mindjack galore-mentalism

34
MindJack Description: While there are literally dozens of applications of this mental hijack, I will only describe my favorite two. In the first you mentally peek at a number between 1 and 100 they choose in their mind, and with the other, you mentally peek at a word in their mind. The process is short and fast. Nothing is written down, they never tell you their number or word, the process is entirely verbal, 100% impromptu, and always works. I am confident that the main concept behind the method has never been used, or perhaps even thought of before. The methodology is very different than Prime and The Fair, yet still with a slight dash of each. The effect plays like this: Allow your spectator to choose what type of number between 1 and 100 they want, and then think of one. At no time do you fish or ask questions, you merely read their mind directly and perceive the number they are thinking of, and then name it instantly. Method: As in the Fair, you use equivoque to influence three choices that lead them to just one number. The tricky part are the numbers; and making them seem like 50/50, naturally grouped choices, while in reality one of them cuts the choices down to almost eighth, another to a thirty-third, and the last down to a single number. I call this a mindjack, even though it is technically a mental force, as it plays better presenting it as mind reading as opposed to a prediction or force. Direct Mind Read: 1. Explain to your spectator that they are going to make three choices that will lead them to a number between 1 and 100. 2. Tell them that you have an invisible pack of cards, with all the numbers between 1 and 100 spelled out on them, "such as EIGHT, or SEVEN". You then shake off a bit of the invisible pack and place the two halves in the air, saying that you want them to choose which packet to take down, ones that start with vowels, or those that start

Upload: iyarx

Post on 06-Dec-2015

222 views

Category:

Documents


48 download

DESCRIPTION

MENTALISM, BOOK, MENTAL POWERS, INTERESTING MENTAL IDEAS, HOW TO READ MINDS.

TRANSCRIPT

MindJack

Description:

While there are literally dozens of applications of this mental hijack, I will only describe my

favorite two. In the first you mentally peek at a number between 1 and 100 they choose in

their mind, and with the other, you mentally peek at a word in their mind. The process is

short and fast. Nothing is written down, they never tell you their number or word, the

process is entirely verbal, 100% impromptu, and always works. I am confident that the main

concept behind the method has never been used, or perhaps even thought of before. The

methodology is very different than Prime and The Fair, yet still with a slight dash of each.

The effect plays like this:

Allow your spectator to choose what type of number between 1 and 100 they want, and

then think of one. At no time do you fish or ask questions, you merely read their mind

directly and perceive the number they are thinking of, and then name it instantly.

Method:

As in the Fair, you use equivoque to influence three choices that lead them to just one

number. The tricky part are the numbers; and making them seem like 50/50, naturally

grouped choices, while in reality one of them cuts the choices down to almost eighth,

another to a thirty-third, and the last down to a single number. I call this a mindjack, even

though it is technically a mental force, as it plays better presenting it as mind reading as

opposed to a prediction or force.

Direct Mind Read:

1. Explain to your spectator that they are going to make three choices that will lead

them to a number between 1 and 100.

2. Tell them that you have an invisible pack of cards, with all the numbers between 1

and 100 spelled out on them, "such as EIGHT, or SEVEN". You then shake off a bit of

the invisible pack and place the two halves in the air, saying that you want them to

choose which packet to take down, ones that start with vowels, or those that start

with consonants. If they say consonants, take down the invisible consonant packet

and toss it over your shoulder, and immediately saying "Now of the vowel cards, we

have...”

3. ".. numbers above and below 50." Hold the invisible vowel cards in a mechanics grip,

asking which of the two you should remove from the pack. If they say above 50, then

say "Alright, let's remove these..." and toss them to the side, spreading the

remaining cards, saying "Leaving us with numbers below 50." If they choose below 50

right off the bat, just slide them out, dropping the others on the table, and spread

the invisible cards below 50.

4. Split your packet once more, saying that you have odds and evens. Naming them,

place the two packets in front of your spectator, asking them to push one of them

towards you. If they push evens towards you say "That leaves you with odd numbers

below 50 that start with vowels. Think of one in your head." If they push odds

towards you, ask them to think of an "Odd number that starts with a vowel, between

1 and 50". Dale Hildebrandt kindly reminded me to add in the “between” to keep

them from thinking of one.

5. Their only choice will be eleven, unbeknownst to them. I have never had a spectator

have a hard time coming up with the number, and the choice seems completely free,

down to their final choice of a number. This is because the choices consonant and

vowel seems fair or nearly so until you actually think of the letters to realize that

the only words that start with vowels between 1 and 100 are 8, 11, 18, 80, 81, 82,

83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, and 89. The choice between below and above 50 seems to just

cut the options in half, but because of the vowel force, it really cuts off 10 digits;

leaving them with 3 (just like the Fair does with card values). The final choice of odd

or even again seems like a 50-50 choice, but in reality it trims off 2/3rds of their

remaining choices. By the final choice, it seems like you have just cut it roughly in

half three times, which would still leave about 10-33 options in their mind's eye, so

when you come out with the number, it seems like you really read their mind.

Thus this effect, while leveraging a fact I discovered about numbers, I ended up utilizing

some of the same techniques as in both the Fair and Prime; using equivoque with just three

choices, and using vowels as a crucial forcing method, albeit in a different setting.

Notes

It's quite hard to mentally re-engineer, because they won't even notice that you are using

equivoque, much less how the choices worked down to one number out of 98 in just three

choices, with the last seeming even more free.

The Fair is similar, except instead of 52 choices, you now have (seemingly) 100; the options

seem to have doubled, and you don't have to skip over the exact suit once you force the

color. Furthermore, every choice renders a 1/3rd or smaller remainder, which means that

every choice is strikingly effective, allowing the choices to be cut away quickly as opposed

to taking the Fair out to a fourth choice -- the exact suit -- and having two 50-50 choices

which aren't significantly helping you by leveraging the questions.

They are a good many more creative ways to use this force; you could use it in a book test

to force a page, to force the age of a mentally created character, or a one ahead force. An

alternative would be to cut out the other two steps and just force a number between 1 and

10 in one step, or force a number between 1 and 50 in two steps.

In comparing it to Prime, the one draw back to the effect is that you couldn't really perform

it for a crowd like you could Prime, as it is dependent on equivoque, no matter how

minimally, and something like a drawing duplication just would have the same feel to it if

they first had to think of a number, then go to a page, and draw what they read/saw on

that page. That said it does what it does very well, and I'm more than pleased with

reactions I get. One slight note is that you must choose your spectator wisely. You need

someone with a sharp enough mind to quickly grasp a number, yet not intelligent enough to

have a cynical view of your work; if they are the effect won't have much success.

As usual, my favorite way is just to use it as direct, naked mind reading. I always wanted to

be able to divine a number in someone's mind without fishing, mathematics, or gimmicks,

and MindJack let's you do that.

In one case, the person I was performing it for chose the right decisions before I could even

describe their choice, e.g. I said "We have numbers above and below fifty, imagine that..."

and she cut me off and said "below fifty", for all of the three choices, and then I asked her

to think of a number like that (with choices that she established!), and then read her mind.

She nearly flipped.

That said, it's far better than some other psychological number forces such as the 37 force,

which asks you to think of a (1) two digit number (2) between 1 and 50, with (3) both (4)

odd, (5) different digits. That's five parameters to force one of eight numbers --which you

have to guess at, and they didn't get to create those parameters, yet the choice still seems

somewhat fair.

So imagine if you literally double their choices, allow the parameters to be chosen by them,

and then use two less of these parameters then in the 37 force, and then not have to guess;

they could find you had predicted it all along (or you can just read their mind on the spot).

Sometimes I just say “Think of an odd number between 1 and 50. [wait until they almost

got one then add+ That starts with a vowel.” They never have a problem coming up with the

right number in just a few seconds, unlike the 37 force, where they often get confused with

with “different, odd, digits” part, and without the 1 in 8 risk factor. I've gotten splendid

reactions from this, and I'm sure you'll be able to pull it off with little to no work. It looks

and feels like true mind reading, and you can force just about anything with it as described

in the next effect.

Sometimes, I skip the 1-100 choice altogether and just concentrate on numbers between 1

and 50, using equivoque just twice. I just say “Here I have a pack of numbers between 1

and 50 that are printed out on cards such as this one, which says T-W-O, or this one, which

says S-E-V-E-N-T-E-E-N. Which cards do you want me to remove from the pack, those that

start with consonants or those that start with vowels? Excellent, let's toss those to the side.

Of the vowels, we have odd numbers and even numbers, which of the the two should I take

down, odd or even numbers? Great. According to your choice, think of an odd number

between 1 and 50 that starts with a vowel”. This just clears up the equivoque a bit, while

still giving them a free choice at every level.

If they seem to be having some trouble coming up with a number, or just as an alternative

to having them think of one, you can just say “Which leaves us with eleven” and then allow

them or the rest of your audience to reverse engineer it later; they'll only find that you are

correct. This becomes particularly necessary if performing for someone who's a bit of a

heckler, I say this from experience: the only time it really failed was because my heckler

was smart enough to be a skeptic, yet not smart enough to think of a number. He literally

went through every number out loud and still skipped over eleven.

Book Test

Description:

In this variation, you branch off MindJack, using their number to flip to the corresponding

page in a truly free choice of book, and then asking them to glance at the first line on the

page. You then proceed to say the words aloud, one by one, as they think of them.

Method:

The book test gives you a logical disconnect and directs their attention to the book and

words as opposed to the number. I'd just like to run through the book test briefly to clarify

the run through:

1. Get a stack of about five books, and memorize the first line or word on the eleventh

page of each book, or get about 3 books in a novel series and two duplicates of one of the

books and then swap the duplicates' covers with the other books in the series, so you only

have to memorize one line -- although I personally prefer the first method.

2. Verbally force the number eleven on them.

3. Show them a stack of books, and ask them to choose one, then flip to the page of the

number in their mind. I ask them to choose a book after the number for two reasons: firstly

it gives a logical disconnect that makes them forget even more about their seemingly free

choice of number and secondly it seems to add yet another level of impossibility beyond

the number, and another layer of potential influence (if that is your theme).

4. Ask them to read the first line (or word) on the page.

5. Proceed to read their mind.

The benefit of this method over fishing is that with fishing you either need to trim off as

little as possible in order to maximize "yes"/make it easier to pick up on cues, or you need

to cut it in half every time and take a greater risk. With this methodology, you can just look

for the smallest divisions (the categories you would want to trim off in fishing) and dive

right into them until you get to a single selection, which allows you to keep the forcing to a

minimal while still making it seem like they have many a choice remaining. It's a bit like the

reverse of Prime, in the fact that you are using the first letter and it happens to have to be

a vowel, but at the same time, it's easy for them to come up with one as you're working

with the first letter and not with anything within it.

The system could also be used for spectator reads spectator's mind by having one spectator

make choices, ask him to think of a number based on the spectator's (forced) parameters,

and then ask your mind reading spectator to guess what it could be through “mentally

bestowed intuition”.

Other Languages

In German, it is exactly the same, with the exception that 21, 28, 31, 38, 41, and 48 all

start with vowels as well as the English set of 8, 11, and 18. For this you have two options.

On the one hand you could just have them choose between single and double digit numbers

to force 8, instead of odd or even, or you could do odd or even, force odd to leave you with

four options: 11, 21, 31, and 41, then use some form of progressive anagram to divine

which exact number they have in mind.

i > einundzwanzig einunddreiBig einundvierzig

r > einunddreiBig einundveirzig

einundzwanzig

elf

Once you get to R, you have a few options such as z or v, or instead of R, you could prompt

for z. There are a lot of options and it would go very quickly.

It will work perfectly with most other languages as detailed above, including Spanish, and

Italian. In French, it is even easier, because you only have one option: 11.

The Fairer

Description:

Anyone acquainted with the Fair in MindCraft: Perceptions will love these one or two choice

additions that can be used to add another level of freedom and influence to the routine.

Others will see the two as quick, invisible, surefire, verbal forces of numbers between 1

and 10.

Method:

After experimenting with numbers in general, I discovered a simple way to verbally force

the number 4 in a pinch (such as in a verbal card force) with just two steps, without having

to resort to inefficient, 50-50 forcing methods. I've used this in combination with the fair,

which allows their first choice to be truly fair.

1. Explain that there are numbers from 1 to 10 -- you don't have to say between --, that

have curves, and numbers that don't have curves. Say that you are separating the

two into packets, place them in the air, and ask which one to take down, the ones

with curves, or the ones without curves. If they say those with curves, take them

down and toss them aside, spreading the remaining ones in the air. If they choose the

numbers without curves, take them down and spread them in your hands. This will

cut their options down from 10 to 3, over than 2/3rds.

2. Say that you have both odd numbers and even numbers. Use the "take out" method

to force even numbers. This removes 1 and 7 from contention, leaving them with 4

as their only choice.

Now ask them to think such a number between 1 and 10 –- reminding them if you like of

their choices; a curve-less, even number. If you purchased MindCraft: Perceptions, you now

know a way to verbally force a playing card in under a minute, with one truly free choice

and two to three influenced ones. I like this variation much better. Not only is it less

transparent than asking your spectator to choose odd or even or less than/above or equal to

5, but it fairly and easily trims off 2/3rds or more of their choices every time; limiting the

value force to a mere two choices. The forcing numbers without curves is what enables the

seemingly 50-50 chance of even/odd to actually be a hidden way to force just a third of the

remaining values, just like in MindJack.

It may seem transparent to you, but to your spectator there are, as in MindJack, multiple

layers of disguise. When experimenting, I've had spectators say something like “But I could

have thought of something like eight, how did you know?” on MindJack, as they forgot that

they had chosen it to be an odd number after the fact, or, with Fair Peek, “I almost went

for the number one...” yet in reality they had agreed to it being an even number –- as I

reiterated while they thought of a “freely chosen” number, which normally comes quite

quickly to them. The delay between the selection and revelation creates these mental gaps

wherein they forget how the number was forced, if they even caught on to the fact that I

was forcing in the first place.

The other verbal force is the number eight. After your spectator has specified black number

cards in the Fair (which you expound upon to only include digits two through ten, ask them

to choose if they want the value to start with a vowel or a consonant. Force a vowel, which

will force the number eight. If you're just using this in a larger routine that requires the

selection of the number eight, such as if you wanted to predict which postcard they would

choose to show off your mind control in just one force, you could just present it like this:

“Let me pretend that I have an invisible pack of post cards, and that on each of them are

printed numbers between 1 and 10, such as S-I-X, S-E-V-E-N, or E-I-G-H-T. Which of the

cards should I remove from the packet; those that start with vowels, or those that start

with consonants? [Spectator says vowels, and you pretend to remove a post card] Perfect.

Please think of a number between 1 and 10 that starts with a vowel and name it aloud.

[Spectator says eight] Now if you would just pick up the correct post card from the table

for me...”

Cold Reading Justification

After some thought on a touchy topic, I decided to write down my thoughts and break down

of justification and purpose of cold reading. I've come to the conclusion that to justify

giving a reading, you merely need to come to grips with how your presentation is going over

for your client/spectator. If you are basing it on statistics and stock lines, you really need

to bill yourself as a psychic in a at least semi-believable fashion. I personally dislike this

approach and see no justification here; telling them how old they might live to, if they will

marry, etc. always has the possibility of influencing their decisions as they think you are the

real thing, On the other hand, if you are not using stock lines, to gain the necessary level of

"authority" on their personality/life, you will need some other ploy.

Some use face reading, graphology, doodleology, numerology, etc.; in each case giving

differing readings based on some form of input. In this approach, they are not claiming to

see the future or know about the person, but rather that they are gleaning it from them via

some learned system, which is technically the truth. So as a justification, I see no personal

problem doing a reading, even in seriousness, based upon some given information; I am in

doing so billing myself as a scientist or psychologist of sorts, rather than as one with

supernatural powers.

Under Thin Ice

Description:

A powerful new reading system that enables you to help your clients learn more about

themselves in a very detailed reading, and give accurate advice based upon responses

received directly from their subconscious. Use with care. Nothing is required except a

spectator and their mind's eye.

Method:

This is based directly upon On Thin Ice, with inspiration from an idea mentioned by jaybest

on The Magic Cafe, and many a note and subtlety.

Ask your client to close their eyes and visualize themselves walking down a long, white

hallway that is going deep down. There are no doors. At the very end, the hall opens up

into a large room, the size of an art gallery, with just one painting on the wall. Ask them to

imagine walking up to that painting, and looking at the canvas within the frame. Ask them

to change the color of the canvas, like a screen, in their mind. Then, ask them what color

they changed it to. Take your time during this process, you do not want to rush into this. It's

not a trick. Take your time and gain rapport.

The hallway leading into the ground is their subconscious mind. The screen is a

representative of their mental state. These are what the colors represent:

Green - Life force, energized.

Blue - Idealistic, thoughtful.

Red - Passionate, artistic.

Yellow - Open, free.

By combining these colors, you get a set of advanced colors and states. An example is

violet; a romantic state of mind that is a combination of a thoughtful, passionate state. You

must explain some of the basic meanings of these before telling them about their current

mental state. For example, if they say they see a bright green, it means that they are in a

state where they have an enormous amount of energetic potential available to them.

When you define what the colors mean, your client will accept your definitions as truth.

This is why you need to be careful. To make a change, you can ask them to visualize the

color slowly shifting to something more advanced, perhaps by combining two advanced

colors together.

The most advanced color, the most balanced mental state, a combination of all, is pure

white. Next most is a light pink. The least advanced is black; the darker the color, the

weaker their state or personality. It's counter intuitive, because we are used to working

with colors of paints, not colors of light. You can subtly change their state more

permanently by suggesting that they imagine the color changing to, for example, yellow,

and as you do so, touch their shoulder. Just before they leave, touch their shoulder again.

In doing so, you have just cemented a psychological anchor that you created, so even

though their conscious mind might not register a change, their subconscious will take in and

implement the change. This is an excellent way to gain rapport and makes sure that the

impression stays with them.

To move deeper into your reading, we will focus more on the personality. Ask your client to

visualize the frame and canvas growing larger retaining it's same proportion, until it is

about 50 feet high. Tell them to slowly take a few steps back in their minds eye to see the

entire thing. Now ask them to imagine a projector in the back, throwing onto the colored

canvas, black outlined objects. Ask them to see a chair, then a rooster, and finally a star.

Ask them they see naturally appear next on the screen. You are now going to read it

depending on the letters within it, without letting them know this; you are explaining this

as if you were interpreting their mind's natural reaction to finishing a seemingly random

pattern. For example, if it were a kitten, you could say something like:

"I can tell that you are a very kind individual, yet very ingenious at times."

This is a double positive, when their subconscious is expecting a positive - negative pattern,

based upon the word yet. Equally, they can't argue with either statement. The first asserts

that they are kind, which everyone believes themselves to be, and the second ingenious at

times, which will instantly recall to their mind times they were smarter than the status

quo, without asserting that they are directly more intelligent than anyone else; something

they would naturally refute to keep their egos up.

Both words were based on the first two letters of the image they see, and seems to fit at

the same time with their mind conjuring a kitten (which brings to mind kindness), and

ingenious (as they were in a loose sense, supposed to mentally come up with a connection).

If they saw a bed, you might say:

"You can be very bright; although I can tell you don't always put your education first."

Everyone can remember times when they were lazy on homework, or chose an easy class,

so the second statement fits naturally. The first does as well; it says that they can very

bright, without specifying when this has occurred, it could occur in the future meaning that

if they try, they can. You have to play with what your given and balance compliments with a

touch of reality and a twist. With practice it will come like second nature. You can also ask

them to bring another image on the screen that loosely "feels right" with the others, to

continue the reading. Now let me give you some examples, mixing the reading of the color

with the image. Here is a full set of patter, with an image from their mind conjured to the

canvas:

"Please, close your eyes and imagine yourself walking down a hallway. The walls are white,

but its dark. Sink deeper down the hall, tip toeing down steps. The walls are lit with dim,

amber colored lamps. You begin to slow down as you approach the end of the hallway. You

see that it branches into a large art gallery, with just one framed picture in the center of

the wall. Walk up to it. The canvas is white. Now, with the power of your mind, you are

able to change the color of that screen. Do so now. What color do you see?"

"Dark blue."

[Current state is now set at ideological, and thoughtful, with perhaps a tinge of romance.

The overall sensation is weak, however, so they are thinking about something close to their

current circumstances.]

"Perfect. Now please, if you would, imagine that in your mind you can enlarge this picture,

retaining the same proportions, to about 50 feet high. Splendid. Slowly take a few steps

back so you can visualize the entire frame and canvas. [pause] Now, in your mind, on this

colored screen, I would like you to project a black outline of a chair. Now, as if switching

slides, project the outline of a rooster. [pause] Next, I would like you to visualize the shape

of a star upon the dark blue screen. Now project onto the screen whatever image outline

your mind logically provides you with, based on the images and the color that is on the

screen. Don't hesitate; your first instinct will always be correct. [pause] What do you see?"

"I see the outline of a dish."

"Splendid. Now please slowly turn around, facing the dimly lit hall, and walk back up the

hall. [pause] Keep coming. [pause] You are now seeing a closed, white door, with a golden

handle. Turn the handle, and open the door, opening your eyes as you do so. [pause, and

possibly write what you are about to say down for a reading that they can take away to

review]

I can tell from the color that you discovered in your deeper mind (a.k.a. subconscious) that

you have recently been in a thoughtful state, focusing on that which is immediately in front

of you.

Based upon the image of a dish that you saw, I am sensing that as of late you have been

quite delightful to be around, yet equally independent. I think a twinge of romance would

benefit your mental state by giving you something to expand your horizons and would more

carefully align your conscious mind with your subconscious mind."

To break down the reading, I first said that they have been quite thoughtful lately, albeit on

that which is immediately in front of them, as its dark blue. I next used the double meaning

"you can" with the first letter of their image: D. I then used an unexpected double positive

with "yet equally independent". I then took a color related to dark blue; guessing that it

might look like a dark bluish purple, drawing in the bit about romance and tying it back in

their focus on the present. You can now give a satisfactorily detailed reading with nothing

but your mind.

As you begin to learn the system, I would recommend making up some notes and a sheet for

writing your reading. You can freely glance at your notes; for all they know they could be

anything. When you get better at it, you will be able to draw the words up on the spot, it

just takes practice, and if you ever run out of things to say, or are afraid of doing so, you

can simply ask them to visualize more objects, gaining more and more insight into their

psyche as you go along.

As you noticed, I gave a bit of advice to them. This advice is based upon perceived

inferences as opposed to communication with the spirit world or other such nonsense. You

can tell your client so directly if you wish.

If you don't mind going a little New Agey, you can even try making a mental link with a

spectator's relative, to profile their current psycho-emotional state. Another idea would be

to run through the visualization, and then following it, use a center tear or other peek to

gain the color and image instead of asking them to say name them aloud during the

visualization. This is an easy way to add credibility.

This method of reading could easily be used for therapy, or a hypnotic induction; as asking

your participant to close their eyes and walk down, and down, and down a softly lit hallway

would give you the perfect state of suggestion if you took it carefully.

I have always performed the effect as entertainment, however it is particularly nice

because, without selling yourself as a psychic, you can still make prediction or reveal

something about their past, just under the guise of a subconscious interpreter who can

detect paths that their mind will most likely lead them to. To come up with descriptive

words for an inference as I call it, or for giving advice, I tend to base it off the last two

letters. Here is another sample reading assuming that they saw orange and a television:

"Based on the color that your subconscious picked up on, I can sense that you are currently

driving to get free of something [We all are: it may be a relationship, job, or insecurity. Red

gives the driving, yellow the freedom.] I can tell that you are trustworthy, but often over

eager to get out of situations [t and e in television.]

Based on the image that came to your mind, I think you have been trying to get free of this

thorn in your side, but you've been going at it too quickly [This is just a recap of the

previous two sentences]. I recommend you fulfilling your other obligations, not rushing

ahead; I think you'll find the problem will solve itself if you leave it alone [obligations and

not are in televisiON."

So basically here you've identified a real problem based on their responses, and given them

advice on how to overcome that problem, all the while stating that you "recommend" or

"think" rather than directly giving advice as a psychic or fortune teller. Whether or not they

decide to act on your words is up to them. Thinking this up on the spot may seem difficult

at first, but trust me, after you've run it through enough, even just in your own mind when

you're in bed or driving to work, it will start flowing naturally. Its a wonderful way to gain

credibility and read people cold at the same time without anything tangible.

Personality Profiling

Description:

A Q&A-esque effect in which spectators are guided through the Under Thin Ice process, and

asked to record their responses on provided cards. The reader then collects these folded

cards and hands them back to the correct spectators one by one, revealing the contents

within a detailed reading.

Method:

Perhaps the cleaner of the methods is simply to mark the cards. One way would be to nick

the cards, fold them, or cut them in a memorable way. The only downside of this is that

you have to memorize who's is who. If you use some form of progressive mark that you can

count, such as in the form of a dotted line underneath a question, then you can just give

them out in a row and mentally index the cards in that manner; moving along the row as

the marks indicate.

You are also going to need an extra card, which you will write anything on, and place at the

bottom of the stack as you collect the cards. I advise you collect them in a haphazard and

random manner to increase the impossibility of the effect, perhaps asking them to come up

and drop it in a basket, or some such system.

If you use a basket, have the extra card attached to the bottom of the basket, with

something like tape, so you can mix up the bunch without losing track of it, or palm it and

sneak it in later/hold it to the side of the basket/bowl/hat.

Now pick up one of the cards, and without opening, call out the color and image on your

dummy card, then open it to verify, and claiming "Oh, this must have been from a practice

run.", palming it. You naturally memorized the contents, and continue through the bunch,

miscalling your readings before handing the card read before it over. In this way, you can

provide detailed and customized readings to all of your selected spectators.

Through the Looking Glass

Description:

I used to dislike purchasing an effect only to learn that it was largely based on dual reality;

it's an acquired taste and generally doesn't fit with the kind of work I do. This however,

while it does use dual reality, uses such an elaborate, yet perfectly invisible form of dual

reality that your spectator won't catch on until you reveal your prediction, by which point

they will be seated. Your spectator won't read a name off a card and then laugh, or say yes

to your questions; they will look at a pack of cards, think of one, and then THEY will

(although technically you could) name it aloud. A notable in the crowd such as the host can

then pull the card your spectator just named out of a sealed, signed, and dated envelope,

and no one will be the wiser. I am quite certain that this idea has never been thought of,

much less used, in anything remotely close to the area of mentalism or magic.

Method:

My inspiration for this effect was based upon a striking similarity between two of Lewis

Carroll's books, namely Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. The similarity,

was that both books featured a red queen. In the Alice in Wonderland the red queen was

from a pack of playing cards (specifically the Queen of Hearts), but in Through the Looking

Glass, the queen was from a chess set. Over the next week, I played with the idea of a

form of equivoque, and then dual reality that used this principle. I ended up coming up

with just five steps for a successful mind reading experiment that can be performed on

stage. It will seem like a relatively large selection to your spectator, because there are 32

chess pieces, but in reality, many of the pieces are repeats; such as the eight pawns for

each side. In reality there are just 6 pieces on each side, for a total of twelve. By phrasing

and selecting which cards we let our spectator see, we can easily control this without

reducing them to laughter or exposure. By transferring this same pieces effortlessly to a

pack of cards, we've expanded our choices to 1 in 52 with no additional work.

First we will need a bit of prep work. You're going to want to purchase two packs, one

normal and one blank, of the same background, preferably an ornate one, for reasons

which will become obvious soon. On 31 of the cards, draw all the chess pieces, including

both black and white, excluding the white queen. Take the Queen of Spades and drop it in

an envelope, and seal the envelope. You are now ready to go.

1. Hand the envelope to a notable in the crowd.

2. Call up a spectator, then spread the deck before his eyes, with the backs to your

audience, explaining that this is a special deck. He will see the chess pieces and

think that's what you are referring to, however your audience will take it to mean

fancy, by looking at the backs.

3. Casually say that you want to "remove these old jokers", as you look through and

remove the two kings, setting them to the side, face down. Again a double meaning

is hidden behind your words; the audience thinks you are removing the jokers, but

you are really removing the two highest pieces. Remember, your audience has no

reason to think that you aren't using normal playing cards. Your spectator will hear

the word "old" in combination with the jokers, and will go with it, because images

instantly come to his mind of things like old men squabbling over checkers or some

such memory. Either way, he has so far had no reason to question your actions, they

are unusual cards, and you are making the rules.

4. Ask your spectator to think of a "powerful piece". As you didn't draw up a white

queen (which they won't notice), and you've removed the two kings, the queen will

instantly stick out. There is a much larger difference between a queen, and say a

rook or bishop, then a queen and a jack. Your audience thinks they could choose

anything from around a 10 or jack of any of the four suits to a queen, king or ace,

when in reality they have just one choice.

5. Close the pack and as you put it away, ask your spectator to name aloud the card he

is thinking of. He will say "The Black Queen." Now just ask your envelope holder to

open it up and show the contents to the audience.

The only thing you need to make sure of is that the black queen is visible in your spread,

but that shouldn't be much of a problem. Since the effect is presented quite fairly to your

audience, and your spectator has no reason to act strangely, they will accept it as a

miracle. It takes a bit of guts, but I've pulled it off without a hitch almost every time.

If a problem arises, I just have another deck pocketed with the Queen of Spades on top,

and I just drop the chess cards back into their box and pocket them, then force the queen

from my other deck. Its a bit confusing to your spectator, but it works well to save face if it

seems like you're in a rut.

I have also experimented with using a jumbo card for my prediction card if I am performing

for a somewhat larger audience with much success.

ColorPrime

Description:

Expanding something touched on in Prime after improving the basic structure of it.

Essentially with mere words, you ask a spectator to freely think of three things. They never

need to speak. You then proceed to read their mind. Under certain circumstances, general

psychological principles could allow you to appear almost god-like in your mind reading;

you can trace their every thought. It looks like true mind reading, because it is. In the

event of a misfire, you just reveal two thoughts instead of three, and your spectator is

never the wiser. A small cold reading script is written for the system as well.

Method:

After thinking about Prime with Colors (in MindCraft: Perceptions), I finally figured out a

surefire way to force anything without having to run through the selection that Prime did.

Ask your spectator to think of a color, and then a gemstone that starts with the last vowel

of their color. The last vowel of that stone will always be A. It's a simple and pure force;

you could wrap it back to Amethyst, switch to Apple, or anything you like. Its nicer in the

sense that it's far cleaner and simpler for both you and your spectator, but it doesn't have

the same freedom of any words.

I would use this more if I were trying to force something for a cold reading personality test;

ask them to think of their favorite color, then a gemstone that begins with the last letter of

their color, and then a fruit that begins with the last vowel of that stone, explaining that

this unbiased fruit relates directly to their personality.

Now say something along these lines:

"I sense that your fruit and personality symbolizes something perfect and pure, something

almost forbidden in a way. Sweet, shiny and appealing to the eye is the impression I'm

getting."

You can ask what fruit they are thinking of, as it will match the description perfectly, or

just name it. There are many other ways this could go, such as by forcing another

gemstone, Amethyst, and doing a reading based upon the depth, fragmentation, yet

stunningly deep and dark unity and beauty of the stone. I sometimes find this method

easier to use than Prime, because it's fast and small, and doesn't take quite as much

thinking on your spectator's part.

If you want, you could also take a stab at guessing the stone which in most cases except

yellow (which doesn't have a great hit rate to begin with, and could be almost eliminated if

you mentioned it such as by saying “Think of a color, like yellow or brown.”) in a backtrack

sort of way “I have a feeling that there is a deep, brilliant spark of green within you”. If

they were thinking of green, which normally hits between 20% and 30% of the time, you will

essentially be a god for the rest of the night; and can further cement that in their mind by

adding “the green of an emerald”. If it hits, it hits terrifically hard, it wouldn't seem like it,

but all if you can reveal all three “choices” it will make it seem like you read their mind

three times as opposed to one, because they aren't aware of your process.

If they look a little confused, just continue to revealing the emerald; you'll still end in a

double mind reading hit, and make it look like you knew what they were thinking as they

were thinking it, which technically you were.

You could also use the system on an audience, ask how many people were thinking of an

apple, and then say that you were also sending out the color green, and more specifically

an emerald. Ask how many people were thinking of some green. Those who were thinking of

the color green will be amazed, but almost everyone else will also be stunned at you

getting the emerald, which is “some green”.

Now to a bit on my inspiration for this effect. It's much simpler than you'd think; I got the

idea of the additional mind reading when playing UNO with some friends. I was naturally

cheating like a madman. A lady playing the game asked me what color she was going to

choose for her Wild card. I said red. I've never seen such a look in my life. She, and

everyone else, were completely floored. You can do the same thing with ColorPrime,

without the risk, and with a much higher hit rate. I literally just performed this again

before adding to this section of the book and it hit yet again. This is how it went.

“Think of a color.”

“Yeah.”

“Now think of a precious stone that begins with the last vowel of your color.”

“OK.”

“Is the color of your precious stone... Green?”

“Yes.”

Sensing that things are going well, I decided to take a bit of a leap, which I could fall back

on my previous assertion as a slight “confusion” if it failed.

“Was your original color green?”

“Yes. *Eyes wide+”

Needless to say, I milked it for everything it was worth. I had read his mind. He'd thought of

a color and I had named it, yet in perfect safety. You wouldn't believe how often this works

until you try it. Wait until you feel like it could work, and it will, that's about as far as I can

explain it. I've had a similar sense of rapport with someone else. I just felt like it, so I

pulled a psychological “force”; I asked him to think of a number between 1 and 50. A friend

had told me that when asked this, many just randomly drift to 47, if you feel like they

might. I didn't pull any tricks, I just asked him point blank, then asked if he was thinking of

47. He was thinking of 45. You can pull a similar effect with a perfect hit rate thanks to

MindJack, just ask them to “Think of an odd number between 1 and 50. *pause+ That starts

with a vowel.” and you've hit. Essentially I've turned all my random successes into

workable, high hit rate, nearly fool-proof effects that you can perform anywhere without

risk. Welcome to the world of mind to mind mentalism.

Psychic Psychopath

Description:

This is a more of a dark, elaborate mind game I came up with as opposed to a true,

stageworthy effect. This is how it plays:

You sit down with two friends. You tell the first that he is to act as an emotional beacon.

You tell your other friend that you and he will be emotional detectors, trying to pick up on

the beacon's mentally chosen emotions. You then explain that a psychopath is someone with

a mental condition that makes it very difficult for them to detect emotions in general, as

well as feelings such as fear and sadness, but have a strong detection of emotions such as

hate/anger. Psychic Psychopath is played wherein both detectors write down their guesses

as to which emotion the beacon will mentally chose so as not to tip off your guess to the

other right away. Whoever misses the most out of three rounds is pronounced a psychopath.

You play through three rounds, and sure enough, you hit spot on all three times, whereas

your fellow detector loses every round, and is pronounced a psychopath. A nasty, dark

mentalism presentation. No fishing, peeks, indexes or anything remotely close one is used.

Dual reality is not used. This does not rely on the one ahead principle either; you never

even hear what their emotions until after you've written all your guesses.

Method:

At first when designing this effect, I was trying to use three psychological forces on my

beacon, but then decided against it for two reasons: firstly they probably wouldn't hit every

time, and secondly, my fellow detector would almost certainly fall for at least one as well

and get the emotion right; something we obviously couldn't allow to occur.

I next had two options: to hear the emotions/have them written and peek then do a billet

swap for the emotion as most would do it, or force the emotions a unique way.

I decided to not worry about my other spectator; most of the time they'd miss every time,

and in the occasion they hit once, they could still never match up to my three.

The process works in three distinct stages, and we win because we're the ones running the

show, not because we're playing fair. Nonetheless, the routine is truly gaff-less, you just

need some squares of paper pens. As you explain what a psychopath is, include that they

have a “strong detection of emotions such as hate and anger.” This could potentially help

your success later on. Now on to the stages.

In the first stage, you are both actually writing what you think the beacon will choose, but

you don't stress this. This goes against the whole premise of the effect; that you are

detecting their thought of emotions in real time, but as you're making up and running the

game as far as they are concerned, they won't notice it. Just say “Alright, let's write down

our first guesses.”

Write down on the first piece of paper, “Joy”. When you and your detector are done, place

it face down and shove it to your left, motioning for your fellow detector to do the same

with theirs.

Now say this to your beacon “OK, we've guess what we think you're going to think of, so go

ahead and think of an emotion. [pause] Keep it kind of short, let's say, three letters, yes,

three letters will work.”

You have now forced either Joy or Sad. Chances are it will be Joy, because Sad technically

isn't an emotion: Sadness is. What you've done here is quite devious; you made them think

of an emotion with a parameter given AFTER both detectors have finished writing. This

almost ensures that the other detector will miss this round; most emotions have four

letters, and by changing the length in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way at the last minute,

you've also forced the emotion that you just wrote down.

The next stage is a slight risk, but pretty simple. This time you write down “Sad”, and after

placing down your guess, ask your spectator to “just think of the opposite of their previous

emotion”. This again messes up your fellow beacon, because he's caught off guard yet

again, while as you are running the game, you'd planned it all out. They may think of

something a little different, like Sadness, but Sad will suffice when examining your results,

and it will protect you in the event of them thinking of Sad first as opposed to Joy, as will

be explained momentarily.

Now write down your final guess, placing it once more on the little stack, then asking them

to think of a Strong emotion. Having just thought of Joy and Sadness, combined with your

previous psychological priming to associate anger/hate with strong, chances are very high (I

say this from experience), that they will come up with hate, anger, or rage. You, of course,

wrote down Anger on your third card.

The beauty of the routine is that first and foremost it is presented as a game, so if you

really mess things up, you can reiterate that it was just a game, but if it hits on all three,

as most of the time it will, you've got a stunning mind warp.

Now, ask your spectator to name of their thoughts, slowly, one by one. As each emotion is

named, pull out the corresponding card. If they had Sad and Joy/Happiness mixed up, then

just perform a double deal or glide, depending on how you decided to stack your cards.

Even if you messed up on the exact word, remind your spectator that getting three in a row

even with the correct general feeling (a.k.a. “negative”/“positive”) is a one in eight

chance. If you hit all three, good work, you've got an impromptu stunner nailed down.

These forces really work, within a small margin of error. I have a special one on one

handling as you will see in Impromp2. Depending on the setting of your routine, you can

choose to make the notice that your other spectator either missed all three (you don't

mention that they forgot anger, an emotion that almost all psychopaths easily detect),

saying that they couldn't detect even a single emotion. If they hit on anger but miss on the

other two, you're even better off, because, you remind them, with a malevolent grin;

psychopaths can detect anger easier than any other emotion. You win.

Wonder Weapon

Description:

As a mentalist, I've often wanted to ask someone to think of a card, and then verbally tell

them what card they are thinking of. Well, Wonder Weapon won't quite let you do that, but

it will allow you to do the next best thing. It allows me to say a few words, and then name

what card she's thinking of. That said, she doesn't even respond to my words, not verbally,

not even in body language, much less speak.

She doesn't understand in the least how I can do it. But I can.

Method:

Alright, before I begin, just a few notes on how I came up with the name and method of

this effect. I've heard other mentalists do similar things, but I wanted mine to be more

direct, and I wanted it to work with playing cards. Essentially, I wanted to do the reverse of

the Fair. Instead of telling my spectator what to think, I wanted to ask them what they

thought, but at the same time I wanted to force them to think it. What arose next was

unique. The name itself came from the Nazi -- yes you read that right -- word for some high

tech weapons they were developing, originally called wunderwaffen (pronounced

vundervaffen). This was the perfect name for my effect, as it came from the method:

shotgunning. Now to the methodology.

As any of you with some cold reading experience –- maybe all of you -– probably know,

shotgunning is a technique wherein the mentalist “shoots out” so to speak, some random

statements and looks around for confirmation. He then goes with these confirming

spectators and tries to get more out of them. I used this method in reverse; I realized that

by calling out a statement, those who didn't acknowledge my response with the affirmative

weren't thinking of what I was looking for. This may sound quite ridiculously and obvious to

you, but it won't when you realize my context; a deck of cards. So in short, if I asked

everyone in the room to think of a card, and then asked everyone thinking of a number card

to raise their hand, under some guise or pretense that I could prattle on about afterwards

about psychological influence/forcing, which is, technically what I am using in the effect,

just not at this stage of it.

So then, after I now know who is thinking of a number card, that also tells me that those

who didn't raise their hands are thinking of picture cards. As there are only three picture

cards, and I use this greatly to my advantage. Statistically, about one in five to one in three

times, the Queen of Hearts will be thought of, and that statistic reigns far higher among

females. I don't say this just statistically either, I say this from personal experience as well.

So if I locate a few females in the audience all thinking of picture cards, chances are a good

number of them are thinking of the Queen of Hearts. And then, if I further increase my odds

by following my first question with: “Amazing! It seems to align almost perfectly with

statistics. Hmmm... And how many of you are thinking of odd values, such as a 7, Jack,

King, or Ace?” I now have the cat in the bag; I have located all the Queens in the room. I

now just have to go up to a female and ask her to concentrate on her card, perhaps ask her

alone if it's red if I feel a bit shifty on the issue, or else just name it directly. As far as she's

concerned, I haven't even really asked her anything; she doesn't know I'm paying attention

to anyone thinking of a picture card, much less looking for a specific card that has

terrifically high hit rates among females. She hasn't even raised her hand. That said, I don't

even have to phrase them as questions, I could just say “Would everyone thinking of a

number card please raise your hand? That's simply fascinating, it appears to fit with all the

statistics. Now how about anyone thinking of an odd value, such as an Ace, 5, Jack or King?”

The trick with this is not to make it look like you're trying to shotgun them. Sometimes I

even perform something else in between, and then ask for volunteers, and then call up one

of the females who never raised her hand. In this way it makes it appear like you were just

testing something, which I sometimes say directly. Then I can say “You were thinking of a

card just a minute ago, weren't you? Would you mind if I read your mind? I should probably

have you sign some form of contract here, to make sure it's consensual, but bother it, do

me a favor, I'm going to stand over here [walk off a distance], and I'd like you to

concentrate on that card. We haven't met before, and I didn't just have you set this all up,

did I? Very good, I would like you to concentrate, make the card larger in your mind, yes,

like that, and try to send it to me, like you were a television transmitter... Perfect, it's

coming through... You're thinking of the Queen of Hearts, correct?”

Another alternative idea would be to perform an ACAAN routine by starting off asking for a

call of hands, and then later in the show using MindJack (you can adapt it to make the

choice “between 1 and 52”, as there are only 52 cards, and thus cut off another step of

equivoque) to force the number, and then call up the appropriate spectator to count down

to see her card.

Impromp2

Description:

In this section, I'd like to go over two robust, and fully impromptu and gimmick-less

routines I've created from material in both Perceptions and Visions. As of such, I will assume

that I am performing closeup one evening for a 5-10 folks. In the second event I will

pretend that I am performing one on one with a female friend over a cup of coffee. I will

be providing patter, but I recommend you come up with your own as the occasion suits. In

both cases I will assume that the subject of my ability has already come up, and that I

offered to demonstrate my abilities.

Routine A (for a group):

My “powers” come up in conversation and I are asked to demonstrate. This is how I

personally run it.

“Alright, ladies and gentlemen *winks+, let me see what I can do here. To start off, I would

like you all to think of a card. Do you have one? Splendid. How many of you are thinking of

a number card? Just raise your hand. Fascinating... Just as psychological statistics portray.

How many are thinking of an odd card, such as an Ace, 5, Jack, or King? Hmmm... Seems to

drift a bit from what I've read... I always wanted to see if it matched up. Well know, let

me begin here. Would you all do me a favor and think of a word?”

As you can see, I've just run through all the workings of Wonder Weapon, unless you want to

do a bit of fishing later on to confirm the color –- the suit will go unnoticed – such as by

saying “It's not a red card is it?” or your preferred method of fishing. At this point it seems

as if I just randomly had people think of cards to check some psychological stats, (which I

very well may have done). I'm are now going to create a logical disconnect to make them

forget about the process, by going through the Prime system, or you can do ColorPrime and

have them think of a color instead.

I am not including Prime here for obvious reasons. I will detail the process using an emerald

as it's easiest with ColorPrime, however with Prime you will find it easier (and

recommended) to go with an apple. Remember, that if you are using ColorPrime, you could

also use an apple, and the color red the same way you use the color green, however I found

that green is more psychologically appealing then red.

“Now close your eyes and please concentrate on your stone. Try and see it glowing. *pause+

That's it. Now [snap] open your eyes. I would like you to try and forget the stone you

chose. Go ahead and try, I'm rebounding it back to your mind as quickly as I can, maybe I

can pick up on the reflection.”

Here I am misdirecting them from the Prime/ColorPrime process by using reverse

psychology as a kind of side “power”. I am also stressing that they “chose” it themselves.

The reflection rebounding is a bunch of mumbo jumbo that gives you good justification and

makes it seems like you are following a mental technique, which seems, from the

spectators' point of view to be working as they can't stop thinking about the stone/fruit.

“Alright, I'm getting it quite strongly now... Yes... The color is green, you are thinking of

an Emerald.”

This could play especially strong if you used ColorPrime because chances are that a good

number of them thought of the color green. As you had them focus on the glowing of their

stone, you have your back covered even if they didn't think of green; at this point they

should almost have forgotten how they got there. However, if they did think of green as

their color, it will instantly be recalled to their mind and they will be even more excited

about what is to come than the others, which in turn will boost excitement for the group as

a whole. So without even fishing you can create a true miracle for some of your

participants and a baffler for the others.

“I got an especially strong image from you *motion to one of the more excited spectators+.

Would you mind helping me out with my next demonstration?”

“Sure!”

“Great. Can I borrow a pack of cards? *Host gives him a deck+ Thanks. I'm going to look

through here, and drop a card on top. Then I'm going to give you a few choices, and then

I'll turn over the top card to see how I did.”

Here I am going to perform the Fair, using the Fairer, thus giving them a truly free first

choice. I place the Four or Eight of Spades on top of the deck, and the other card (as

Perceptions owners will know) right below it. In most cases, they will choose number cards,

however, if they choose picture cards, I just perform a double lift. Obviously, if you'd

rather, you can just write down the Fair force card on a piece of paper and then force it

directly, but I generally like to free them up as much as possible, and with the Fairer, you

never use more than 3 equivocal choices anyways, and under ideal circumstances, just two.

Also, instead of giving your spectator a free first choice, you could just use equivoque to

force number cards and place the Four of Spades on the table, face down from the

borrowed deck to add to the cleanness of the effect, or just perform the Fair.

“*After the Fair is complete] It looks like my mind control worked. [Flip over the top

card+.”

Obviously labeling the effect “Mind Control” before you started would ruin the effect,

because they would be very suspicious of anything remotely equivocal, but saying so

afterward makes it seem like that you planned it all along.

“Susan, (one of the women who didn't raise her hand at the beginning of the routine)

would you be so kind as to assist me in my next effect here?”

“Sure.”

“Just stand right here. I will stand across the room over here. You're not in cahoots with

me, or any of that nonsense, are you?”

“No.”

“Just wanted to clear things up for my other friends here *wink at the audience+. I'd like

you to think of a card. Actually, do you remember that card you thought of at the

beginning of the show? Just think of that.”

“OK.”

“Great, now I want you to enlarge the image of that card in your mind. Try to send it to

me as if you were the antennae of a television... Yes, I can almost see it now... Are you

thinking of the Queen of Hearts?”

“Yes!”

“That's very fascinating. May I have a round of applause for my assistant? You may have a

seat, thank you for participating. [Wait until she is seated] I would now like you all to

think of an odd number between 1 and 50. [pause] That starts with a vowel. [pause]

Excellent. Now would you, you, and you, [pointing to three individuals in different

locations] please stand up. I am going to call out three numbers that I think could match

those that you are thinking of. [pause] 8, 11, and 23. If you've heard your number then

please sit down. [All three spectator's sit down] Thank you for your participation, one and

all!”

I've sometimes started out with this effect; asking everyone to think of a number, and then

feel for it, just like some mentalists do with the 37 force, the 7 force, or a swami gimmick,

just with an obviously near 100% hit rate, it's all up to you. I chose the 8, 11, and 23

because 8 starts with a vowel but isn't odd, and 23 is odd but doesn't start with a vowel.

Routine B:

In this routine I will assume that my friend's name is Jessica. Again, I am assuming that the

subject of me honing my skills in reading people has already come up.

“I could try and read what you're feeling like right now if you like.”

“Sure, why not.”

“Alright, I'd like you to close your eyes. *pause+ Perfect. Now please visualize walking

down a long, dim, hallway. This hallway is going deep, deep, down underground. [pause

for a few seconds] I'd like you to imagine that this hallway is now leveling off and opening

up into a large art gallery, except there is only one picture on display; a framed, empty

canvas. Walk up to it in your mind. Now, I would like you to imagine change the color of

the canvas like a screen... right [snap] now. What color flashed onto the canvas?”

“Blue”

“Now, please back away a bit and imagine the canvas expanding until it is about 50 feet

high, and imagine that you can project images onto this screen just by thinking about it.

[pause] I would like you to project the black outline of a chair onto the screen. Now a car.

Now I would like you see what jumps to the screen next. *pause+ What is it?”

“A candle.”

“Perfect. Now imagine slowly turning around, and walking back up the hall... Up, and up,

and up... Slowly now, open your eyes.”

“Based on the color you saw in your subconscious, I can tell that you are currently in a

relaxed, thoughtful state. Furthermore, based on the image you saw, I'm sensing you have

been very cautious in your life as of late, always ready to please. I'd recommend in order

to go with the natural flow of your subconscious, that you let life go a little, go easy on

yourself, give yourself a break, and you'll be able to accomplish even more.”

Essentially what I've done here is drawn in the color to their current mental state, picked

up on their overall feelings recently based on the letters c (cautious in your life), and a

(always ready to please), and then gave them some useful advice, based on the last two

letters of candle; l (let life go a little), and e (easy on yourself).

“Now that I'm aware of your thoughtful state, I think I'll go for something a bit ambitious.

Let me pretend that right here I have a pack of cards with numbers between 1 and 100

written on them, like nine, N-I-N-E, or seventy-two, S-E-V-E-N-T-Y-T-W-O. Which cards do

you want me to remove from the pack: those that start with vowels, or those that start

with consonants?”

“Consonants.”

“Alright, let me toss those aside. Now we have numbers above and below 50. Let me place

the two halves [Note the term “halves”+ here in the air. Which one do you want me to take

down? Those above [point at imaginary packet of cards in the air], or below [point], 50?

The choice is yours.”

“Above.”

“Great. *Make a tossing motion+ That leaves us with numbers below 50 that start with

vowels. Now let's trim this down one last time. Odd or even?”

“Odd.”

“Perfect. Think of an odd number between 1 and 50 that starts with a vowel.”

“Got one.”

As I'm doing this one on one, I don't have any qualms about going through the entire set of

equivoque for MindJack.

“Here's a book I've been reading, *shove over the book you were reading before your

conversation+ flip to that page number and read the first line to yourself.”

“OK.”

“I'm getting a general picture here, why don't you read it again? [waits] Is it something

about George taking a nap in a hammock?”

“Yes.”

Sometimes I use the forgetting and rebounding technique here as well for a mental image

they come up with based on the line, and then do a mind to drawing duplication as opposed

to a regular drawing duplication. I really like using the mental rebounding because it acts as

both a convincer, sub-effect, and it draws their attention away from where the color/image

came from in the first place.

“Wow, that actually worked! You're a great transmitter! Hmmm... Maybe I can give a shot

at something similar. Do me a favor and think of an emotion. [Here I write down Joy or Sad

on a napkin then crumple it up in a ball.] Make it short, let's say, three letters, yeah,

three letters is good.”

“Alright, I got one.”

“Great. Now think of the opposite of that emotion. Try to project it to my mind... Ah...

ha... [Writes down Joy on another napkin, then crumples it as well] Great, now I'd like you

to try and project a very strong emotion. [As I say “very strong emotion” I normally bring

start to bring my face into one of rage, but just lightly enough that it could pass for

concentration.+ I'm getting something along those lines... *Write down “Anger”, then

crumple up the napkin] Alright... Which emotions were you thinking of?”

“Joy, Sadness, and Hate.”

“Let me see here... The first napkin... 'Joy', the second 'Sad', and the third, 'Anger'. Pretty

close, if I do say so myself. You're quite good at this.”

Another way to do this instead of napkins if it feels to one-ahead-ish for you is to write the

words in a circle on a piece of paper, obviously covered by your hand, then flipped over

until she names the emotions. The circle is so she won't know where you started in case she

thought of Sad first instead of Joy.

“Let me try one more experiment with you, Jessica. I want you to think of a word. *pause+

Got one?”

“Yes.”

“Perfect, now I don't want to influence you, so let's spring off this word. Think of a ****

that begins with the *******. Got one?”

I just cut out some words here to protect Prime.

“Yes.”

“Great, now think of a... let's say a fruit that begins with **** of your ********.”

“OK, I got one.”

“Fantastic. Let me do the same thing... *pretend to think for a while+ Alright, now, let's

mentally shoot our thoughts like darts to each other's minds. I'll try and pick up yours, you

try for mine. Ready? One... Two... Three... *pause+ I think it was... Apple?”

“Wow! I think yours was a banana, is that right?”

“Dead on! It's funny how when two people think along the same lines we can read each

other's minds, isn't it?”

“Yeah, that's kind of weird!”

Then I take it from there. Well, there you have it. A working routine for a group, and a

routine designed for one on one rapport building, involving a personal reading, direct and

clean mind reading, an emotional bond, and a dual mind reading effect that let's you

branch off into how you “think the same way”, etc. Phenomenal for developing rapport

with someone.

With the techniques and methods in these seven: MindJack, ColorPrime, Prime, The

Fair(er), Under Thin Ice, Wonder Weapon, and Psychic Psychopath, you can do just about

anything involving the mind, any time, any place, without gimmicks or anything else.

Conclusion

In this book I feel I've just been working with some normal principles such as equivoque,

cold reading, psychological forcing, and dual reality, in some very unusual and unique ways.

I designed this one with the beginner closer to mind; it's not dependent on skills such as

muscle reading or detecting eye accessing cues, yet it still allows you to blow minds for at

least a good half hour to forty five minutes. I've actually performed entire routines of just

this material, borrowing Prime and part of the Fair from MindCraft: Perceptions.

One slight note with MindJack; the choice may not seem fair to you and the whole thing

may seem a bit silly, but give it a try and you'll understand.

Much of my ideas involve around verbal or mental forcing by hook or by crook; why read

minds when you can force them? Thought of cards, words from books, numbers, emotions,

colors, fruits, gemstones, personalities, what's to stop you? Once you understand the

principles, you can entertain at the drop of a hat with nothing but your mind and mouth.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you once again for purchasing, and hopefully reading this book. I

hope you can apply it to your style of work.

Kind Regards,

Bill Dekel

Bonus

I thought of this while on the holidays, and was able to use it, to great success. It's a nice

dual reality routine that can be done on the spot whenever you need to read minds,

although I normally perform it with an invisible deck as well.

Call up a spectator, and whisper (without a mic) for them to think of a playing card. Now

aloud say

“You are thinking of something aren't you, something with a wide and free choice that I

could not possibly know, correct?”

They must and will respond in the affirmative.

“Splendid. I'd like you to think of a precious stone that begins with the last letter of your

absolutely free thought.”

“Got it.”

You can now run through the same process I detailed in Impromp2 except with a Sapphire.

If you do it right they may be mildly impressed. Now to finish fairly, take out your invisible

deck and say:

“Would you please name a card?”