Bob Cassidy - Return of the White Dwarf

The Return of the White Dwarf

And Other Names and Places Bob Cassidy

Bob Cassidy

Copyright © 2011 by Bob Cassidy All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission by the copyright holder and publisher.

2

The Return of the White Dwarf

The Effect The basic effect (EXACTLY as it appears to the audience):

The mentalist announces an experiment in test conditions telepathy. A manila pay envelope is handed to a participant, who is asked to hold it to the light to verify that she cannot tell what is inside. She signs the envelope across the face and initials the flap. The envelope is opened and is revealed to contain a smaller envelope. The participant verifies that this one is also opaque. She herself opens it and removes a business card that has a large black rectangle drawn on the back in black marker ink. (The rectangle is drawn with a Sharpie or similar marker and serves to prove beyond any doubt that the envelope is opaque. In fact, the participant can examine both envelopes to her heart's content to verify that both are IN FACT opaque and unprepared in any way.) The participant is requested to secretly print the name of her favorite film within the rectangle. Having done so, she herself inserts the card, writing side down, into the smaller envelope which, after she seals it, is inserted into the larger envelope, which is also sealed. The performer never touches the card at any time. She now holds the envelopes between her outstretched palms and is asked to concentrate on a scene from the film as well as on the name of one of its stars. The mentalist begins to describe "impressions" that he is receiving. Picking up a large pad, he writes something down and hands the pad, face down, to a nearby spectator for safekeeping. Needless to say, when the envelopes are opened, and the participant's film revealed to the audience, the mentalist is shown to have correctly revealed her thoughts exactly.

3

Bob Cassidy

Afterward, the card and envelopes may be left with the participant as a souvenir. The method is absolutely undetectable and is made possible through clever handling and a powerful logical disconnect that leaves the audience with no rational explanation for what they have just witnessed. The effect works with ANY opaque manila envelopes and may be performed either closeup or on stage.

History My original “Test of the White Dwarf” was directly inspired by Corinda’s Khan envelope test. While Corinda proposed a two envelope variation to his original effect, I wanted to devise a handling that would elevate the routine to a true “test conditions” piece. The routine and handling I came up with and performed for nearly thirty years was originally titled, quite simply, “The Two Envelope” test. It first appeared in my book The Art of Mentalism and later, with my permission, was published in Bascom Jones's “Magick” as the “Test of the White Dwarf.” To this day, I have no idea where he came up with the title. (I imagine, though, that since in astronomy a white dwarf is a collapsed degenerate star, he may have thought the title aptly suited its author.)

Here is my original write up of the routine as it originally appeared in The Art of Mentalism:

The Two Envelope Test

EFFECT: The spectator writes a number or draws a picture on a visiting card which he then holds face down. The performer removes two envelopes from his pocket and has them examined while the spectator is writing. The spectator places his card face down in 4

The Return of the White Dwarf

the smaller of the two envelopes, which, in turn, is sealed in the larger envelope. The large envelope is initialed and held by a volunteer. The performer now reveals the thought in his most mystifying manner.

METHOD: The large envelope is a number 5J Sphinx Clasp. This type of envelope is absolutely opaque. The smaller envelope is a cheaper number 4 size pay envelope. This type of envelope is so cheaply made that it is very easy to see through. The card used must be blank on both sides. Prior to the effect, the card is placed in the smaller envelope which, in turn, is placed in the larger envelope.

PERFORMANCE: The nested envelopes are removed from the performer's pocket and handed to a volunteer. The volunteer is asked if he can tell what is inside the envelope merely by looking at it. He will, of course, say "no." The performer takes back the envelope, opens the larger one and removes the smaller envelope. From that he withdraws the card and hands it to the spectator along with a black felt-tip pen. The spectator is asked to draw a simple picture. While he is so occupied, the performer allows other spectators to examine the two envelopes. Since there is nothing in them, their opacity, or lack of it, cannot be discovered. Retrieving the envelopes, the performer places them face-to-face with the smaller envelope uppermost. The spectator slides his card into the smaller envelope, which remains in the performer hands. While still holding the envelopes face to face, the performer seals the smaller envelope. He may now have the spectator put his initials on the flap. The performer now turns both envelopes over, removes the bottom one and places it into the larger envelope. In so doing, he will immediately be able to see the spectator's writing through the thin paper of the cheaper envelope. He seals the larger envelope- which now can be safely held by the volunteer.

5

Bob Cassidy

The revelation is now made either by duplicating the thought verbally or writing it on a large pad.

A Logical Disconnect As is usually the case, after I had published the effect I continued to improve it. The first modification added a subtlety that reinforced the idea that the small envelope was indeed opaque. Instead of using a visiting card that was blank on both sides, I decided to have a large rectangle drawn on one side of the card. Prior to performance, the card was inserted into the small envelope rectangle side down. (So that the rectangle was against the smooth (as opposed to the seamed) side of the envelope.) Upon removing the envelope from the larger one, I would hold it up in front of the participant's eyes and ask her, as I did with the larger envelope previously, if she could see what was inside. Since I showed her the envelope from the seamed side, it was impossible for her to see the rectangle due to the thickness of the card itself. Thus, when I removed the card and showed her the large rectangle drawn on it, I had tacitly reaffirmed that the envelope was indeed opaque. The addition serves as a perfect example of what I have often referred to as a “Logical Disconnect.” The handling seems to rule out the actual method used to accomplish the effect.

A BRIEF DIVERSION and a reflection on the Logical Disconnect In this day of electronic wonders it is not surprising that so much time and effort is being put into devising methods that are EXACTLY what intelligent audiences often suspect we are using in the first place. I am amused at the extreme interest shown on mentalism forums for the latest in electronic impression devices. They are exactly the sort of thing that audiences are likely to suspect. That is why I always joke around to my audiences about the cheap props I use

6

The Return of the White Dwarf

(such as golf pencils, etc.). “You can keep the pencil. They're cheap. And besides, if I were to use fancy pens or pencils, I can guarantee you that many of you will think that they have transmitters in them.” (!) While that statement may seem to violate the basic rule of magic that states that a magician shouldn't mention a method in order to rule it out, it's important to remember that the rules of magic don't always apply in mentalism. Skeptical audience members will almost always assume that a mentalist is using secret assistants and high tech secret devices. I feel it's necessary for the performer to confront that directly in order to rule out those possibilities. (Even if he is, in fact, actually using secret assistants and fancy electronics!) I do it in joking manner as described above and it serves my purpose. I even ask the woman who participates in my drawing duplication routine to carefully look around the performing area to make sure there are no hidden mirrors or cameras.

Many years after creating the original routine I developed a handling which I later released as “Eye of the White Dwarf” in Theories and Methods for the Practical Psychic (later republished in The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy). While other creators had come up with variations of the Dwarf routine using a window envelope, such handlings did not allow for the complete openness of the original in exhibiting the envelopes. Still, replacing the transparent inner envelope with a windowed one was a workable solution for those who couldn't find or make envelopes that had the transparency necessary to glimpse the spectator's writing. In “Eye of the White Dwarf” I made use of a very small circular window on the face of an otherwise opaque inner envelope. It was small enough to be covered with my thumb while I held the envelope up to the light. Obviously, it couldn't be handled by the participant and the small “peek area” required a circle (or “eye”) to be drawn on the card rather than the large rectangle.

7

Bob Cassidy

The Return of the White Dwarf Just as my first improvement to the routine added a Logical Disconnect to “prove” the opacity of the envelopes, “The Return of the White Dwarf” adds an important additional subtlety that allows the participant to personally inspect the envelopes prior to the effect. There is nothing for he/she to find because the envelopes are both completely opaque and unprepared. I should also note that I no longer use #5 and #3 envelopes in any of the variations. Instead, the larger envelope I use is a #3 and the smaller a #1. The small envelope is just large enough to hold a standard size business card. (Although you may have to trim the card very slightly short.) The size of the envelopes didn't really matter in the original routine, but in this improvement it serves to assure easy handling, as you will see in a moment. There are two alternative handlings that can be employed in the routine. Both, however, require a third envelope. The extra envelope is the same size as the smaller envelope, but it has a large oval window cut from its face (non-seam side). While the classic window envelope as described by Annemann and others uses a rectangular window, the oval is preferable because it prevents the business card from catching on the corners of the window when it is inserted into the envelope as you will discover with a bit of experimentation. Because of the small size of the envelope (#1), the card will be perfectly aligned with the window when it is inserted. As in the original version, the business card has a large rectangle drawn on it. I describe it as a “movie screen” in the presentation.

8

The Return of the White Dwarf

Basic Version In the basic version of “Return,” the initial set-up is as follows: The business card with the rectangle drawn on it is inside the small unprepared envelope. (Note that I draw the rectangle with a Sharpie marker. The envelopes I use are from Office Max and are totally opaque. The rectangle does not show through. If you use cheaper envelopes you may need to forego the Sharpie and use a pen or pencil. The envelopes, however, must be opaque enough so that no writing shows through.) This envelope is, in turn, inserted into the larger envelope and the latter is, in turn, put in your side jacket pocket or on your table, along with a suitable writing instrument. Obviously, neither of the envelopes are sealed at this point! The window envelope is placed in one of the following pockets- your shirt pocket or the breast pocket of your jacket. Performance: A participant is selected and joins the performer on stage or at the front of the room. (If working close-up, the participant may remain seated but the performer must stand.) She is invited to participate in a “test conditions” experiment and is handed the nested envelope set. The mentalist requests that she hold the envelope to the light to determine if she can tell what is inside. She does so and verifies that she cannot see through the envelope. The mentalist hands her a marker/pen/pencil and asks her to sign her name across the face of the envelope. He now explains that the envelope actually contains a smaller one and asks the participant to open the envelope and remove it. Once she does so, the performer takes the signed large envelope from her as he, once again, asks her to hold the smaller envelope up to the light to verify that she cannot see what is inside. She is now asked to open the small envelope and remove its contents. She discovers that it contains a blank business card with a large black rectangle drawn on one side. The 9

Bob Cassidy

performer asks her hold up the card to the audience so that they can see the rectangle. (This serves to reinforce the fact that the envelope was indeed opaque because she was obviously unable to see the rectangle until she removed the business card.) The performer casually retrieves the small envelope from her and asks her to imagine that the rectangle is actually a movie screen. (Note that the movie screen motif is something I use throughout my program. Whenever I have members of the audience focus on a thought, I have them imagine that they are seeing it on a large imaginary screen. Thus, the use of the rectangle as a screen is totally consistent with the thought reading premise I use throughout the act.) The mentalists asks the participant to focus on a thought (the title of a move, the name of a childhood friend, a simple picture, etc.) and to imagine that she sees it “filling the screen.” (The latter phrase is important as it insures that she will write or draw large enough to facilitate an easy “peek” later in the routine.) The performer turns his back to the participant and asks her to hold the card close to her body as she prints or draws her thought within the rectangle. This is all to insure that no one can see what she is putting on the card. When she is finished, she is instructed to hold the card face down in her hand. While she is drawing, it is a simple matter for the performer to casually switch the small envelope for the one in his pocket. There is absolutely no need to make a “move” out of this as all attention will be on the participant. If you like you can even place both of the unprepared envelopes into the same pocket as the window envelope as you are instructing the spectator to focus all of her attention on her thought as she writes/draws it on the card. Alternatively, if you keep your arms folded it is easy to switch the small envelope for the window envelope in your breast pocket with out any discernible movement of your arms while your back is turned. When you are finished switching the envelopes, the smaller one (with the window) should be face-to-face with the larger so that the window is concealed between them. The flap sides of each envelope must be facing outwards.

10

The Return of the White Dwarf

When the participant indicates that she is finished and is holding the card face down (or up against her body so no one can see what she's written), the performer turns to face her. He states that he will not touch the card at any time. He extends the two envelopes toward her, the smaller one on top of the larger, and asks her to slide her card face down into the (small) envelope. She does so. From this point, the handling is the same as in the original version of the effect. The performer lifts the envelopes vertically, the smaller one facing away from him. He then slides off the small envelope and, as he inserts it into the large envelope, obtains a perfect glimpse of the participant's thought. (Note that the small envelope is never sealed.) He then boldly hands the large envelope to the participant and asks her to seal it, after which she is to initial the flap. There is another subtlety here that you may not have noticed. Recall that in the beginning the participant was asked to sign the face of the large envelope. The fact that her signature is on the face of the large envelope silently “proves” that these are the same envelopes she handled before the test began. DON'T make a big point out of this. It will speak for itself. It is the second new Logical Disconnect that I added to the original routine. The participant holds on to the signed and initialed envelope as the performer goes into his revelation. Picking up a large pad and marker, the mentalist begins to write down the impressions he is getting from the woman. (Personally, I verbally describe all kinds of impressions that I am getting, some of which are only tangentially related to her thought. I also usually do a bit of cold reading here just to dress it up a bit and to give the audience the idea that I am revealing a lot more than what the participant actually wrote down.) After he is done writing/drawing, the mentalist hands the large pad, writing side down, to another spectator sitting near the front. (If working close-up he simply puts the pad face down on the table.) Now comes the big build up. The mentalist recapitulates the test conditions that were employed to insure security during the test. He takes the envelope from the participant and asks her to verify her signature on the back and her initials on the flap. He hands the

11

Bob Cassidy

envelope to someone seated near the front and asks that they hold it up to the light to verify that it is impossible to see what is inside. Finally, the performer retrieves the envelope and tears it open. (Or, if he wants to be tidy or is just anal retentive, he snips the envelope open with a small pair of scissors.) He removes the inner envelope, being careful not to expose the window, and places it, once more, face to face with the large one. Lifting the flap, he removes the card and shows it to the audience. He hands it back to the participant and asks her to read aloud what she had written. (Or, if she had drawn a picture, to describe it to the audience. Obviously, if you are working close-up, everyone will be able to see what is written/drawn on the card. Now, the spectator holding the pad is ask to turn it over and hold it up so that everyone can see the performer's “impressions.” They exactly duplicate the participant's thought, or come pretty close. (Pretty close is actually better as it subtly reinforces the idea that he never saw the participant's writing.) While the pad is being held up and shown to the audience, and WHILE the audience is responding, the performer has perfect cover to casually place both envelopes into the same pocket that contains the original unprepared small envelope. After the revelation, he retrieves the pad, tears off the top sheet and gives it to the onstage participant as a souvenir. “You can keep these, too, if you like,” he says to her as he removes the signed large envelope and the unprepared small one from his pocket and hands them both to her as well. Note how the final switch is perfectly covered by the audience's reaction to the revelation and the casual retrieving of the pad. Just do it casually and DON'T make a move out of it. It should be apparent that you need to make sure you remove the correct envelopes from your pocket. I do the final switch from the breast pocket of my jacket. When I put the envelopes into the pocket, I make sure that the large one is BETWEEN the gimmicked envelope and the window envelope, with the window envelope going closest to my body. Thus, when I remove the envelopes at the end, I just take out the two outermost ones and all ends up as it should.

12

The Return of the White Dwarf

Alternative Handling With this handling you don't have to turn around to do the initial switch. It is, thus, suitable for close-up and/or surrounded performing conditions. I prefer the first handling, though, as it allows the participant to remove the small envelope from the larger herself, rather than the performer doing it for her. There is, however, a certain elegance to this variation that I think many of you may like. Here, the performer MUST remove the smaller envelope himself at the beginning of the routine as there are TWO envelopes inside the larger one – both the ungimmicked and windowed small ones. In this case the performer simply replaces the ungimmicked small envelope into the larger one while the participant is writing her thought on the card. When she is done writing, he removes the window envelope only and places it face-to-face with the large envelope so that the participant can insert her card as before. The peek and the rest of the routine is the same, except at the end. While the audience is responding the performer casually puts both envelopes into his pocket. When he removes the larger envelope to return it to the participant he simply leaves the window envelope behind. (The ungimmicked smaller one is still inside the larger.)

The Movie Routine Presentation As I indicated in the description at the beginning of this manuscript, the routine can be given added punch by having the participant print the name of her favorite movie inside the rectangle. There are some interesting subtleties that can be applied here that will enable you to actually give a verbal description of a specific scene from the film as you are writing down your impression of the title. This will be pretty easy for you if, like myself, you are a film buff. But even if you are, the presentation can be made a lot easier if you ask for a participant who is particularly interested in films – one perhaps who has studied film or at least is familiar with some of 13

Bob Cassidy

the greatest films ever made. The idea is to try to get them to concentrate on a famous classic movie. After the participant has finished writing down the title and the smaller envelope has been sealed in the larger, she is standing on the stage with the envelope held between her hands. The mentalist now asks her to concentrate on a specific scene from the movie whose title she has sealed in the envelopes. Once you have glimpsed the movie title and as you start writing your impressions, just start to give a general description of the first scene that pops into your mind from the selected film. As the late Charles Reynolds once pointed out to me, you will very likely be thinking of the same scene that she is. Examples - In “Gone With the Wind” the first scene likely to come to mind will either be the burning of Atlanta, or Rhett Butler declaring that he doesn't give a damn. In “Psycho” you can pretty well bet that she'll be thinking of the shower scene. But after using this idea for a while, I made an interesting discovery. It DOESN'T MATTER if you describe the same scene that she is thinking of. Because of a presentational trick you can turn the whole thing around to make it LOOK LIKE you are describing her thought of scene even though you are describing a completely different one. The best way to describe how to do this is with an example. Suppose that the participant has written down Hitchcock's “Psycho.” Here's what I say to her: “Okay, you have a film in your mind. Imagine that you are sitting in a theater and watching the title appear on the screen. “Now think of a scene from the film.” (Assume she thinks of the scene where Norman Bate's dead mother is revealed for the first time. But I don't know that since I'm going for the shower scene.) I'm getting the impression of fear. Someone is very afraid and there is water. Does that make sense to you?” She probably will understand the reference to fear, but will probably hesitate or look puzzled when I mention water. 14

The Return of the White Dwarf

“I'm definitely getting water. It's spraying in someone's face. Do you know the scene I'm talking about?” Now she'll start to nod. Not because I am describing the scene she is thinking of, but because she recognizes the scene I am talking about! I just keep going with it. I've turned the whole thing around from what she's thinking about to what I'm thinking about, but it gets by because she's now thinking of the scene I want her to be thinking of. Admittedly, this takes a bit of brass to get away with but I do it all the time. And remember, it's no big deal if I get the scene wrong, because in the end I know I'm going to nail the title. This is a perfect example of the “jazz mentalism” approach I often employ in my presentations. I try to do the “real thing” and do all I can to psychologically tilt the odds in my favor. Do yourself a favor and experiment with this “turn about” technique. Very often it will result in one of the most memorable moments in your show.

Afterthoughts I hope all of that was clear to you. I advise you to read and reread the description carefully, because there are reasons why each move is done as described. I have purposely not included a script with the routine. In my past writings I often included full scripts and, in retrospect, I think that was a mistake. Far too often I have seen performers who have technically mastered my routines fail to get maximum response because they slavishly adhere to my script rather than creating their own. This is an serious problem, especially when it comes to specific lines and bits of stage business. Another performer's original lines can be downright unfunny and/or offensive it they are used verbatim by performers with different stage personae. They can also serve to create a very schizophrenic looking act if styles of speech and specific lines 15

Bob Cassidy

have been cobbled together from a variety of sources. To get the most out of this routine, or any routine for that matter, it is critical that you script it for yourself. Not only will you end up with a cohesive act and a consistent persona, but your act will consist of a series or original performance pieces of which you can justifiably be proud.

Thus Endeth the White Dwarf's Return

16

The Return of the White Dwarf

Other Names and Places

17

Bob Cassidy

The Name/Place Routine Next to my versions of “4th Dimensional Telepathy” and the “Diary Effect“(aka “Chronologue”), the “Name/Place” routine is on of my favorite creations and has been a mainstay in my own act for nearly a quarter of a century. In many ways it is a perfect piece of mentalism. The logical disconnects are all built it and the underlying principle – the one-ahead – is virtually undetectable. My original routine (which now may be found in The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy and on my DVD Mental Miracles) was inspired by a handling my old friend Bruce Bernstein devised for use with his original “instant access” center tear. Over the years many have tried to “improve” the routine by substituting a billet peek or a center tear to acquire the information for the first billet. This, I have always maintained, is a mistake because the peek would then take place while the performer’s actions were the focus of attention and also because the time allowed for the peek is very fleeting, thus creating serious problems for the performer if the participant's handwriting is very small or otherwise hard to read. As originally described, the “Name/Place Routine” involved two spectators seated in the audience. One would think of the name of a famous person in the world and the other would think of a famous place. In the “Remote Viewing” approach that I currently use in my act, both participants think of a famous place. If you are not familiar with the routine, I suggest you watch me performing it before proceeding further. It may be seen on my YouTube channel at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMastermindreader

18

The Return of the White Dwarf

For completeness, here is an edited and revised (to reflect the Remote Viewing presentation shown on the aforementioned video) description of the method as it appeared in The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy:

The Remote Viewing Method

A packet of billets, about ten, are in the performers right trouser pocket. The billets are actually 3x5 blank index cards which have been cut in half to create 3x2 1/2 inch cards. One billet is folded into quarters and placed either in the right pocket next to the stack, or in the left trouser pocket. Since I’m right handed it goes in my right pocket if I’m using a straight one- hand finger switch, or in the left pocket, along with a cigarette lighter, if I’m using the lighter to cover a hand to hand switch. This selection is based on the prevailing performance conditions. If ashtrays are not available in the audience or if they are seated theater style, I use the standard one hand switch. If, however, as is usually the case in my performance venues, ashtrays are readily available, then I invariably opt for the two handed switch, covered by the transfer of the lighter from my left hand to my right. This creates perfect cover for the move and, thus, is highly recommended. The original description of this approach to switching was devised by my good friend Richard Osterlind and originally appeared in the late Bascom Jones’s Magick. The actual working should now be apparent to you. When the folded billets are mixed behind the first participant's back, the ostensible reason for the mixing and the actual reason are the same - she should have no idea which billet is which. The billet that she hands the performer has supposedly been disqualified and therefore is not the point of interest. All attention is drawn to the billet she keeps held, at this point, over her head in her fist. This provides absolutely perfect misdirection for the switch of the “disqualified” billet. The dummy billet is burned and dropped into a convenient ashtray. (If you’re using this method, be SURE that the billet is completely burned- you don’t want some curious spectator inspecting it later and discovering that the writing has miraculously disappeared.)

19

Bob Cassidy

At this point, regardless of the switching technique used, the actual “disqualified” billet should now be palmed in the performers right hand. As he returns to the front of the room, he puts his right hand in his pocket and opens out the billet against the stack. (A classic Annemann technique) With the stolen billet now on the face of the stack, the mentalist removes the entire stack from his trouser pocket. He transfers the stack to his left hand and removes a pen from his jacket or shirt pocket. While apparently writing his impressions on the uppermost slip, he is actually reading the contents of the stolen billet. Feigning a mistake, he crosses off the writing and puts the stolen slip to the bottom of the stack. He now writes what he has just seen onto the fresh uppermost slip and then hands it to a spectator near the front. When the mentalist returns to the woman holding the “target” slip in her fist, he takes it from her for the apparent purpose of reading its contents aloud. What he actually does is misread the billet, stating the contents of the stolen slip while mentally noting the actual contents of the paper. For example he says “Paris” while noting “Cairo, Egypt.” He casually pockets this billet while the volunteer holding the mentalist’s “impression” slip is reading it aloud. The performer is now prepared to reveal the place that the other volunteer was concentrating on. It will be remembered that, instead of writing his impression on a billet as he did the first time, the mentalist writes this impression on a large clip board or pad with a magic marker. Theoretically, this is an inconsistency. Furthermore, the performer could simply end the routine at this point by gazing at the volunteer and just telling her the name of the place. But, by remaining strictly consistent (i.e. jotting his impression on a slip as before) or by simply stating the name, the routine cannot finish in a sufficiently dramatic manner. This is because each alternative requires that a spectator have the last word, by either reading the performer's billet aloud after the volunteer has revealed his thought or having the spectator verbally acknowledge that the performer was correct. And (here’s another rule) if you can ever avoid letting a spectator have the last word you should do so, otherwise you are making the climax of the effect dependent on the dramatic skills of a nervous and possibly faint-voiced volunteer. 20

The Return of the White Dwarf

By ending the routine as described, the climax is reached when the volunteer holding the pad simply turns it around and shows the audience the performer's writing. At the same time the performer himself can dramatically read it aloud while taking the pad from the volunteer and holding it aloft. Thus, it is the performer who controls the climax.

Over the years many performers, primarily those who have only seen the description on the Mental Miracles DVD, have asked me how I handle the switch when lighters or fire are not permitted in a particular establishment. As noted in the above description, I would normally use a finger switch in such a situation. But more often than not, I don't bother and just go ahead and use the lighter switch anyway. The key is not to ask for permission in the first place, that way they can't say no. I've never had anyone tell me afterward that I did something wrong or that I shouldn't have done that. In any event, though, there ARE situations in which I can't use fire – particularly in places where I am doing multiple shows per night for a week or more at a time (as at The Magic Castle™ where there are strict fire codes). I handle these situations in one of two ways. The first is my favorite as it is extremely bold and looks like you are using fire even though you aren't. I just use a lighter that doesn't work and, instead of an ashtray, a half empty bottle of beer or soda. I then proceed exactly as before. From a very short distance it is very difficult to see if the lighter is lit or not. When I'm doing the line, “Now I have no idea whose paper I am burning, actually I'm burning my fingers...,” I just flick the useless lighter as if it works and quickly shake my hand as if I burned myself. As I'm doing that I just stuff the billet into the bottle. (That pretty much puts it out of action and guarantees that no one is going to go fishing for it after the show.) The second option is as I stated in my original description. I just do a standard finger switch and then, as in the lighter variant, just depose of the dummy in a convenient bottle. At the same time I turn to my right – because the bottle is to my right, putting my right hand, with the stolen billet, into my right trouser pocket where I unfold it against the 21

Bob Cassidy

stack. The entire thing is perfectly covered by the blocking. As I said earlier, though, I believe it is a mistake to try to use a peek or a center tear as a substitute because the timing would be all wrong and the possibility of not being able to quickly read the participant's writing. In many respects, the remote viewing approach is preferable to me over the original name/place concept. People are familiar, through the popular media, with the concept of remote viewing, and the presentation is made more effective if you make reference to the remote viewing tests that were once conducted by the US government and by major psychic research organizations. (I also like to use terms like “double blind” while describing the “test conditions” seemingly used in the effect. It's not really a double blind test at all, but the phrase sure sounds authoritative!) Here is a presentational lead in you can use for the remote viewing theme: "Remote Viewing, or RV, is the ability to see things that are happening at a distance in space, time, or even in other dimensions. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was called clairvoyance, or 'clear seeing.' Most psychics of that time, in fact, referred to themselves as clairvoyants, and were popularly portrayed as exotic gypsies or turbaned mystics gazing into crystal balls, scrying stones or witches mirrors- able to see things beyond the realm of the normal senses. "Of course, the majority of them made a living by charging fees for private consultations and "readings." And many of them, in order to insure a steady stream of clients, resorted to, shall we say, less than psychic means to discover hidden information about their clients. Basically, there was a lot of cheating going on- especially by those who saw how much money could be made by an accomplished 'seer.' "Fraud became so prevalent, in fact, that a majority of serious scientists and researchers (many of whom initially felt that undiscovered powers of the mind could be at work) concluded the entire field was unworthy of serious study. "Not all of them though. A good deal of research went on by a small cadre of parapsychologists who received their funding through private foundations and individuals who strongly believed that psychic ability had a sound, if not yet known, scientific basis

22

The Return of the White Dwarf

which could eventually be discovered, quantified, and perhaps even taught. "In the nineteen sixties, during the height of the Cold War, it was learned that scientists in the Soviet Bloc were seriously investigating military applications of psi. In contrast to Western researchers, who essentially were looking at wave theory and quantum physics for possible explanations, they theorized that the process was biologically and chemically based. "It was rumored that they had made significant advances and discoveries and, unlike their Western counterparts, were receiving massive funding from their governments and military. The psychic arms race had begun. " No longer did we view psychics as they were portrayed in the media. In popular parlance, the word "psychic" became a stereotype that exists to this day, and is now largely represented by the likes of Miss Cleo and her ilk. It was necessary to create new terminology to describe the serious study of what the research community now referred to as psi a catch-all phrase that incorporated all of the abilities previously referred to as 'psychic,' 'clairvoyant,' 'telepathic,' and 'precognitive.' "The US government began to provide substantial funding for research into that area of psi which they called 'remote viewing.' Successful results would allow us to know our enemies every move without having to rely upon, or risk the lives of, covert operatives. "In the late nineteen sixties and early seventies I became somewhat involved in a project you may have heard of. "Project Stargate, and its predecessor Project Grill Flame, were designed to train remote viewers to mentally travel to target locations in various parts of the world and to describe what was taking place. It was soon discovered that successful viewers were not limited by traditional notions of time, and that in many cases they would correctly describe a target location, but in terms of the past, present, or even the future. Since it wasn't always clear what time frame the viewers were in, there were serious practical difficulties in verifying the results or evaluating the value of the information received. "I discovered very early on that I could sometimes view things that had already happened 23

Bob Cassidy

in the past but that very rarely would I see a current or future event. Let me give you a demonstration." ________________________________________________________________________ Don't, of course, use the whole thing just as I wrote it. You should probably greatly abbreviate it (remember, this entertainment, not a lecture) and rewrite it in your own words.

To bring things full circle and back to the notions provided by the white dwarf's return, there is another interesting presentation variation that can be applied to the “Name/Place Routine.” It was suggested to me by my friend Michael Weber who has one of the most creative minds in the business and is also the only person I've met who knows what I am thinking before I do. Rather than using a name and a place or two places for the selection. Have one person write the name of her favorite movie and the other one think of the name of his/her favorite actor or actress. This opens up a lot of possibilities for a presentation of synchronicity. (Often a married couple will come up with a movie and someone who was actually in that movie.) If there aren't an fortuitous coincidences in the selections you can, alternatively, or in addition, use the movie/scene gambit that I described earlier, thus giving you room for a presentational variation that will allow you to seemingly reveal thoughts that the participants had not even written down. And in the end, that's what mentalism is all about – not what you actually did, but what the audience thinks you did.

Good thoughts to all of you, Bob Cassidy October 2011, Seattle, Washington

24