Center Tear

the thinking persons journal

Volume 3 Issue 1

Jan 2004

You might like to take a seat before you read the following few lines: this may come as a bit
of a shock. Our gracious proprietor Professor Arcane has decided, in his infinite wisdom,
that he is too busy and important to be concerned with such mundane tasks as the writing of
editorials. We tried to talk him round: we told him that his legions of fans would be
devastated, but to no avail. He’s always been a stubborn old goat, and these days there’s
no reasoning with him. So I’m here to welcome you to the Third Volume of Center Tear.

And what a volume it promises to be! To mark our birthday, we are thrilled to announce the
arrival of a very special new regular column, from a gentleman who needs no introduction.
With a song in his heart and a gleam in his eye, Ford Kross, the Maestro of Mirth, joins us
to expound as only he can upon a subject in which he is the acknowledged authority.

As a very wise man once said, “the best things always come in pairs”. (At least I think that’s
what he said. He was mumbling, and it was late. Maybe I just imagined the whole thing.)
Yes folks, it’s official: Luke Jermay has entered the building, and we’ll be hearing a lot more
from the young whippersnapper over the coming months.

We’ve one more treat in store for you. Feast your eyes on the new improved Table of
Contents – now available in hyperlinked form. Simply pass your mouse over any item, and
you will be teleported straight to it in the blink of an eye. I’ve been playing with it all morning.
Go on - click something. You know you want to!

– Gardinski –

Chilling with Ford

I think perhaps it might behoove me, before I begin, to acquaint many
of you with who I am. While I was not born with the name Kross, it's a
name my family has used in show business for over a century. Most of
them chose to spell it Cross. I have used two first names in magic,
mentalism and hypnosis. First Sandy, now Ford. Neither of those

exactly appears on my birth certificate. And I'll answer to either but prefer Ford. I
studied hypnosis with Harry Arons in the mid 1950's and paid my way through
college and graduate school with its fees.

I started performing mentalism in the mid 1960's. I met Bob Cassidy when he was in
his teens and he became a major influence on my mentalism performance. In the mid
1970's I hosted a cable TV show called Mind probe for six years. I also had a co
hosting role on Cassidy's ‘Journey to the Center of the Mind’. On national
broadcast TV, I've appeared on Oprah, Geraldo, Dick Cavett, Joan Rivers and
Jackie Mason's TV shows. And dozens of local radio and TV shows.

In the early 1980's I had major throat surgery, which paralyzed my right vocal cord so
for a year I could barely speak above a whisper. It was at this time I developed a
stronger interest in ‘cold reading’. I started doing readings at psychic fairs, held at
the time in center court in regional malls. This gave me the opportunity to do literally
hundreds of readings for money. The money part is important… I have written a
couple of monographs and produced two audio tapes on cold reading that have
been generally well received. So I feel more than qualified to write a column on the
subject.

What then is this mysterious thing ‘cold reading’. Is it a group of lines, that apply to
everyone? Aaarn! (sound of buzzer) First there are no lines that apply to everyone.
And the ones that do are in my opinion, patently obvious. Well then, is it general
ambiguous statements, that can be taken many different ways? Well, that could be
part of it, but a small part. Actors call reading a script out loud for the first time a
cold reading, at least here in US they do. That's what cold reading is. Meeting
someone and doing a reading with no preparation.

Now, what kind of ‘cold readings’ are there? Readings for entertainment and
readings for counselling. Let's start with readings for entertainment. As a mentalist
or magician you have a participant on stage, they've thought of, let's say for example,
a geometric design.

You could say, “You're a person who likes things to go they way they're supposed
to. You like balance and organization. You would probably think of a square. What
did you think of? A square? Wow! How about that?”

Or you could, as I was yesterday, be hired to do readings at a supermarket opening.
You basically do character analysis. No-one's puppy gets run over by a car. No-
one's spouse is cheating. Everything has a happy ending. Nearly all leave happy.
Why nearly? Because some folks don't want happy endings. To make them happy
you have to do it differently.

We'll pick it up from there in the next issue. Come back, I'll be waiting...

Smells Like… - Mal Fortune

Effect:

The mentalist talks briefly about the power of the human imagination
and how, if thought about for long enough, we can convince ourselves
that our thoughts are real. He gives an example of imagining being in
a very hot climate and not having had a drink for ages. After
developing this for a while, he asks everyone who felt either a bit

sweaty or thirsty to raise their hands. Several members of the audience do so. The
mentalist congratulates them on the power of their imagination and invites two of
them to join him on the stage.

The mentalist explains that he is going to see just how powerful the imagination of
each of the two participants really is. Each participant is then seated on one of two
chairs. These are side on to the audience and are a few metres apart, backs to one
another. The mentalist explains that one participant is going to draw something and
the other must try to pick up on what that drawing is.

He then says, “To make things easier, let's use something straightforward like a
piece of fruit.”

The participant who is doing the drawing is given a pen and makes a drawing of a
common piece of fruit. The drawing is then folded into quarters and given back to
the mentalist.

The participant who did the drawing is asked to imagine the fruit in as much detail as
possible. He is asked to picture the shape, how bright the colour is, what is smells
like. What does it taste like? Imagine the fruit is beautifully ripe...can you taste the
juice?

The mentalist then asks the second participant to shut his eyes and try and pick up
on the fruit. He is also asked to picture the shape, the brightness of the colour, what
is smells like, what does it taste like, imagine the flavour of the juice.

The second participant is then asked what fruit they were thinking of to which they
reply “orange". The mentalist then unfolds the drawing to show what looks like an
orange and says to the first participant, “Did you draw and imagine this orange?”, to
which he responds "yes".

Method

This is really a very simple effect, but there are a few subtleties that make it work.
When you explain that the first participant must draw a fruit, you hand him a marker
pen. Not just any pen though. You hand him a scented marker. These are available
from several sources, most commonly stores that supply goods for the visually
impaired. The smell is good, but not too strong - your nose needs to be quite close
to get a good whiff.

OK, so you hand the first participant an orange marker (which naturally has a
pleasant scent of the orange fruit) and ask them to draw a common fruit. What are
they going to draw? An orange of course! Well, they may say tangerine etc, or even
kumquat, but that doesn't really matter, since they are all citrus fruit.

A nice touch is to start with a handful of marker pens of different colours and
casually hand the orange marker to the participant. It gives the impression that the
marker pen is of no importance.

So the first participant draws an orange. You ask him while he is drawing to make it
vivid and bright with as much detail as possible. This encourages him to fill in the
orange, rather than just draw a circle.

You then take the picture and fold it into quarters. You then walk round so you are
now facing the second participant while you give the first participant the instructions
for the second stage. You say that he should imagine the shape of the fruit. As you
do this, you very casually draw a circle in the air with your finger. This is very easy to
get away with and very effective for two reasons. You are in front of the second
participant but speaking to the first (remember they are back to back). So you
naturally look over the head of the second participant towards the first participant
while you are speaking. The audience will follow your gaze and look towards the first
participant too, but the second participant will be looking up at you and catch glance
of the circle you motion with your finger. But because they don't believe that you
are addressing them, they do not suspect that you are trying to influence them. That
means you get away with planting the idea of a round fruit in their head.

You then ask the first participant to imagine how bright the colour is. Tell them to
make it very bright and concentrated. Again, this suggests orange. Well, it could also
be red or yellow, but you have already mentioned a round fruit, so that gets rid of
lemon etc.

You then ask them to imagine the smell. As you do this, you make a motion with the
hand that is holding the folded drawing of bringing a piece of fruit up to your nose
and sniffing. As your hand comes up, the drawing goes really quite close to the nose
of the seated second participant and they will get a subtle waft of orange. Yum!

Then mention the taste and ask them to imagine the juiciness of the fruit. This again
reinforces the idea of an orange.

Next, you ask the second participant to close their eyes and you then ask them to
try to imagine what the other person was thinking of. But this time they are to close
their eyes (quite natural if you are imagining something). You repeat your
instructions (asking them to imagine the shape, colour, taste etc), but because the
heat is on the second participant this time, don't motion in a circle with your finger.
When you get to the smell of the fruit, again act as if you are bringing a fruit to your
nose, allowing the participant to get another subtle smell of orange. You then ask
them to imagine the taste, but as you do this you can slowly bring your hand with the
drawing down past their nose, giving them once last smell of orange. You need to be
a good actor here – a good idea is to imagine the orange yourself while you are giving
the instructions.

Then you immediately ask them to say the fruit - they will say orange, or another
citrus, which is good enough. You then reveal the drawing and get the first
participant to confirm.

I've done this many, many times and have never had a problem with a participant
drawing a strange fruit or anything. The colour of the pen visually forces them to
draw an orange. Besides, the two participants have been taken from your audience
because you have said that they have particularly strong imaginations - you've
flattered them, so they will be even more inclined to co-operate.

Thoughts

Several mentalists have experimented with using a scent in an effect. Those that I
am aware of use fragrant oil, which the mentalist applies to his fingers before hand. I
found this impractical, however, as it meant that your hand smelled of orange both
before and after the effect, which is no good if you are doing an entire act.

The scented pens work well, therefore, as they apply the scent to the paper directly.
And scented marker pens are sufficiently uncommon that the participants and the
audience will have no reason to suspect their use.

Don’t worry about the participant throwing you a curve ball and choose a more
exotic fruit such as guava or mango. The colour of the pen acts as a visual force – if
you are given an orange pen and asked to draw a fruit, you are going to draw an
orange. Anyway, the two participants have been taken from your audience because
you have said that they have particularly strong imaginations – you’ve flattered them,
so they will be even more inclined to co-operate.

Also, I've never hand the second participant say something completely wrong like
"Apple" or "Melon". If you are worried that they do, then you need an out. My out,
which I haven't had to use, is then turn to the audience and ask how many others were
thinking of an orange. A good majority (not all, remember they haven't been subject
to all the subtleties) will raise their hands.

The Psychic VS Psychological Performance

The notion of psychic versus psychological has been discussed over
countless a printed page and many a internet forum. However I will
briefly and for the first time outline my own thinking on this loaded
question.

I myself openly announce that I have no special otherworldly powers. Yet my
audiences still leave (well a certain percentage) with the notion that I do. This is due
to the way in which I handle the wording and the general performance. I allude to the
notion of psychic methodology being used throughout. However I also
openly state that I have no special powers. This is more than it reads on the surface.

In a nut shell the wording has the inbuilt suggestion that I am openly stating I have no
special powers, but it is done in such a way that it actually looks and feels to the
spectators as if I do. Read that again, slowly.

Ok. You’re back.

Mentalism is at its very core an intrusive art form. If we take a simple effect that we
often learn at the very outset of our appreciation for such things in which a spectator
is asked to think of a number, we then reveal the number that the spectator was
thinking of. The method is of no interest to this essay, but if we look at what has
happened, we have essentially gone into a spectator’s, more importantly another
human being’s mind (funny how we forget that spectators are people too!) and
removed that thought to tell the world.

Despite its intrusive and unnerving inbuilt nature we rarely see the reaction that one
would truly expect from such displays of mental feats. Fear. I for one would be
afraid if someone could simply remove my thoughts and share the innermost thinking
of my mind to the world.

Instead it is greeted with applause. This to me is for one of two reasons: either the
performer is very likeable and manages to overcome the sinister nature of what we
demonstrate, or the performer is simply delusional. I personally think delusional wins
the majority. For if what they displayed were really real it would not simply be
treated as a neat trick, but as something to be afraid of, and something to be held in
genuine awe.

If we take a personal hero Uri Geller as an example, love him or hate him, he was
never greeted with fake sincerity. He was greeted with applause and gasps of
disbelief and fear. Was this because he appeared a little too real?

A modern example would be Derren Brown who often scares spectators with his
abilities. Is this because he appears a little too close to the real thing to simply be
treated as a neat trick?

I think so.

John Riggs once said there is no market for a fake mind reader. In part I think this is
a valid standpoint. I made a conscious decision not to claim psychic powers for
several reasons: I did not want to open myself to a barrage of questions from non-
believers, nor be approached after a performance asking to contact a dead relative.
These are things that I can not morally claim to be able to do and still find a good
nights sleep when I return home that evening. However there is no market for a fake
mind reader.

Banachek was the first to openly state he was no using psychic powers but a
developed set of psychological techniques and intuition in print. Chan Canasta
held a similar position and played the role to utter perfection. However for me there
are certain things that simply can not be explained using psychology as a
presentation. For example, how do we know that a spectator has a brother named
John simply from reading their body language? This is really a much more complex
issue than it first appears. It would be much easier to forget morals and claim all out
psychic power - however I for one couldn’t do that. If I could somehow introduce the
notion that I use a mixture of the two without stating flat out that I did I could then
cross over into both markets, so to speak. I could appeal to those ready to believe in
psychic power and also those who think of such things as ludicrous. All the while
not appearing to be a fake mind reader. Here is my personal approach that I use in
my shows at present. Give it a go next time you perform and see if it fits you as well
as me.

“How ?” I hear you asking. Well the closing lines of my closing effect are as follows:

“Whether it be psychological or psychic, I think you would have to agree that was
pretty impressive. In fact it is not often I get such a person with such natural psychic
ability, you really did send over those messages to me. I do this kind of thing every
night - performing for all sorts of people. But sometimes something so amazing
happens, something I can’t even understand that I just sit back and have to wonder
exactly how it happened. You were great,” (addressing spectator used in the final
effect), “I really normally have to work much harder to hear what people are saying in
their heads. Normally it takes a lot longer to tune into their thoughts and block out
all the other distractions around me. But you really did manage to send those
thoughts right into my head perfectly, give her a big round of applause. “

The spectator is helped off stage and the performer makes his way back to centre
stage, sitting on a stall he continues:

“You know - you will probably leave here and ask yourself if you can actually develop
some kind of internal intuition, and then you will think of all the evil things you can do
with it! I am asked a million times, why if I can hear people’s thoughts am I not rich?
The answer to that is simple. It just doesnt work that way ! I mean I can’t hear what
you’re thinking now. I’m not sitting here hearing everything that’s going through your

minds. It is a state that I have to put myself into slowly. You probably noticed that
we began to build up steam throughout this evening. That’s because I have to really
work myself into a position where I think I am able to clearly hear what it is people are
thinking and when you hit that position, let me tell you, you amaze yourself. I will
actually try something that I wouldn’t normally do, but tonight feels right. I have no
idea how what just happened occurred, but I know that we can make something even
more impossible happen if we try, now I am really in the right frame of mind. I do
however need everyone to really take this seriously. I need you all to be quite and
concentrate on this. After all a room full of mind readers instead of one is surely
better!”

The performer attempts his final staged encore effect.

Reread the closing script. You will notice much effort has gone into it to actually
leave them with the notion that what just happened was something more than a clever
little mind game. Some will go away crediting you will otherworldly power. Others
will go away crediting you with increased insight into the human mind. This is hitting
both the target audiences that a mind reader wants to. Often the psychological
performers alienate the true believers and often the psychic styled performers
alienate the psychological buffs of the audience. However, without causing any
offence to either parties, we have actually embraced them both. We have admitted
that not ALL we do is psychic, and sometimes we do use some modern
psychological theory; however that implies that some of the time what we do is real.

Kenton Knepper uses a wonderfully powerful line in many of his readings:
“I like to check my impressions against modern psychology.”

This implies that what he is doing actually is something other than psychology, but
as we are the general all round nice guy, we are also checking it against something
that is psychological.

This approach has helped me a great deal in overcoming the obvious short falling of
the psychological approach. Let me outline exactly what I mean. To simply explain
the effect of a design duplication down to psychological techniques or the revelation
of a name on a piece of paper, to me is not really going to hit home that loud or true.
However if we use the scripting we have covered in combination with several of our

effects, using the example above as an outline, then we begin to suggest that we are
something more than psychological.

Let’s apply this rule to say a design duplication:

“Ok, these are not really the best conditions for someone’s intitution to really work
well but we can give it ago. I know that we have all heard about certain shapes being
more psychologically appealing, certain numbers being more psychologically
appealing. Even colours and foods are said to have specifically psychologically
appealing answers. Now what we are going to do is to break for a moment away from
psychology and try something a little more esoteric. I want you to really take your
time. I want you to come up with a picture that I couldn’t possibly know and in fact
that is almost out of character to yourself. I don’t want you to fall into the
psychologically appealing answers that some might.”

“I don’t even want you to give anything away with your face - I am going to turn my
back on you. This is ok as I don’t actually want to hear with my ears or my eyes but
with my mind instead.”

You can see that this rule can be applied to almost all your effects. If you mix in the
different rules with effects and change the wording slightly throughout your entire
performance you will be openly stating you have no special powers and yet at the
same time suggesting you do.

This gets you out of the biggy: “if your psychic why are you not rich/avoiding world
disasters” etc. However it does subtly suggest that you are something more than a
mere psychologist. To paraphrase Dunninger: “for those that believe, you have
suggested; to those that do not, you have answered”.

Think about it, you might find it works.

The Cards Of Life - Ted Leon

Effect:

The lid is removed from a small white box to reveal a deck of blank
cards within. They are dumped out of the box and both sides of the
cards are clearly shown to be void of any marks. Blank.

“These are the Cards of Life”, you tell the participant. “They are

blank because only you can write upon them. Only you can dictate what goes onto
the chapters of your life represented by these blank Cards.”

Holding out the cards and turning your head away you continue, “Here, please
remove as many chapters from this stack as you see fit and place them back into the
box.”

The participant obliges. You place the remaining cards into your pocket and
replace the lid onto the opened box, sealing the chosen cards within.

“In your life you’ve had many wonderful experiences. Think back about some of the
joyous times. I see that many of your happy times came about unexpectedly,
unplanned. You are lucky indeed. I would like you to think now of your most happy
time. Place the feeling of that event into one word… .one significant word that
encompasses the joy of that memory. Do you have it? Good.”

You take out one of the blank cards from your pocket and hold it up in front of the
participant, slowly turning it over and over at the fingertips. “Stare at this card.” You
now stop turning the card, holding it motionless in front of him. “I want you to project
your one word onto this blank space, onto this Card of Life. See the image of that
word clearly. Feel the feeling that your one word evokes.”

Your partner now says, “Ah yes! I’m getting the feeling also….now the word is
becoming clear.” She picks up a red pen. “I’ll write my impression of your feeling in

red, the color of the heart.” She writes her impression upon a card and, after folding
it, drops it into a wine glass.

You now address another spectator at the table, handing her a red pen, “Would you
please be the journalist and document for us his thought now that Liz has committed
hers to the glass? Turning your attention to the original participant, “Please tell us
now, the word that you were thinking of. Marriage, that’s a wonderful institution, if
you don’t mind being in an institution!” To the journalist, “Please write his word in red
ink also.” She writes in red the word Marriage on a similar card and keeps it in front
of her.

Attention again on the original participant. “You removed an unknown amount of
chapters from your Cards of Life. Do you know how many you took?” You now
open the box and dump the cards into his hand. “Please hold these cards between
your hands and silently try to get a feeling for how many chapters you hold.

Your partner now chimes in. “Oh, this is an easier task. I’m getting a strong sense of
how many chapters you hold. I’ll write the number of cards in blue ink.” Your partner
repeats the process and, after folding the card, drops it into the wine glass with the
first impression.

Handing the journalist a blue pen, “Please document how many cards he has”.
Saying to the participant holding the cards, “Now count your cards, one at a time
onto the table so we can all see how many you chose…..Thirty two”. The journalist
writes “32” on her card in blue ink.

Picking up the wine glass and swirling it you say, “You had a wonderful thought and
an unknown amount of cards. Let’s see how Liz’s impressions reflect your own.” You
dump the contents of the wine glass onto the journalist notes. “Please unfold her
impressions!”

Needless to say, not only are the impressions correct but the colors match….as they
should!

Method:

As many of you have already suspected, this is an outgrowth of Larry Becker’s
‘Ghost Image’ routine. My slant is the addition of the red/blue pen ruse and, as
always, making it a two person routine which further separates the “disconnect”.
There’s also a lot of room for a reading or two in this routine.

Larry has kindly given me permission to share this version with you.

For those who haven’t already figured out how it’s done, sit back and enjoy the
revelation.

Requirements:

•

A “blank on sides” deck of cards.

•

A small “gift type” white box with a lid, just large enough to hold the cards. I
got mine from a department store’s jewelry counter for free.

•

4 Bic “Round Stic” pens, 2 red and 2 blue ink. Reverse the cartridges in one
set making the pen with the blue cap write in red ink and the pen with the red
cap write in blue ink. The other set is unprepared.

•

A small writing pad.

•

A wine glass or similar receptacle.

•

Some type of billets. We usually use business cards.

•

Beautiful Liz

To prepare the cards a white mark must be made on them. I’ll describe exactly how
below. Larry recommends a Dixon white china marker, however I couldn’t find one. I
used Pebeo Porcelain paint Ivory #43 and the applicator that came with it available
at a local Michael’s craft store. White ¼ inch transfer numbers would work well but I
couldn’t find that size locally. I suspect that the white ¼ inch “stick on” type numbers
would work as well and be easier to apply.

Print a ¼ inch high numeral “2” on the lower right hand corner of one of the blank
cards. Continue to mark 49 additional cards in the same manner from 2 through 51.
When you’re finished, the 50 cards will be numbered in sequence. Hold the pack
number side UP. The numeral “2” should be facing you. Now, place two blank cards
(not numbered) on top of the “2”.

Place the pack of cards into the box, numbered side UP and close the lid. Place a
small pencil dot on the lid in the corner directly over the corner of the cards that are
numbered.

This will enable you to remove the cards from the box with the numbered end closest
to you by merely noting where the dot is.

Performance:

Follow along as in “effect”. Taking the box in your right hand with the dotted end
closest to your body, remove the lid with your left hand and place it aside. Turn the
box over and dump the pack into your left hand. This manoeuvre obviously places
the “marks” on the bottom. Hand the box to the participant. While you are
discussing the blank cards of life, etc., you are actually displaying their “emptiness”.
In this display, there is actually nothing to see. Square the cards and turn them over,
not end for end. This manoeuvre again places the mark at the bottom right. Since
the top 2 cards are actually blank, there is again nothing to see. As you show this
side, obviously don’t expose the lower right hand corners. This is very deceptive as
the “white on white” is remarkably convincing and easy to hide, especially in motion.
Again square the cards.

Turn you head away as you extend your hand to offer the cards to the participant.
Instruct him to cut off a substantial number and return them to the box and replace
the lid. Place the remainder of the pack into your left jacket pocket.

Note: After the participant has cut off his cards, a number will be exposed on the
lower right corner of the packet you hold. It is this number that will tell you how many
cards the participant cut off. So as soon as he takes his packet, casually draw the
attention to what he’s to do as your hand drops unnoticed to your pocket.

Now I start the bit about the participant having many wonderful experiences through
his life, etc. I purposely do this to have a positive outcome, as I don’t want him
dredging up the fact that his father was Jack the Ripper or something! Now is a
great time for a cold reading and we use the opportunity for that purpose in our
presentation. With a moment’s worth of preshow, believe me, this is a stunning
moment.

While he reduces his feeling to just one word, I pull out the TOP card of the packet
in my pocket. I hold this with my right thumb and 1st finger covering the mark. I rotate
the card easily keeping the mark hidden by my thumb and 1st finger. Finally I place
the card into my left fingertips exposing the mark (to me) and hold the card as if it
were screen for him on which to focus his thoughts. DON’T look at the mark yet. I
tell him to focus his one word onto the screen as I draw his attention with my right 1st
finger to HIS side of the card. It is now that I peek the mark, as both of our eyes are
naturally drawn to the card.

I code Liz the number. (I’ll discuss some simple methods for this later). Liz does her
hocus-pocus as only she can do, while picking up the gaffed red capped pen (which
writes in blue ink). Many times, she will do the reading at this point, if I didn’t already
give it a go. She writes down the number of cards I just coded her. The spectators
think she’s writing down the one word. She folds the billet and drops in into the wine
glass.

Now we have the journalist write down the word as described in the Effect. The
journalist also writes with her (ungaffed) red capped pen in red ink.

Take the box from the spectator. Remove the lid. Turn it over dumping the cards
into his hand. This action again reverses the pack so the “white on white” mark is on
the bottom, unseen. Have him put his other hand over the pack covering it as in
Effect.

Liz again does her thing as she picks up the gaffed blue capped pen (which writes in
red ink) and writes on her billet his one word. Obviously, the spectators think she’s
writing the impression of how many cards the participant is holding. She again folds
the billet (in EXACTLY the same way as the previous billet) and drops it into the
wine glass.

Now the participant counts his cards onto the table. The journalist documents the
final number with her (ungaffed) blue capped pen in blue ink.

Dump the billets onto the journalist note pad as described in Effect and you have a
miracle. Viola!

Now for some simple coding methods:

Liz and I use a verbal code. While this works for us, it is not at all necessary.

This routine would be wonderful for those who would like to have a their significant
other join them without having to go through the rigours of learning a verbal code.

Some suggestions:

(1)

-With your right forearm resting on the table edge, it’s a natural thing for your hand
to be off of the table. That would code the number “5”.

-It would also be natural for your little finger to be the only part of your hand to be
also resting on the table top. That would code the number “1”.

-If your ring and small finger were also on the table top, that would code the number
“2”,

-If your middle, ring, and little finger were visible, that would obviously code the
number “3”

-If all of your fingers were visible (thumb hanging off the edge) , that would code the
number “4”.

(2)

Another option would be to divide the table top or any surface (your writing tablet,
a card, a book, etc) into quadrants. Each quadrant has a number assigned to it. You
obviously don’t need more than 4 or five “quadrants” for this particular routine.

As you uncap the pen to hand to the journalist, you set the cap into a particular
quadrant coding one of the numbers while your finger/hand rests on another section
coding the other number. MANY combinations could easily be worked out with this
method.

(3)

Yet another easy code could be done while you are holding the blank card in your
left hand. The left side of the card could be divided into 5 zones. Where you hold
the card with your left finger tips gives the code for the first number:

Top left = 1

Between top and middle = 2

Middle = 3

Between middle and bottom = 4

Bottom left = 5

While your pointing with your right finger showing the participant the blank front of
the card, you code the second number by pointing to the same “index” on the right
side of the card.

Well, that’s probably enough ideas. If you don’t find a code from the above that
works for you, give me a call. I guarantee we’ll come up with one that’s perfect for you
and your partner.

Liz sends her best.
Ted (Leondo)

Test Your Book? - Mark Elsdon

What Happens?

The magician riffles down the edge of the pages of a book. Neither
the spectator nor the magician can see the pages. The spectator
calls stop. The magician opens the book at that spot and the

spectator remembers the first line of text (or the last, or whatever). Despite the fact
that the magician's head has been turned away all the time, he successfully divines
several words from the chosen sentence.

The Hype:

You use a regular book, which you may give away following the performance. You do
not keep any finger breaks during the selection process. The whole selection
procedure looks very clean. You just pick up the book and away you go.

How Does It Happen?

You use a 'Raven' gimmick. For those of you who have been living on Mars for the
past six years, a Raven is a very powerful magnet, covered with felt. It is attached to a
length of strong elastic, which is pinned to the top of the inside of a jacket sleeve. It
enables the performer to vanish any small ferrous object. Here it is put to a
decidedly more offbeat use.

In addition to the Raven you will need a small, flat strong magnet. Many magic
dealers now carry a range of small magnets. Also, you will need a paperback novel of
less than 200 pages. This should be of standard dimensions. Open the book to
anywhere between pages 30 and 50. Remember the top line of text on the left hand
page. Or the bottom line, or if you're up to it, the whole page. Place the magnet into
the book at that page and close the book. Hold the book flat on your left hand with
the front cover up. Bring the Raven down on top of the book, and then lift your right
hand back up. The Raven will pick up the magnet (if it doesn't, turn over the Raven in
your hand - the magnets' polarities need to match) and all the pages in between as
well. This is how you will force the page.

In performance, begin with the magnet loaded in the book at your force page, and
the Raven on your right hand.

Hold the book flat on your left hand, with the pages facing away from you. Turn
your head away to the right. Bring your right hand down on top of the book. You will
feel the magnet pick up. The right hand is lightly holding the book in a sort of Biddle
grip across the width of the book. The right middle finger pulls up on all the pages,
slowly riffling up them. Try to time it so that when the spectator calls stop you are in

the general area of you force page. Let go of all the pages and lift up the right hand
a fraction. The book will open at your force page.

Re-grip the book with your left hand, your left second and third fingers entering at
the force page from the top of the book, although it's the left hand side from your
perspective. Your left thumb holds the book's spine.

Remove you right hand by sliding it off across the edge of the front cover.
This will steal the magnet out directly onto the Raven.

Show the book upright to the spectator and have him look at the top line of the left
hand page (or whatever you memorised earlier.) Almost as an afterthought allow him
to take the book, in order to concentrate on his "chosen" sentence.

Using all your acting skills and theatrical training, reveal the words he is thinking of!
Don't reveal the whole sentence but just one or two words from it. For the real work
on how to reveal information in a book-test refer to Banachek's 'Psychological
Subtleties.'

Creation of a Card - Paul Hallas

Effect:

A deck of cards is shuffled and then eight cards dealt from it face up
to be used in an unusual ritual, the creation of a card. From the
packet of eight a spectator selects one, which is placed off to one
side. The deck is cut into four roughly equal piles, each pile being
placed at either side of the remaining seven card packet. The

selected card is used to tap each quarter of the deck as the performer comments,
“Air, earth, fire and water,” before looking the spectators in the eye and adding, “It’s

an elementary experiment. You selected the card to create and it grows in darkness
before your very eyes. I just remove this packet from the center and there is our
creation, a perfect match!”

Sure enough, the packet is removed and a card remains in the center that matches
the selection exactly. “I spend hours doing this at home, saves me a fortune on new
decks.”

Preparation:

Four double face cards are required. I use the following bicycle gaffed
cards:2H/3S, 6C/5D, 8D/3C, 8S/KH. Have the even numbers facing you.
Remove from a regular deck the four cards that match the sides facing the table, the
3S, 5D, 3C and KH. Place each of these cards onto the double that has a
matching face on the back, e.g. the 3S goes onto the 2H, 5D onto the 6C etc.
Having done that gather each pair into a pile and then reverse count them onto the
face of the deck. Turn the deck face down and case it.

Performance:

Remove the deck without flashing the face card and shuffle it retaining the bottom
cards in position. During the shuffle comment that you are going to use the cards
for an unusual ritual etc. Turn the deck face up and deal eight cards face up into a
pile, then table the deck face down to one side. “Eight cards from a shuffled deck,”
you comment. “This should be enough, sir. Can you give me a number between one
and eight please?”

If the spectator calls an odd number between one and eight, reverse count the cards
onto the table until you arrive at the given number and place the card at that position
to one side. So, if he says “Three”, the third card is used; “Five” the fifth card is
used. The remaining cards are then added to the dealt cards and the packet
squared and turned face down (a back will show).

If an even number is given say, “Okay, we’ll eliminate four” (or whatever number is
given), and deal that number of cards into a pile onto the table, “which brings us to
this card”. Deal the new face card to one side, then add the remaining cards to
those you dealt, square up the pile and turn it face down. Again, a back shows.

The deck is now cut into four piles which are positioned around the packet for the
ritual.

Pick up the selected card and tap the four sections of the deck, then table it again.
You now reveal the created card by lifting up the packet of cards in the middle but
leaving the bottom card of the packet on the table! The simplest way to do the latter
is to grab the packet with fingers at front, first finger curled in to the middle of the
packet and pressing against the table, thumb at the rear. The thumb simply lifts the
rear of the packet and flicks down the face card, after which you continue lifting the
packet up.

Note:

After dealing the eight cards from the deck you could have a spectator give the
packet a complete cut. However, if he cuts an even value card to the face then the
numbers the spectator gives are dealt with in reverse. If he gives an even number he
gets the card at that position, if he gives an odd number, that number of cards are
eliminated. Unfortunately, the handling has to differ slightly also.

Comment.

“Creation of A Card” is something from my dusty notebook never published. Not
sure what I’d been drinking at the time. It is something I never used. Maybe those
with a bizarre leaning can use it as a spring board for something. Rather than playing
cards perhaps Tarot cards or photographs of people could be used. In fact, as I
read this old idea again prior to sending it on, it made me think of another idea.
Maybe it will do the same for you.

Sexy Eyes – Olly Crofton

This is based on, and elaborated around, Banachek's trick 'The
Pupils Never Lie'. This routine is found in his book Psychological
Subtleties.

Effect:

The effect is that a king or queen is found amongst a group of indifferent cards of
the opposite colour to the picture card, by using physical cues given off by the
participant, specifically pupil dilation.

Method:

There are various possible methods of doing this. A one-way deck can be used, but
a regular deck of Bicycle cards will also do the job, as long as it is slightly defective.
By this I mean that a Bicycle deck where the pattern is printed off-centre is
required, because this can function as a one way deck. By reversing the court card it
can easily be detected from the backs, as long as all the indifferent cards are aligned
in the same direction, and they all go in the opposite direction to the court card. The
white border will be different sizes according to which way up the cards are. So next
time you get such a deck of Bicycle cards, where the pattern appears to be a little
wonky, don't be angry that you've got shoddy goods, be happy you've got a one-way
deck.

Alternatively the court card can be nipped on the top or bottom short edge with the
finger nails (the bottom short edge is better, because that way the nip can be
concealed by the fingers or in the palm), or the king/queen can be marked with pencil
dots in the top right and bottom left hand corner.

However, the ultimate method for this effect would be applying Ian Rowland's
‘Sense of Touch’. This way you can stare into your participant’s eyes constantly
throughout performance, without stopping to check for the card that stands out
from the rest. (I apologize if all your friends are familiar with this technique. The
difference is that here your not detecting a card with the finger tips, your doing it

through physiological changes in your participant, supposedly caused by sexual
arousal)

Patter:

”Our bodies react when we find someone attractive. The sight of a potential
partner is enough to start the dilation of the pupils, and if the gaze is returned (by
this potential partner), it can trigger a cascade of physical changes. Men and
women’s brains produce a rush of dopamine (when they detect that somebody
attractive of the opposite sex is looking at them). Adrenaline courses through the
body, diverting blood from the stomach, thus producing a feeling of butterflies and
intense excitement. Finally blood flows to our lips and sexual organs.” (Dr Robert
Winston)

I'm going to mix this king/queen up in amongst these indifferent cards. Now, I want
you to look at this king/queen in the eye and imagine that it’s a potential mate.
Somebody totally beautiful/fit/sexy. To help me, when you see this card, don't
say anything, but think about sex. In fact I want you to imagine your most perverted
sexual fantasy. Lesbians, chains, whips, video cameras, the kinkiest shenanigans you
can imagine. Something that you find erotic. Whatever turns you on. Don't say
anything. Don't worry. I won't be checking your sexual organs for increased blood
flow. But I will be looking closely at your eyes for dilation of the pupils. So in a way
this is a body language test. In fact it’s an experiment in basic physiology. And by
looking into your eyes, and seeing when you become aroused, I'll be able to see
which of these cards symbolizes sex to you. Alright? Now please, for this to work
you must, I repeat absolutely must keep a totally straight face. If you smile when you
think of sex, then its too easy for me (and defeats the object of the exercise).

Fabulous/Wonderful/Wicked/Splendid/Super/Smashing/Great.

(Go through the motions at this point and find the card)

Is this your card? Looks like true love to me.
Lust at first sight!

(Forgive me for asking, and I don't mean to be rude or nosy here but ... This is going
to sound really cheeky, but have you had sex recently? It's just that your eyes turned

into black holes when I showed you this card. Perhaps you have an especially filthy
mind.)

Afterthoughts:

You might want to leave out the bits I've put in brackets

To make this more convincing, and also more deceptive, get the lighting right so
there's a bright light shining in your participants eyes. This is what you'd do if you
were searching for pupil dilation, as you claim to be doing, after all. So by fussing
over the lights makes this more natural, and helps make the presentation a
demonstration of biological and physiological principles, rather than just a card trick.
It turns the routine into a lecture and a piece of edutainment, rather than just
entertainment.

If anybody asks how it’s done, you can pretend that you're looking at the reflection
of the card on the participant's eyeball, rather than pupil dilation. Of course this is
complete rubbish, but it's a very believable lie indeed. In fact, I explained this trick to
a mate of mine (shame on me), and then he did it on me, there and then, and this is
exactly what I thought he was doing - and I knew the secret in the first place! Of
course the true principle is something that's so obvious very few people will think of
it, because of the heavy misdirection.

The first paragraph of patter, I have to be honest here, was taken directly from the
BBC's show 'Human Instinct', presented by Dr Robert Winston. It's a first class
series of four one hour long programmes, that first appeared last year I think. If you
have satellite or cable, keep an eye open for them, because they are very interesting,
good fun, and illuminating.

Obviously, the idea is to make the trick raunchy, but not too raunchy. Titillation is
sexier than full-on rudeness.

The patter here is the full-on, no-holds barred variety that one would use on close
mates of the same sex. But this could be good for pulling women as well, or for
flirting. Have a line ready in case a girl ever says 'What someone like you?" This has
never happened to me, but it is more than possible in certain sexually-charged,
romantic situations. And women these days are so promiscuous. Leave out

whatever you want, and keep in whatever is appropriate. And use Derren Brown's
advice of keeping it tasteful. Asking somebody if they've had sex recently is
perhaps a bit too forward, especially from a teenager. However, this question could
also make you appear immensely superior (as long as you’re getting plenty of action
and everyone knows it).

Forgive me if I seem a little crude.

Reality Shows and Illusion Shows - Allen Zingg

I’ve been musing a bit lately on the nature of entertainment, its
purpose and its impact. Illusion shows, and by that I mean mystery
performances, theater, singing, and the like, are more or less known
not to be real.

The current trend in ‘reality shows’ (and by that I mean those television shows which
purport to put real people in real situations) are thought to be real. Shows such as
the ‘Survivor’ series put ordinary people in dangerous situations and then follow
their exploits to see how each handles these situations. And, of course, there are
the reality shows like ‘Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?’, with young, attractive
women vying for the hand of a rich, eligible bachelor. Viewers get to see these
people on dates, informal meetings, playing tennis, and so forth.

And then, there is a reality show which is even more different than these. It’s called
‘Crossing Over With John Edward.’

To my mind, all of these ‘reality shows’ are not real at all. They create illusions, and
for the most case, illusions which never really touch our lives. At best, they engage
us in our fantasies, but are in fact, the furthest thing from reality. Interesting
paradox.

Illusion shows, on the other hand, are by their nature, not “real.” Poor Jud does not
really die in ‘Oklahoma’, and neither does Billy Bigelow in ‘Carousel’. Why, there

they are standing at the end of the show accepting applause. Yet, the emotions we
felt when they “died” in the plays were very real. And when we watch a movie about
two people who fall in love, if it’s well done, we identify with the characters and fall in
love too. Or, at the very least, remember what it was like to fall in love, hope to fall in
love, are glad we are in love, etc. Any of these moments is very real to us.

Or go further, think of the first time you went to a circus and thrilled at the various
acts. What could be more of an illusion show than a circus, and yet, as we sat there
and watched, we dreamed of what it would be like to be one of the circus stars.

A strong singer with wisely chosen songs can evoke in us very real feelings of joy,
tenderness, love, melancholy, etc.

Now we see that these “illusion shows” create a reality for us.

So, it occurs to me that when we work so hard to “be real” as mentalists, perhaps we
are missing the point. We become technically and presentationally proficient in the
performance of our paranormal feats, but if we concern ourselves only with that, and
only with being seen as “real,” we may be only creating empty illusion for our
audiences.

Perhaps we might consider creating illusion for the sake of creating the reality of
feelings and the moment for our audiences. As I heard Jeff Sheridan say recently,
“Create emotional value.” That does not mean that our performances have to be
heavy-handed, and burdened with messages. It does mean that we need to reach out
to our audiences with our performances in a way that they have a rich and
entertaining experience. And want more…

I feel like I’m bridging generations with this essay and that some of the names and
titles I’ve mentioned might not mean much to some of our younger performers, but I
hope you get the gist of what I’m saying.

I’ll reach back a bit for the closing of this brief essay, and for those of you who
remember those who I am about to mention, will relate, those who don’t, well, you’re
smart enough to pick your own examples of this. Jack Benny, the character, wasn’t
“real,” but the warmth and laughter he exuded and created in those of us who
listened or watched him was very real. Who knows if the stories and jokes George

Gobel or Danny Thomas told had any basis in reality, but we felt “at home” with
them.

What I’m suggesting is that the most important thing we can do as mentalists is to
entertain and evoke realities in our audiences with our “illusion show,” and to not try
so hard to “be real.”

Review of Doug Dyment's "Mindsights"

This is a very interesting booklet of 60 pages, and well worth
having. The gem for me is Doug's brilliant “Quick Stack”
(a.k.a The Half-Hour Memorised Deck). Now I must declare
an interest in this item, because Doug and I are both members
of the Psychic Entertainers Association, and when Doug and
his wife Lynne came over to the U.K on a work assignment in
Cambridge, Doug and I met up, and I was privileged to see and
read the various versions in the development of the stack. It

really is as easy as its secondary title suggests, and for me, the easiest of all the card
stacks developed. Doug follows this up with a very clever effect, “The Immoderate
Deception” using the stack as an illustration of its versatility.

The booklet also contains three chapters on “Musings”. Doug's interesting in-
depth thoughts on aspects of mentalism, plus five other well thought through mental
effects. Of those five, my favourite is “Flash Squared", a magic square routine for
the walk-around performer. This is a devious, well thought through method,
illustrating Doug's deep thinking on the subject. Other effects are "Premise NV", a
prediction routine, "Bob's Your Uncle", a clever ESP effect and "Foursight", a
participatory numeric prediction, all very strong effects.

The booklet is very well produced and illustrated, and is true value for money. Doug
has researched his effects very well, and gives credits to all others who have helped
along the way in his thinking.

Many of you will have bought Doug's "Sign Language", so will be very aware of the
quality of his work.

"Mindsights" is available direct from Doug for US $30 in the UK/Europe and
US $27 in Canada/Mexico/USA. "Sign Language" is available at US $14 in
the UK/Europe and US $13 in Canada/Mexico/USA. But if both are
purchased simultaneously, it is US $42 in the UK/Europe and US $38 in
Canada/Mexico/USA.

Doug can be found at www.oratory.com or e-mail ddyment@oratory.com. Doug can
accept PayPal, but not credit cards. International Money Orders or cheques in
US dollars only.

Both these books are highly recommended for the serious mental entertainer.

Document Outline

Chilling with Ford
Smells Like… - Mal Fortune
- Effect:
- Method
- Thoughts
The Psychic VS Psychological Performance
The Cards Of Life - Ted Leon
Test Your Book? - Mark Elsdon
Creation of a Card - Paul Hallas
- Effect:
- Preparation:
- Performance:
- Note:
- Comment.
Sexy Eyes – Olly Crofton
Reality Shows and Illusion Shows - Allen Zingg
Review of Doug Dyment's "Mindsights"

Center Tear Magazine 3 1

Document Outline