One Point Effect

From Expert Card Technique:
"Time and again it has been proven that a trick simple in principle can be baffling in the extreme, for the straight line in conjuring, as in geometry, remains the shortest distance between the conjurer's two points, method and effect."

Now, imagine an effect where you are actually doing exactly what the spectator believe you are doing.
The effect is the method and vica versa.
There no two points, only one point.
Isn't it the shortest possible distance possible to achive in magic?

The worst ever performance of the pulse stop effect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up_DxO_ehC8
Not only he is holding his right arm in an unnatural position, but you can still see him breating...
No wonder the PEA accepted him as a member.

The Wizard is Dead is alive again...

Those who wish to get a copy of my ebook The Wizard is Dead will be happy to know that I will make 50 more copies avilable soon.
Since Paypal doesn't work in Israel you will have to send me a check for 55$ to Israel.
You can reserve your copy in the mean time at yanivdeautsch@yahoo.com
And if you still believe that telling a spectator's drawing over the phone is a pipe dream you should take a look at the following quotes:

"I've gotten some fantastic reponses from The Wizard is Dead, thank you for releasing it. Do you plan to release anything else in the future?"

George Tait aka. Patrick G. Redford


"A great effect which I tried out successfully and worked more than well.
Gret thinking and nice touches.
Though not 100% its a killer and with a bit practice almost 100%. "

Thomas Rudolfo

Sex and Magic

Typing the word ' sex' into Google you get 189,000,000 results.
Typing the word 'magic' into Google you get 129,00,000 results.
I guess there is still some hope for magic...

To prop or not to prop?

This may seem obvious ar first glance but how do you know if you need a prop or not?
Simple.
If you can create the same effect or even a better effect without the prop, well, you don't need it.

I will write more about the subject of propless effects at later time....

Alex Blade's Utopian Prediction

I recently discovered that the exact and same effect was published by C.L.Boarde in The Phoenix in 9 January 1948.
I have informed the folks at the UK magic shop that selling this item about this fact but as far as I know they are still selling this item....

So, what exactly Kennedy is thinking of Daniel Love's 'Dream Signs'?

In Sep 5 2004 Kennedy posted the following message on The Magic Cafe:

"I have just received Dream Signs by one of the Café's own Daniel Love. I was wondering who else has purchased this from Daniel? The method is so *** good! I am not receiving financial gain from Mr Love, however I must say that this is the closest to real mind reading that we have come! In case you don't know the effect here goes: Participant concentrates, visualizes their star sign. You ask no questions, nothing is written down, no pre-show and totally impromptu you can read their mind, you name their star sign! What's more no progressive anagrams. You can do it face to face and over the phone! I am really impressed with this and have already started practicing with my friends!"

and on Sep 6 2004 he posted the following:

"For me a PA's difficulty is in recalling the letter process, this is not the case with Dream Signs as it is a visual cuing system and all memory is visual as opposed to linear like letters. Another advantage, IMO that you have with Dream Signs is that the spectator need not speak, where as in a standard Whats My Sign your saying "Does it have an E in it?" and you expect a reply 99% of the time. Plus (oh yes) if you were to read someone's mind then you wouldn't' say, "think of your star sign and now think about how you spell it", well I know I wouldn't anyway so the visualization in the technique brings us a step closer to what I would call the real work. These are the reasons I like it and I have only had it under a day and can easily recall the process. I am unable to perform it as yet but with work I am sure it will come...i might even make some improvements and maybe Mr Love will include them in a second edition Hey, it needs tweaking to fit your own personal style I agree 100%, but then if you didn't do this with every effect then we would all be clones."


Now, from I understand about this effect from those posts there is no use of branching anagrams in this effect and it is pretty easy "system" to remember.

Recently some asked for review of Dream Signs on The Magic Cafe and Kennedy made the following post ( Sep 10 2005):

" think with Dream Signs it is a good development of the idea of branching anagrams. I think the concept it very clever and I have used it in the past. In honesty I don't use iot now in my act or casually as I just cant remember it. Seriously though, if you are looking at branching anagrams and want saoemthign a little bit different then this may very well be worth a look. "

So, are there branching anagrams in this effect or not?
Is it easy to remember this effect or not?
Could you please make up your mind Kennedy!

Another nice review of TWID

I've just been informed that Craig Browning has given my manuscript/effect The Wizard Is Dead a nice review in his article Psychological Mumbo-Jumbo which can be found here:
http://www.online-visions.com/psychicperspectives/0511mumbo.html

S for stupid

Well,I have promised long time ago to share with you my thinking of what is known as 'using the angram principle to devine the Zodiac sign' of a spectator.
I believe that promised should be fullfilled, unless you promised to kill someone...
Here are my thoughts on this concept.
This is not acriticism of any peoples or manuscripts but of a concept.

Everytime the image of someone, somewhere, standing in front of someone and he is telling him:"I'm getting an R and an S..no! its a d" is comes to my mind I just can't stop laughing.
It is just so funny.
If you can convince someone that you are a real mindread using that concept, you are wasting your time...go to hollywood!

1 - Why do you call out letters?
I don't mean why do you GET the letters one at a time...but why do you call them?
You call them not because it makes any sense, but because you have to.
The method in this case is dictading the effect instead the other way around.

2 - If you managed to convince the spectator that every letter you called was a 'hit' than the impression created is that you knew what their zodiac sign all along.
The question that will crossed the spectator's mind is:"Why the hell you didn't named the exact zodaic sign right at the begining???"

3 - If one of the letters you called out loud was wrong and you didn't managed to cover this mistake, than the concept is becoming quite obvious.

4 - If you name the exact sign after you called only three or four letters of their zodaic sign the question that arise is:"How exactly do you REALLY know what their zodiac sign is?"

5 - If you do call out all the letter in their zodaic sign than their is no point in naming their exact zodaic sign as at this point it becomes obvious what their zodiac sign is and there is no point in naming it.

6 - You don't even call the letters in the exact order the spectator is thinking of!
I guess we can call it The Brainless Game...

Yaniv Deautsch

James Cheung:The future of stupidity

Ever thought of buying something from 'Mentalism Plus'?
Ever wonder how they get so many good reviews for so many lousy products?
Wonder no more as Mr (?) Cheung is quite busy posting many good reviews about his products under his many alias:
Craig Leonard
Darkseance
ChristopherWallace
MentaThought
DangerMouse
Darko Dojin
Steve-o .
And I'm sure he has many other alias....