Opus by Fraser Barker

            Copyright © 2019 Fraser Parker
                    www.fraserparker.co.uk
              [email protected]


Warning! Contains strong language and
profanity!

Opus

Intro:

https://vimeo.com/342552789/e192b5aaa3

Performances:

The Fool Who Persists in Folly Star Sign:

https://vimeo.com/337316918/412674e49d

BOLD Drawing Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/337327468/48f8d2f6cc
I Fall to Pieces Drawing Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/337337873/99fece4463

Which Hand?:

https://vimeo.com/337344971/88e0b0ffbc

Lost Name of GOD Studio:

https://vimeo.com/337351830/3b69fb05d6

Lost Name of GOD Performances:

https://vimeo.com/337367326/a22936841a

Steve Peek + Bold Display:

https://vimeo.com/337377649/40ecfcbc38

NO Pocket, Pocket Writing:

https://vimeo.com/337385967/e06dd87eee
Sonder Star Sign:

https://vimeo.com/337474088/ab09a128ea

Sonder Star Sign 2:

https://vimeo.com/342692925/178a3470a8

Sonder A.C.A.A.N:

https://vimeo.com/337479226/3fe0b76c46

I Fall to Pieces INVERSE Drawing
Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/337485217/08a7bfcad5

Dragon Peek:

https://vimeo.com/337490297/e795b13f12

Touching on Thoughts:

https://vimeo.com/337495266/3441ba7987
YOKE Playing cards:

https://vimeo.com/337497295/70319d050d

Gypsy Name guess:

https://vimeo.com/337504184/0cadf6408d

Occlus Date of Birth:

https://vimeo.com/338271436/9b40325307

EASY Star Sign:

https://vimeo.com/339522787/864c31ed63

Memoria HYBRID:

https://vimeo.com/340037680/5ffa7fc908

YOKE Name guess:

https://vimeo.com/342554630/e432f4fe73
Interviews:

Ross Bartels Interview Part 1:

https://vimeo.com/340253047/32f8f083fa

Ross Bartels Interview Part 2:

https://vimeo.com/340398183/f783ec8396

Amz Interview:

https://vimeo.com/343171412/c42eb8b404

Explantions:

Lost Name of GOD Part 1:

https://vimeo.com/340514323/16fdde6858

Lost Name of GOD Part 2:

https://vimeo.com/340623892/51bb259dab
Lost Name of GOD Part 3:

https://vimeo.com/340634640/ff6716bfdf

Living & Dead + Disclaimer reveal:

https://vimeo.com/340680523/4f85f64637

The Fool Who Persists in Folly:

https://vimeo.com/341407922/ec1b8a78ae

Sonder Star Sign:

https://vimeo.com/341415427/78bdf2e6f2

I Fall to Pieces Drawing Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/341517389/9c8012650d

I Fall to Pieces INVERSE Drawing
Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/341520127/27a85f287c
BOLD Drawing Duplication:

https://vimeo.com/341523417/77b6903d4d

Dragon Peek:

https://vimeo.com/341988758/8b884ac9c4

Dragon Peek 2 (Clarification on Handling):

https://vimeo.com/342700908/5ea7969cda

Steve Peek:

https://vimeo.com/341993350/4e25eb0e84

EASY Star Sign:

https://vimeo.com/341999037/83800f7fd3

Gypsy Name guess:

https://vimeo.com/342005542/a65949b8e3
Occlus Date of Brith:

https://vimeo.com/342016983/70fdbd7031

Mental Snap Change:

https://vimeo.com/342026019/b9e9e9ce54

Which Hand?:

https://vimeo.com/342662682/929cf33240

Which Hand? Part 2:

https://vimeo.com/342558455/9354c94f06

NO Pocket, Pocket Writing:

https://vimeo.com/342079177/a16a42697f

YOKE Playing cards:

https://vimeo.com/342076526/7e241e9387
YOKE Playing cards Part 2:

https://vimeo.com/342555199/331aaa1053

YOKE Name guess:

https://vimeo.com/342073968/b51784a02b

YOKE Pin:

https://vimeo.com/342082452/955ed77301

Memoria HYBRID:

https://vimeo.com/340755977/a393ae2e52

King's force:

https://vimeo.com/342088197/b56fb5686c

Sonder A.C.A.A.N:

https://vimeo.com/342202290/006da11884
Touching on Thoughts:

https://vimeo.com/342227309/49387674b4

Sonder Star sign + A.C.A.A.N Part 2:

https://vimeo.com/342564237/37ae134799

Bonus – Lost Name of GOD D.O.B:

https://vimeo.com/342575057/a0efb40713

Closing thoughts on Prop-less:

https://vimeo.com/342572100/5b819bda6e

Bonus:

Uncut 1:

https://vimeo.com/342698058/7c07238269

Uncut 2:
https://vimeo.com/342712610/a676efaca1

Uncut 3:

https://vimeo.com/342707293/98f9cf9121

Uncut 4:

https://vimeo.com/342714510/77f27fd610

Uncut 5:

https://vimeo.com/342719689/de2c6ee75d
Cat's Cradle
Prop-less Date of Birth

The following is my solution to the prop-less
date of birth divination plot.

I have spent many hours jamming with
friends and working out the finer details of
this system, to be able to bring you the
simplest and most streamlined version.

I am very proud of this piece and am happy to
say it blew away many of my peers, when I
first showed it to them.

Now it is yours.

I will explain this alongside showing you how
a typical performance would play out and by
doing so, provide you with all of the scripting
and nuances of the system along the way.

It really is easy to perform once you have
learnt the system and the required memory
pegs you will need to learn. Here is a crib of
the associations you will need to make
automatically during your performance. This
can either be copied and pasted into a
notebook you use for your revelation or
learnt cold using 'peg' and 'list' mnemonics,
respectively.

I highly recommend you learn these
associations cold, so that you can instantly
shift mentally, from star signs to Months and
numbers to Months, whenever you need to do
so, during performance.

1 January        Aquarius
2 February       Pisces
3 March          Aries
4 April          Taurus
5 May            Gemini
6 June           Cancer
7 July           Leo
8 August         Virgo
9 September      Libra
10 October       Scorpio
11 November      Sagittarius
12 Capricorn     December

The only other rule you need to be aware of
concerning these correlations is as follows:
Each of the star signs cross over two Months
at their mid-point (around the 19th day of
each of the Months).

Therefore, if you are dealing with a date of
birth which has a single digit for the day or is
a double digit beginning with the number 1
then you will know you have to move up one
Month, mentally, from the Month you have
remembered as being associated to their star
sign, in order to work out the Month of their
date of birth accurately.

If on the other hand, you know their date of
birth starts with a 2 you will just stay on
whatever Month is associated with their star
sign (from the previous crib).

This will become clearer as we move on but I
wanted to just briefly mention it before
getting into the method.

You should also keep in mind that if you need
to mentally jump forwards one Month from
December then you will be jumping from the
end of the year back to the beginning, ending
on January.

So let's imagine your spectator was born on
the 15th of July, for the following example.

I would begin by saying,

“Okay, just focus on your date of birth, for
me and concentrate on the number of the day
you were born.

“Is this one or two digits?”.

Here I simply ask whether we will be dealing
with a one or two digit number. This is the
simplest solution and something that will not
affect the impact of the final reveal as it is
such a small piece of information. You could
guess this with a hanging statement but I
really don't think that is necessary.

In our example, they would reply with: “Two
digits”.

“So just focus on the first digit of your date of
birth and imagine saying it to yourself over
and over... so this would be two ...”

I then pause for a brief second.

This is the classic verbal hanging statement I
first read in Derren Brown's 'Pure Effect' and
is often attributed to Bob Farmer and Jerry
Sadowitz.

If they react here then I have got a hit and I
now know their date of birth begins with a 2.

If they don't react, I continue my script
making it seem as if I was just giving an
example, for how they are to think of their
number.

“... two … two … for example”.

I now know the first digit is a 1.

I now seemingly change my approach to
reading minds.

“In fact, we are going to do this slightly
differently using a system from esoteric
palmistry”.

“So in a moment, if I ask you to add a
number onto your hand like the number 8, for
example, I want you to simply count on your
fingers starting on the thumb and jumping
back to the thumb whenever you run out of
fingers, like so …”

Here I give a visual example and count
through my fingers, starting on the thumb
saying “one” as I though my thumb, saying
“two” as I touch my index finger, “three” on
my middle finger and so on and so fourth,
jumping from my little finger “five” to my
thumb and continuing the count around my
hand, until I get to “eight” stopping on my
middle finger.

This is a lot easier to follow in real life for
your spectator compared to how this reads,
especially when they are given this visual
example, to begin with.

“If I then get you to add anything else onto
your fingers, you would just continue
counting, jumping from whatever finger you
just stopped on”.

“I already have an idea of the first digit, so
place your hands behind your back and just
add the second digit of your date of birth onto
your hand and let me know when you've done
that”.

Here all I need to do is pick up on whether it
takes them a relatively short or longer
amount of time to complete this action and
remember this cue, for later.

This will allow me to easily back-track to
their second digit, later on in the routine and
know whether this is a number over 5 or up to
5.

I now instruct the spectator to add their
Month number onto their hand, as follows.

“So in a moment, I want you to add the
Month number onto your hand from the
finger you are now on – so that you don't
have to worry about the number, just say each
of the Months to yourself as you count
through your fingers and when you arrive at
the finger that represents the Month you were
born, just give me a clear 'yes' – so do this for
me now”.

Here I simply count along mentally in my
own head by saying each of the Months to
myself, at an even pace.
What is nice about seemingly making it easier
for them to add on their Month number by not
converting their Month to a number is: they
will stay at an even pace that can be followed
along in your head, mentally.

You will be able to easily gauge with timing
which of the Months they end their count on
due to the fact, everyone will say these
Months to themselves at the same pace. This
way there is no chance the spectator will
count through their fingers quickly or slowly,
as they will always go with the same timing it
takes everyone to simply say each of the
Months to themselves and then swiftly move
on to the next Month, as they count on their
fingers.

This idea for using timing to estimate the
Month and then their star sign was suggested
by Peter Turner, when I shared this routine
with him and is something Michael Murray
has used his ingenious 'Cups' principle for.
It is with both Peter's and Michael's blessing
that this short cut for guessing the spectator's
star sign is included in this manuscript.

For more information on Michael's prinicple
check out his various works containing the
principle on his website: www.mindfx.co.uk

My original method, relied on using any
other star sign divination to be able to
eventually back-track to the participant's
exact date of birth. This is something you may
still wish to do, if you don't want to perform
the slightly bolder yet streamlined version,
outlined here.

This is the easiest way to bring the routine
full circle and the way I feel it should be
performed.

They will say “yes” and you will now have a
Month in mind you can in a moment, base
your estimate of their star sign on.
“So right now you have a finger in mind that
in no way tells me anything about you,
right?”

They will of course, say “yes” at this point,
as it really doesn't seem to give you any
information due to the fact, they have added
numbers together on only five fingers and in
the process obscured each of these numbers
from being known.

“However, in esoteric palmistry each of these
fingers would represent a different planet of
influence – which finger are you now
focusing on?”

They will now give you this information and
this can be used later to back-track to their
exact date of birth.

In our example, the finger they would land on
would be the index finger.
“Okay, usually this would represent the
planet Mercury but based on what I feel the
first digit of your date of birth is, I would
adjust this slightly – it's okay, you can relax
your hands now”.

I make up this planet but if you prefer you
can research each of the planet associates as
taught in actual esoteric palmistry and
always associate each of the fingers with
their correct correspondence of planet. This
way if anyone were to research or happened
to know about esoteric palmistry, you will
still appear credible.

Another approach you may prefer is to label
these fingers as different life areas and break
up the routine with a reading based on
whichever life area their finger represents.

Again, you can make this up to suit whichever
life area you want to focus on during your
reading or always attribute the same life
areas to each of the fingers and then get the
spectator to tell you which area of interest
relates to the finger they stopped on.

Giving a reading will offer some nice time
misdirection, ensuring the spectator won't be
able to easily back-track the method. Not that
they will be able to do so easily anyway, if at
all.

In fact, you can always break up any part of
the routine in this way by throwing in brief
stock lines or readings, as this will fit the
premise and relate to the use of esoteric
palmistry.

Now I would go in for the star sign
revelation.

What is beautiful about estimating their star
sign based on the Month estimation is the
fact, you can now use a THREE WAY OUT as
you would usually when performing any of
my prop-less star sign divinations and in
doing so move from a low resolution to a high
resolution.

It will appear as if you are able to guess their
exact star sign using the out and once you get
your hit and know their exact star sign, you
will then be able to back-track perfectly to
their exact Month and date of birth!

In our example, let's say I have successfully
followed along with their count through the
Months to the Month July.

I would now have a possible three star signs
in mind that could belong to the spectator. In
order to get to these possible signs I would
simply focus on the star sign that relates to
the Month number I have estimated from the
count (refer to the crib), as well as the star
signs that immediately precede and follow
this sign.

I can get to these star signs instantly in my
head during performance due to the fact, I
have learnt the Month number and star sign
associations, as well as know the star signs in
order, as they appear throughout the year.

However, if you prefer you can refer to a crib
in your notebook as you pick it up to write
down your impressions.

The signs relevant in this example would be
as follows:

CANCER, LEO, GEMINI

To arrive at these signs I base it on the
estimated Month of July. I know July is the
number 7 in my crib and I know this sign is
LEO. I then think of the star signs before and
after LEO namely, CANCER and GEMINI.

I now throw out one of these signs with the
following ruse from Peter Turner.

“What is interesting is, when I first sat down
in front of you I instantly felt you were a LEO
…”
Here I snap my fingers, to accentuate the
notion I am going for a hit and then I pause
for a second.

If the spectator reacts at this point then I
know I have hit on their star sign.

If they don't react I continue, as follows.

“... BUT I'm glad I didn't just go with my
snap decision because based on the
characteristics and traits I have read from
you there's only one sign I feel could belong
to you”.

I now write down one of the other possible
outs on a billet and place it face down on the
table and ask if they are the other possible
star sign.

“Are you a GEMINI?”

Spectator: “Yes”.
Performer: “Good!”

If they say “yes” then you take your hit and
casually place the written prediction away in
your pocket, sight unseen.

I don't worry about the inconsistency here
and neither do my spectators. If they push
you to show them what was written I might
just say:

“I wrote a different sign then changed my
mind at the last minute”.

This never happens. I also write outs on the
palm of my hand and then just leave them
there, if I don't need to reveal that way and
they tend to be ignored.

If on the other hand, they say “no” to the
second star sign you throw out simply ask
them what their actual star sign is. This will
indefinitely be the last star sign in the list of
possible outs and will more often than not be
the star sign you have written down.

Let's say they say there star sign is CANCER.

I would now say, “Good! I'm glad I
committed to this” as I gesture towards the
written prediction, for the spectator to turn
over.

And now we seem to have the perfect hit!

Each of these outcomes is juts as strong as
the other and will always seem to be the route
you would take anyway, if performed
correctly.

You now know with certainty what their star
sign is and can now back-track the Month
and exact date of birth.

In our example, they say they are a CANCER
sign and we reveal we knew this all along by
having the spectator turn over our prediction.
I can now quickly work out the Month by
following this rule:

If their d/ate of birth begins with a 2 then the
Month they are born will be the same as
whatever Month relates to their sign in my
crib, namely: June.

Cancer = 6 = June.

If their date of birth begins with a 1 or is a
single digit then they will be one Month
higher in the year than the Month which
relates to their star sign, in this case: July.

Cancer = 6 = June (+ 1) = July.

This is really easy to work out and becomes
effortless in performance once you have come
to grips with the system and learnt the crib.

In this example, I therefore know their Month
has to be July.
I know this is the number 7 in my crib and
can now begin to back-track to their exact
date of birth.

To do so I get the spectator to focus on their
date of birth, whenever I am ready to divine
this information.

I cover my eyes slightly with one had which
allows me to glance down at my other hand
and begin to backtrack on my fingers.

This happens really quickly thanks to a few
short cuts I can apply to the counting process.

I begin on whichever finger they have already
revealed to me earlier in the routine: in this
example, the index finger.

I now take the Month number from this finger,
moving backwards through the fingers
towards the thumb.
If this Month number is over 5 then I simply
count “five” to myself on this finger and then
continue my count backwards (in this
example, to 7 which would be two fingers
arriving back on the thumb).

This is the short cut I use to not have to count
around the hand a couple of times.

I now back-track the second digit of their
date of birth based on the finger I have just
arrived on by taking into account the long or
short count I remembered from earlier.

If I remember they took a brief amount of
time to count out this second digit on their
fingers earlier, I know it can only be a
number as high as five and I won't have to
count past the thumb.

In this example, I can see right away the
second digit of their date of birth has to be a
4.
If the Month number is a 5 then I count the
finger I am on as 5 and don't move fingers.

If I know their Month is in the tens and is
either a 10, 11, or 12 then instead of counting
their finger as 5, I simply count the finger I
begin on as a 10 and adjust that way.

If I remembered a relatively longer count then
I would just add 5 to whatever number I
arrive at, to get their second digit.

Now I have all of the information I need to
reveal their exact date of birth.

I know it begins with a 1 and the number I
have arrived at for the second digit is 4 and
know the Month is July.

NOTE: There is one more shift you have to
make before revealing the date of birth to
your spectator. I purposefully left this until
last as to not cloud the previous steps in any
way.
Due to the fact, they will naturally start their
counting on their hands with the thumb,
calling this “one” it will throw your count
off, so you simply have to remember to add
one to the date you arrive on at the end of the
routine.

So in our example, instead of their date of
birth being the 14th of July, we would simply
add one to their day number and then reveal
their date of birth as:

15th of July.

That is it!

It really is a lot simpler to perform than it
sounds in explanation. All you need to do is
familiarize yourself with the crib and learn
the correct associations and short cuts to
counting backwards on your own hand, to be
able to perform this effortlessly.
NOTE: If I miss on the star sign I would
simply end the routine and move on to
something else rather than then back-
tracking to their date of birth. I feel this is
nicer theatrically and how you should cover
the miss in a set. If you were to miss and then
go for the date of birth, I feel the method
becomes open to others working it out.
Whereas, if you nail the star sign and then
almost immediately reveal their date of birth
it will seem as if you somehow knew both
under seeming impossible circumstances.

Some of the time you will be wrong on the
date of birth due to the fact, some dates will
begin with a 3 as well as the fact, one of the
Months has a different cross-over date for the
star sign. However, this will happen so
infrequently due to the fact there is only
around a 6 percent chance of hitting these
dates out of all of the possible birth dates in
the year, I personally don't worry about it.

To try to factor these slight adjustments into
the method would make it far too convoluted
and take away from its simplicity and what I
believe makes it beautiful and deceptive.

If you are still worried about coming across a
date of birth in the thirties then you can
always ask those in the group you are
performing for who has their birthday right
at the end of the Month in the thirties and
then not include these participants in the
process saying,

“Okay, I personally find it hard to nail these
dates of birth due to the cross-over that
happens with your star sign”. Then I just
move onto someone in the group who doesn't
have a birth day in the thirties and go into the
routine. This will make what comes next seem
that much harder, if they are aware that all of
the Months have two possible star signs
associated with them.

If you are wrong or only close then simply
move onto something else in your set. This
slight failure will breed credibility in
everything else you perform and if you are
close they will usually still give you credit, for
getting to within one or two dates of their
date of birth.

Fraser
Copyright © 2017. Intuition Publishing.


Prop-less Drawing Duplication.
By Fraser Parker.


The following prop-less drawing duplication is based on the limited
restriction field of commonly thought of drawings as well as the idea
to distinguish between drawings via questions about it's real life
counterpart's characteristics, found in Proteus by Phedon Bilek.
However, my method does not require an anagramming process
utilizing letters from the name of the drawing. I have also
eliminated the need to ask multiple questions about the qualities of
the real life counterpart or object thought of. Instead, I harvest this
information in a much more indirect way which fits and is hidden
via the routine and the performance of the effect, itself.


I am pleased to say that I have the full backing and blessing from
Phedon to release – in his words – “my different AND similar
variation” on the prop-less drawing duplication plot.


It is worth mentioning that the following routine only utilizes the
basic amount of outs of potential drawings made by your spectator
as the original Proteus system and Phedon has since expanded
those outs to cover 27 possible drawings in his extended version.


Although my method allows for further outs to be included I prefer
not to do so – adding a few outs, at the most – to ensure I do not
sacrifice the streamlined nature of the effect.


I would prefer to miss occasionally instead of adding too much
additional process to the method.


The shift that was required was to get the spectator to try to guess a
drawing you are merely thinking of, first. Of course, the way I
handle this is important, so that I am able to secretly obtain
information about their drawing along the way.


The inspiration for this method as well as obviously coming from
the Proteus Drawing Duplication came from the way I would get
which half of the year the spectator was born during my star sign
guess Miriaj, which involves the spectator guessing the star sign of
the performer and during this process the performer secretly
obtains the star sign of the spectator.


I would ask my spectator the following.


  “If you were to take a guess at my star sign what do you
 feel is more likely – that we will have completely opposite
  signs to each other or that we will share the exact same
                             star sign?”


They would then of course, answer with the word “opposite” which
means we can then say.


“Okay, so this means we will also more than likely be born at
                      opposing ends of the year.


 So with this in mind – do you feel I was born in the first or
                      second half of the year?”


And they will then answer in a way that tips to you which half of the
year they were born – as they will now be answering in a way that is
always opposite to whichever half of the year they were born. All
you have to do is remember the opposite to whatever answer they
give.


Thanks go to Peter Turner for first posing such a question in order
to elicit a specific response from the spectator, in my other star sign
guess Seeing Signs.


This is just the first part of one of my star sign guesses and I hit
upon this whilst trying to achieve something else. It was only after
finishing the star sign guess that my good friend Ross Tayler
reminded me where the basic idea had come from; using opposites
within the context of a spectator guessing information about the
performer to secretly tip information about the spectator, was first
conceived by Ross in the early stages of his star sign guess that was
later released in our limited edition book Second Coming.
I feel each of our star sign guess are different enough to warrant
both being published and the handling of this question about which
half of the year they feel I was born, is a nice linguistic use of this
basic idea that did not feature in any of the previous attempts at
working out a use for this general concept.


But why do we need to know all of this? I hear you ask.


Well, the reason is the following method believe it or not was born
out of these thoughts.


I first started with a statement about my thought of drawing and the
spectator's not likely matching but instead having opposite
characteristics, in order to receive answers that were opposite to the
thought of drawing of the spectator.


I then realised this was too overt and was too much like giving
directions that would make back-tracking easier and the method
more obvious, so I decided to change what I was doing by
simplifying it.


This made the effect and method work together in a way that was
beautifully deceptive and perfect theatrically – it looking exactly as
it should, in terms of outward appearance of effect – with the use of
opposites now applied to effect as opposed to being applied directly
to the method.
The way I shifted everything was to actually get the spectator to give
similar characteristics to their thought of drawing without is
seeming like I was asking directly for them to do this.


What is really nice, is the line I use to do this is later disregarded as
unimportant and it's meaning is re-framed naturally by the
performance itself which means the method can not easily be back-
tracked by audience members.


Props should go to Ross here for first applying the idea of re-
framing to method itself – it has since become such an important
part of my thinking, it is hard to imagine modern mentalism and the
genre of prop-less existing without it.


The overall appearance of the effect creates a false logic that makes
everything appear entirely fair and the fact the method exists in
words and disappears after it is spoken means all that your audience
will be left with is the appearance of what seemingly took place; that
of real mind reading.


The combination of method and effect combine to create something
bigger than the sum of it's parts.


So what does it look like and feel like?


Here is the script I use.
“I want you to imagine you are back at school around 12-13
 years old, sat at your desk and are bored so you decide to
create a simple drawing on your notebook like a Clock with
  hands, a Mountain or a Bicycle. Please avoid those as I
  have just mentioned them and also avoid only drawing
  simple shapes such as Hearts or Stars but instead draw
    something we would recognize as an actual object”.


This is similar to the script Phedon uses to ensure the spectator
draws something that will likely fit into our limited selection of
commonly thought of simple drawings.


Note: Luke Jermay was the first to use a restrictive field that was
not seemingly restrictive.


Morgan Strebler has also used the idea of getting the spectator to
imagine they were back at school to restrict their drawing to one out
of a few simple drawings they could be thinking of.


We have eliminated a Mountain or something like a Mountain such
as a Volcano and a Bicycle from likely being chosen just by
mentioning them ala. Psychological Subtleties 1 by Banachek.


So now they will likely be thinking of one of the following,
commonly thought of drawings when given these restrictions.
The list I work with is:


MOON
SUN
TREE
CAR
BOAT
AEROPLANE
STICK-MAN
HOUSE
TABLE
CHAIR
GLASS
PEN
PENCIL
BALL
FISH
FLOWER
CAT
DOG


These are from the restrictive field discovered to work well by
Phedon.
Of course, I have also mentioned the Heart and Star shapes and
have therefore eliminated them from my system. The reason for this
is so that each of the possible drawings conform to two basic
properties:


Man made and natural objects and objects that can or can not be
held in your hand.


Art Vandelay was first to use such distinctions in his work using
Anagrams to successfully divine objects thought of by a spectator
and should therefore get credit.


The reason we need these distinctions will become clear in a
moment, each of which come from Phedon's method as a way of
distinguishing between certain possible choices of drawing.


These distinctions are something Peter Turner has also played with
in the past when dealing with thought of objects.


Now I say the following.


“Before I try to guess what it is you've drawn I want you to
        try to guess the drawing I have in my mind”.


It is this next line that underpins the entire method and makes it
work.


I casually say,


  “It would be interesting if we had both drawn the same
                             image”.


Peter Turner employs a slightly different script here which some
may prefer, as it makes what you are doing appear that much more
casual.


He would begin the effect with,


“I want you to imagine you are back at school... [apply the
 usual script here] whilst you were drawing your image I
        did the same and it will be interesting if we both
           coincidentally drew the exact same image”.


We both then continue with the following questions about our
drawing.


“So with this in mind, do you feel my drawing is Natural or
                          Man Made?”


Say they answer with,
                             “Natural”.


Performer: “Okay, do you feel it is something you can hold
                          in your hands?”


                                “No”.


What your previous comment about both of your drawings
potentially being the same does, is create an expectation in the
spectator's mind that they will be the same and this causes the
spectator to give you answers about your drawing that also pertain
to theirs.


All you have to do is listen to their answer and this gives you the
properties of their own drawing!


This would be obvious if it weren't for what comes next.


After they have answered I dismiss their answers as being incorrect
but get them to think that this is their idea using the following piece
of scripting from my good friend Peter Turner.


 “So do you think it is more likely we have drawn the exact
             same image or that these are different?”


They will usually say that they feel it is more likely we have different
images due to the odds involved.


This helps to disconnect their answers about your drawing from
theirs.


Whether they say they think the drawings are the same or not I
always inform them that they were wrong on both characteristics
and tell them my drawing has opposite characteristics to what they
say.


What this does is dismisses their guess as unimportant. It seemingly
doesn't help them to guess your object because they were wrong and
the answers they gave are therefore, thrown away in both theirs and
everyone else's mind, who is watching. This also means that any
potential method is also discarded by anyone trying to back-track,
later on.


There is a weird logic at play that subtly implies if they are wrong
then what you said previously about the drawings potentially
matching must also be incorrect and any set up that may have taken
place or connection that may exist with the answers they give is also
irrelevant and of no use.


Of course, this isn't the case at all. The answers they have already
given in fact, tip the two qualities of their drawing to you.


This is happening in an indirect way as they try to guess your
drawing, so everything flies right past everyone.


The spectator and everyone watching are focusing on the effect of
the spectator trying to guess your drawing and you guessing the
spectator's drawing has seemingly not even begun yet, so everything
appears fair and as it should.


  “So just trust your intuition and try to get what this is”.


They settle on a drawing and I always just say whatever they name
is wrong and give them another object that matches the
characteristics I have already specified. Here I would say an object
that isn't commonly thought of to help suggest they literally could
have thought of anything – as suggested by Peter Turner.


The reason I choose to say they are wrong is so that I can say the
next line.


 “That's okay, it just shows you how hard it is to guess the
drawing someone else is thinking of – even when you have
               been given certain clues about it”.


This line will make the subsequent guess of their drawing appear
that much more difficult and will therefore make the reveal that
much more powerful.
It also suggests that you gave them clues about your drawing and
not the other way around.


Not only this, it also sets you up for the following convincer.


“Okay, I am going to try to guess your drawing but I don't
         want you to give me any clues whatsoever”.


This line cements the notion that you don't know anything about
their drawing which of course, isn't the case – why would you not
want them to give you any clues about their drawing, if they already
have? You wouldn't. Therefore, they have to assume you are not
aware that their first answers gave you any information. This also
helps change the meaning of your comment about the drawings
matching at the start to that of a simple curiosity which has already
apparently been proven as a false impression.


Pete prefers to say that they are correct on their final guess and uses
the following script as a convincer.


   “That's it! You may think that I am just agreeing with
 whatever you say but if that was the case I wouldn't have
 told you that you were wrong previously. The only way I
  can prove this would be for me to now try to guess your
  drawing without you giving me any clues whatsoever”.
This wraps everything up beautifully and creates a nice logic that
makes everything appear congruent.


Now you can use the information secretly obtained as well as the
length of the word or name for their drawing to nail their exact
thought of drawing.


Here I simply get them to focus on the drawing as a word (for
example, House) and have them focus on the amount of letters in
this word.


Those who know Cups by Michael Murray can apply it here. His
ingenious work on diving the amount of letters in a word to know
which word a spectator is thinking of can be found in his break-
though book A Piece of My Mind found on his website:
www.mindfx.co.uk. If not then simply throw out an amount of
letters and get the spectator to tell you the amount of letters if you
don't get a reaction. This is such a small piece of information asking
for it doesn't seem to lessen the impact of the final reveal.


In fact, here is where I would apply Ross Tayler's Context Shift
principle, first conceived and used by Peter Turner on his Devil in
Disguise DVD and throw away the process with the following
scripting.


   “Actually, forget the word as this is the wrong way to
 think about a drawing, so instead just focus on the actual
                           image for me”.


It appears as if the amount of letters and the word are irrelevant and
are being ignored and this in turn, cancels out any possible method
and the notion that their previous answer helps you to guess their
drawing.


If you examine the list of possible drawings you will see that now
you are in a very good position to correctly reveal their thought of
drawing 9 times out of 10.


They are separated into the following categories.


If they are focusing on a natural object they can not hold in their
hands then it will likely be one of these objects:


MOON. SUN. TREE.


If it is man made and too large to hold in their hands (or they can't
hold it in their hands because it is not an actual thing such as a
stick-man):


CAR. BOAT. AEROPLANE. STICK-MAN. HOUSE. TABLE.
CHAIR.
Note: if they take a while to think of the amount of letters in their
word then you can usually be sure they are thinking of an aero-
plane or a stick-man at this point and dismiss the process early
without getting an exact amount of letters. Then it is a simple
matter of using a fishing statement to distinguish between the two
potential drawings (as described below).


If it is natural and can be held in their hands it might be one of these
objects:


                   FISH. FLOWER. CAT. DOG.


And for man made objects that can be held in their hands:


                  GLASS. PEN. PENCIL. BALL.


The only drawings that might cause you problems when you know
the exact amount of letters in their word are HOUSE and TABLE
and MOON and TREE – with more becoming a problem if you
decide to add more outs to each category of potential drawings.


A simple way around this problem is to apply a hanging statement
where you make a statement about one of the two potential
drawings you are down to and if you don't get a reaction then
instantly correct yourself ala Peter Turner.
This will simply look as if you are getting a feel for what it is they
have drawn and are simply trying to work it out from the
impressions you are receiving and will in no way look like fishing, if
performed correctly.


For example, if you are left with HOUSE and TABLE as potential
drawings, you may say the following statement:


    “This is something you go inside? NO. I think this is
                  actually inside one of these”.


Now I would write TABLE/ CHAIR as my prediction to cover yet
another potentially commonly thought of drawing.


CAT/ DOG would also work well for this type of written out.


This will still seem to be a “hit” no matter which item the spectator
was focusing on, as these objects would usually be thought of as
going together.


If they are focusing on the two possibilities of MOON and TREE
then a distinguishing statement you might want to use would be.


   “I feel this is something you would look up at and can
touch? NO infact, it is something you would reach out and
                       touch if you could”.
I will leave it to you to expand on the amount of potential drawings
you want to cover and to combine the basic method with your
favourite verbal/ physical outs.


You could also just apply more than one hanging statement to nail
down on the exact drawing, without using any form of out.


I prefer to not complicate the method further but instead use this as
taught and find a 90% chance of success adequate for my needs.


Naturally, you could present this in the classical way and have the
spectator actually draw what they are focusing on then draw it
yourself and have both drawings turned around at the same time to
show they match.


I will leave it to you how you decide to perform it.


Enjoy!


Fraser
Occlus
            Copyright © 2019 by Fraser Parker


All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any format whatsoever without written permission from
 the author. For television rights and further information,
       please contact: [email protected]
The following is my second attempt at creating a perfect
date of birth revelation.


What makes this different from my previously released
method on this plot is the fact, you no longer have to have
the   spectator   count     on   their   fingers.   This   method
streamlines the process even further and provides yet
another approach and set of tools that can be applied to
many other effects. I am not saying that I prefer one
method over the other but instead feel each of these
methods have their own merits and will fit different
performances and performance styles, depending on the
aesthetic you are going for.


Another difference between the following method and what
I have published previously is the fact, it doesn't rely on
needing to know the spectator's star sign to be able to
successfully nail down on their exact date of birth.


I feel this method is the cleanest and simplest solution
offered to the community, thus far.


It can be performed verbally and entirely prop-less, only
taking a few seconds of process to accomplish. Not only is
the process minimal, it is also thrown away early in the
routine and is considered unimportant –             meaning the


                                 1
spectator will also pay it little attention and dismiss it.
This makes back-tracking the method difficult and helps
to cement the illusion in the minds of those who you
perform this for. The work is done before the effect seems
to have begun thanks to a clever re-working and use of my
good friend Ross Tayler's “context shift” principle.


I give an example of a process I have no intention of
utilizing whilst at the same time, secretly benefiting from
the spectator following through with this example process,
up to a point. More on this in a moment.


As with so much of my work, what matters the most is
how this feels to everyone involved. If what you say, how
you act and what takes place feels innocent and appears
above board then everything will be considered fair. This
will leave the spectator and everyone watching with only
the illusion left over and the notion that perhaps real mind
reading took place or at the very least, something strange
happened they can't easily explain.


Trust me when I say this method is simple. It is the easiest
date of birth divination, currently available.


However, fully understanding the concepts taught in this
manuscript is needed for you not to just dismiss this as


                              2
too obvious or unworkable, in terms of method and its
effectiveness in performance.


It is the structure and psychology that make this work so
well and ensure the method flies right past everyone.


The easiest way to teach you this method is to break it
down into its constituent parts and detail each part of the
script. Then I suggest re-reading everything and imagining
how this will play out on the whole, to better understand
why each part of the method when combined creates
something much bigger than the sum of its parts.


First of all, I begin by giving direct instructions to my
spectator as well as a process for them to follow. It is
essential you deliver these lines as clear instructions.


However, this scripting is delivered in a casual and
conversational style, so that it can be dismissed as
unimportant, later on. This delivery of instructions and the
following of a process will shortly afterwards be re-framed
as an inconsequential example of what others typically do
but for now, you act as if you actually intend for the
spectator to follow your instructions accurately.


This is simple for the spectator to follow and should be


                              3
seen for what it is by both yourself and spectator as: you
simply asking the spectator to perform certain basic
calculations in their head, to begin with.


They will not know where you are going with these
instructions and don't have a context as of yet in which to
view these instructions, so will therefore, naturally follow
along without any resistance.


“Because you are in front of me there's a chance that I
could estimate certain details about you such as your
 age or the year you were born, so instead I want you
  to focus only on specific numbers that relate to your
life there is no way for me to know, so – I want you to
 add the last digit of your age to the last digit of your
       year of birth, so that you arrive at a total”.


“If you are left with a two digit number then add these
  digits together – we will call this your life number”.


This scripting justifies the reason we are only going to be
dealing with specific numbers – the last digits of both their
age and year of birth.


They don't know why you need to do what you do and will


                              4
just go along with your instructions at this point. It won't
matter if this process is slightly illogical as you are going to
disregard it as something other psychics or readers use
and is not something you subscribe to yourself, in a
moment.


“Obviously, there is no way I could know what this life
number is, as it is something that relates specifically to
  you and only yourself – at this specific time in your
                             life”.


This statement sounds true and will be seen as true by
everyone due to the fact, their final total is based on the
specifics of their age currently, as well as being combined
with their year of birth; both of these numbers added
together will be thought of as unknowable and will appear
to be entirely unrelated.


Perhaps you are now thinking that this above statement is
indeed true and are fooled like many of my friends were
when I showed it to them. Even though they were already
familiar with other applications of the basic mathematics
this is based on and already knew the “trick”, so to speak,
they couldn't fathom how it would work in the way I was
applying it.



                               5
As you will see, it really does become completely fooling
even when you know the secret.


It will seem to everyone that because the age of the
spectator changes, so too must the outcome of the sum
when they add it to the last digit of their year of birth, due
to the fact the year of birth is fixed, yet their age is
constantly changing. This coupled with the fact that you
couldn't just guess their specific age makes it seem as if
the total they arrive at, is always different and impossible
to know.


If they do try to back-track they will find it extremely hard
to get past these false notions and false logic as the two
numbers really don't appear to be connected and have a
total that really does change as the years go by and the
spectator ages. It is so fooling in fact, I had to stop and
think about it again whilst writing to make sure I hadn't
made a mistake in my own thinking when writing this out
in my notebooks.


Perhaps you are already ahead of me.


Thanks to the trusty “The Life Equation” the total of their
“life number” they arrive at will always be one of two
specific force numbers that you know in advance.


                              6
Note: “The Life Equation” is Peter Turner's scripted
update on the classic and well known number force
found in Annemann's “101 Methods of Forcing”.


In my variant, their total will always be the same possible
two numbers depending on what year you are currently
performing in.


This is true for any spectator no matter what their age and
year of birth.


At the time of writing in 2019, no matter who you choose
to perform for, they will always get to a total of 8 or 9.


The exact number they arrive at will depend on whether or
not they have already celebrated their birthday for the
current year of your performance. This is a simple
adjustment to make. Before I begin to perform I just
casually ask the spectator if they have already had their
birthday. Now I can easily calibrate and always know the
force number they will arrive at after following along with
the above process.


You can even ask them this question just before the reveal
of their date of birth and adjust in the moment, if you


                               7
prefer. However, this reveal comes later so let's not get
ahead of ourselves.


If they have had their birthday already then the number
will be 9 and if they still haven't celebrated their birthday,
it will be 8 (for the year 2019).


These force numbers will go up by one value for every year
after 2019 and will cycle back to 1 after they reach the
number nine.


The reason the numbers cycle back to 1 is due to the fact,
we get the spectator to add the numbers of their total
together again, if they first arrive at a two digit number
and this ensures they will always arrive at a single digit.


For example, next year from the time of writing, in 2020,
the force numbers will be, as follows.


If they have not already had their birthday: 9


If they have already had their birthday: 1


And the force numbers for the year after that will be: 1 and
2 respectively.




                               8
It couldn't get any simpler.


What is nice about this approach to “The Life Equation” is
the fact it uses single digits that make any calculations
with these numbers really easy for the spectator to
perform in their head, meaning this can be performed
entirely prop-less and without requiring the use of a
calculator.


Not only does applying the principle behind “The Life
Equation” to single digits make the maths easier, it also
hides the procedure perfectly and makes it that much
more deceptive.


You are now in the position where you know the total of
the   spectator's   “life   number”   or   are   down   to   two
possibilities, if you haven't yet asked if they have already
had their birthday.


Of course, the spectator and everyone else watching
believes something completely different. They feel there is
no way you could know the number they have just arrived
at mentally. The last line of the above script helps cement
this notion even more fully in everyone's minds.




                               9
Here it is again.


“Obviously, there is no way I could know what this life
number is, as it is something that relates specifically to
  you and only yourself – at this specific time in your
                           life”.


I use the word “obviously” as a way to suggest what you
are saying is self-evident and therefore completely true.
They will not want to argue with or challenge a statement
that is apparently self-evident to everyone else. This
scripting also suggests the total should be different for
each person who you perform for.


The reason we label their total a “life number” is not only
for theatrical reasons but also to make reference to it
easier, in a moment. This helps stop the following process
from becoming confusing and hard to follow for the
spectator. Having this reference term for the number
means we can call back to it without causing any
confusion.


“If you were to add this life number to the day number
  of your date of birth what number would you arrive
                           at?”


                            10
Here we instruct the spectator to add the total they just
arrived at to the day number of their date of birth in such
a way, it feels as if we are simply asking out of interest.


This will come full circle in a moment.


They will tell us this total and I simply remember it by
repeating it a few times during the rest of the performance,
as to not forget it. I then continue right along with my
script, as follows.


 “And if you were to add your life number instead, to
 the month number of your date of birth, what number
              would you arrive at this time?”


They will again tell you a different total and I also
remember this number by repeating the two totals to
myself, intermittently throughout the performance.


Naturally, once we know if they have already had their
birthday, we can then easily back-track to their exact date
of birth by subtracting whatever force number we know
they were focusing on from each of the totals they have
just provided. I prefer to do this at a later stage in the
performance right before the reveal of their date of birth.

                              11
This way any mental effort will look like mind reading. If
you were to calculate this in real time instead then the
moment you perform your mental work would be wrong
and would be telegraphed as working something out.


Of course, doing so at the correct moment in the routine
will seem impossible to the spectator and those watching
you perform.


If you prefer, you can preface each of these questions with
the line: “Out of interest”, to further suggest its lack of
importance but I don't feel this is entirely necessary. As
long as you perform this part of the routine as if you mean
to ask out for your own mere curiosity only, then you will
be fine. Again, this looks as if you are simply asking out of
interest and the notion that this is done purely for the
purpose of giving an example, is now cemented in the
minds of everyone watching, using the following script.


 “Traditionally, in the east they would now get you to
add each of these numbers together to arrive at a total,
referred to as your astrological number and it was the
 belief of the readers that this number would tell them
  specific things about your life that would help them
        give a reading that was specific to you”.


                             12
Here we talk about what others would “typically” do as a
clever way to cover the fact we never actually follow
through and complete the entire process. If we were to do
so then we would have no way to back-track to their date
of birth. Therefore, we make it appear as if we were only
offering an example.


It will seem as if we are simply providing a brief insight
into how other mystics would typically read someone else
and that we never actually intended for the spectator to
follow along with the entire process.


  “I'm not going to do that but will instead rely on the
impressions I receive intuitively from you, as you sit in
                       front of me”.


The fact we abandon the process before completion implies
that everything that went before was nothing more than a
way to offer an example and has no way of helping you
gain information from the spectator due to the fact, the
process needed to do so has been left incomplete and
therefore rendered useless.


At the very least, even if they do think the process was
important to you somehow they will still not be able to

                              13
work out how it could help you or possibly give you their
exact date of birth, later on.


As you can see, all of the previous process has been
dismissed with the suggestion you are going to utilize a
different divinatory method to the one you have just
provided an example for. Therefore, the date of birth
revelation which comes later, will appear to be because of
and based on your ability to read the spectator in an
intuitive sense as opposed to being because of any process
involving numerology or calculations using numbers
relevant to the spectator's life.


You may wish to take this further with your dismissal of
the previous example of adding numbers together and
reject such procedures entirely:


  “I personally think that adding numbers together to
reveal specific information about yourself is bulls***t!”


This way you will completely throw away the method as
irrelevant and something you are not relying on or placing
any relevance on.


Those who prefer a more tempered approach or don't want
to dismiss outright such things as numerology and still


                                 14
wish to strongly dismiss the use of adding numbers
together may prefer the following more soft approach.


  “This process is an aspect of numerology that some
  believe helps in giving a reading. Personally, I don't
find such things helpful but prefer to instead just trust
   my insights and intuition that comes from simply
             sitting in front of someone else”.


You are now free to give a reading and later end with the
kicker of seemingly knowing the exact date of birth of the
spectator.


If you prefer, you can even change to performing
something entirely different and even perform for someone
else, knowing you can reveal the date of birth of the other
spectator whenever you want, later on in your set. Now
you can keep on turning back to the spectator who's date
of birth you know and deliver specific readings lines, as if
you are subconsciously still receiving impressions as you
perform for someone else. Do this a few times and then out
of nowhere reveal their exact date of birth!


This would be perfect for a kind of real time “pre-show”
where you do the “dirty work” right in front of everyone



                             15
then later on when the group has grown or the spectator is
with a different set of people, reveal their date of birth
using a seeming different process.


I should mention again that this seeming change in how
you are going to approach reading your spectator is an
aspect of Ross Tayler's “context shift” and is also
reminiscent of some of the work found in Michael Murray's
“Isolation” book, although this is handled very differently.


You are now free to move on however you wish having
secretly obtained the information to reveal their exact date
of birth, providing you read your spectator in some way
before the actual reveal, as a way of providing the required
context or justification for how you are seemingly able to
nail their exact date of birth later on in the routine.


If you prefer not to have to give a reading you can cheat in
the following way. After leaving a certain amount of time to
pass, you can simply state the following to your spectator.


    “As I have been performing for the group a few
 different impressions have come into my mind about
you – and based on all of the characteristics and traits
I would say you could only have been born on the [say
                    their date of birth]”.

                              16
This line of scripting suggests you were picking up on
accurate impressions even though you have at no point
had to state out loud what these were. The reveal of the
correct date of birth will confirm that you must have
indeed been picking up on accurate impressions relevant
to the spectator's life, otherwise you wouldn't have been
able to get their date of birth exactly right.


This is an application of Kenton's “confirmation principle”.


You may also wish to reveal the spectator's star sign right
before revealing t