You are on page 1of 170

The book of the fallen

fraser Parker
Copyright © 2018 by Fraser Parker
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
without written permission from the author. For television rights and
further information, please contact: fraserparker1@hotmail.co.uk
to Jenny boy!
introduction

Here it is, The Book Of The Fallen. This is meant to be a


companion book to The Book of Angels, although this work will
stand on its own I suggest also getting a copy of the afore-
mentioned book to complete the series.

The following is my bold application of what has become known


as the O force by Ross Tayler. This has been detailed in my
other limited work The Book Of Angels, of which this book is a
kind of sequel.

The basic idea behind the O force is to seemingly give a


spectator a free choice to change aspects of a playing card
merely thought of in order to create a fairer and more random
process, whilst in reality actually secretly restricting their
choices to the point where the thought of card they end up

1
focusing on is one out of only two to four outs – they will
always be focusing on one of the Queens from out of a deck of
cards.

Ross created a beautiful method in order to achieve this effect.


However, what Ross wasn't aware of at the time he came up
with his version was that the method he adjusted and
improved upon was in fact, a different variant on an even older
idea of mine.

This first attempt at creating a force out of offering a


seemingly free choice was published in Kenton's Mind Reading
Lessons and is something that I abandoned before creating the
second variant Ross eventually read and updated. I felt my
first ideas on this were too bold at the time but it is only after
revisiting my notebooks that I realised it could be used
deceptively if the “re-frame” also invented by Ross Tayer was
applied to it.

This basic concept has now come full circle and is perfect in
terms of its ease of use and its deceptiveness. For me, this
method highlights my current drive and state of mind when

2
creating prop-less effects – I always try to create the most
streamlined and simplified methods, often with method and
effect running along the same line seamlessly to the point
where the effect is the method and visa versa.

The goal is to blur method with effect so that all that is


discernible from the point of view of your audience members
and those who watch you perform is the outward appearance of
the performance itself. They are left with a beautiful lie and
thanks to the “re-frame” principle and how what you do
appears outwardly, in and of itself, only illusion remains. And
yes, once they accept what appears you have done is fact and is
indeed, what has taken place, there is no way for anyone to
backtrack method or for the false appearance of real magic to
unravel.

In terms of the following method, it is bold with an almost


childish simplicity. However, it looks and feels how it should to
your spectator and will therefore be accepted as so. They will
perceive the illusion and be fooled by it, even if the method is
hidden in plain sight and is staring everyone right in the face.

3
If you act as if what you are doing is what you are pretending
to do and trust the outward appearance of the performance
itself to create the illusion and fool your audience members
then this type of material will fly.

Naturally, as with all of my prop-less work, you should only


perform one prop-less item in a set of more solid effects. Not
only will this cover any failure that may occur whilst
performing these slightly bolder effects, performing other solid
effects will help establish a credibility in what it is you do that
is essential to getting my work to play.

You have to believe in what it is you are doing and act as if it is


real (to some degree) in order to get away with performing
these methods to ensure they work, as well as perform with
confidence and in such a way that you make what you do
believable.

This is hard to teach but you can begin with a silent script and
an attitude towards the material you perform or how you
approach thinking about method versus effect – personally, I
feel that these methods are closer to real due to the fact they

4
exist in words which are forgotten after they are spoken; I use
words to shift perception and their understanding of reality to
literally create a moment of real magic (or the illusion of
magic).

For me, there is little difference between the illusion of real


magic having taken place and a situation where it has occurred
for real; the experience in their imagination, is the same.

It is because of this outlook I secretly hold within myself as I


perform that others feel what it is I do is real – I believe in it
myself, to this degree and this is translated to my audiences
via the outward appearance of what it is I do and more
importantly 'How?' They sense that it is something to do with
my words and how I am able to twist their sense of reality.

The performance itself, is the ultimate “re-frame” and the key


to making what you do appear real – this type of thinking
started with my first release True Mysteries and was applied
more generally to the performance of believable
demonstrations of Hypnosis, without the need for trance and
has been a thread throughout all of my thinking and within the

5
work that has followed since.

So after that slight detour serving as a means of introducing


this work, let's get back to the work at hand and the first
method in this book of real secrets and principles.

PLEASE read this book in its entirety from beginning to end


and then re-read it a few times before performing any of these
effects. Everything needed to understand this work fully, as
well as to perform these effects and apply these principles to
your own work is taught within its pages but not necessarily in
the order you may choose to read it – do NOT jump to a specific
section and try to learn that method or effect in isolation –
BUT read the book from cover to cover a few times.

That is my last warning to you for you to be able to learn this


material completely and in the way intended.

Enjoy!

Fraser, 2018

6
bold o

Originally, in the first version of what later became the O force


I was only offering one side of a change of polarity – or between
two possible options, such as red or black playing cards. If I
wanted to create the illusion of a free choice as to how the
spectator could change an element of their card I would only
state one possibility of that said change. For example, if I
wanted the spectator to eventually end up thinking of a black
card I would say,

“If you are now focusing on a red card change to one of


the black suits …”

Naturally, if I was giving them full freedom of choice I would


also offer the opposite to this change also. This way they would
have a completely fair choice within the polarity of available

7
choice.

However, by only stating one side of the polarity I realised that


this still sounds like you intend to give them an entirely free
choice after the fact, and that you were perhaps lazy in giving
your instructions or assumed it was obvious that they knew
they could also go with the opposite of your instructions. In this
way, you are seemingly offering a complete free choice for how
the spectator can change their thought of card but expressing
this notion in a casual manner.

Of course, they will only be able to follow your direct


instruction for them to change from one side of the polarity to
the other. Naturally, this will always force them to whichever
side of the polarity you wish for them to focus on. Even when
having this explained to you, it may still seem completely fair
and as if there couldn't actually be a method but think about it.

If I said to you,

“If you are focusing on a black card, change it to red …”

8
You can only ever end up thinking of a red card. If you were
focusing on a black card you would follow the instruction to
change and if you were already focusing on a red card then the
instruction wouldn't apply to you. Therefore, you will stay on
the same side of the polarity and ultimately be focusing on a
red card.

The trick to getting this to work is to deliver your scripting and


the possible changes of each of the attributes of a playing card
in a casual and off hand manner, as if you are literally opening
up their freedom of choice, whilst at the same time only ever
directly stating one side of the polarity for each characteristic
of their thought of card and are simply leading them towards a
specific force item, in the process.

What makes this effect deceptive is the way these choices are
tied up with a re-framing of what has taken place, once the
spectator has settled on a thought of card. This was the
missing piece of the puzzle that made something that was
perhaps too bold before, now workable in the real world. Of
course, when I first came up with this notion I didn't have the
“re-frame” from Ross to apply.

9
Here is the full scripting you can use to force a low value of
playing card of any suit you wish.

Remember to deliver your script to the spectator in a seemingly


care-free and off-hand manner, whilst actually still being very
direct with your instructions. There is a balance to delivering
this script correctly, you will have to learn, with practice.

“Think of a random card in the deck …”

The spectator will now be focusing on any card out of an


imaginary deck of playing cards.

Here is where we begin to apply the change up.

“Just to ensure this choice stays entirely random … if


you are now focusing on a red card change it to a black
card and if you now happen to be focusing on a Spade
change it to a Club … and finally, if you are on a high
card change it to a low card”.

10
NOTE: the language in bold type makes your second specific
instruction seem even more care-free than it actually is. It
appears as if you are simply offering a choice to change and are
doing so by briefly mentioning one of the possible changes that
could be made.

This would perhaps all be a little too obvious if it were not for
the re-frame that follows this scripting.

“Okay, so you now have a random playing card in mind,


yes?”

It is important here that we don't ask the spectator to confirm


they have a “different” playing card in mind, as that might not
be the case if they have not had to apply any of your polarizing
instructions to change their card and have instead stuck to the
same card. However, this general statement will still fit the
reality that they have changed the card, from the perspective of
the audience – even if this is not the case.

As soon as the spectator confirms they have a card in mind you

11
say the following.

“So just to recap you literally had a free choice to change


this card however you wanted –

“Obviously, if you had started on a different, random


card to begin with then you would have changed this
card in a completely differently way, as you always had
the choice to think of its opposite characteristics and
traits, correct?

“Therefore, there is no way I could know the card you


have just settle on, correct?”

The re-frame as to what has in fact taken place, is in bold type


and serves to ensure the spectator perceives what has
happened in the way you wish and to believe in the false hood
of the illusion. As soon as they confirm what you say to be true
the illusion comes full circle and the false reality is sealed.
They can no longer back track what has happened due to the
fact your words have now been spoken and have disappeared

12
only to be viewed through the lens of the false reality within
the frame work of the perceived effect, of which you are
building with the performance itself.

You may wish to say the same thing in less words. In fact, it
may be better to keep the whole of this scripting quick and
casual to have the best outcome, in terms of impact and
reaction. It should appear as if you simply mean for the
spectator to quickly change their original thought, to ensure
randomness and not bring any more attention to the process
other than to briefly re-cap on the fairness of proceedings.

What is nice about this particular re-frame is the fact, you are
linking their final choice with the randomness of their first
choice. It will feel to everyone involved as if this outcome would
have been entirely different if they had started on a different
card to begin with. This of course, is false. However, it really
does seem as if, due to the fact their first choice was entirely
random then it must follow that their second choice is also
completely free.

If they didn't need to change any of the elements of their card

13
and in fact, stuck to the same card all along then it will still
seem impossible that you are able to know their original
randomly thought of playing card.

They may change one or more elements of their card along the
way and even in a worse case scenario, if the spectator is a
particularly logical thinker, they will still feel like you
somehow knew what they were thinking of originally and this
is how you were able to guide them to change towards your
prediction or towards the card you eventually take out of the
deck.

You will now be down to four outs which you can further filter
to two. Most of the time your spectator will be focusing on a low
card: either the two, three, four or five of Clubs.

Naturally, you can change the colour and suit of your force card
by simply guiding the spectator's choices down a different path
of your choosing. I have found that Aces are usually not chosen
due to the fact they appear to spectators as too obvious a
choice. Of course, you can eliminate this as a choice by simply
mentioning it, earlier on in the routine:

14
“Think of a random playing card but please don't just
choose an obvious card, everyone would go for, like the
Ace of Spades”.

You will now likely be left with the card values two to five with
six usually being considered a higher card by most spectators.
Of course, you can arrange for four outs depending on which
type of effect you wish to perform. I might simply place each of
the outs in one of my pockets and then take out the correct
playing card after it has been named, showing my pocket to be
empty (other than the card) in the process.

However, if you want to get down to only two outs you can use
a hanging statement to find out if the thought of card they
have now settled on is an odd or even value of card.

Here I would use a ruse from Peter Turner and his variant on
the hanging statement. I would simply state one of the
possibilities and wait a split second for a reaction from the
spectator.

15
“This is an odd card …”

If they react to my statement then I know it is and odd card


and I don't need to adjust, otherwise I quickly change my mind,
as if correcting myself.

“NO … Even!”

Now, I would take out the 3 of Clubs from the deck of cards and
place it face down on the table, as this is the most likely choice
and have the spectator name their card.

If I am wrong I don't care as I am close and this is only meant


to be a quick way to warm up at the beginning on my set.

Those of you who prefer to be exactly right and wish to be able


to place one card on the table as a prediction, before the
spectator seemingly names their final card out loud and always
nail the card, can use this updated scripting.

“Think of a random playing card …

16
“Just to ensure this stays entirely random … if you are
focusing on a number card, change it to a picture card
… if you happen to now be focusing on a male picture
card then change it to a female … otherwise, change this
however you want”.

Now all you need to know is the suit of the spectators chosen
card to be able to place the correct card face down. It will
always be one of the Queens.

The idea for changing from a male card to a female card in


order to box the spectator's choice into one out of the three
possibilities (there being two male cards and only one female)
is Peter Turner's and was utilized in the first 'O force'.

The way I personally handle knowing what suit the spectator


will be thinking of is explained in The Book Of Angels.

Here it is again briefly explained:

As you spread through the cards (faces towards yourself) you


say the following to the spectator:

17
“I want you to just name the first suit that pops into your
head …”

Spectator: “Hearts!”

Imagine they say 'Hearts'. You now find the opposite suit to
whatever they say, of their thought of value. If they say a red
suit then I will just take out a card of the opposite colour. For
example, if they are thinking of a 7 and say 'Hearts' I would
spread through and take out the 7 of Spades and place it face
down on the table as I say:

“Sorry, I need to commit to a playing card first before


you say it any of the details out loud”.

Often the spectator will apologize for making a mistake at this


point! Even though this moment has been engineered by the
performer to always take place.

I now miss-call whatever suit they said out loud and don't give

18
the spectator time to correct me. Here I always call out the
opposite suit of the same colour I have now committed to. This
ensures the spectator is lead away from choosing this suit in a
moment.

“So you said Clubs [slight pause] … in fact, to keep this


entirely random, whatever suit you just said out loud
change it to a completely different suit”.

This scripting will cause the spectator to change the colour of


whatever suit they first named out loud and due to the fact you
have mentioned the only other possibility within this colour
restriction they will always have to end up thinking of the suit
of the card you placed face down on the table.

The scripting “change to a completely different suit” will be


understood as an instruction for them to make the suit as
different as possible which will more often than not cause the
spectator to focus on a suit of the opposite colour to the one
named.

Also, the miss-call of the suit they named previously acts as a

19
convincer that you couldn't have been doing anything
suspicious or trick like as you spread through the deck because
how would you control the outcome of the card they would
eventually be focusing on, if you weren't even paying attention
to whatever suit they said out loud.

It is important that when you ask for the suit to be called out
whilst beginning to spread through the deck, you act as if you
are not paying attention to it. I would also begin to say the line,
“actually, sorry I didn't want you to say it out loud …” whilst I
am still looking through the deck and then finish the statement
as I commit to a card and take it out of the deck “ … I need to
commit to a card first”.

Those who don't want to apply any further linguistic


manoeuvrers can simply apply the following bold ruse, of which
I have also been getting away with.

I simply ask the spectator to name a suit at random.

“Just say a suit at random, for me now”.

20
This looks like a throw away remark and a simple way for the
spectator to complete their playing card fully in their mind.

I then place the relevant Queen face down on the table taking
it out of the deck, in the process then apply the re-frame and
finally have the spectator name their complete card.

Now all of the information blends into the one reveal as I turn
over the face down card or have the spectator do so.

The effect will appear larger than what it is as you have


seemingly nailed the exact card they chose at random or you
somehow knew their thoughts in order to guide them to the
correct card.

This is bold an you may only want to use this sparingly in and
amongst other effects in a set, so that it becomes hidden
amongst everything else you do and is remembered as yet
another hit or moment where you were correct.

If you prefer to not have the spectator name the suit then you
can use a genuine free choice of suit as a way to bolster the

21
fairness of their previous choices, as follows.

“Think of a random card from out of the deck …

Just to ensure this stays entirely random … if you are


focusing on a number card change it to one of the picture
cards … if you happen to now be focusing on a male
card, change it to a female …

“And now we are going to do the exact same thing –


always going with the opposite of whatever your
choice was before – so if you are focusing on a red suit,
change it to one of the black suits and visa versa …”

This will serve as a re-frame in and of itself. Needless to say


you will now have to use a four way out of some kind, covering
the four possible suit choices for each of the Queens.

Naturally, these variations are closer to the O force by Ross


Tayler and uses the more convenient way of boxing the
thoughts of the spectator, into thinking of one of the picture

22
cards. These are much easier to handle as outs, as there are
less of these cards in the deck. In the past, when forcing a
playing card using binary choices Kenton preferred to force the
Queen of Hearts, for this reason (as can be outlined in his now
out of print 'The Secret' manuscript).

Feel free to play around with outs and these different verbal
techniques to build your own uses for said bold ruses, within
your own routines – remember, it is the simplicity of what it is
you are doing and its seeming innocence that make each of
these techniques fly! As well as your own performing character
and your believability in performance.

One of the outs I have used is from Annemann. It allows for a


kind of 'Any Card At Any Number' I place an indifferent card
followed by The Queen of Spades, Queen of Hearts, Queen of
Clubs and Queen of Diamonds on top of the deck and then box
the deck.

I then perform the previously described version of bold O and


after the spectator has named one of the Queens I then ask
them for a number – without repeating their number I simply

23
take the deck out of the box and begin to deal cards face down
one on top of the other onto the table, counting as I deal.

I now count past their named number. If they are focusing on


the Queen of Spades then I know to deal one extra card past
their named number. For the Queen of Hearts, two cards, for
the Queen of Clubs, three and finally four cards past their
named number for the Queen of Diamonds. How many cards
needed to be dealt past their named number is easy to recall as
each of the suits has a built in mnemonic based on how many
points each of them contain: The Spade has one downward
point, the Heart has two bumps, the Clubs have three bumps
and the Diamonds have four corner points.

I now look up and repeat the amount of cards I have dealt


asking if the spectator is content:

“[X] cards, that is correct, yes!?”

They will now correct you at this point. If they don't right away
then just act as if you realize you have made a mistake,
yourself.

24
Then take the cards you have dealt and place them on top of
the remaining cards in your hand and give all of the cards to
your spectator, saying:

“Sorry, I made a mistake. In fact, you count these so that


it is fair, I don't want to touch them at all!”

Those versed in 'Wonder Words' by Kenton will appreciate how


the last line will make it seem we never actually touch the
cards or control anything.

The spectator will now deal down to their named number and
find their freely thought of card is at that position in the deck.

This works due to a displacement which takes place on your


first deal, with your reverse count placing their specific
thought of card in the correct position due determined by how
many cards you miss-count by.

25
bold drawing

The following is an application for the Bold O principle taught


above that may at first appear far too bold and obvious to be
fooling but trust me I have fooled magicians with this as well
as lay people – for whatever reason, it plays beautifully!

I think this is because of the fact, everything appears and more


importantly feels exactly as it should.

It is bold in it's simplicity but here in lies the key to its success
– it appears simply as if you give a spectator a free choice to
think of literally any drawing and then quickly get them to
change their mind in order to make the process fairer – that is
it!

It uses the frame-work and structure already established in my

26
prop-less drawing duplication 'I Fall To Pieces' which was
based on Phedon's 'Proteus' and streamlines the process even
further.

The only difference between what takes place if you were to


genuinely perform this effect for real and what in fact takes
place due to the necessary, small compromise in method is the
omission of one of the possible polarities of change.

However, because a completely free choice of change is


suggested by the outward appearance of the effect itself and
the off hand manner in which you deliver your instructions, it
will always appear fair and exactly as it should, if you were
actually doing this for real. Of course, we add in the re-frame
as in the previous use of this bold principle to further cement
this as reality in the minds of everyone involved.

First of all, we get the spectator to focus on a random drawing.


We do this in a specific way to ensure they will likely be
thinking of one out of a few likely drawings. This method uses
the same limited field of potential thought of drawings as the
original 'Proteus' and my variation 'I Fall To Pieces'.

27
I will not list all of the possible drawings as most of the time
you will only be down to a couple of outs when applying the
following scripting but those who wish to have a larger safety
net when performing this should check out either of the afore-
mentioned releases.

“I want you to focus on a random drawing. Make this a


simple object and something that others would instantly
recognize, if you were to actually draw this”.

This is my streamlined way of ensuring the spectator will


eventually think of one of the force drawings – if you want to
make this more sure fire then you may want to use the
language provided by Phedon in his manuscript 'Proteus'.
However, for this particular method I don't feel it is necessary
to add any more restrictions to their choices.

They will be thinking in terms of simple objects that are


instantly recognizable and will therefore, more often than not
fall into the trap of thinking of only a handful of potential basic
drawings.

28
The outs that I deal with in this routine are:

TREE

Or

HOUSE

These are both psychological forces and likely thoughts in and


of themselves which is in part why they are eventually chosen.

Which of these the spectator eventually focuses on is


dependant on how you prefer to guide their choices.

Here is an example of the script that will lead the spectator to


ultimately be focusing on a tree.

“I want you to focus on a random drawing. Make this a


simple object and something that others would instantly
recognize, if you were to actually draw this”.

29
I now continue with the bold ruse:

“Just to ensure this stays entirely random … if you are


focusing on something man made, change it to
something natural … if you happen to now be on
something you can easily hold in your hand, change it to
something much larger …”

This language boxes the spectators into thinking of something


within the categories of natural and something much larger
than they can hold in their hands and will more often than not
lead them to be thinking of the most likely force item, of a tree.

Remember these instructions are delivered in seemingly off


hand manner, as if you are simply offering the spectator a
choice to freely change their drawing however they want, to
make this process even fairer.

Now comes the re-frame that wraps everything up beautifully


and makes you guessing their thought of drawing appear
impossible.

30
“To re-cap, you could have literally changed this
drawing however you wanted to … obviously, if you had
started on a different drawing to begin with then you
would have changed this to a completely different
drawing … so there is no way I could know what you are
now focusing on, correct?”

They will agree with you and you are now ready to reveal their
thought of drawing under seemingly impossible circumstances.

Stating the reframe as something obvious and seemingly self-


evident helps to convince the spectator that what you say is
indeed the true situation. They will not want to feel stupid or
feel they have missed something so blindingly obvious about
the proceedings and will therefore, simply follow along with
your statement and agree with what you say and in the
process, fool themselves into believing in the illusion.

I would usually just reveal that they are thinking of a tree at


this point.

31
If you know the other potential outs they could be thinking of
then you may wish to have the spectator focus on their drawing
as a word and throw out an amount of letters getting the
spectator to correct you if you are wrong and then narrow down
on their drawing that way.

I don't feel this is necessary as I usually perform this as a


quick bit in and amongst other pieces in my set. Therefore, any
miss is easily washed away and can be quickly moved on from.
You have not placed much importance on the process to begin
with and are using it as a way to get in sync with your
spectator.

If you wish you could throw out another out verbally and if you
hit end there, otherwise proceed to have the spectator actually
draw their thought of drawing and duplicate it in the same way
you would, classically.

The only other item they could be thinking of at this point is a


Mountain or perhaps the Sun or Moon.

You can kill the Sun and Moon by mentioning these earlier on

32
in your script whilst giving your instructions for the spectator
to think of something simple “... like the Sun or the Moon but
obviously, don't now think of those as I have mentioned these”
and then cover yourself by throwing out Mountain as a
potential hit before moving into the actual duplication.

I usually don't bother with these safety nets. As Ross Bartels


will testify “... it's tree all day long!”

If I was dealing with the polarity of a man made object and


forcing the spectator to think of something much larger than
would fit in my hands then I would force a house. The other
potential drawings they may go for being a car or table and
chair. Again these can be eliminated as already explained by
giving the example of a table or chair at the start and then
being down to the two outs of house or car.

I find forcing something natural is easier due to the fact more


often than not a tree will be chosen with no need for the use of
any other outs.

It will seem to the spectator that they literally had a free

33
choice of any drawing or object and even when given a choice
you were able to somehow nail their drawing out of thin air!

This is thanks to the use of a restrictive field of potential


drawings that doesn't appear to be restrictive, as well as the
old use of psychological forcing coming into play.

34
touches – prop-less utility

This next piece is something that I first attempted to solve


around the time I was working on the Ouija name guess with
my good friend Ross Tayler.

I knew that it must be possible but couldn't find the missing


piece of the jigsaw puzzle, at the time.

I wanted a way to incorporate the use of the classic timing


force with playing cards and more specifically the 'Drop force'
by Eddie Fetcher in a way that would allow me to perform with
it prop-less and without the need to have a deck of cards on my
person.

Briefly, the drop force works as follows:

35
A force card is placed on top of the deck and the deck is then
cut around one third from the top of the deck and this packet is
placed to the bottom of the deck held with a finger break.

The deck is held with this finger break in a dealer's grip.

Then to achieve the force a third of the packet above the finger
break is cut and placed onto the table, followed by another
third (also placed on top of the tabled packet) and finally the
remaining cards above the break are dealt to the tabled packet.

If you instruct the spectator to “say stop somewhere …” as you


begin to deal these packets to the table, they will invariably
say stop when you have dealt the last packet above the break.

This works due to the classic timing force. It will feel right for
them to stop on the third packet or third beat in the timing.
You yourself have to get used to the correct pacing and the
speed at which you deal each of the packets in order for the
timing to feel natural and free to the spectator. However, with
a little practice this becomes fail safe and one of the fairest
ways to force a specific playing card.

36
If they are slightly delayed or out of sync with the natural
timing and say “stop!” a beat after the classic three beat timing
then all you need to do is continue dealing another smaller
packet onto the table from the cards remaining in your hand
and it will be at this point the spectator will now say stop.

Now all you need to do is utilize the card on the top of the
tabled packet instead of the top card of the packet cut to, in
order to ensure the force card is always selected.

Of course, if they don't stop you during this extra beat of the
timing force and you can't use this as a safety net then I would
simply pick up the cards on the table and place them back onto
the cards held in dealer's grip, false shuffle retaining top stock
and then begin the process again remarking in a joking way,

“... before we run out of cards!”

In order to ensure they don't stop you too soon the next time
you apply the force and try to trick you by calling out “stop!”
right away on the first cut, I would say the following:

37
“Most would just say stop now but I want this to be fair
…”

I pause after having said this line and cutting the first packet
to the table and then continue with the usual forcing
procedure, “... just say stop somewhere”. You will now cause
the spectator to either say “stop!” on the third or fourth beat as
usual.

This is such a reliable forcing technique with playing cards I


knew I wanted to use it for other things.

Peter Turner has work on this timing force where he


eliminates the use of cards in order to reveal information prop-
less. He uses the classic timing force that would usually be
applied to dealing through cards, whereas I have taken the
conceptual frame-work of the timing force applied to dealing
chunks of cards ala. the 'Drop force' and applied this to a prop-
less presentation.

I feel my adaption may be a little easier to pull off and more

38
self working, due to the psychology at play. Not to say that
Peter doesn't regularly get his method to work. It does and it is
a thing of beauty!

I realized that the reason the 'Drop force' (explained above) is


so reliable is because there is a natural cap that occurs during
proceedings. The spectators understand that you are running
out of cards in the deck that can be dealt and it is for this
reason they will always feel slightly pressured to say stop when
they do. This may only be something that they pick up on
subconsciously and in no way seems to affect the seeming
fairness of the force.

Originally, I was trying to touch different areas on my arm and


then move onto each of my fingers in order for the spectator to
think stop on one of those areas, utilizing the classic timing
force. Then I would label the different areas and this would
allow me to either force information or retrieve information
from the spectator depending on which of these areas was
marked out, mentally.

The reason for using areas on my arm and the fingers of my

39
hand was so that I had a physical way to refer back and forth
between a list that could be created on the fly, without the
need for a piece of paper and pen.

It was only recently whilst reading back through my notebooks


that the 'penny dropped' and I suddenly knew how all of this
would fit together – it was all down to the choreography of the
force.

The use of the fingers is key. Not only will they allow you to
define a specific area the spectator will be focusing on that is
hard for them to forget they also allow you to create the notion
of a limited range that will ensure the spectator thinks stop
when you want them to. This was what was missing in my first
attempts at creating a timing force with touches.

I begin by directing my spectator not to say anything out loud.

“Stay completely silent as we do this, okay? Don't say


anything out loud”.

I now begin to touch different areas of my arm and hand in

40
turn at a steady pace. First of all I touch the front of my
forearm then the middle of the back of my hand and then as I
touch my thumb on the middle phalanger I say the following:

“Just think stop somewhere …”

I then touch each of my fingers in turn at the same pace of


timing but slightly slow down as I reach my fourth finger. The
fingers I touch in order are as follows: My first (index) finger,
second (middle) finger, fourth (ring) finger and my little (pinky)
finger.

I then continue to touch the first two areas of my arm again (in
reverse order) without missing a beat on the timing.

What this does is forces the spectators to think stop on either


the middle or ring finger due to the fact it will feel to them that
you are running out of possible fingers for them to choose from.
This is the same psychology that happens with the 'Drop force'
when the spectator feels you are coming to the end of a limited
stack of cards.

41
However, what is beautiful is you will continue right along
after the little finger and touch the other areas of your arm (in
reverse order) also adding a final touch somewhere else on your
arm and this will suggest they truly had a free choice of where
to stop that was not only limited to the previously seeming
restricted choice that was capped by the fingers.

There choice will appear much bigger than it actually is.

Not only will this ensure one of these fingers are chosen the
fact you don't give your instruction for them to think stop until
you are touching your thumb also ensures they can't select any
other area of your body that proceeded this thumb touch.

Everything will blend together to create the illusion of a free


choice. It will appear as if you always meant for the spectator
to think stop even if you give your instruction slightly late. Not
only will this be a factor but it will also seem they could have
chosen those areas after the command when you go back over
them with your touches.

I love this method due to the fact I have tattoos and it allows

42
me to jump from tattoo to tattoo as stepping stones. However,
this is just as effective without a visual reminder of where the
spectator has thought stop.

In fact, some may prefer to perform these touches on the


spectators arm or to do so and then pretend to be able to feel
energy by hovering their hand over each of the areas, as the
spectator focuses mentally on their thought of area (without
the spectator giving it away by looking). Do whatever works
best for you.

There is a small chance the spectator may think stop on the


little finger. To get around this I use a hanging statement as a
way to generate a hit that can be perceived as a throw away
effect, if and when the timing has missed.

After performing the timing force, I would simply say:

“Most people now would be thinking of the pinky or little


finger!”

I pause for a moment to see if I get a reaction and if there is no

43
reaction from the spectator I can continue along confidently
with the rest of the routine I am using this timing force for.

“But I am glad that you are not predictable and think


differently to most people and have genuinely chosen at
random an area to focus on”.

As well as serve as an out this will also help bolster the


fairness of proceedings.

Your spectator should now be thinking of either the middle or


ring fingers.

These two possible outcomes are dealt with within each of the
uses of this timing force, themselves. For example, if utilizing
this timing force to reveal a single digit number then you can
label the fingers as follows:

“I am going to name single digit numbers from 0-9 and I


want you to focus on the number that corresponds to the
area you are now focusing on”.

44
I now perform the same touching procedure but this time say
out loud each of the numbers in ascending order from zero to
nine as I touch each area of my body.

What is nice about this method due to the compactness of the


touches is certain areas will have more than one piece of
information attached to it. However, these are always the
areas of the body that are redundant and will not be thought of
by your spectator.

You may want to mention this in performance as a way of


suggesting that what it is you are doing is that much more
impossible.

“There is no way I could know the number you are now


focusing on or whether you have had to choose from
more than one number”.

Now it is a simple case of throwing out a closed question or


hanging statement posed in the negative that deals with
whether their number is odd or even, to nail down on which of

45
the two numbers they could be thinking of.

It will always have to be odd or even due to the fact the


potential thought of fingers and their subsequent labelling
with numbers will always be next to each other.

“You're not thinking of an odd number are you?”

If they say 'yes' then you follow up with:

“I thought so”.

If they say 'no' you say:

“I didn't think so”.

Either way you will appear to be correct in your statement.

Now you indefinitely know their thought of number and finger


they were focusing on.

This is just one use of this force.

46
If you wanted to reveal a playing card then you could label
each area Ace through to King ensuring you count three times
on the arm before touching the thumb and the rest of the
fingers and cycling through the touches so that the middle and
ring finger do not have any repeated values applied to them.

Then you can simply cycle through the suits Clubs, Hearts,
Spades and Diamonds in order to create two possible thought
of playing cards.

Now all you would need to do is perform a hanging statement


on either odd or even for the value or on whether it is a black
or red card, in order to distinguish the correct thought of card.

As most people don't think of picture cards as having a


corresponding odd or even value, it may be better to use the red
and black suits as the distinguishing feature.

If you want to use this utility as a force then after you have
gone through the timing force you can say:

47
“Just to make this even more random I want you to jump
to the very next position to the one you are now focusing
on but only if you don't end up on the pinky finger – for
some reason everyone goes for that finger and I want this
to be entirely random”.

This will ensure they will more than likely now be focusing on
the ring finger and you can label this finger accordingly to
ensure your force outcome.

In fact, you may want to add this as a way of making the


timing force more sure fire whenever you prefer not to be down
to two possible outs.

Naturally, this utility is only limited by your imagination.

If you want to establish a truth or liar situation then you can


label each of the areas next to each other as either truth or liar
and alternate as you touch each area in pairs. This will ensure
that no matter which of the two possible fingers they could be
thinking of they will always be thinking of either truth or liar
as these are dealt with as a pair.

48
Now you can control whether or not the spectator will always
lie or tell the truth in response to your questions about a freely
chosen item such as a playing card or thought of drawing.

You could label each of the areas with a letter of the alphabet
in ascending order and then force a specific Country or common
thought of name.

If you wanted to obtain the first letter of a thought of name


then you could instruct the spectator to name the first letter of
their thought of name when you touch the area they are
focusing on, otherwise they are to say a random letter each
time you touch each of the non thought of areas.

If you are using it this way, I would suggest also instructing


the spectator to pause slightly before giving each of the letters
as to not give away which of the spoken letters is their thought,
due to the fact it may take longer for them to generate each of
the random letters compared to the letter they already have in
mind.

49
It is also worth mentioning that after applying this timing
force you may want to instruct the spectator not to just look at
the area they are focusing on or give anything away.

You could also get the spectator to name random star signs and
to name their star sign when you are touching their
corresponding thought of area. This would have to be
performed with someone who is familiar with each of the star
signs or at least knows five or six, so that if they repeat a few
signs it will still be impressive if you can nail theirs out of six
possibilities.

You could easily perform a drawing duplication based on the


limited restriction field of drawings if you get the spectator to
name the first letter of their thought of drawing.

Here is the restricted list of potential drawings they could be


thinking of:

TREE
HOUSE
CAR

50
BOAT
SUN
MOON
TABLE
CHAIR
STICK-MAN
AREOPLANE or PLANE
CAT
DOG
MOUNTAIN

With a little fishing you will be able to easily nail their


drawing, providing you instruct the spectator to think of a
simple object that would be instantly recognizable.

NOTE: If you know Michael Murray's Cups principle then you


can apply it during your performance of the BOLD Drawing
Duplication (taught previously) in order to narrow down which
out of this list of drawings the spectator is likely thinking of.
All you need to do is have the spectator focus on the word for
their drawing (whatever it is called i.e. AREOPLANE) and to
count the amount of letters in the word secretly to themselves

51
in their head. Then throw out an amount of letters and if you
are wrong then have the spectator tell you the amount of
letters. This will narrow their potential thought of drawing
down to one or two possible images. Then you can use any out,
accordingly.

You can also unlock someone's phone by getting the spectator


to call out each of the digits of their pin combined with random
numbers. You would simply use the odd or even hanging
statement on the first number then repeat the process for each
of the other numbers in their pin and then after going through
the process the required amount of times for either a four or six
digit pin number, pick up their phone and unlock it.

If you decided to use this method to gain the first number


needed to perform the reverse pin from The Book Of Angels,
using my 'shift in premise' principle then you may want to
apply something my good friend Peter Turner suggested when
I showed him my reverse pin using the 'Utsukushii' method,
also taught in The Book Of Angels.

Instead of applying a closed question or hanging statement to

52
find out if the number the spectator is focusing on is odd or
even – you can simply have them tell you.

“Do you feel this number is odd or even?”

What is beautiful about this ruse is the fact the spectator


already knows whether the number they are focusing on is odd
or even and will have no other choice but to answer this
slightly strangely placed question in a truthful manner. Of
course, this will tip whether their number is odd or even to you.

What is nice about this is the fact it fits perfectly from a


theatrical point of view, as it is in-line with the premise of the
spectator guessing information about your pin number.

Enjoy, finding all the different ways you can apply this update
on the classic timing force.

This technique is only limited by your imagination!

53
rose 3

What follows is my latest and perhaps final update on the


prop-less name guess. I feel the following method is an
improvement on my previous release “Rose” due to its
streamlined nature as well as the fact that this updated
method allows you to get multiple letters of the name with very
little additional work – in fact, the entire method is practical
and self-working.

This is something I have attempted to do with all of my work;


simplify it to the point where all that is left is the illusion
created by the bold use of words and psychology. I have
realised that as long as your words and actions get the work
done, in the easiest way possible whilst at the same time
creating an outward appearance of an effect that is deceptive
then it is better to work less, in this way; by working smarter

54
instead of harder.

Not only will this make the presentation more streamline and
eliminate any heavy process from the performance of the effect
itself, it will also make it easier for your spectator to follow
along with your instructions in order for the effect to play out
as intended.

It is surprising how such bold manoeuvrers can be gotten away


with when performed with confidence and within the context of
other effects that help bolster a believability in what it is you
are doing. Of course, it is necessary to already put across a
believability in your character and performance to those who
you perform for, in order for the material of this nature to fly
past your audience members. This newer work is no different,
it just happens to be even simpler in nature and that much
bolder.

It is the outward appearance of what it is you seemingly do


that convinces everyone that everything is as it should be and
there could be no chance of deception or at least none that they
can perceive. The fact that this is done with almost childish

55
simplicity, is what makes this approach so beautiful –
everything appears as it should – you are acting as if the
illusion is all there is to it and all that those who are watching
are able to hold onto and perceive IS precisely THAT illusion.

So without further ado, let's get right into the words at play.

NOTE: Remember to always act as if what you are doing is so


from the point of view of illusion and perform with confidence.

That is the key to making this material work.

There is a little memory work required if you don't wish to use


a crib in performance but this really is minimal for the impact
this routine will have on those who you perform it for.

I will be brief with this explanation as there really isn't much


to it at all.

Read this effect as well as the entire book in order a couple of


times to ensure you understand fully everything that is at
work in this method and its applications.

56
Literally, within a few seconds, you will have all of the
information you need to successfully guess the name someone
is merely thinking of.

Here is a performance script example, with the secret work


hidden in plain sight (as it will be to everyone else watching, in
actual performance):

“There is someone close to you who has been on your


mind recently. This is a Male person and they have a
common spelling of the name. Can you think of who this
is without saying their name?”

Spectator: “Yes”.

“Who is this?”

Spectator: “My work colleague”.

“Okay, is there any way I could know who this is or

57
know anything about this person?”

Spectator: “No”.

“Would you mind if I continue to read you to find out


more about this person and what they mean to you?”

Spectator: “Sure. Do it!”

“Okay. So that we can more easily generate


characteristics and traits about this person that relate to
them on a personal level, just focus on the first letter in
their name for me”.

Spectator: “Okay”.

“And in a moment, I want you to jump a few letters


forwards in the alphabet. So if this was the letter 'a' you
would think to yourself 'a' … 'b' … 'c' … So just do this
for me now, starting with whatever the first letter of this

58
person's name is”.

Spectator: “Okay”.

“And now just say a positive characteristic or trait that


begins with this new letter, you feel would best sum this
person up”.

Spectator: “Loving”.

“Okay. Now focus on the second letter in the name and


do the exact same thing again but this time give me a
negative characteristic or trait”.

Spectator: “Okay. Er … Quick … to judge”.

“Okay good. So just to recap, there's no way I could


know how many letters you decided to jump each time,
so there's no way that these characteristics or traits
could tell me anything about the name of this person,

59
correct?”

Spectator: “Correct”.

[I would now deliver a quick reading which is out of the


scope of this manuscript to outline].

“Okay. So based on all of the characteristics and traits I


am starting to get a sense of this person. Can you just
focus on the name for me?”

Spectator: “Okay”.

“And if you can abbreviate the name then think of it in


its short form”.

Spectator: “Done”.

“This is 4 letters, correct?”

60
Spectator: “Yes”.

“Imagine saying the name over and over to yourself … so


this would be JOSH … JOSH … JOSH”.

Spectator: “OMG! … Yes! … How did you do that?”

Now that I have walked you through a typical performance of


this effect I will start to break down the script and why this
works.

Hopefully, those not already accustomed to my work would


have been fooled by the method hidden in plain sight, in the
above performance example. Those who are already familiar
with ROSE will hopefully delight in the changes made to the
original handling of my trade-mark name guess.

First of all, we restrict the potential names the spectator could


be thinking of using an aspect of Peter Turner's 'confirmation
principle', as follows.

61
“There is someone close to you who has been on your
mind recently. This is a Male person and they have a
common spelling of the name. Can you think of who
this is without saying their name?”

We simply claim to know that someone has been on their mind


recently. This directs the spectator to think of a specific
thought (in this case a person) without having to tell them to
do so.

This is a problem with how most performers get the spectator


to think of information when utilizing classic methods. They
ask them to think of specific information and to write it down.
Whereas, by stating we are receiving impressions we achieve
the same results indirectly, without it looking as if we are just
telling the spectator what to think, whilst at the same time
creating the illusion we have already begun to read their mind.

Spectator: “Yes”.

“Without saying their name … who is this?”

62
By asking the spectator who this person is we get them to
confirm that there is, in fact, someone who has been on their
mind and in the process of asking, get them to reveal their
relationship with this person. This is beautiful because now it
is not just a random name but someone that means something
to them. They have just made the thought relevant.

You may have also noticed that due to my being specific about
certain details about the person I was receiving impressions, I
have also created a restriction that will help to guess the name
easier, in a moment. This is important when using such a
streamlined prop-less method, as follows.

I have restricted the spectator to find someone who has been on


their mind recently who is close to them but not only that – I
have also indirectly directed them to think of a Male name
(easier to guess in my Country) that also has a common
spelling. This will ensure you won't ever be in the position
where you are trying to guess a difficult spelling of the name or
unusual name with this method.

63
NOTE: You should always add the line "… without saying their
name" so that the spectator doesn't just blurt it out and end the
effect before it has even started.

Spectator: “My work colleague”.

Now that we have got the spectator to think of a name we can


easily guess, we move on with the script.

“Okay, is there any way I could know who this is or


know anything about this person?”

Spectator: “No”.

Of course, they will say no at this point.

Remember, it will seem as if you have picked up on a person


who is close to them and confirm this by telling you this
person's relevance in their own life.

“Would you mind if I continue to read you to find out

64
more about this person and what they mean to you?”

Spectator: “Sure. Do it!”

This line moves the premise from mind reading to a more


readings based presentation, of which will ultimately allow you
to obtain the information you need secretly and in a way that
makes sense theatrically. The following process is justified by
the premise of giving the spectator a reading surrounding the
person they are focusing on.

“Okay. So that we can more easily generate


characteristics and traits about this person that relate to
them on a personal level, just focus on the first letter in
their name for me”.

Spectator: “Okay”.

We direct the spectator to focus on the first letter in their name


and then apply the main linguistic manoeuvrer, as follows.

65
“And in a moment, I want you to jump a few letters
forwards in the alphabet. So if this was the letter 'a' you
would think to yourself 'a' … 'b' … 'c' … So just do this
for me now, starting with whatever the first letter of this
person's name is”.

Spectator: “Okay”.

They will now fall into the trap of following your example for
how you want the spectator to jump forwards in the alphabet
and jump two letters forwards from whatever letter is the first
letter in the name they are thinking of.

This will later be re-framed as the spectator having been free


to jump literally any amount of letters they wanted to and will
be seen as just an example later on, from the spectator's point
of view, as well as everyone watching. Due to the re-frame the
spectator will believe they truly had a free choice and there is
no way for you to know how many letters they jumped.

If you prefer you can apply the re-frame early after obtaining

66
the first letter, as outlined below and then use the other
standard second letter ploys to nail down on the exact name
they are thinking of (taught later). However, I will continue
with my example, which allows you to get two of the letters
from the name before re-framing and bringing everything full
circle.

Before moving onto the second letter in the name I use the
following justification for the process that has just taken place.

“And now just say a positive characteristic or trait that


begins with this new letter, you feel would best sum this
person up”.

Spectator: “Loving”.

I now get the spectator to generate a characteristic or trait


with their random letter. This will just seem to be part of the
reading process and a way to help the spectator generate
specific characteristics and traits surrounding their thought of
person's life.

67
Of course, whatever characteristic or trait they say will give us
the first letter of the name.

All we have to do is back-track in the alphabet from whatever


letter the characteristic or trait they say begins with. There are
a few ways this can be done ranging from a crib of the letters of
the alphabet, written in your notebook, mnemonics (taught
later) and simply learning the alphabet backwards.

Do whatever you are more comfortable with. I personally feel


you should be able to know the first letter instantly from
whatever characteristic they say out loud and the best way to
do this is to learn a mnemonic list that instantly converts the
first letter of the characteristic back into the letter the
spectator is focusing on.

Of course, the letter they are focusing on will always be two


letters in the alphabet before whatever is the first letter of the
characteristic or trait the name.

In our example, the letter they are focusing on is the letter “J”.

68
NOTE: If you see the spectator struggling to find a
characteristic or trait then simply say,

“ … or the first word that pops into your mind,


beginning with this new letter”.

They will now be able to easily find a word.

If you prefer not to do the re-frame now but instead want to get
the second letter of the name, for extra security then you can
use the following scripting.

NOTE: I am confident enough with the method to only obtain


the first letter of the name then re-frame and use additional
ploys (taught later) to nail down on the exact name.

“Okay. Now focus on the second letter in the name and


do the exact same thing again but this time give me a
negative characteristic or trait”.

What this language does is instruct the spectator to go through


the exact same process again but this time starting on the

69
second letter in the name. They will take this to mean for them
to again jump the same amount of letters forwards in the
alphabet they did previously. This ensures they will always
jump two letters forwards. If you are worried that they will
deviate from this meaning of the instruction then simply offer
the example of jumping through the letters again. Do this in a
casual manner as if you are just reiterating how they are to do
this.

NOTE: If you see the spectator about to query your


instructions for how they are to jump forwards in the alphabet,
each time you deliver your script or note any confusion on their
faces be sure to interrupt them and stop them from speaking
by saying the following.

“Don't say anything unless I ask you specifically. I don't


want to know your thought processes”.

This will mute the spectator and ensure they don't blow the
illusion or ruin the effect by being unsure and asking what it is
you want them to do. Now you can re-iterate your instructions
so that they are clear in their mind and proceed.

70
Spectator: “Okay. Er … Quick … to judge”.

They will say a negative characteristic or trait and we are now


ready to apply the re-frame and tie everything up.

“Okay good. So just to recap, there's no way I could


know how many letters you decided to jump each time,
so there's no way that these characteristics or traits
could tell me anything about the name of this person,
correct?”

Here we make it appear as if we meant for the spectator to


decided in their own mind how many letters to jump forwards
in the alphabet each time. They will feel like they perhaps
made a mistake in following what now appears to have only
been an example and due to the fact, apparently you the
performer are not aware they followed your example – the
actual amount of times they jumped will still seem unknowable
to you, from their perspective. They will, therefore, be content
with the fact you couldn't know they followed your example

71
and also don't know the number of letters they jumped.

Everything will appear to be fair and above board.

They will, therefore, agree with your statement that there is no


way what they have said could tell you anything about their
thought of name. Once they agree to this falsehood there is no
way for them to back-track. The illusion has come full circle
and any loose ends have now been tied up beautifully.

Thanks and credit to Ross Tayler for allowing me to use his


wonderful re-frame notion in my own work.

NOTE: You may want to wait longer than is required before


asking if the spectator has finished jumping letters each time
you apply these instructions, in order to create the illusion they
could have jumped more than two letters and that you are not
aware they are just following your example and jumping this
small amount of letters. To ensure they don't just tell you they
are finished jumping and give away that they have done this
quickly you can tell them not to say anything by adding the
following scripting to your instructions.

72
“ Do this for me now, starting on the first letter in the
name but don't say anything out loud, as you do this”.

This will also take care of muting the spectator so that they
don't query your instructions and potentially blow the illusion.

If only applying your instructions to the first letter in the name


I might take this opportunity to look away as I take a pen out
from my pocket, in order to create a further apparent time
delay. I would then use the pen to write my reveal on a
notebook or other surface.

However, I think this is overthinking the method and creating


a time delay in either way is not necessary for the effect to still
be deceptive.

If I was only working with the first letter of the name and
getting the spectator to jump once then I would use the
following alternative scripting and re-frame.

“Say a characteristic or trait beginning with this new

73
letter, you feel would best sum up this person”.

There is now no longer any need to deal with both a positive


and negative characteristic or trait because we will not be
applying the method to two letters. The use of positive and
negative characteristics is to apparently provide a polarity of
information to base your reading on.

We can, therefore, be much more general and only ask for one
characteristic.

The re-frame would then be as follows:

“Just to recap, you could have literally jumped any


amount of letters – so there's no way this characteristic
or trait could tell me anything about the name of the
person you are focusing on, correct?”

When re-framing you may wish to be more indirect by saying, “


… so there's no way I could know anything about the person
you are focusing on from these characteristics and traits,
correct?” and not refer to the thought of name during your

74
wrap up. This will stop the two potentially being linked
together in the spectator's mind, from you mentioning them i.e.
the naming of characteristics and the letters in the name.

Now all that is left to do is give a short reading based on the


characteristics or characteristic the spectator has provided and
then use the following ploys to nail down on the exact name
they are thinking of.

It is out of the scope of this manuscript to give you my reading


techniques and approach. Suffice to say, I always rely on
'Completely Cold' by Kenton.

You only have to deliver a few stock lines here just as a way of
proving you are picking up on information about the thought of
person or attempting to do so.

Another ruse I have used is to claim that I know about this


person without actually having to state anything out loud.

After saying a few general things I feel about the person being
thought of I say.

75
“I haven't told you all of my impressions about this
person but based on the characteristics and traits I am
receiving from you I feel I know them well enough to try
to guess their name”.

This creates the illusion you know much more about the person
than you do and makes the subsequent name guess logical – if
you can pick up on other information about this person than it
makes sense you could also guess their name.

You are now ready to begin applying the other ploys that allow
us to narrow down on their thought of name.

Remember we have already indirectly instructed the spectator


to think of a Male name with a common spelling which will
make this task much easier and incredibly reliable.

First of all, we apply the 'Abbreviation ploy' from my good


friend Peter Turner.

This piece of information will make guessing the name a piece

76
of cake as it will instantly narrow down our options of names
the spectator could be thinking of.

We say the following to our spectator.

“Focus on the name written out in front of you. If you


can abbreviate the name then think of it in its short form
– don't shorten it any more if you are already thinking of
it in its short form”.

They will confirm they have done so and we can now assume
they are thinking of the name in its short form due to the way
we have worded our instruction. If they struggle to do so then
we know it is a name that can't be easily shortened.

We can now use this information to help decipher the potential


name they are focusing on.

Next, we need to know how many letters are in the short form
of the name.

I usually just throw out a number of letters depending on the

77
common names beginning with the letter I know their thought
of name begins with.

If I hit right away then I stick with that amount of letters but
if there is any hesitation from the spectator I instantly correct
myself and throw out a number of letters one higher.

If I am still wrong then I simply ask for the number of letters.


This is such a small piece of information it won't seem to help
you guess the name and the name guess will seem to come out
of nowhere anyway.

However, if I throw out four letters and then five and I still get
a 'no' response from the spectator and I now know it is likely
three letters. I won't ask for the number of letters but will
usually take an educated guess on a three letter name. For
instance, if I know the name begins with a 'J' and is not four or
five letters then it can only really be three letters and I would
now be down to the two names 'Joe' and 'Jim'. This is where I
would apply one of the two-way outs (taught in a moment) if I
haven't already divined the second letter in the name using the
main method.

78
“Focus on the number of letters in the name … so this is
4 [no reaction from the spectator] … no, 5 letters,
correct?”

Spectator: “No”.

“Don't say how many letters. Just focus on the name and
imagine saying it to yourself”.

This is great from a theatrical point of view as it looks like you


are completely lost and think that the name is much longer.

You don't want the spectator to tell you it is three letters


otherwise it will become obvious there are only a few names
that are this short.

Dealing with such short names in this way ensures you don't
potentially ruin the reveal by it becoming obvious.

Of course, if you know Michael Murray's 'Cups' principle then

79
you can apply it here also, in order to get the number of letters.

Now that you know the number of letters and whether the
name can be abbreviated you will usually be down to only a few
common names.

If you have decided to only use this method to obtain the first
letter of the name then you can distinguish between these
using the 'Repeat it ploy' I first read in Derren Brown's book:
“Pure Effect” which I have heard may have come from Jerry
Sadowitz orginally and was also used by Bob Farmer in one of
his thought of card plots.

Let's say you are down to the following name options.

You know it is four letters and can be abbreviated.

The common names this could be would be 'Josh', 'John' and


'Jake'.

I know it can't be 'Jack' as this name can't be abbreviated and


is already in its short form. Of course, 'Jake' would be short for

80
'Jacob'.

All I have to do to begin to narrow down on the correct name is


say the following.

“Okay, just focus on the second letter in the name and


imagine repeating it in your mind to yourself over and
over … so this would be 'O' … 'O' … 'O' …”

Now if I get a reaction from the spectator I know it is one of the


names with 'O' as the second letter, either 'Josh' or 'John' and
can use whichever two way out (explained later) I wish to nail
down on the exact name.

If I don't get a reaction then I continue with my script as if I


was simply giving an example of how I want the spectator to
focus on their letter.

“ … for example”.

I now know the second letter is likely an 'a' and can confidently
guess 'Jack'. I may also use a two way out just to cover the

81
potential for 'Jake' or write my reveal as 'Jack/ Jake' as they
both sound the same. I might even reveal the two together
verbally instead. Usually, this will be taken as a hit if the
spectator is thinking of either one of these names.

Of course, some of the time you will need to apply the 'repeat it
ploy' to a different letter in each of the possible names to be
able to distinguish between each of the outs – for example, if
both possible names have the same second letter then you
would need to apply this ploy to the third or fourth letter in
each of the names or to whichever letter position where the
letters in each of the names differ.

If you are only obtaining the first letter with the main method
and relying on these additional ploys only to nail down on the
name then you can add further obfuscation to proceedings by
getting the spectator to focus on the second letter of the name
and instruct them to truly jump at random to any letter of the
alphabet before giving you a negative characteristic or trait.
This would happen after the re-frame of the first letter jump
and is only meant as a way to further misdirect away from the
directness of the method.

82
Then you would apply these ways of narrowing down on the
potential names.

You really have to play around with the information you are
getting and trust your instincts using these ploys to narrow
down.

Sometimes the spectator may not think that a name can be


shortened so you have to be ready for that also. But usually
from the first and second letters of the name and length of the
word you will be able to most of the time successfully guess the
correct commonly thought of names.

Most of the time you will now be down to two possible names
and can apply the following two way out from Peter Turner.

If you still have another possible name it could be on top of the


other two (which is rare) then you can use the 'Repeat it ploy'
again using the whole name to kill one of the options before
moving into the following written out if needed.

83
Here I would simply write one of the options sight-unseen on a
billet and place the billet face down on the table as I say the
following.

“You're not thinking of JOSH are you?”

If you are correct then they will freak out. I then simply pick
up the billet and place it away in my pocket.

If they say 'no' then I continue.

“What name are you focusing on?”

They will answer with the other possibility.

Spectator: “JOHN”.

Now all you have to do is a gesture for the spectator to turn


over the billet as you say:

“Good. I'm glad I committed to this”.

84
And wait for the reactions!

If you are worried about the leaving the billet face down with
the wrong name written on it or think they will ask to see what
was written (which has never happened to me) you can just say
that you changed your mind at the last minute. This will
explain an incorrect name being written down before you
reveal their thought of name verbally. Everything stays
congruent this way.

If you prefer you can write your reveal on a pad (if using a crib
of the alphabet then this will be the option you will want to go
with) then just close the pad and put it to one side if you don't
need to use an out. Naturally, you would write the reveal on a
different piece of paper where the crib will be hidden when it
comes to revealing what is written. If you are only down to one
possible name then you would simply write the name and
reveal accordingly.

That's it! I hope you enjoy performing this piece as much as I


do, now that you have learnt it's devious secrets.

85
Naturally, you can also use this method for star signs.

In fact, I would suggest practising applying the method to a


star sign divination first, as you will only ever be down to one
or two possible star signs.

However, there is one more linguistic dodge you have to apply


when working with star signs to ensure the method doesn't
become obvious due to the fact the first letters of each of the
star signs are much more spread out and separate from each
other in the alphabet.

In order to ensure the spectator doesn't think you just back-


tracked to the closest available letter to the first letter of
whatever characteristic or trait they use, to sum up, either
themselves or the personality of someone who's star sign they
are focusing on, you need to get the spectator to jump forwards
in the alphabet twice then muddy proceedings further with the
re-frame.

Here is the script I use.

86
“Focus on the first letter in the star sign. And in a
moment, I want you to jump a few letters forwards in the
alphabet. So if this was the letter 'a' you would think to
yourself 'a' … 'b' … 'c' … So just do this for me now,
starting with whatever the first letter of your star sign is.

“Now do the exact same thing again but start on this


new letter”.

This adds another jump into proceedings that helps obscure


the method even further. Of course, the spectator will fall into
the trap of copying your example and then doing the same
process again, effectively jumping twice the number of letters.
This will mean you will have to learn a different crib or become
proficient at working backwards through the alphabet.

Or you could create a mnemonic similar to the one I use


(taught below) that allows you to jump backwards instantly,
four letters in the alphabet when using it for the star sign
guess.

87
I will also provide you with the mnemonics I use to easily jump
back two letters when guessing names and or words.

The re-frame would be as follows:

“Okay, just to re-cap you jumped a number of letters and


then jumped again. There's no way I could know how
many letters you decided to jump in the alphabet each
time, correct? So there's no way this characteristic or
trait could tell me anything about your star sign?”

Remember, all of the other points already discussed can still be


applied to ensure this stays reliable as well as deceptive.

You can also apply the main method to short words with a
little thought. Naturally, you can apply the letter jumps to as
many letters as you wish before delivering the re-frame. With
short words that have a natural limited field or restriction,
such as objects in a room it is only necessary to get the first,
second and last letter of the word to be able to nail the word.
Naturally, realising you only need to use the first, second and
last letters is a discovery made by Atlas Brookings for those

88
who know his ingenious 'Train Tracking' routine.

Thanks to Luke Turner for his suggestion using this with


objects they can see within their environment as a way of
restricting without seeming restrictive. I had done something
similar in the past with a remote viewing demonstration that
was published by Kenton, without Luke being aware. Atlas
Brookings has also used a similar restriction in his own work.

Luke Jermay has also played with restrictive fields that don't
seem restrictive.

Here instead of using characteristics and traits, I would just


get the spectator to come up with a word that is in no way
associated with their word. Now it appears you are able to
perhaps read their subconscious thought associations even
when they have tried to think of words dis-associated with
their thought of object/ word.

I should also mention that both myself and Ross Tayler have
played with using characteristics and traits as a way to hide
simply asking for whatever letter the spectator is focusing on

89
within the context of a readings situation. It is something that
came out of our early discussions on the prop-less name guess.

Ross has some great work utilizing this ruse and you should
check out all of his work. He is a genius!

If you know the thought of drawings restrictive field from


“Proteus” by Phedon Bilek or you are familiar with any of my
prop-less Drawing Duplication methods then you will see how
you can easily reveal their thought of drawing using the rose
method to obtain the first letter of their drawing.

Finally, if you miss occasionally just move on! If you could


really read minds then you wouldn't get it right all of the time.

There you go.

For completeness, here is the mnemonic I use for the star sign
guess and name guess.

I memorize the following words (for use when guessing star


signs):

90
ENIGMA
GNOSTIC
KONG
PENCIL
TOP
WAS
XYLOPHONIST
Z-VALUE

Now, as soon as I hear the characteristic or trait from my


spectator I think of the word from my memorized list that
begins with this letter and then focus on the last letter in this
word.

This last letter then gives me the letter four back in the
alphabet in the most natural way possible.

NOTE: If you see your spectator struggling to come up with a


word after trying to come up with a characteristic or trait using
the letter humped to then you can safely assume they are
thinking of either the letter 'x' or 'z' and can say:

91
“In fact, just jump to any other random letter of the
alphabet to make this easier … And now give me a
characteristic or trait beginning with this letter”.

Now you can safely assume they were thinking of either the
letter 't' or 'v' and are now down to the two possible signs
'Taurus' or 'Virgo'.

If you prefer, you can write these lists out as a crib in your
notebook or simply write the letters of the alphabet and count
backwards the required amount of letters, depending on
whichever routine you are performing.

Here is the mnemonic I use for guessing names and words that
allows you to jump backwards two letters of the alphabet with
ease:

COMMA
DISTURB
EPIC
FED

92
GAZE
HIMSELF
IDLING
JELLYFISH
KOI
LUKE JERMAY
MONK
NIL
OM
PEN
QUANGO
RECAP
SUQ
TEAR
USES
VET
WU

X-VALUE
Y-WAVE
ZANEX

93
The only difference to the rules in the above mnemonic is with
the name LUKE JERMAY – if you get a characteristic or trait
beginning with the letter "l" then you know to focus on the first
letter of the surname. Also, if you get to a hyphenated
mnemonic then you use the first letter of the second word.

You are not likely to get names beginning with the last three
letters of the alphabet and so they are not covered in the crib.
However, if you do happen to get the name 'Zach' and the
spectator cannot jump forwards in the alphabet this will be
covered in the following way.

Again, if you see your participant struggling to think of a word


beginning with their letter then you can fairly safely assume
they are focusing on either an 'x', 'y' or 'z' and are likely think
of the following common males names: 'William', 'Wayne' or
'Zach'. Now you can apply the random letter jump outlined
above in the star sign mnemonic and nail down on the name as
usual.

That's it! I hope you enjoyed this latest version of rose.

94
which hand?

What follows is my ultimate solution to the which hand plot –


performed, without any need for gimmicks, electronics or props
of any kind – except the coin or object being hidden.

My entirely verbal and prop-less approach will allow you to


perform a three phase 'which hand' routine, flawlessly.

Each time a coin or other object is hidden by the spectator in


one of their hands, behind their back and then both fists are
brought out in front of the spectator and each time the
performer can correctly guess the hand that contains the
object.

This is repeated three times in a row, with each of the phases


building in seeming difficulty.

95
What is beautiful about my approach is, you will appear to be
using a readings style of method in order to essential read the
spectator and second guess their actions, as opposed to
applying psychology or having to play a game of truth or liar
where you apparently read their tells.

The good news is there are also no logical puzzles or anything


obvious to back-track.

I prefer a readings style presentation as I prefer to perform


with the aesthetic of a real psychic and dislike using the also
fake, pretence that I am somehow picking up on psychological
cues or tells and using psychological profiling to be able to
predict outcome of behaviour – for me this is too scientific and
over explained in terms of presentation and will seem less
magical to the audience, for this reason.

I prefer to be vague with how it is I achieve the things I do and


prefer to leave behind more of a mystery.

I will being by explaining the third phase as this was the first

96
and stand-alone method I came up with that later became the
climax of the routine. It is the fairest looking in terms of the
seeming complete freedom you give the spectator to change
hands. The other phases equally as devious, were added
afterwards to create the full routine.

third phase

If you wish this can be performed on its own and as you will
see the basic methodology behind it can be used for many other
things other than just a standard guessing of which hand
contains an object.

As with most of my work it is the principles that is useful.

This began with me first attempting to finish something from


my notebooks, namely – the use of mental calculation or timing
as a way to get a cue from a spectator.

97
I remembered reading in one of Kenton's works about an old
ruse where the spectator would be instructed to multiply two
different amounts of money by a specific number and then tell
you when they had done so. You would then know which
amount of money or denomination of coin was in each of their
hands due to how long it took the spectator to perform the
maths.

As one of the sums would be slightly more difficult to perform


due to the numbers involved there would be a definite
difference in the time it took the spectator to make his or her
calculation and this would tip which coin or series of coins they
were focusing on.

I realized that instead of using mathematics other options


would be viable such as getting the spectator to visualize
something taking place in real time and then to visualize
something that takes a little longer to perform, mentally as a
way of marking out a specific thought that each of these
visualizations would be linked to.

98
Looking at older mathematics based magic books for
inspiration, I knew that it didn't matter if you multiplied an
odd number with an even or an odd number, it would always
equal an even numbered total. This was played with a little
and I had a nice way to get which half of the year a spectator
was born. Alas, this was too mathematical in appearance and
something I abandoned.

Then I realized if I was to multiply something by two this


would be the same as multiplying either an odd number by and
even number or an even number by an even number to always
arrive at an even number. I would be able to then say “double”
this number instead of having to provide a specific number odd
or even for the spectator to multiply.

Around the same time I was also looking into a different ruse
found in one of Jim Steinmeyer's books (Credit at the end of
this book) which allowed you to know where a coin ended up
after the spectator had switched it back and forth between
their hands and amount of times. This was based on odd and
even lengths of words they would spell out letter for letter as
they switch hands and would ultimately leave the coin always

99
in the same hand, no matter which hand the coin started in.

All of a sudden everything fell into place. I realized that I could


eliminate any notion of mathematics in the mind of my
audiences by changing my language and making it even more
indirect. Instead of asking them to think of a specific number of
times to change the coin back and forth between their hands
and then asking them to double the number or to even “change
the same amount of times back and forth again” I could be even
less direct and simply say,

“So you changed this a number of times … just do the


exact same thing again, so that this is random”.

And viola! I all of a sudden had a perfect solution to a verbal


which hand.

I immediately video called my good friend Peter Turner and


performed it. It worked flawlessly! He suggested adding a line
at the beginning to ensure the spectator always follows along
correctly. I then showed a few pros it at the MINDS 5
convention and they loved it!

100
I remember Ian Rowland grinning like a child for ten minuets
after it dawned on him what was going on, as he marvelled at
the simplicity of what had fooled him.

I showed it to Michael Murray and he informed me that Manos


Kartsakis had already got there before me. Needless to say,
Manos gave me full permission to release my independantly
created version of this effect as he hadn't yet published his
thinking. In fact, as a bonus he has allowed his original
thoughts on this method to be released in this work for the first
time and is shared here as bonus material at the back of the
book.

I also later discovered that Ever Elizalde also created this


method independently and has published his thinking but was
also gracious enough to allow me to release my work on it. In
fact, he actually confessed he preferred my version.

I think the benefit of my method over both of these other fine


thinker's take on it, is it doesn't deal directly with an amount
of number of changes. The amount of times the spectator

101
changes back and forth between their hands is only referred to
indirectly in my scripting and for me this is how it should be
performed. It should appear open and fair and nothing to do
with actual numbers. I never mention an amount of changes
directly, in terms of a number and I feel this is what makes my
approach so strong.

Manos did originally consider performing it the way I do now,


without specifically referring directly to numbers but felt it
might not be sure fire and so fell back on the less subtle version
he has shared at the back of this book.

I can say with confidence that my version of this works and


works well. As long as you deliver the script exactly as
provided in this write up and are clear with your instructions
you will find this is an extremely reliable method that is also
extremely fooling.

To show you how this feels to an audience member, I will first


perform it to you via the written word.

Then I will break down what is happening as well as explain

102
each part of the scripting and what it achieves.

First of all get a coin and hold it in your right hand (this
instruction is only relevant in this written performance).
Usually, the spectator would simply get a coin out of their
pocket in either of their hands and you would be ready to begin
the effect.

Now follow along with the scripting and instructions.

“It is essential you remember how many times you


change back and forth between your hands in a moment
and remember exactly where the coin ends up …

“So just place the coin behind your back and switch back
and forth between your hands a few times”.

“Good. So you have moved the coin a number of times …


just do exactly the same thing again, so this is random”.

“And now bring both hands out in front of you in a fist”.

103
If you have followed along correctly and this has worked over
the written page then you should be left with the coin in the
same hand that it started in. In this case, it would be your
right hand.

If it isn't in your right hand. Don't worry as this method is


really only meant to be performed in person and it is harder to
deliver the scripting and time it correctly, via the written word.

So how does this work?

You will essentially be directing the spectator to move the coin


a number of times and then effectively tell them to repeat the
exact same process – changing the coin back an forth the same
amount of times as before. Of course, this happens indirectly
and without instructing the spectator to change the same
number of times again or directly referencing the amount of
changes.

What this does is always converts the amount of times the coin
changes back and forth between their hands into an even

104
number which means the coin will always return back to
whichever hand it started off in.

First of all, we take note of which ever hand the coin happens
to be in to begin with. This is our base-line and the hand it will
always return to after the doubling up of the amount of times
they change back and forth between hands. We do this
naturally by simply taking note of which hand they hold it in
as they take out a coin.

Next, we apply the Peter Turner scripting which ensures they


will always remember how many times they change back and
forth, without actually having to state this directly to the
spectator. This ensures they follow along and don't get lost
during the changing procedure.

“It is essential you remember how many times you


change back and forth between your hands in a moment
and remember exactly where the coin ends up …”

Theatrically, this just appears as if we need them to focus on


such things in order to be able to read their thoughts to

105
ultimately divine where the coin ends up. It is important that
this instruction is given to the participant before we direct
them to place their hands behind their back as we don't want
them to begin randomly changing the coin between their hands
as we say this scripting, as this would mess up the workings of
the method.

“So just place the coin behind your back and switch back
and forth between your hands a few times behind your
back”.

This line is important. We purposefully break up the


instruction into two parts. First, we instruct the spectator to
place the coin behind their back. This ensures they don't switch
the hand that contains the coin due to the fact they will have to
first put the coin holding their coin behind their back and then
follow along with the rest of the instruction for them to change
back and forth between each hand behind their back. Only
upon completing this instruction will they now place their
other hand behind their back and begin to switch the coin
between their hands.

106
The words “a few times” ensures the spectator doesn't change
back and forth a larger amount that will be easily forgotten.
Usually, they will change three or four times. This ensures the
method stays solid. In fact, I only give a few seconds for the
spectator to follow each of the instructions throughout this
effect before breaking proceedings by delivering the next
instruction. This ensures they follow along closely and there is
little room for any mistake to be made on their part.

After giving them a few seconds to change back and forth I stop
them and say the following.

“Good. So you have moved the coin a number of times …


just do exactly the same thing again, so this is
random”.

I don't specifically state a number or refer to it directly but


remind them of the amount of times in a casual manner and
then link this idea with the idea of doing the same procedure
again. I use the word “exactly” here so there is no confusion as
to what it is they are to do. This will cause the spectator to just
repeat the exact same moves again. This feels natural to the

107
participant and won't be challenged. They will just go along
with it.

What is beautiful is how casual this appears.

If you prefer you can then add on a re-frame to further


convince everyone including the spectator that the entire
process was random. However, I don't feel this is necessary.

“To re-cap, you changed back and forth between your


hands a number of times at random and even had the
chance to change again afterwards and there is no way I
could know how many times you decided to change, each
of these times, correct?”

Now the coin will always be in the same hand that it started off
in.

I also, add in an extra beat to proceedings and offer an


additional choice on the end. This is something Manos also
does for the same reason, so that it won't always be in the same
hand it began in. After sharing my ideas with Manos he

108
informed me that he gives this additional free choice as a
question – which I agree, is much better than just stating for
them to do so.

“Do you want to change to the other hand or keep it in


the same had it is now in?”

If they say change then you know it has to be in the opposite


hand to the one the coin began in and if they don't want to
change then you know to just stick with the same hand it was
in to start with.

So there you go, the first piece of the puzzle and what became
the third phase for the which hand routine.

Next, I will show you the first phase followed by the second and
you will then be able to piece this beast together.

109
first phase

This is essentially a hanging statement in the theme of one of


the outs I use in my prop-less star sign divinations. It is based
on a TWO way verbal out from Peter Turner which is
seemingly displaced in time.

Essentially, you would throw out one of the two possible star
signs by stating the following:

“What is interesting is when I first sat down in front of


you I instantly felt you was a Virgo …”

I snap my fingers here to provide some emphasis on the fish so


that if this is there star sign or piece of information relating to
them they will take this as the definitive moment of magic.

You now pause slightly and take note of any reaction from the

110
spectator. If they react then BOOM! you are finished! You can
take your hit and there is no other work to be done.

If however, they don't react then you continue right along with
your statement and reveal their sign in the process.

“But I'm glad I didn't just trust my snap decision but


actually got to know you a little better first because
based on all of the characteristics and traits I am
picking up from you there's only one sign that would
best represent you … are you a Gemini?”

It was Ori Ascher's idea whilst jamming this effect with him to
use this hanging statement within the which hand routine. The
only problem was if I applied the hanging statement directly to
their hand that contained the coin there would be a chance
they would also reveal that their hand was empty before I was
able to move on and resolve the rest of the hanging statement.
This would of course, ruin the effect.

He then suggested getting the spectator to think about which


hand and to focus on a word linked to the correct hand so that

111
the hanging statement could be applied to something mental.
This way it would be uncoupled from the hand enough for the
spectator to leave both hands closed and instead simply
confirm with a reaction or non reaction which word they are
focusing on, in the usual way. Then from this reaction or lack
there of the performer would know which hand contained the
coin and be able to reveal with confidence.

I thought this was beautiful and decided to make the words


relevant and in line with the psychic reading aesthetic of the
piece I was ultimately going for.

Here is the result of our jamming session.

I direct the spectator to place the coin behind their back and
place it in one of their hands and to then bring both hands out
in a fist so that there is no way I could tell which hand the coin
is in.

“Usually, those considered as more creative types would


place the coin in their left hand and more analytical
thinkers would place it in their right hand … So based

112
on this you now know which of these characteristics
would relate to you?”

This is beautiful because not only will it get them to think of a


specific word or category we can then apply the hanging
statement to, it also makes it appear as though we are
somehow reading their personality in order to know which
hand they have placed the coin whilst in reality, we don't need
to know anything about them. They will take on this label for
the purposes of this trick and may or may not reflect how they
really think and feel about their own personality traits. The
language is important here. We don't ever ask questions about
their actual characteristics or traits but the traits they are
focusing on in the moment.

We now apply the two way verbal out or hanging statement.

“What is interesting is, when I first sat down in front of


you I instantly felt you would be thinking of yourself
as a creative type …”

Again, we are only referring to whatever label they are

113
focusing on in the moment and not relating this to their actual
characteristics and traits.

Here we pause a second to wait for a reaction and then if none


comes continue as follows:

“But I'm glad I didn't just trust my snap judgement


because I feel with you, you would be the type of person
to perhaps over think this and therefore, the coin has to
be in your right hand, correct?”

Of course, you will now be correct as it has to be in the opposite


hand to the hand labelled as “creative”. The line about “over-
thinking” also seems to confirm an “analytical” type of
personality, so that everything comes full circle,
presentationally.

If you get a reaction on the hanging statement then you can


continue as follows:

“ … which means you have to have put it in your left


hand, correct?”
114
In either case, I point to the correct hand and get the spectator
to confirm I am correct by opening their hand.

second phase

This is equally as streamlined and beautiful in the sense that


it is wrapped up in the presentation of seemingly reading the
spectator.

We now know which hand the coin is going to start in for this
round based on our successful conclusion to the first phase. All
we need to do is make sure the spectator leaves the coin in that
hand as we deliver the next piece of scripting.

“Those who prefer a certain amount of change and


variety in their life and dislike being hemmed in by
restrictions would keep this in the same hand whereas

115
those who would disagree with this statement would
usually swap hands … so think about what you would
typically do and do the opposite!”

This uses a 'forer' statement or a cold reading stock line that


everyone has to agree with and links it to the action of keeping
it in the same hand. Now to seemingly not make it obvious you
direct the spectator to do the opposite of whatever they would
naturally do. Of course, this means that the coin will always
end up in the opposite hand.

This is similar to something Tom Bennett shared in 'The Book


Of Angels' but is something I feel is much more sure fire. His
used a binary linkage that was based on a positive
characteristic and trait and a negative characteristic. The
problem with his version was that sometimes the spectator
would agree with the negative statement. I feel I have got
around this problem by using a cold reading stock like they
simply have to agree with. He used it to find out which half of
the year someone was born.

It will still appear you couldn't know whether or not the

116
spectator would agree or disagree with this statement and
therefore, could not know the outcome of their decision unless
you were somehow reading the spectator.

All of this is suggested by the performance itself but if you


prefer you can state it even more directly, to highlight the
fairness of proceedings.

“The only way I could guess where the coin has ended up
now, is if I could truly read you”.

Again, I point to the correct fist and end successfully a second


time.

“Now to make this even more random I am going to have


you change which hand the coin ends up in a few times
…”

You now go into the third phase and end having successfully
guessed which hand the spectator places a coin in their hand
three times in a row – entirely verbally!

117
What is nice about the structure of this routine is the fact it
seemingly builds in impossibility. The last phase seemingly
being entirely random. You then have to read the spectator
much more intuitively.

“So now I have to just trust what my instincts say about


you despite all of the randomness”.

NOTE: If you are particularily worried that the spectator may


argue after the effect that they are not really how you
described them throughout the routine and say for example, I
am actually much more anylitical then you can simply end the
routine with the following statement, as a way to ensure this
won't ever be a problem and the spectator will never feel the
need to bring it up.

“Of course, each of us are different and have varying


degrees of each of the characteristics and traits I have
picked up on – in fact, I sense you may not be completely
how I have described – even so, I feel I got to know you
well enough to successfully guess where you would place

118
the coin each time – Thank you for playing!”

which hand? drawing

Naturally, you can use the third phase of the which hand in
order to force other pieces of information if you link the hand
you secretly know the coin is in to different information or
categories.

The first person I witnessed applying a which hand


methodology in order to seemingly divine other pieces of
information was Colin McCloud in his Penguin lecture.

I have also been informed that the idea of linking information


in this way using a which hand pre-dates Colin's use of it and
was first utilized by Dan White.

However, his used a standard piece of electronics to secretly

119
know which had a coin was in to then subsequently label each
of the hands and know which of these the spectator was
thinking of.

My use for this linkage of ideas is different in terms of


presentation. I use it to get to a specific piece of information as
opposed to generate multiple hits.

Colin's routine is beautiful and is something worth checking


out all on its own due to the many different subtleties and
presentational ideas utilized.

My method lends itself perfectly to the structure of my various


different prop-less drawing duplications.

I first get the spectator to change a coin back and forth in


between their hands ala. the third phase of my which hand and
to then bring both hands out in a fist. This is to seemingly
randomize their choices.

I then label each of their hands by giving the following


instructions, as follows:

120
“I want you to focus on a simple drawing – make this a
simple object that others would recognize instantly if you
were to actually draw it for them – if the coin is in your
left hand then make this something man made, if it is in
your right hand then make this something natural”.

You now place whatever category corresponding to whatever


drawing you want to force alongside whichever hand you
secretly know the coin to be in.

For example, if the coin is in their left hand I would say: “if this
is in your left hand think of something natural” when going for
the force of a TREE.

You can then either go into the second phase of the which hand
and use the previous ruse to direct the spectator to change to
something much larger than they can fit in their hands or you
can just use one phase and simply say the following, as a way
to seemingly make the process even fairer.

“If you happen to now be focusing on something you can


121
hold in your hands, change it for something much
larger”.

You can now reveal they are thinking of a TREE and where the
coin has ended up in quick succession – so that both of the hits
blend into the same reveal and therefore, do not weaken one
another.

A presentational idea is for a folded billet with the drawing of a


tree to be used in place of the coin. So that you can perform the
which hand and then at the end ask the spectator what
drawing they are focusing on and reveal by getting them to
unfold the piece of paper or billet, themselves.

You could also throw out one of the outs verbally (the Sun for
instance) if you are worried about being able to hit on TREE
directly and if it hits great! – you never unfold the billet. If it
doesn't hit however, you can ask them what they went for and
then have them open up the billet to reveal the hit of the TREE
drawn on the inside of the billet.

122
which hand? star sign

The third phase of the which hand can also be used to divine
the spectator's star sign.

Thanks must go to Luke Turner for his idea of instructing the


spectator to place the coin in either their right or left hand to
begin with based on whether they were born in the first or
second half of the year. This gets rid of the need for a hanging
statement to find out which half of the year they were born.

As well as for his idea of linking a piece of information you


already know to another piece of information in order to know
both.

It is a beautiful concept and there will be more on this later.

So to start with we give the instructions to the spectator in

123
exactly the same way we would when performing the third
phase of the which hand in isolation but with the small change
of directing the spectator to begin with the coin in the hand
which corresponds to the half of the year they were born under.

However, before having the spectator change the coin back and
forth between their hands we set up the following structure
that ultimately allows us to divine their star sign at the end of
the which hand process.

“Traditionally, each of the star signs would be said to


relate to the different sides of the body and specifically
each of the hands.

So just remember which hand your star sign belongs to,


okay? …

Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Leo, Virgo, Libra are on the


right hand and Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Scorpio,
Sagittarius, Capricorn are on the left hand”.

124
You will notice that Each of the different signs for each of the
hands are staggered between the two different halves of the
year. There is a reason for this. It will allow you to nail down to
three possible signs for the spectator with two pieces of
information which is really only one piece of information due to
Luke's brilliant concept of linking the two pieces of information
together being at play.

The signs in bold type are from the first half of the year.

“If you were born in the first half of the year between the
Months 1-6 or are a Cancer then place the coin in your
right hand behind your back. If you were born in the
second half of the year between the Months 7-12 or are a
Capricorn then place it in your left hand behind your
back”.

There is a different way to handle the cross over signs Cancer


and Capricorn taught later on. This is the easiest way to
ensure no problems arise during the labelling of the signs in a
moment, with the added scripting of the which hand running

125
parallel to this methodology.

You may want to add to the presentation with your scripting by


first talking about how each of the different sides of the body
relate to conscious and subconscious modes of the mind and
how these also relate to the different times of the year people
are born etc.

Have them perform the coin changes back and forth between
their hands (using the method from the third phase of the
which hand routine) and then instruct them to bring their
hands out in front of them, both closed in a fist.

“So just focus on where the coin is …”

I now hover my hand over each of their hands and ask one final
question, of which seemingly tells me nothing.

“Just out of interest … Did you start off with the coin in
the hand that related to your star sign?”

Believe it or not this seemingly innocent question will allow

126
you to narrow their sign down to three possible signs.

All you have to do is either guess which hand contains the coin
and sometimes be wrong or use the two way verbal out
explained in the first phase of the which hand routine to
always be seen to get it right!

It won't matter if you guess which hand incorrectly at this


point as you will go on to reveal the spectators star sign under
seemingly impossible circumstances.

I suggest always giving a reading before the subsequent reveal


of their star sign, in order to bolster proceedings. It should look
as if you are obtaining information about their personality and
it is via your knowledge of their characteristics and traits that
you are able to take a guess on their star sign.

If you prefer not to give a reading then I would suggest


throwing in the following line before revealing their sign.

“I haven't told you all of the different characteristics and


traits I have received from you as I have sat in front of

127
you but based on all of the impressions I have received
about your personality there is only one sign you could
be …”

This will suggest you know things about the spectator's


personality, without you actually having to give a reading and
thanks to Kenton's 'confirmation principle' the hit on the star
sign will prove that this is so.

Back to the effect – based on which hand the coin has ended up
in, along with the answer to the previous question – you will
always be down to three possible star signs, for the spectator.

What is beautiful is the answer to the question won't seem to


give you any information as the spectator has seemingly
changed where the coin ends up via a series of entirely random
moves. Therefore, obscuring the original position of the coin
and any information this could have given you.

However, thanks to the third phase method – where the coin


ultimately ends up will tell us where it began. This is a kind of
reverse use of the method.

128
This will give us the first or second half of the year the
spectator was born in and their answer to the question will
give us the second piece of information we need to divine which
of the three signs relate to the spectator.

For example, if we know that they were born in the first half of
the year due to the fact the coin ends up in their right hand
(without applying the extra choice for the spectator to swap
hands) and they also answer with a 'yes' to whether or not they
started with the coin in the hand relevant to their sign then we
know it must be one of the three signs from the first half of the
year we previously labelled as right hand signs:

Aquarius, Pisces or Aries.

If they had answered with a 'no' then we know it has to be the


first half of the year signs from the opposite hand (in this case
the left hand):

Taurus, Gemini or Cancer.

129
If the coin ends up in the left hand and they answer 'yes' then
we know it has to be the second half of the year signs from the
left hand:

Scorpio, Sagittarius or Capricorn.

And if you get a 'no' then in has to be the second half of the
year signs from the opposite hand:

Leo, Virgo or Libra.

It really is simple to discern which signs you are down to, once
you understand how each of the signs are staggered. First,
learn the signs in order as they appear throughout the year
then you will be able to visualize where each block of three
signs needs to go where, when labelling each of the spectator's
hands (leading to an arrangement of six signs per hand).

I will leave the explanation for how we get down to one sign
from out of the possible three outs when I explain my most up-
to-date solution to the prop-less star sign, in the closing effect
of this book.

130
Before moving on from the which hand it is worth mentioning
that Manos has a handling that seemingly predicts the number
of times the spectator changes the coin in their hand. This is
taught at the end of the book. Suffice, to say due to the fact I
state they are to change the coin back and forth “a few” times
will more often than not result in the spectator changing three
or four times, maximum (to begin with).

You can then later reveal this number of changes or use this
elsewhere in another routine. All you need to do is have the
spectator focus on the amount of times they changed back and
forth before you had them change again (repeating their
actions) and then apply a hanging statement to know whether
this number is odd or even, in order to accurately guess or
know the exact thought of number, most of the time.

131
timing “yes!”

This next piece is an odd idea. It is a way to get a binary cue


from your spectator in such a weird and wonderful way,
everything appears above board and fair to everyone involved.

The basic concept behind this ploy is to seemingly make the


process openly fair, whilst in actual fact, it is the addition of
this element that actually provides the compromise of method
needed to get this to work.

You will instruct your spectator to think of either a “yes” or


“no” response but due to a seeming inconsistency in how long it
will take the spectator to process each of the instructions, you
will then appear to provide a balance to get rid of this
inconsistency which will in fact, actually create one.

132
Here is the script and a break down of what is taking place, in
order for this basic concept to become clearer.

“I am going to ask you a question and I want you to


answer in your head – so stay completely silent and only
answer, mentally.

“If what I ask is true then imagine saying the word 'yes'
in your head … If what I say is false then I want you to
imagine saying the words … 'you are wrong!', to me.

“And when you are done just nod your head”.

What this scripting does is sets up a seeming inconsistency


with how long it will take the spectator to first answer silently
to themselves and then nod their head as confirmation they
have sent their message telepathically.

In actual fact, there won't really be any discernible difference


in the amount of time it takes the spectator to respond with a
single word “yes” response or a slightly longer response

133
indicating a “no” with the spectator saying to themselves: “you
are wrong!”.

This is where we create an inconsistency in the process of


seemingly eliminating an inconsistency which doesn't actually
exist, in order to make the entire process appear fair.

“Just so there isn't any inconsistency between how long


it takes for you to answer. If you answer with the single
word 'yes' then wait a couple of seconds before nodding,
okay?”

They will now wait two or three seconds before nodding


whenever they are thinking of the word “yes” as opposed to
nodding almost right away after thinking of the phrase “you
are wrong” and this will tip to you which answer they are
focusing on, whilst at the same time making everything appear
fair and above board.

A “couple” of seconds usually implies two seconds in the


English language.

134
No one can imagine how long it should take to say a phrase
instead of just a single word and whether they would give a
nod right away or wait to make it more difficult for the
performer. The spectator as well as everyone else watching will
assume there is no way the performer could know the pace at
which the spectator has either mentally spoken their phrase or
if they have paused to even up any inconsistency. You can
therefore, now say the following as a way to wrap everything
up.

“Okay, so there's no way I could know if you were just


focusing on a 'yes' response or telling me mentally that I
was wrong”.

They will agree and in the process, complete the illusion and
bring everything full circle.

Note: I would only perform this once and not repeat the same
process. The reason for only performing this once for the same
group is so that different mental answers can't be compared to
one another and the method stays hidden.

135
I suggest setting up a Truth or Liar situation this way. Simply
have the spectator focus on whether they are going to lie or tell
the truth and then ask the following question:

“Would I be right in thinking you are going to tell the


Truth, in a moment?”

Now you can ask questions with the spectator answering out
loud in the open and always know based on the calibration if
they the answer they give is true or false. If they are going to
be answering out loud and you know they have decided to tell
the truth then I suggest reversing this with the following line:

“Just to keep this entirely random, if you are now


focusing on telling the truth I want you to become a liar
and if you are a liar then tell the truth”.

This will ensure the spectator won't be able to just follow their
truthful answers and arrive at the piece of information you are
divining (i.e. a playing card) before the you come to the actual
reveal. This would ruin the impact of the routine you are
performing.

136
verbal “yes!”

I have always wanted a way for the spectator to cue


information to the performer without them ever being away
they have done so. The following ruse came about in a back to
front manner, whilst thinking about how to get a cue from the
spectator.

For many years, I have also always wanted a way to be able to


perform a two person code with only the spectator, where they
would give me the cue without knowing they had done so. This
was a high concept I never really found a solution for, until
now.

The following method will seem similar to something my friend


Robert Costley (Red Devil) has released in terms of concept but

137
was something I came upon from a very different starting
place. I did not set out to make what Rob has achieved prop-
less but instead happened upon my solution in a very round
about way. Although, I am sure others will see its similarity
they will also be able to see where our two methods differ.

Rob Costley has created a near perfect way for the spectator to
cue you without them ever being aware they are doing so that I
highly suggest you check out. His manuscript is called T.I.T.E
and I highly recommend devouring its secrets!

I was only really concerned with being able to discern a binary


or choice out of two possibilities, whereas Rob's method allows
you to do much more.

So without further ado, here is my scripting to be able to


always know which out of a binary pair the spectator will be
focusing on, as applied to the beginning of a star sign
divination – specifically, secretly finding out which half of the
year someone was born.

I say the following words to the spectator:

138
“If you were born in the first half of the year, in a
moment I want you to take a couple of seconds to
imagine the colour red painted brightly and vividly in
front of you and just give me a clear 'yes' out loud
when you've done this. If on the other hand, you were
born in the second half of the year then all I want you
to do is say the colour blue, to yourself a few times,
mentally – don't nod or give anything away, just say the
colour blue silently to yourself”.

That's it! You will now always know which out of the two
colours the spectator is focusing on and therefore, which half of
the year they were born.

But how?

You are telling the spectator to give you a verbal cue,


essentially.

Instructing the spectator to say “yes” out loud when they have

139
performed only one of the tasks and leaving them silently
repeating a word for the other possible binary, means they will
cue you in by their actions (or non action) as to which thought
they are focusing on.

Due to the fact, the spectator will not want to mess up the
effect and will therefore, listen closely to your instructions,
means they will pay close attention to only the specific
instruction relevant to their thought which will in turn, mean
they will miss the fact there are two possible responses that
can be given.

This will later be wrapped up beautifully with an indirect re-


frame as well as with the overall illusion created by the
performance itself, so everyone is fooled no matter what – not
only the participant but also those watching your performance.

If the spectator is focusing on the colour red due to the fact


they were born in the first half of the year then they will take a
couple of seconds to imagine the colour red and will then say
“yes” out loud.

140
If they are instead, focusing on the colour blue and were born
in the second half of the year then they will simply focus on
repeating the colour blue to themselves silently.

The reason these instructions work so well is due to the exact


scripting as well as thanks to the instructions highlighted in
bold type. We are telling the spectator quite literally, to follow
one of two different responses knowing that these differences
will be hidden within the seeming fairness of what takes place.

You may prefer to tell the spectator to say “yes” instead of


giving he same instruction with the more indirect language I
provide. This will ensure there is no confusion, as to what you
want the participant to do, if they will be focusing on the colour
red.

All you have to do, is wait a few seconds to see if the spectator
eventually says “yes”. This will cue you into the fact they are
thinking of the colour red. If they don't say “yes” then you
simply say it for them, as if asking for confirmation that they
have gone through either of the outlined processes.

141
“So you've done this … yes?”

They will say “yes” back to you and in doing so, will complete
the illusion and bring it full circle. The spectator will now feel
as if they were always supposed to say “yes” after completing
either of your previous instructions and it is this moment that
clears up any inconsistency with your previous instructions, in
the minds of everyone involved.

This is one aspect of the indirect re-frame. The performance


itself is what sells this as fair. It should always seem as if you
always intended for the spectator to give you a “yes” when
completing either of your previous instructions – [you just
didn't say “give me a clear 'yes'” after giving each of the
instructions or placed this part of the instruction mid way
through the instructions, instead of at the end].

This idea is then further bolstered in the minds of everyone


watching, as you continue with the scripting and your
performance.

“Good. So there's no way I could know whether you just

142
visualized this colour in front of you or you just
imagined repeating it over to yourself?”

As soon as you get confirmation from the spectator that what


you have just said is true then this false notion will become
true and be completely cemented in theirs, as well as the minds
of everyone watching – making it impossible to back-track.

Due to the fact, the method and previous instructions exist in


words what was truly spoken will be forgotten and miss-
remembered in a way that fits the overall appearance of the
illusion being created by the performance, itself. It will appear
as if you always meant for the process to be fair – otherwise, it
wouldn't make sense that you are now claiming everything is
above board and legitimate.

This is like pieces of a jigsaw, some of which may have


been omitted but implied in the instructions and the
overall performance. They fill in the blanks once you
apply the re-frame part of the scripting. This does not
necessarily happen consciously but is implied by the
performance and seeming fairness, in and of itself. This

143
is childishly simple, yet herein lies its power – if it feels
right to the spectator and everyone watching then it is
correct, period! It looks and feels the same as if all of the
instructions (implied) and all of the pieces of the jigsaw
that would make up the process, if you were to actually
do this for real, are present.

This should be performed casually and with the attitude as if


you always intend on this being as fair a process as possible.

If you prefer you can use this by tying any other piece of
information to the colours or in fact, give other instructions for
what it is the spectator is to visualize, think or feel. What is
nice about linking binary information to the colours within the
instructions themselves, is the fact you not only know the
colour after giving the instructions but have also gained an
additional piece of information.

The reason I taught you this principle using which half of the
year someone was born, is so that I could teach you how it is
applied to my most up to date prop-less star sign divination,
which follows.

144
tbotf star sign guess

In order to perform this piece correctly, you will need to ensure


the spectator knows which half of the year they were born and
eradicate any problems that may occur due to the cross over
signs appearing at the mid way point and end of the year,
namely Cancer and Capricorn. Naturally, these could be
thought of as wither first or second half of the year
respectively, depending on which Month the spectator was
born.

To ensure this doesn't become a problem in performance I


simply instruct the spectator to imagine they were born in
either the first or second half based on the following
stipulation.

145
This scripting comes at the start of the piece, so that you can
get it out of the way early and therefore, don't muddy the
procedure that follows this.

“I want you to focus on whether you were born in the


first or second half of the year. If you were born in the
Months 1-6 then this would be the first half of the year
and the Months 7-12 would be the second.

“However, due to certain cross over signs – if you are a


Cancer sign then I want you to imagine you were born in
the first half of the year and if you are a Capricorn then
imagine you were born in the second half of the year”.

They will now be focusing on the correct half of the year in


order for the following method to play out without any
problems.

I now apply the previous binary “yes” ruse to establish not only
which half of the year the spectator was born but also what
colour they are now focusing on.

146
This is a beautiful position to be in due to the fact, I can now
link the colour they are focusing on directly to the star signs,
themselves, whilst also knowing which half of the year they
were born.

This will allow you to now further narrow the possible signs
the spectator could be from 6 to 3.

This utilizes my structure from my previous prop-less star sign


divination (released in a separate manuscript) which involved
labelling the different star signs on each hand of the
participant and combines Luke Turner's brilliant idea of using
a piece of information you already know (ala. if the spectator
was born in the first or second half of the year) in order to
further reduce the amount of possible signs.

Luke originally suggested using this information to then give a


further instruction for the spectator to hold out the hand
containing their star sign or to hold out the opposite and this
linking of the two pieces of information would give you
everything, without it appearing to give you anything.

147
I then took this basic idea and applied it in the following way,
getting rid of the need to label hands.

“Good. So there's no way I could know whether you just


visualized this colour in front of you or you just
imagined repeating it over to yourself?

“So there's no way I could know if you were born in the


first or second half of the year, correct?

Not only was each half of the year said to relate to specific
colours traditionally, each of the star signs would also relate to
a specific colour”.

I would say this previous script and then continue to label the
star signs, accordingly.

“I want you to remember which of these colours relates


specifically to your star sign, okay? …

148
Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Leo, Virgo, Libra correspond
to the colour red and Taurus, Gemini, Cancer,
Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn the colour blue.

So you now have a colour in mind which relates to your


star sign, yes?”

The spectator will again, now be focusing on either the colour


red or blue. Those who have read my previous star sign guess
(shared previously in this book) will recognize the staggering
of the star signs, again.

Now all I have to do is ask one innocent question which will


seemingly not tell me anything in order to be down to 3
potential signs, for the spectator.

“Just answer 'yes' or 'no' … Does the colour you are now
focusing on match the colour you were focusing on
previously?”

Thanks to the way the star signs are staggered the answer the

149
spectator now gives will tell you everything you need to know.

The signs in bold are from the first half of the year and the
others are from the second half of the year.

If they respond with a “yes” then you will know their star sign
is included within the same colour group as the colour you
know they were previously focusing on. Not only will you know
the correct colour and therefore, the correct group of star signs:
the colour will also give you the first or second half of the year
your spectator was born in and this will further narrow down
to 3 signs in the group.

This works because of the staggering of the signs. Each colour


group of signs contains three signs from the fist half of the year
and three from the second half. It is therefore a simple matter
of following the logic in order to know the possible 3 signs that
could belong to the spectator.

If they respond with a “no” then you know their star sign is
from out of the opposite colour group to the colour you know
they were focusing on previously. You also know which half of

150
the year they were born and therefore which three signs out of
the opposite group must belong to them.

It is a thing of simplified beauty!

By linking the thoughts in this way, less work is needed to be


done and everything ties together perfectly.

The beauty of this approach is nothing is revealed in the steps


leading up to the star sign revelation, as in you don't hit along
the way with hanging statements or subsequent reveals of
smaller pieces of information. The fact that everything is
hidden means the final revelation of the star sign comes out of
nowhere.

As always, I would suggest providing distance and time


misdirection from the process of gaining the information and
the subsequent reveal of their sign by giving a small reading
before nailing their exact sign.

The reading will also bolster the performance and ensure it


stays within the realm and aesthetic of a psychic-esque

151
performance.

What is interesting about the structure of this effect is


the fact, even if you didn't use a method to work out
which half of the year the spectator was born and
instead just performed the effect using the same
presentation, you would be correct half of the time –
this is a crazy thought! Just by structuring the effect in
this way and linking thoughts we turn a 1 in 12 chance
of hitting into a 50% chance of always being correct.

Of course, this would still need to involve the use of a


three way out, to always appear to hit their star sign or
specific thought of item out of 12.

But how?

Now we are down to three potential star signs. Here's how I


handle each of the outs in order to always appear to nail the
spectator's exact star sign.

I first use the TWO WAY verbal out from Peter Turner already

152
discussed in this book by simply looking at the spectator and
stating the following:

“When I first sat down in front of you I instantly felt you


were an [X] … ”

I snap my fingers here and say one of the star signs from out of
the three potential signs I am left with and then pause for a
second and wait for a reaction.

If I get a reaction here then I know I have hit the sign and I
can end there. If I don't get a reaction then I continue right
along with my scripting.

“... BUT I'm glad that I didn't just trust my snap


judgement or go with my first decision but instead got to
know you a little better because based on all of the
characteristics and traits that I've picked up from you I
feel there's only one sign that could belong to you
…”

153
I now proceed to write down one of the other possible star signs
on a billet or black index card and place it face down on the
table and then throw out the only other possible star sign,
verbally.

“Are you an [X]?”

If I get a hit here I say, “Good!” as I pick up the billet (sight


unseen) and casually place it away in my pocket.

If they respond with a “no” then I say: “... what star sign are
you?”

They then tell me their star sign and it will be the one written
down. I then bring everything to a close by saying:

“Good! I'm glad I committed to this”.

As I gesture for the spectator to turn over the billet.

It will match their sign, proving you knew the correct sign all
along!

154
There are ways to justify the billet not being turned over when
you hit verbally and there is no need to do so. I personally,
don't worry about it when this happens. I simply place it into
my pocket or leave it face down on the table.

Worse case is if someone where to turn it over, you would just


say “I changed my mind at the last minute!” and that would
explain away the fact there is a different sign written on the
billet.

The words in bold suggest there was only ever one sign being
considered as belonging to themselves even though this clearly
wasn't the case.

That's it for now!

I hope you enjoy these further thoughts from my notebooks and


find many ways to utilize these principles and put them to good
use.

Fraser, 2018

155
bonus

Manos' which hand? routine

EFFECT The performer plays a game of imagination with a


participant who is given an invisible die. The participant rolls
the invisible die, remembers the imaginary number upon
which it lands, and then switches the die between his hands
that many times behind his back - he is even given the chance
to change hands at the very end.

Despite the free and fair procedure, the performer can reveal

156
with accuracy which hand holds the invisible die as well as
predict how many times the participant switched the die
between his hands.

PERFORMANCE

“Do you have a good imagination?”

Regardless of how the participant responds the performer


continues,

“Well, I have just the thing to test that.”

The performer opens his wallet and the participant can clearly
see a red envelope tucked within.

“In this envelope I have a piece of your imagination…


but we will get back to that later. For now, I want to try
something with this.”

The performer mimes taking something out of the wallet


between his thumb and index finger.

157
“This is an invisible die. Please hold it and examine it.
Make sure all the numbers are there from 1 to 6.”

The participant plays along and “examines” the die. Then the
performer takes it back in order to demonstrate what he wants
the participant to do.

“In a moment, I am going to turn my back. When that


happens I want you to roll the die and remember what
number comes up. You’ll then pick up the die, put your
hands behind your back, and switch the die between
your hands to match the number you imagined rolling.
So, for example, if you roll a 1 (the performer mimes
rolling the die) you’ll pick it up, put your hands behind
your back and switch it one time (the performer
demonstrates those actions as he explains).

“If you get a 6 (the performer mimes rolling the die


again) you’ll pick it up, put your hands behind your

158
back, and switch it six times (the performer
demonstrates again).

“Now take the die in your hands and roll a new number
when I turn around.”

The participant agrees and the performer turns his back.

“OK, roll the die… and remember what number came


up. As I explained, please pick up the die, put it behind
your back, and switch it between your hands that many
times.

“Please remember where the die ends up. I know this can
be tricky when you are using an invisible die. Let me
know when you are ready so I can turn around.”

The participant confirms he is ready and the performer turns


around.

“Please only tell me yes or no - do you still remember the


159
number that you saw on the die?”

The participant responds in affirmative.

“Great. Switch again that many times just to make


things even more random. Let me know once you’ve done
that. Now are you happy with where the die ended up or
do you want to switch and put it in the other hand? It’s
up to you.”

The participant responds that he is happy with the location of


the die.

“Keep both hands behind your back but I want you to


imagine that you are bringing forward the hand with
the die and giving it to me. Don’t do anything physically
- just imagine doing the action. Are you doing that?
Great… Look at me… You are imagining that you’ve
brought forward your right hand and giving me the die.
That is where the die is… in your right hand… correct?
And yes… that smile means I am right!”
160
The performer allows the participant a moment to react to the
revelation and then continues, “Now, please tell me… what
was the number you saw on the die?”

The participant responds it was the number 5.

“Did you really see that number or was it just in your


imagination?”

The participant responds that it was just in his imagination.

“Well, at the beginning I did say that I have a piece of


your imagination in my wallet…”

The performer opens his wallet, removes the red envelope


shown at the start, and takes a card from within. He slowly
spins the card around and displays a picture of a die showing
the number 5.

METHOD

161
There are two parts to this routine. The first one allows you to
locate the imaginary object in the participant’s hands and the
second deals with predicting the number he imagined on the
die.

Part One - Locating the die: Basically you are using a


mathematical principle that is very well disguised. When the
participant switches the die between his hands using the same
number two times, the die will always end up in the same hand
it started. It will work with any number as long as he switches
twice and both times it’s the same number. (You are welcome
to try it for yourself a few times and then we can continue).

Now all you need to know is in which hand the die begins. To
do this, you merely need to observe (I intentionally don’t use
the word “peek” because it happens more openly and casually)
which hand the participant uses to pick up the die after he has
rolled it on the table.

Most people use their dominant hand (right handed people will
probably use their right hand and vice-versa) but it doesn’t
really matter because you will see their preference anyway.

162
Although you are looking away when the participant rolls the
die everyone knows that this is just a joke - they understand
you cannot possible see the number on an invisible die.

With your peripheral vision you can easily see which hand the
participant uses to pick up the die from the table. That is the
hand the die will end up in after he has switched it two times
between his hands using the secret number.

Of course this can be any number, but because we don’t want


to turn this into a long winded procedure nor do we want the
participant to be confused during the switching, a small
number like 4 or 5 works much better than 9 or 10. That’s why
I came up with the invisible die presentation so that the
numbers in play are only from 1 to 6 (and I’ll discuss in a
moment how you eliminate another two numbers).

Since you already know where the die ended up (in the same
hand the participant picked it up with) you ask him if he is
happy with the location of the die or if he wants to switch and
put it in the other hand. I think it’s important to do this

163
because you don’t want the participant to feel like he really
didn’t have a choice when the die ends up in the same hand it
started.

By giving him the option to switch at the last minute you


emphasize that it could truly end up in any hand. Of course
when he says his decision out loud you are able to follow where
the die concludes the game.

Finally, as the whole routine is based around imagination, I


like to ask the participant to imagine bringing the hand with
the die forward and THEN reveal it - rather than just tell him
where it is. Now on to part two.

Part Two - Predicting the number on the die: In order to


predict the number on the die you need a Himber wallet (I use
the Gentleman Jack but any Himber wallet will do) and two
matching double envelopes. Prepare each envelope with the
images of a die displaying the numbers from 2 to 5. I always
have one double envelope with numbers 2 and 3 and another
double envelope with numbers 4 and 5.

164
These go into the Himber wallet in ascending order so I can
remember the location of each number. When the wallet is flat
on the table the top card in the top envelope reveals number 2;
the card right below it is number 3 (remember it’s a double
envelope); then the next card in the next compartment of the
Himber wallet (in the other double envelope) is number 4; and
the last card (closest to the table as you are moving from the
top of the wallet down towards the table) is number 5.

At the end of the routine I casually ask the participant which


number he saw on the die. With that information I open the
Himber wallet to the appropriate compartment (having access
to either the envelope with the numbers 2/3 or with the
numbers 4/5) then open the envelope to the correct side (some
markings might help keep you orientated) and produce the
final revelation.

Disclaimer: I no longer use this routine because I have other


“which hand” effects in my repertoire that work better for me. I
decided to take out the “which hand” element and only keep
the ploy relating to the die (as well as another addition) that I
later came up with. This evolution resulted in my “Invisible

165
Die” routine as is detailed in my book UnVeil - Part I,
alongside my preferred “which hand” effects.

CREDITS

Ken Dyne: For coming up with the line, “In this envelope I
have a piece of your imagination...” which I think is an
excellent presentational hook.

Andy Nyman: “Dice-man” is a great routine using a die in its


presentation. Tom Stone: “Of Dice and Men” also has a similar
presentation.

Ran Pink: Although I wasn’t extremely familiar with his Palm


Prophet pdf, I discovered in my research that Ran utilizes the
even v. odd polarity of certain words to force a specific hand
through a spelling procedure. Ran references Jim Steinmeyer’s
“Automatic Palmistry” from Further Impuzzibilities, as the
inspiration for his work.

Michael Murray - Precognition 365 (a joint release with Ken


Dyne) - In this commercial release Michael took advantage of

166
this mathematical quirk to force an even date in a Calendar.

Jake Yates, Mel Stover, James Stewart, Martin Gardner, Ryan


Frame, and Banachek: It’s worth mentioning that all of these
men have published worked utilizing mathematical principles
to track and/or force the position of an object passed from
location to location.

Many of these ideas and routines are compiled within Elliott


Bresler’s expansive Switchcraft, (specifically the “Impromptu
Mental Effects - Volume 1” supplement).

Bob Brethren: His “A Proposition in Precognition” published in


the July 1975 issue of The New Tops seems to be the first
routine to take advantage of the fact that doubling a
participant’s freely chosen number yields an even number. I
believe that applying this strategy to hands, after first
observing which hand the participant uses to pick up the object
in order to determine the starting location, is original to me.

Manos Kartsakis, June 2018

167