bob cassidy - mentalism - tricks - compleat principia menta.pdf

The Compleat Principia Mentalia

Robert E Cassidy

M Not authentic without this mark

Robert E Cassidy 2

In memory of Stu Scott, Dennis Mead, Joe Haller, Don Garnett, Yvonne Moray, and, of course, The Forty Thieves.

Youll Never Know

Table of Contents

The Compleat Principia Mentalia 3

Part One - Fire 5 Prologue 5 Principium 1 7 Riding the Web - 8 Remote Viewing 10 Principium 3 12 Extra Sensory Switch 14 Principium 3 17 Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust 17 Principium 4 18 The Triple Prediction 19 Principium 5 22 The Phantoms Thought Foretold 23 Principium 6 24 The Erisian Force 24 How I Found the Holy Grail 26 The M.C.A.M.N. Test 27 Part Two - Earth 30 Introduction 30 Principium 7 31 The Journey Continues 31 Principium 8 32 Messing Around 34 The Microphone Switch 36 Principium 9 37 The Telepathic Diary 37 Take your Pick 40 Upside down and Backwards 41 Principium 10- 42 The Monserrat/Cassidy Booktest 42 Return to the Web 44 The Synchronistic Crossword 45 Tossing things around, and other ruminations 48 on things psychic 48 Principium 11 50 Business Card Telepathy 50 The Jaxian Phone Book Test 52 Part Three - Air 54 Introduction 54 Principium 12 55 Blind Mans Bluff 56 Principium 13 57 The Die and the Canisters 58 A Vibration from the WEB 60 The UFO 60 Black and White, and Red All Over 62 ESP Card Divination 65 The Options Force and a Murder Mystery 67 Part Four- Water 70 Introduction 70 Principium 14 70

Robert E Cassidy 4

On Originality 70 The Weird Revelation 71 The Writer's Ditch 72 Principium 15 72 Spellbilleted 73 Principium 16 75 Jazz Mentalism 76 Principium 17 81 Rip It Up 82 Principium 18 83 Conclusion 84 Principium X 84

Copyright 1995, 2002 by Robert E Cassidy All rights reserved. No part of this work may be

reproduced by any means. Violators will be subject to some very serious stuff, the least of which will be forfeiture of the offender's soul

and repossesion of same by Pazuzu. So watch out!


Part One - Fire

Prologue

Mentalism is often viewed as a branch of conjuring- an "adult form of magic," as Annemann put it, but a definite subcategory of conjuring nonetheless. It is, in fact, quite a different art form. This is probably why many otherwise talented magicians, relying on conjuring ploys, presentations, and psychology, are unable to present mentalism effectively. A brief look at the history of modern mentalism reveals that its roots lie not in magic, but in charlatanism. Mentalism evolved in response to public belief in spiritualism and second sight. While their performances occasionally included homage to such beliefs, the fathers of mentalism weren't Robert Houdin, Alexander Hermann or Harry Kellar. They were performers such as the Davenports, Washington Irving Bishop, Anna Eva Fay and Eric Hanussen. The exploits of such notorious and noted mediums as Henry Slade, Daniel Dunglas Home and Arthur Ford created the backdrop before which the art grew. Men such as the Comte Saint Germain, Cagliostro and Rasputin provided the legend. They were the godfathers of our art. (Which would, I suppose, make Madam Blavatsky the fairy godmother.) The decline of spiritualism, and the exposure of fraudulent mediums by Harry Houdini and others, led to the "scientific" presentation popularized by Joseph Dunninger and, more recently, Kreskin. It is still characteristic of most present-day performers. Fundamental methodologies, however, such as nailwriting, billet switching, and cold reading, remained those devised by the mediums and seers. With the revelation of the mediums' secrets, an interesting assumption was made by magicians. Here, they reasoned, were new magic effects that could be incorporated into their programs. Careful reading of Theodore Annemann's JINX, the leading source of so-called "mental magic" in the 1930's and early 40's, reveals that most contributors practiced an almost ironic approach to mentalism, cloaking their presentations with the same patter stories and obvious props used by conjurors. The original methods of the "charlatans" were thoroughly appropriated, modified, and, in a few cases, improved upon by ingenious innovators. The marriage of the two art forms hasn't always been a happy one. Since the premise and methods of mentalism are claimed by magicians to be the property of the conjuring fraternity, they expect its presentation to conform to the accepted model of magical entertainment. That model requires that performers don't pretend to be anything other than clever tricksters. To claim or imply paranormal abilities often results in censure, or, occasionally, the public defamation and exposure of the offender. It is purportedly a question of ethics. Conjuring is seen as "honest" deception intended for entertainment purposes only. The public expect magicians to lie and deceive to create harmless illusions. Many magicians seem to feel duty bound, as protectors of a gullible public, to condemn those who use magical methods for any other purpose. Mentalism, lacking the glitzy props and slick patter that would clearly brand the practitioner a trickster, is seen by many magicians to be unethical. Mental effects, however, presented in a traditional magic act, or preceded by a disclaimer of psychic abilities, are considered acceptable. Since many practitioners believe that the very essence of effective mentalism is the simulation of psychic ability, they have dissociated themselves from magic and magicians. Some mentalists, however, deny psychic ability and claim instead that their effects are accomplished through "purely scientific means for entertainment purposes only." This generally keeps crusading magicians and CSICOPS off their backs. As

Robert E Cassidy 6

magicians and their organizations are an excellent source of clever methods and gimmicks useful to the mentalist, this compromise has been made by many. Besides, most of us are very good at reading the fine print.

People who believe in paranormal abilities don't believe the disclaimers anyway.

Magicians, though, have always outnumbered mentalists, and the magic organizations haven't offered much to the psychic entertainer beyond the occasionally useful idea. Various attempts have been made to create associations of mentalists, but none were particularly successful until 1978, when the Psychic Entertainers Association was formed. Founded by Tony Raven, Scott Gordon, and myself, the P.E.A. was born out of the realization that mentalism and magic were quite distinct. Mentalism was defined as the "presentation of seemingly paranormal phenomena for entertainment purposes." Leaving the question of disclaimers up to the individual member, it simply required that the performer did not create detrimental reliance on his abilities by members of the public. This has always been my position. Many magicians, realizing the popularity of mental effects and believing that mentalism offers an easier and less expensive route to commercial success, have sought membership in the Association. In most cases they have been denied. The reason is that most magicians are hobbyists and amateurs far more interested in fooling each other than in entertaining the public. Since they repeatedly perform for each other they constantly seek novel effects and methods. This is not so with the professional who is constantly performing for new audiences, and is thus far more interested in developing his performing and promotional skills. Furthermore, mental effects presented as magic tricks, or in a magic act, are no more than puzzles. Since they don't require digital dexterity or skill (from an audience viewpoint), they aren't inherently impressive. They are more likely to bore than to intrigue. Only the utmost in showmanship can make them entertaining. Mental effects presented as "the real thing," however, can be intriguing to believers and skeptics alike. Mentalism, I think, is this type of presentation as a form of professional entertainment. I leave it to the reader to decide if claiming extraordinary natural abilities one doesn't really have, is any more "unethical" than claiming psychic talents. Personally, I prefer to paraphrase Dunninger's classic line:

For those who believe No explanation is necessary.

For those who don't I couldn't care less.

Success in mentalism, however, presupposes a firm mastery of its basic principles. It is mastery that allows the performer to be believable. Since I view the art as an exclusively professional activity, the common dictum that a mentalist need not exhibit professional performing skills is ridiculous.


The purpose of this book is to teach effects with an emphasis on presentation and the underlying techniques. At times I will challenge many widely accepted premises- not to denigrate them, but to make you constantly reevaluate everything you have assumed to be "true" about our art. Enjoy the ride.

Principium 1

Plausibility depends on context (or, as Annemann asked,

"What would a real mindreader do?")

Mental effects in general, and book tests in particular, have often been criticized as illogical- assomethingthat a "real mindreader" wouldn't do. Why shouldn't the spectator be able to think ofanything at all? Why does he need a book to think of a word? Why does he have to write things down or pick cards or DO ANYTHING BUT THINK? Isn't that the way a REAL MINDREADER would do it? This is an easy question to answer. So easy, in fact, that I'm surprised no one's ever suggested this before. All you have to do is watch a real mindreader and see what he does. Then you will know. If you can't find a real mindreader to watch, you'll just have to take a guess at what he would do. That's what mentalism really is after all- a presentation of what mentalists assume real mindreading looks like. But you're in luck. You see, I am a real mindreader. (Ten thousand dollars to anyone who proves, to my satisfaction, that I'm not. Almost like the deal the debunkers give.) I use book tests all of the time. I also have people pick cards and write things down. Why? To keep them from lying and making me look like a fake. It used to happen all the time when I told people flat out whatever it was they were thinking about. Others got scared and wouldn't come to see my show again. I was harassed by skeptical scientists who said any evidence I produced in this manner was merely wishful thinking on the subjects' part or cold reading on mine. When presented with testimonials by those whose minds I read, these same scientists called the evidence "merely anecdotal."

Robert E Cassidy 8

I've been told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And let me tell you this- it's hardly extraordinary, or even difficult, for me to tell most people what they're thinking. Usually I just say "The same to you, buddy," and leave it at that. Do you suppose, as I once did, that the book test was devised by magicians to simulate mindreading? Actually, it was originally performed by spirit mediums to prove contact with the dear departed. The medium, while in trance, would give a page and line number in a certain book which, when checked later, would contain a message to the sitter. Usually the book was on the sitter's own bookshelf and had not, presumably, ever been seen by the medium. This, of course, is not the typical modern presentation of the test. The closest thing I've seen is a prediction of a passage in the Book of Numbers which revealed the total of several numbers called out by spectators. The point is, that the effect is consistent with the claim being made. (ie. contact with the dead demonstrated via revelation of information seemingly unknowable to the medium- or to anyone else, for that matter) Thus it is believable. As applied to mentalism, the principium simply means that the performer himself defines the parameters of his claimed abilities. Since his proof is the material he performs, his effects must stay within those parameters in order to be believable. He thereby creates the illusion of doing what "real" mindreaders do. My own parameters are defined by a concept I call the "Web." It is a subscript that underlies all of my presentations. A mentalists persona must have depth that goes beyond the theatrical stage. If you think the only time you have to appear psychic is when you're on stage, you will never develop a believable image. The following is my theory of the Web. It's how I explain mentalism to the public, and it has served to create a plausible argument in support of psychic functioning. It provides context to my act and is the

essence of my persona as a performer.

Riding the Web - an approach to Parapsychology and a cover story for mentalists

ESP, or "psi," as it is now called by parapsychologists, has long been a phenomena without an identifiable scientific basis. But, if we imagine for a moment that our individual minds may actually be parts of an infinite universal mind, psychic ability is easily explained. This simple change in our reality view allows us to speculate that psi may actually be nothing more than the ability to decipher signals that are passing through a network, or, by analogy, vibrating throughout a web. Imagine a spider web of infinite size whose strands connect everything that exists. You and I, as individuals, are tiny specks attached to the center of the web, but since the web is infinite, the center is everywhere.


As a result of cultural and biological programming, western man has come to view himself as an entity distinctly separate from his environment and the rest of humanity. This feeling of separation, coupled with the mechanistic views of modern science, serves to keep most people from allowing themselves to accept unifying experiences as real. They need to see it to believe it, when, in fact, the reverse may be true. It is only when we transcend the illusion of separateness that we begin to appreciate that we are one with the web. A vibration emitting from any point travels throughout its infinite expanse. Since everything that exists is in a state of vibration, the web resonates with a symphony produced by the orchestra of all things. The web is "real." It is our sense of separation that is the illusion. History is filled with instances of people suddenly experiencing a connection with the web. Many who spoke of their experiences were misunderstood. Frequently they were persecuted by those who mistook the illusion of separation to be the reality of existence. You may wonder what this has to do with psi, or with mentalism for that matter. Its really simple. Operating from the premise that all minds are separate, telepathy, for example, cannot be understood within the confines of accepted physical laws. If all minds, however, are actually connected by a unifying web-like structure, knowing another persons thoughts may simply be a matter of listening to your own. There are a few other aspects of this hypothetical web that should be noted. Since it is an infinite structure, vibrations are not restricted by traditional notions of space and time. A vibration commencing at point A, for example, does not travel to point B. It simply occurs at point B at the same instant it occurs at point A. Interestingly, this sort of space/time jumping as actually been observed and acknowledged in the field of quantum physics. There is nothing new about the web motif. It is generally accepted in eastern philosophy and usually rejected in western thought. Fortunately, we are not faced with an "either/or" selection. These two, apparently opposing, viewpoints are entirely reconcilable if one learns to accept that all interpretations of reality are the result of both subconscious programming, and the suppression of any sensory input which contradicts the accepted reality model. Reality views are neither true nor false, right nor wrong, black nor white. They are simply the result of subconscious programming and the filtering out of input inconsistent with the chosen reality view. Like everything else that exists, all reality views exist somewhere on the web. (The "everything" on the web includes ideas.) In learning to "ride the web" we learn to release ourselves from the constraints of restrictive programming. Only then will we finally delete the "para" from "parapsychology," "paranormal," and "paradox." We mentalists, of course, will need to find jobs.

Robert E Cassidy 10

Remote Viewing We've come a long way since the days of the spiritualists. Remote viewing is a technique recently popularized by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, formerly of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and founders of Delphi Associates. Delphi was dedicated to developing practical applications for RV, such as predicting fluctuations in commodities market. Targ and Puthoff's books offer valuable material to the professional mindreader. Remote viewing tests involve recording information, taking photographs, and guessing which of those photos is of a place visited by an experimenter. They also involve writing things down and interpreting results. These "test conditions" precautions make it quite easy for a mentalist to simulate the phenomena. "Legitimate" remote viewing tests are easy to fake. Tests designed for stage use are even easier, since there is a simplified protocol and far more control by the performer. The following test was presented by me as part of a psychic development course. Since the course was primarily an exploration into the powers of the mind, in which the students judged their own work, there was really no need to cheat in the test to assure above average results. Self-validation allowed the students to convince themselves they had some psychic ability. Since they were looking for correspondences between their "psychic impressions" and a subsequently revealed photograph of a target, they simply made use of the mind's natural ability to find patterns and meanings in just about anything. I just couldn't resist giving them a subtle shove in the right direction. EFFECT: From a group of seven people, one was selected to act as a sender in a remote viewing test. I explained to the entire group that an envelope I held contained six drawings randomly selected from a computer clip art collection. My assistant, Denise, was to take the envelope and accompany the sender to a different room. Once in the room the sender was to remove one of the folded pictures from the envelope, focus on the image and give verbal impressions to Denise. Denise was to make a written record of his comments and feelings about the target. In the meanwhile, I led the remaining participants in a relaxation exercise. Each was provided with pencil and paper and was asked to let images and sensations flow through their minds. They were to record their impressions. Since I didn't know which target had been selected, I freely provided feedback and encouragement to the receivers. About fifteen minutes was devoted to the exercise. At a prearranged time, Denise had been instructed to let the sender refold the target picture and replace it in the envelope with the other pictures. She was to deliver the envelope to the testing room without comment. The envelope was opened and all of the pictures removed and unfolded. They were placed on a table in front of the receivers, who were then asked to find correspondences between their impressions and one or more of the targets. Again, since it was apparent that I couldn't know the identity of the target, I freely gave advice and helped them find correspondences. Finally, after several minutes of finding correspondences and interacting with each other, the subjects were asked to vote on which picture they thought had been the target.


Denise and the sender then reentered the room and revealed the target picture. Denise's written notes of the sender's comments and impressions were read to all of the participants, and further correspondences were noted with the receivers notes. The test was an astounding success. ALL of the subjects had successfully identified the target, and many had picked up on the subjective impressions recorded by Denise. No one suspected they had witnessed a mental effect or magic trick. The test was accepted as proof of "the real thing." Whether we had proven telepathy, clairvoyance or controlled synchronicity, was the subject of much animated conjecture. I immediately noticed the potentially dangerous opportunity presented. These people were prepared to accept any explanation I could give about the phenomena, since I was the "expert" who had allowed them to experience psychic phenomena first hand. METHOD: The envelope Denise took to the other room contained eight identical pictures. Previously planted in that room was another envelope containing seven randomly selected pictures. While the sender was concentrating on his selection and giving his comments and impressions, it was simple for Denise to exchange envelopes, thus allowing the forced target to be later returned to the envelope containing the random pictures. Knowing beforehand what the selection would be gave me the opportunity to lead and encourage the receivers to accurate impressions. The impression created was far greater than could have been provided had the effect been presented in a magic or mental program. If mentalism were defined simply as the simulation of psychic phenomena, the effect is perfect mentalism. There are those who would argue that this is exactly what mentalism is all about, and that realizing this is what will bring us back to our true roots. But there is the ethical question again. If mentalism is defined as psychic entertainment, which doesn't create potential detrimental reliance on the performer's claims, the effect is not mentalism, but is actually a form of controlled brainwashing. Ironically, if the effect as written were performed to induce real psychic ability by creating confidence and belief in its existence, it could, according to some parapsychologists, be a completely acceptable and ethical approach. This is the area in which the ethics of mentalism must be constantly examined. It's one of the main reasons I prefer to remain on stage and out of the classroom. It's also probably why I don't earn nearly as much as those who have taken to the motivational speaking circuit. If you were to attempt the above effect as part of a stage program, it would fall apart completely. There is obviously no entertainment value at all. Who would want to watch several spectators sit and compare

Robert E Cassidy 12

impressions? It's sad to think, though, that there are many mentalists (I hesitate to call them "performers") who actually inflict such things on audiences.

Principium 3

No effect is plausible if the context is wrong. Conversely, anything is plausible in

the right context. The trick is figuring out which is which.

Principia 1 & 2 having been set forth, we now return to the stage

Remote viewing as part of a stage performance requires a completely different approach. It can be handled as an effective variant of design duplication. Rather than duplicating a picture selected or drawn by a spectator, the presentation focuses on geographic locations. My "Name and Place" routine, in The Art of Mentalism 2, could easily be adapted to a remote viewing theme by having the spectators think of places they have visited before. They would be asked to imagine that they had returned, and to concentrate on their surroundings. By requesting them to think of well-known spots, it would be easy for the performer to describe the places. Many mentalists have experimented with packets of postcards. Either by stacking or marking them (or, if you want to be really subtle, both) it's easy to remote view. [Just in passing, I know there are some purists out there, well versed in remote viewing protocols, who will argue that this isn't remote viewing at all, because no one goes anywhere. In certain situations, though not usually in a stage performance, it would be quite possible to send the volunteer to the selected location. The remote viewing would take place after allowing him time to get there. It would be a good way for those with a small repertoire to lengthen their programs. Unless used as a Dunninger type "Brain Buster," however, I don't recommend this approach. What if your volunteer didn't come back? The effects I'm describing are remote viewing because the performer says so. Again, a real mindreader does what a real mindreader says he does. In any event, the spectator is asked to imagine that he is in the selected location due to the obvious physical problems of sending him there.] A more intriguing approach is to not mark or stack the postcards at all. Just show them to be all different. Allow the spectator to mix them up, spread them face down on a table and select one. The backs of the cards have been covered with blank cardboard to preclude marking. The effect works on the same principal as Goldstein's Zodiaction and my own Atlas Test. All of the cards show the same location. From a distance, though, they don't look alike because they are all different


photos of the same subject. There must be a hundred different post cards showing New York City, or Seattle, for example. For close up work, I would recommend this variant on Koran's Five Star Miracle. EFFECT: The mentalist exhibits a packet of about forty-eight post cards. He passed them from hand to hand before his volunteer, who verifies that they are all different and represent locations from all over the world. The pack is mixed, turned face down and handed to the volunteer. He is requested to deal them, one at a time, face down on the table. He is to stop dealing whenever he feels like it. He is asked to concentrate on the location depicted on the card where he stopped. The performer either remote views the location or opens a prediction envelope previously exhibited to the audience. In either event, he has accurately described the spectator's selection. METHOD: If you are using a forty-eight-card packet of post cards and wish, for example, to force New York City, you would proceed as follows: Find four postcards depicting different views of New York City. Buy three copies of each card and obtain twenty-four other cards depicting different places from around the world. Cover the backs of the cards with opaque paper or card stock. Stack the pack as follows (from the top of a face down pile): The top six cards are random locations, as are all of the subsequent cards at even numbers from the top. The seventh card is the first New York picture, the ninth card is a different picture of New York, as are the eleventh and thirteenth cards. The sequence of force cards begins again with the fifteenth card and continues through the twenty-fifth. The remaining twenty-three cards are random. If the packet is spread face up, you'd have to show twenty-three cards before you got to the first force. Beyond that point the cards would still appear to be all different, because the duplicate force cards are eight cards apart. The cards are given a Charlier (or false haymow) shuffle by the performer. A pencil dot on the top card assures that it can be cut back to the top, thus restoring the full pack order. The spectator is instructed to deal cards one at a time, face down, onto the table. After he has dealt about five of them, tell him he can stop dealing any time he likes. Count the cards as he deals so you will know if he deals an odd or even number before stopping. If his last card dealt is odd, it is a force card. If the last card dealt is even, he has a force card on the top of the pack in his hand. Either way you know which one to ask him to concentrate on. End by remote viewing or by revealing your prediction.

Robert E Cassidy 14

Fact: Dr. Faustus was dyslexic and

actually sold his soul to Santa.

So-called test conditions effects have always been favorites of mine because they capitalize on the growing legitimacy given to psi by parapsychologists. They also serve to illustrate the "reality" of the Web. The next few effects, presented according to the first principium, are sure to create favorable response. The first is called Extra Sensory Switch and was inspired by an old Howie Schwartzman card move. Its use is not limited to cards. As will be seen, it also makes an excellent envelope switch.

Extra Sensory Switch EFFECT: The performer shows two sets of five ESP cards. One set is placed in a row, face down in front of the performer. The mentalist examines the other set and places those cards in a row, face down above the first row. He explains as follows: "The cards in each row are not in the same order. In fact, only one of the pairs matches. Only I know which pair that is." Addressing the spectator, the performer continues, "I'd like you to point to two of the cards. The two you point to will be switched. Afterwards, I'll have you point to two other cards and I'll switch those also. Just point to two of the cards in the row closest to you." The volunteer does so, and the performer switches the positions of the two cards. Again the spectator points to two different cards, and those are switched also. Only one card has not been moved from its original position. Turning over both rows, it is seen that all of the pairs match. METHOD: This is a straight out con and is similar to a Paul Curry effect in which cards arranged in a numerical sequence were switched at places designated by the spectator to arrive at a predicted sequence. At the outset, both rows are arranged in the same order. All of the cards match.


The two "switches" appear to alter the positions, but leave the cards exactly where they were to begin with. The move is simple, although you will find it a bit awkward at first. There are two basic ways to legitimately switch the positions of two cards. The first is to pick up one card in each hand and crisscross the hands, replacing the cards on the table. The second is to take one card in each hand and exchange them from hand to hand and place them on the table If you do both things simultaneously, the switches cancel each other out. So it goes like this- Pick up a card in each hand. Crisscross your hands and exchange them from hand to hand as you do so. This is facilitated if the card in the right hand is held between the thumb and forefinger and the card in the left between the index and middle finger. The hands come together, and the card in the right hand is grasped between the thumb and forefinger of the left. The card in the left is grasped between the index and middle finger of the right. When both hands do this, they release their original cards and crisscross. In other words, the right hand continues to move to the left, and the left hand to the right, the right hand passing over the left wrist. There is no need to be furtive or quick with the move. It should be performed slowly and naturally. It's best to use the ESP cards with the original borderless back design, as they add to the deceptiveness of the move. If you follow the directions with cards in hand, you should have no trouble. The reason the move is awkward is because you will experience a natural tendency to separate the hands after the exchange. In other words, you'll want to move the right hand back to the right and the left hand to the left. A little practice will get you through this. Don't overlook this because it seems obvious. Here's an alternate presentation which, I think, makes the effect even subtler. Begin the effect by writing a prediction which states, for example, "Only the circles will match." After initially laying down the two rows of cards, emphasize that you have arranged the pairs so that only one of them matches. Through mental influence alone, you will cause the volunteer to match one, and only one, pair. The only difference comes when you lay the cards down. See to it that only the circles match. Since nothing's going to change anyway, the prediction is sure-fire. As I suggested earlier, the switch is particularly practical with envelopes. In the following example the hand movements are modified slightly. Instead of crisscrossing laterally, the hands move directly toward and away from the volunteer. The envelope in the left hand is held close to the performer's body between his index and middle fingers. With the right hand he reaches forward and takes an envelope from the spectator, grasping it between his thumb and forefinger. The right hand is pulled back and the left hand goes toward the volunteer. The switch takes place as the hands pass each other. At the completion of the move the performer's right hand is against his body and his left hand is extended forward.

Robert E Cassidy 16

In this form, the switch is not quite as visually deceptive if a spectator keeps an eagle eye on his envelope. Verbal misdirection, though, covers it nicely. Since people naturally look at you when you say something, the act of asking the volunteer a question as you perform the exchange makes it completely unnoticeable. EFFECT: The spectator and the performer each write a three-digit number on the backs of business cards. Each inserts their card into an envelope. The envelopes are exchanged and opened. Both have written the same number. METHOD: Before reading further, I think it would be a good exercise if you tried to work this out for yourself. Forget the logic of sealing the cards in the envelopes, we'll deal with that later. For now, just try to figure it out. Here's a clue- the performer is allowed to make a mistake somewhere along the line. It is the mistake, of course, which makes the effect possible. The performer writes anything he feels like on his card. The flaps are tucked into the envelopes (they are not sealed), and the exchange executed. The performer, while performing the switch, says, "I want you to put my envelope into your inside jacket pocket, and I'll put yours into mine." After this is done, the performer explains, "You wrote down any two digit number that came into you mind. I also wrote something." Since the spectator was originally told to write a three-digit number, he or another audience member will correct the performer. If not, he just pretends to hear a correction. "I'm sorry," the mentalist continues, "Three digits are a lot harder. Give me my envelope back for a moment." Retrieving his envelope, the mentalist opens it, removes the card and notes what the spectator has written. He now crosses out (obliterates, actually) the spectator's number and rewrites it. He reinserts the card into the envelope and returns it to the volunteer. Again he reiterates what has taken place. It only remains for the performer to remove what is apparently the spectator's envelope, open it, and misread the contents as the spectator's chosen number. The spectator is asked to open the performer's envelope and read the contents aloud. The numbers match. Three principles, therefore, are brought into play here- the envelope switch, the feigned mistake, and misreading a billet. Worked together they serve to create an effective method. Later, I'll explain how this same approach is applied to a new version of the Card at Any Number effect.


Principium 3

If more than one subtlety is at work,

your method is well concealed.

When I was a kid, I was always fascinated with an EZ Magic number called "The Devil's Canister." Maybe you remember it. It was a brightly painted tin can into which you could drop dollar bills, cards, billets, or whatever, and then set them on fire. The gimmick was a hole in the bottom back of the can from which you could retrieve the object. About an inch down from the inside top of the can was a circular ledge on which was glued a fabric soaked with lighter fluid. I wonder if anyone ever actually performed this. I certainly hope not. It's a perfect example of magic shop mental effects which are only profitable to those who are selling them. They offer no profit to those who would dare perform them in public. Often, however, they plant a principle in the neophyte's brain and, years later, a practical application springs forth. Here's what popped out of my cerebellum. Its uses are many. We'll call it:. . .

Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust EFFECT: The spectator is handed a slip of paper. He writes whatever the real mindreader deems necessary for the experiment. He drops the slip into an ashtray and burns it. At no time does the performer touch the paper, yet he is able to divine the spectator's thought. This is accomplished without the use of impression gimmicks or other standard devices. METHOD: It all lies in the ashtray. It is the black plastic type- round and almost two inches deep. A circular portion of its bottom has been cut out. A piece of absorbent paper is stuck to the remaining portion of the bottom and has been soaked with lighter fueL. After recording his thought on the paper, the spectator is instructed to fold it into quarters. The performer approaches him holding the ashtray in his left hand and a cigarette lighter in his right. He holds the ashtray just above the spectator's eye level and asks him to drop his slip into it. The slip, of course, goes right through the bottom into the performer's hand. The performer lights the fuel soaked dummy and returns to the front. The slip is opened and read under cover of the pad on which the performer writes his impressions.

Robert E Cassidy 18

That's the skeleton of the presentation and method. The prevailing angles of vision dictate the manner in which the ashtray is held. If you don't mind touching the slip ( and it really makes no difference, provided that it is kept in plain view until dropped into the ashtray) you may take the slip and drop it in yourself. The style of ashtray may also be changed to allow for greater cover. Don't use anything too big, though, or you might as well go back to using a painted tin can. This is an example of putting new wine into an old bottle. From the audience's point of view, the effect would look no different if you used a billet switch, an impression device, or a center tear. I plead guilty, therefore, to providing you with something that your audiences will never notice. If there's an amateur magician sitting in your audience, though, and I've run across quite a few in mine, this will cause him serious confusion.

Principium 4

Varying your methods keeps you one step ahead of the dilettantes.

While on the subject of ashtrays and burning billets, here's the way I normally read the stolen center after performing a center tear. This is best for a one on one presentation, but can be worked onstage provided you're not surrounded. If you can position yourself in a corner, the cover will be fine.

After you've torn the billet and stolen the center, drop the pieces into an ashtray. Ask your subject to light the pieces. You should be standing to her left, practically shoulder to shoulder. Your left hand holds the ashtray in front of her, and your right hand holds the stolen center behind her back.

Open the center behind her back. While the pieces are burning tell her you'll turn your head "just in case the pieces open."

That's as good a time as any to read the slip.

Ford Kross advises that the late Chet Miller used the same technique to cover pocket writing. He simply used the spectator's body as cover and the audience couldn't even see that he had his hand in his pocket.

For years, close up magicians have boasted that their miracles are performed under the audiences' noses. The fact is, the closer you are to someone, the less they can see.


The Triple Prediction

Years ago, Stanley Jaks released his classic effect "This Way Out." Basically, it was a one ahead triple prediction with a psychological choice used instead of a force- a "Mental Epic" without the slate. Later, there were many writers, including Tony Shiels and Phil Goldstein, who pointed out that there was more unity to the effect if all of the selections were related thematically. If gambling, for example, were used as a theme, the selections could be the roll of a die, a number on a roulette wheel, and the identity of a hole card. This was far more logical than predicting any word thought of, a number from one to a million, and concluding with a card prediction. The first two categories are so broad that the use of a card for the last prediction is a puny anticlimax. The presentation of Alan Shaxon's "Confabulation," has become popular, not only due to its clever method, but because the predictions are consistent- the make, model and price of an imaginary car. Here is my contribution to the genre. It utilizes the gambling theme and incorporates some standard methods. The twist is that nothing is written down at any time, and, with the exception of the second selection, the performer apparently has no idea what's been selected until after all of his predictions are made. EFFECT: The mentalist demonstrates his ability to influence the actions of his audience. To me, this is much more plausible than claiming to predict the future. It also keeps you from looking like a cheapskate when you won't tell anyone tomorrow's daily lotto numbers. A large die is shown to the audience along with a leather dice cup. Both are handed to a volunteer seated near the front. "Before you do anything," says the performer, "I'll write down what I secretly want you to do." The mentalist jots something on a 3 x 5 pad, tears off the sheet and folds it into quarters. He writes the word "die" on the outside of the slip and drops it into a glass or ashtray. "Think of a number from one to six- one of the numbers on the die you hold. As soon as you have a number in your mind, put the die into the dice cup so your number is facing up. After you've done that, pass the cup around to the people near you so that they can also see the number you've selected. That way you can't change your mind later and make me look stupid. "Now that you've done that, just dump the die out of the cup and toss it to me." The volunteer tosses the die to the performer who either puts it into his briefcase or casually drops it into another dice cup resting on his table.

Robert E Cassidy 20

The audience's attention is drawn to a dartboard. A second volunteer is selected and the performer hands him or her a dart. "In just a moment you are going to throw the dart at the board. But before you do that, let me write down just what it is I secretly am willing you to do." Again the performer jots something on the 3 x 5 pad, tears off and folds the sheet. On the outside of this slip he writes the word "dart." The slip is dropped into the same container holding the first prediction. The volunteer is positioned about 6 feet from the dartboard and is told to close his eyes. "It only counts if you hit the board. If you miss, you'll try again." The volunteer throws his dart. When he succeeds in hitting the board, you ask him to return to his seat. The dart remains in the board for all to see. "So far we've played some dice and we've played some darts. How about some cards?" The performer removes a pack of cards from its case and has a nearby volunteer verify that all of the cards are different. The performer shuffles the cards and spreads them, face down, before a spectator. [NOTE: this description presumes that the performance is in a nightclub setting where the audience is seated at tables. For stage use, or at a private party where a table is not convenient, the cards are spread on the floor before the volunteer. The card SHOULD NOT be selected with the pack in the performer's hands. This would be inconsistent with the die and dart selections which took place without any apparent control by the performer.] "Before you do anything, let me write something else down. Again the performer writes on a slip and folds it. He tells the audience that he will write the word "card" on this one. The slip is placed with the others. "Now sir, hold out your finger and move your arm back and forth over the cards. Whenever you get the urge, just bring your finger down on one of the cards." As soon as the volunteer complies, the performer cautions him, "Don't look at the card, just hold it up against your body." The performer hands him his selection and retrieves the rest of the pack. All that's left is the revelation. A fourth volunteer comes forward and the predictions are dumped into her cupped hands. The performer continues by addressing the person who thought of a number on the die. "For the first time, sir, please tell all of us the number you were thinking of." "Three," he replies. (or whatever his number was- it was, after all, a free choice.) To the onstage volunteer the performer says, "Now open the slip marked 'die' and read aloud what I willed him to do." She reads the slip aloud. "Three!"


I'm sure you won't be surprised that the slip marked "dart" predicts the number hit by the dart, and the revelation is handled the same way. That is, a spectator calls out the number hit with the dart and the prediction is then read. The sequence is changed for the final prediction. The onstage volunteer reads the "card" slip aloud before the third volunteer shows his card to the audience. It is the same card predicted by the mentalist. METHOD: As I said, the effect isn't new. The routine, though, should have you puzzled. Some rather knowledgeable P.E.A. members came to see me perform about a year ago at one of the area's "biker bars." (For reasons beyond my understanding, I have this following of stereotypical bikers. It's fine by me. Since they started following the show I've had no problems with hecklers.) Afterwards, they complimented me on the show, but confided that they felt I'd used a stooge in this effect. They could think of no other explanation. Were it anyone else, I would have explained the effect as yet another example of synchronous happenings on the Web. But I let them in on it and they liked it. Here's the handling: The only fair part of the effect is the throw of the dart. The card is the only item forced. That's done with a Pop-Eyed Eye Popper deck, which is essentially a rough and smooth Svengali pack.As you'll recall from the description, the spectator is asked not to look at his card. At the same time the performer picks up the selected card and puts it to the volunteer's chest. While picking it up he separates the roughed pair and hands the spectator a force card. The reason for this force is that the selection itself is apparently made while the performer is still standing at some distance from the volunteer. I realize that it takes some nerve to spread a heavily gimmicked deck out before a suspicious volunteer. Just do it- mentalism is not for wimps. If you're bold enough, you may well forego the rough and smooth and use a one way force deck. But the rough and smooth nature of the deck is what allows the performer to show all of the cards to be different prior to the selection. I like that touch. Note that a rough and smooth deck may be overhand shuffled as much as you like, as long as you keep a firm grip on the cards. So, to start the effect, the performer uses a one ahead and writes the name of the card to be forced on the first slip. While claiming to write the word "die" he actually writes "card." In order to go one ahead, it is now necessary for the performer to know the selected number on the die. Now you could just let the spectator roll the die and see for yourself what it is. In earlier variations, the performer did just that. But it's far subtler if it looks like the mentalist doesn't know the number until all of the predictions have been made. If you are fortunate enough to own a Lubor Feidler Memory Die, this is an ideal place to use it. Those familiar with its method will see that this presentation is tailor made for the effect. Also, by putting the effect into this routine, it apparently becomes much more than a simple one out of six revelation, which is the basic shortcoming of such effects.

Robert E Cassidy 22

By slightly modifying the routine, the Die Cipher effect could be used here. You'd just use the metal container instead of the dice cup. The metal die and container, though, look a little strange. The best way I think, probably because it's my way, is to use an unprepared die about one and a half inches to a side. It should just fit into the cup and not be able to roll to a different number once it goes inside. The die is either made of ivory or white plastic. Put a dab of lipstick on the inside bottom of the cup. When the spectator tosses the die back to you, it is a simple matter to note which side has a smear of red on it. The opposite side is the selected number. It doesn't get much easier than that. It is that number that is written on the second slip. Claiming to write "dart" on the billet, the performer writes "die." The dart throw is just that- a random dart throw. Since you are not standing too far away from the board, you see what number is hit. The audience thinking here is that you didn't see the die and you didn't see the card. Therefore it hardly matters if you saw the dart or not. On the third slip you write the number hit by the dart, fold the slip and label it "dart." The slip is placed in the glass or ashtray with the others. When the fourth volunteer comes forward to read the predictions, the slips are dumped into her hand. Since they are all labeled, she doesn't have to open them all out before reading the first one. That's something I never liked about some earlier versions of the effect. The rest is self explanatory. By the way, if for some reason you can't see the smear on the die right away, don't spend much time looking for it. Just take a guess. If you are wrong you will be wrong on the first revelation. In routines such as the Jaks' original, in which a psychological force is used for the third item, with everything else being fair, the danger is that you'll be wrong on the last item. That, to my mind, brings the effect to a poor conclusion. Being wrong does occasionally enhance an effect, but remember this-

Principium 5

To err is human, it makes you seem real, But err in your closer and youre a Schlemiel.

Earlier, I had my say on book tests. Here is a variant presented mainly to offer you a new twist on David Hoy's classic effect, The Tossed Out Deck. It was inspired by a Bruce Bernstein idea.


The Phantoms Thought Foretold EFFECT: The performer exhibits an envelope and claims it contains a paper on which is written a word. "A word that came into my dreams last night." Three spectators each select a word from a paper back book. They are given slips of paper and instructed to write their words and then crumple their papers into small balls. After due concentration, the mentalist calls out three words and tells the volunteers to sit if their words have been called. They all sit down. The three slips are collected by a fourth spectator who, in turn, selects one of the papers. The remaining two are burned. After reading aloud the word on the selected paper, the prediction is opened and found to contain the same word. METHOD: "So what's new about that?" you might ask. It seems to be nothing more than forcing the same word on each spectator, and predicting that word in advance. That's the basic Hoy idea (although he did it with cards) with the prediction climax suggested by Bernstein in his book Psi-Tech. Bruce's reason for finishing with the prediction was fundamentally sound- it allowed a time delay after the spectators sat down, reducing the possibility of them talking among themselves and discovering they all had selected the same word. The same problem, though, arises when the prediction is revealed. All you need is for one of the volunteers to blurt out, "Oh, he predicted my word," and you could run into trouble, because all of the spectators had the same selection. To avoid this entirely I suggest this approach, which is applicable in any effect where three spectators each select the same force item, be it a card, a word, or whatever. As in the Bernstein variant, have each of them write their selections on slips of paper (flashpaper looks good when two of them are later burned.) Assume you've forced a word, as described under "Effect," by riffling through a book in which a page has been cut short, arranging to stop at that page when the spectator says "Stop." Let's assume that the force word is "policeman." In your prediction envelope you have written a prediction that says, say, "photograph." Your right trousers pocket contains a slip of paper crumbled into a pellet. On it you have written the word "photograph."

Robert E Cassidy 24

You guessed it- you are going to predict a word that none of them selected! That's the whole point of my variation and, I think, introduces a principle which will have value in many other routines. While the spectators are concentrating on their words and holding their pellets of paper, the performer calls out the words "transistor," "policeman," and "photograph." Since all of the spectators have written "policeman," they will all sit. During his revelation, the mentalist has clipped the pellet in his pocket between his index and middle fingers, in preparation for the standard cigarette paper pellet switch. The spectator who later collects the three pellets and brings them forward, is told to burn two of them. The performer picks up the remaining pellet, switches it, and hands it to the volunteer to be opened and read. The prediction is opened and shown to be correct. The whole point of this procedure is to provide a further safeguard against the possibility of a volunteer saying "He predicted my word!" as would be the case if the force word were predicted. Instead, each will assume that "photograph" was a word selected by one of the other two spectators. Thus, they all hear their own word called out in the first part of the effect, and they each hear someone else's word when the selected pellet is read aloud.

Principium 6

It's not what you take with you that counts, It's what you leave behind

The Erisian Force Superficially, Principium 6 means that it's the impression you leave, and not how much you got paid, that determines your merit as a performer. But since you've become an insider by buying this book and reading it, you surely have realized by now that all of the Principia have hidden meanings. I'll leave it to you to puzzle over numbers one through five. Principium 6 is the basis of a unique force for which I am sure you'll find many uses. The reference is to a technique of lateral thinking, which allows us to look at a problem from a new perspective.


My original problem was- How do you let a spectator cut some cards, and know in advance exactly how many cards he will cut? You could, of course, just put a bridge in the deck and hope for the best, but that wasn't good enough for the effect I had in mind. None of my solutions met the sure-fire criteria, until I saw that my perspective was wrong. I had been focusing on the number of cards cut off the deck by the volunteer. I should have been looking at the number he left behind. That was something that could be controlled. The basic gimmick, a glued together block of cards, was something Paul Harris marketed years ago. I don't think it's been used this way before. Actually, you don't even have to glue any cards together. It's a lot easier and less messy to use cellophane tape. Here's how it works- Wrap a piece of tape around the center of a packet of, say, twenty-nine playing cards. (Around the narrow sides, just like you'd put a rubber band around a deck) Put this block on top of the twenty-three remaining loose cards. Glue a joker onto the top card of the block to conceal the tape, which will now be only marginally visible if you look at the sides of the deck. The spectator, of course, will never get this opportunity. The deck can be overhand shuffled quite freely. It's an easy matter to cut the block back to the top. If the pack is held face up, the cards can be spread freely up to the block. Hold the cards in dealing position in your left hand. This conceals the tape at the sides. Obtain a little finger break just below the block. Ask your spectator to "just cut off a bunch of cards" and place them in your right hand. When she grasps the cards, drop your left hand leaving the block in her hand. You will, of course, have exactly twenty-three cards in your left hand. Follow by putting the cut off block into your right jacket pocket while saying, "No one could possibly know how many cards you cut to. Please count them." (There's a bit of double speak here designed to plant a false memory that she counted the number of cards she cut off.) She'll count and tell you she has twenty-three. That's the force. By changing the number of cards below the block, you can change the force number. Those of you who are card experts will realize that it's possible to do the same force without gimmicking the deck. You merely need to take a break over the requisite number of cards. There remains, however, the possibility that the spectator won't grasp the deck deeply enough, resulting in cards falling on the floor. Not good. Besides, you need to go through additional handling to get your break at the right position. You could use a short card, but you're still apt to end up with cards all over the floor. Why take chances?

Robert E Cassidy 26

By now you're probably wondering what I had in mind when I came up with this. It was one of my solutions to the Any Card at Any Number effect. The effect has always been my Holy Grail because it seems so perfect.

How I Found the Holy Grail

(or a reasonable facsimile thereof) - And what I did with it after I found it

with apologies to Malaclypse the Younger

I first read the effect in Jean Hugard's Encyclopedia of Card Tricks in the section describing the Nikola Card System. Briefly, a spectator called out a number from one to fifty-two. A second spectator called out the name of any card. The performer picked up a deck that had been laying on the table and handed it to one of the volunteers who counted down to the selected number. At that position he found the selected card. The effect was clean and the method was simple. Since the Nikola system allows you to know the numerical position of every card in the deck, all you had to do was perform a shift while picking up the tabled pack. You also had to do some calculations to determine where to make the shift to put the right card at the right number. That, for me, was the hard part. Do the calculations, determine which card had to be on the bottom for the selected card to be at the selected number, pick up the deck, obtain a break under the right card, and do a shift. After the calculating part, all of this had to be done while picking up the deck and handing it to a volunteer. Apart from the difficulty, the timing of the move was all wrong. To do a pass at that time was to invite discovery, especially if someone had seen you perform the effect before and knew what to expect. Since the effect is so powerful, it's not likely that people who had seen you do it before would have forgotten about it. My first solution involved putting the deck into a letter envelope. In the act of lifting the flap and dumping out the cards into the left hand, the right thumb could flip through the cards, find the right spot for the break, and let the cards above the break fall out first. The rest of the pack would follow. The pack was cut while dumping it into the hand. The envelope provided the cover. Still, I didnt lke the timing. One of my later solutions first appeared in Bascom Jones' Magick and in one of the New York Symposium collections. It was intended for a larger audience and involved several people writing down the names of cards on billets that were then folded up.


Other volunteers wrote numbers. A billet from each category was selected and a deck of cards produced. The effect concluded the same way as the original. (The two selected billets were switched for two billets I had prepared beforehand.) I liked the approach, but it lacked the directness of the original. Later I used the effect in my program. I accomplished it via pre-show work. The selections were made before the show- the card and number were obtained from two spectators using a one-hand center tear. I put the selected card in the right position and pocketed the deck. During the show I did some double-speak that went like this- "In just a moment, I'm going to ask one of you to concentrate on the name of a playing card, and someone else will concentrate on a number. Here's a pack of cards which I'd like this gentleman to hold." The cased deck was given to a spectator near the front of the room. Pointing to my first pre-show subject, I said, "Sir, you've been thinking of a card? Please tell us what it is." And to the second subject, "And are you thinking of a number? Please call it out." The spectator with the deck did the counting and revealed the card. Pretty direct and an excellent method for the stage. Not quite so good for small groups or in venues where pre-show work is impractical. The Erisian force allowed the perfect solution for small groups. I call it -

The M.C.A.M.N. Test

(my card at my number) EFFECT: The performer hands a cased pack of playing cards to a volunteer seated near the center of the room and asks him to put it in his pocket. Producing a second pack of cards, the mentalist approaches a second spectator who is seated on the right side of the audience. After showing her that all of the cards are different, he turns the deck face down and asks her to cut off a packet. She turns over the card cut to and calls out its name. The performer turns the card down and replaces the cut off portion. He then walks to the left side of the audience and selects a third volunteer. Offering him the cards in his left hand, the mentalist asks this spectator to cut off a bunch. The volunteer counts the remaining cards and calls out how many are in the packet. Thus a card and a number have been selected in a very clean, and apparently very fair, manner.

Robert E Cassidy 28

Of course, when the original volunteer removes the deck from his pocket and counts to the selected number, he finds the chosen card. METHOD: The effect is accomplished via the Erisian force. Two decks are required. The first is prepared by putting your force card at the position corresponding to the number you plan to force on the third volunteer. This is the pack given to the first volunteer, who places it in his pocket. The second pack, still in its case, is placed in your left jacket pocket. This is the Erisian deck. The card to be forced is the first face down card below the block. The total number of cards below the block corresponds to your force number. Since you already know how the Erisian force works, the method should now be apparent. The possibilities of the Erisian force are endless. Those of you who prefer to avoid playing cards will find it easy to gimmick a playing card size Tarot pack. By using Scotch Magic Tape instead of glue to form the block, the deck will not be ruined. The finish on the cards protects them when the tape is removed. By now, you must realize that I have no qualms about using playing cards in my act. Again, it is the context in which they are used that makes them acceptable. Any prop, for that matter, is acceptable, PROVIDED that it appears to be only incidental to proving the performer's outright or implied claims.

Epilogue

The purpose of this volume, and of the next three, is to stimulate the creativity of the reader. I hope that my ideas and routines serve as launching pads for your own ideas.

My theory of mentalism holds that props are merely incidental. Other than the Pop Eyed Eye Popper deck used in the Triple Prediction routine, there is nothing in this book that requires a trip to the magic store. With the exception of invisible gimmicks such as nailwriters and thumbtips, I've always felt that if I couldn't obtain the props I needed in a stationery or department store, I didn't really need them in the first place. Nor have I relied on currently faddish themes in the presentations. (As I did, for example, in my Trivial Pursuit effect in The Art of Mentalism, Part 1). Too many mentalists still perform


outdated routines which once were considered hip. (Just as the word hip seriously dates me!) Sadly, the same is true of many of the "comedy" lines used in their acts.

The fundamentals of our art have changed very little since the days of our forerunners. Art lies, I believe, in the refinement and recombination of familiar concepts, constantly leading us to see things that we never noticed before.

The Holy Grail of mentalism doesn't lie in the newest book or the latest new "secret."

It is, and always has been, inside of you.

Thus endeth Fire

(Author's note: By now, you must have realized that this book is not exactly what it appears to be. In chaos will order be found.)

Robert E Cassidy 30

Part Two - Earth

Introduction

I am gratified by the reception given to the first volume of this series and am particularly pleased by Brother Shadow's comment in Reticulum de Umbra that the section "Riding the Web" alone is worth twice the price of the book. Cost considerations aside, I'm glad that he recognized the section that, to me anyway, is one of the primary points of the book. Those who merely glanced over it or considered it to be "padding" are missing one of the major points of the series. Go back. Read. Argue with me. The Web is real and we're all on it. Understanding the concept will alter your perception of most reality views and help to put the views of such diverse groups as CSICOPS, The Fortean Society, and The Psychic Friends Network into better perspective During recent lecture appearances, members of the audience have repeatedly asked me why I put my actual performance material into print. The answer is that it is the only way I know to illustrate my philosophy of our art. I am not particularly afraid of being "ripped off" because such an occurrence is extremely remote. Those who elect to use the presentations exactly as written are doomed to failure, because no matter how they may try, it is virtually impossible to duplicate another mentalist's stage persona. For example, try memorizing all of Dunninger's presentations. Dress like him. Talk like him. Be a failure. You can't be Dunninger any more than you can be anyone else. You are you and your performance must be you. For it is only the mentalist as a personality who can hope to be remembered by his audience. Otherwise you're just another guy who does some strange stuff, as in the following familiar dialogue- "Did you see that guy on TV last night who made his assistant turn into an elephant?" "What was his name?" "Gee, I don't know, but can you do stuff like that?" etc. etc. etc. THAT GUY WHO DID WHATEVER. If that's the way you're remembered, you're not going to get many repeat bookings. Which brings us to:


Principium 7

A Mentalist's primary product is his name and personality. The effects should merely serve to reinforce his image and reputation.

The Journey Continues How to make your effects look like the "real thing" One of the primary secrets of self promotion is to make it appear that you may just be the "real thing." You don't have to come right out and make the claim, but if you present mentalism as tongue in cheek conjuring you are a pseudo mentalist at best and, at worst, not a very memorable performer. Everything should seem to be extemporaneous if you are to establish an image of a "real" mindreader. You must make it look like you're almost making it up as you go along. "Real" psychics free associate. It's what makes them seem legitimate. If an experiment appears to be well planned, an audience will assume that you have no doubt as to the outcome. Therefore, what you are doing will be perceived as a trick of some kind. That's why no matter how effective a stage illusion may be, it can never approach the impact created by a seemingly spontaneous paranormal event. Well planned and choreographed stage presentations are, due to their elaborate presentations, necessarily perceived as being fake. Which of the following scenarios is more amazing and memorable? 1) An illusionist in a Las Vegas revue levitates his assistant and causes her to fly all over the stage. He then puts her into a chromed frame box, covers it, and changes her into a tiger. 2) You're sitting in a bar discussing the occult when suddenly the guy you're talking to levitates off the bar stool. (This used to happen to me all of the time.) Obviously, the second selection would have a tremendous effect on the observer, while the first would be seen as just another Las Vegas or TV illusionist.

Robert E Cassidy 32

"How does THAT GUY do it?" How often have you heard that question? Usually, the querent can't remember the name of the performer. That's because, as I've already noted, the effect has been given priority over the performer's personality- if he has one. Mentalists must be "personalities." No performer, no matter how skilled, can be considered successful until he is no longer referred to as one of the "they" in "How do they do that?" When the people start asking, "What about that guy (insert your name here)? He was amazing."- that's the beginning of success. Looking at our brother magicians for a moment, try to answer this. Apart from the longest lasting name recognition in the history of modern magic, what did Houdini have that NONE of today's illusionists have? It was the illusion of spontaneity. His escapes were done as challenges and he gave the appearance of not being in control of the conditions of the effect. He was in total control, of course, but the point is that he made it appear that the audience was calling the shots. Dunninger did the same thing. His panel of judges were made to appear to be controlling the terms of the challenge. Muscles readers such as Russia's Wolf Messing did the same. His challenge was to act out a series of commands created on the spur of the moment by the audience. Note the similarity here to improvisational comedy or to jazz. In the following sentences are to be found the secret of "real" magic:

Principium 8 Reputations are not made by what you do. They are made by what people BELIEVE

you can do. Nothing done as part of a set performance will be nearly as effective or as important to your reputation as the little "miracles" that seem to occur on the spur of the moment. With this in mind it is extremely important to put as much planning into your offstage repertoire as you do to your formal performances. The good news is that the public is easier to catch unawares when they have no idea you're about to do something. What effects, then, fulfill the conditions I have set forth? That's one of the most important questions you


must address. Slick presentation is anathema to impromptu or formal presentations. It reeks of "magic trick...fake," and is just as bad as garish, obviously store bought, props. It's relatively easy to seem extemporaneous in an informal atmosphere. On the stage it's much more difficult.. So many of today's mentalists have cultivated what I call a "disc jockey (AM or FM) persona" Others, equally phony, come on like they're either selling time shares in vacation condos, or telling you the benefits of the latest pyramid scheme. Still others sound like telemarketers reading from a prepared script. (We'll ignore for the rest of this series, the boneheads who have no concept whatever of how to entertain an audience. Effective performance, impromptu or formal, requires well honed performing skills. But that's the same as effective acting- if it looks like you're acting you're not doing it right. Your performing skills must be subtle and being natural is the key.) Any presentation that sounds scripted loses its believability. Effective presentation of mentalism requires understatement. As I indicated earlier, the important thing is what the audience is led to believe you are capable of doing. This is far more important than what you actually do. The legendary Russian psychic Wolf Messing provides an excellent example. Reputedly one of the former Soviet Union's greatest psychics, the legends about Messing abound. He was popularized in the West in Ostrander and Schroeder's Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain, an interesting, if shuteye, view of Russian parapsychology. A recent biography, Wolf Messing, by Tatiana Lungren, makes it clear to the knowledgeable reader that Messing was, in fact, an excellent mentalist and muscle reader. The format of his program was similar to Dunninger's Brain Busters insofar as he utilized a committee from the audience to test his abilities. In essence, members of the audience would write down complex tasks they wished Messing to perform. The papers would be collected and given to a committee who would select the most challenging of the tests suggested. A typical test might read as follows: 1. Go to the man sitting on the aisle of row 3. 2. Remove his glasses and put them on yourself. 3. Bring the man to the stage and take his handkerchief from his jacket pocket. 4. Clean his glasses and put them back on his face. etc. etc. After the committee had secretly selected a test, Messing would ask one of the committee members to stand and to hold his hand. The committee member was told to concentrate on each motion Messing was to carry out in order to complete the test. Messing would then go into intense concentration and then perform the test, dragging the concentrating volunteer around with him. (ala Kreskin finding his paycheck)

Robert E Cassidy 34

This was, essentially, Messing's entire act. Due to restrictions imposed by the Soviet government the lecture preceding his performance, given by his wife, credited his abilities to scientifically verifiable powers of the human mind. He did not claim supernatural powers. The legends surrounding Messing, however, bore little resemblance to his professional performances. Reputedly, while still a child, he had mentally compelled a train conductor to believe that a laundry slip was a train ticket. As an adult being tested by Joseph Stalin he supposedly mesmerized the dictator's guards into believing that he (Messing) was Beria, Stalin's chief of security, and was thus able to obtain entrance into Stalin's private quarters. These stories, and many more like them, are probably apocryphal, but nonetheless were claimed to be true by Messing himself. The few actual tests performed on Messing by scientists were not nearly as dramatic nor did they establish that he was anything other than a skilled performer and muscle reader. Be that as it may, these legends became widespread and Messing was, and is, believed by many to have possessed amazing psychic abilities. It was Messing, the legend, who gave credence to Messing the stage mentalist. Although he actually only performed one effect in his programs, he was credited with having done innumerable supernormal feats. And that's the point of the Principium. It's also the lead in to the next effect.

Messing Around The effect is pretty much the same as performed by Messing. The methodology is similar to what I occasionally use in a question answering act. While no actual muscle reading is used, the routine provides excellent on the job training in the art of contact mind reading. Members of the audience who may be aware of the existence of muscle reading techniques will credit the performer with having almost supernormal mastery of the technique. If you recall the rationale behind my card memory routine in Part One, which used trickery to simulate super mnemonic technique, you'll understand how the present routine fits into my philosophy of mentalism. While you may not wish to go so far, I actually tell my audience something about muscle reading and lead them to believe that I have taken the technique virtually into the realm of real mind reading. AND THEY BELIEVE ME! Even those who would be skeptical of a psychic explanation are completely taken in by my apparent openness in explaining my techniques. Many end up convinced that I can read their thoughts simply by observing their body language and involuntary muscular responses. It's a powerfully deceptive approach which has the added advantage of derailing the ever present fundamentalists who would, if I proffered a "psychic" explanation, decide I was a Satanist. EFFECT:


Five audience members are selected to serve as a committee for the experiment to follow. They are either seated on the stage or near the front of the room, preferably at a table. Slips of paper and pencils are distributed to the rest of the audience. They are asked to write a series of actions they wish the performer to take. They are cautioned only to write tests which are not beyond the physical ability of the performer or outside the boundaries of good taste. (Of course, the latter is up to you. If you're working in some of the places I've worked, matters of taste are left largely to local custom.) They are told to fold their slips into quarters. The billets are collected in a large basket, or other container, which is passed around. A spectator seated near the front is asked to stir up the slips and to remove five of them from the basket. These are handed to the committee. The committee is instructed to open the slips and read them to themselves. They are to decide which test is to be attempted by the performer, to remember the actions prescribed in the test, and to refold the chosen slip. The mentalist now approaches the committee with a pay envelope and the person holding the slip puts it in the envelope and seals it. The committee retains the envelope. One of the committee members is asked to assist the performer. He stands next to the performer and the performer takes him by the hand. The committee member is asked to visualize each of the steps the performer must take to complete the test. After a false start or two the performer, taking the committee member with him, goes through a series of actions. When he is finished, he carefully reviews with the audience the actions he has just taken. The committee member holding the envelope is asked to open it and read aloud its contents. It contains the exact actions just performed by the mentalist. The spectator who wrote the test identifies himself and also verifies that the test was performed exactly as written. METHOD: There are several good ways of accomplishing the effect. What I offer you here is a utility move which you will find very useful in many effects involving billets. I call it "The Microphone Switch." This doesn't refer to the on/off mechanism, but to a completely imperceptible method of switching one or several billets in full view of the audience. Before getting into the details of the switch, here are the bare bones of the effect just described: The five billets selected from the basket are switched for five marked billets previously prepared by the mentalist. Each contains an interesting test and each has been memorized. The markings are on the edges of the folded billets. The performer holds the envelope while the committee member inserts the selected billet. He sees the mark as this is done and thus knows the test he is to perform. The rest is acting. But as I said earlier, it offers the performer an excellent opportunity to test and refine his muscle reading skills by observing the spectator's reactions as he concentrates on each of the steps in the test. Oh yes, the spectator who verifies that he wrote the test is either a stooge or simply doesn't exist. In the

Robert E Cassidy 36

latter case the performer simply acknowledges an imaginary spectator when he asks who wrote the test. More often than not you will find that someone will take credit, especially if the tests are not too off the wall.

The Microphone Switch Prior to performance the prepared billets are in the performers left trousers pocket. They are finger palmed during the writing and collection of the slips. The performer holds his microphone in his right hand. When the left hand, holding the finger palmed slips is removed from the pocket, the microphone is transferred to the left hand, thus hiding the slips. The microphone serves the same purpose as the magician's wand of old. It hides the palmed object. But unlike a wand, it is a device which, while in full view of the audience, is virtually invisible. It's such a commonplace object for a performer to be holding that its presence and handling go unnoticed. The mechanics of the switch are similar to the cigarette lighter technique used in my Name/Place routine in The Art of Mentalism 2. That move was originally described in Bascom Jones's Magick and is very similar to the pencil billet switch described by Phil Goldstein in his "Color Series." The committee should be seated to the performer's left. The spectator who selects the five billets from the basket is to the right. When the five slips are drawn from the basket, the performer extends his right hand to take them. They are handed to the mentalist one at a time, thus giving him the opportunity to square them into finger palming position. The performer then turns to his left to approach the committee. At the same time he transfers the microphone from his left hand to his right, thus covering the billets in the right hand and revealing those in the left. This must be done as the performer is turning and walking toward the committee. It is one fluid action and is completely imperceptible. The utility of the move in a question answering act should be apparent. Assume you have a billet in your left hand (covered by the microphone) the contents of which you already know. In your right hand you hold a folded billet which you are divining the contents of. In fact you're revealing the information contained on the slip fingerpalmed in the left hand. As in the standard one-ahead you then open the right hand slip, using both hands. The switch is done after the slip is refolded as you return it to the writer. That's the simple way to use it. If you exercise a little imagination you'll discover how it can become the critical move in a much more deceptive Q and A routine. In Part 3, "Air," you'll see the move again in the context of just such an act.


Principium 9

If your initial claims are plausible, your later claims will be far easier to accept.

The philosophy of claiming a "real" skill, such as mnemonics or muscle reading, and then demonstrating that nearly psychic effects can be attained by their mastery, lays the foundation for later demonstrations when you move into the "psychic" arena. I generally claim that the visualization required to master mnemonics and the sensitivity necessary to read unconscious reactions are prerequisites to the development of psychic functioning. Thus, when I lecture on the development of psychic ability, much emphasis is place on these and similar skills. This all goes to the plausibility of what I do and leads naturally to a discussion of "The Web" when I get involved in a lengthy discussion, as in a newspaper interview, of my "abilities." The rationale for the remainder of the effects in this volume is purely psychic, or synchronistic, functioning. I feel that all of these routines are much more plausible if included in a program with items that demonstrate heightened natural abilities, such as the card memory routine or the apparent muscle reading.

The Telepathic Diary My earliest version of this effect appeared in PseudoMentally Yours in 1977. It utilized a mathematical formula to determine the identity of a card listed in a pocket diary. Unfortunately, the formula as it originally appeared was incorrect due to the omission of a crucial step. In the commercially released version, "Chronologue," the need for the formula was eliminated, but the effect was not exactly as performed by me and an apparent misunderstanding regarding the construction of the diaries made it impossible to reveal the prediction until after the diary entry was read by the volunteer. The effect is far stronger if the prediction is revealed BEFORE the entry is read. This is impossible in the commercial version unless mnemonics or a crib sheet is used. Here, for the first time in print, is the actual method I have used since 1980. No formulas, no sleights, no memory and no "after-facting" the prediction. Just presentation. PRESENTATION AND EFFECT: (The patter is exactly as used in my act. Use the basic format, but remember the curse that accompanies any attempt to use my, or anyone elses, presentation word for word.)

Robert E Cassidy 38

"How many of you have ever had your Tarot cards read? Tarot cards, you know, are the ancestors of modern playing cards and much of the arcane knowledge that went into the creation of the Tarot is still to be found in today's cards. "For example, did you know that a deck of cards is really a calendar. Think about it, there are fifty-two cards in a deck and fifty-two weeks in a year. There are twelve picture cards in a deck and twelve months to the year. There are thirteen cards in each suit, and there are thirteen lunar cycles per year. Four suits- four seasons. And if you add up the values of the cards, counting the aces as one and the Jacks, Queens and Kings as eleven, twelve and thirteen, the total of all of the cards in the deck is three hundred and sixty-four. Count the Joker as one and you have the number of days in a year. When I first learned this, I wondered if it was just a coincidence or creative juggling of numbers, or if there really were secrets in a simple deck of cards. So I tried an experiment. I bought seven decks of cards and shuffled them all together. The I bought one of those pocket diaries you find in the stationery stores and on each day in the diary, starting with January first, I wrote down the names of those cards in whatever random order they appeared. "Now I'm sure that no one here could have any idea which cards appeared on which dates in my diary, so you're perfect subjects for my test. "Sir, have we ever met before? No. Good. Please call out any month and day that have significance to you. You might call out a birthday an anniversary or some other special date. It's up to you. [the spectator responds] "October fifteenth. Good. Now you have no idea what card appeared on that day in my diary, do you? Of course not." The performer now removes a pocket diary from his inside jacket pocket and casually flips through it, pointing out the different cards that appear on each date. He hands the diary, or passes it on, to the volunteer. Just look up your date and tell us all what card appears written there. While you're looking for it I'd like to point out to the rest of you that before I left my hotel tonight I put one giant playing card in my pocket. [the performer removes a jumbo card from his inside jacket pocket and holds it against his chest, back of the card to the audience] "Wouldn't it be strange... Sir, what card appears on your date? The four of spades? And what was your date? October fifteenth. What card was written on the fourteenth? [spectator responds] And on the sixteenth? [response] In fact you've looked through that entire diary and can verify that

bob cassidy - mentalism - tricks - compleat principia menta.pdf

Documents