Hardin's Magic Brain

Fraser Parker

False Messiah

1
False Messiah

3 out of 13 Souls

2
Fraser Parker

False Messiah

By Fraser Parker
Edited by Preston Heller

Intuition Publishing, 2015

3
False Messiah

First Printing: 2015
Intuition Publishing
Badger's Hollow
Chapel Lane
Mareham le Fen, Lincolnshire,
PE22 7PZ, UK

Copyright © 2015 by Fraser Parker
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof
may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever
without the express written permission of the publisher
except for the use of brief quotations in a book review
or scholarly journal.

4
Fraser Parker

To My Wonderful Girlfriend Karen

5
False Messiah

6
Fraser Parker

Contents

1.Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 8
2.Foreword....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.Preface......................................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction…………………………………………….….15
A-Prop an essay…………………………………………..17
A Few Words from Kenton………………………….…23
My Pin……………………………………………………..30
O…………………………………………………………….61
TOD O………………………………………………………76
Name Guess………………………………………………89
Star Sign Guess…………………………………..……120
Reverse Name Guess………………………………….123
Star Sign Reverse…………………………………..…138
Bold Number Guess…………………………………..147
Bonus Principle……………………………………..…152
Half Life Equation..………………………………….157
Peter Turner Essay…………………………………...170

7
False Messiah

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the following individuals who without their support this book would not
have been brought into this realm:

My friend and Mentor Kenton for everything he has done and continues
to do, for me. My friend Peter Turner who without his inspiration I
doubt I would still be in magic. To Preston Heller, for his help on the
editing of this manuscript and his friendship. Good to finally have you
in the Souls. Stefan Fleischanderl and Jakob Michaels for helping me to
test these effects, their friendship and support. My good friend Ross
Tayler for providing the seed for this work to grow out from. My Sister
Laura for her support and being my best friend and helping me with self
doubt when it rears its ugly head. My girlfriend Karen for understanding
what it takes.

8
Fraser Parker

Foreword

I first read Fraser's work approximately three years ago. It’s hard to avoid clichés in
a discussion of this sort, as they are often the easiest means through which to
convey something’s magnitude. Therefore, I shall not try: for me, True Mysteries
was a game-changer.

Previously, I’d had little love for Mentalism as it is generally performed. I loved
watching Derren, and had a keen interest in legitimate psychology, linguistics and
hypnosis; however the aesthetic of a suited and booted “corporate-chappy”,
fiddling with little bits of paper which he proceeded to tear up for no reason, and
utilising convoluted processes (in which alphabet cards were picked, playing cards
totalled to get to a word on a page, envelopes were opened in 13 different ways to
reveal 26 photos, each of which was double faced, etc) to divine the simplest pieces
of information simply never appealed. I doubt it’s hard to see why.

Yet here was Fraser, who in three lines of scripting could change someone’s belief
in God. In three lines, could make someone colour blind. In just two lines, he could
steal someone’s voice. In just one line, could stick a person to any object they were
holding. Fraser creates effects ten times as powerful as anyone else, with a fraction
of the work. His methods, as I’ve said in the past, are simply elegant.

Approximately a year after discovering Fraser's work, I decided to contact him. At
first, he was incredibly reserved. Fraser is a deeply private individual, and at first I

9
False Messiah

interpreted this as dislike. Most people would have disengaged at this point,
however I was driven to continue these conversations by the small gems Fraser
would occasionally leak. A binary cueing technique, for example, that completely
altered my ability to proplessly guess what a spectator was thinking… A non-
verbal, prop-less, technique to always know the gender of a thought of friend or
relative and much, much more… This stuff was powerful!

Around this time, I also became exposed to Fraser’s “Memoria” routine, one of the
single most beautiful effects I’ve ever performed. Again, new pastures were
opened. Playing with Fraser’s ideas, I soon began to develop my own, first simple
variations on his work, but soon taking his principles into brand new places.
Deciding that this material must be shared, I arranged a Skype session with Fraser.

It’s no exaggeration to say that session completely changed my direction in this
field. Had we not had it, I may not be writing this. Therefore, I’ll recount to you the
precise details of that session.
Something was wrong with Fraser’s camera, so we ended up shutting both down
and simply talking through the black screen. That conversation went on for nearly 5
hours solid.

We covered everything; from the whys and wherefores of prop-less work, to
performance philosophy, binary cueing, Eastern philosophy, theatrical technique,
our idols, our aspirations. Method was barely mentioned, and by the end we were
firm friends. Unusually, I felt the need to prove myself a little. I performed two of
my effects to divine a thought of star sign (Scorpio, if I remember correctly) and a

10
Fraser Parker

random object (a Post Box). I like to think I fooled him a little, but what I’m certain
of, which was much more important to me, was that I had gained his respect.

Our Skype conversations became increasingly frequent. This is where Fraser really
began to shape my work. Every time I demonstrated something, he’d remind me of
the importance of economy, simplicity and clarity. I started to improve, fast. Soon,
we were creating methods together. Two minds really are better than one.

Our greatest breakthrough came when Fraser showed me an idea he was
developing to gain a thought of word. You’ll find a variation of this, in these pages.
The method essentially consisted of forcing a number on a spectator, labelling their
fingers, then having them name letters as you touched their fingers. The scripting
was such that when you touched the finger that corresponded with their thought of
number they’d name the letters from their word. It was convoluted, but it was a
massive breakthrough. I’d have been happy with that, but here is Fraser’s real gift:
he is never satisfied. He was certain it could be better. We worked together. We cut
the scripting, hid it with whispers. Fraser developed an entirely new number force
just for this method. I developed a new way of justifying whispers. Fraser found a
way of divining the second letter without any additional work, whilst apparently
making the process fairer. It got steadily better. Then, over a marathon Skype
session, it was finished. I devised a bold method of controlling the placement of the
first letter, which eliminated all forcing or position labelling. Fraser then altered his
second letter divination to work with this, and out of nowhere, the two of us where
capable of guessing any word or name with just 2 or 3 lines of scripting…

11
False Messiah

We knew, as we sat there, that we were the only two people in the world capable of
this at that moment.

I cannot tell you how that feels. I cannot describe the feeling of excitement and awe
that exists at having discovered something like that.

That moment is when everything changed.

Since Fraser and I have often joked about who came up with what, when it comes
to “Ouija”. The giving of clear instructions, disguised by a full “reality re-frame” is
a principle I call “Doublethink”. Fraser calls it something new every week. I
believe I came up with it, Fraser believes he played a part (I can evidence it in my
earlier work, just saying, Fraser!). A friendly rivalry exists, and on-going cajoling
occurs on both sides. But in truth none of it matters. Because one thing is for
certain: between us, irrespective of who did precisely what, we’d just created
something everyone believed was impossible. We no longer had any doubts; we
knew we could do anything.

The material that’s evolved since has been nothing short of outstanding. We’ve
worked together on some things, alone on others. But none of what’s come about
could have happened without that “take off”, and that understanding that we can
truly do whatever we want.

It’s bizarre saying it now; being such close friends and having travelled such a
journey together, but Fraser really is one of my inspirations. His drive for

12
Fraser Parker

perfection for its own sake, and for the sake of his audiences is outstanding. He has
one of the clearest visions for his art of any performer I’ve seen, and that reflects in
his creations.

Therefore, I find myself unhesitating in guaranteeing that the material to follow
will be some of the best you’ve ever seen. What is contained herein is different. It
does not contain compromise. It does not feel unnatural. It is theatrical. It is
deceptive. And it will convince your audience that you are capable of reading,
controlling or altering their minds. I make that guarantee.

I make it, however, on one condition: that you make me a guarantee. Guarantee me
that you won’t just read this book. We do that so often and it’s such a waste. Rather,
study what follows. Understand why everything is happening. Dissect the
principles and read between the lines. I know personally that there’s a lot Fraser
wished to hold back. Most of the contents he’s been battling with himself as to
whether he should include them. However, that which is not stated is often implicit,
and if you look closely, you may well discover some real magic. I wish you the
best, with confidence that you’ll enjoy what follows.

Ross Tayler
27th June 2015

13
False Messiah

Preface

What you now hold in your hands is a book of real secrets; it is as close to real I
have ever come in terms of method – reality is re-framed to be what you want it to
be. Please guard these secrets safely. They will allow you to create the illusion of
mind reading in the most natural way possible. This book is different from most. It
does not consist of disparate effects or unrelated sleights (of mouth). Instead each
effect is a subtle re-working of a single principle making this a complete workbook
of tools for you to create the miraculous. It is my wish you find all of the subtleties
and pieces of gold I first had to discover for myself and that I am now giving to
you.

14
Fraser Parker

Introduction

The following 'notes' consist of some of my best ideas and work, to date. The fact
that I refer to this work as a collection of notes does not mean that the notes
themselves will be brief or unfinished, in any sense. I wrote these notes with the
intention of creating a book for myself, one that I needed at the time. I imagined a
book of real magic or as close to it as possible, in terms of the methods we use.
Hopefully, I have managed to create this very object, as evidenced by the fact you
are now holding in your hands a book of real secrets.

Those of you who are familiar with my work will know to what I refer; methods
that exist solely in the words you use and how everyone watching your
performance perceives what you do.

I knew others would also be interested in such a book if it were to exist, which is
why I decided to finally share this work with a few of you.

I hope you enjoy the thinking in this book and not only perform the various
routines presented, but also take the many ideas and concepts taught herein and
apply them to your own work.

It is a privilege to be able to continue to push the art form forwards and to be
surrounded by such great thinkers of our time, who I am lucky enough to be able to
call my friends. Without their work and their willingness for it to be built upon and

15
False Messiah

shared outside of their own releases, none of this latest work would have come to
be. I would therefore, like to thank each and every one of you, who has helped in
my own journey and been a part of my story, however big or small.

I recommend reading through this book in its entirety and re-reading it again a few
times before actually performing any of the effects taught. The reason for this is
because different principles and concepts are taught in different places throughout
the book, which also apply to all of the work, in general. Therefore, reading only a
portion of the book will not give you all of the information you will need to
perform this material correctly. I suggest re-reading this book a few times, so that
you don't miss any of the subtleties of the methods that follow. Every thing you
need to perform these effects successfully can be found in the pages of this book.
However, I may only give you the secret in a couple of lines. Other times, I will
repeat myself and say the same thing in different ways to be sure what I am
explaining is clear. There is a lot to consider conceptually, and there are many
components working together to create each of the effects in this book, so I feel this
way of teaching is necessary.

The way to get the most out of this book is to read through it slowly and in order,
taking your time to ponder and fully understand each of the concepts on their own
as well as how they combine together to create the greater effect.

Then you will be ready to perform the miraculous.

16
Fraser Parker

A-Prop: An Essay on Prop-less Mentalism
Fraser Parker, August 2015

The performance of Mentalism, as well as how each of us approaches the art form,
is very subjective. This means that the methods we feel comfortable using will also
vary amongst us. Some will delight in prop-less methods and others will prefer a
more classical approach and perhaps still more will prefer to use both. I fall into
the later category. I personally use a mixture of prop-less methods and classic
technique in my performances.

I understand that this work may seem a little presumptuous, as if I mean for it to fly
in the face of hundreds of years of common wisdom and methodology. However,
you will quickly see that this is not my intention. I simply desire to push the limits
of the art form as much as possible.

The reason I started out on the path to discovering ways to perform a-prop [a
term coined by my friend Preston Heller to describe this emerging
branch of Mentalism], i.e., without any props of any kind or the need for
anything to be written down, was because when I first started to study Mentalism I
was not happy with what I found in terms of method. I feel this ultimately came
from the naivety of youth, a lack of experience and thinking I already knew it all. I
have since gone back to classic methods and almost gone completely full circle in
my thinking. I now appreciate these older ways of doing things and see their value.
At first I thought of these techniques as limitations – why on earth would you need

17
False Messiah

someone to write something down if you were a real mind reader? My initial
answer to this question was that you wouldn't. Now I just use the proper
justification.

What this initial disdain for classic methods allowed me to do in the beginning was
to search for what I considered the perfect method. I wasn't sure what this would
be but felt that it might involve the use of words and perception to make it work.
This led me to the work of Kenton and to me becoming a Student of his and
member of his School, which ultimately lead to the work you now hold in your
hands. I am not saying what I have come up with is the perfect method or that a-
prop is THE way to perform. However, if prop-less is how this art form is going to
evolve – if future methods will eventually consist solely of the words we use and
work entirely through the perception of those watching, then the work in this book
is a step in that direction.

I feel that it is important to constantly try to push through the boundaries of what is
considered possible and in the process find new ways to perform – even if the old
ways are still relevant and viable.

For me a-prop feels more real and therefore feels more real to my audiences when I
perform. If I feel I am using a “real” method then this seems to be transmitted to
those who watch my performances. My silent script truly comes alive. This makes
my entire performance more believable as I operate from a certain belief about how
I achieve these effects. I believe that the method I am using is true to some degree,
as it is genuine in terms of using words to change how others perceive reality in

18
Fraser Parker

order to create the illusion of a magical effect or outcome. I prefer this to using
standard trickery and then acting. For me it feels as if there is too much of a gap
between method and effect with the classic approach. Using words and perceptions
to create an effect allows for them to blend together to the point where what you do
feels “real” to both yourself and those watching. But this is also a half-truth as we
are still using some razzle-dazzle. Even so, I much prefer this approach and find it
easier to get across in performance, as it fits my silent script and beliefs towards
how Mentalism should be performed and feel to your audience. This, of course, is
very personal and brings us back to the point that the performance of Mentalism is
very subjective, i.e., each performer will favour different methods and approaches.

Another reason I prefer to use a-prop effects, when I can, is the fact that it is often
easier to shift perception or move information with words instead of relying on
physical methods and standard trickery to achieve the same results. This will not
always be the case and you should therefore ascertain which is the correct method
for each of the performance settings and situations you find yourself in and use it.

As I stated before I use both prop-less methods and more classical methods in
performance. I mainly work close up. This in itself may be a factor as to whether
or not one favours prop-less over standard methods. Those of you who work on
stage may prefer a more 'solid' classical approach due to the fact that a-prop
methods can sometimes be unreliable. I 'get' that this is a concern for some,
however I don't mind using a method if it only works ninety percent of the time.
This fits my performance style as well as the type of performances I give. Working
close up you will not have to be one hundred percent correct all of the time and it is

19
False Messiah

much easier to 'brush' away a miss. Failing from time to time in a performance
actually helps to 'grow' credibility for your act and overall performance. If it were
a trick then why would you fail? You wouldn't. The audience therefore is more
likely to assume that what you are doing is not a trick. If I get three effects correct
in a row in performance I will purposefully fail on the last effect. I understand that
you cannot be seen to get a high percentage of effects wrong, which is why I also
suggest mixing these effects with tricks with a more solid outcome. This is also a
good reason to combine a-prop methods with more classical methods until you feel
you can eliminate them altogether from your performance, if this is your goal.

The effects taught in this book will work ninety percent of the time, or more, with
the correct performer and performance. What do I mean by this? These effects are
driven by the personality of the performer. In order for you to 'get away' with using
such bold methods requires that you, the performer, act a certain way – i.e., with
confidence. It is essential you are assertive with the spectator to ensure they follow
your instructions and that you believe the effect will work. It is also important that
you can act as a credible performer. I am not saying you should claim what you are
doing is real but you should at least act as if it might be in performance. This will
create a believability that what you are doing is in some way real, which will cause
the spectator to see the effect as the illusion you wish to create.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to be assertive when giving your
instructions to the spectator. It is essential you are clear and give direct
instructions, that the spectator is listening attentively and that they fully understand
what it is they are to do. If any of these elements are missing then your

20
Fraser Parker

performance will be doomed to failure before it even starts.

This point on the performance of a-prop effects, in great part, comes down to your
attitude as a performer. This is hard to put into print. The successful outcome of
these effects relies greatly on your ability, as a performer, to communicate your
instructions effectively and spell out the effect. After the spectator understands
your initial instructions the way we achieve our goal is to believe in it ourselves
and act as if what we are doing is real.

I am also aware each of you will have your own performance style and will say
each of the scripts in this book in your own unique ways. This is how it should be.
I have purposefully scripted these effects with a bare bones presentation so that you
can more easily adapt them to your own performance styles as well as create
additional scripting and justifications for the process if you like. However, I do
recommend you leave the structure of these effects in tact – otherwise they will not
work. I prefer to use as simplified a script as possible to create my effects,
allowing my silent script and what I believe about the effect to do the rest of the
work.

I would not perform more than one of the effects in this book with the same “re-
frame” process for the same group. The reason for this is in case they become wise
to the method or it fails to work because those watching would now perceive the
process from the point of view of illusion. Nevertheless, if you perform one of
these effects in between other effects in your set, after gaining credibility, you will
find that in this context these effects 'fly'. It isn't necessary to perform these effects

21
False Messiah

alongside others for them to be fooling. I just wanted to mention how combining
these effects with others can help further hide the deception. Again, it is the
context of your performance, which allows for a successful outcome with these
methods.

As Doc Shiels says, “Magic is about getting away with it”.

In terms of these effects, it is the appearance of the effect itself, which creates the
illusion of magic.

Each of the components of each effect combines to create something greater than
the sum of its parts.

The fact that the method exists in words and how everyone perceives the
performance and effect as opposed to sleights or moves or physical trickery, is of
little importance other than it makes what you do closer to real.

If you can gather the confidence to try out these effects for a real audience and
listen to everything I have said regarding performing these effects successfully, you
will find you hold in your hands the key to performing effects in a way which was
considered impossible only a year ago – completely a-prop with nothing written
down.

I hope this material gets you as excited as it has my friends and me in terms of what
is now possible.

22
Fraser Parker

A few words from Kenton

As many reading this book may already be aware I am a Student of Kenton and a
member of his world famous School. I owe all of my work to him, as I would have
not been able to create my own or even begin to try to push the art form forwards
without his teachings and guidance as a Mentor. It would feel amiss if he did not
chime in and have some input on what I consider my greatest work, so here he is in
his own words talking about the power of words in performance, for which he has
become known.

A short story from Kenton: I once walked into a huge corporate gig at a
Biltmore estate. Loads of other Mentalists and Magicians were there,
each showing off how much cooler their doctor's bag of props was than
someone else's bag. I walked in carrying nothing. The president of the
corporation turned to the booking agent and said, "Where is that guy's
bag of props?" The agent said, "He's more like a real wizard. He doesn't
have to carry props." I think that says a great deal.

23
False Messiah

Words, Mentality And Their Power in Magic
Kenton Knepper, Taken from “Rants 2”

Words are symbols. As symbols, they are representative only. Words are not of
course the actual things they represent. Yet, we speak as though what is said is
physical fact. Words have within them the essence of illusion. Magical performers
understand the need to apply these word illusions from everyday life to their
performances.

People often recall as truth something that has been said even after physical
evidence of the opposite. A magician may pick up a deck of cards and palm a card
away. But as he sets the deck back down on the table he might say, “I do not want
to touch the cards at all. I won’t even come near the cards”. A few minutes later,
when the performer produces this palmed card, the audience will be stunned. They
will insist that the performer NEVER touched the cards AT ALL. The illusion and
power in the words spoken override the physical reality everyone has seen. A wise
performer will repeat the words several times; to be sure this idea is firmly
implanted as truth in the minds of his or her audience.

Another example of magic words is when a word is used to seemingly cancel out
what has already taken place. This may be seen as an action that is excused as an
“example”. Some languages have specific words for this, such as the word “but” in
American English. The word “but” tends to cancel out whatever preceded it. For
instance, a performer may palm a card and reach into his outer jacket pocket,
secretly leaving the card there. The performer may say to a spectator, “Go ahead.

24
Fraser Parker

Reach into my pocket …” as he mimes this action and leaves the card behind. He
continues on, “But I don’t want to do it – YOU do it! Reach inside… what is really
in there?” In the moment, some audience members may recall the performer
reached into the pocket first, but later – due to the power of words – they will recall
that an audience member found a signed card in the performer’s pocket. “He never
touched the cards or his pocket at all. We held the cards the entire time and my
friend that picked the card reached into the magician’s pocket himself.” The words
“BUT I don’t want to do it” tends to minimize that the performer did this very
thing. By combining the word-power with a natural pattern, such as presenting a
physical example, the manoeuvres appear fair and above board.

Another example of the word “but” is as follows: A spectator believes the
performer has his card secretly controlled to the top of the deck. The spectator yells
out to the performer that this is the case and that the performer should let the
spectator shuffle the deck. This would be an embarrassing moment except for
those well studied in mystery linguistics. The performer uses the word “but” and
replies, “I would let you shuffle, but you see your card is long gone!” and reaches
into his pocket to remove the chosen card. The truth is the card actually was on top
of the deck as the spectator insisted. The performer did NOT argue with the
spectator about his charge. Rather, he began agreeing that the spectator could do as
he wished. He said as much remarking, “I would let you shuffle”. This took the
spectator off his guard. This did not end the performer’s statement however. He
continued on adding the word “but” to cancel out this option saying “…but you see
your card is long gone”! This completely throws the sceptical person, allowing just
enough time for the performer to palm away the card off the top of the deck and

25
False Messiah

produce it from his pocket, as if to punctuate the end of his statement. A horrible
situation becomes proof of the performer’s remarkable ability.

These are bold and simple examples, but they illustrate how words change the
reality viewed by an audience at any given moment. Far more subtle and in-depth
work can of course be found in my Wonder Words series.

Association is another mental trait mystery performers must use to their advantage
as well. People do not comprehend an item or event in a void. We must bring our
personal experiences and history to bear on that which we experience. We
experience not so much with the ears or the eyes, but through the mind. Our
experiences make for profound illusions. Our associations, while useful, are also
the foundation of incorrect perceptions.

A performer may walk out on stage with a ceramic cup. Smoke rises from it and he
sips from the cup as he speaks calmly and intimately. In nearly an instant our mind
begins to wonder if he is merely chatting, or if the performer is about to do
something with his cup of tea, sake or coffee. Suddenly the performer remarks he
would prefer a smoke rather than a drink. In a flash, the cup is gone and the
performer holds a lit cigarette. Without exposing how the performer has made the
cup vanish, we can still examine closely what really has us amazed. It is only
natural that a cup with smoke rising from it be seen as a hot liquid given our
personal experiences and associations in everyday living. Yet the truth is far from
this. The cup was empty save for a bit of glue that held a lit cigarette inside of the
cup. The smoke rising seemed to be steam from a liquid. Especially is this true as

26
Fraser Parker

the performer keeps the cup in motion a little as he speaks, dispersing any smoke
that appears too dense. This combined with the performer putting his lips to the cup
helps reinforce the associations we have made in our minds.

The vanish of the glass of steaming liquid is now easier to understand. Only the cup
need be hidden away. The liquid never was and the lit cigarette was awaiting
production the entire time. Our mental associations make wild leaps to
assumptions about what we see, hear or feel. A hot poker shown and placed against
the neck of an audience member will make them scream – although in truth a
performer would never do such a thing.

In this case, the mystery performer touched the back of the person’s neck with a bit
of ice. The freezing sensation seemed to be extreme heat, due to the person’s
mental association. It is now an easy matter for the person to be “healed” by
supposed mental powers.

The bottom line is this: It is how we perceive that deceives.

The Public has been made aware of what they know as “misdirection” but few
know the real secret mystery performers call “indirection”. As I have been a
pioneer in this matter as well, I can give you a simple taste of how this
psychological tool is applied. Mentally we know that any direct statement, verbal
or non-verbal, is apt to be challenged. If not outwardly, then in the mind only of
the audience will such things be debated.

27
False Messiah

A performer holds an object between his hands. He asks a spectator to hold their
hands palm up to receive it. As the performer approaches the spectator, the object
vanishes. The spectator is startled and the performer shakes his hand thanking him
for his help. Everyone is amazed. But what if this same thing happened and the
performer did not shake the spectator’s hand? In a second or two, attention would
have focused on the hand that concealed the small object. One of the performer’s
hands is clearly seen empty, yet we see the back only of his other hand. This hand
would be suspicious and the vanish obvious, save for the use of indirection.
Shaking the spectator’s hand with a possible suspicious hand indirectly says this
suspicious hand is empty. It would be absurd to vocalize or directly claim this hand
is empty. But by shaking hands with the spectator, the audience is indirectly being
told the other hand is empty too, and so the vanish impresses all who see it.

A bow may be used in a similar manner. The secret transfer of the object from one
hand to another is performed as the hands are brought together. This transfer is
made back and forth twice. In the process, the audience happens to see out of their
periphery view each hand empty. The hands are not directly shown empty, as this
would cause direct attention and possible suspicion. But as the hands are seen
empty from time to time as the performer bows, the hands are indirectly perceived
to be empty.

I have used this bowing transfer to fool many well known Magicians and
Mentalists.

Due to such principles as indirection, suggestion, linguistics and mental influence,

28
Fraser Parker

mystery performers create what appears to be everything from magic to mind
reading. Those of us on the cutting edge have made these once obscure principles
the new mark of excellence in any mystery performer’s act. Less honest types
apply these means to guide others into debt, war, defeat, sickness and ruin. Mystery
performers however use the power of their principles to bring wonder and hope
back to the world of man.

29
False Messiah

My Pin

I will briefly outline the history of this effect, with variations, before teaching my
own version.

The basic effect is as follows:

A spectator successfully uses their intuitive abilities to divine the four-digit pin
number to your bank account. This effect and unique premise comes from the
mind of my wonderful friend Peter Turner.

He was originally using his four digit number force, “Life Equation”, based off a
force from Theo Annemann, to divine the spectator's actual bank pin number. The
effect later changed to divining a phone unlock code instead of a bank pin number
due to the ethics involved with performing something which deals with such
personal and potentially dangerous information (more on this later). However, the
basic method stayed the same. After forcing a specific number on the spectator he
would use Michael Murray's beautiful “Springboard” principle to work out the
actual numbers of their pin by getting the spectator to compare each digit of their
pin with each of the digits of the four-digit force number. They would tell you how
much higher or lower each of the digits of their pin number was compared to each
of the digits of the force number, in order, and this would cue you into their actual
pin number. I thought this was a wonderful idea and when we met again I
suggested he used a single digit force number and get the spectator to compare the
first digit of their pin number to this force number and then compare each of the

30
Fraser Parker

subsequent digits to each other. This made it easier for the spectator to follow.

We both went away and a few weeks later, after working on it, what Peter came
back with was a thing of pure beauty.

He applied his principle of “flipping it on its head” to the effect by reversing the
process. Now the spectator could guess your pin number instead of you trying to
divine theirs. This instantly cleaned up the effect. It made the use of the
“Springboard” and the force of the first digit make complete sense from a
performance point of view. The process was no longer working against the effect,
but with it. If you are not familiar with the effect “Your Intuition” then I suggest
getting a copy of the “When in Rome” lecture notes from Peter Turner.

The difference between Pete’s effect and my variation is how I deal with the
spectator guessing the first digit of my pin number. I do not use a force. This
makes my effect more sure fire. I don't say this in any way to demean the original
version but simply to point out the main difference between the two. I still use
Peter’s version when I want to be even quicker and still have a reliable method and
powerful effect. In fact, sometimes I prefer having the built in 'out' from “Your
Intuition” play out. This is a beautiful 'out' and ending to the routine, in and of
itself.

I do not use a force with the following method but instead use a combination of
ideas to create the illusion that the spectator is guessing my pin number. They truly
have a free choice all the way through the effect, as opposed to the illusion of free

31
False Messiah

choice on which so many effects depend.

This is made possible by using another principle, which is the “reality re-frame”
concept from “Ouija” by Ross Tayler and myself. It is a billet-less name guess that
I apply in a much broader sense to this and other effects in this book. In fact, it is
the more general application of this basic concept that makes the following effects,
premises and routine structures possible -- all without billets or forces of any kind.

I will now outline the basic script used in performance and afterwards, break down
each of the deceptions taking place. If simply reading through the performance
script fools you then you can imagine how well this plays to an actual audience.

Here's the script in full:

“I know you are wondering whether it is possible for me to use these
abilities to guess your pin number? Yes, it is possible, but what interests
me specifically is whether it is possible for you to use your own intuitive
abilities to guess my pin number.

“I want you to focus on what you believe the first digit of my pin number
is. The only clue I am going to give you is this isn't a very high number.

“Okay, the number you are thinking of now, isn't it. So do this for me.

32
Fraser Parker

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from one to zero,
changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers... just to
make this fair start on the very first number you thought of.

“Okay, focus on this first number and change the number [snap your
fingers]... change again [snap fingers]... and one more time [snap].

“So now you have a completely different number in mind. True?

“And there is no way I could know if this number is the first digit of my
pin number or know any of the other numbers you thought of, as you
could have changed your mind in any order. Correct?

“Can you remember this number? If not then write it down. I will look
away.

“Just out of curiosity, what was the very first number you thought of?”

Spectator: “Three.”

“Excellent. It’s a good thing I had you dismiss your first impression,
because it isn't that number.

33
False Messiah

“Moving forward I’d like you to just focus on what you feel the second
digit of my pin number is. Really trust your intuitive abilities. Is it
higher or lower than the first digit you have just written down?”

Spectator: “Higher.”

“Okay. Exactly how much higher is the second digit than the first?”

Spectator: “Two higher.”

“You’re doing great. Now focus on the third digit. Is it higher or lower
than the second? And to what degree?”

Spectator: “Lower. By four.”

“Outstanding. And finally focus on the last number. Would you say that
it’s higher or lower than the third digit?”

Spectator: “Lower. By Two.”

“Okay, write this number down as well.”

34
Fraser Parker

“My pin number is 6842. How close did you get?”

They will always have written down the exact same four digit pin number you call
out as your own at the end of the routine. What's great is that this is all made
possible with very little scripting. Your words and acting appear as if what you are
doing is true and that is all that is required to create the illusion.

This may seem impossible to those unfamiliar with the “re-frame” from the original
“Ouija” manuscript. The reason for this is because the deception is so subtle.

I will now break the script down and show you the reason we say the things we do
and how these words create the overall illusion of the spectator being able to guess
your pin number.

Within this effect are a lot of other principles and ideas that are applied to other
effects in this book. So please read them carefully to fully appreciate everything
that is going on in this subtle scripting.

Before getting into the method I would like to take a moment to talk about the
ethics of revealing information as personal as someone's pin number. This is
something that has been talked about at length and is something I'm sure you have
already considered with pin number revelations being so popular at the moment.

My own views on the subject are as follows. If I am going to reveal something as

35
False Messiah

personal as a pin number I always choose to do this with a phone unlock code
instead of someone's actual pin for his or her bank account. This is so that I am in
no way putting my spectators in any potentially harmful situations or opening them
up to theft. As well as this, a phone unlock code is something that can be changed
easily after your performance or a new one can be made up and used on their phone
quickly for the purpose of you performing the effect. I also feel that in terms of
presentation this makes for a better moment. There is a built in visual element and
climax to the reveal when the performer is able to type in the spectator's unlock
code directly into his or her phone and everyone can clearly see the phone unlock.
However, having said all of this, when dealing with the spectator guessing my pin
code I always refer to the four-digit code as my actual bank pin number. I feel I
can take that risk for myself. If you don't feel you can do the same then simply
change it to something else.

The first thing we say to the group of people we are performing for, is as follows.

“I know you are wondering whether it is possible for me to use my
abilities to guess your pin number? Yes, it is possible but what interests
me more is whether it is possible for you to use your own intuitive
abilities to be able to guess my pin number.”

This introduces the effect as well as setting up the premise of the spectator guessing
your pin number instead of this effect only being about you trying to guess their pin
number. It is far better if they use their intuition to guess something instead of you
simply showing off your abilities to start. It also gives you the perfect 'out' because

36
Fraser Parker

if the first effect fails you can simply go into any other pin revelation method and
reveal their pin unlock code to their phone. What this does is suggest that being
able to guess a pin number is entirely possible, but that it takes some practice. It
also plants the 'seed' that you may be able to guess one of their pin numbers. This
will more often than not, lead to one of them asking you to do this later on, without
you having to introduce the effect yourself.

The next line we use sets up a beautiful ruse which enables us to obtain the key
piece of information we will need later on, for the effect to work.

“I want you to focus on what you believe the first digit of my pin number
is. The only clue I am going to give you is that it isn't a very high
number.”

These words cause the spectator to think of a low number, first. In a moment you
will see why this is important. At this point, they have a genuinely free choice of
what number to think of and everything fits the premise of the effect perfectly.
They are restricted to think of a low number. However, this does not seem like you
are being restrictive as you are apparently making it easier and helping the
spectator to guess the first digit.

Now comes a most beautiful moment in the script. It is a break through in terms of
how this and other similar effects are structured -- so they now become possible.

You pretend you somehow know, via your own intuitive abilities, that the number

37
False Messiah

they are currently thinking of is wrong and is, in fact, not the first digit of your pin.
This is a moment of pure boldness and does require a bit of acting on your part.

“Okay, I can tell you that the number you are thinking of now isn't it. So,
please, do this for me...”

This creates a moment of theatrical obfuscation, which runs lock-step with the
effect and is, in fact, essential for the trick to work. It is this idea of dismissing a
thought early on in the routine that allows for this effect and others of similar
construction to work. The importance of this ploy will become clearer as we move
through the script.

Since they appear to be thinking of the wrong number to start off, the required next
bit of process appears entirely justified.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine,
changing the number you are on every time I snap my fingers. And, to
make this as fair as possible, start on the very first number you thought
of.”

What this script does is create a moment of ambiguity between how your words are
perceived by the spectator and everyone else. However, this ambiguity only lasts a
few seconds before everyone perceives your words to mean the same thing.
Because you are speaking directly to the spectator they will perceive these words as
instructions that are slightly different to what you will say in a few seconds, imply

38
Fraser Parker

you actually meant. If, at this point, the audience also perceives your words from
the perspective of the spectator, it doesn't matter, as their perception will change
along with that of the spectator when you “re-frame” and adjust with perception
that which has taken place.

To the spectator, the previous script is understood as the following instructions:

1. Count up through the numbers from zero to nine mentally, in
sequential order (zero... one... two... etc.)
2. Move to the next number every time I snap my fingers.
3. Start on the first number you thought of (which was dismissed as
incorrect).

However, the script is ambiguous enough to also mean the following:

1. Think only of the numbers from zero to nine (relevant to pin
numbers).
2. Change the number you are thinking of randomly, every time I
snap my fingers jump to a different number.
3. To make this fair, start at a random position (your first thought of
number).

The spectator will follow the first meaning of instructions due to the fact you are
speaking directly to them. They can sometimes become confused as to which set of

39
False Messiah

instructions you mean for them to follow due to the ambiguity in the script, so to
ensure they always follow the first and most obvious possible set of instructions, I
'mute' the spectator from the start of the routine. This stops them from verbalizing
their confusion at any point and will usually result in them simply following along
with the most logical set of instructions, i.e., the first set. The line I use is as
follows.

“It is essential that you don't say anything out loud as we do this, unless
I ask you specifically, because I don't want you to give away any of your
thought processes.”

I say this before going into the process outlined above. It is important you are clear
about this, as this is one of the potential problems you can encounter with this and
similar routines. Remember, spectator management is of paramount importance.

“So focus on this first number and change the number [snap your
fingers]... change again [snap fingers]... and one more time [snap].”

Each time you snap your fingers, you should act as if you are trying to pick up on
the number they are thinking of, to check if they eventually stop on the correct
number. I snap my fingers three times. This number always stays constant.
However, it should look to everyone watching that the reason I stopped after three
snaps is because I could sense they were on the correct number. The number of
times I snap my fingers combined with the previous ploy of getting the spectator to
start counting from a low number, ensures they will not be thinking of a number out

40
Fraser Parker

of the range of possible numbers for a single digit of a pin number (0-9).

“So you now have a completely different number in mind. Correct?”

They seem to have had a genuinely free choice at this point, as the number they are
now thinking of is based on their first freely thought of number.

This is where the structure of the routine comes into play. You are now in the
perfect situation to solidify the notion that you could not know the number they are
thinking of, as at this point in the routine you genuinely don't know. The reason
these routines work so well is because the way they are structured gives you natural
built in moments of confirmation, essentially for free, without the effect ever
becoming compromised.

“There is no way I could know if this number is the first digit of my pin
code or for me to know any of the other numbers you thought of, as you
literally could have changed your mind in any order. Right?”

This is a true statement with a lie tagged onto the end of it. The fact you give two
statements as one means that when the spectator answers 'yes' to the first truthful
statement, they also agree with the lie at the same time.

This second statement is the 're-frame' and is the most important part of the script.

These words suggest indirectly that you always meant for the spectator to change

41
False Messiah

their mind in a random order. They may feel like they misunderstood your
previous instructions, at this point. However, because you have already told them
to not say anything, so they don't reveal their thought process, they will not voice
their concerns and potentially destroy the illusion.

The key to getting this to play is to believe the statement to be true yourself and
simply move on.

They will now think that you meant for them to change their mind randomly,
jumping through the numbers from zero to nine.

The fact that you act as if this was always the case creates the incorrect assumption
in the mind of the spectator that it doesn't matter what their actual thought process
was. They will believe that because if you don't know they misunderstood your
instructions then you still couldn't possibly know the number they eventually
thought of. Their thought process seems to be irrelevant.

This is all understood on a subconscious level, whether they consciously think all
of this through or not.

Once they agree to the previous statement with a 'yes', they burn down the only
bridge back to the true situation and at the same time cement the illusion via their
own perception of events. How they perceive what has happened is what fools
them.

42
Fraser Parker

Their belief will also match the reality of the audience – as you seemingly do not
know the order in which they decided to change their mind. Therefore, this is not a
standard “Dual Reality”, where two differing perceptions are created, but is instead
a situation where both realities run along the same lines, in terms of the effect
created.

All realities co-exist to create the same overall illusion. This is the correct way to
tie up the “Dual Reality” ploy, so that all is left is the illusion of what you wish to
create.

Even if the spectator is not entirely convinced by this method then this built in
“Dual Reality” ensures everyone else is fooled. Most of the time however, due to
the way this effect is structured the spectator will be fooled along the same lines as
everyone else watching.

NOTE:
This previous scripting for the “re-frame” should be delivered to your
spectator as assumed fact. It should be stated as if it is true. This is
done somewhat forcefully, with a slight pressure applied to the spectator
for them to confirm this is correct. It should seem as if you are simply
checking they are following along correctly not actually asking if they
feel they had a genuinely free choice. As soon as you get any sign of
agreement from your spectator simply move on with the effect.

43
False Messiah

It is the structure of the routine, which makes everything seem completely fair to
everyone involved.

You can now ask the spectator if there is any way for you to know anything about
their thought of numbers and be completely above suspicion as there is genuinely
no way for you to know anything at this point in the routine. Their answer only
helps further cement the illusion.

The difference with this effect compared to what has been done in the past is how
we use the “re-frame” principle and apply it to the method itself.

This is a first in the art form and an entirely novel concept.

Ross Tayler and I are extremely proud to have been able to give this break through
to the art, first outlined in “Ouija”.

How I apply this concept in this work is similar to Peter's “Not the Ed Marlo Snap
Change” from “When in Rome”. I find it interesting that there is a cross over
conceptually even though I worked my method out from a completely different
starting point. It feels like we are all working within the same limitations in terms
of method and because of this are finding similar ways to move the art forwards.

As you will see, this basic concept opens up many new avenues for prop-less
presentations of Mentalism, previously considered to be impossible.

44
Fraser Parker

Before moving on, I would like to quickly talk about hand gestures. These can help
immensely, in terms of ensuring the spectator follows your initial instructions and
counts upwards through the numbers in a sequential order. When giving my
instructions to the spectator, I always mime in front of me with my hand where
each of the thought of numbers is placed in the air, as an example of how I want
them to visualize each number. This is done without openly telling the spectator to
visualize in this particular way and is more of a subconscious cue for how you want
them to think. I point with my fingers at different places in the air, in between the
spectator and myself as if placing a 'full stop' where I imagine each of the numbers
in front of me. I also move from one side to the other as I create each imaginary
full stop. These hand gestures help to reinforce the notion, you want the spectator
to count upwards through the numbers in a sequential order.

Occasionally, your verbal instruction and hand gestures will not be enough. If they
seem confused or start to verbalize that they are unsure what it is you want them to
do then simply interrupt them and reiterate the first instructions, but add the word
“next” to the script, as follows.

“I want you to mentally run through the numbers from zero to nine,
changing to the next number every time I snap my fingers. And just to
make this fair, start on the very first number you thought of.”

This change of scripting is still in-line with the overall illusion you are trying to
create, whilst at the same time helping to bolster the notion of the spectator moving

45
False Messiah

sequentially through the numbers.

In fact, if you’d like to be quite bold from the start, you can use this scripting
instead of the first script I gave you. It is a little less subtle but will still fly right
past everyone and still work with the re-frame.

So how do you know the number they are thinking of?

This is where the previous ploy of dismissing the first number they thought of,
comes into play.

“Just out of curiosity, what was the very first number you thought of?”

It will seem as if this line is really just an afterthought. Asking for this information
will be above suspicion due to the “re-frame” and their belief you could not know
in what order they changed their mind. It will not seem to matter if you are told the
first number they thought of, as you seem to not know for certain that they counted
through the numbers sequentially, starting on this number. You could not therefore,
work out the number they are currently on simply by counting up through the
numbers yourself, or so it seems to everyone.

The f