THOUGHT CONTROL

MATT MELLO

No part of this publication may be duplicated, copied, or transmitted in any form without written,
explicit permission from the author.
Copyright © 2016
 Table of Contents

Opening Thoughts…………………………………………………………………………………3

Thought Control: Influence……………………………………………..…………………………4

Thought Control: Mind Reading…………………………………………………………………10

Thought Control: Silent Reality………………………………………………………………….13

Closing Thoughts……………………………………………………………………………...…16

2
 Opening Thoughts

Thought Control is something that I’ve had in my personal repertoire for quite some time now. It
makes use of some very simple, yet bold methods to create the illusion of mindreading,
influence, or precognition.

The core concept was born from a desire to develop a direct mindreading or influencing effect
that I could demonstrate anywhere, at any time, devoid of props or accessories. I didn’t want to
use billets, cards, or any other visual compromise.

Much of this work is subtle manipulations of the main sequence, adjusting the presentation to
showcase a variety of mental demonstrations.

The “Influence” section explains the basic method, presented as a way to influence any random
thought. The “Mindreading” version takes the concept and tweaks it to produce the effect of
mindreading.

The last piece, “Silent Reality” is a method that allows you to seemingly guess a variety of
merely thought-of information, with nothing said aloud. This is something that I only use in a
stand-up setting, as a closer to the show. I have a feeling that this particular method won’t be
appealing to some of you, though it creates the perfect illusion of mindreading for the audience,
without the use of stooges or instant stooges.

If you’re the type of performer who enjoys employing bold methods in your acts, this will open
an array of propless mindreading and mental influence effects.

Enjoy!

Matt Mello

3
 Thought Control: Influence

Effect:
The performer repeatedly influences a subject’s thoughts.

Presentation and Method:

While I would typically describe the effect, followed by the method, I think it would be more
efficient to describe the presentation and method simultaneously.

I will present the effect as simply as it could possibly be utilized, and then explore further
methods to employ this process.

We start by choosing two participants, Abbey and Brooke, delivering the following script, “For
this demonstration, you’ll be the sender, and you’ll be the receiver.”

Turning to our sender, Abbey, we say, “I will be whispering things into your ear, and all I
want you to do is visualize these things, projecting them out of your mind. At the end, I’ll
ask you to say each of these things aloud, so please try your best to remember them. I
promise it won’t be difficult. For now, I’d like you to just close your eyes, and cover your
ears tight so you can’t hear anything.”

We say to Brooke, “I’m going to whisper a specific color to Abbey. It’s important that you
don’t think of a color just yet. Please try to clear your mind, and wait until after I’ve
whispered a color to Abbey.”

We remove one of Abbey’s hands from her ear, and quietly whisper, “Just for now, please focus
on clearing your mind.”

Louder, so the audience can hear, we add, “Just focus on that for me.”

We replace her hand to her ear, indicating for her to press it tight.

4
“Brooke, when I snap my fingers, please say any color that pops into your mind.”

(SNAP)

“Yellow,” says Brooke.

“Excellent,” I say, with a knowing smile, “and did that come as a flash of color, or was it
more just the word ‘yellow’ that came into your mind?”

Brooke replies, “I imagined the actual color.”

“And you didn’t feel influenced in any way to choose that particular color?”

“No,” she replies.

“Perfect. On this second attempt, I’m going to whisper a type of animal to Abbey. Again,
please try not to think of anything just yet.”

We remove Abbey’s hand from her ear, whispering, “Please imagine the color yellow, and an
elephant.” We should briefly pause after naming the color, appropriately separating the thought.

Again, louder, we add, “Just imagine that for me,” before replacing her hand to her ear.

“Okay, Brooke. Abbey is now focusing on a specific animal. Because there are many more
choices, it will take a little more work to influence you to think of one in particular. Can I
have you please think of an odd number, any odd number from one to a thousand?”

She confirms when she has a number in mind, and we continue, “I want you to imagine this
number written out as a word, and concentrate on the last two letters. Please focus on
whichever letter is closer to the beginning of the alphabet.”

Once more, she’ll confirm when she’s focusing on a specific letter, “And can you think of an
animal that starts with this letter, preferably an animal with a longer name?”

Brooke says that she has an animal in mind, and we ask her not to say it aloud.

We bring our attention back to Abbey, and lift her hand from her ear, asking her to open her eyes
and acclimate back to the room.

“Abbey, before we go any further, can you please confirm that I haven’t whispered for you
to just play along, or help me at any point?”

She will agree to this statement.

“You weren’t aware of this, but while you were focusing on the things that I whispered, I
asked Brooke to think of a color and an animal. The first thing that I whispered for you to
focus on was a color. Could you please say aloud the color that I whispered?”

5
“Yellow,” says Abbey, and the reaction ensues.

“Very good! And the second thing that I whispered for you to think of was an animal.
Could you please say this animal aloud?”

Abbey says, “Elephant.”

We can see the answer on Brooke’s face, as she confirms for everyone that she had indeed
thought of an elephant. Everyone reacts, and you can take a bow with your onstage participants.

As you already know, there is a dual reality at work here. It’s a powerful combination of classic
concepts, mixed with some modern linguistic approaches. The secret lies in the double meaning
of our script.

Brooke, and the audience, believes that when I say, “The first thing I whispered for you to
focus on was a color,” it means the first whisper they saw was the color.

Abbey just knows that it’s the first item that I whispered for her to focus on.

When I say, “The second thing that I whispered for you to think of was an animal,” Brooke
and the audience again think that Abbey is referring to the second time that I whispered.

In truth, Abbey is just confirming that the second item I whispered was the elephant.

The dual reality is nicely knit together here.

How we force Brooke to think of an elephant is simple. If you think of any odd number, and
focus on the last two letters, there is always an (E) amongst these two letters.

If they think of (FIVE), their choices are (V) and (E), and when you tell them to think of
whichever letter is closest to the beginning of the alphabet, it will always force (E).

From there, we force (Elephant) by asking for them to think of an animal with a longer name,
starting with that letter.

Literally any odd number will work, from (One) to (Three Billion and Twenty-Seven).

As in any one-ahead routine, it’s important not to whisper to Abbey immediately after Brooke
says her thought aloud. I think it’s vital to draw out the whispers with a bit of showmanship. Just
as you wouldn’t instantly go to your pad of paper after they speak their thought in a typical one-
ahead sequence.

We also don’t need to limit ourselves to only two items, but could choose to “influence” or
“send” a bunch of items.

6
We could have the spectator focus on a color, and then a fruit, followed by a name, and finally an
animal; literally anything that you want to reveal. The difference here would be that we would be
whispering more than twice.

We would whisper our initial suggestion to make their mind blank.

The second whisper would be the chosen color.

The third whisper would be the chosen fruit.

And finally, we would whisper their chosen name, and the elephant together.

The audience sees and counts four whispers, and Brooke will confirm the first was the color, the
second was the fruit, the third was the name, and the fourth was the elephant.

The problem arises that we are now putting a lot of pressure on our sender to remember a bunch
of information, which might be difficult, as they could be in a slightly stressful state being on
stage.

Personally, I only reveal two or three items at the most: one or two genuine thoughts and one
forced thought.

Though, in the “mindreading” section, I’ll cover an alternative way to finish, without the need of
any forcing whatsoever.

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

--An interesting thing about this concept is that we can use it over the phone. So, if we’re in a
one-on-one scenario, we could have the participant call a friend or family member. We explain
what’s going to happen as per usual, and then mute the conversation when we’re talking to the
receiver, and un-mute when we whisper things to the sender.

The cool thing about this is that it allows for a little extra deception. After you first whisper to
the friend on the phone to clear their mind, you discretely mute the call, and say aloud for
everyone else to hear, “Just focus on that color for me.”

Of course, the friend on the phone doesn’t hear this, but it really helps to solidify the illusion for
the audience. The friend on the phone will then appear to confirm exactly what occurred at the
end.

--Some important considerations when performing this effect is the level of noise in the room.
You don’t really want to perform this in a completely silent environment, although you can. It’s
just not ideal. The point is that you don’t want the person with their ears covered to hear the

7
things that you’re saying aloud; otherwise they instantly become aware of what’s happening.
Talk in a soft tone. I will also typically speak with my back to the subject with their ears covered,
projecting my voice away from them. A little volume in the environment then further aids in
muffling your voice, as well as the receiver’s answers.

--We must also be sure to whisper low enough so that eavesdroppers don’t hear the things that
we’re whispering. Cover your mouth completely with your hand to prevent anyone reading your
lips.

--We can also provide further false “chunneling” moments, so it doesn’t stand out during the
final chunnel sequence using the odd number. For instance, have a spectator imagine an object,
and then say aloud a color associated with this object, instead of just having them say any color
that pops into their head.

Now, when they think of a number, and then an animal, it doesn’t seem as out of place. A
presentation of numerology can be used to justify the jump from a number to a random animal.

--I find predicting a person’s actions to be interesting. For instance, you could have a variety of
items on a table, and appear to predict which objects she will pick up, and in which order. Or
have her do some sort of action, like kick her leg, give you the middle finger, whatever action
they imagine, and you can predict it.

--You could certainly use any force as the one-ahead item. I occasionally end with the classic
triangle/circle psychological force, but even something as simple as a card force, or a peek,
would work.

--I already discussed this in the chapter, but I have a few more thoughts on revealing only two
items. The main reason is that the dual reality stays together a bit better with only two items. If
we whisper one item on a whisper, and then whisper two items on the next whisper, it is
inconsistent for the sender. And if they talk about it after, it’s possible that they might say, “He
whispered the color first, and then he said the name and the animal together.”

If it’s only two items, and two reveals, the answer from the sender would typically be, “He
whispered the color first, and then the animal after.” Or, “He whispered ‘yellow’ and an
‘elephant’.”

You basically end up with a “Who’s on first” scenario, but if they don’t persist in their
questioning, the initial answer should suffice. I’m also hopeful that I’ve clarified it more than
enough in front of everyone that the first whisper was the color, and the second whisper was the
animal. I then cross my fingers that my initial conditioning of how to answer this question
continues.

In a stage scenario, or at a party, this situation can be avoided by simply using two people who
don’t know each other, and who won’t talk to each other after the show. Or, as suggested, use the

8
phone version, which assures that they won’t be talking about it immediately after the
performance, and will hopefully have some forgetfulness about what happened when.

Credits:
In 1935, Ted Annemann’s Complete One Man Mental and Psychic Routine featured an effect
called, “The New Nile Divination”. It involves the performer secretly whispering something to
an on stage participant, and appearing to read their mind.

Joseph Dunninger frequently made use of discreet conversations between himself and a
participant, which he would then use to appear to divine the subject’s thoughts.

Ken Dyne has created an effect called “Whisper”, where one subject appears to read the
thoughts of another participant without knowing how. Our methods are different, but it creates a
similar effect for the audience.

Although no whispers are to be found in his routine, Luke Jermay’s “Touching on Hoy” was an
inspiration for Thought Control. They are both methods to divine thoughts in a propless
environment, and they do share the concept of using a psychological force to make the method
work.

Finally, we get to the underlying method, utilizing the One-Ahead Principle. As I’m sure most of
you are aware, there is no agreed upon originator for this technique. According to some
researchers, the concept can be traced back to as early as 1693.

9
 Thought Control: Mindreading

Effect:
The performer appears to read a participant’s thoughts.

Presentation and Method:

As before, I’ll describe the effect and the method as one. For the most part, the concept is the
same, but I also teach the alternate ending, allowing you to finish without a force.

We start by turning to Abbey and saying, “I always find that if I write something down,
people assume that I must have switched the paper. If I was to voice record something,
people think that I must use electronics to manipulate the recordings. So, instead, I’ll be
whispering things for you to remember. You will be a human recording device. Just focus
intently on what I say, and everything should work perfectly. Please close your eyes, and
cover your ears tight.”

Turning to Brooke, we say, “I’d like you to please think of your mother’s name. I don’t want
you to say anything aloud, but I want you to focus on the first letter of her name. Say it
over and over in your mind. This isn’t a vowel, is it?”

If they say, “Yes,” we answer, “I thought so.”

If they say, “No,” we answer, “I didn’t think so.”

We ask her to focus on the second letter, and again have her repeat this letter, followed by having
her say the whole name in her mind. These are all examples of the witchdoctor principle at work.

“Okay, thank you. You can relax, now. I think I have a good idea of what the name is.”

We go over to Abbey, lift her hand from her ear, and quietly whisper our starting suggestion,
“Just for now, please focus on clearing your mind.”

10
Replacing Abbey’s hand, we bring our attention back to Brooke, asking, “For the first time,
could you please tell us your mother’s name?”

Brooke replies, “Sarah.”

“And there is no way that I could possibly have known her name beforehand, correct?”

She will answer, “Correct.”

“Perfect. I think we’ll try for another. Could you please think of your father’s name this
time?”

Again, we go through whatever presentation of mindreading we wish to portray. In my personal

performance, I would appear to have a harder time on this name, and would go a lot quicker,
setting things up for the ending.

I say, very unsurely, “Okay, I think I have a rough idea of what the name is.”

Going over to Abbey, we remove her hand and whisper, “Could you please think of the name
Sarah, and John.” I briefly pause between the names.

We replace her hand to her ear, and then study Brooke a bit more, before saying, “You know
what, to be honest, I’m really not as sure about your father’s name. I don’t think I have it
right.”

I remove Abbey’s hand from her ear, and say loud enough for all of the audience to hear, “I’m
sorry. Could you please forget the second name that I just whispered to you? Can you still
remember the first name that I whispered?”

Abbey will confirm that she can still remember it; and I would hope so, as it’s only been about
ten seconds since we’ve whispered it to her.

“Brooke, I had you think of your mother’s name. Again, this is something that I should
have no idea of. Abbey, could you please say the first name that I whispered to you?”

She will say, “Sarah.”

That’s the basic idea behind the no force ending. It’s not as clean as using a force, but it certainly
gets the job done in an impromptu situation.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, you could use this to reveal a variety of items. You could
first attempt to guess their profession, then their birthday, followed by their mother’s and father’s
names, using the same out on the father’s name, or any other thought. I’ve already expressed my
opinion about why I prefer to just stick to two whispers, but this option is available.

11
To be honest, I rarely use this out. More often than not, when using Thought Control, I combine
the presentation of mindreading and influence into the same sequence.

The first whisper would appear to be a demonstration of real mindreading, typically guessing a
name.

The second whisper would be a demonstration of influence, forcing the elephant.

In this sequence, we’re demonstrating multiple ways of getting inside a spectator’s head, and it
has a powerful double punch. I believe it’s the strongest way to demonstrate Thought Control.

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

--Instead of having the participant think of things beforehand, I may present the effect more as
precognition. I’m still revealing their personal thoughts, but now I’m predicting them before they
ever think of something.

For this particular approach, I mostly treat it like a personal reading. You basically appear to
record your impressions before they speak. Whisper something, and then ask them what their
dream profession is. Whisper something, and then ask them to say their birthday, etc.

Credits:
All aforementioned credits are applicable here.

12
 Thought Control: Silent Reality

Effect:
The performer reads a participant’s thoughts with absolutely nothing said aloud by the subject.

Presentation and Method:

This is probably the boldest effect in this short manuscript. It really takes the right type of
performer, with a certain set of performance beliefs.

From the viewpoint of the entire audience, and even our main participant, this looks like real
mindreading. Here is what they see.

“What you’ve witnessed tonight is the illusion of mindreading. I’ve been manipulating your
thoughts in different ways. I don’t actually read minds, and I don’t have any real psychic
powers. What I’m about to show you looks about as real as it gets, but it isn’t real. I will
tell you that I have not met with any of you before the show, and at no point will I ask any
of you to help me or lie about what is taking place. I will simply ask you to imagine things,
and hopefully we can produce something that looks like real mindreading. Are there any
couples in the audience?”

Choose any couple from those who stand, we’ll call them Martha and Tom.

“Tom, I’d like you to just clear your mind. I’m going to whisper things to you, and I’d like
you to just focus on everything that I say. For now, please close your eyes and cover your
ears.”

Once he follows our instructions, we begin our conversation with Martha.

“Martha, I’m going to ask you to think of something specific. I will then whisper what I
believe you’re thinking of to Tom, which he will confirm. I’d like you to please think of
your mother’s name. Please focus on the first letter of her name. Repeat that letter, over
and over in your mind. It isn’t a vowel, is it?”

13
If they say, “No,” we say, “I didn’t think so.”

If they say, “Yes,” we say, “I thought so.”

I would always recommend including a subtlety like this, appearing to have one minor revelation
before going into the whisper. I would then have them think of the second letter in the name, and
again repeat it in their mind, followed by the third letter, and finally the entire name.

“Alright, I think I know what her name is.”

After our build-up and witchdoctor process, we go over to Tom and lift his hand from his ear,
whispering, “Could you please think of your wife’s mother’s name?”

Louder, for the audience to hear, we say, “Please focus on that name for me.”

I replace Tom’s hand to his ear, and continue speaking to Martha, “Before we finish, could you
please confirm that there’s no way that I could have known your mother’s name?”

“There’s no way!” she exclaims, as you can tell from the exclamation point.

I walk over and lift Tom’s hand from his ear, asking him to open his eyes.

“Tom, I just whispered for you to focus on a specific name. For the first time, could you
please say this name aloud?”

Tom says, “Rosie.”

The audience can see from Martha’s reaction that the name is correct.

The extreme dual reality here should be clear. Tom has no idea what exactly has happened. He
doesn’t know why you’re asking him to focus on this name, or say it aloud.

This concept can be used to reveal many bits of personal information. We could also ask her to
think of her birthday, and then ask Tom to, “Please think of your wife’s birthday.”

For the reveal, we would simply ask, “Tom, I whispered for you to focus on a specific date, a
month and a day. Could you please say this date aloud?”

Any piece of personal information that both parties would know will work: the color of their car,
their profession, etc.

In a stand-up show, or over the phone, I’ve often used “Silent Reality” as my one-ahead in
Thought Control.

We would ask the person to think of a color, appear to read their mind, and whisper our base
suggestion for our human recorder to clear their mind. The participant now says their color
aloud, “Yellow.”

14
We then ask them to think of an animal, appear to read their mind, and whisper their chosen
color to our human recorder. The participant now says the animal aloud, “Dolphin.”

The final thought would be their mother’s name. We have them think about it, and ask that they
not ever say it aloud. We continue to employ the witchdoctor technique on Martha, and finally
whisper to Tom, “Please imagine a dolphin, and your wife’s mother’s name.”

As counterintuitive as it may seem, I would suggest that you start with the big reveal of the
mother’s name first.

The psychology here is that if you end with it, then it becomes the big, final moment, and people
will immediately begin to question it. So instead, after the big reaction of the name, we then say,
“And before that, I whispered a specific type of animal. Could you please say the name of
this animal?”

He will say the animal, and this will lead to another reaction. At least in this second reveal, if the
subject was to ask, “He whispered ‘dolphin’ into your ear?” Tom would say, “Yes.”

We can then go into the color reveal, saying, “The very first thing that I whispered to you was
a certain color. Could you please say this color aloud?”

They will answer, “Yellow,” and at this point, the illusion should be clear that you’ve truly
whispered these items into his ear.

It makes the person less likely to instantly ask the question, “He whispered my mother’s name
into your ear?” That’s not to say that this illusion will last forever, but I find it to be pretty solid
for a show-ender.

We’ll get the reactions that we want, and it looks like real mindreading in the moment. Assuming
they talk about it in-depth on the drive home, we have two people who’ve learned the secret, and
an entire audience who have no idea how we read her mind.

We must always consider the big picture.

Credits:
“Silent Reality” is the most similar to Annemann’s whisper idea. The difference here is that
while Annemann’s effect was to reveal informal information, we can now use the concept to
reveal personal information about a person.

15
 Closing Thoughts

I hope that you’ve enjoyed the ideas presented in Thought Control. This is a concept that I’ve
used in many ways, and have applied to a variety of effects. I’m sure you’ll develop your own
presentations based on this one-ahead sequence.

I only ask that you truly put in the work to cleanly deliver the Thought Control script. A smooth,
flowing performance is vital to making this process feel natural, and truly fooling.

In a close-up environment, I would really recommend using the over-the-phone version. It’s just
better if they don’t talk about things until later. Plus, I always find these types of long distance
phone demonstrations to be interesting, and there’s also that extra bit of deception with the mute
button.

I understand that these methods won’t be for all of you. I can tell you that at one point in my
career, I would have detested “Silent Reality”. That’s because at that point in my performances, I
was focused on convincing everyone that I could truly read their thoughts, through subconscious
cues, etc. I’ve come to feel that this isn’t any better, or any more helpful to society, than claiming
that psychic abilities exist.

I am very honest with my audience that everything I do is an illusion using our minds. I take
absolutely no issue if two people work out the effect.

When we look at an effect like “Lift” by Derren Brown, or “Touching on Hoy” by Luke Jermay,
we must consider the boldness of the method versus the greater effect that it would have on our
general audience.

I’m a believer in the grander view, of providing a demonstration of inexplicable mindreading to

the entire audience at the expense of two people possibly working things out at a later time.

I know that everyone won’t agree with this view, but I would hope that you’d take these thoughts
into consideration, as we’re always able to change our thoughts.

Keep changing, my friends!

Matt Mello

16