ORIGIN
MATT MELLO
ORIGIN by
MATT MELLO
No part of this publication may be duplicated, copied, or transmitted in any form without written, explicit permission from the author. Copyright © 2017 by Matt Mello 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Opening Thoughts…………………… Thoughts……………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… …………………………4 4
Keywords……………………………………………………… Keywords…………………… …………………………………………………………… ………………………………… ……….6 .6
Jungle Animal……………………… Animal………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… ……………………………… …......7
Guidelines………………………………………………… Guidelines…………………… ……………………………………………………… …………………………………… …………..11 ..11
Jungle Animal 2.0……………………………… 2.0………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………..13 ……………..13
Star Sign…………………… Sign……………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… ………………………………… ………16 16
Triangulation 3.0………………………… 3.0……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… …………………………20 20
Favorite Things………………… Things…………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………… ……………………….. ..…… ……25 25
Source Code…………………………… Code……………………………………………………… …………………………………………… …………………... ...………… …………30 30
Closing Thoughts…………………………… Thoughts……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………...… ……………...…36 36
3
OPENING THOUGHTS When considering the history of anagrams, whether progressive or branching, the underlying methodology has remained relatively unchanged in the magic community at large. Atlas Brookings, Max Maven, and most recently, Phedon Bilek, have made great progress in this area, and I hope to now add a bit more to this ever-growing subject. Not long ago, I released a manuscript titled P.A.T.H.S., P.A.T.H.S., in which I outlined a few concepts to make anagrams even more deceptive, as well as to remove the ‘hit or miss’ approach to approach to letter guessing typically associated with this work. In this project, I intend to further that logic in new and exciting ways. We’ll e’ll now be able to learn what our participants are thinking of without ever having to ask about a specific letter. Even with proper justification, if we ask if the letter (A) appears in their word and we get a ‘yes’ response, it appears to give us an abundant amount of information. With the approaches featured in this manuscript, when we ask a question, it doesn’t doesn’t seem to provide us with as much information as an outright letter would. We are merely asking the spectator if they can focus on certain things in their mind, and we’re we’re then able to read their thoughts, revealing star signs, jungle animals, seemingly ‘random’ thoughts, thoughts, or even personal information like their favorite color or their favorite sport. Most of my work in this area has, so far, concentrated on the area of branching anagrams; although all of the concepts could be applied to a progressive anagram. Branching anagrams are often intimidating when compared to a traditional progressive anagram. It’s the difference between remembering a small grocery list and memorizing a map of the grocery store. In Origin, Origin, we’re almost creating creating a hybrid of the two. Two core procedures will be taught in this book: “ Keywords” Keywords” and “Guidelines” Guidelines”. The mingling of these techniques will allow us to simply go down a list in our mind until we arrive at their chosen thought. There is still a fair amount of memory work, but compared to the sprawling web of lines that create a traditional B.A., origin anagrams should seem much more manageable. “Source Code” is Code” is the only piece in this book that uses a separate process for progressing through the anagram. It is slightly different procedurally, but it felt like the perfect fit to include
4
in this project. With it, we’ll be able to learn a spectator’s birth month, as well as a random number that they think of. I suspect this will probably be a hit or miss piece for most most of you, but I personally love performing it. This sort of work certainly won’t be for everyone, but for those who study and apply the tools in this text, you will have access to one of the most deceptive methods of propless thought reading available today. I hope that you enjoy my new thoughts on the subject.
Matt Mello
5
KEYWORDS This first concept is something that I’m incredibly I’m incredibly proud of. As I mentioned in the introduction, it will allow us to ask questions of our participant without them appearing to giving us very much information should they say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It’s all a process, and if they say ‘yes’, we simply continue with that process, and if they say ‘no’ we continue. There continue. There is no sticking point, or a ‘failure’, ‘failure’, because they’ve they’ve answered ‘no’. “ Keywords” Keywords”, at its heart, is the idea of finding words within words. For this example, I might ask a person to focus on a jungle animal. I include one stipulation, “Preferably an animal with all different letters in its name…so giraffe or gorilla wouldn’t work , but cougar would.” would.”
To start, once they’ve they’ve chosen an animal, I would say, “I want you to repeat the animal’s name in your mind, over and over…like tiger…tiger…tiger…”
Presuming that this ruse doesn’t garner a reaction from my participant, participant, I’d continue with, with, “Very good. Now, let’s try to break down the word in your mind. I want you to f ocus f ocus on the last two letters of your animal’s animal ’s name. name . Is it possible that these two letters make a small word that you could focus on?”
If the answer is ‘no’, I would then would then ask, “Okay, how about the last three letters? Is it possible that these three letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word in your mind?” mind?”
Let’s assume that they’ve said ‘yes’. In this case I would would say, “Excellent, please concentrate on that smaller word this time, and repeat it in your mind.” Taking a pause, I
continue with, “Okay, I think I have a good idea of which animal you’ve chosen, but I’d like to try one last thing to be sure. Focus on the whole name of the animal again. Is there possibly a two letter word near the beginning that you could focus on?”
If they say ‘no’, ‘no’, we now know that they’re thinking of a (ZEBRA), and and we can reveal it in whichever way we wish. I prefer to simply write it down on a piece of paper. I have them say it aloud, and then turn it over. In a completely propless, unprepared performance, we can just name the animal that they’re thinking of.
6
Below, Below, you’ll find the short list of jungle animals that that make up this first anagram. By no means would I consider this to be a surefire list, but it is here as a simple example of the “ Keywords” Keywords” technique. When I teach “Guidelines” Guidelines” in the next chapter, I’ll I’ll provide a more detailed list of jungle animals for you to use. There is a method to how we descend down this list, which is relatively easy to grasp with a little practice. The rules are a re simple: The first thing that we focus on in each bracket is always the bold word. Whenever we get get a ‘yes’ confirmation, we remain where we are. are . If we get a ‘no’ answer, then we move down to the next word, or the next bracket. Upon receiving a ‘yes’, we may need to instruct our spectator to focus on a second a second word word in the name. This will be indicated by a circle around the second word. word. On the next page, I’ll detail the full instructions for progressing through the anagram.
JUNGLE ANIMAL “TIGER”
LION MONKEY ZEBRA SNAKE 7
We begin with our suggestion to think of a jungle animal with all different d ifferent letters, adding, “So elephant or gorilla wouldn’t work, but cougar would. would. Please don’t think of a cougar since I’ve said said it aloud. Just get a jungle animal in your mind, now.”
Give them a moment to think of an animal that fits the criteria, and then we make use of Derren Brown’s “Repeat Ploy” Ploy” saying, “And now just repeat the animal’s name in your mind, over and over, like tiger…tiger…tiger.”
By mentioning (COUGAR) and telling them not to think of it, they will often jump to another jungle cat, and (TIGER) is a very likely option. If we don’t get a hit on (TIGER), we proceed forward as a s if nothing was amiss. I always a lways think that this ruse is worth taking a shot at in the very beginning, as nothing compares compa res to this sort of direct mindreading with no process. If our (TIGER) option doesn’t land, we continue with, “Very good. I’d now like you to break the name down in your mind. I want you to focus only on the last two letters of the animal’s name. Is it possible that these two letters make a small word that you could focus on?”
Should they answer ‘yes’, we can safely assume that they’re thinking of a (LION). To complete the process, we ask that they repeat this smaller word in their mind. There must be a justification for asking them to focus on it. Had they answered ‘no’ to ‘no’ to the last two letters forming a word, we would drop to the next w hat if you focus on the last three letters? Is it possible that these three box and say, “Okay, what letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
What I really like about this questioning sequence is that it feels more like an extension of the first question than an altogether separate question. We’ve asked about the last two letters, so it seems like a logical progression to ask about the last three letters. Assuming that they’ve they’ve answered in the affirmative to the last three letters forming a word, our options would be: (MONKEY) and (ZEBRA). After asking them to repeat the three letter word in their mind, we would then say, “I think I have an idea which animal you’ve chosen, chosen , but I want to be sure. Is there possibly a two letter word near the beginning that you could focus on?”
8
If they say ‘yes’, we stay at the top of this box, this box, which is (MONKEY), and we know that the two letter word is (ON). You can see it circled on the anagram l ist. If they had said ‘no’ to an additional two letter word, then we would move from (MONKEY) down to (ZEBRA), which would be our final option in that box. But, had they said ‘no’ to the last three letters making ma king or mixing into a word, we would descend straight into the final box and reveal that they’re they’re thinking of a (SNAKE). As I’ve mentioned already, this is not a full list of jungle animals, but I can guarantee that if you went out and used this as is, you would likely still get a very high hit rate. rate . I’ll end with some tips that will help you with the memorization and success of this piece. When memorizing the anagrams, I would recommend learning the entire list first and foremost. Just memorize the animals, not the bold words or the circles, or the separate blocks of animals. Go over the list in your mind until un til you can easily recite it. Only then, when you’ve got the list locked in your mind, should you begin to memorize why the list is in that order. Soon enough, it will all click together and you can just focus on the small words to remember everything. For instance, with “Jungle Animal”, Animal”, by the end of my memorization work, I might just focus on the words (ON), (KEY), and (BRA). The full list of words is in my mind, and I know what (ON) correlates to on the list, and so on. For (KEY) and (BRA), I know that the word (ON) at the beginning means (MONKEY). It’s really a very simple process when you’ve worked with the words for a bit. One final piece of advice that I would give you in performance is to always pepper in comments like, “Please take your time. There’s absolutely no rush or pressure.” If a person is feeling stressed, they are likely to make a mistake. Perhaps ask to use a person who is good with words, if performing for a group. Although, all a ll of the ‘keywords’ I’ve chosen are fairly obvious. Everyone will know (KEY) or (BRA) is a word, or will be smart enough to mix the letters into (BAR). When initially developing this concept, I had first asked a lot of questions like, “Is there a two letter word anywhere in the word?” or “Is there possibly a a three letter word
som somewhere here in there that you could focus on?” 9
Testing this out in the real world, especially with three letter words, I realized that it was a bit difficult for a person to search through the whole word in their mind and find these smaller words scattered throughout. Understanding this issue, I began directing the spectator a bit more by having them focus on the last two letters, or the first three letters, or a two letter word near the beginning, etc. This change has helped to simplify the process immensely, and as long as you give the participant the time that they need, they should have no problems discovering any ‘hidden’ words, words, and we should have no problems discerning their thoughts.
10
GUIDELINES When I initially conceived of the process behind “Guidelines” Guidelines”, it was much more elaborate than its current form, and it involved far more questioning. The T he main idea behind this is that we’re we’re instructing a spectator to draw a capital letter in their mind, line by line. Originally, I might have said something like, “Please focus on the last letter of your word, and imagine it as a capital letter. I’m going to have you draw this letter in your
fi rst line in your mind… only the first line.” mind, one line at a time. Please draw the first I would then have asked, “And is there a second line that you could draw?” Were they to have said ‘no’, we would know they were thinking of a letter like (C) or (S) or (O), etc. I would then continue after the second line, and ask, “Is there a third line that you can add?” Once more, if they say ‘no’, this would alert us to two-line letters like (L) or (T) or (V)
etc. If they answered ‘yes’, then I would continue. Knowing that there are no letters in the English alphabet with more than four lines, when we ask, “There isn’t a fourth line, is there?” we have reached the end of our questioning. If they had said ‘no’, I would know that they were thinking of a letter like (A) or (H) or (I) etc. If they had answered ‘yes’, I ‘yes’, I would know that it was (E) or (M) or (W). While it was still deceptive to an extent, it was a lot of questioning. I had initially designed anagrams that only made use of these of these guidelines. I would concentrate on having them draw the first letter, line by line, and then the second letter, or last letter; whichever letter position made the most sense. When I later developed “ Keywords” Keywords”, the benefits of combining the two concepts became overwhelmingly obvious. I could now have a person break their word down into small words, and then have them focus on only a single letter and draw it in their mind. But, even better, I created a more deceptive way of moving through the letter drawing procedure, so that we only
11
ask a single question, and the process is cleverly designed to end in a place where it seems like we don’t don’t know where they’ve finished. The “Guidelines” Guidelines” procedure is always the last piece of the puzzle. Beginning with “ Keywords” Keywords”, we go as far as we need in the anagram until we get to a possibility of two choices, where we then segue into “Guidelines” Guidelines” on one specific letter position in the words. If you move ahead to “Jungle Animal 2.0” on the next page, you’ll notice that there are little numbers above certain letters. These numbers represent the number of individual lines that make up the letter. A (1) above a letter indicates that th at it is made of only a single line. A (2) above a letter means that the letter contains two lines. A (3) means three lines, etc. It’s pretty self explanatory. But the great thing about the anagrams in this book is that nearly all of the letters are paired to produce a more deceptive process. If we look at the first example in “Jungle Animal 2.0”, 2.0”, we have the letters (O) and (A) in the second to last positions of the names. Instructing a spectator through the guidelines, we would say, “Focus on the second to last letter of your word, and imagine it as a capital letter. I’m going to have you draw this letter in your mind, line by line. I’d like you to draw the first line now… now …only the first line.”
We give them a second to do this, before continuing with, “I f there’s a second line, please draw that in your mind, now.”
Once more, we give them a moment, and then say, “There isn’t a third line, line , is there?” If they they say ‘no’, we know that they’re they’re thinking of the letter (O). But, because of how I’ve I’ve scripted and constructed this moment, it seems as though we don’t know if there’s one or two lines in the letter. Likewise, had they said ‘yes’ to there being a third line, I could finish with, “And if there is a fourth line, please draw that in your mind, as well. So do you have a finished letter in front of you? Excellent, just visualize that letter in the air. ”
Either way, we end in a deceptive position, where it it seems like we don’t know exactly when they’ve completed the letter.
12
JUNGLE ANIMAL 2.0 “TIGER” 1
LION 3
T O U C A N 1
MONKEY 3
P A N T H E R ZEBRA 1
FROG 3
SNAKE 13
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, there are only three new animals on this list: (TOUCAN), (PANTHER), and (FROG). In my experience, they’r e really the only additions that are needed. The same conditions are implemented in this list, that they’re to th ink of an animal with all different letters in its name. Additionally, when I give examples of appropriate choices, I add, “So lizard or cougar would work, but giraffe or gorilla wouldn’t. Please don’t think of one of those, since I’ve named them. Just get ge t a jungle animal in your mind.”
With the inclusion of (LIZARD), it tends to remind them of options like (FROG) or (SNAKE). The inclusion of (GORILLA) will often trigger (MONKEY), as (COUGAR) triggers (TIGER). These little pieces of psychological forcing will only help to increase our odds of them thinking of an animal on our list. Of course, it’s a possibility that they could think of an animal that isn’t on the list. For instance, a person might think of (PYTHON) instead of (SNAKE), but the generality of (LIZARD) tends to force a more general (SNAKE). I’ve only gotten (PYTHON) once, and that was from a man. I highly doubt many women would choose it. Otherwise, there really aren’t that ma ny obvious ny obvious options, if you think about it. Many jungle animals have repeated letters in their name. So our participant might go through some choices like (PARROT) or (ALLIGATOR) before landing on one of the more obvious animals from our list. At the very top of this origin anagram, we have (LION) and (TOUCAN). Presuming that the repeat ploy repeat ploy doesn’t lead to a hit hit on (TIGER), we instruct them to break the word down in their mind into smaller chunks, “Focus on the last two letters of the animal’s name. Is it possible that these two letters make a small word that you could focus on?”
‘Yes’ means that we stay in the top box. For (LION) and (TOUCAN), we move directly into guidelines. We have them the m focus on the second to last letter, and draw it in their mind, line by line. As explained earlier, we instruct them to draw the first line only. We follow this with, “I f there’s there ’s a second line, please draw it in your mind.” And then, “There isn’t a third line, is there?”
If ‘no’, we know that they’re thinking of (LION). If ‘yes’, we know that they’re thinking of (TOUCAN), but we would add, “And if there’s a fourth line, please draw that in your mind, as well.” 14
In the event that they say ‘no’ to the last two letters forming a word, we drop down to the next box and ask, “How about the last three letters? Do these three letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
Should they respond ‘yes’, our ‘yes’, our options are: (MONKEY), (PANTHER), and (ZEBRA). We continue through this bracket by asking them to focus on the beginning of the word, “Is there possibly a two letter word near the beginning of the animal’s name?”
‘Yes’ means ‘Yes’ means that they’re thinking of (ON) in (MONKEY) or (AN) in (PANTHER). To differentiate which animal they’ve chosen, we would use guidelines on the second letter of the name. This is the exact same setup as the box above with (O) and (A). They would draw the first line, and then the second. We would ask about the third line, and this would give us our answer. Fewer than three lines indicates that they’re thinking of (MONKEY) and three lines or more indicates (PANTHER). If they had said there wasn’t a two letter word at the beginning, we would know immediately that they were thinking of (ZEBRA). Had they answered ‘no’ to the last three letters forming a word, we would drop down into the final box: (FROG) and (SNAKE). Transitioning straight into guidelines, I would ask them to focus on the second to last letter, which would give us: (O) and (K). This is the same (1) or (3) setup as before. Using our guidelines, if there isn’t a third line, we know that they’re thinking of (FROG). If there is a third line, we know that they’ve they’ve chosen chosen (SNAKE), but we would add, “And if there’s a fourth line, please draw that in your mind , as well.” well.”
Alternatively, on (FROG) and (SNAKE), we could have them return their attention to the last two letters and ask, “Is it possible that you could mix these letters into a word?” If ‘yes’, it’s (FROG), as (OG) can mix into (GO). ‘No’ would mean that they’ve chosen (SNAKE). I will leave it up to you to decide de cide how you’d prefer to end this sequence. That’s about all there is to this anagram. As you can see, even with the combined processes, processes, it isn’t really that complex to complex to memorize. The entire path is laid out before you in this text. You could probably just read these last two pages over and over and have the entire anagram memorized in short order. 15
STAR SIGN “VIRGO” 1
SAGITTARIUS 3
G E M I N I 2
T A U R U S 3
A Q U A R I U S 2
C A P R I C O R N 3
C A N C E R 1
S C O R P P I O 3
P I S C E S 1
LEO 3
LIBRA ARIES 16
It seems that star sign divinations are obligatory in nearly every propless mentalism release these days, so I thought thought it would only be fitting to include yet another in this manuscript. I’m not much into the ‘psychic’ performance style style myself, so I typically steer clear of astrological signs in general, but some of you may ma y find this anagram to be more fitting within your work. We start by using the “repeat ploy” on (VIRGO). “Think of your star sign. And just repeat it over and over in your mind…like Virgo…Virgo…Virgo….”
For the sake of teaching, we’ll assume that this misses. Same as the previous origin anagrams, we then ask our participant to focus on the last two letters of the word. The difference here is that we say, “Focus on the last two letters of your star sign. Is it possible that these two letters form a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
A ‘yes’ answer answer leaves us with: (SAGITTARIUS), (GEMINI), (TAURUS), and (AQUARIUS). Following the system, we now ask, “Now, focus on the first three letters. Is it possible that these three letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
If ‘yes’, ‘yes’, we know that these words are (SAG) and (GEM), as indicated by the circles in the anagram. We would then segue directly into guidelines for the finish with the last letter of their star sign. We’re We’re in the same (1) or (3) scenario as we’ve already seen, seen, but the letters are now (S) and (I). Same as before, they draw the first line, add a second, we ask about a possible third line, and then finish. Fewer than three lines equals (SAGITTARIUS) and three lines or more equals (GEMINI). But if they had said ‘no’ to the first three letters forming a word, our options remaining options would be: (TAURUS) and (AQUARIUS). There are two options that we have here. We could either ask them to focus on the first four letters to make a word, which would lead to (AQUA), or we could move into guidelines on the first letters of each star sign (T) and (A). Even though the options are now (2) and (3), (3), the scripting doesn’t need to be changed. We have them draw the first line, and then say, “If there’s a second line, please draw that in your your mind. There isn’t a third line, is there?”
‘No’ leads us to (TAURUS) and ‘yes’ leads us to (AQUARIUS). 17
Now, had they initially said ‘no’ to the last two letters forming a word, we would a two letter word anywhere immediately drop down to the second box and ask, “Okay, is there a two in there that you could focus on?”
Similar to the last anagram, I like how this question doesn’t come across as another question, but more of an extension of the first question. I also mentioned that I don’t prefer to have a person person ‘search’ for a word, but when it’s a two letter word, it typically isn’t that difficult, as they just have to focus around the vowels. Should they say ‘yes’ to a two letter word appearing somewhere in their word, our choices are: (CAPRICORN), (CANCER), (SCORPIO), and (PISCES). Our next instruction is for them to focus on the first three letters of their word, “Do these three letters make a small word that you could concentrate on?”
Answering ‘yes’, we remain at the top of this box with (CAP) and (CAN). From From here, I ask them to focus on the third letter in the word. Once again, this puts us into the (2) and (3) position with the letters (P) and (N). We would proceed through these as previously explained, where fewer than three lines signals us to (CAPRICORN) and three or more lines signals (CANCER). If they had answered ‘no’ to the first three letters making a word, we would drop down to the next two star signs in that box: (SCORPIO) (SC ORPIO) and (PISCES). Once again, we have options to use either keywords or guidelines to progress. We could either ask, “Well…could you mix those three letters into a word?” ‘Yes’ would mean (PISCES) as the letters can be mixed into (SIP), and ‘no’ would mean (SCORPIO). On the other hand, we could also transition into guidelines on the second letter of the star signs: (C) and (I). I won’t bother going through the procedure again, but as you should know by now, less than three equals (SCORPIO) and three or more equals (PISCES). Had they said ‘no’ to the first three letters creating a word, w ord, we would drop down to the third box and ask, “What about the last three letters? Do these three letters make a word or a name that you could focus on? Or could you mix them into a word? ”
‘Yes’ would mean that they are thinking of ( LEO) or (LIBRA). Performing guidelines on the last letter of the star sign would leave us with (O) and (A). Fewer than three lines means (LEO) and three or more means (LIBRA). 18
On the rare occasion that they’ve said ‘no’ to all of our questions, questions, that only leaves us with (ARIES) in the final box, which we can reveal with no further process.
19
TRIANGULATION 3.0 “REPEATED LETTER?” YES
NO
“SEVEN”
YELL
“RED”
O N E
OW
2
NINE
H E A 3
RT 4
GREEN
F I V
E
4
THREE
O R A A
NGE
1
I N D
BLUE
IGO
3
P U R
S T A R
PLE
2
RECTANGLE
VIOLET 4
SQUARE
CIRCLE
TRIANGLE
20
This particular anagram is a bit different from the others, as you can see. If you own my P.A.T.H.S. manuscript, you will be familiar with this new concept in anagrams that that I’ve developed called “Triangulation”. “Triangulation”. If you aren’t familiar, this is simply the idea of mixing multiple categories into a single anagram. This small change can heavily increase the deceptiveness of the piece, as we seemingly give our participant the option to think of ‘anything’. Let’s take a look at the scripting. . I start by saying, “I’m going to have you think of something random. So perhaps you could think of a simple, basic shape…like an oval or a diamond, but not one of those, since I’ve named them. If you don’t want to think of a shape, you could maybe think of your favorite color in the rainbow…or any odd number between one and ten. When I snap my fingers, think of something.” SNAP
Following this scripting, it appears that we’ve given the participant participant the opportunity to think of anything, but we can safely assume that they’ll think of o f something from the options we’ve provided. Given the choices, it’s t’s almost impossible for them to think of something that doesn’t appear appear on our list. The only items that wouldn’t work are things like an (OCTAGON) or (DODECAHEDRON), or that sort of complex shape. Everything else is covered, unless the participant makes a mistake of some kind. As you may have noted, the beginning of this anagram starts by innocently asking, “Is there a letter repeated in your word?”
If ‘yes’, ‘yes’, then we proceed with the “repeat ploy” with (SEVEN). If ‘no’, ‘no’, then we repeat (RED). Let’s review the ‘yes’ response first. Suppose that our repeated (SEVEN) doesn’t hit. We would then have them break the word down into smaller pieces in their mind. “Concentrate on the first four letters of your word. Is it possible that these four letters form a word that you could focus on?”
‘Yes’ would direct us direct us to (YELLOW) and (NINE). We then ask, “And what about the last three letters? Do they form a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
If ‘yes’, then they’re thinking of the color (YELLOW). If ‘no’, they’re thinking of the number (NINE).
21
But if if the first four letters don’t form a word, then we drop to the second box and ask, “How about the first five letters? Do the first five letters make a word that you could focus on?”
(GREEN) and (THREE) would be our options if they say ‘yes’, and we would move straight into guidelines on the last letters: (N) and (E). These letters correlate to the numbers (3) and (4). We haven’t had this this situation come up yet, and it’s the only guideline in this book that can sometimes lead us to a less deceptive finish. We have them draw the first line in their mind. “And if there’s a second second line, please draw that. If there’s a third line, please draw that, as well. There isn’t a fourth line, is there?”
Should they they say ‘no’, we actually have a very deceptive reveal of (GREEN), because it now seems like the letter they’ve drawn could be made up of one, two, or three lines. In the unfavorable situation where they say ‘yes’, we know that there are four lines in the letter, and they’ve chosen the number (THREE). But, had they said the first five letters didn’t form a word, a word, we would drop to the third box and switch things up, saying, “Okay, let’s try for a smaller word instead. How about the first two letters? Do these two letters form a word, or could you mix them into a word in your mind?”
A ‘yes’ answer leads us to (INDIGO) or (PURPLE). To distinguish between the two colors, we finally have them to focus on the last two letters, and ask, “Do these last two letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
‘Yes’ means (INDIGO) and ‘no’ means mea ns (PURPLE). If they had said ‘no’ to the first two first two letters creating a word, we would move to the next box and ask, “Well is there a two letter word anywhere in the word that you could focus on?”
‘Yes’ would lead us to (RECTANGLE). If ‘no’, we drop down to the last box, and can instantly reveal that they’re they’re thinking of a (CIRCLE). That’s the ‘yes’ side of the anagram finished, but if they had said ‘no’ in the very beginning to a letter being repeated in their word, we would progress down the ‘no’ side. 22
Supposing that repeating the color (RED) doesn’t pr oduce oduce a reaction, we move down the focus on the first two list to break the word down in their mind. Our first question is, “Please focus on letters of your word. Do these two letters possibly form a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
‘Yes’ would equal: (ONE), (ONE), (HEART), (FIVE), and (ORANGE). We would next ask, “Now focus on the first three letters. Do t hese three letters form a word that you y ou could focus on?”
If ‘yes’, we learn immediately that they’re thinking of the number (ONE). If ‘no’, we move down the list lis t and ask, “Okay, how about the last three letters. Do these three letters form a word that you could focus on?”
You may have noticed on this anagram sequence that there are underlined words. Just as the circled words are the second the second keywords, any underlined words that you see represent our third keywords. A ‘yes’ to the last three letters would mean (HEART) (HEART) or (FIVE). We would then perform guidelines on the last letters (T) and (E), leading us to (2) and (4). As per usual, they would draw the first line, and then the second. We ask about the third, and then we continue if we need to. Fewer than three lines means (HEART) and three or more lines means (FIVE). If the last three letters don’t form a word, we move immediately down to (ORANGE) and proceed into the revelation. But if they had said ‘no’ to the first two letters making a word, we would drop down to the second box, and ask, “How about the first four letters? Do these four letters make a word that you could focus on?” on? ”
‘Yes’ would give us (BLUE) and (STAR). Guidelines on the second to last letters leave us with (U) and (A), which translate to (1) and (3). Technically, some people may draw a (U) as one or two lines, but it doesn’t affect the method or scripting. Fewer than three lines equates to (BLUE) and three or more equates equa tes to (STAR).
23
Should the first four letters not yield us a result, we drop to the third box and ask, “How about the last three letters? Do these three letters make a word that you can focus on?”
‘Yes’ indicates the options (VIOLET) options (VIOLET) and (SQUARE). Guidelines on the last letters (T) and (E) brings us to a (2) or (4) scenario. Fewer than three lines means (VIOLET). Three o r more means (SQUARE). Finally, Finally, if the last three letters don’t form a word, we move into the very last br acket acket and can reveal that they’re they’re thinking of a (TRIANGLE).
24
FAVORITE THINGS “REPEATED LETTER?” YES
NO
“BASKETBALL” BASKETBALL”
“RED”
1
1
F O O T B
B R O W
ALL
N
3
3
B A S E B
P I N K
ALL
2
YELL
B O X I
OW
4
2
P U R
NG
BOW
PLE
LING
4
SO
G O L
CCER
F
1
1
V O L L E Y B A L L
H O C
4
TEN
KEY
3
O R A A
NIS 2
NGE
1
BLUE
CRICKET 3
3
GRAY
GREEN
B L A C K WHITE
25
Revealing thoughts that mean something to a person will always elicit a stronger reaction than the revelation of random thoughts. It not only conveys the idea that we’re we’re inside their head, but that we actually know things about them. If we guess a shape or an image that they’ve drawn, it’s impressive, impressive, but it doesn’t have as deep de ep of an impact on the participant. With “Favorite Things”, Things”, we’ll be able to reveal a stranger’s favorite favorite color or their favorite sport, whichever they choose to think of. We begin by saying, “I want “I want you to think of something simple, but I want it to mean something to you. So, if you have a favorite color, you could maybe think of that. I would just ask that you try to focus on a solid color and not a mix of colors like teal. If you don’t want to think of your favorite color, you could maybe think of your favorite sport, if you have one…that sort of thing. When I snap my fingers, just lock a thought in your mind.”
As in “Triangulation 3.0”, 3.0”, an illusion is created through the scripting where we’ve seemingly given them the option to think of any favorite thing, even though they’ll think of something from our suggested categories. Once more, we begin the procedure by asking, “Is “Is there a letter repeated in your word?”
If they say ‘yes’ to ‘yes’ to a repeated letter, we ask them to repeat the word over and over in their mind, “Like basketball…basketball….” In the likelihood likelihood that this doesn’t hit, we ask them them to focus on the first four letters of the word. “Do these four letters possibly make a word that you could focus on?” A ‘yes’ at this point in the anagram would direct us to three choices: (FOOTBALL), (BASEBALL), and (YELLOW)). We would ask them to repeat this smaller, four letter word in their mind. Next, we would ask, “Okay…now focus on the last four letters. Do these letters possibly make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
‘Yes’ would mean (FOOTBALL) or (BASEBALL), (BASEBALL), and we would perform the usual guidelines procedure on the second letter of the words: (O) and (A). Fewer than three lines would be (FOOTBALL) and three or more would be (BASEBALL). Had they said ‘no’ to the last four letters forming or mixin g into a word, we would know that they’re thinking of (YELLOW). (YE LLOW). 26
But if they had said ‘no’ to the first four letters creating a word, w ord, we would drop into the second box and ask, “How about the first two letters? Do these letters make a word, or could you mix mix them into a word?”
A ‘yes’ response would be (PURPLE) or (SOCCER), and we would immediately move into guidelines on the second to last letter: (L) and (E). Fewer than three equals (PURPLE) and three or more equals (SOCCER). If the first two letters don’t d on’t cr eate eate a word, we drop to the third box and move into something a little different than what we’ve seen in the previous origin anagrams. We would now ask, “Let’s try branching out a bit further. Do the first three letters, or the last three letters, form a word that you could focus on?”
Pulling from our remaining options, a ‘yes’ here would mean that they’re thinking of (VOLLEYBALL) or (TENNIS). Guidelines could be performed on the second letter of the words: (O) and (E). As usual, fewer than three lines indicates (VOLLEYBALL) and three or more indicates (TENNIS). If the first or last three letters don’t form a word, then we move into the final box: (CRICKET) and (GREEN). Performing in the United States, it’s highly unlikely that a person’s favorite favorite sport will be cricket, unless one is performing for a British participant. We can then assume with a fair amount of certainty that if performing within the U.S. that the person will be thinking of (GREEN). Still, for the sake of covering as many options as possible, we could do a final check by performing guidelines on the last letter of the words: (T) or (N). Fewer than three lines is (CRICKET) and three or more is (GREEN). That’s the end for the ‘repeated letter’ side of the anagram. Now let’s t ake a look at what we would do if they say ‘no’ to a letter being repeated in their word. “Okay, let me have you just repeat the word over and over in your mind…like red…red…red….”
Presuming that this misses, we say, “Very good. I’m now going to have you break the word down in your mind. Focus on the first three letters of the word. Is it possible that these three letters form a word that you could concentrate on? Like ‘bro’ in brown is technically a word.” word. ” 27
I include that last line because line because I don’t think most people would think of ‘bro’ as an actual word, but more of a slang term. In actuality, it is considered a real word. Along with (BROWN), if they answer ‘yes’, the other options opti ons would include: (PINK), (BOXING) or (BOWLING). To anagram through these four options we ask them to focus on the last three letters of the word, “And do these three letters form a word that you could focus on?” If ‘yes’, they are thinking of (BROWN) or (PINK). Pink seems the more likely option for a favorite color, but to leave no doubt, we use guidelines on the third letter: (O) or (N). Fewer than three lines means (BROWN) and three or more means (PINK). If they answer ‘no’ to the last three letters generating generatin g a word, our options are: (BOXING) or (BOWLING). Guidelines on the third letter of the words give us (X) or (W). Fewer than three lines means they’re thinking of (BOXING) and three or more means they’re thinking of (BOWLING). Had the first three letters not formed a word, we would drop down into the second box and ask, “How about the first two letters of the word? Do these letters make a word, or could you mix them into a word?”
Our options if they say ‘yes’ are: (GOLF), (HOCKEY), and (ORANGE). After having them repeat the two letter word in their mind, we immediately say, “And actually, can I have you focus on the first three letters again? Is it possible that you could mix these letters into a word?”
The only choice that would work here is (GOLF), as they could create the word (LOG) from the first three letters. If not, we are left with (HOCKEY) and (ORANGE). Performing guidelines on the third letter of the word would be the same as previously mentioned. Fewer than three lines means (HOCKEY) and three or more means (ORANGE). If the first two letters letters don’t create create a word, we say, “Okay, what about the first four letters of the word?”
A ‘yes’ here would mean would mean (BLUE) or (GRAY). Using guidelines on the third letter would give us (U) and (A). As I’ve said earlier in this book, (U) could be represented as either a (1) or a (2), depending on how the participant draws it, but it doesn’t change the process. Fewer than three letters equals (BLUE) and three or more e quals (GRAY). 28
At last, if the first four letters don’t form a word, we ask, “How about the last four letters?” letters?”
‘Yes’ means they’re thinking of (BLACK). ‘No’ means we drop into the last box, which is (WHITE). Instead of keywords on the last four letters of the word, we could also use guidelines on the second letter of the word: (L) or (H). Fewer than three lines is (BLACK) and three or more is (WHITE).
29
SOURCE CODE
1x2=2x2=4x2=8 2 x 2 = 4 x 2 = 8 x 2 = 16 3 x 2 = 6 x 2 = 12 = 3 x 2 = 6 4 x 2 = 8 x 2 = 16 = 7 x 2 = 14 5 x 2 = 10 = 1 x 2 = 2 x 2 = 4 6 x 2 = 12 = 3 x 2 = 6 x 2 = 12 7 x 2 = 14 = 5 x 2 = 10 8 x 2 = 16 = 7 x 2 = 14 = 3 x 2 = 6 9 x 2 = 18 = 9 x 2 = 18 = 7 x 2 = 14 10 x 2 = 20 = 2 x 2 = 4 x 2 = 8 11 x 2 = 22 = 4 x 2 = 8 x 2 = 16 12 x 2 = 24 = 6 x 2 = 12 30
As I mentioned in the “Opening Thoughts” section, “Source Code” is the only piece in this manuscript that uses its own method of progressing through an anagram. This is an anagram for numbers, but ironically, I wouldn’t use it to reveal a random number that a spectator thinks of. I much prefer to have a spectator think of their birth month, and then create a random number in their mind that I could guess, as well. The great thing about this demonstration in comparison to some other ‘math’ effects is that the spectator never has to say a number aloud. We are asking questions, but they always seem to lead us to a logical progression in the process. I know that this anagram may intimidate some of you who aren’t comfortable with mental math, but I personally didn’t didn’ t find it any harder to memorize than a traditional P.A. After I explain the basic procedure, I think you’ll see that it isn’t as complicated as it first appears. My personal presentation would typically be, “I want you to think of the month that you were born. Just repeat the month over and over in your mind. Very good! I’m going to try to guess the month you were born, but in order to do that, I’ll need to distract you a bit. I’d like you to think of a random number, which we’ll create using your birth m onth. Can you imagine your birth month as a number instead of the month?”
Giving the participant a second to do this, we now continue with the instruction, “Whatever number you’re thinking of now, I’d like you to double it in your mind.”
Allow them a moment to do this, and then we ask, “This new number that you’re thinking of, is it a single digit number?”
If they say ‘yes’, it seems as though we’ve made a hit, and we would stay in the top box: (1) through (4). They’re now instructed to double the number number a second time. “If this new number is a two digit number, I’d like you to add the two digits together. If it’s a single digit number, just focus focus on it.”
After a moment, I ask, “This new number that you’re focusing on, is it an even number?”
A ‘yes’ response, response, once again, appears to be a hit, and it would indicate that they’re thinking of (1) or (2). We ask them to double the number one more time and ask, “Is it still a single digit number?”
If ‘yes’, they’re thinking of the number (8), which leads us back to to (1) - (JANUARY). 31
If ‘no’, they’re thinking of the number (16), which le ads us back to (2) (2) - (FEBRUARY). A ‘no’ response to the new number being an even number would mean (3) or (4). We would then transition by saying, “Okay, then double it again, so th at it becomes an even number. And is this new number a single digit number?”
‘Yes’ would mean they’re thinking of (6), leading ba ck to (3) - (MARCH). ‘No’ would mean they’re thinking of (14), lead ing back to (4) - (APRIL). Going back to the very first question, question, had they said ‘no’ to the new number being a single digit, we would redirect and say, “Okay, then add both digits together, so that it becomes a single digit number. Is this new number an even number?”
If ‘no’, we move down to (5) through (9). If ‘yes’, we move down to (10) through (12). Let’s cover (5) through (9) first. We know that they’re they’re currently thinking of an odd number, so we say, “Okay, then double the number, so that it becomes an even number. Now this this new number that you’re thinking of, is it a single digit number?”
‘Yes’ means that they’re thinking of either (5) or (6). We ask them to double it one more time. “And finally, this last number, is it a single digit number?” If ‘yes’, they’re thinking of (4), which tracks back to (5) - (MAY) If ‘no’, they’re thinking of (12), which tracks back to (6) – (JUNE). (JUNE). Had they said ‘no’ to it being a single digit number at the start of this box, we would be left with (7) through (9). We would then ask, “Is the first digit higher than the second digit?” A ‘yes’ answer means that they’re thinking of (10), which leads ba ck to (7) – (JULY). If ‘no’, we redirect the question with the instruction , “Okay, then minus the smaller number from the higher number.”
Allow them a few seconds to do this, and then instruct them to double this new number one last time. Ask, “Finally, is this new number a single digit number?” ‘Yes’ equals (6), which leads us back to (8) – (AUGUST). (AUGUST). ‘No’ equals (14), which goes back to (9) – (SEPTEMBER). (SEPTEMBER). That is the end of this box. Now let’s let’s go down to (10) through (12). We would have moved down to this box if they had said ‘yes’ to the first ‘added’ digits being ‘even’. It would
32
look like we got a hit, and we would continue with, “Okay, now double this new number. Once again, is it a single sing le digit number?”
A ‘yes’ here would mean (10) or (11). A ‘no’ would lead us instantly to (12), which actually leads back to (12) – (DECEMBER) For (10) and (11), we would have them double the number one final time and ask, “Is it still a single digit number?” numb er?”
‘Yes’ would mean (8), mean (8), tracking back to (10) – (10) – (OCTOBER). (OCTOBER). ‘No’ would mean (16) tracking back to (11) – (NOVEMBER). (NOVEMBER). I should mention that every instance in this anagram where it ends with a two digit number, I always finish the process by b y having them add the two digits together. So, in (NOVEMBER), when we finish at (16), I would complete the procedure by having them add the digits together to make (7). The same can be said for all of the rest of the two digit endings. If I ask a question, then I always want to follow it up with a mathematical procedure to redirect said question. Instead of presenting this as a ‘random’ number that we’re creating, we could also make up something about discovering their ‘astrological’ number. I believe Peter Turner, and likely others, have used this sort of presentation in the past. As I brought up in “Star Sign”, Sign”, I don’t personally believe in psychic abilities, abilities, so I don’t wish to further the notion that these things actually exist. If we wanted to use this to learn the day a person was born, we could very easily combine Murray’s Springboard concept. My only issue with this is that I “Source Code” Code” with Michael Murray’ went through a painstaking amount of work to avoid the spectator having to say a specific number aloud, so I prefer for it to stay that way, as I only reveal the month. At most, depending on the specific month, I might ask the person, “Were you born before the 22 nd?” Based on their answer, I could determine what their star sign is, as well. Aside from star signs and birth months, months , I’ve used the “Source Code” procedure Code” procedure to create crea te a very powerful and fair watch test. A person creates a random time in their mind, and then spins the tab and stops on a random time. At the end, they both match. We would accomplish this by first having them focus on an hour. We would then use their mentally chosen hour to create a more random number of minutes. Leading them through
33
the anagram, we eventually learn the hour they’ve chosen, and the random number of of minutes that they’ve ended on. We now take off our watch and say that we’re going to try to set it to the time they’re thinking of, which we actually do. But instead of showing this, we say, “Actually, let’s try something a little more interesting. I don’t want you to look at the watch face, but I want you to spin the pin until you decide to stop at any time. When you’re finished, just push the pin back in to set the time.” time.”
Making use of the classic ‘double pin’ watch force, they can spin the dial to their heart’s heart’s content without actually changing changing the time you’ve set. I now have the participant hold the watch away from them, as they announce their mentally chosen time. With this presentation, the audience watching can react, and then the participant can turn the watch around and react themselves. This presentation makes it impossible for them to think it was a gimmicked watch. We could also have one participant think of a “random” time, after which we give the watch to a second participant to continue spinning the dial, producing more of a synchronization effect between two spectators. One last alternative idea is that we could say ten items as we hold up a number of fingers for each item. Saying “tree” , you would put up your thumb. Then on “car”, you would add your index finger, indicating the number two. You would do this with ten items, counting on your fingers all the way up to ten. By having the person create a more “random” number using using their thought of item, we can then reveal the new number that they’re thinking of, and the item they item they chose. These items could be anything from colors to drawings, or even a letter in the alphabet. We could say, "I'm going to go through the alphabet on my fingers, and whenever I say the letter you're thinking of, I want you to focus on the number of fingers I'm holding up."
You could go through the first ten letters of the alphabet on your ten fingers and then we would ask, “Are you thinking of a number, yet?” If ‘no’, we continue with the next ten letters of the alphabet, and we ask the same question, “Are you thinking of a number, now?” If ‘no’, we finish finish with the last six letters of the alphabet. alp habet. 34
Personally, I’m not that big a fan of this th is idea. It just seems too odd of a procedure to learn a single letter. Still, it’s here as an option. And I’m certain that there are other are other applications and presentation of the “Source Code” concept waiting to be explored.
35
CLOSING THOUGHTS Thank you, as always, for purchasing and supporting my work. I hope that you’ve enjoyed my thoughts on this subject of anagrams, as I suspect this will be the last manuscript that I offer on this topic for a while. This is the method that I had wanted to create for a very long time, a method where the process was interesting, and didn’t seem to give us a lot of open information. The combination of “Keywords” and “Guidelines” makes for what I feel is one of the most deceptive systems of progressing through an anagram. I’ll finish this manuscript by offering up some final bits of advice and thoughts on the Origin process. Origin process. First off, I can already imagine that some of you will be thinking that this is too much work for the participant, or that the whole procedure will take too long. Personally, I enjoy having the participant be mentally invested in the effect. I think it means more when they’ve done more to achieve the ending. Just as having a person focus on a peeked letter and bringing it to the tips of their lips is fascinating for a spectator, the presentation of having them focus on smaller words within their word is also intriguing and logical. It is an interesting process for our audience to latch on to. The same can be said for having them draw a letter in their mind. And when considering the length of time that this piece takes to perform, you’d actually be b e surprised by how quickly you can blow blo w through the process. Depending on how far you need to go into the anagram, it can typically be over in around a minute or less, and it it certainly doesn’t feel like that long of a process. As for some valuable advice, a time delay between learning the information, and revealing it, can be quite powerful with with this type of work. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to say, “We’ll get back to that in a moment,” but it could certainly be that easy. Even something as simple as switching from the anagram sequence to having them simply visualize the actual item that they’re imagining, drawing it in their mind. Just change the process at the end to shift attention away from the first procedure. Another option would be combining an origin anagram with something like the one-ahead principle. After learning their thought, we don’t say it aloud, but now that we’ve warmed up, we ask them to think of something else, like a name or any word, etc. We bring out a pencil and a couple slips of paper and have them repeat this new word in their mind. While While they’re doing this, 36
we actually write our anagrammed thought on the first piece of paper. We then have them say this random word aloud before asking them to refocus on their first thought. Writing whatever name or word they’ve they’ve said said aloud on this second card, we add it to the first and then turn both over to reveal our guesses are correct. We could also combine any of these anagrams with my Thought Control technique to create what I would consider to be one of the most powerful pieces of propless mindreading that we can perform. perform. If you’re a member of the Thought Control facebook facebook group, you’ll already be aware of how you can use this new work in conjunction with it. The possibilities are really quite exciting. How you ultimately decide to use and present this concept is entirely up to you, and I often choose in the moment, based on what word they’ve picked. For instance, if a person is thinking of the color (PINK), I might draw a pin on a slip of paper, as well as a scribbled mess on the other side of the paper, indicating the words (PIN) and (INK). I would write (PINK) underneath these drawings and could then reveal everything, and how we got to this particular thought. I typically only do this with the more visual words that I can draw. Having tried to make the anagrams in this book as surefire as possible, I’d like to finish by once on ce more pointing out that there will always be a time when our participant doesn’t do esn’t follow our instructions as we’d hoped, or answers a question incorrectly. The best way that we can avoid this is to have studied the material enough to be able to deliver the script clearly and effectively. There is just as much nonverbal communication in this work as there is verbal. If you’re comfortable and in control of control of the situation, the participant will feel more comfortable and at ease during the process. Just remember to shower your helpers with compliments. Remind them to take their time and that there’s truly no pressure. Besides anagrams, I believe this is good advice to live by. It’s been been a pleasure sharing my thoughts with you all.
Sincerely,
Matt Mello
37
