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 CassidyAll 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 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 close-

up 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 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


(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


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


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


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


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


“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


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

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


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


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


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

bob cassidy - return of the white dwarf

Documents