Parker

“I now know you are the sort of person that people turn to in times of a crises and I bet it feels, at times, like the weight of the world is on your shoulders because you take on board everyone else’s problems whilst bottling up your own.

“I feel there is something going on right now that is constantly on your mind, that’s clouding things up. I just said some people need to see things visually in order for me to be able to pick up on them.

“So would you mind if we tried this with an actual dice that you look at, so the image is burned into the forefront of your mind?”

The participant is obviously going to oblige and this is where you introduce your prop. When you use the prop the first time, if they have picked a 2 for example, don't outright go for the hit. I would personally go with, "I feel this time you

are looking at a one or a two right?"

Then quickly get them to do it again and hit it on the head this time, whilst acting excited yourself that you are now 'connected' with them. This will give the feel of

177

False Messiah

being a real mind reader. I will explain why after I have outlined what to say should you hit.

The hit

This is the ideal scenario, but I personally prefer a miss just to install the fact that I am really doing this. If you hit on the 3/4 with the invisible dice follow with –

Performer:

"That’s great! You can really visualise it in a way that makes it easy for you to send it to me. I also feel with you that you are an easygoing person who tries to make the best of every situation.

“For that reason I know that a couple of your friends are now wondering if you just agreed with me in order to not make me look bad. Now, we know that is not the case, but we need a tool of confirmation."

178

Fraser Parker

This is where you introduce the dice and throw it to the participant.

"I want you to take the dice and hold it cupped in your hands and let the person stood at the side of you peek at what number is face up. That should destroy any theory that you are just agreeing with me."

Now you perform with the dice as normal. So let's take a look at what happens from the perspective of the participant in both cases.

In the case of the hit it should be abundantly obvious. You guessed it without a dice existing in physical form proving that you can do it. Therefore, when you introduce the dice it will never be questioned.

In the case of the miss, again you started the routine without a dice, why would you do that if you couldn't usually do it without a dice? Think about it. Why would you purposely fail if you could normally do it. That plants the seed, in the participants mind, that you would usually guess it outright. Then, when the dice is introduced, you are still not perfect. You are unsure between two numbers.

Why would you be unsure if you knew the number? 179

False Messiah

Again think about it from the participant’s perspective. Then, when you act excited that you have a connection, why would you act excited, unless you genuinely were excited, as a connection now exists?

The reason I prefer the miss is because if I ever need the participant to write anything down, from this point forward, it is completely justified without me ever having to justify the need for the writing.

That and a healthy mix of sure-fire prop-less Mentalism with other people in the group and everything checks out with nothing to question.

This should outline briefly why the two work so well together.

When reading this material (or any material for that matter) I always think it is a wise idea to think about what material will compliment this material or work alongside it to make it doubly strong.

180

Fraser Parker

Conclusion I can hardly believe this book is now complete or even fathom how it all came to be. These methods were once considered impossible and only existed in our imagination as the stuff of dreams. I am very happy to have been able to, with the help of friends, bring these ideas into this realm and make them a reality. We now have tools at our disposal to mentally 'peek' literally anything in the most efficient manner currently available to us. This all made possible completely propless using nothing but words as the method. The words themselves, the outward appearance of your performance, and the effect itself, combine to create an illusion almost impossible to undo. This is the real work. Your ability to manipulate the perception of others who witness your performances gives you a real magic power and a way of creating illusion out of nothing. The words you speak and your own belief in the illusion are literally what make it a reality. This notion, when coupled with the idea of applying a “re-frame” to the actual process itself, creates a powerhouse of deception. The fact you shift the spectator's perception of what is going on and get them to change tracks mid effect ensure they will always perceive the effect from the point of view of the illusion you wish to create. Due to how they now perceive the effect they will never be able to jump tracks back to their previous train of thought. The illusion then becomes perfect and complete. These effects use words to create illusion. It is for this reason I am so proud of this work. With few to no props and very little scripting you can now, in seconds, 181

False Messiah

perform the impossible. These tools and principles can be applied to many different effects and presentations. I will leave it to you to find your own unique uses for these. Please keep the ideas in this book to yourself. These secrets are truly novel and sharing them will only diminish the power they hold for you.

Warm regards,

Fraser

182