• Author / Uploaded
• Mathieu

Citation preview

ZOOMentalism The Very Best of

Conversation As Mentalism Re-tooled For ZOOM

Mark Elsdon

ZOOMentalism A Compendium Of CAMs+

"The first ingredient in conversation is truth, the next good sense, the third good humor, and the fourth wit." – Sir William Temple “Three out of four ain’t bad!” – Mark Elsdon 1

Copyright © 2020 by Mark Elsdon. All Rights Reserved. Do not copy it, do not scan it, do not upload it. Thank you. 2

Contents Introduction… p4 Maximum Zoomertainment… p7 The Finger Game… p12 The Ring Thing… p15 Game On… p17 The Key… p19 Dream On… p22 All Change… p27 Bet On L.A.… p30 Seven… p34 Deckless Wonder… p37 21st Century Telepathy… p40 Poetry In Motion… p42 Sixty Two Pence… p45 Serialist… p48 Dream Machine… p51 Calendrical… p54 ONVI… p57 Recommended Reading… p63

3

Introduction Many thanks for buying this eBook. It is a compilation of material taken from the five volumes of Conversation As Mentalism which I published between 2012 and 2016. All of the effects have been chosen for their suitability to be used over Zoom and other video streaming and broadcast services. At the time of writing (April 2020) most of the world is on lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so many mentalists, magicians, speakers and trainers are searching for material that requires no physical interaction with the audience. Audience participation though is still very much to be desired. The material has been re-written to take into account this specific factor. When I refer to the audience, I am of course referring to the viewers. In many of the tricks, the some or all of the viewers also all become participants. The original goal of these effects (referred to as CAMs) was to allow you the opportunity to perform when you literally “have nothing with you”. That is, no peek wallet, no swami, no loops, in fact no props, gimmicks or gadgets at all. So minimalism is the order of the day. Of course, in a Zoom or video show that is not a requirement, as you can have as many props as you like! However, the minimalist nature of the CAMs means that they are almost always very interactive, something which is very desirable for Zoom shows. Having a group of people all sat in one (or several) room(s) watching a performer on screen doing magic with props that cannot be touched or examined is far from ideal; the interaction offered by the CAM type of material is therefore a welcome, perhaps essential, element. Most of the effects require not much more than just words and language. They are effectively imagination games where nothing physically takes place. A couple of them require the use some pocket change or a piece of paper and a pen, but these are always completely justified and a natural part of the performance. Some require just the participants’ hands. All of them have been re-worked to involve the participants as much possible.

4

During performance, remember to work much slower than usual, particularly during the tricks where the whole audience is interacting, as the time delay in the video could cause problems. You don’t want people falling behind and getting confused as this would be a disaster! A word on terms: throughout this book I’m happy to refer to what we do as ‘tricks’. That’s what they are. And for some audiences (and some performers) the word ‘trick’ is absolutely fine. However, depending on your market and how you sell yourself as a performer, the word ‘trick’ can have a negative connotations and so might well be best avoided. Henning Nelms, the author of the book Magic and Showmanship preferred to distinguish between illusion and tricks. Here is an excerpt from his book: “We shall call anything a “trick” which challenges its audience to discover how it worked. We shall reserve “illusion” for those feats which actually convince the audience.” But again, the word ‘illusion’ might well not fit one’s personal style, particularly if you are a mentalist intending that your audience question the nature of psychological reality. As an aside, as magicians we think of ‘illusions’ as that branch of magic performed onstage with large props, assistants and a lively soundtrack, as performed by Copperfield etc. Laymen do not, and often use the words ‘trick’ and ‘illusion’ interchangeably. Obviously we wouldn’t want to use the industry-only term ‘effect’ as that is essentially meaningless to laymen in this context. So what about ‘experiment’? Ideal for some mentalists (thanks, Chan!) no doubt. Magicians not so much. My solution is to use a term which sounds specific, but has no real meaning other than that which I give it. So as you will notice as you read the following material, I often refer to each piece (another option) as an ‘imagination game’. This term is purposely vague yet sounds fun and intriguing. Feel free to use it. Or not! Whatever works for you. And if you think of something brilliant, I’d love to hear it  5

Many thanks to my generous contributors: Gideon Livnah, Stephen Tucker, Andrew Brown and Ran pink. And once again, thank YOU for buying this eBook and helping grease the wheels for this writer. I hope you find success using this new Zoom format of performing magic and mentalism, and I hope that some of this material finds a place in your show. But most of all I hope that you and your family stay safe and well as we all adapt to our new reality. Mark Elsdon Llandudno April 2020

6

Maximum Zoomertainment Performance insights for the online magician Gideon Livnah It’s no secret this article is inspired by Ken Weber’s master piece, “Maximum Entertainment”. I will never be able to obtain the depth the he goes into in his book. This is no substitute for his book. As I said it before and I will say it again: make sure you have a copy of his book. It has always been my bible. As soon as I started to perform Zoom shows it hit me how much our art has to change for the new medium. How many rules and facts are no longer relevant for online shows, and how many more must be adapted. A lot of people look down on Zoom shows saying that it’s not the same as real shows. Of course it’s not the same. This is why we have to adapt to a new performing style. The same way close-up is different from parlour and stage: online shows require a change in mind set. If you try to synthetically recreate the energy of your stage show you will have a hard time and the result will be mostly be awkward and unnatural for you and the viewers. This is a new concept to us, but I found there are other talents and traits we can summon to make online performances smooth and enjoyable for performer and audience. Some of them are the complete opposite of what we learned and practiced our whole careers. Here are some tips I picked up on with my initial one-month experience in online shows:

1 – Master your craft When Ken says that “without technical proficiency, all else fails”, he speaks about the techniques of magic. I will take it is a given you know how to perform magic well. 7

In online shows, practice and master the technical aspects required to operate the platform you use: be it Zoom, Facebook, Instagram, etc.… make sure you know how to use is well. This might sound obvious, but nothing is more awkward than technical hiccups that ruin the rhythm of the program. Make sure you know how to open and close mics and cameras, create a panel of viewers for multi assistant effects, create breakout rooms for preshow work, insert slides and screen shares. These things should be done smoothly as your double lift and pass. Practice and rehearse them accordingly and PAY FOR THE PRO PLANS. If you have a means to get a technical assistant – make sure you rehearse together.

2 – Communicate your humanity Don’t try to over perform to compensate for the lack of feedback. Talk like a regular human being. When people parody magic, they lampoon the fake authoritative tone a magician uses to give instructions because it’s cliché and insincere. In online shows this becomes even more awkward because everyone knows you are at home alone. You can still create a magical experience for people, just tone it down to the proportions that are suitable for the setting. There is no room to read, just be yourself and have real conversations with people, with the addition that magic just spontaneously happens during them. It’s important to live in the moment during the conversation, always make time to acknowledge the comments and reactions of the rest of the viewers on your live stream. People will feel more connected and inclined to keep participating. Don’t make fun of people's bad internet connection. There is nothing more helpless then lack of Wi-Fi. Be empathetic to their situation and move on to a participant that has a better connection. For some reason people take this personally. Ken talks about eye contact. This is impossible due to the fact that there are no eyes to contact, and looking directly into the camera is not always practical. Plus, if you stare constantly at the camera it will feel really 8

weird and violating for the viewers. In acting lessons, I was taught to look a bit behind or next to the camera, that makes for an intimate vibe but not creepy. Here is a neat way to do this with a webcam on top of your screen: make sure that on your computer screen the window showing yourself performing is quite small, and placed at the top of the screen, directly under were the camera is. This way you can monitor the stream and have subtle “eye” contact with the camera. Instagram live does this automatically because your square is always on top near the camera.

3 – Capture the excitement This is not the time to play your tricks down. It’s important to speak naturally like a human. But if a trick succeeds when the spectator is hundreds of miles away from you – it's completely legitimate response for you to express the emotions you want your viewers to experience. When I perform the nail writer on Zoom, I react before I show I got the right number, because my inner text is that I am shocked that this actually worked over the internet. In short, don’t rely on the audience’s reactions because they are nonexistent. Supply your own reactions that will enhance the effect. Try to do this without over acting; keep it authentic in the eyes of the viewers.

4 – Control every moment and 5 – Eliminate weak spots In a regular show people who get bored escape into their cell phones. When someone gets bored in your online show – they silently leave. Make sure to monitor how many viewers you have and keep having and use that as a reference to where your weak spots are. Try to analyse what happened or didn’t happen at that time that made people leave. The technical aspects of operating an online show may slow you down. Like Pillar #1, make sure you master using your digital platform. Getting people on and off air, sharing screens and transitioning into effects should all be done as smoothly as possible. Dealing with technical issues is dead time. It is also inevitable, but do your best to keep it to a 9

minimum. Do not waste time apologizing and explaining technical hiccups or if a trick doesn’t work. They don’t care. Get on with the program.

6 – Build to a climax Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter, especially on the internet. My real-life show runs for 60-75 minutes. My online shows play best at 25-35 minutes. I have heard of performs who do more than that, but that’s me. You don’t want to overstay your welcome. But I do want to over deliver the hell out of those 30 minutes with very strong material. The viewers don’t care about technical limitations. They want strong magic tricks, routined in sequence to a grand finale. The old dogma is start strong and end strong, and put something in the middle. Bad for online. You need every trick to be great and for that we need to dig into material for online shows. Like any show variety is king. A lot of the ‘hands off’ type effect that are practical for long distance performance are predictions. But if you have just prediction type effects this could become very monotonous. If you do any manipulation type routines, the audience cannot inspect or see them in real life, this diminishes their value and means they must be exceptionally interesting to engage your audience, be honest with yourself before you put them in your online show. A lot of manipulation routines do not engage the audience actively, and the audience might as well be watching pre-recorded magic trick on YouTube. You want to use as few of these type of effects as possible. Watching amazing coin productions is entertaining in real life because the viewer being physically present increases the impossibility. This is non-existent in the medium of video. When choosing material try to think what effects add the value that what you are doing is live. If you choose an effect that theoretically can be prerecorded, it probably is best not to put it in your online show even if it is visually stunning. If you must do these types of routines, think how you can change them to incorporate an element that proves that what is happing is real time, one time, especially just for this crowd. 10

If you perform an effect with a long counting, calculating procedure of just have to move around a lot in order to force a result - make sure that you involve the entire audience and not just the one spectator or the rest will be bored to death. Don’t try to force old material from your regular show – pick material that the medium does not harm – but amplifies. As for the finish, well it’s on you to find that piece that knocks them out. Ken says you must find a piece that is completely different than the rest of your show. I close my online shows with a variation on Haim Goldenberg CamFabulation that I set up in the beginning of the show. This gives the ending meaning because of the anticipation from the set up. Please refer to “Maximum Entertainment” for more depth on closing shows because it is very relevant for any kind of performance including online.

ME: Many thanks to Gideon for this excellent essay which I think is essential reading for anyone who does or wants to do shows using Zoom. A slightly different version of this essay and a lot of other great advice can be found in Gideon’s eBook OK Zoomer, which you can get here: https://www.gidilivneh.com/zoombooklet

11

The Finger Game Effect: The performer says that he recently read a book called The Finger Ratio by John Manning. Manning’s claims are based on the scientific research into the ratio between the lengths of specific fingers. These ratios are calculated based on increments of 5:3:1. Whilst there is still a lot more work to be done on the subject, it seems that Digit Ratios will eventually find a place in modern science in a way that things like Palmistry have singularly failed to do. He continues that he would like to demonstrate another property of the hands, but one for which there is no known scientific basis. The participants (viewers) now hold up one hand and make some random choices on their fingers, making genuinely random moves between their fingers until all but one are eliminated. The performer opens his hand and shows that on it are the words ‘THIS ONE’ and an arrow pointing to a finger… the exact same finger that every single participant has chosen!

F.Y.I. The delightful little finger-forcing trick has been in my repertoire for almost as long as I’ve been interested in magic. It was taught to me as a kid by the first magician I ever knew, John Leckie, who was one of the founders of the magic club where I grew up. Whilst it is a clever force, its CAM potential didn’t occur to me until I read two books: Mitox (Self-published, 2007) by Phill Smith and The Finger Ratio (Faber and Faber, 2009) by John Manning. Mitox is the first in a trilogy of excellent books on contemporary mentalism by Phill, and includes an effect he calls ‘Equifinque’, which is where I got the idea for writing the prediction on my hand. Since I am a sucker for tricks where I 12

write on my hand, the adoption of Phill’s clever idea makes this CAM a distant cousin of ‘One For The Road’ from CAM volume 1. I highly recommend all three of Phill’s books by the way. Now all I needed was a presentational hook. Enter The Finger Ratio book. I’ll admit it; I didn’t get even a quarter of the way through. Whilst its initial premise is sound, and scientifically-based, Mr Manning’s extrapolation of the idea was pseudo-science nonsense of the highest order and I had to bail. However, the subject of the Digital Ratio does offer a lovely hook for this effect. One final thing, the numbers 5, 3, and 1, which I reference when I talk about the book and introduce the CAM have nothing whatsoever to do with finger ratios, I mention them solely to make the force seem to make a little more sense. This trick is a perfect opener, as it gets the whole audience involved and lets them know that what you do will be fun, interactive and fooling.

Method and Performance: There is some brief preparation: write the words ‘THIS ONE’ on the palm of your left hand and draw an arrow from them pointing to your ring finger. This can be done off-screen, before the start of the show. Just make sure not to accidentally flash it your hand during your introduction. Once you’ve introduced the premise of the effect, hold out your right hand, as you ask all the participants to hold out their left. With your left forefinger, point to your right little finger (pinkie for U.S. readers) and tell the participants that this will be their starting point. Since the first ratio in finger science is 5 (you prevaricate pleasantly) they will make 5 moves. A move is simply a jump from the finger they are on to the finger or thumb next to it. Tell them that for the purposes of finger ratios, the thumb is counted as a finger. Demonstrate a jump by moving your left forefinger from your right little finger to your right ring finger and counting ‘One’. Continue by moving it again to your right middle finger and counting 13

‘Two’. Explain that they can jump in either direction, forwards or backwards. Once they understand, have them start again on the right little finger. Turn away from the screen so that it’s obvious that you cannot see what they are doing and ask them to make their 5 moves. Tell them that although they made their own moves and could have ended up on any finger, you are sure that they didn’t end up on their thumb or little finger. They will confirm that you are correct. Ask them to close those fingers into their palm (demonstrate with your own right hand by lifting it above your shoulder and closing the thumb and little finger into the palm) and do the next moves on just their three middle fingers. Tell them that the next number in the ratio is 3, so they should make 3 jumps from the finger they are currently on. The reality is, wherever they start, they will end up on the middle finger. Comment that you are pretty sure they aren’t on their forefinger, so to close that one into their palm. Again, you demonstrate with your right hand. They will confirm you are correct and close that finger. Tell them that the final number is 1, so they are to make 1 final jump. This will put them on the ring ringer. Ask them to close the middle finger, as you are sure they are not on it. Tell them that you predicted which finger they would all finish on and as you turn back towards them hold out your left hand, palm up, but with all the fingers except the ring finger tightly closed, which will hide the writing. Since they will assume that you just held that finger up right now, they will think it is a joke. Slowly open your fingers so that they can see the prediction, letting them know that pseudo-science really is no laughing matter.

14

The Ring Thing Effect: The performer explains that he has witnessed many times that the human mind becomes far more predictable when emotion or sentiment is involved. He proposes a little imagination game to demonstrate what he means. He says that the participants will make three separate choices: one guided by random chance, one guided by a memory only the participant could know and one guided by fact. Each participant removes a finger ring and hides it in either hand behind his back and the performer turns away. The participant then swaps hands multiple times in ways the performer could neither know nor guess. Each participant brings both hands out in front of himself and the performer immediately identifies which hand the ring is in – all the participants have the ring in their left hand!

F.Y.I. This could of course be done with a coin or any other object, although as you will see, the ring makes more sense in this particular context. Since not everyone wears a ring, you should let the audience/attendees know before the show that everyone should have a ring with them. Rather than revealing where the ring is you could easily predict it, by having your own ring in the same hand. It also makes a great lead in to my Tequila Hustler effect if you want to go down that route.

Method and Performance: After introducing the premise, ask the participants to remove a ring and hide it in either hand behind their back. You now direct them to think of any number they like, no limits, and swap hands that number of times. 15

Next they think of the person who bought the ring and use their name (if they bought it themselves they use their own name), again swapping hands, spelling the name to themselves and making one swap per letter. E.g. if the ring is in right hand and they spell the name ‘Jenny’ then they swap it to the left hand (J), to the right hand (E), to the left hand (N), to the right hand (N) and finally to the left hand (Y). Make it clear that there is no way that you could possibly know where they started, what the name is or where they ended up. Finally instruct them to make one final set of moves: if the ring is in their right hand they mentally spell the word ‘right’ and makes one swap per letter, and if the ring is in their left hand they do likewise, spelling the word ‘left’ and making one swap per letter. Because of all the randomness at the beginning with a free choice of number, then an unknown name, this all seems very fair to the participants. That is of course nonsense; because of the final spell of ‘right’ or ‘left’ the ring must end up in their left hands. Everything that goes before is simply camouflage. Reveal the ring’s location however you choose. This is another good opener as it gets everyone involved straight away. And it’s open to plenty of other presentations than choice being an illusion: coincidence, synchronicity, mass hypnosis, etc. And finally, if someone doesn’t quite follow the instructions and messes up, just congratulate them on being an “independent thinker” and tell them that they “will be perfect to participate in the next imagination game” and do something that uses just one participant.

16

Game On Effect: The performer chooses one participant and inquires whether or not he has ever been hypnotised. Whatever the answer, the performer states that whilst he will NOT use any hypnosis, he has already started using ‘suggestion techniques’ that render the participant 100% incapable of winning the imaginary dice game that they are about to play. Sure enough, despite allowing the participant to make all the choices, the performer wins.

F.Y.I. You’ll be pleased to read that there are no actual suggestion techniques in this CAM and everything is sure-fire. This is an example of how to take a bar bet and turn it into something a lot more interesting. Essentially, you will play a short game with an imaginary die (although I usually use the incorrect word ‘dice’ when performing, to ensure that the emphasis is on the effect and not the etymology). This game is a con and one that can only be won if you know the secret, which you do and the participant doesn’t. The bet is from the booklet I’ll Bet You Can’t (1946) by Lewis Kohrs.

Method: The game takes this format: you and the participant each throw an imaginary die, calling out any number you choose between 1 and 6. These scores are added cumulatively and the first person to reach 50 wins. You always win. 17

E.g. the participant throws a 6, then you throw a 2 which makes the running total 8. He then throws a 4, making 12 and you then throw a 3 making 15. This continues until someone hits 50. And as I said – it’s always you. The secret is simple. You must capture the following key numbers: 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43. After you reach either of your first two key numbers (8 or 15) then you simply pick a number that when added to the participant’s previous throw adds up to 7 (if he throws 1, you throw 6, if he throws 2, you throw 5 etc.) You can allow him to go first or second as he chooses. Since he knows nothing about the key numbers, most of the time you will be able to capture 8 straight away, however, if the participant chooses to go first and accidentally captures 8, simply throw low and ensure that you get to 15 first. Remember, he is completely unaware of the key numbers. Or if this scenario worries you (it shouldn’t!) simply roll first yourself and roll a 1 and take it from there. During the performance part of this CAM, really play up the premise that whatever number the participant chooses to throw is exactly what you wanted, since you have somehow ‘programmed’ him using suggestion techniques. Depending on his reaction, play the game again. His exasperation will likely increase and any onlookers present will find this hugely amusing. You can, of course, easily repeat it with the same participant if they are the competitive type. Take care to make sure that the running count is done verbally and not written down, as you don’t want anyone to spot the pattern. And finally, if the audience all know each other, get them to choose the participant by deciding which one of the group is the most (or least!) persuadable.

18

The Key Effect: The performer explains that the human mind is far more predictable than people realise and that the illusion of choice is simply that – an illusion. The performer proposes a little imagination game to prove his point. Six participants are asked to imagine that one of their hands is a lock and each draws a different number on that hand. A seventh participant holds a key. Whilst the performer is turned away from the screen, this seventh participant drops the key on any hand and following some directions from the performer the hands are eliminated according to how the participant freely moves the key. This continues until the key is resting on a final numbered hand. The performer turns around and opens his hand – written on it is the exact same number.

F.Y.I. As fans of the CAM series know, I am a big fan of writing on my hands (and encouraging others to do so too!) There is something very organic about using your hand as a prediction and it feels very fixed, in a way writing something on a piece of paper just doesn’t. The key (pardon the pun) to the success of effects like these is to emphasise the complete freedom of the participant’s original choice of where to place the key and the fact that there is zero way that you the performer can see what is happening as the participant moves it. You need to make it crystal clear that you cannot see the action by making it obvious that you honestly cannot see the screen or monitor. Turn your back if necessary.

19

Method and Performance: Write the number ‘5’ on your left palm, making sure that no one sees what you write. Introduce the premise and invite seven people to participate in a group experiment to show what you mean. Ask one participant to find a key, removing it from a bunch if necessary. Have the other six participants stand in a line and hold out their left hands to represent a lock and ask each of them to take a pen and number their hands, one to six, in order. As they do so you explain that obviously the key can only fit one lock, not all six, so you will allow chance to dictate which lock it should be. Turn your back and stress that you cannot see the screen or monitor so cannot see anything that happens, and that it is the participant who is controlling all the action. (This is the misinformation that sells the effect, as in fact you are controlling the only important part of the action!) Ask the participant to drop the key onto any hand (“Into any lock…”) When they have done so, ask them to look at the number on that hand and make that number of moves, explaining that a ‘move’ consists of moving the key to an adjacent hand. If the key starts on hand number one, they make one move. If it starts on hand number five, they make five moves and so on. If they reach either end of the line during the count, then the next move must be back in the opposite direction. When they have done this, explain that if you are correct in your assertion that choice is just an illusion, then the key will not be in lock number one, so ask that person to drop his hand, he is out of the game. Ask the participant to make one move. Tell person six he cannot have the key, and to drop his hand. Ask the participant to make four more moves. Tell person two that he is out. Have the participant make three moves. Inform person three that there is zero chance he has the key – he is out. Finally, three more moves and then you tell person four that he was so close, but there was never really a chance that he would end up with the key. 20

To conclude, address person five as you turn back around telling them that there was no chance of it being anyone but them and open your own left hand to show your prediction is correct. Obviously the performance should build, as the participants become more and more impressed that you are able to eliminate people who do not (cannot) have the key, despite the fact that the participant chose where to begin and is controlling how the key moves and you cannot see anything of what is happening. The pace should pick up as you proceed; only slowing down at the end before you reveal the prediction. Many times the participants will forget that you even have something written on your hand. As you are giving your instructions, you have two options regarding the choice of the number of moves you are requesting the participant to make. Either you can make them seem random, as if you are just making them up and they don’t matter, or you can ask the participant a random question each time (“Do you prefer sun or snow?” “Dog person or cat person?” etc.) And then give your instruction apparently based on their response. Whichever you choose is up to you, depending on your performance style and persona. Credits and inspiration: Bob Hummer, Mel Stover, Stewart James.

21

Dream On Effect: After discussing the power of dreams and the meanings of certain dreams, the performer confesses that like many people he can rarely remember his dreams. However he states that the one dream he does remember is because of the fact that he keeps having exactly the same dream over and over again: one in which he wins the Lottery. As confirmation of the yet-to-happen events in this dream, he writes down three pieces of information – the date and the year of his future ‘win’ and the final Lottery number that gives him the six perfect numbers required for the Jackpot. A participant now uses his intuition to discern the date, the year and the final lottery number that was required to make your ticket a winner. Unbelievably, he is 100% correct with all three!

F.Y.I. All that is required to perform Dream On are some slips of paper or business cards and a pen. No sleights, no gimmicks, no dual-reality. As you may have guessed (from the use of the slips of paper) this relies on the venerable one-ahead principle. However, I have taken the direct opposite approach to its normal use, an improvement which has far wider applications than just this effect. Usually with one-ahead, the participant makes three choices and each time the performer makes a written prediction as to what he thinks the participant will choose. So in effect, the performer is trying to deduce/guess what the participant is thinking. I’ve reversed this: in Dream On the effect is that the spectator is the one trying to deduce/guess what the performer is thinking. The shift of focus both 22

increases the impact of the effect and further obfuscates the nature of the method. All the heat is now on the participant’s choices, not the performer’s. As usually used, the one-ahead methodology leaves the participant and audience thinking, “Why do I have to say my choice out loud straight after the magician has written it down? Why doesn’t he just show me?” With this approach, you are writing down information that you already know (after all, it was your dream!) and which the participant does not. It makes complete sense for him to make his guess after you’ve written down each ‘fact’. Further, this tactic opens up a multitude of other presentational uses which will be discussed in detail in a future publication, although I’m sure you will no doubt think of some possible applications immediately. This specific presentation seeks to solve the other huge problem with one-ahead - the force of the final object. You know how it usually goes: Question 1, name any person who ever lived. Question 2, name any place in the world. Question 3, pick any playing card! The final choice is always so narrow in scope compared to the previous two that it jarringly points directly to the method. In this instance he is picking from an already limited field (the lottery numbers) but you make it even easier for him by telling him that the final number you needed was a number between one and twenty. And it makes sense that you’d want to help him with the last choice, as you obviously know how well he has done with the first two attempts. One final thing: although you could use three participants to guess/intuit one piece of information each, thereby involving more people, in this instance it would be counter-productive, as the cumulative effect is much, much stronger with the continuity of just one person trying to read your mind.

23

Method and Performance: You will need 3 slips of paper, double-blank business cards (don’t use the back of your actual business cards as somewhere to write, as this treats them as just bits of paper, which cheapens them immeasurably) beermats or whatever. All three must look the same, since the order in which they are written on will be lost as they are folded in half and dropped one at a time into an empty glass or cup. You will also need another couple of A4sized sheets of paper which are big enough to tear into ten pieces each for the force at the end. Introduce the premise of the effect by claiming that you had a very vivid dream in which you won the Lottery and that you will use the details to text how intuitive one participant is. Explain that you remember all the details about exactly when you will win and with which exact numbers. Tear the sheets of paper into ten pieces each and write the digits 0 through 9 on the first ten pieces and then again on the second ten, so that you end up with two ‘0’s, two ‘1’s, two ‘2’s etc. Clearly let everyone see what you are doing. The number 18 will be your force number, so give the numbered pieces of paper “a bit of a mix” (definitely not “a shuffle”, please!) and make sure that you end up with a ‘1’ and an ‘8’ on the top of the stack. Tell the participant that you are going to write down the exact information from your dream and that he will get the chance to use his intuition to see if he can discern what it was you dreamt. Next you pick up the first slip of paper and write down the name of your force number, 18. Fold the slip in half and drop it into the empty cup. Tell the participant that you have written the year in which you won the Lottery in your dream. Ask him to think carefully for a moment and then tell you which year he thinks. Whatever he says, reply enigmatically, “Really? That’s the year you think? Interesting…” If he says a year very close to now, next year for example, continue by saying “So… just one more year ‘til I hit the big time!” or something similar. Likewise, if he says a year that is a long way off, you comment, “That means of course that I’ll 24

be 82 years old when I win!” Whatever he says, make a bit of a joke out of it. Now, pick up the second slip of paper and write down the year that he said. Fold that in half, drop it into the cup say that you’ve written the exact date down. Then ask the participant which date in the year he thinks you will win on. Whichever date he says, immediately say “No! Not even close! Think again, but please concentrate this time…” Of course, this is just bluff, since any date he says will work, but your rebuttal further serves to hide the method. When he gives his second response, simply reply “Oh… OK. Now, you’re letting your intuition guide you.” Pick up the final slip of paper and write on it the date he just gave you. Again, fold it and drop it into the cup. Say that you’ve written down the name of the final number that always completed your dream Jackpot win. Explain that for this final choice, you will allow chance to play a part, as in the real (dream!) game. And that as in the lottery the number will be decided totally by chance. Pick up the stack of papers and start to slowly deal from the top into a pile on the table. As you are dealing the first five or six pieces tell the participant that he is to choose a random place to stop, and from the random place he stops you at, you will use that random pile of pieces to generate a random lottery number. Wherever he stops you, discard the pieces in your hand out of sight (i.e. off screen), pick up the dealt pile and then cleanly deal that into two piles, explaining that the resulting top digit of each pile will be used to form a random two-digit lottery number. Leave those top digits face-down for now. Turn your attention back to the cup and tip all the slips of paper out onto the table. Find the one with the year on it. Ask the participant to repeat what year he said and then read and show the paper to confirm that the participant was correct. Do the same with the date – again proving that the participant’s intuition was correct. Finally, read and show the last slip, identifying 18 as the sixth and final number that won you the Jackpot. Slowly turn over the top paper on each of the two dealt piles to show a ‘1’ and an ‘8’ - 18. Everything in play can be examined should you so choose. 25

A couple of things need to be mentioned. Firstly, you may wonder, as many have with other effects using the one-ahead principle, whether it might strengthen the effect to work things so that the participant doesn’t get the date exactly right, maybe out by one or two days. In the past I did try that and found that in this instance it didn’t seem to make any difference. Instead I eventually opted for the ruse of telling them “No! Not even close! Think again, but concentrate this time…” when they make their initial date guess. This offers plenty disconnect I think. Secondly, pay attention to your actions when are writing on the slips of paper. In the first instance you are meant to be writing down a four-digit number. So, writing just the two digits for ‘18’ must be extended by miming the writing of two more numbers. Similarly with the second thing you write. You are only writing a four-digit number (the year) but are supposed to be writing a date, so make it look a little longer, maybe miming the writing of a couple of extra characters. Finally, yes of course you could use TOXIC or various other methods to force the lottery number. Personally, I quite like the organic feel of the numbers being written on torn pieces of paper. For some shows such as corporate or business clients you might want a different approach, so a pack of number cards would be a good idea. I highly recommend the Cipher Deck: https://www.magicworld.co.uk/CIPHER-DECK-James-Anthony-MarkElsdon-magicworld.html

26

All Change Effect: An audience member is asked if they know how much change they have in their pocket. They reply “No”. The performer claims that he is the world champion at identifying amounts of money from sound alone! He can even do it over video!! Preposterous though this claim sounds, he says he will prove it. The participant removes some coins from their pocket and shakes them in his closed fist. The performer does the same. He then makes a multiple prediction about the amounts of money involved. When the participant and performer both count their coins, the performer’s prediction proves to be correct to the exact penny!

F.Y.I. Al Koran’s brilliant ‘Jackpot Coins’ trick took an old stunt which usually used matches or cards and quite literally turned it into ‘the trick that fooled Einstein’. But it took the clever and under-appreciated Will Dexter to turn this effect into something suitable for modern consumption. You’ll remember the old version (if you haven’t already) as soon as I mention the prediction format, which goes along the lines of: I have as many coins as you, five more and enough to make my total up to £3.65. Dexter’s handling can be found in A Little Magic Amongst Friends (The Supreme Magic Co. Ltd., 1981) and perceptively focuses the prediction on the amounts of money rather than the number of coins used.

Method: You will need £4.69 in coins (or use US$ or Euros, depending on where you live) comprising a reasonably large amount of change. You could do it in 7 coins (2x£2, 1x50p, 1x10p, 1x5p and 2x2p), but don’t. Instead, make 27

sure that the total of £4.69 is comprised of plenty 1p pieces, 2p pieces and 5p pieces as well as some 10, 20 and 50p coins, plus maybe just a single £1 coin. You want around 30 coins in total. This both further hides the method when you count up later and makes what you are claiming to do much more impressive as an effect. At some point in the conversation you introduce your supposed skill of being able to identify the value of money purely from listening to the sounds the coins make clinking against one another. This is, of course, said with tongue firmly in cheek. Nevertheless, you will go on to prove the point in a seriously amazing way! Ask the participant to reach into their pocket and remove ‘some’ pocket change but without looking at how much they have. You say that you will do the same and remove just a bit of change (it must seem like you don’t know how much). In fact, you reach into your pocket and remove all the change. As soon as you both have a fistful of change, you make the following statement (which is Dexter’s fantastic opening gambit): “Nobody could possibly know for certain how much each of us holds. The best anyone could hope to do would be to make a guess and hope that he was somewhere near correct. I am not going to make such a guess… but I am going to say that I am sure I know how much money I have, and more important, how much money you have!” You then make your prediction: “I have exactly the same amount of money as you do, 46 pence extra and enough left over so that when it’s added to your money it will total £4.23”. I have reworded this slightly from the usual prediction to make it clearer. The £4.23 total you mention is simply the whole amount of £4.69 minus the “46 pence extra” that you mention. By the way, the great idea of adding the money you have left over to the participant’s total and not your own is Jon Racherbaumer’s. Say your prediction slowly and clearly several times, so that you are certain they have it. 28

All that remains to do is count the money and prove that you are correct. Allow the participant to count their amount first and then in a pile in front of you, match it exactly. Then in a separate pile count out the 46 pence and then finally in a third pile, right next to the participants coins, continue counting on from his original amount to prove the grand total of £4.23. The instruction for the participant to just remove ‘some’ pocket change is very important, especially here in the UK where we have a £2 coin. In you find yourself regularly working for people who carry and therefore remove from their pocket more money than the £4.69 you are holding then there are two alternatives: either carry more money as the prediction (add 2x£2 to make the total up to £8.69, and re-word the prediction accordingly) or specifically instruct the participant to “remove five or six different coins” from their pocket. My preference would be for the latter, as the former will ultimately involve a lot more counting. It’s important with this effect not to have any kind of printed prediction; in order for it to be believable it really must seem that whatever you are doing to ascertain how much money they have, that you are doing it in the moment.

29

Bet On L.A. Effect: After talking about one of his favourite films, The Sting, and the kind of cons and proposition bets featured in the film, the performer proposes a simple bet – but one that simply deals with words, rather than some kind of trick or con. Here is the bet. The performer shows a piece of card printed like this:

THE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SURGEON WAS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO OPERATE BECAUSE HE HAD _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The participants are told that exactly the same seven letters, in exactly the same order fit in each of the three empty spaces. There is no tricky language con – it really is the same letters in the same order in each space. If anyone is able to solve the puzzle, his or her prize is that he will have discovered an unusual new ability. Since you are a nice guy, there will be no forfeit if they fail. (By the way, please have a go at solving this puzzle before reading ahead and finding out the solution. It is a tricky, but genuine, word puzzle and it will feel much more satisfying if you work out the answer for yourself.) After the participants give up (and unless they already know this puzzle, they will!) the performer claims that the participants are struggling because they are focusing their cognitive minds too narrowly on the data they don’t have and that if one participant is willing to try plugging into his subconscious the answer may well present itself. A participant is 30

selected and although he seems sceptical, he agrees to play along and see what happens. The performer takes another piece of card and tears it into eight pieces, writes a single letter on seven of the pieces and bins the final one. He then mixes up these seven pieces of card and they are dealt onto the table, with the participant randomly choosing when to switching the order of several pieces as they are dealt. The performer turns over the pieces of paper that have been mixed and randomly dealt and reveals the following letters: N, O, T, A, B, L and E. The participant’s intuition has somehow revealed the answer: the NOTABLE surgeon was NOT ABLE to operate because he had NO TABLE! The exact same seven letters in exactly the same order each time.

F.Y.I. I do hope you had a go at solving this. It is quite a difficult puzzle, so well done if you solved it. I did my best and gave you a clue in the title of the trick! Here is how the completed solution looks after you fill it in on the piece of paper the participant sees: THE NOTABLE SURGEON WAS NOT ABLE TO OPERATE BECAUSE HE HAD NO TABLE. I’ve always enjoyed bar bets and puzzles but too often when you show someone the solution the response is, “Oh. Right. Very clever.” Implying that it’s not actually very clever at all, but REALLY rather annoying! So I wanted to find a way to turn this, one of my favourite word puzzles, into something more interesting and entertaining.

31

Method and Performance: The first part is easy enough – you simply print the puzzle on a piece of card (capital letters make it far more legible) as shown on the preceding page. At first they might think that you are tricking them with the conditions somehow (as is usually the case with this kind of bet) but reassure them that you are being honest, that it really is the same seven letters in the same order. If you’re feeling cruel, you can supply them with a couple of additional clues if you like: that all seven letters are different and that whilst it IS the same seven letters in the same order, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the same word in each of the three spaces. This will likely just confuse them even more. Once they give up, explain that using their intuition might help. Use another piece of card and tear it into eight; in half, in half again and then one final time. Bin one of the pieces and then on the other seven pieces write one each of the letters N, O, T, A, B, L and E, in that order from the top down. It’s actually easiest to write them in reverse order, placing each one writing-side down into a pile as you go. Use a thick black marker so that the letters are visible (you might want to make sure that the card is 300gsm so that the ink doesn’t bleed through to the other side). Make sure the participant doesn’t see what you write on the card – no clues! This second piece of paper should also be A4 so that the pieces (and letters) are clearly visible on camera. Appear to mix these up (please, don’t use the word “Shuffle”) but really just give them a Charlier (false Haymow) shuffle or just a series of sloppylooking running cuts. At the conclusion cut the ‘E’ paper back to the bottom. You will now do Paul Curry’s Switchless Switch as the participant directs you: you deal the pieces of paper one at a time into a pile on the table, but at any time he likes the participant can tell you to switch the positions of the next two pieces about to be dealt and place them onto the table as a pair. Thanks to Curry’s ingenuity, nothing has really happened, no matter how many times the participant tells you to switch. Once you have 32

finished dealing, the sequence isn’t affected, although of course the letters are now in reverse order. Pick them up, casually flashing the bottom letter (the ‘N’) and deal through once more, again allowing the participant to switch where he likes. This sets them back in the correct order ready for the reveal. Turn the letters up one at a time, placing them into a row, completing the word ‘NOTABLE’. Now copy the letters onto the piece of card containing the puzzle, saying the solution out loud as you do so, “The notable surgeon was not able to operate because he had no table.” The participant will no doubt be amused at the puzzle and amazed by his capability of randomly finding the correct letter order, so congratulate him on his new-found ability to use his subconscious mind for problem solving. And the whole group will have a cool new puzzle that they will be keen to try out whenever they get chance.

33

Seven Effect: The performer talks about the film ‘Seven’ starring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman. After mentioning some of the disturbing images in the film the performer asks a participant to think of one of the seven sins and to mentally picture the scene from the film which matches that particular sin. Claiming that the image he is ‘receiving’ is too confusing, the performer asks that instead the participant imagine the sin written down on a scrap of paper, much the same as most of the sins in the film are written in either blood or dust. Letter by letter the sin is revealed.

F.Y.I. A simple branching anagram effect, this time using a film as the source material. This routine is based on an earlier one of mine called Sinner! Once I ditched the printed card I used in that effect the impact upon the participant became far stronger. Shortly afterwards I began using the ‘Seven’ presentation and surprisingly I got a better reaction than when the participant was imagining himself sinning. I think the reason is that in fact few participants were actually imagining themselves committing a sin but were instead merely choosing one of the words from the list. This film-based presentation plugs into the imagery of quite a provocative film and provides an emotional hook that was otherwise missing.

Method: Basically, a branching anagram and some simple pumping. 34

Here is a list of the seven deadly sins as categorised by Pope Gregory the Great: GLUTTONY LUST SLOTH ENVY PRIDE ANGER GREED

This is not the order in which they appear in the film, but the order in which the anagram progresses. It is important to mention each of them as you discuss the film, as many people will not remember all seven. In fact if you intend to actually perform this effect it would probably be worth your while watching the film ‘Seven’ again to re-acquaint yourself with how each of the sins is dealt with. If you are going to be seeing the film for the first time, enjoy the visceral thrills, and don’t bother with any popcorn.

Here, then, is the anagram: E s - gluttony h - lust - sloth R - envy G - pride D - anger - greed 35

Standard procedure is followed in that you call out each capital letter until you hear a ‘No’ answer and then proceed on to the lowercase letters. If the letter (capital or lowercase) has a word next to it, then when you hear a ‘No’ answer then THAT is the word. If you don’t receive any ‘No’ answers then the word is ‘greed’. Note that I have used ‘Greed’ instead of ‘Avarice’ since it makes the pumping procedure easier, plus it’s a more commonly used word in this day and age. The word is thus revealed ‘one letter at a time’. In my opinion the only justification for revealing a word one letter at a time is if you are trying to perceive a written or printed word – otherwise you would just announce the whole word, which, of course, the method will not let you do. Read the previous sentence again. They must be imagining the word written down, or revealing the word letter by letter is nonsense. In this particular effect, it is natural for them to imagine the words written, since most of the sins are seen written in either blood or dust in the film itself. This ‘must be written down’ rule holds true for every effect that relies on anagrams or pumping as the method, unless (and this is the sole caveat) you are using additional/alternative revelation techniques from Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties Vol. 1 (The Brain Game, p61-70). The idea of using an anagram (progressive, branching, interlocking or otherwise) is the brainchild of Stanley Collins, first published in 1920 (see also Stanley Collins: Conjuror, Collector, and Iconoclast by Edwin A. Dawes, p196). Finally, thanks to Peter Lipp for his fantastic anagram generating software which I used to devise this anagram.

36

Deckless Wonder By Stephen Tucker Effect: After talking about the power of the imagination, the performer offers to show a participant a card trick. However the performer doesn’t use any actual playing cards or, in fact, anything at all, not even a scrap of paper. Here’s what happens: the participant thinks of any playing card in the deck. He writes nothing down and tells no one. The performer removes ‘nothing’ from an imaginary card case and explains that it is an invisible deck of cards. He handles the ‘nothing’ as if it really is a deck of cards and eventually reveals the actual card thought of!

F.Y.I. This brilliant CAM is from the fertile brain of my good friend Stephen Tucker. In Stephen’s handling a real deck was involved too, but I have removed the need for that, making this an example of the CAM ethos at its purest – no props whatsoever, just conversation. As well as the fact that this is a great piece of mentalism, Tucker gets my award for best trick title of the year with this one.

Method and Performance: You will need to memorise this simple prompt list: Line 1: A - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - J - K Line 2: 2 - 3 - 6 - 7 - 10 - J Line 3: 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - Q - K Line 4: 8 - 9 - 10 - J - Q – K 37

In the original write-up of this trick I urged the reader to resist the urge to make a crib on their phone or anywhere else and just spend 10 minutes and brute-force remember it. I used the Tamariz technique of turning it into a song when I learnt it. For use on Zoom though, it’s a simple matter to have a crib in your eye-line but not visible to the audience. So no need to skip this killer trick because of memory issues! Ask someone to think of any card in the deck. Remove from your pocket an imaginary deck of cards and mime shaking a deck of invisible cards out of its box. Mime shuffling then looking through and removing one card. Place the rest of the invisible cards on top of the imaginary card case and explain that you are holding one card, and you will use it to reveal the very card that they are thinking of. Say, “Imagine that this card is the same suit as the card you are thinking of. In other words, if your card is a spade, this card is a spade, but if you thought of a diamond, this card is a diamond. Do you understand?” Make sure they do before you continue. You now pass a hand back and forth over the invisible card as you say, “If I do this – the card changes into the ace, then the three, the five, the seven, the nine, the jack, and finally into the king. Was one of those the card you are thinking of?” If they say “yes,” you remember the number 1. If they say “no,” remember the number 0. If they say something like, “Slow down! I wasn’t paying attention. Do it again!” Simply repeat the above actions and patter, and remember the required number 1 or 0. What you have done here is to call out the first line on the prompt, i.e. A 3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - J - K. You now do the same with the other three lines from the prompt, but when you call out the second line, you remember the number 2 if they say “yes” or 0 if they say “no.” With the third line remember the number 4 if they say “yes” or 0 if they say “no,” and with the final line remember the number 8 if they say “yes” or 0 if they say “no.”

38

This is simply a binary 1, 2, 4, 8, etc. code. All you need do, as you go along, is add up the numbers generated. For example: If their replies are yes, no, yes, no – you would be adding the numbers 1 + 0 + 4 + 0 and would have the total of 5. You would, with this example, now know that they are thinking of one of the fives. A total of 11, 12, or 13 would represent a jack, queen or a king. Now for the suit. Place the invisible card on top of the invisible deck and mime picking up all the cards. Don’t forget that you already know the value of the card being thought of. Deal the cards into a face-up pile on the table, calling out their names as you do. This time you don’t need to use the prompt. Simply call out the names of any half a dozen or so cards (but not a five), then the five of clubs, any half a dozen or so cards (but not a five) then stop. Ask the person if she has seen (heard?) her card yet. If she replies “yes,” you know their card is the Five of Clubs; if “no,” you continue naming the Five of Hearts in the middle of another bunch of cards, and so on (through the CHaSeD order) until you know their exact thought-of card. Once you know their card, point out that up until now they have only seen the faces of the invisible cards! You now explain that you will spread the cards across the table to show their backs. Mime this and mention that they can see that they are all red backed with the exception of one blue backed card. Reach forward and mime removing this odd backed card, looking at it, and showing its face to every-one. It is only now that you say, “As you can see, it’s the Five of Hearts. Is that the card you thought of?” The spectator will reply “yes,” confirming the incredible power of the imagination. Credits: Stephen Tucker.

39

21st Century Telepathy Effect: After talking about some people’s belief in telepathy, the performer admits that he is a complete sceptic. However, he proposes a mind-game which he claims will look 100% identical to the real thing! First he asks for a participant who will act as the transmitter. The performer asks that person to open up the doodle app on his phone, and write down, anywhere on the screen, a single item of clothing that will be the ‘target’ for this test. Once he has concentrated on that item for a few seconds and mentally transmitted it to the performer, the participant then also writes any other four items of clothing in random positions on the screen. The performer explains that he had zero control over the choices of clothing items and that logic dictates that there is only one possible way he could know the target object: telepathy. A way that he himself does not believe exists. Nevertheless, he looks over the list and correctly names the target item with 100% certainty.

F.Y.I. This is simply a methodological update of Bruce Bernstein’s classic Telepathy By Item from his book ‘Twenty Effects For Psychic Entertainers’. Any phone, no special apps required. Seems utterly impossible, but is as easier than falling off a log.

Method and Performance: Whereas the original relied on the workings of a pen or pencil, this relies on nothing more than simple psychological limiting, and once you 40

understand the secret, you’ll be able to use any items you want rather than just items of clothing. In Bernstein’s original, the target item was freely mentally selected before any mention was made of it being written down. In this handling the opposite is true: the participant knows that he will be writing it in the doodle (or note) app before he decides what the item of clothing will be. He also knows that he will be writing it with his finger, not typing it. What he does not know at that point is that he will shortly have to write four more items on the screen. For all of these reasons, the item of clothing he initially picks as the target will be written larger than the other four items he writes afterwards. It will most often be a shorter word too, such as hat, shirt or coat. It will almost never be trousers, cardigan or sweatshirt. Often it will be the centre word, and almost always one of the middle three. And it will usually be the neatest word too. However, these additional qualifiers are just that – additional. Simply look for the word that is written the largest. 99 times out of 100 you will be correct. Often, it will be so obvious to you what the target word is that you’ll want to laugh out loud and you’ll be certain that it must be obvious to everyone else too. Experience has shown that this is not the case. And finally, what to do on the 1 occasion out of 100 that you are wrong? Simply comment that this confirms your belief that telepathy is impossible even with your tricky abilities! And move onto something more sure-fire. I can assure you that with a little experience performing this though, you will very, very rarely be wrong. And now that you know what to look for, then you can use any category of objects: cars, countries, rock bands, whatever. I will caution you that I’ve found that it is definitely preferable to stick to a single category, whatever that might be, than to just have them write any five random words. PRO TIP: Get the participant to show all the other viewers their written list by holding it up to camera while you turn away so that you CAN’T see it. Off-camera simply take a ‘Screen Shot’ whilst you look away, so that you can see the list as soon as you turn back to face the camera. 41

Poetry In Motion Effect: The performer tears a piece of paper into squares and writes a word on each piece. The pieces are mixed with the words hidden and then dealt into a random order as decided by a participant. A second participant then deals through the pieces, again changing the order as he sees fit. The papers are now turned over so that the words can be seen, in the exact order that the participants have mixed them. They make up a weird looking sentence. Without changing the order of the words at all, the performer adjusts the layout slightly to form a Haiku. He ask one of the participants to check his Facebook wall, and it shows that the posted the identical Haiku earlier that day.

F.Y.I. For the right people at the right time this is an absolutely delightful little piece. It is very engaging and can leave the participants feeling inspired.

Method and Performance: Basically, our old friend the Switchless Switch. So due to its methodological similarity to Bet On L.A. you wouldn’t want to perform them in the same show. You need a piece of A4 card, nice and heavy stock so that the writing doesn’t bleed through. Also a black marker pen. Firstly, you need to decide on a Haiku. I suggest rather than just using the one I am about to give you that you do some research and find one that you personally love. It is much better to share something in performance 42

that you genuinely enjoy. Better still, learn to write Haiku, and then you really will be sharing… But for the purposes of explanation, here is a Haiku by Rickie Elpusan that I like: liquid little stones skipping and skittering free on shared umbrellas Sometime prior to the performance, post the Haiku on your Facebook wall or Instagram, or any other social media of choice. To perform, you write the 10 words on the pieces of paper, explaining that the participants are going to play a little game, one that is related to the surrealist concept of the Exquisite Corpse, where a collection of words is collectively assembled. In this version, the random words will be mixed up and then their exact order will be determined by decisions the participants themselves make. Appear to mix the papers up (please, don’t use the word ‘Shuffle’) but really just give them a Charlier (false Haymow) shuffle or just a series of sloppy-looking running cuts. At the conclusion cut the ‘umbrellas’ paper back to the bottom. You will now have the first participant do Paul Curry’s Switchless Switch: you will deal the pieces of paper one at a time into a pile on the table, but at any time the participant likes he can tell you to switch the positions of the next two pieces you’re about to deal and then place them onto the table as a pair. Thanks to Curry’s ingenuity, nothing has really happened. Once you have finished dealing, the sequence isn’t affected, although of course the letters are now in reverse order. The second participant now does the same, telling you to make as many switches as he likes. Again, nothing changes, other than to put the words back into the correct order (i.e. not reversed). 43

Deal the pieces into a row, turning the papers over to reveal the words as you do so. Once you have finished, move the words into the Haiku formation, making it clear that the words are staying in exactly the same order. Ask one of the viewers to look up your Facebook or Insta page and they will discover that the Haiku they have just created is already there. A surreal moment indeed! I have described the most direct version of this effect. If you want to pursue some more off-the-wall options, then have a look at this website: http://www.poemofquotes.com/tools/dada.php You can use the tools there to create some truly wonderful Haiku, full of as much background and meaning as you like.

44

Sixty Two Pence Effect: Whilst the performer’s back is turned a participant takes three of his own coins and places them in a random order on the table. The performer issues some brief instructions, none of which would seem to give him any clue as to the coins’ whereabouts. All three coins are hidden. The performer nevertheless identifies the exact location of all three coins and has in fact predicted the location of the final coin – and its exact date!

F.Y.I. This has been my favourite spur-of-the-moment effect for a long time and its publication a few years ago was the first time anyone other than my very close friends will had heard about it. The second part of the method is essentially Dave Arch’s wonderful ‘Place Setting’ (Syzygy, Vol. 3, No. 3, p185) performed with coins rather than cutlery. The key line I use is from there too and is genius (and utter nonsense) of the highest order. I suspect it may be Lee Earle’s rather than Mr Arch’s. This is a long-time favourite CAM of many people, but it relied on proximity: the performer has to secretly add a palmed coin onto a pile held by the participant. For use over ZOOM I’ve devised a way around that which is just as strong.

Method: To prepare you need to have 4 different £1 coins in your back pockets: one from 2017 and one from 2018 in your left back pocket and one each from 2019 and 2020 in your right back pocket. Have them tucked into opposite corners so that they don’t get mixed up.

45

Introducing the subject of telepathy, you comment that sometimes something totally trivial can trigger a thought transfer, perhaps because the conscious mind is otherwise engaged. You propose a demonstration. Have the participant take out some pocket change, telling them that you need three coins: a £1, a 2p and a 50p. Tell them the identity of the coins you want slowly, as you need them to get the correct ones. Have them place all three in a small stack on the table. Tell them that you will turn around for the rest of this demonstration so that you can’t see anything that they do. Ask them to lay the coins out in a row on the table in any order they please. Next, tell them: “Please listen carefully to these brief instructions. They are intended to occupy both your left and right brain, allowing your midbrain, the subconscious, the freedom to project its images”. (This is the fantastic line of glorious gobbledygook from Syzygy!) Next, give them the following instructions. 1. First, exchange the 2p with the coin on its right. If there is no coin on the 2p’s right, leave the 2p where it is. 2. Exchange the £1 with the coin directly to its left. Again if there is no coin there, leave the £1 alone. 3. For the final possible exchange, switch the 50p with the coin on its right. Obviously, if there is no coin on the 50p’s right, nothing happens. Now to hide the coins: Tell them to place the coin on the far left end of the row into their back pocket (this is important for the ending, obviously). Have them pick up the bigger of the two remaining coins in and hide it in their right hand and the final one in their left. You can now turn back around to face them.

46

You then tell them to imagine using the coin in their right hand to perform some action. Tell them that you can see them placing the coin into a pool table for a game – it is definitely the 50p. Ask them to show everyone that you are correct. This is a simple, but lovely bit of doublespeak. You are indeed correct about the coin, but as to the action you described, who knows what they were thinking; no more is said about it! Next, tell them to shift their focus to the coin in their left hand and then identify it as the 2p. Finally tell them that although you know that the coin in their back pocket must be the £1, you want to go a step further. Ask them to remove the coin and check its date, e.g. they say, “2019”. You reply that actually this whole imagination game has been about prescience as much as telepathy, as you placed a little predictor in you back pocket too – it is also a £1 coin AND it is also dated 2019. An exact match! Obviously you just remove the correct £1. The handy thing about the back pockets is that they don’t get bogged down in the whole left/right thing the same as trouser pockets – a back pocket is a back pocket, so removing the £1 from either is fine. And I’ve found that after revealing exactly which hand holds which coin, this ‘predictor’ finale works perfectly.

47

Serialist Effect: The performer talks about having recently read an article about the world memory championships, and offers to demonstrate a cool memory skill he learnt from the magazine. A participant removes a bank note from his wallet and reads out the serial number just once. Everyone in the audience is invites to give the memory test a try and some manage to remember more than others. The performer however is able to recall the whole thing immediately, both the letters and numbers, forwards and backwards. The performer proposes a more difficult test: the participant removes a different bank note and reads out the serial number. He uses a pen to circle a single digit and then calls out the remaining digits in the serial number in any order. The performer immediately reveals the circled number.

F.Y.I. The method used in the CAM is a combination of real (easy) memory techniques and bluff. You might well already know the basic mnemonic peg system but if not you’ll learn it right here. It is very simple and will have uses for you far beyond this trick. As with all the CAMs, a little background knowledge of the subject at hand – memory skills – will reap huge dividends in making everything more interesting and real, rather than just the ‘presentation’ for a trick.

Method and Performance: The first thing you need to do is learn how to quickly memorise an actual serial number. Both here in the UK and in the USA, bank notes and bill have a serial number comprising of eight digits. I break this down into two 48

groups of four and then memorise them using different methods. The first four digits I memorise as I would a phone number, by putting them into pairs. So for the digits 2, 4, 6, and 8 I would just say to myself “Twenty-four, sixty eight”. We’re halfway there! For the second set of four digits I use the following standard mnemonic peg list: 1 - Gun 2 - Shoe 3 - Tree 4 - Door 5 - Hive (a bee hive) 6 - Sticks 7 - Heaven 8 - Gate 9 - Wine 10 - Hen You need to visualise all these as images, not simply words. The fact that they rhyme makes it far easier. Now that you have a series of strong mental images, you can use them as mental pegs for making associations. In standard mnemonics the items to be remembered are associated with the number rhyme image and the item to be remembered. For our purposes though, it’s even simpler, since you are just remembering the numbers themselves. So to remember the sequence 3, 5, 7 & 9 you would remember a huge tree, the largest one in the world, blowing in the wind with a swarm of ten million angry bees pouring out of a hive and then a huge bottle of wine floating impossibly high up in the air (heaven) like some kind of alcoholic’s dream space ship! The bigger and more vivid and ridiculous the images are, the easier they are to recall. That’s it. You now have all the skills you need to recall the eight digits. The key is to use two different systems to remember each group of four digits. The systems are totally different so cannot interfere. With just the 49

tiniest amount of practice, you will be able to call out the digits forwards, backwards and alternating. So to perform this, introduce the concept of memory and discuss a magazine article you read recently about the world memory championships. Most people would like a better memory, so offer to demonstrate something you learnt from the article. Ask a participant to remove a £5 note and read out the serial number once and to try and remember it as he does so. Encourage everyone in the audience to give it a try. You use your system to do so, also remembering the letters in the serial number (there are only two letters so there is nothing to it). Ask everyone how they did. Occasionally you might find a participant or audience member who says that they think they have it and if that’s the case ask them to remember it backwards as well! After the laugh, tell them that you have already done it. Avert your gaze and recite the number backwards, then forwards. They will be impressed. Ask the participant to put that note away and grab a different one. This time he reads through the numbers but you do not need to memorise them. You simply add them up in your mind as he reads them out. You now have a total. Have him circle one of the digits and read out all the remaining ones in any order, crossing them out as he goes. You add these up too and then subtract the second total from the first. The result is the number he chose. This piece of pure bluff coming after the genuine memory feat makes for a great one-two combination. Credits and inspiration: Harry Lorayne, Karl Fulves, Dave Jones.

50

Dreamachine Andrew Brown Effect: A participant opens up the calculator app on his phone and multiplies some random numbers, all of his own choosing. He now reads out the total and misses out ANY digit he likes. Despite that fact that you seem to know nothing, you immediately reveal the missing digit!

F.Y.I. No TOXIC force! No set-up and no special apps. No secret Apple-only shortcuts or button pressing. Continuing the number theme, this is a perfect trick with which to follow up Serialist. It is also typical of the kind of smart thinking for which my friend Andrew Brown is renowned.

Method: It will help you if you follow along for the first time with your phone in hand and the calculator app open, just so that you can see how this works. Open up your calculator, you can see 3 columns of numbers:

7 8 9 4 5 6 1 2 3

51

You are going to generate a long number but the good news is that the calculator is going to do all the work. Look at the column on the left headed by the 7 - please enter the 3 numbers in that column into the calculator but the order is up to you: 741 or 147 or 174 etc. Only use each digit once. Any order you like, but tell me nothing. (E.g. 417) Now hit the Multiplication button. Moving to the middle row headed by the 8. Again enter the 3 digits in that column into the calculator in any order you choose. (E.g. 528) Again hit the Multiplication button. We are left with the final column. Please enter a final, random 3 digit number from this column (E.g. 639) and hit the Equals button. E.g. 417*528*639 = 8586864 This is a truly random number. Now please call out the numbers from left to right but on one of the numbers saying nothing and move on. 8 5 X 6 8 6 4. You would immediately know that the missing digit is 8! How? In the final column - 3, 6, 9 - no matter what combination you use it must divisible by 9: 369/9 = 41, 396/9=44, 639/9 = 71, 693/9 = 77, 936/9 = 104, 963/9 = 107 Therefore whatever number the first 2 columns have created (E.g.741*258 = 191178), when you multiple by the last column (E.g. 191178* 369 = 70544682) this final number must be divisible by 9 (E.g. 70544682/9 = 7838298)This means that if the participant leaves a digit 52

out as they read aloud the total, all you need to do is cast out 9s as you add up each digit they read and you can easily work out the missing number. Whatever number remains, subtract it from 9 and voila! That is your digit, and it works even if the digit they miss out is zero.

53

Calendrical Effect: To test their affinity, the performer asks a participant to open the calendar app on his phone and scroll to any random month from next year, whichever month he chooses. He then picks out any three consecutive days from any week, adds the dates and tells the performer the total. The performer immediately tells him the dates. Continuing, he is told to make it less random – he is to pick his favourite day of the week (e.g. Saturday) and then pick any three consecutive Saturdays (or whatever day he decides) in that same month. Again he adds the three dates together and tells the performer, who instantly tells the participant the exact dates he is thinking of. Offering to repeat it one final time the performer has the participant stay in that same month and choose any four dates in a vertical column. After a slight struggle the performer reveals all four dates and then the exact month!

F.Y.I. This is a very easy little effect which serves as a perfect introductory piece to something a little more powerful. It is eminently suitable for a corporate or business audience. And don’t worry; there is zero memory work involved and only very simple maths.

Method and Performance: Part 1: the participant picks any three consecutive days. E.g.

54

In the above month he has circled the 12th, 13th and 14th so will give you the total of 39. You simply divide it by three, which gives you the middle date – the 13th. The others are simply +1 and -1 of that date. Part 2: the participant picks any three Saturdays (or any day) in the month. E.g.

In the above month the Saturdays he has circled are the 3rd, 10th and 17th so will give you the total of 30. You simply divide it by three, which gives you the middle date – the 10th. The others are simply +7 and -7 of that date. Part 3: the participant picks any four consecutive dates in a column. E.g.

55

In the above month he has circled the 6th, 13th, 20th and 27 so will give you the total of 66. You simply subtract 14 from the total (52) and then divide by 4. That gives you the second date in the column. The others are -7, +7 and +14 of that date. In all three parts it’s easy to reveal the exact dates. However on the final reveal, you appear to struggle. This is so that you can find out the exact month as follows: although you know the dates instantly, you claim that because there are four numbers there are that many more possible permutations, so you need to use your calculator to help work it out, and apparently open up the calculator app on your phone. Instead, you actually open your browser and go to the following website: http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/weekday-sunday-1 There you can put in a day and date from part 2, where you found out that the first Saturday was the 3rd. Inputting ‘3rd' and ‘Saturday’ will quickly reveal that he must be in June 2017 on his calendar. Immediately close your ‘calculator’ and put the phone away, and tell him the dates. Finally, follow up by revealing the exact month he is looking at. This effect has the feel of the ‘day for any date’ type of effect that some performers enjoy, but with none of the memory work. All four reveals in quick succession make a good sequence and the month reveal at the end switches attention away from maths and dates. And another great thing is that this effect can be performed over the phone. Simply call someone up and have them put their phone on speaker so that they can open their calendar app. Perform as written except that in this instance you can quite openly check out the exact month at the end of part two, since they can’t see you! And then you can reveal the month at the end of part three, without any pretence of having to use the calculator because you are struggling a bit with the maths involved.

56

ONVI Ran Pink Open Number Verbal Index I’ll let Ran explain the brilliant ONVI concept in his own words. Here it is as it originally appeared in 2016: This is something I've been keeping to myself and inside my close circle of mentalist friends for quite a while now. Paul Carnazzo has been brainstorming this with me and is the only other mentalist currently using this with great results. I hope you enjoy this as much as we have. When I begin a demonstration of mind play, I'd rather just be myself and perform something interesting and hands free that doesn’t require any thinking about gimmicks or props. I admit that I love using my swami gimmick and pocket writing for more impossible number revelations, but ONVI is something I’ll do before I pull out a card or write anything down. In other words there is nothing else to look at but me, and my natural display of speaking with my hands and using gestures to express my thoughts. This allows me weave a story or ’jazz’ around the appropriate premise in a way that is most comfortable and natural for my speaking style. I use ONVI to set up the gestures that will be useful later in the show. Such as: my hands will go in the pocket when I’m asking for the number, though I’m not doing anything secret in there for now. Or when I gesture to breathe in, I do it in such a way that mimics the way I gesture when I’m using my business card peek, which I might use later. After the opening demonstration, I’m more relaxed, I’ve clicked with the audience and I can easily move into something more impossible using the tools of the trade to build up a whole routine. I’ve also just used ONVI as 57

a stand-alone display of subliminal influence for a fascinating little moment. So I bet you’re asking yourself what the #@%& is ONVI? Read on my friends.

ONVI For One on One I've always liked effects using the 37 and 68 forces when performing for a large audience but as we know it's not 100% reliable one on one. ONVI allows you to remove the odd/even restrictions and allows the participant to choose any number. You can prove that you knew they would choose that number. So here is ONVI, a simple opener that will allow you to set up the rest of your effects. After you establish yourself as the mentalist and what it is a mentalist does, you ask the willing participant to close their eyes and take a deep breath in and out. Have them repeat the breathing and as they exhale, put them into the right frame of mind by saying: "Wonderful! Before we proceed, feel free to take several moments to put yourself into a relaxing state and you'll do fine." Have them name the first 2 digit number that comes to mind making sure that each digit is different. Whatever 2 digit number they say, you ask if they felt it was a free choice. You tell them in fact that it was not a free choice and that you were able to influence them to pick that number by using subliminal linguistics and you can prove it. Here's how: This is the opening sentence, as the mentalist should see it. 1derful! Be-4 we proceed. Feel 3 2 take 7 moments. 2 put yourself in 2 a relax-6 st8 and you'll do (fine) 5 or 9.

58

The word moment is in bold because it is another option for the number One. The number 2 is represented by the word to, which appears three times. This will increase your options. These extra options will be covered later. As you speak this sentence, you’ll want to SUBTLEY muffle the word Free and when you say relaxing, swallow the end of the word. Now whatever digits they call, you will only recap the part of the sentence that matters. You can also define where you began and where you ended. Another ploy is to re-phrase the other irrelevant words from the ONVI sentence. All will be demonstrated in some of the examples. Notice how 37 and 68 are grouped together. This is useful when applying the 37 and 68 forces with a larger crowd and using only that part of the sentence as a pseudo explanation. (You’ll find more on this in the Stage version of ONVI). You'll have to practice the recap with different combinations to get used to all the possible outs but you'll find it's easy to make it work off the cuff. Just pay attention to the number called out and repeat it out loud several times so you don’t forget it. You need to appear confident and full of conviction that you have proof that you influenced that specific number. You cannot ask the participant to repeat their second digit halfway through your explanation because you forgot. Let’s try some examples: 49 "49 is exactly the number I wanted you to say. 49! It’s unbelievable how easy it is to influence the number 49. I’ll show you how I did it. Remember at the beginning I said 'be-Four we proceed, you need to relax…' (hold up 4 fingers) and at the end I said 'you'll do fine'. I accentuated the ‘ine’ in ‘fine’, which sounds like nine and since these numbers were the first and last things I told you, that's what you picked up on." 65 59

"65! Exactly right! Remember I told you to get into a relaxing state. That's an odd way of saying that. It should be ‘a relaxed state’. What I actually said with a bit of a slur was relaxsix and your mind picked up on that. The last thing I said was you'll do fine. I accentuated the F on fine and you picked that up as five. Isn't it amazing how the mind works... 27 There are several outs for 2 as you must have noticed. This allows you to move the 2 to where you need it to be. You might need to use the In Reverse gambit, explained in a moment. So you would recap, “ When you were breathing, I said ‘feel free 2 take (hold up 2 fingers) SEVeral moments….by accentuating the SEV of several, I was able to influence you to name SEVEN as your second digit.

In Reverse Let's say someone names a number like 84. The order of the sentence doesn't match. Instead you will tell them you were actually trying to get them to say the number 48 and instead they got it reversed. 84 “I was trying to influence you to say 48, but you said 84 which I consider a hit anyways. At the beginning I said ‘beFour we proceed’ (hold up 4 fingers), that you need to be in a ‘relaxed stEight’.Like the number 8. That’s why you got those digits”. Explain that now that you understand their mind senses things in reverse, you will make the proper adjustments for the next experiment. This would be a great moment to continue with "non verbal suggestion" and a swami gimmick to send a 3 digit number into their mind. Here are some examples for dealing with the number One: 60

31 Option 1-derful (wonderful) For 31 you could apply the In Reverse ploy. You’d point out that you began by saying “Wonderful” which influenced the digit 1 and that “Feel free” was actually “feel three”. Option 2 – ‘Moments’ and More. Here are other options to represent the number One using the word moments instead of wonderful, since the word wonderful might be awkward coming from some mouths. "Remember I said 'feel free to take several moment'. What I actually slurred was ‘feel three’ (hold up 3 fingers) and normally one would say ‘several moments’ but I swallowed the s on moment. Your mind picked up on that interruption and thought of a singular moment. One. That's why the number 31 popped into your head." Or you could point out the word “Yourself”. Which made them think of their singular self, therefore, One. Not my favorite option, but worth expressing since this may give you other ideas if you feel like making adjustments in the script. You only need to review the parts of the sentence that apply. Also it's a good idea to hold up your fingers as you recap the numbers. Here’s how to cover for 59 or 95. This is one of the best scenarios. 95 or 59 “It’s amazing how that works. The last thing I told you as you were exhaling was that you’ll do fine. Notice how fine is a combination of five and nine and it was the last word in the sentence. It’s known that if you want someone to easily remember something, put it at the end of the list.” 61

Notes and Brainstorms I’ve discovered that sometimes the ONVI sentence is truly influential. I've had success with the 37 and 68 force without eliminating options by giving too many examples. I only eliminate numbers with repeating digits. It works over the phone as well and if you use the whole sentence you are prepared for any out. Find out if the number has any meaning to the person and take credit for knowing that as well. Remember you can have them reveal their number and then continue with having them think of another set of numbers before you reveal the subliminal language prediction. This applies to one on one situations. If you offer a limited choice of a 2 digit number between 1 and 50, without any restrictions aside from no repeating digits, you’ll find that 37 is still a common choice. So it may be worth asking, “you’re not thinking of 37 are you?” If no, you say, “Great! That means that my subtle influence worked over the power of common choices.” Then use the verbal index to explain further. Paul uses a presentation along the lines of: “You were in my dream last night, and something weird happened! Let’s see if this will work…” Deliver the ONVI sentence, and continue, “Now, think of a two digit number, lower than 50, with different digits. Got it? Ok, you’re not thinking of 37 are you?” If so, continue with: “Great! That’s exactly what you chose in my dream!” If not, say: “Great! That’s what you said in my dream, and what I was trying didn’t work in my dream…let’s see if it worked now, which number did you choose?” continue with ONVI.

62

Recommended Reading In an earlier draft of his OK Zoomer eBook Gideon Livnah wrote the following: “It’s OK to talk to the audience as a collective, but when doing a trick that involves one participant, create a personal conversation that naturally segues into a trick. Think of it as close-up magic meets radio: radio has a rhythm, the DJ talks to the listeners (no feedback), puts through a caller, and makes some small talk, then plays a song. Replace song with tricks and you have close-up magic. Close-up in my opinion is the art of sneaking magic into small talk. The setting in online shows is a bit more formal than close-up, thus the comparison to radio. If you stop trying to perform, and imagine yourself as a radio host, managing a program that is broadcasted, it will give your online performance a more intimate feeling, give more authority, sincerity and charisma.” The comparison of performing Zoom shows to being a radio DJ is a fascinating one, and whilst the comparison doesn’t work 100%, I think that as Gideon writes above, the tone, pacing and style can be very similar. In the long run, I would imagine that the most successful Zoom magicians will have taken this into account. One other area where Zoom magic can learn from radio (magic) is material. And whilst obviously the publishing of tricks created specifically for Zoom is still in its infancy, there are some great tricks that have been devised for performance on the radio that are easily adapted. Likewise a handful of excellent tricks that were created to do over the phone. So whilst the list below is by no means definitive, it does contain much of the truly great tricks that can be adapted to this new medium.

63

We’ll start with the biggies and go on from there: Lewis Jones - Person to Person http://www.trickster.com/catalog/p-booklist.html ME: Still in print if you know where to look ;-) Joshua Quinn – Paralies Xijatsey https://www.mindfx.co.uk/products/paralies-by-joshua-quinn ME: Quinn takes one of the best tricks from the Lewis Jones book and makes it even better. Banachek - Radio Magic CD http://shop.misdirections.com/Radio-Magic-CD-by-Banachek-3510.htm Banachek - Psychological Subtleties 1, 2 & 3 https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/11957 Lee Earle – Syzygy Magazine https://www.alakazam.co.uk/syzygy-1-6-hardbound-by-lee-earle-booksyzygy_6hb.html ME: to be honest, there is SO much great material in Syzygy that you could find enough material for a dozen killer Zoom shows without looking anywhere else. Andrew Gerard & Ran Pink - Conscious Magic Episodes 1-5 https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S22863 Juan Tamariz – Verbal Magic https://www.ebay.co.uk/ Patrick Redford – Heptagon http://patrickredford.com/product-category/mentalism/ Carroll Priest - Test Condition Second Sight https://www.lybrary.com/test-conditions-second-sight-p-260949.html 64

Mark Elsdon - Tequila Hustler http://elsdon.blogspot.com/2015/11/tequila-hustler.html Bill Cushman - Mirabill https://www.lybrary.com/mirabill-p-101983.html Bryn Reynolds - The Safwan Papers 7 https://www.lybrary.com/the-safwan-papers-p-4085.html Paul Cummins: Phone Home https://www.stevensmagic.com/1995/paul-cummins-phone-home/ Jim Steinmeyer – Impuzzibilities: Nine Card Problem https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S3884 + a ton of variations in print. Mark Elsdon - Fooling With Freud http://elsdon.blogspot.com/2014/08/fooling-with-freud.html Al Smith - Cadioz Effect https://www.ebay.co.uk/ Paul Curry - Worlds Beyond: Matchmaker Thoughts from Afar https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paul-Currys-Worlds-BeyondCurry/dp/0945296363 Roy Johnson – Pure Gold: Dialmite https://www.ebay.co.uk/

65

The Jinx: The Unknown Subject Publicity Stunt On The Wire Wired Thought Operator Calling Phoned Thots Right Number Weird Wire Forty Nine https://www.lybrary.com/jinx-p-29013.html ME: Probably the magic bargain-buy of the century. Phedon Bilek - Proteus https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/mentalism/proteus And if you’re feeling particularly adventurous… Atlas Brookings - Train Tracking http://www.atlasmentalism.com/ And, for the not-faint-of-heart, dozens more can be found here: https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/category/880

One last thing. In his earlier essay, Gideon mentions Haim Goldenberg’s CamFabulation as a possible prediction closer. For various reasons I’m not a fan of having the ‘prediction’ in an envelope, so here is a great alternative: http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2020/3/19/magic-in-the-time-ofcoronavirus-part-3 And if you like that, you’ll also enjoy this: http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2020/4/26/the-foreground-prediction

66