The Thought Channel

A treatise on non-contact mind reading Effect: Two (or more) people hide an object amongst themselves. Proceeding with no questions asked, or answers verbalized, at any time the performer is able to locate the object with unnerving accuracy. After connecting with the participant who holds the object the performer is also able to tell them which hand they hold it in! Background: My routine and work with this premise was inspired by Patrick Redford’s routine, “Prevaricator.” Ben Blau and Patrick eliminated the logic puzzle associated with this effect to locate a hidden object, which has been used in times past by Rick Maue, Banachek, Barrie Richardson and others. The method is certainly interesting and served as a springboard for me to launch, in my humble opinion, into a greater piece. I’d like to thank Patrick Redford for giving me permission to speak about his work with “Prevaricator” and the method involved in this manuscript. I highly recommend ALL of Mr. Redford’s work which can be obtained directly from him. He may be contacted at www.mindtapped.com Methodology: In keeping with this principle, the basic M.O. is such - whoever shows the MOST interest during the routine has the object! Although bold and simple it outright DOES work. The idea is whoever holds the object is more consciously and/or unconsciously invested in the routine’s performance.

This person will telegraph the fact they are holding the object through body language; naturally paying and showing you more attention during the experiment. This is a principle that I have found to be solidly accurate in its working and, expanding upon this basic methodology, I have taken the concept and brought it to an entirely new level. The Progression: Working with “Prevaricator” and the basic method I discovered a few minor things which made little sense to me. While the method was very good I found problems in the structure of the effect for a number of reasons. First, if we are eliminating the LOGIC PUZZLE, which is normally incorporated to succeed in such a test, WHY are we keeping the liar and truth teller scenario? Second, if the routine’s premise is based on subtle cues and body language coming from one (or both) participants, why is there any need to speak at all? Most of our communication as human beings is based on body language (roughly 90%) and this is another point I will address in depth; harnessing other ideas to take this to greater heights. In my work I have turned away from routines based on body language (in presentation) and transformed what I discovered into a direct act of non-contact mind reading. While working with the method outlined in “Prevaricator” I noted a few things of interest. I discovered that by removing the liar and truth teller scenario from this type of effect the participant’s were free to show up and act however they wished. Nobody plays a role here, they get to be themselves. This actually helps with the method(s) because it puts their guard down and helps relax the senders. No special acting or any particular role is requested of the participant’s in this effect.

After taking away the liar/truth teller scenario I realized I could do a similar feat in perfect silence and the method still worked. How I originally did this was WITHOUT questions or answers (verbally or mentally) of any kind. An object would be hidden among three or four people while my back was turned or in another room. I would come in, without saying a word, and locate who held the object (this was much like the manner in which Armando Lucero first saw this performed over 20 years ago). While effective it was NOT elegant. There was no frame or structure there, no choreography or process. After ruminating over this silent handling I began to receive the mental answers of “yes” or “no” from the participant’s in my routine. This worked wonderfully and provided a process by which I could seemingly ascertain one’s thoughts and mental responses. After seeing multiple performances of “Thought Channel” Paul Vigil came up with the touch of not asking a verbal question to go with my not receiving a verbal answer. This is how I perform the routine today and with that said, it has come to my attention that the wonderful Ben Blau (co creator of “Prevaricator”) had also discovered this and utilized it in his own work. Although this was an independent creation and discovery I would like to formally give FULL CREDIT to Ben Blau for having arrived at this point first in his own presentations. Truly there is nothing new under the sun and I’m happy to be in such great company. Let us proceed.

*** *** ***

How It Looks: Let’s begin with an example of working with just two people. A demonstration in direct mind reading is suggested. I question, “Is it possible to know what others are thinking? Beginning with an explanation that I have a simple way to answer this question I finish with, “Although rare, it is possible if people can become intimately connected...” The premise is set as being one of connection and mind reading or thought transference. Two people will hide an object between them . . . of course, this can be anything. I explain to the participants that they are not trying to “trick” or “fool” me and neither I them. We are working TOGETHER and, if all goes as planned, we should all have something very interesting to consider in our future interactions and work with people. I also state that I will be asking each of them a quite simple question, “and we all know that simple questions deserve simple answers, right? Perfect.” The question is, “Are you holding the object (ring, match, card, coin, key, etc.)?” The answer, obviously, will be either a “yes” or “no”. “The interesting twist, however, is that I will not ask the question out loud, BUT ONLY IN MY MIND! And then you will answer me, BUT ONLY IN YOUR MIND!” “It can be very subtle and quiet,” I tell the participants, they will actually HEAR my question in their mind, “but you WILL hear it! “You’ll know EXACTLY when I’m asking.

“Likewise, when you answer, I’d like you to shout “YES” or “NO” in your mind; but make it LOUD and BOLD so that I’m able to pick up on it!” BIT O’ HONEY: I use the following bit of business. In our example the two participants will be “Brant” and “Ann”. “Brant, to attune our minds I’d like you to mentally shout “NO!” in your mind, NOW! Allow a moment for your spectator to form and send their mental answer. “That’s perfect. Now give me a “YES!” Remember to scream it in your mind, let me have it…” “Well done! “Ann, the same thing for you, before we begin, let me HEAR you shout “YES!” in your mind...” Performer closes his eyes and concentrates momentarily, repeating the previous process. “Ok, try it again, but this time really turn it up a notch, shout your answer to me IN YOUR MIND . . . now, give me a loud “YES!” Perfect, and now, let me hear your “NO!” Very good, I feel that we are all on the same page here, so let’s begin!” I’ve have also done this with the participant’s names, “To practice, Brant, I want you to shout your name to me, in your mind. Very good! And now, Ann, the same thing goes for you (she does) . . . ok let’s try that once more and turn it up a notch. That was a bit too quiet for me to hear.”

THE PERFORMANCE: Now the premise has been set, the preliminary “answers in the mind” have been covered and we are ready to begin.

PHASE 1 – THE LOCATION While your back is turned one of the two places the object in a pocket or behind their back. When we are legitimate mind readers we should not have to ask, “Are you done?” Instead I time out a number of seconds, usually 10-15, and then say, “You’re ready, correct?” If they are ready we have another convincer of mind reading, especially if they have mentally shouted “READY!” If they are not ready this statement speeds them up toward saying, “Ok, we’re ready.” As soon as I turn around I begin gathering information. Now turned forward, I step in front of either one of them. WHO IS ALREADY SHOWING THE MOST INTEREST? Take note of this . . . Standing before one of them I stare gently into this person’s eyes, take a deep breath and then close my eyes. This shows them a PROCESS; they think, “He must be asking me the question!” Opening my eyes I nod and move to the next person. Here I repeat the above procedure. During all these moments I am actively watching for the person who is showing me the most interest (paying the most attention). THEY HAVE THE OBJECT!!!

After I have deduced where the object lies I say, “Ann, I believe I heard a “YES!” coming from you and if I’m not mistaken, Brant, you gave me a solid, “NO!”… “… Ann, you have the object!” Of course, she does.

PHASE 1, PART 2 After you have successfully located the person holding the object you will now proceed to tell them which hand they hold it in. This portion is done through advanced use of nose and eye tells (cues) coming from the participant. “Interesting how that happens, isn’t it Ann? Now tell me, were you able to ACTUALLY hear my voice inside your mind? Don’t lie to make me look good, but you did HEAR it, yes? Perfect! I’d like to take this a step further – place the object in either hand and hold them both out in front of you like this, (showing them what we want here) I won’t look. Just like the first time, I want you to mentally direct me to the object. Remember that you are not trying to trick or fool me. We have to work together here! Guide me, IN YOUR MIND, to the object.” At this point I use the following work to correctly ascertain and identify the hand which holds the object bringing phase 1 in both parts to its conclusion.

THE HAND OF LIGHT RUSE . . . To locate which hand holds the object I use subtle nose and eye tells. I have found, with practice, these to work just as well as any gaff or gimmick. After finding who holds the object the kicker will be me telling them which hand they hold it in. This phase can also be used if you fail to successfully locate the person who holds the object. When faced with a miss you obviously know the other person has the object, but NOT which hand they hold it in. This portion may then be used as an out for a miss, salvaging the work. I instruct the participant to hold the object in either hand, “Remember, you are not trying to trick or fool me. We have to work together to get the best results.” These instructions are IMPORTANT! The participant will place the object in either hand and bring both out in front of them. I hold my hands above theirs and close my eyes, this is a psychological convincer. It will appear as though I have received the information while my eyes are closed, eliminating any thoughts of physical tells being used in the process. I ask the participant to take a deep breath and relax, focusing on the hand which holds the object and PROJECTING that information to me. I also ask them to visualize bright lights surrounding the object, “Make it intense.” I ask the participant to DIRECT ME to the object, “Mentally guide me to which hand it’s in!” After a few moments I open my eyes and look at their nose. Again, it will be slightly facing right or left indicating the position of the object. Having them surround their hand and object in light gets them more focused . . . their nose will show you. If I have a difficult volunteer I might ask them to also close their eyes during this process after which I open mine. I find the nose tell works even better when the object’s holder closes their eyes.

With their eyes closed we get one more chance at the eye tells by having them visualize light surrounding the object. Simply watch for subtle movements beneath the lids. Their eyes will flicker left or right cueing you to the position. Once you get it close your eyes again and ask them to open theirs! Now, with eyes closed, I will touch the hand holding the object. Remember, the same nose and eye tells can help clue you to who initially holds the object as well as which hand. More on this later. This ends phase 1 in both parts. Phase 2 will be the exact same thing! There is just this one sequence repeated twice or multiple times. NOTE: This routine is modular in nature meaning you can leave the ‘which hand’ portion OUT and use it only in the last phase as a kicker ending, the proverbial cherry on top. Likewise you could use JUST the “which hand” work for a person! The combination of methods, phases and portions gives you a lot of freedom to work with, enabling you to structure the routine in whatever manner you wish. This is nice because it can be made longer or shorter in duration on the spot. The combination of methods also allows you to affirm and reaffirm the feedback you are receiving minimizing any “misses.”

PHASE 2 - Repeating the demonstration I state that the two will once again hide the object and to please mentally signal me when they are finished. This is very bold and impressive; here I simply wait to hear a LACK OF MOVEMENT or whispers between the two, wait a few seconds and turn around. As before, as soon as I turn around I am looking for who is paying the most attention. Who is watching me most intently? When deciding who among the gathered is showing you the most attention it begins as a 50/50 scenario and, with feedback, the number will shift slightly to something more like 49/51%. You don’t need to be 100% positively certain. As soon as the scales tip one way or the other, you know! Repeat the original process of standing before them, gazing gently, taking a deep breath and closing the eyes (perhaps even raising a hand to my temple or forehead). Finish by opening your eyes to give the first person a quiet nod and then move onto the next helper. It does not matter who you start or end with. It only matters that you are paying attention to each participant simultaneously. Often you will find that with such strong rapport when you “mentally” ask the question one or BOTH of the participants may actually NOD THEIR HEAD in a YES OR NO fashion. They will not even realize they are doing this. They are minute movements, but in their attempts to mentally verbalize and answer, the body often takes over . . . use this to your advantage. Proceed once again with a revelation. After you have AGAIN identified who holds the object you will proceed AGAIN with revealing the hand they hold

it in as per PHASE 1. It is this same effect and sequence two or three times in a row that makes the entire routine and effect STRONG. After locating who holds the object in phase 2 I follow up with “which hand” again to end the routine. I usually locate the object twice (with twice in the hand as well) but in some cases I go for three. It is up to you. One thing that helps if you’re going for three rounds is stating in the beginning, “Let’s have a practice round.” Now if you do happen to miss this first time it will let you will know a very important thing; specifically, how each person responds when holding or not holding the object - and you can change your plan accordingly. Of course when you hit on the first time (being most of the time, a miss will become extremely rare with practice) you get credit for excelling in the warm-up phase of your demonstration. However many times you decide to do this, I have always ended it the same. After the final location and revelation I say something along the lines of: “I’d like to thank you both for your participation. I couldn’t have done it without you! You were great, really. I believe the three of us have made a strong connection here tonight. Thank you and please remember that thoughts are powerful things and that true human connection is sacred and comes from the heart. Go well.” I think you will agree that this is a very strong, very direct and beautiful piece of mind reading and magic. Credit should always be shared among the performer and participants. They are applauded for being such great senders and allowing me to do my job as a receiver easily and I truly appreciate them allowing me to be so intimately connected with them and their minds. I shake their hands (or embrace them when appropriate) and thank them graciously.

I have performed this routine with three or four participants after proper rapport has been established with the same breathtaking results. Confidence, rapport and proper management are the key. The way my routine progresses today happens by way of first locating the object and then locating the hand which holds it. Performing this sequence two or three times will leave no doubts in the spectator’s minds that you are doing exactly as you claim. As an additional benefit, the method of locating the hand which holds the object also happens to be two more methods (explained in detail below) that make the entire demonstration even more surefire. You can actually use the nose and eye tells TOGETHER to decipher who originally holds the object! Most of the time you will not need to do this and being a modular routine you are free to use or not use any method or combination of methods to your success. The first variation/addition is to have both participants close their eyes and VISUALIZE the object in question. I ask them to SEE IT in their minds eye and even to imagine where it is. The motivation is: they will now mentally view the object and its location and send those thoughts to me. All I am doing here is watching for the subtle “eye tells” and movements beneath the lids. The one holding the object, their eyes will NOT move. They have no problems seeing an object they are holding behind their back. The other person’s eyes will make small movements in their attempt to visualize the object and its position. In this case, whoever’s eyes move the most DOES NOT HAVE THE OBJECT. Secondly, I use nose and eye “tells” together whenever I doubt the feedback I have received. During this short procedure, having the participants close their eyes and visualize the object and its position, I have them take a deep breath and PROJECT that information to me.

You will find the one who holds the object . . . their nose stays straight, while the other participant will have their nose leaning TOWARDS the hidden object. Use all of this information to your advantage.

A PIECE OF GOLD – Finally, one thing I have recently discovered is this . . . when asked to open their eyes the first of the two participants to LOOK at me usually has the object! This goes back to the premise of the one who has it being more consciously and unconsciously invested in the routine and thus more attentive. This person will regain their composure first and divert their attention straight back to me. Whoever makes direct eye contact first has the object, period. Another tactic I use and one that I hesitate to share is this, when I turn around and make eye contact I will feign stepping on (or kicking) something, pause and look at the floor. Whoever follows my movements and shares my interest has the object. This also works if I am removing a piece of imaginary lint or a hair from my shirt; watch where the participants look and notice if they follow your attention.

ADDITIONAL TOUCHES – “THE SHOULDER’S SHOW US” I’m very hesitant to tip the following bits of business. Many people have a hard time using nose and eye tells effectively but I think this is more a lack of proper work and practice than it is of the method not working. Everyone is different and they all give off tells in their own ways. You must think on your feet with this routine and be very astute during the process. These next pieces of information will dramatically increase your hits easily and naturally. These are advanced uses for non-contact mind reading techniques when it comes to silent object divinations and hand locations - the gambit used here is SHOULDER and EAR tells for advanced sensory acuity.

When hiding an object in either hand, you will notice a few things when the hands are brought out in front - the first is THEIR SHOULDERS, much like the nose tells, can cue you to the objects position. Simply look at the shoulders and notice which is forward and which is held back more - if even, they will still be slightly turned either right or left. Just like the nose tells, this allows you to locate the hand. It can (and SHOULD) be used with the nose and eye tells of course but is a strong and suitable method on its own and has been much more effective for me than simple nose tells alone. When facing a person, imagine a line drawn down the very center of their body. Using their shoulders as a guide you may see if they have positioned the object to either the left or right. Check the work with nose tells. Instead of using “The Nose Knows” as a method I prefer to use it to cross check and confirm my work. Most often I ONLY use the shoulder tells because it is so effective and serves my purposes completely by itself. You will discover with most people that the hand which holds the object is brought out from BEHIND the back FIRST. It's just a split second before but you will SEE the hand with the object appear just a moment before. Watch the shoulders and see which moves first as they bring their hands to the front of them. This is best done when watching their shoulders with a soft gaze. It is a subconscious response and one that you can try yourself right now! Hold an object behind your back in either hand. Now bring both hands out in front of you. You will notice the hand which holds the object and that SHOULDER always moves first. Even if they try to catch you out and fake you, their body doesn’t lie. The shoulder which moves first is directly related to the hand which holds the object. Again this is very subtle. When gazing at the participant, simply focus your attention on the area around their shoulders. Your vision will catch a brief movement on either the right or left side. Most often this is the hand which holds the object. It might not be the first hand to be presented. Really they can both be brought out at the same time but always one shoulder or the other will MOVE FIRST.

If having issues with the simple nose tells, the hand of light ruse should dramatically increase your hits. The shoulder tells are extremely powerful AND ear tells also work well when deciphering which hand holds an object. Again with the invisible center line, if you cannot get an accurate reading from the nose, LOOK AT THE EARS! This bleeds over into also noting the direction in which the head leans and their ears point, not just the nose. Tipping the shoulder tells could be worth the price of this entire manuscript. You cannot imagine how fantastic this is in application. I was 6 out of 6 in my last performance using ONLY the shoulder tells. Watch the tops of them and look for the first movement. Very simple! Use nose and/or eye cues/tells to double check your work if necessary! Another subtlety regarding “which hand” is this - when holding their hands out in front of them, by asking the participant to focus and concentrate on the object you will notice something very peculiar, that is, the hand they are focusing on will "bob" up and down as they focus on it!!! This "bobbing" up and down is a surefire cue to go for the kill! On top of all of this Colin Mcleod has offered the following variations on the hand of light ruse and other bits of business to correctly identify the hand which holds an object. I’d like to thank Colin now for his kind words and contributions to this work, field and book. In his own words . . . “Through using the ‘Nose Knows’ strategy on numerous occasions

I’ve noticed a number of cues which should also be considered in

helping you locate the object.

When the spectator brings their hands out from behind their

back on the first occasion, they will look at the hand containing

the object for just a split second. I feel the main reason for this

is that as I have asked them to hide the object in one of their

two hands.

They unconsciously want to make sure that the coin is truly

hidden. The only way of doing this is to check that there are no

differences in the shape of their hands. This will happen so

quickly, they won’t even realize they’ve done it.

What I have also noticed on a few occasions is that the ‘Nose

Knows’ strategy actually works in reverse for a very small

proportion of the population.

By watching for the eye tells (looking at the hand containing the

object) it allows you to calibrate how they physiologically respond

to the technique. By cross checking with “The Nose Knows”

method you will calibrate accordingly.

In order for the process to work, the participant is led through a

very quick mental process whereby they are asked to close their

eyes and “imagine the hand with the object in it becoming warmer

and warmer, so warm in fact that it actually sets fire to the hand

which contains it. Listen to the crackling of the fire as you allow

your mind to relax and focus on the object with the light from

that fire shining brighter and brighter and the smoke rising from

your hand.”

• INTERJECTED NOTE by Jerome

By doing this you could get even more mileage and a completely

different effect from this portion of the routine. By using suggestion and

taking up “Building Blocks” you may find the participant responding

with imaginary discomfort to the intensity of the heat from the flames.

One could also suggest they are able to actually SMELL the “psychic

smoke” and to focus on the direction that smell comes from in their mind.

This would also make the nose tells even more surefire. Now back to

Colin!

“This does a few things. First of all it allows the spectator to

relax further enhancing the likelihood of them looking at the

hand containing the object as they focus on it.

This applies to the three main ways in which people think. The

light and smoke from the fire, the sound of the fire crackling and

the heat of the object in their hand (visual, auditory and

kinesthetic modalities).

These suggestions will cause them to feel the hand containing the

object to actually become warmer simply because they are

focusing on it. This is all aiding the spectator to unconsciously

turn to face the hand containing the object more than the other.

Furthermore when they are visualizing this with their eyes

closed, you’ll find eye gestures also towards the hand which may

either be to help focus on the flames or indeed the smoke rising.

The final technique I use to ensure a sure fire read of the hand

containing the object (which is usually a ring, a bill or a billet) is

to gather a physical read of the hands.

I’ve already mentioned that when the hands are first brought out

on the first read the spectator will look at the hand

unconsciously. I should briefly point out that on the second

attempt, they usually assume they have looked at the hand and so

will look at the opposite hand to try and catch you out.

You can therefore use this information against them and still

reveal the hand holding the object although the odds of this are

decreased as everyone does thing in different ways (this is the

perfect time to go a different direction and use the shoulder

tells!).

When holding an object concealed in the fist you will notice

something else - There is a definite difference in size between

both fists.

Use this to your advantage! It is a simple process of assisting the

spectator to hold their hands a little higher at which point your

hands reach under and physically lift their hands.

What is actually happening is that you are measuring the

difference in the gaps between finger knuckles and the ball of

the hand. Whichever hand has less room contains the object as it

is open slightly further.

Often spectators will hold their hands as mentioned above making

it very obvious to you, but not so obvious to them, as the larger

action of moving their hands covers the smaller action of feeling

the space.

This all happens in around one second which is all it takes to gauge

the difference in fist size.”

This will end Colin’s wonderful thoughts and contributions for now. Thank

you Colin. Your thoughts are appreciated!

As if all this were not enough, Paolo Cavalli has offered his calibration technique below. 90% of the time I don’t need to use this – for the other 10% I am happy and fortunate to know the following piece. It should be mentioned that one can perform the entire “Thought Channel” routine and “which hand” divination with the technique detailed below.

THE CAVALLI CALIBRATION AND MIND ECHO *** *** ***

This next technique hails from the fertile mind of Paolo Cavalli. It can be used alone as a (rock) solid method combined with the above stratagems, or as yet another simple, subtle, bold and beautiful bit of business for use with my routine. The technique helps cue the performer to a variety of information (yes/no, love/hate, inside/outside, male/female, living/dead, etc.) This will be discussed later, but for now I’ll say that it can be applied to thought of objects, people, names, numbers and words among other things. When using the theatrical frame of shouting an answer (or other bit of information) in the mind Paolo describes this to his participants as a sort of “mind echo”; it is this echo which we will hear (psychically speaking).

He goes on to explain that for the “mind echo” to be effective it should be coupled with a simple visualization. “When giving a “NO!” visualize a BIG, BRIGHT YELLOW “NO!” in lights in your mind!” Otherwise when stating (mentally screaming) “YES!” they are to imagine their answer in DEEP, DARK RED & CRIMSON LIGHT. This is absolutely devious in its application and clever beyond words in performance. Here’s what happens - the people screaming “NO!” in yellow, bright blinding lights will flinch a bit as they give their answer. They WILL actually move their head back a bit, as if a light was being shined in their face and even squint! Watch the eyes and minute head movements. Conversely, this does not happen with deep, dark red lights. At times you may also notice the eyes dilate and retract in response to the light being visualized. The eyes will be the windows to the soul! Smaller pupils = “NO!” and bright lights! Larger pupils = “YES” and dark lights! When receiving feedback in this manner the performer should capitalize on and take credit for having actually SEEN the colors being projected from the participants, much as “hearing” the answers was in the mind. This is a great “calibration” exercise to use when you first ask them to shout their name (or yes/no) in their mind. It adds yet another sensory experience to the mix, each one providing camouflage for the others. Thank you Paolo for this inclusion! Of course it is the compounding of methods, subtleties and nuances that make this a true “dream routine” and a work of art. Also the fact that no questions or answers are ever verbalized disguises the method A LOT. Mind reading aside, it puts a person’s guard down and this in turn helps to exaggerate their body language and subtle cue’s. The one holding the object in silence becomes even more attentive and invested. As before, pay attention.

During this work, look at the participant’s natural body language. Are their arms folded and closed off? Look at their feet, are they pointing at you (following you even?) or is one set directed towards an exit/elsewhere? Do they turn their whole body to face you, or just follow you with their head? Most important watch the eyes. Second, keep the general demeanor of the participants in your peripheral vision. Who is smiling? Who is watching intently and who is periodically gazing off? Take a step back and ask yourself, “At this very moment, which of the two is showing the most interest? From whom am I receiving the most attention?” Careful observation will deliver your answers. These signals are nothing personal. This person’s body language is reflecting the fact that they are not holding the object, thus their part and involvement in the routine is already finished. They relax and wander . . . Of course the above techniques can all be applied to thought of cards (say, one among 5), a choice of words, pictures or an imagined scenario. Instead of locating objects we are divining thought categories. This works especially well with animal/vegetable/mineral categories when psychological and statistical forces are also in play. In the case of imagined scenarios I will have a person close their eyes and imagine a time and place they were enjoying themselves, either alone or with company. I use simple visualizations to submerge them back into the experience. Now, using the Cavalli techniques I will have them mentally answer the following questions . . .

• Recent times or in the past? • Alone or with someone? (One person or many?) • Inside or outside? • The other person is male or female? • Family or friend? • etc.

Normally you only need to ask one question from each bullet. For example: You don’t need to ask recent times and in the past, you would only ask recent times, with a negative inferring the past. Mentally note the yes and no answers and begin framing your feedback. The question and answers sequence happens rather fast and from the information deduced through their subtle (invisible cues) you can tell this person a lot about their imagined scenario. This borders on REAL mind reading. Combined with cold reading techniques, we have a major miracle being created in real time. One ruse I will often use after telling them about their thoughts is a short reading and name miscall. That is, I will ask them straight out, “What is this other person’s name?” They respond with, “Landon,” for example. I simply roll with whatever name they give me, matching it to a very similar name! So in this case I would say, “Hmmm, I was picking up on a “BRANDON,” but you say it’s actually LANDON? Ok . . .” And I begin reading and mentioning “Landon” using his actual name. This way the participant may remember me hitting the name dead on. Thinking on your feet you can use this bit with most names. After you get the name match it to one phonetically related and begin using the actual name in your patter. This is a killer gambit in readings for fun and entertainment.

ADDITIONAL ROUTINES AND IDEAS

“Thought Channel” TAG! This idea comes from Arnon Sincoff. The method and handling are the same as “Thought Channel” only framed within a game of psychic “tag” or “who’s it?” Instead of holding an object the participants will simply designate one of them to be “it,” i.e. tag, YOU’RE IT! Turning around the performer mentally asks each of them just one question, “Are you it?” As per the original, they are to give their answers back mentally. The performer is able to repeatedly tell the participants who is “it” with stunning success and accuracy. This is simply “Thought Channel” without an object. Instead of holding an object, which is really just a marker (my routine is not about finding the object, but in the thought transference and connection), the participants themselves become a marker through being ‘it’. After you turn your back any one among the people you are using can be ‘it’. Instruct them to simply point to a person in their group, or to themselves, so that everyone involved KNOWS EXACTLY who is ‘it’. “Only one person can be “it”, so be sure you are clear before I turn around.” Another ruse would be to have a non-involved third party designate a person to be “it” by pointing to a participant after your back is turned. Something very sneaky can happen here, the person who designated ‘who’s it’ will watch and focus MORE of their attention on the one they assigned being “it” too. You can get your information from the non-involved party by simply watching them and who they are most focused on. I like this progression with no object being used. In my routine it is not about the object anyhow, but the people, the connection and the shared communication. I feel that removing the object is a step in the right direction as far as purity goes. Something else I would like to bring up in performance is the use and work with multiple people which is possible and in some ways even easier!

When performing the original “Thought Channel” demonstration I still prefer TWO people. I enjoy the intimacy and connection that can be experienced with such a small group. It can be done with a large group though it is much easier to attain and maintain rapport with a few people giving each of them due attention. When performing ‘Tag’ I’ve done this successfully with up to 8 people; I feel the more the merrier. Thanks to Arnon for allowing me to include this piece – it really made sense to me. This is another transition to purity. With the progression of the routine thus far it was only a matter of time before the object was removed completely. Now we will see another fantastic idea in our efforts to remove the physical object and deal yet another lethal punch with this effect.

THE VIGIL TOUCH –

This piece of work comes from long time friend and magician, Paul Vigil. As said before, it was Paul who removed the verbal questions from my routine. Now he shares the following bit of work that may give this routine an additional punch in the end! The idea was to use an impression pad. Instead of borrowing an object one of the participants would THINK of something that has personal, sentimental value and write it down on the pad. This paper will be a ‘surrogate object’ and the page will be torn off, folded up and hidden. Now get your peek and move into the routine proper locating the object (paper) and which hand as usual. This routining moves my effect to a three-phase demonstration. First, you reveal who has the object, second you will confirm which hand actually holds the surrogate object and third, out of millions of possibilities, you will divine what this thought of object is. Thank you, Paul, for this inclusion.

ACIDUS THOUGHT CHANNEL In keeping with Vigil’s kicker I now perform ‘Thought Channel’ in the following manner. You will need a single business card and something to write with. Staying with the idea of connection and thought transference, the card is folded into quarters in preparation for the Acidus Novus peek. In the first three squares or portions of the card I use psychological and statistical forces and PROJECT these to the participant’s as a warm up. I get as many people involved and capitalize on my hits. You could also play this as RECEIVING the participant’s piece of information (one which you will dictate through psychological and statistical forces and framing) and writing your impressions down on the card AFTER you have received the thought from the participant(s) you are working with. Instead of projecting you are receiving. This keeps the entire routine consistent with the premise of receiving their thoughts. Either way, I proceed as written below and changing things slightly depending on if I am receiving or projecting. In the first square I write my first force (if projecting) and fold the card in half. Now I mentally send that thought to the audience using whatever presentation fits with the force I am using. The card is opened up to show my thought and I begin to harvest my hits. I repeat this with different forces for each box leaving the last empty box for the participant to write down an object. For this last box I draw a line and give a participant the pen or pencil and ask them to imagine a SIMPLE object of some sentimental worth or value and print (not draw!) it on the line. After having RE-FOLDED the card I take it back and get my peek. Immediately I fold the card in half again so it becomes a small pellet and hand it back.

This will be the surrogate object we use and I begin the normal ‘Thought Channel” presentation of locating the person who holds the card and which hand it’s in. I repeat this phase just like before and end with the additional kicker of revealing the thought of object. I was hesitant to include this handling because it is the one I currently use. Please treat it well and keep it close. If one were so inclined, you could easily get 10-12 minutes out of a single business card. Always different, continually building in effect and a layering of methods and revelations, this is my most prized piece of work at the time.

TERASABOS WITHOUT BALLS OF STEEL This idea was inspired by Armando Lucero’s account of first seeing the routine and basic method in use. 5 opaque cups or containers and a blindfold are used. The performer leaves the room or turns around and anyone places an object under ANY cup or vessel. Returning to the room the performer is BLINDFOLDED and approaches the containers. Now using the basic method of who is showing the most interest, you will simply peek through the blindfold and LOOK AT the participant’s! You will immediately find their attention is directed towards the cup that hides the object. The person or group will be focused on the container which holds the object. Simply look at them through your blindfold. I use Osterlind’s Stainless Steel Blindfold. Since you are now blindfolded and were turned around or absent when they hid the object, they let their guards down and with nothing to hide will show you exactly where the object lies. Get everyone involved by ASKING THEM to focus and concentrate on the container which holds the object!

You will get all the feedback you need while holding your hands above each cup in turn. Watch their faces! Their expressions and demeanor will change as you approach the object. Feigning going for a cup and then stopping will tell you all you need to know. If they do not respond the object is NOT there. This is the “Hans the Clever Horse” gambit. Hans apparently had the ability to add called out numbers. Tapping his foot the horse would seemingly correctly add up totals from the audience. For 2+2 Hans would stamp his foot 4 times. This was incredibly impressive until scientists put blinders on the horse and rendered him unable to perform successfully. All Clever Hans was doing was tapping his foot and STOPPING when he saw the audience react! Approaching the correct number people would go nuts and the animal would stop. Pretty simple! You can use the ‘Clever Hans’ gambit and blindfold with 5 cards or any objects even without them being covered. It’s very effective.

*** *** ***

TRAINING WHEELS

When first becoming familiar with this routine and effect many people will find great use and support in “training wheels”. By “training wheels” I am referring to routines that will allow you to practice the techniques and methods outlined in this manuscript without fear of failure. The two I recommend are “The Relic” from Outlaw and “Eye to Eye” by Charles Gauci. Both of these pieces will allow you to do a “which hand” effect without cause for tension.

When working with these pieces, use the methods I have given you to locate the object WITHOUT gaffs or gimmicks. Then double check your work using the methods and gaffus involved with these mentioned routines. This is a great way to build confidence and understanding with the work. I personally did not have or use either of these when starting out with this material. I have always done it without their aid and though both are high quality and useful products I find them unnecessary. I’ve never been afraid of a miss because I realized there are so many ways and opportunities to recover. This manuscript contains ALL the information you need to begin doing this work immediately and without gaffs and gimmicked items.

Thanks - To Patrick Redford and Ben Blau for their implementation and contribution of the basic methodology, I cannot thank you enough. Although my research has uncovered precursors, without your work I honestly would have nothing to stand on. As mentioned before I would like to give full credit to Ben Blau for the silence principle. Although I had never seen nor did I hear of anyone else doing silent object locations this way, I believe Patrick and Ben when they say they had worked with this before me. My hat is off to both of you! When we meet one day soon, it will be a pleasure to sit down with you and have one of whatever quenches your thirst. I thank you both. It was I who took away the liar/truth teller scenario, added the “turn it up a notch” bit of business, incorporated multiple people at times and implemented additional methods and nuances such as Cavalli’s, Vigil’s, Sincoff’s and Mcleod’s touches for the routine’s success. Paul Vigil created the kicker finale of not ending on who or which hand, but what the actual object is. Paolo Cavalli donated his work on the subject relative to the mental answers being coupled with a color and light visualization. Together, I feel we have created an impromptu monster and an artful display of mind reading. To Armando Lucero for filling in the holes regarding the methods history and use. Although “Prevaricator” was first released in 2004 and Armando did not see my routine until 2007, he had seen the method used 20 years prior of both respective routines. To Arnon Sincoff who not only provided me with the ‘Tag’ insight but who also provided legal counsel surrounding the ethics and legalities of this release. To Colin Mcleod for his touches and variations on this work and permission to use them here. It will be my honor to meet you one day!

Special thanks to Max Maven, Michael Weber, Eric Mead, Alain Nu, Richard Osterlind, Luke Jermay, Paul Vigil, Jason Scott, Randy Malcolm, Joe Burton, Lincoln, Sean Bott, Brian Voiles and others I have been honored to share my routine and performance with. The “Thought Channel” is often used by myself on its own in an impromptu stand alone demonstration and has proven invaluable in this regard. All my best, Jerome Finley – Mind Reader

Credits The origins of the Logic Puzzle are ancient. My familiarity with them stems from the following sources: Barrie Richardson, “Truth to Tell” Theatre of the Mind (1999) Banachek’s “The Ring of Truth” Psychological Subtleties (1998) See also Banachek’s wonderful books Psychological Subtleties 1 & 2 (1998 & 2006) for further use of the eye and nose tells. Rick Maue, “Truth of the Relic” The Book of Haunted Magic (2000) See also Rick’s “Imagine” manuscript (2007) for another great piece of impromptu mind reading and further use of subtle work and tells. Patrick Redford, Prevaricator (2005) “The Nose Knows” – Body Trick # 75 from “Body Magic” (John Fisher 1945)

A more complete history of the methods in use - The basic method (The Hans Method) in Armando Lucero’s own words: It happened around 1984. “While I was doing some magic for college friends at a small informal party gathering I was introduced to a girl whom I was told could also perform magic. She was disarming, humble and was quick to tell us it was not a trick, not magic, and definitely nothing to do with sleight of hand. It sounds like a perfect mentalist set-up but this was no hype. She was not a magician but an exchange student from Asia. She was sincere and did not consider what she did as something special but rather ordinary. She would tell us that what she was about to do was real not a trick. I laugh now because it is just the way many mentalist’s like to set-up the audience but in her case it was all for a different reason. She was not trying to build up any drama; for it had nothing to do with performing, she just wanted us to know the truth. In a room with about ten people she had me lay four cards on a table (only because I happen to be holding them at the time). I was asked to touch one when she was not looking (sometimes she even left the room). Other times I was asked to just point one out to everyone but her. She would then tell us which one was chosen. Sometimes her answer came quickly and other times longer but always correct. I was fooled! She said that we were the ones showing her which object was chosen. She sort of revealed the answer yet we could hardly believe it. It really seemed like magic. She wanted to tell me everything about her method but as was my way I told her I preferred to think about it. So to this day, I still do not know exactly what transpired except that she was reading our body language. This effect sort of reminded me of when I saw the Amazing Kreskin locate something in a crowd years before. After some time went by and while working at Magic Island in Newport

Beach (now closed), I tried it on a few magician friends there and it worked. I would lay four cards down and ask someone to point to one as my back was turned. Then I turned around and was amazed at how the body language would direct me to the chosen object. My method was sloppy and definitely needed to be refined but the basic concept of reading body language was there. I would just look for clues in anything that would seem to be a bit different in their manner. The clues did not always come from one individual; sometimes they came from others in the crowd. I remember that the bigger the crowd the easier it was.” Sincerely, Armando Lucero, January 2008

*** *** *** Armando and I had a long conversation one night about the method in use and a more accurate history for it which has been credited to Patrick Redford and Ben Blau though as we see here also has its roots in a variety of fields including: NLP, psychology and criminal profiling, a plethora of mentalist’s from times past, Hans the Clever Horse, the subject of non-contact mind reading and Lucero’s own work and experience on the subject. It should be acknowledged that the wonderful “Prevaricator” was the first publication, to my knowledge, to put this method into print. Armando described the situations and people he performed for using the basic method over 20 years ago. There are living witnesses to these events and I personally know of at least one routine in which Armando still incorporates the work in question even today. It seems even Lucero beat us to the punch but as we see next, a very astute member of the equidae got there even sooner!

CLEVER HANS (from Wikipedia)

Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.[citation needed]

In honour of Pfungst's study, the anomalous artifact has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important knowledge in the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition.

Spectacle

During the late nineteenth century, the public was especially interested in animal intelligence due in a large part to Charles Darwin’s then recent publications.

Hans was a horse owned by a Mr. von Osten, who was a high school math teacher, an amateur horse trainer and phrenologist, and something of a mystic.[1] Hans was taught to add, subtract, multiply, divide, work with fractions, tell time, keep track of the calendar, differentiate musical tones, and read, spell, and understand German. Von Osten would ask Hans, "if the eighth day of the month comes on a Tuesday, what is the date of the following Friday?” Hans would answer by tapping his foot. Questions could be asked both orally, and in written form. Von Osten exhibited Hans throughout Germany, and never charged admission. Hans's abilities appeared on page six of the New York Times.[citation needed]

Investigation

Due to the large amount of public interest, the German board of education appointed a commission to investigate von Osten's scientific claims. Philosopher and psychologist Carl Stumpf formed a panel of 13 people, known as the Hans Commission. This commission consisted of a veterinarian, a circus manager, a Cavalry officer, a number of school teachers, and the director of the Berlin zoological gardens. This commission concluded in September, 1904 that no tricks were involved in Hans’ performance.[2] The commission passed off the evaluation to Pfungst, who tested the basis for these claimed abilities by:

1. Isolating horse and questioner from spectators, so no cues could come from them

2. Using questioners other than the horse's master 3. By means of blinders, varying whether the horse could see the

questioner 4. Varying whether the questioner knew the answer to the question in

advance.

Using a substantial number of trials, Pfungst found that the horse could get the correct answer even if von Osten himself did not ask the questions, ruling out the possibility of fraud. However, the horse got the right answer only when the questioner knew what the answer was, and the horse could see the questioner. He observed that when von Osten knew the answers to the questions, Hans got 89 percent of the answers correct, but when von Osten did not know the answers to the questions, Hans only answered six percent of the questions correctly.

Pfungst then proceeded to examine the behaviour of the questioner in detail, and showed that as the horse's taps approached the right answer, the questioner's posture and facial expression changed in ways that were consistent with an increase in tension, which was released when the horse made the final, "correct" tap. This provided a cue that the horse could use to tell it to stop tapping.

The social communication systems of horses probably depend on the detection of small postural changes, and this may be why Hans so easily picked up on the cues given by von Osten (who seems to have been entirely unaware that he was providing such cues). However, the capacity to detect such cues is not confined to horses. Pfungst proceeded to test the hypothesis

that such cues would be discernible, by carrying out laboratory tests in which he played the part of the horse, and human participants sent him questions to which he gave numerical answers by tapping. He found that 90% of participants gave sufficient cues for him to get a correct answer.

Even after this official debunking, von Osten, who was never persuaded by Pfungst's findings, continued to show Hans around Germany, attracting large and enthusiastic crowds.[3]

The 'Clever Hans' effect

Pfungst made an extremely significant observation. After he had become adept at giving Hans performances himself, and fully aware of the subtle cues which made them possible, he discovered that he would produce these cues involuntarily regardless of whether he wished to exhibit or suppress them. This gives the phenomenon an importance which could hardly be exaggerated. Its recognition has had a large effect on experimental design and methodology for all experiments whatsoever involving sentient subjects (including humans).

The risk of Clever Hans effects is one strong reason why comparative psychologists normally test animals in isolated apparatus, without interaction with them. However this creates problems of its own, because many of the most interesting phenomena in animal cognition are only likely to be demonstrated in a social context, and in order to train and demonstrate them, it is necessary to build up a social relationship between trainer and animal. This point of view has been strongly argued by Irene Pepperberg in relation to her studies of parrots (Alex), and by Alan and Beatrice Gardner in their study of the chimpanzee Washoe.

If the results of such studies are to gain universal acceptance, it is necessary to find some way of testing the animals' achievements which eliminates the risk of Clever Hans effects. However, simply removing the trainer from the scene may not be an appropriate strategy, because where the social relationship between trainer and subject is strong, the removal of the trainer may produce emotional responses preventing the subject from performing. It

is therefore necessary to devise procedures where none of those present knows what the animal's likely response may be.

For an example of an experimental protocol designed to overcome the Clever Hans effect, see Rico (Border Collie).

As Pfungst's final experiment makes clear, Clever Hans effects are quite as likely to occur in experiments with humans as in experiments with other animals. For this reason, care is often taken in fields such as perception, cognitive psychology, and social psychology to make experiments double-blind, meaning that neither the experimenter nor the subject knows what condition the subject is in, and thus what his or her responses are predicted to be. Another way in which Clever Hans effects are avoided is by replacing the experimenter with a computer, which can deliver standardized instructions and record responses without giving clues.

Note:

ANY of the test conditions which stopped Hans would also frustrate the “Thought Channel.” Quite simply, we are subject to the exact same limitations Hans was over 100 years ago. As this is the case I am dubbing the basic method used in my effect, “The Hans Method” appropriately.

Non-contact mind reading – Non contact/non verbal mind reading is very old, nearly as old as CONTACT mind reading and was a natural extension of that area of work. The methods used cannot be credited to any one person, but rather to an entire body of knowledge and its application. Banachek has some thoughts and stories regarding this very thing in his wonderful book, “Psychophysiological Thought Reading” and his “Psi Series, Volume 3” on DVD.

I would ask the readers to reference those works when examining the history of these methods and the amazing performers who incorporated them.

NLP, Criminal Profiling and Psychology –

Paolo has described his account of first learning the calibration techniques and sequence used ON THEIR OWN to achieve the same effect as in “Thought Channel.” Keeping in mind that with the light and color visualizations alone, one can perform the entire “Thought Channel” routine from beginning to end (including the which hand portions) WITHOUT the “Clever Hans” method. That said, it is the incorporation of numerous methods which allow for the greatest success. Choose the one or two you are most comfortable with and begin learning and performing with those. In time you will begin to incorporate various other methods, subtleties and nuances (all spelled out clearly in this manuscript) which make the routine practically infallible with some work and dedication.

The history of Cavalli’s Calibration Sequence - In 1997 Paolo Cavalli trained in a seminar with Eric Robbie and learned the calibration techniques used in “The Mind Echo.” Calibration techniques such as this have been in use since the 70’s and these plots can be traced back to Gerard Kosky. All rights reserved. No part or portion of this manuscript may be reproduced or transmitted in any shape or form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or retrieval system without prior consent and permission in writing from the author. Thank you.