Fraser Parker Mendez 1

                 Copyright © 2022 Fraser Parker

Mendez
By Fraser Parker
The following work is as close to real magic as I
have ever come in my endeavours to find simple
and workable methods, within the prop-less
genre.

Not only will the principle I outline in these
pages make your performances feel real to those
who experience you perform, utilising it in your
own performances will also make it feel very real
to you also, as if you are genuinely able to see
into the minds of your spectators to know what
they are thinking. You will just know. This
happens automatically and all on its own, due to
the fact, it uses actual intuition and knowing that
is inherent and built into all of us, simply by the
virtue of being a human being with a similar
psychological make up to those whom we share
our reality with. The fact that this works because
of how we all process the world in similar ways,
means that what was once considered impossible
by those without the secret, is in actual fact,
entirely possible and has been for quite some
time. It is just a matter of perspective and the
recognition of certain patterns that allows us to
                         1
see differently, in order for us to be able to wield
the power of what could be considered real
magic, so that the sharing of thoughts between
two minds can become a reality.

I should mention that I stumbled upon this secret
as a whole, almost by accident but was not the
first to discover the principle that under pins all
of it. In fact, it was more a case of me needing to
remember what I had already learnt from my
Mentor Kenton. It was during the development of
this idea that my thoughts shifted from an earlier
concept to that of utilising a principle I had first
seen Kenton write about relating to spectators
making a choice out of multiple possibilities, in
his work on ‘Equivoque’ in his manuscript
entitled ‘Miracles of Suggestion’. This adjustment
not only made the process I was working on more
deceptive, it also opened up many new
possibilities, in terms of its use. It is no wonder
that as a Student of Kenton my mind naturally
twists to such ingenious solutions. This is to be
expected due to me having already established a
firm foundation in the Mystery Arts from his
teachings.

It is often possible to see where the seed of an
idea or a basic concept may have originated from
Kenton’s original teachings, only to later fully
blossom in the work of his various Students. If
                         2
you would like to learn from the Master himself,
so that you too will have the necessary
foundational tools, principles and secrets to
elevate your Magic and Mentalism to even
greater heights, then I highly recommend his
latest opus, entitled ‘Kenton Principles’. In this
work he covers many of his important principles
as well as some of his work on ‘Equivoque’. This
and other brilliant works can be found on his
website www.wonderwizards.com along with
various different Student membership training.

To ensure I could provide the correct crediting
for this work, I reached out to Kenton and he
confirmed that Max Maven and himself both had
similar notions that they had put into print prior
to my own thoughts on this. These two great
luminaries of Mentalism had already seen into
the principle’s potential after partially drawing
back the veil, to consider what was now possible
in their own work regarding multiple choice.

In this booklet, my aim is to expand on what has
come before. As a Student of Kenton, this
continuation of ideas is to be expected and it is
with his permission that I share my own thoughts
on this principle.

My hope is that I have managed to do the
principle justice, in my attempt at pushing the
                        3
basic idea even further by providing various
different applications for the principle and in the
process making it a more reliable tool, due to the
frame work and different structures I have set out
for its use.

Earlier version

Before getting to the secret itself, I will first show
where the idea for all of this began in my own
mind. My first thoughts consisted of trying to
find a way to know which image out of a selection
of three possible choices the spectator would
likely go for. For instance, if I were to instruct the
spectator to imagine the following images; FISH,
DUCK and BUTTERFLY [and if you do the same
right now]. I could then ask either you or the
participant to focus on whichever image
intuitively stands out from the others. It is
important you and the participant go with your
first impression and don’t change your mind.

This next line of text is written purely so that you
don’t just read what image I intend for you to
think of and that you don’t have your thoughts
influenced in this way. However, once you know
why this works you will be able to try it with
different images yourself, as well as with those
who you perform for. If you are now focusing on

                          4
the BUTTERFLY then you will already be starting
to get a sense of how powerful this earlier form of
the method is to a participant via your own
experience, especially now that you are getting to
see it in action. This works better in actual
performance so don’t be discouraged if you over
thought your choice or this didn’t work over the
printed text on a page.

My method for this was based on the early
learning tests that Children would be given at a
young age, to expand their visual cognitive
reasoning skills. These would consist of work
sheets which contained four images in a line and
their task would be to circle the image that stands
out to them based on it not belonging
thematically with the rest of the images that
surround it. Their job was to identify the ‘odd one
out’ within a series of images. For example, there
may be three musical instruments and one image
of a fruit on the same page. These would be lined
up in a row, in a random order. Naturally, they
would be expected to reason that the fruit was the
indifferent image, as the rest of the objects clearly
belonged to a different category.

This was the starting point for my earlier
thoughts, in regards to creating a reliable way of
forcing a specific image. Even though this was
based on deductive reasoning that happens
                         5
within the conscious awareness of the person
completing the task, I still felt there was potential
for this basic idea to be transformed into a
method that utilised more the spectator’s
subconscious decision making ability, where they
wouldn’t necessarily be consciously aware of why
they were making the choices they were.

Instead of using four images I decided on only
using three. The reason for this was to increase
my odds of guessing their chosen image
successfully, by reducing the amount of possible
choices the spectator could make. It also seemed
apparent that by having four images [containing
three of the same theme and one indifferent
picture] that this might expose the workings and
make the reason for their choice glaringly
obvious to everyone involved, whereas, by
limiting the amount of images to just three, this
would somewhat help hide the method at work.
After all, this was based on an elementary lesson
that most of us would have come across at some
point during our early education and up bringing.
If it were simple enough for a Child to
understand then perhaps it would also be
obvious to us later on in life, as Adults. At least,
that would be the case if the core method wasn’t
further obfuscated with scripting and
presentation that shifted their perception away
from what was really taking place.
                         6
During my research, I realised there were certain
image combinations, that whilst still following
this basic pattern, were less obvious in their
semantic distinctions when taken at face value
and viewed on a surface level. This meant that
their use would make what you do more
deceptive. Therefore, I decided that these types of
image sets would be a more suitable option for
this type of work and application.

This is why I chose to use the FISH, DUCK and
BUTTERFLY images in my example and typically
use this group of images to force the image of a
BUTTERFLY whenever I intend to use this
principle in that capacity. At first glance, these
items appear to not have any clear distinction
that would separate one from the others, due to
the fact they are all creatures and belong to the
same category. For instance, the DUCK can fly as
well as swim, whereas, the FISH can only swim
and the BUTTERFLY can only fly. However, on a
subconscious or less obvious level, we know that
both the FISH and the DUCK are both associated
with water (the FISH lives in water and the
DUCK lives on the surface of the water), whereas,
the BUTTERFLY is thought of as not belonging to
water and is automatically associated with flying
in the open air or sky.

                        7
It is how we picture each of these creatures when
we imagine them as images, which creates the
definite distinction in our minds that
psychologically marks the BUTTERFLY out as
not belonging with the other images. This
reasoning [however conscious the spectator is of
the logic at work] is what ensures it is chosen by
the spectator, most of the time.

There are other image combinations that work
well and in the same way as already described but
for different reasons. The best thing to do, is to
come up with your own images and decide if they
have a clear reason why one stands out to the
other two, without it becoming obvious or
appearing this way on the surface [with a smaller
amount of examination]. For example, the
objects; TRUCK, CAR and BOAT may work well,
as they are all modes of transport and belong to
the same category. They are similar enough to
not create any obvious distinction between one
another on a conscious level, yet they still have a
subtle semantic difference that is less obvious.
The only object or form of transportation that
travels on water is the BOAT. Therefore, it is this
association with water that makes it stand out as
different and for this reason, is more likely to be
chosen by the spectator.


                        8
This approach can be so deceptive that most of
the time spectators will miss on a conscious level
the reason behind why they make the choices
they do and will be fooled completely, after the
fact. As already demonstrated, one way to
obscure this technique is to make each of the
objects belong to the same category. However,
other more bold groupings can also be used with
great success, without your spectators catching
on to these more obvious distinctions. In other
words, you don’t always have to make each of the
images in the group relate to the same category. I
suggest searching out some examples of these
early learning work sheets, which are often
provided online for Children and use them as a
guide to construct image groupings that you feel
are subtle enough to fly right past the conscious
awareness of those who you perform for. Then
you will have image groups remembered that you
can use at a moments notice, whenever you wish
to force one of the images out of a set.

You may find it easier to ensure two of the
images in the group share the same category,
whilst the third image belongs to its own separate
category. For example, the following image sets
[taken from real examples] may be useful.



                        9
        RABBIT            FISH        CAR

Naturally, the CAR is marked out as being the
only inanimate or man-made object, whereas, the
other two fit into their own group, due to the fact
they are both natural, as well as living creatures.

   SCISSORS          APPLE             RULER

Again, two of these options belong within the
same category of being inanimate objects or
man-made and also items of stationary, whereas,
one is a piece of fruit, which would of course, be
considered as different, due to the fact, it is the
only natural object in the group. Therefore, the
APPLE would be chosen most often.

 MONKEY            ELEPHANT             PENCIL

Here the PENCIL would be the stand out object,
as the other two are animals.

       PLANE             CAR         FISH

Here the most obvious choice would be the FISH,
as the other objects are both modes of transport.




                        10
         FISH        CRAB        WHALE

This last example is much more subtle as each of
the items can be associated with water. However,
most of the time the CRAB will be visualised as
living near water and will possibly be imagined
on a beach or near a shore line, whereas, the
FISH and WHALE will be thought of as living
submerged in the water. This means that the
CRAB will most of the time, be pictured
differently and this will cause it to stand out from
the rest. It is only when these items are
considered together and a choice is made that
this subtle distinction starts to come into play,
possibly due to the fact, the FISH and WHALE
can be more easily grouped together, leaving the
CRAB isolated on its own by default.

These examples give you an insight into how
careful consideration as to which images you
group together, can ensure that the spectator’s
decision making stays subconscious and just
below their conscious awareness enough to stop
the process from becoming obvious.

Naturally, some groupings will work better than
others, in terms of successfully forcing a
particular image each time you perform. It may
be that the colours of the objects themselves are a
factor. For instance, if the spectator imagines a
                         11
fruit, such as an ORANGE amongst two different
objects that both have the same muted colours
then the brighter colour may be what is
responsible for the fruit being chosen over the
other more mundane objects. It may be that the
size of an object is what makes it stand out to a
spectator. You may consider combining more
than one factor together when constructing your
image groupings, so that they each point to the
same image choice.

Having said this, I have found that such
parameters can be ruled out as the cause for their
distinction, if the thematic difference between
each of the objects is strong enough.

I typically use carefully considered image
groupings when I need to force a specific image.
The reason for this is I feel it is best to use images
that I know will work well from past experience,
so I know I can rely on these during performance.
They feel more solid as they have been tried and
tested over multiple performances.

But it gets better.




                         12
Development of the Early version

The previous ideas were just the beginning of my
thought process and only one aspect of the secret
I am about to teach. I realised that each of the
distinctions which make a certain image stand
out within a group of images doesn’t have to be
worked out before hand or even consciously
considered by the performer or spectator
themselves, in order for the performer to
correctly guess the image the spectator is
thinking of.

I will say that again to be sure it registers; The
performer along with the spectator doesn’t need
to work out which image ought to stand out by
using any reasoning or deliberate decision
making that they are aware of. Neither the
performer nor the spectator need to consider on
a conscious level, which of the images is more
apparent as a choice. In fact, they don’t even
need to be aware as to why a particular image
stands out to them from out of the group of
images.

This means that these images can be created by
the spectator themselves and made up in the
moment, which takes this to even greater heights,
as well as out of the realm of forcing. It also

                        13
makes everything appear that much more open
and fair, as well as making what you do even
more deceptive by ensuring everything stays
completely hidden via perception. In fact, this
adjustment makes what you do appear so much
more impossible to onlookers, as well as those
who you perform this for. This is the realisation
that occurred to me during its development and
whilst I was thinking about this method and
exploring the various possibilities for its use.

This is where my own thinking and that of
Kenton and Max Maven’s were bridged together,
giving rise to a new arrangement for their
principle that is simply mind blowing in its
application.

Here is Kenton in his own words [taken from a
response he gave to my checking the crediting
with him for this, in reference to his and Max’s
work with multiple choice, where physical objects
would be chosen by a spectator]:

“Both Max and I noticed and put into print
  the idea that you should look and think
about what stands out to you, or what you
 would pick up. Then you may know what
 others will pick. I went an additional step
    and stated that it is better if you can
                       14
imagine yourself as the other person, and
feel what you would choose if you felt like
  them. Thank you for checking! By the
    way, NONE of us would be calling
 Magician’s Choice ‘Equivoque’ if it were
              not for Max”.

I was also informed by another well known
Mentalist that Max would apply this secret to a
list of written words. The basic idea being that
you would have a list of four things, and the one
that stands out to you will likely be the one that
also stands out to the participant and this is how
you know what will likely be chosen by the
spectator.

Even though I was only aware of Kenton’s work
whilst coming up with my own, it appears Max
got even closer to my full solution way before I
even started to think along these lines, so credit
must naturally go to him as well as Kenton.

Having only read Kenton’s thoughts on this
previously, I began to ponder on wether it would
be possible to give the spectator a completely free
choice to make up their own objects to pick from.

My thinking was that if I were to get the spectator
to make up these images themselves, it may be
                        15
possible to work out which of these images would
naturally stand out in the set, by essentially,
doing the same reasoning I would when
preparing images to be used as a force but in real
time. The only difference being, the group of
images would be created by the spectator instead
of the performer. I then realised that perhaps I
wouldn’t even need to consider anything
consciously or think about it in the same way I
would when constructing a force. This lead to a
very esoteric way of thinking and the following.

Does it matter if I am consciously aware of what
makes a certain image stand out amongst others
that are freely chosen by the participant?

I felt that it wouldn’t matter.

Each time a spectator created a set of images,
there would always be different factors at work,
as well as an overriding logic [if thought about for
an extended period of time] that would make a
specific image stand out as more likely to be
chosen than the others. Even so, it didn’t seem
necessary for me to need to know what these
factors were, in each instance. If we are all
similar in terms of our psychological make up
then it stands to reason that our subconscious
would be able work all of this out for us, with us
likely getting the same results as the spectator
                         16
each time we perform this [if we are presented
with the same possible choices]. The underlying
factors at work would likely influence everyone in
the same way and shift their preference to the
same image.

Best of all, this would stay mostly a mysterious
process to both the spectator and performer. It
would just work, as if by real magic.

This approach is more akin to allowing your
thoughts to match the thoughts of your spectator,
in order to know what they are thinking, as
opposed to actually reading their mind. Having
said this, the results appear the same and the
illusion is undeniable. When done correctly, this
should feel like a melding of the minds, where the
only barrier to knowing each others thoughts
would be, if either the performer or spectator
over thought their choice or had a conscious
reason or predisposition for favouring a certain
image over others. Therefore, it is important that
you don’t second guess anything when using this
principle or allow yourself to be distracted by any
conscious reasoning. You need to get out of your
own way to allow the correct information to
become apparent. This is also true for the
spectator.


                        17
To provide some context for how I utilise these
ideas, I get the spectator to think of three
different images and to say these out loud in any
order. I then get them to simply think of
whichever image intuitively stands out to them,
whilst instructing them not to change their mind
or overthink their decision but instead, go for
their first impression or thought.

Here is the principle expressed in simple terms.

To know which image the spectator
has chosen and which image stands
out to them, simply think of which
image stands out to you also; Don’t
try to reason or work out what this
should be but trust your own
intuition instead.

This sounds magical because it is. The only
difference between the illusion and what is truly
going on, is in knowing the secret. This gives you
the key to unlocking real knowing and creating
the illusion of apparent Mind Reading.

Of course, it is essential that neither you nor the
spectator over thinks or complicates the process
in any way. This is why I use the specific scripting
                        18
I do, as a way to create the correct context for this
principle to work [which we will get to in a
moment].

As you learn how to do this, it is important that
you always remember that we are calibrating our
mind with theirs, in order to allow both to
process information in the same way, so that
each of us arrive at the same conclusion via an
inbuilt preference that naturally occurs. If both
minds remain uncluttered from conscious
considerations then in most cases, you will be
able to know what the other person is thinking.

This is the secret to how I was able to fool even
the most knowledgeable Magicians and
Mentalists, utilising this principle.

Outline for Basic System

Here is the outline for the basic system I created
to know out of which three images a spectator
would choose.

Where I feel this differs from what has already
been explored by Max and Kenton is in its
structure. The fact this works with images made
up by the spectator themselves, means that this
can be presented completely prop-less, entirely

                         19
within the minds of the performer and those who
you perform for. By using a maximum of three
objects, it makes the use of this principle even
more reliable and secure enough to be used as a
way to obtain other information, as well as gain
leverage in order to make other routines possible.
This is especially true when you apply an
adjustment which inverts the process when
necessary, to increase your chances of success.
More on this later. For now, it is enough to know
that the basic structure and system I am about to
teach provides a foundation that can be built
upon and used as a tool, to create other effects. It
does not have to be used in such a simplistic
manner and is not limited to simply guessing
which image out of the three images provided by
a spectator, they will choose.

I also feel that using imagery also helps this
method to become more sure fire, as these will be
less likely scrutinised by your spectator on a
conscious level, in the same way that words
might be, if this was presented in the written
form only and the spectator’s were not asked to
visualise each of the word items, for example.
The images being visual in nature will also
provide more opportunity for one of them to
stand out compared to the rest, due to the many
different possible characteristics that will crop
up, such as the objects size, colour, shape and its
                        20
seeming oddness, not to mention which
generalised categories each of the objects may or
may not fall into. The reason for using imagined
objects is to ensure spectators will be able to
clearly visualise what an item is, in order to make
their choice easier.

To begin, I say the following script to the
spectator.

 “Think of three objects at random. Don’t
    just go for what is already in your
  surroundings or for anything that you
 may already have a preference for. Make
these up completely, so that even you don’t
   know why you would go for them …”

This scripting stops a spectator latching onto a
certain image too early, due to the fact they have
noticed it in their environment. It also stops
them from thinking of something that would be
more relevant in their life. For instance, if they
have just bought a new car and they were to
include this in their list of objects then this may
cause the spectator to choose that item over the
others and, thus, impair the principle from
working. If they bring their own bias to the
choice through their own personal likes or
preferences, or due to the fact a certain object is
                        21
currently relevant in their own life, then that
would endanger the method and could lead to it
failing. The objects your spectator chooses need
to be unspecific to their recent experience, likes
or preferences. If they feel like they are making
up completely arbitrary choices then not only will
this help the process work, it will also make what
you do appear more random and therefore, a
fairer process.

I now wait a few seconds until I can see that the
spectator has decided upon three objects and
then continue with my script.

 “I want you to say these out loud in any
 order and visualise each of these images
        lined up in front of you”.

Here I get the spectator to say the objects out
loud in any order they want. The reason for this
is so that they don’t feel the order in which they
verbalise each of the objects could be a factor in
you subsequently guessing their thought of image
correctly.

You also don’t want anything else to conflict with
your thought process. If you know they are saying
the objects in a random order then you will more
easily be able to ignore any notion of using their
                       22
placement of the objects as a method. This is
important; DO NOT over think the process or try
to discern which image they are thinking of based
on the order in which these are spoken out loud
by the spectator. That is not the method we are
using and is something that needs to be
completely disregarded by both yourself and the
spectator when each of you are making your
decision.

I try to say objects in a random order myself
when utilising the principle as a force and
completely disregard any method or attempt to
place the force image in what may be presumed is
a more desirable position. In fact, it may be best
when using this as a force to always place the
force image in the middle of the group. [This
would mean the force image would be the second
image you verbalise].

Let’s say they name the following objects [from a
real life example];

       GLASS      OCTOPUS           BOOK

As soon as the spectator has spoken their choice
of objects out loud, I allow whichever image
naturally stands out from the others, to present
itself to me. Again, I don’t try to reason through
this consciously or overthink the process.
                       23
In fact, I don’t try to think about it at all. I simply
use my intuition and allow the choice to stand
out on its own. This may be accompanied by
certain notions as to why that particular image
might stand out but I don’t let these thoughts
cloud my judgement or cause me to change my
mind. The process should happen automatically
and it is only with listening to your own sense of
inner knowing and trusting your first impression
that this principle will be effective.

I should also mention that I ignore any
demographics that may seem relevant on the
surface, such as if I am performing for a male or
female participant. This principle seems to
operate on a deeper level then these more usual
considerations. For instance, when performing
for a female recently, two of the objects chosen
were items of clothing and accessories that you
would at first think they would be drawn to due
to the relevance of those objects in her life.
However, the object that stood out to her was the
one that was semantically different. I followed
my intuition and simply applied the method as
outlined by ignoring my conscious assumptions
and this lead to me guessing the image correctly.




                          24
The next line of scripting we say to the spectator,
is as follows.

  “Just think of which one of these objects
  intuitively stands out to you. Don’t over
 think your choice BUT go with your first
                 impression”.

If you have followed along in your own mind then
you should now know that the person who gave
me these images [from the real life example] also
chose the OCTOPUS. Don’t worry if you’re not
thinking of the same image at this point. As
already mentioned, this principle works best in
actual performance. Trying to learn the principle,
whilst at the same time having it performed on
you [albeit via written words on a page] may be a
factor in stopping it from working effectively.

Thinking about this rationally, I suppose the
reason this object stood out to them was due to
the fact, it is the most interesting image out of
each of the possible choices. It is very visually
appealing due to the fact it has eight legs and is a
strange looking creature in its own right. Not
only this but it is also the only animal or natural
object out of a choice which also happens to
contain two man-made objects that could be
considered mundane or boring [in comparison]
                        25
and the less appealing objects out of the group.
Having just gone through the logic that is
possibly at play, I feel that I must remind you
NOT to consider such reasoning for their choice
as you perform, in order to ensure a successful
outcome utilising the principle.

This is the basic secret and baseline structure the
rest of the effects in this booklet are built from.
However, there is one more aspect to this method
that you need to consider before moving on and
applying what you have learnt so far.

Adjusting in the Inverse

The following ruse came out of a jam session I
had with my good friend and soundboard
Dreygon Hibbler when I first showed him the
basic method outlined above. He suggested a way
to make the process more sure fire by simply
inverting the instruction you give to the
spectator, whenever it becomes necessary to do
so.

We found that by giving the spectator a
completely free choice as to which images to use
that some of the time they would say two objects
that were more appealing than the option which
would be left over by default. In other words, the

                        26
object that would become separated from the
rest, in such an instance, would be the one that is
less likely to be chosen, as opposed to the most
likely. This would leave us with two possible
images that could be chosen by the spectator and
would make using our intuition that much more
difficult and open to failure, due to the
inaccuracy this introduced into the choice
making process.

His solution was simple and ingenious. Instead of
trying to control which objects the spectator
would settle on to begin with, he realised we
could simply adjust how we get them to approach
their final decision. This is done by working with
what we get in the moment.

The fact this system only uses three objects [an
odd amount] means that the balance between
whether an image is going to be singled out as a
more or less appealing image choice, can only
switch between two polarities. Either, you will be
presented with a group containing one image that
clearly stands out [as being the most likely
chosen] with the other two images being the less
appealing choices, or you will be confronted with
a group that contains one image that is clearly
the least favourable, out of the two more likely to
be chosen objects which remain. This means that
there will always be one image in the group that
                        27
will be isolated from the rest based on
preference. Therefore, it is always possible for the
performer to settle on the same image as the
spectator and in doing so, know which object
they will choose.

You simply adjust their focus when necessary.
This is done with the following change of
scripting that was first suggested by my friend
Dreygon Hibbler.

 “Think of whichever image least stands
              out to you …”

Here we change the line from an instruction for
the spectator to focus on whichever image stands
out, to the opposite, and instead instruct the
spectator to focus on the image which least
stands out to them.

The rest of the scripting stays the same.




                        28
To recap, here is the rule you need to follow, in
simple terms.

When you are presented with a
group of images that appear to have
more than one image that is
appealing, switch your focus to the
image that stands out to you the
least and change your instruction to
the participant, accordingly; In
other words, simply invert what you
would do normally.

I’m pleased to say that by being conscious of this
inverse polarity at play and changing your script
when necessary, your odds of success are now
pushed well above two thirds and into the eighty
percent or higher success rate category, simply by
adjusting when needed.

Hierarchy of Preference

I realised by performing with the principle
already outlined that it was just as easy to discern
which objects would be chosen in order of
preference, as it was to know which would be
chosen as the stand out object. This is due to the
fact there is usually a natural hierarchy of
                        29
preference that is inherent within the object
group created by the spectator. There will usually
be an image that stands out the least out of the
three [as well as one which stands out the most]
and this will make it easier for you to know which
would be chosen as a secondary option and by
default, which will be chosen last. That is if the
objects were chosen one after another in order of
preference [which is the case in the effect which
follows that involves the spectator hiding images
in different pockets].

This happens on its own and as part of the
process of utilising your intuition [as already
described]. The only difference is how you
approach the use of this principle. All you need to
do is shift your intention during the performance
and focus on each piece of information you wish
to know. Your subconscious will give you the
answers you are looking for automatically. This
should be thought of as an extension of your
ability to know by using your intuition in a
broader sense. You should not try to reason any
of this out or over think the process. Instead, you
should just allow this information to simply come
to you [in the same way you would normally].
This process for obtaining further insight should
feel just as effortless as it does to discern which
object out of the three naturally stands out.

                        30
It will not always be possible to get the order of
preference correct. However, most of the time
you will find it is possible to do so, once you have
become proficient at trusting your intuition. After
some practice, this will eventually become second
nature to you and you will feel as if you are doing
it for real.

You will just know.

Hidden Mental Objects

The following application of all that you have just
learnt, allows you to perform an incredibly clean
version of a ‘Trojan Horse’ style effect, originally
created by Michael Murray, Manos Kartsakis and
Ian Rasp. My version doesn’t use any of the
methodology in the aforementioned effect other
than the use of a ‘hanging statement’, combined
with the inherent logic at play that allows you to
guess where all three objects are hidden on a
person by only needing to know where one of the
objects is located. However, credit must go to
these fine thinkers for providing the inspiration
behind my own version of this effect.

The original ‘Trojan horse’ effect utilises actual
physical objects, whereas, my version uses
objects that are merely thought of as images in

                         31
the mind of the spectator. I feel that the easiest
way to show you my own application and teach
how this works, is to walk you through a typical
performance and break down what is happening
in the mind of the performer and spectator, each
step of the way.

The effect is as follows; a spectator will think of
three random objects and imagine mentally
placing each of these as images into different
hiding places, on their person. They will imagine
placing the image of the first object they select
into their right pocket, the second image they
select in their left pocket and will place the left
over image in their closed fist.

To begin, I proceed as already discussed and
apply the basic system [as a starting point for the
effect]. For the purposes of this example, imagine
we are using the same spectator object choices, as
before.

 “Think of three objects at random. Don’t
    just go for what is already in your
  surroundings or for anything that you
 may already have a preference for. Make
these up completely, so that even you don’t
   know why you would go for them …”
                        32
I pause for a few seconds until I can see that the
spectator has made up their mind and then
proceed with the scripting, as follows.

 “I want you to say these out loud in any
 order and visualise each of these images
        lined up in front of you”.

Let’s say they name the following objects [from a
real life example performing this effect];

       GLASS      OCTOPUS           BOOK

  “Just think of which one of these objects
  intuitively stands out to you. Don’t over
 think your choice BUT go with your first
                 impression”.

If we apply what we have learnt, we will now
know that the spectator is likely thinking of an
OCTOPUS. I now direct the spectator to imagine
placing the image of this object in their right
pocket.

“Now imagine placing this image in your
           right pocket”.


                       33
The reason we refer to their thought of objects as
images, is so that they will not change their
choices based on whether they feel the objects
they are thinking of would fit into either of their
pockets or in their closed fist because they are
thinking in terms of each of the object’s real life
counterpart size. Referring to each of the objects
as images and having the spectator process the
information in this way, ensures their relative
sizes don’t become a deciding factor and stop the
principle from working effectively.

Due to the fact, we know which image the
spectator is thinking of, it means that we can
nominate a specific hiding place for this object
and in doing so, know which object is hiding
where. This is a kind of reversal of what would
typically take place in these style of effects and is
similar to the way you would perform the now
classic ‘Colour Match’ effect, original to Tony
Anverdi. It is this subtle direction from the
performer, as to where the spectator should place
each of the objects, that in part, makes the effect
possible. The other half of the secret is knowing
which image the spectator is thinking of each
step of the way. It will not matter in the minds of
your spectator and those who watch you perform
that you are instructing where each object should
be placed, as they will still be completely fooled
by the fact, there is seemingly no way for you to
                         34
know which of the objects are being placed in
each of the hiding places.

The illusion is perfect.

As soon as the spectator has imagined placing
one of the images in their right pocket, we now
instruct them to imagine placing one of the other
images into their left pocket.

  “Now imagine placing one of the other
     images into your left pocket”.

The spectator will now naturally choose
whichever image has secondary preference out of
all of the objects being considered and this will be
the image they place into their left pocket. This
will leave the object which is considered the least
likely to be chosen out of the group, last to be
chosen. You can therefore, allow both of these
factors to play off against one another in your
mind subconsciously, to arrive at the object
which will more than likely be chosen second and
by default, know which will be left over.

It may be that you find it easier to only consider
which object will be chosen second when you
reach that point in the routine. This way you can
give your subconscious what may be the simpler
                           35
task of comparing the two images left over. You
may also find it easier to just allow everything to
take place automatically, without giving any of it
too much thought.

This is for you to practice and decide for yourself
what is best. However, always remember that the
process should happen subconsciously and
without the need for any real effort on your part,
in terms of conscious thought or reasoning. You
simply allow your intuition to decide all of this
for you.

The good news is, you will only need to know
definitely what image the spectator thinks of
first, to be able to perform this effect successfully.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. In this
example, the BOOK would seem the least likely to
be chosen in comparison to the GLASS, so I
would go with my intuition and assume that the
spectator has just imagined placing the GLASS
into their left pocket. This leaves us with the
BOOK having not been chosen which means it
will be the last object chosen by default.

  “AND imagine holding the image of
whichever object is left over in your closed
                   fist”.

                         36
I have found that the image placed into their fist
will be the least likely chosen when all of the
objects are considered in a group. Again, all of
these factors should interact together and be
worked out on a subconscious level, without you
needing to pay it any deliberate attention. You
should be relying on your own intuition and
listening to your innate knowing, as opposed to
trying to work any of this out logically.

We should now be in a position where we have a
definite idea as to what image the spectator has
placed into their right pocket, as well as a good
idea as to what may be placed in their left pocket,
as well as which image is likely in their closed
fist. I now direct the spectator to hold out their
first and to focus on the image they have placed
inside.

  “Hold out your fist and just focus on
whatever image you have placed inside of
                   it”.

As soon as they have done this, I hover my hand
over their fist as if trying to get an impression to
work out which image they are now focusing on.
This is purely theatrical but also allows me to
apply the following ‘hanging statement’, which is
what ultimately allows me to appear to
                        37
successfully guess all three of the object
placements, correctly.

Here I verbally throw out whichever image I feel
they have likely placed into their fist using my
intuition.

  “So this would be the BOOK [pause] …”

Most of the time I will be correct thanks to the
system at work and my statement will be taken as
a correct guess. In the real performance this
example is taken from, I managed to guess
correctly. If the spectator reacts to this statement
positively then you can assume you are right and
move onto correctly guessing the images placed
in the left and right pocket, accordingly. If the
spectator doesn’t react right away then you can
safely assume you have not just verbalised the
correct image. This is the reason for the slight
pause after the statement. You can use this small
envelope of time to gauge whether or not you are
correct with your guess and then adjust
accordingly.

In the instance you don’t get a positive reaction
from your spectator right away, you would
immediately correct yourself, as if you
temporarily went with the wrong image and then

                        38
decided to change your mind. This leaves you in
the wonderful position of being able to now
confidently name each of the image placements,
one after the other, in rapid succession. It will
look as if you were still able to name each of the
image placements in their entirety and this will
undo any notion in the mind of the spectator and
those watching that you failed in your earlier
guess. They will assume you quickly changed
your mind after a self imposed correction and
were still able to name each of the image
placements in such a complete way, as to appear
to be entirely successful.

Naturally, in this case I would adjust the image I
guess is in their fist to the BOOK and now
assume the GLASS was placed in their left pocket
and the OCTOPUS is still in their right pocket. Of
course, the image they chose first will always
remain in whichever placement we designate to
it. In this example, the OCTOPUS will stay fixed
in the spectator’s right pocket. Then it is just a
simple matter of switching the other two
placements if needed, during the revelation
utilising the ‘hanging statement’.

The logic involved in working out the placements
[although fluid in performance] is very easy to
work out in the moment and happens
automatically in your mind after you have
                       39
become familiar with each of the possible
outcomes that can occur during the performance
of the routine.

If the spectator verbalises that you are incorrect
with your first guess or indicates a “no” in any
way then you should still make it look as if you
were always going to correct yourself, with or
without their help. The fact you will be able to
reveal each image together as a seeming complete
revelation and this happens right after any
apparent small failure, means you will always
end strongly [as long as the system has worked in
and of itself].

After sharing this method with my friend Joshua
Quinn, he suggested the following handlings.
Here he is in his own words:

  “The write up looks good. One possible
  idea for the ‘hanging statement’, if you
don’t get an immediate ‘yes’, then instead
  of ‘correcting’ yourself, you can simply
 continue the statement ‘So this would be
      the BOOK … or the GLASS, or the
OCTOPUS. It’s my job to work out which
…’ Or if they say ‘no’ after you say ‘BOOK’,
 you can make out as if they interrupted
                       40
  you in mid-thought and say, ‘Oh, I was
 going to say ‘or the GLASS or OCTOPUS.
 So thank you for that one hint but please
         don’t give me anymore’”.

   “Also, this may be too obvious to even
 warrant including but if you wanted to
     make it a prediction rather than a
 thought-reading effect, this seems like a
 great place for a ‘Free Will’ application.
 Once the objects are placed, if you could
  use ‘CUPS’ by Michael Murray or some
other nefarious means to determine which
one they are holding, then you could either
 read the prediction out loud yourself or
have them read it before you (apparently)
         know where anything is”.

Thank you for your suggestions Joshua.

I should also mention, my good friend Peter
Turner has used a similar way to handle ‘hanging
statements’ or ‘closed questions’ in the past,
where he would simply make it appear he was
listing the possible outcomes the spectator could
be thinking of, whenever he got a “no” response

                       41
from the spectator and needed to complete the
statement.

I’m sure there are lots of different ways to handle
knowing which object the spectator holds in their
closed fist. In fact, there is a very clever way to do
so, which I wrote about in my booklet entitled
‘Gestalt’ . The principle of which, is out of the
scope of what is taught in this booklet. No doubt,
there will also be ways to turn this into an
effective prediction effect with a little extra
thought. I will leave this for the reader to explore
and think about some more, if they so wish.

That’s it.

I hope you have as much fun performing this
effect and blowing the minds of those who you
perform for, as I have.

Utilising a ‘One Ahead’

The following use for the principle allows you to
reveal two thoughts for the price of one. Here we
utilise the principle in its capacity as a force as
already outline earlier, in order to seemingly read
any other piece of information we want from the
mind of the spectator. In order to do so, we
combine the image force with the classic ‘One

                         42
Ahead’ methodology, to create the illusion we
have been able to successfully guess both
thoughts.

First of all, in this particular routine, we get the
spectator to think of a few different images.
These can be anything and it appears to just be a
way for them to begin to think in a general sense,
as a way for us to start to get in sync with their
thought processes. They are then instructed to
think in more specific terms by shifting their
focus to names, numbers, star signs … [literally
anything we choose for them to focus on] … and
to finally settle on one of these, specifically [i.e. a
name of someone close to them or their own star
sign].

This creates a seeming process of starting out
with more subconscious thought associations and
moving to more specific thoughts and eventually
to the spectator focusing consciously on just one
item. It should seem as if the performer needs to
follow the spectator through this mental process
in order to tune into their thoughts to know
whichever thought the spectator eventually
settles on. Theatrically, it will appear as if the
performer is trying to calibrate their mind with
the spectator’s mind by first accessing thoughts
on a subconscious level in a looser fashion and
then gradually getting closer and more inline
                          43
with the spectator’s actual thoughts. This is done,
as both the spectator and performer build
towards making each of their thoughts more
specific and hopefully similar, in the process,
then as a result of this melding of the minds, the
performer is seemingly able to know the thought
the spectator will ultimately be focusing on. It is
the presentation itself that gives us the structure
and justification for using the ‘One Ahead’
principle in the way that we need to, in order to
guess literally anything we want in conjunction
with the one in three image guess.

The scripting is as follows.

“Just allow a few different images to float
  through your mind … now allow a few
names of people close to you to come into
 your mind … AND now just settle on one
             of these names”.

This allows us to shift their focus from the more
general thought process of allowing images to
freely come into their mind, to whatever category
of thought we wish to guess from, to finally
getting them to settle on just one of these most
recent thoughts.


                         44
Here is where I now utilise the standard ‘One
Ahead’ methodology by getting them to focus on
the name [or whatever target thought I am going
for] and instead, secretly write down the force
image I know they will choose in a moment. For
the purposes of this explanation, let’s assume we
are using the image group example of a FISH,
DUCK and BUTTERFLY. I would now write
down the force image of the BUTTERFLY on a
billet [sight unseen to the spectator and audience
members at large] and place it writing side down
on the table in front of me. Everyone will assume
that I have just written the name the spectator is
thinking of due to the deceptive nature of the
‘One Ahead’ principle at work.

“Okay, just for everyone else, say out loud
    the name you were focusing on”.

Now the spectator will tell us what their thought
of name is, which of course, we will be writing
next. Seemingly as an afterthought, I continue on
with my script as follows.




                       45
“In fact, there were a few images I picked
up on previously from your subconscious
mind … just think of whichever image out
   of a FISH, DUCK and BUTTERFLY
      intuitively stands out to you”.

By stating that these images come from the
spectator’s subconscious mind, it gives us an
ingenious way to bring them into play whether or
not these are actual thoughts the spectator has
considered consciously. They can’t argue that
these were not thoughts that were in their mind
on a subconscious level, if they would not be
consciously aware of them coming from that part
of their mind, in the first place. This is another
ruse I learnt from Kenton. It is in line with the
presentation and allows us to control which
images we use, in order for us to be able to write
down the image we know they will likely choose
ahead of time, as per the ‘One Ahead’
methodology.

Next I secretly write the name they have just
revealed to me on a second billet, as if I am now
for the first time writing one of the images and
place it sight unseen on top of the billet that is
already placed on the table.


                       46
I now get the spectator to reveal which out of the
images they went for, so that everything stays
congruent presentationally and finish by turning
over both billets together, in the process proving
I was able to get both of their thoughts correct. If
you pick both of the billets up as one and
separate them in each hand [as part of the same
action of showing what is written on the billets]
then there will be no discernible inconsistency to
onlookers, in terms of the order you wrote each
piece of information and on which billet each of
these pieces of information should appear. The
larger action and movement of both of the billets
helps to obscure the true placement of each of the
billets and stops anyone being able to follow
along and back-track the true state of affairs. This
is very basic handling when it comes to this
principle’s use.

Most of the time you will be seen to get both
pieces of information correct. If you ‘miss’ on the
images then even in this worse case, you will still
be seen to have correctly guessed one piece of
information [the name] which is typically
considered the strongest reveal out of the two. If
the spectator happens to have thought of one of
the images during the calibration then this could
cause them to choose the same image out of the
image choices and stop the force from working.
However, when this happens, you will still be
                        47
able to claim you were able to pick up on the
spectator thinking of this image.

I’ve found that placing the BUTTERFLY at the
end of the image group and verbalising it last,
with this particular grouping, works well as a
force. This is true of the placements in each of the
other examples that were given earlier in this
booklet.

Silent Poets Two Way Out Variation

If you want to be able to perform the same
routine or any other routine which involves the
‘One Ahead’ principle that only uses one billet,
instead of needing to use two, then you can use a
variation of my two way out that utilises a billet,
from SILENT POETS which is also featured in
my works LOST SOULS and 3CSC. This was first
suggested as a possible use for my idea by my
good friend Mark Lemon, which I dismissed at
first but then changed my mind on its
effectiveness. I felt it might make each reveal
muddy or appear less distinct from one another
and confused, due to the fact, only one billet
would be in play. Thinking it was better for each
of the reveals to appear on separate billets, I
missed the beauty and simplicity of what follows.


                        48
I have since changed my mind and now use the
one billet variation.

To perform, we simply write the force image of
BUTTERFLY [for example] on one side of the
blank on both sides billet, in place of the name or
whatever information we are apparently going for
[as usual] but instead of reaching for a second
billet, we place our hand palm down over the
writing side of the billet facing us and grasping it
with our thumb on the bottom long edge and our
fingers on the top side, rotate the billet away
from us, so that the blank side of the billet with
no writing on, is now facing us. [What we have
actually written on the billet will now be hidden
from view by the back of our hand and fingers.
Even though the writing will be facing towards
the audience, it is safely hidden from their view].
I don’t try to hide anything but instead, keep my
hand relaxed, so that it doesn’t looked cramped
and therefore, telegraph that anything is being
hidden on purpose. I allow the natural, in built
misdirection of the routine playing out, itself, to
hide what is written.

Here we ask the spectator to reveal the thought of
name [or w hate ve r se condary p ie ce of
information we intend to reveal later on]. This is
done as if we are simply asking for confirmation
that what we have written previously is correct.
                        49
We now get the spectator to focus on one of the
images, as per the previous scripting and write
down the information the spectator told us
previously [in this case, the name]. This is all
done without anyone seeing what we write each
time. I now blow on the card as if trying to help
dry the ink and then allow the card to flip over in
my hand, rotating down towards my fingers as I
place it against my chest, so that what I have just
written ends up facing away from my chest
covered by the back of my hand. This happens
one handed and all in one move with the use of
my thumb to help facilitate holding the card in
place, gripping it enough so that the card doesn’t
fall to the ground. The reason for this kind of
‘paddle move’ of the card taking place, is to help
obscure the exact orientation of each side of the
billet from those watching and cover any
inconsistency that may otherwise be apparent to
onlookers.

You can perform this move by flipping the card
over as you place it onto a table if you so wish, so
that the card ends up covered by the back of your
hand, which ends placed flat on top of the card.
You can now reveal both sides of the billet and
even show each of the revelations in the same
order they were apparently written by referring
to each of them, accordingly.
                        50
If you so choose, you can even utilise the ploy of
pretending to cross out one of the written reveals
from the original two way out but use it in a
different way, as also suggested by Mark. This
makes the use of the two way billet even more
deceptive, as it gives you a nice convincer that
you wrote each prediction in the correct order, to
begin with. If performing this variation, we
would need to secretly prepare one side of the
billet with what will later be seen as an underline.
To do this, simply take the billet and draw a line
in marker [or whatever pen you are going to use
in performance] across one side of the blank on
both sides billet. This is drawn length wise, off
centre and more towards the bottom of the billet.
Imagine you are underlining text that hasn’t been
written yet. This mark stays hidden from view
from those who will watch you perform, until the
end of the routine.

To perform, we write the force image on top of
this underline and then turn the billet over as
already described. Next, we write the name the
spectator has just told us and pretend to
underline what we have just written by simply
miming to do so, using the nail of our second
finger to contact the card instead of the nib of the
pen. This looks and sounds exactly like we are
actually underlining what we have just written,
                         51
without leaving a mark. The illusion is perfect.
The billet th