Prevaricator by Patrick Redford

© Vanishing Inc, December 2009

All rights Reserved. This material is protected and no portion may be reproduced without express written permission by the publishers.

Written by Patrick Redford

Designed by Andi Gladwin

www.vanishingincmagic.com

Prevaricator+

Exploring methods in outing liars and the hands

in which the lies are hidden

Contents

Introduction ... 5

Some Frequently Asked Questions ... 9

Verity ... 11

Fail-safes, Endings & Additions ... 18

Serial Number Divination Ending ... 19

Imaginary Object ... 20

Who Has It? ... 21

The Wallet Out ... 22

Ambigram Outcome ... 23

The Informal Performance ... 25

Sure Fire “Which Hand” Prevaricator (ROTVARI) ... 26

Three Person “Which Hand” Fail Safe ... 28

The Behind The Back Presentation Technique ... 30

Additional Tell Techniques ... 31

The Pocket Knows ... 32

Silent Tell ... 33

Three or More ... 35

Advanced Prevaricator ... 36

Which Hand Tell Techniques ... 38

The Bulky Hand Tell ... 42

The Blau Equilibrium Tell ... 43

The Size of Coin ... 44

Double Coin Ploy: Quarter and Dime ... 45

Two Coin Split ... 46

The Relaxation Tell ... 47

Open Re-adjustment ... 48

Blood Signs ... 49

Additional Full Routines ... 50

Crooked Politicians ... 51 Puzzle Presentation ... 52 Puzzle Addition ... 57 Serial Prevaricator ... 59 Silence is Golden ... 67 Truth Teller ... 72 Addendum ... 75 Ring of Truth ... 76 ROTVARI ... 79 BOHT ... 82 Truth to Tell ... 88 Charts ... 92 In Closing ... 100

The One That Got Away

An Introduction

Thanks so much for purchasing Prevaricator+. If you haven’t already had a chance to watch the DVD, please do that first. It contains all of the basic information that you’ll need to learn the “Prevaricator” principle and basic routine. The DVD also offers a practice room where you’ll have the opportunity to practice these techniques in real time before you take it out in front of a real audience. Go watch it and then come back here; I’ll wait. Welcome back.

As you can tell from the DVD, “Prevaricator” is an immense topic that can be used in many different ways. I’ve included this document in addition, because there’s just too much information for one DVD. Don’t worry, I’ll take you through every single detail step by step. You’ll learn the detailed history of how this project came together, several fail-safes and practice techniques, as well as a bunch of additional material and routines that we couldn’t fit on the DVD.

Dance Magic Dance – The Evolution of “Prevaricator”

The Basic Original “Prevaricator” Effect: Of two subjects, one secretly

takes the role of a committed liar, the other a devout truth teller. The performer hands one of them a ring and turns away. The two subjects decide silently among themselves who will keep the object. The performer turns back around once the object is concealed from sight and asks each person one question: “Do you have the ring?” The liar has to lie. The truth teller has to tell the truth. Even though only one question is asked, the performer is able to correctly identify who has the ring and who was playing what role.

There is something alluring about this classic plot that appeals to me. At first glance it appears to be a fifty-fifty guessing game but upon further reflection, it isn’t. There are four possible outcomes that could potentially play out, so in reality one has a 25% chance of guessing both who played what role and who has the object. If one presents such a game with confidence, even when the odds are what they are, the conviction of such a silly game becomes utterly staggering, especially when it’s done over and over again in succession.

The origins of games like this (based in pure logic) date back to the 4th _{century BCE. The most ancient attribution}

is to Eubulides of Miletus who included it among a list of seven puzzles (http://www.uep.utm.edu/p/par-liar. htm). The history of such an effect in the magic community begins in 1978 when Gerald Kosky first contributed his version, “To Tell The Truth,” to the Apocalypse (Vol. 1 No. 6, June 1978, p. 61) based on an old logic problem that has reportedly found itself in print in many old books of mathematics. His version involved the use of one question as asked of only one of the two participants. In this version, there had to be a liar and a truth teller. Charles Cameron published his version in 1981 under the title, “Saint or Devil.” This is a variation similar to that of Steve Shaw’s (Banachek) “Ring of Truth” that he came up with in 1985, later republished under the name Banachek in 1998 (Psychological Subtleties, pg. 104). Both Cameron’s and Banachek’s version allow the two participants to both be liars, truth tellers or one a liar and one a truth teller.

The logic puzzle that each routine follows requires that the performer ask three questions permitting for

additional presentational byplay. The sequence of questions in Banachek’s version, though similar to Cameron’s, are asked in a different order, thus making Banachek’s a little more deceptive. Penn & Teller released a hilarious presentation under the name of “The Melissa Etheridge, Uma Thurman, Mel Gibson & Jaye Davidson Trick” in 1997 in their book How to Play in Traffic (1997, p 15.).

In 1999, Barrie Richardson published his “Truth to Tell” (Theatre of the Mind, 1999, p. 111) which allows Kosky’s effect to be performed for just one person. Interestingly, my dear friend Rick Maue also published a variation on Kosky’s effect under the title, “Truth of the Relic” (The Book of Haunted Magick, Deceptions Unlimited, 2000, pg 68), which offers an additional touch that helps the performer to be sure that the volunteers do not make a mistake when giving their answers.

edition). Finally, I came up with my version (in collaboration with Ben Blau) in 2002. Originally intended to be part of a larger publication, it first saw print as “Prevaricator – The Ultimate Ring of Truth” in 2005.

As I first wrote in 2005 in the introduction to “Prevaricator”: As much as I’ve enjoyed the variations that utilize logic puzzles, upon reflection, audiences see them for what they are – even if they can’t quite follow the path to the right answer. I didn’t want my presentation to be observed as such. So what better way to hide a logic puzzle than to do away with it completely?

I will never consider any method 100% reliable. Any method, be it psychological, mechanical, logic based or one that uses suggestion can and will fail. Having said that, the effects that are contained both in this document and on the accompanying instructional DVD had at one time never failed me. For the first two years I was using “Prevaricator” and its other components previously guarded jealously by a select few, I didn’t fail. Any effect can fail. Though we’ve come a long way since then and have since built in aspects that will allow the performer of “Prevaricator” and its multiple variants to never fail on luck alone.

One of the advantages of being in the business of magic is making various new friends. “Prevaricator” is a hybrid of ideas between one of the many sessions that my dear friend Ben Blau and I entertained. Sitting for countless hours at his kitchen table, he shared with me many of his personal techniques of how to correctly guess which hand an object is being held in and a theory that he had not yet tested. In fact, when he did finally test his theory, it didn’t work. This idea sat in the dark. It did its bidding in the back of my head and the basic concept was too interesting for my brain to let alone. Eventually I found myself successfully performing the lying and truth-telling game using this genuine psychological technique at my regular performance venue and private performances. Examining the basic concept, it should have worked as he described but didn’t. Giving it a try myself, I made every attempt to force it into working by changing the language used and setting the game up in a way that would guarantee a success. Needless to say, it works!

I took the basic idea presented by Ben and plunged it into the real world, built in certain subtleties and tinkered with certain language patters that force it to work reliably. When combined with Ben’s, and others, “Which Hand?” techniques it plays with a clean and straightforward plot that’s embraced by audiences. It fools, badly. It should also be noted that Jerome Finley also published his personal take of Prevaricator under the title “Thought Channel” (2007) that combined the basic Prevaricator principle with more traditional Which-Hand tells.

While the booklet that I published in 2005 offered several fail-safe ideas to help one practice “Prevaricator,” it was missing a few key components, that at the time, Ben and I thought best to leave for a larger project (like this one). In that time we have privately discussed the various techniques and pieces of business that are being taught here. These combined with newer contributions from Ryan Frame, Colin Mcleod, Paul Vigil and others that appear here that help elevate “Prevaricator” far beyond its original form. Among those missing ideas were multitudes of unpublished “Which Hand?” techniques and how to use the overall “Prevaricator” principle without having to ask questions or having subjects assume roles. I am now ecstatic to be able to include those pieces here as well as newer concepts and contributions from friends I’ve made since.

Patrick G. Redford

Some Frequently Asked

Questions

Many people have written me since “Prevaricator” was published offering their insights on how to use the technique and/or presentation. These questions and comments mostly boil down to the same few:

1. What else can I do to practice “Prevaricator” in front of the audience without risking a flat-out failure?

There are several new fail safes presented here that make “Prevaricator” easier to learn than ever. You’ll learn the advantage of having an additional question in your back pocket that allows one to play the Liar/Truth Teller game with a combined a “Which Hand?” style effect without having to count on pure psychology.

2. Is it possible to use this technique without asking any questions?

Absolutely. This is something we were asked a lot when “Prevaricator” hit the market. Ben Blau uses the technique this way and his use of this technique is explained in full later in this document.

3. Is the Truth Teller/Liar presentation really necessary?

The Truth Liar presentation isn’t necessary but it makes it more interesting. When “Prevaricator” was published it was meant to come out as a technique instead of a particular routine. Of course if it had come out without a routine attached no one would have been interested in it. Between Ben and myself, we’ve come up with many different uses for the technique and some good friends have also done the same. The “Ring of Truth” style routine provides an interesting hook and opens up an opportunity to weave a story around things or a more theatrical situation if needed. In addition it creates a process that’s interesting to an audience rather than it simply being a game of hide and seek and “look at me I’m special.”

4. What about combining this with a Which Hand? Style effect?

Combining this with a Which Hand style effect is not only possible but also more effective! I have said in numerous places and many times that Mr. Blau’s work on “Which Hand?” is the best of anything that’s been in print or otherwise. He was keeping it to himself but as it’s a key component in making “Prevaricator” work with two or even three or more people, it’s finally being released as part of this project.

5. Does the “Prevaricator” technique work with more than two people?

Absolutely yes and you don’t even have to ask questions or set up a truth or liar plot to make it work.

6. Is a 50/50 effect like this really that impressive?

“Prevaricator” is more than a 50/50 effect. Think of it this way: because the performer is divining not only who plays what role AND which person (of two) has the object he only has a 25% chance of success. In addition, when performing a “Prevaricator” style effect with more than two people, the odds of success (from a pure statistical standpoint) shrink even more. Even if it was just a 50/50 chance, it would still be impressive as when something it abundantly clear that the performers chance of failing are just as high as his chance of success and it’s 100% clear that one false move loses the game entirely.

Verity

The simplicity of the basic method that lends itself to revealing who chose to play what roll/who has the object may be summed up in one sentence, but there is much more that needs to be explained so that a successful conclusion will prevail every time. This is not a routine that works on suggestion techniques but the same care and approach should be taken. Those of you who are familiar with suggestion techniques will have little trouble picking up this routine right away. The reason is simply because those who use suggestion are already trained to pick up on the subtle changes in body language one must watch for. Also, those experienced in such practice believe in what they’re doing as they do it. Belief in your own success is important. Again, please be sure to read this entire manuscript and watch the entire DVD before attempting this effect. You’ll be tempted to go out and try this as soon as you learned the basic principle, but I urge you to learn all of the subtitles that will help guarantee your success.

First I’ll be detailing the basic technique through pure presentation as illustrated with the traditional truth and liar plot as exhibited with two subjects. Then I’ll further outline the workings of this technique. Later on, I’ll explain how to apply this technique with more than two people and without setting up a lying game making for a pure “find who has the object” effect.

The Presentation

I present “Prevaricator” as a demonstration on spotting lies by being attentive to subtle shifts in eye movement and body language etc. My opening script generally plays as follows:

“It’s a common misconception that it’s impossible for a person to look someone directly in the eye and tell a lie. This is in fact just the opposite. The truth is, when we speak our eyes naturally shift up to the right or left as we are gathering our thoughts together to form a sentence. Our eyes physically move up and grab a hold of that information. Before a person tells a lie, the mind has already decided what lie will be told before saying it. Therefore, the eyes don’t have to gather any information. It’s very easy to look directly into the eyes of anyone and tell a flat out lie. Let me show you….”

The performer looks into the eyes of an audience member and with a serious face states, “I’m really a woman!

like to play a game experimenting with lying and truth telling. I’m going to be looking for subtle changes in body language, not just a change in facial expression. A liar may allow their body to become completely stiff rather than relaxing. Also, slight tonality change in voice may indicate a lie. The more one has experience spotting different folk’s ‘tells’ the easier this game becomes”

Deciding the Roles

At this point two volunteers are selected and each is asked to silently decide among themselves which one of them is to play the role of the devout liar and who is going to be the chronic truth teller. Personally, I make use of a brilliant thumb up/thumb down ploy thought up by Banachek that he first published alongside his version of “Ring of Truth” (1992).

“In a moment I’d like the two of you to decide who is to take the role of a truth teller and who is to take the role of a liar. You both can’t be the same thing. I don’t want to know which of you is choosing what role so to communicate with each other what role you’re both choosing, give a thumbs up if you want to be the truth teller and give a thumbs down if you want to be the liar. Of course you’ll have to silently fight it out until you’ve both settled into different roles. I’ll turn my back while you do so.”

If performing “Prevaricator” in a more informal setting where participants are at a table, I still turn my back. Personally it is my preference to ask the two subjects to silently signal each other below the table so no one else watching knows who has chosen to be what. In a formal stage setting, I’ll ask the participants to shield their decisions behind my back so that the audience watching has no clue who chose what. Giving the audience an opportunity to play the game along with me (silently in their own minds) draws more interest and pleasure to those watching.

It should be made clear to the participants that they both CANNOT play the same roles. There must be one liar and one truth teller. If they both give a thumbs up or both give a thumbs down it’s up to them to silently battle for which one of them will make a change. Once the participants signal that they’ve both decided upon roles the performer turns back to explain the rest of the rules of the game.

“I’m going to turn away one more time. When I do so one of you is going to take my ring and place it in your pocket. I’d like you both to pretend that you are pocketing something even if you’re not. Ready, do that now!”

The two subjects silently decide who hides the ring and after a suitable amount of time has passed the performer turns back. It is important that when turning away that your audience is aware of the fairness of this procedure. I reinforce this by making eye contact with someone in the audience and requesting that that person keep me honest and make sure that I’m not peeking.

The Basic Principle

The basic principle is simple. The performer is almost doing exactly what he is telling the audience: reading body language to detect a lie. The plot is that the performer isn’t watching the main subject for subtle changes in body language when asking the question asking the question, “Do you have the ring?” He actually pays more attention to the person not in the spotlight: the other participant. This routine works because a challenge is being set up. The subjects will put up all their defenses when being asked the question directly, but will let his or her guard down when the question is being asked of the other.

When asking the first subject the question, you aren’t actually isn’t interested in the person’s response at all, but interested in the other participants interest level. The same occurs when asking the question of subject two. One pays more attention out of peripheral vision and a brief glance to determine the interest level subject one has in subject two’s response. The concept here is whoever is more interested in the other’s response is the truth teller. The liar will be completely detached in what the truth teller is going to say, simply because the liar already knows how the truth teller is going to answer. There is no pressure on this answer going wrong. The truth teller, on the other hand, will be VERY interested in how the person playing the role of the liar is going to answer. This is completely reliant on how the question, “Do you have the ring (object)?” is prefaced.

Simply knowing this information will not allow you to have a high success rate. Not only must one watch for the cue of the other subject, but one also has to set up the premise in a way that both audience and participating subjects are forced to care curiously how the liar will give his or her answer. If the audience and participating subjects don’t care, the effect has failed before it’s begun.

Helping The Audience Care

If the truth teller is going to care how the liar gives his or her answer, one has to make the truth teller care. This is done when setting up the premise of the effect to the audience after the two subjects are selected. After each person has decided what role they are to play and the object has been hidden on one of their persons, it is explained that one question is to about to be asked of each of them. It will be the same question for each person and that question is, “Do you have the Ring?” While doing this, the premise is set so that it’s understood that the Liar will naturally have the most difficulty answering smoothly without giving away his or her role. Here is an example script on how I accomplish this:

“Only the two of you know who has chosen to be a liar and who has chosen to tell the truth. There is no way that anyone here could know but the two of you. I’m about to ask each of you one question; it will be the same question to both of you. That question is this: Do you have the ring? It is important that you know how you’re going to answer this question out loud. If you’re the liar, you MUST lie to me. If you’re the truth teller, you MUST tell me the truth. Believe it or not, I’ve had folks who’ve messed up their answer because they hadn’t figured out how they were going to answer the question until just before I asked them. A lot of people think this has nothing to do with detecting lies and is a simple logic puzzle. While it’s possible to play this game with pure logic, you’ll notice that because I’m asking the same question of both people there’s no way logic could solve this problem. This is the real thing. I find that more often than not the liar will mess up his or her answer. Figure out the proper answer in your head now. Ready?”

It is also at this point that I like to bring some focus on how this isn’t a logic puzzle. This is important to note as some will simply write this off as a ‘trick’, which may inhibit the subject’s level of investment and prevent the subjects from exhibiting the “Prevaricator” tell. Stating that there is no logic puzzle in play and that only ONE question is being asked truly heightens the interest level of both the two subjects in direct play and the audience. Now everyone is really curious on who will answer what, making the observation described in “The Basic Principle” & quite effortless.

What Exactly to Look for

It’s fascinating how easily participants will give themselves away. Generally you’ll find that the liar will be either looking around the room when the question is asked to the truth teller, or looking like a dear caught in headlights avoiding eye contact with the performer and second subject. The truth teller will be the more

attentive of the two. Their body will lean closer and their toes and nose will be pointing in the other subject’s direction.

When teaching this technique to other performers, I describe this increased interest level as a blatant ‘head turn’. The liar will stay in one position while the truth teller’s head or body will turn and “point” to the liar. It’s amazingly obvious once you learn what to look for.

Careful staging will help aid the success of secretly examining one subject while posing a question to the other. I always ask the question to each participant moving from the subject on my left to that of the subject on my right. This not only makes visual sense, but left to right movements creates a flow that is easiest for the audience to watch and digest. The reason here is because folks have been trained to read left to right.

A Few Words on Blocking the Routine On Stage

Turning my attention toward the first subject, my entire body faces this person. My toes point towards their toes and my head and nose are pointing in their direction. I physically ignore the other person on my right. I look the person on the left directly in the eyes, wait a beat and then ask, “Do you have the ring?” If I am performing this on stage, I position the two participants to stand about five feet away from one another. I position myself slightly downstage of the two subjects and cheat (for those who aren’t familiar with theatre parlance, cheating means to turn ones body to the left or to the right allowing an audience to see more of the front of the body and less profile. Additionally downstage refers to being closer to the audience). This gives the audience a view of both the two participants and me without having to suffer staring at my backside. Staging this piece in this way will present a framing that allows the audience to witness how each subject reacts to the question visually. The audience will also be watching attentively for the supposed subtle clues that the performer is looking for.

Informal Performance Blocking

In a more informal situation, such as a restaurant or on the street, I often find myself performing this for folks sitting down on a bench or sitting behind a table. In these conditions, when there is a physical obstruction closing the participants off, it may make it more difficult to determine who has the higher interest level in the other’s response. There is a definite advantage of having two subjects standing in open space. One may observe their entire physiological state more easily. I often perform this successfully with my subjects seated, but I would suggest performing it out in the open when first learning “Prevaricator.”

When you do finally embark on a performance under these conditions, pay particular attention to both subjects’ eyebrows and nose. The excitement level of each subject will help one to gauge the level of interest that that person holds in the other’s response. The nose blatantly point towards the liar and the truth teller’s eyebrows will rise as the liar responds.

Demographics

Choosing your audience members wisely also plays a major role in bringing “Prevaricator” to a successful close. Personally, I prefer to use two men for this. The simple reason is that two men are the most likely to try to one up each other. Magicians are also astounding subjects for this – especially those who know about logic puzzles! Two people who don’t know each other at all are most curious to learn which one of them is going to give him or herself away as a liar. Equally, couples who’ve been together for some time are good candidates for “Prevaricator.” These people are always quite easy to spot. Believe it not, even two highly skeptical people are ideal participants simply because, similar to magicians, they will invest a high amount of attention making it easier for one to deduce who is who.

The people you don’t want to use are the people who don’t want to play. These are the people who don’t find the plot or game intriguing. You don’t want to play this game with people you’ve forced to participate. Close friends and loved ones are not the ideal practice subjects. They know you and may well assume it’s just another trick.

Creating Instant Rapport

Rapport is the single most important factor in making “Prevaricator” work effectively.

What is rapport? It’s a feeling of connection and trust that an audience should feel. They should understand and be willing to follow the performer. If you’re not already familiar with creating instant rapport with your audience, fortunately for you there is an easy way to generate such a weapon.

One of the easiest ways to create rapport is by matching physiology. This is simply watching and mirroring what your subjects do. I don’t mean to mock or copycat as that would be rude. Sit like they sit, stand like they stand, breathe like they breathe, move like they move, etc. You’re not creating an exact clone of their actions; you’re matching in such a way that eventually even a person that is closed off will find himself or herself opening up.

Folks simply find a comfort in similarities. The more comfort you can induce in your subjects the more rapport you’re likely to create. Remember, this is unconscious communication taking place between you and your audience. The more successfully you can utilize this, the easier it will be to read the proper responses in your subjects when it comes time to actually do so. It’s likely that you already fall into this practice automatically on a subconscious level when around your loved ones. Try observing your own interactions around those that are already comfortable around you. Study how this interaction takes place among the several different circles that a pre-established comfort level exists and take what you’ve learned and begin applying it to strangers.

For more information about rapport I suggest the very interesting book that focuses on the subject. I recommend Michael Brooks’ book, Instant Rapport (Warner Books Inc, New York, NY: 1989).

Prevaricator

Fail-safes, Endings & Additions

What happens if “Prevaricator” fails? Stop worrying so much. Failing is okay! You’re a mentalist

and you’re not perfect. That said, it’s good to have a safety net at one’s disposal when first

learning to use this technique. Sometimes these safety nets enhance the routine. They may also

be mixed and matched as well. What follows is a collection of safety nets and routine enhancing

endings. The enhanced endings allow you to dismiss the “who is holding the object” premise

and move onto the kicker as if it was the intention all along. The safety nets add additional rules

that will allow you to successfully close the who-has-what premise. Each of these have there

own advantages, experiment with them and find what fits you best.

Serial Number Divination Ending

Patrick G. Redford

“Prevaricator” lends itself well to using a borrowed bill. It makes perfect sense to crumple the bill into a ball or folded into quarters so that it may be easily hidden in a person’s fist. Compacting a bill to such degree of course also makes it very easy to switch for one with a known serial number. Any simple billet switch will do. I trust that if you’re reading this, you already know several.

If you have a good memory, it’s possible to simply memorize the serial number on the fly before handing the bill back to the two subjects’ to begin the game. This may be done boldly or under the guise of a billet peak / memory technique. See “Divine Number” from my booklet Triangle (2007) for both a billet switch and memory technique. Colin Mcleod also has a very interesting technique to memorize a borrowed bill’s serial number that’s explained as part of a full routine later in this manuscript (“Serial Prevaricator”).

The basic “Prevaricator” routine offers plenty of time misdirection that naturally helps the audience forget that the performer ever touched the bill. After discovering who has the bill, offer to take everything a step further. Keeping the bill and subject at a distance, make a big deal about not going anywhere near the bill. You could simply rattle off the bill’s serial number at this point or you could continue the lie detecting theme. Ask the subject to read the serial number out loud, but lie about one of the digits. As you listen you can easily tell them which digit the subject lied about and bring everything to an impactful close by revealing what the digit was that they lied about!

ImaginAry Object

Paul Vigil

Las Vegas magician and creator, Paul Vigil came up with this clever kicker for the “Prevaricator” routine. Instead of using a ring, bill, or other borrowed item he suggests having the subjects simply imagine anything, write it down on a piece of paper keeping it secret and crumpling this into a ball. The paper ball is now what becomes the object for the “Prevaricator” effect. At the end, the performer is able to divine what the two subjects’ were simply imagining they were holding.

The information is obtained by way of an impression pad (John Riggs’ Butterfly Pad works beautifully). That is the method in a nutshell, however I think the beauty of this is that there is a natural reason for the information to be written: to communicate what the imaginary object is to the second person without the performer accidentally hearing it whispered.

Of all the fail safes presented here, I think this is the most naturally effective if one has the available devices / peek techniques on hand.

Who Has It?

Patrick G. Redford

The innocence of a paper ball to practice a psychological color force has been used in the past by the likes of Max Maven (“Disposable Color” from Prism, Hermetic Press, 2005) and Banachek (Psychological Subtleties Houston Texas: Magical Inspirations, 1998 pg. 11) and Rick Maue. Here a paper ball is used as yet another way to practice this routine. While the audience is only aware of one paper ball, there are actually two paper balls with messages written inside them.

Two paper balls are prepared, one with the message “Liar Hides Ball!” and the other that reads, “Truth Teller Hides Ball!” Both balls are crumpled so that no writing is visible on the outside. The truth ball is placed in the performer’s left trouser pocket and the liar ball is the ball that is in play.

At the conclusion of the routine, the ball is unraveled to display the message if the liar was the one who chose to hide the ball. The performer shakes the hand of both participants and they head back to their seats.

If the truth teller was the one who hid the ball, the performer shakes each participants hand and turns the left side of the body upstage and switches the balls in the pocket as the right hand extends to shake hands thanking each person for playing. Before sending the participants back to their seats, the performer pauses and displays the ball as an afterthought to demonstrate a correct prediction.

What’s nice about this is if “Prevaricator” fails for some reason, one still has this final punch to fall back on bringing the entire effect to a close on an up beat. If everything runs smoothly, this offers a final punch that accentuates the ending and provides a natural applause cue.

The Wallet Out

Patrick G. Redford

This is the original out I used when teaching myself to become confident performing “Prevaricator” and one I never actually had to rely on physically. The mental reassurance that it was there if I needed it, was enough. The premise behind this is set much like Kenton Knepper’s “Kollasal Killer.” I would bring out my wallet stating, “There isn’t much in here to bet with, but there is something of interest inside for one of you should this experiment fail.”

If the effect succeeds, it simply seemed like the subjects would have won money for stumping the performer. If the effect fails, however, it still succeeds! What was in my wallet? I took an index card and wrote:

“I had a feeling one of you would be more difficult to read than the other. For some reason the planets didn’t align properly, but I just knew that I’d end up second-guessing myself! The person currently to my right will actually have the ring. If that isn’t something of interest, I don’t know what is!”

I’d fold this card in half and place it with the bills in my wallet. This was the only card in the wallet. The

participants can check if they have any doubt, though they won’t. There is no need. Simply positioning yourself when opening the wallet will set up who is on the right and left accordingly. When facing the participants the ring may be on the right but when standing next to the two subjects facing the audience the ring may be on the left.

I never had to use this out, but it was always there allowing me to perform this effect without fear as that extra crutch. Eventually, the small card vanished from my wallet. As I’ve tried to reinforce countless times in this document, I’d be much more comfortable letting this effect fail, praise the two participants and move on. There simply isn’t a reason to use an out unless it gives an extra punch at the end, but I’ve included it here for completions sake.

Ambigram Outcome

Patrick G. Redford

There are several different techniques that may be used to predict the outcome. A nail writer, a multiple out, or (my favorite) making use of an Ambigram.

What is an Ambigram? Ambigrams take many different forms. The basic Ambigram is a word that may be read the same even when rotate 180 degrees. What is of more interest is a sub-domain of the Ambigram called the Symbiotogram. A Symbiotogram is an Ambigram that transforms into another word when rotated 180 degrees. The following Ambigram art is of my own creation. I was inspired by an Ambigram that Scott Kim created that read “True” when read one way and “False” when rotated 180 degrees. Ambigrams always seem to use stylized handwriting. My aim has been to create natural Ambigrams that are written in normal script so they are not to give themselves away.

The Informal Performance

Patrick G. Redford

Until you become proficient at scribbling out the “Truth/Liar” Ambigram at a moments notice, I suggest preparing three business cards ahead of time with the three graphics above. Practice hand writing them yourself. When you have a business card that reads convincingly both directions, place it aside with the rest of your business cards.

The first is the Symbiotogram that will read as either “Truth” or “Liar” depending on the orientation that it’s flipped into. The second reads legitimately as “Liar” in similar scripting as the Symbiotogram and the third reads legitimately as “Truth”.

If for some reason the “Prevaricator” tell hasn’t exhibited itself, I’ll go to my wallet, remove the pre-written Symbiotogram (being careful not to flash the face), pretend to write something down and place this card face down in front of one of the two subjects. I openly state that I think that person is the liar (a slightly different effect, I admit). If I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter because I can display that what I wrote was correct depending how I flip the card over. Once I know the truth of who’s who, I know who has what. The effect still comes to a successful close. Equally, one can choose to go for the reveal first and then double back on knowing who was who although this isn’t quite as strong.

If I want to hand the business card out at the end, I simply return it to my wallet and remove the legitimate counterpart. There’s no need to make a move out of this. Just do it: no one will question it.

Remember How to Flip

It’s a simple matter to remember which way to flip the card(s) using a memory aid. The card is turned over end for end (left to right) while one “turns over the truth”. This will reveal the word “Truth” to the audience. Turning it over top to bottom, when one “lays down the lies”, will help you remember how to reveal the word “Liar”. Also, if flipping the card to reveal the word, “Liar” my left thumb makes a point to slightly cover up the hump of the upside down “h”. This further silently reinforces the illusion that the word isn’t doesn’t transform when flipped.

Sure Fire, "Which Hand,"

Prevaricator (ROTVARI)

Ryan Frame

The one element that I’ve always felt was missing from the published and unpublished ideas involving “Prevaricator” was a sort of fail-safe additional question that could be asked in the case that the two or three subjects didn’t exhibit the traditional “Prevaricator” tell. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to fall back on a more traditional “Ring of Truth” logic puzzle by asking one more question and have all the information needed for a successful close? Further, wouldn’t it be great if it was possible to do this and still claim, honestly, that what was being presented isn’t possible with logic alone? Ryan Frame found the solution that uses just two questions when using two people. In the addendum you can find his original write up of ROTVARI as he uses it. Here you’ll find how it applies to “Prevaricator” and multiple people with a few additional details that I’ve ironed out so that the two operate together smoothly.

The first question that Ryan uses just happens to be the same question that “Prevaricator” uses: “Do you have the

object?” The second question assumes that the two subjects have, instead of simply pocketed the object, are

holding it in their one of two outstretched fists. This question begs, “Is it in your left hand?”

After setting up “Prevaricator” in the traditional way, you may either have the two subjects hide the object in oneof their two outstretched fists (as discussed later legitimately divining the hand and person) or simply ask the two subjects to hold the object behind their back and not mention anything about the “Which Hand” plot unless oneneeds to fall back on this fail-safe.

After asking the first question, “Do you have the object?” and yielding no obvious information that the “Prevaricator” ploy should give, ask the two subjects:

“Let’s step this up a notch. One of you has the object behind your back. If you have it decide on one of your two hands and make a fist around the object in that hand and come forward with both fists. If you don’t have the object I’d like you to also come forward but with two empty fists. Now not only do I have to identify who’s lying to me but also what hand the object is in.”

You want to manage your two subjects in a way so that both bring their fist forward at the same time. Continue asking the additional question of the first subject, followed by the same additional question to the second subject: “Is it in your left hand?”

After asking two questions, one of two things is possible: either it will be known exactly which person has the object and what hand that object is in or it will be known that the object is in the left hand of someone:

1) 50% of the time you will get the exact same two responses as you got with the first question (resulting in all four yes’s or four no’s). In this case, the object is in the LEFT HAND of one of the participants but we don’t know who.

The other 50% of the time, one of the participants will answer differently the second time around (resulting in three no’s and one yes, or three yes’s and one no). In other words, one of the two will have given a

different response from one question to the next (a yes to the first and no to the second or vice-versa). If this happens, that participant has the object in the right hand.

In regards to case #1, it may seem as if you are no further than before asking this second question, however not knowing who has it but knowing what hand the object is allows a first guess that 50% of the time will reveal the hand with the object in. The other 50% of the time it will be an empty hand. When revealing an empty hand, this instantly reveals (to the performer) where the other two empty hands are. Without skipping a beat the performer goes on to eliminate the other two empty hands successfully closing in on the hand containing the object. It is important that the performer states that the next two hands are empty before asking them to be opened. This idea is credited to Max Maven. Please see “Kurotsuke” from Volume 1. of Max Maven’s VideoMind (1998) or Verbal Control, written by Phil Goldstein (1976, 1996).

Three Person "Which Hand" Fail

Safe

Redford / Frame

This technique also works equally well with three people, all holding two fists out in front of their bodies. In the case of working with three people, the role assignment rules are changed slightly. The person holding the object takes the role of the assumed liar. The others must tell the truth. This is taken care of via presentation where instead of folks deciding on personal roles they’re simply asked to hide the object among them as follows:

“I’m going to turn my back. When I do so I’d like one of you to pick up the object and place it in one of your two hands. Close both hands into fists and hold both hands out in front of you. Actually, I’d like all three of you to do this, but only one of you will actually have the object. I’m going to ask each of you a single question, that question is ‘Do you have the object?’ I’d like each of you to answer by saying ‘No.’ Depending how well the three of you play, one of you is going to give yourself away. I’m telling you the question, and giving you the answer now so that you can be ready for it when it’s your turn to respond. Remember, the answer is ‘no!’”

Each person responds to the question and the performer watches for the two people to ‘point’ to the person with the object. If no tell is exhibited, the performer follows with the second question, “Is it in your left hand” to each of the three subjects.

Similar to asking these two questions just of two people - one of two outcomes are possible: Either it will be known exactly which person has the object and what hand that object is in OR that it is in the left hand of one of the three subjects.

1) 50% of the time you will get the exact same three responses as you got with the first question (resulting in all six yes’s or six no’s). In this case, the object is in the left hand of one of the participants. I’ll address what happens in this scenario in a moment.

2) The other 50% of the time, one of the participants will answer differently the second time around (resulting in five no’s and one yes, or five yes’s and one no). In other words, one of the two will have given a different response from one question to the next (a yes to the first and no to the second or vice-versa). If this happens, that participant has the object in the right hand.

In regards to case #1, it may seem even more as if one is no further than before asking this second question than it did when tackling this with just two people. Not knowing who has the object but knowing what hand the object is in still allows a first guess that 33% of the time will reveal the hand with the object in it or an empty hand. When revealing an empty hand, this instantly reveals (to the performer) where the other two empty hands are. Without skipping a beat, the performer goes on to eliminate all of the empty hands with the exception of the two known possibly full left hands.

Similar to executing my friend Rick Maue’s

“

”

hand is empty one proceeds to announce that hand will be empty BEFORE they’re opened until the last two possibilities remain.

At this point, simply breaking the rhythm of finding empty hands is enough to provide a space for the rules to change. Here we combine a technique that’s credited to Bryn Renolds called BOHT from his book The Safwan

Papers (fully reprinted and explained in the appendix). Turning towards the audience to comment, “Two left. We’ve now narrowed this down from a one in six chance to what’s comparable to a coin flip. The difference is, I know where the object is.” The performer walks toward one of the two subjects and grabs their left fist between his two

hands, begins to lift it in the air, hesitates and quickly turns to the other subject demanding, “Open your hand!” Either this hand will have the object or it will be the last empty hand.

1) If the subject opens his hand and it is found empty the end image is of the performer successfully eliminating five fists and is now holding the final fist that contains the object.

2) If the subject opens his hand and the object is there, the performer lowers the first fist that was just grabbed and it appears as if the performer changed his mind at the last minute to successfully find the object.

The Behind the Back

PResentation Technique

Garrett Thomas

When Garrett Thomas performs Prevaricator with three people in combination with the which-hand techniques, he prefers to face the audience and have the three subjects face him. This way the audience may clearly see where each person places the object. He also uses this as an insurance card so that the audience will be on his side if the three subjects decide to try to switch the object to another person behind their back in secret.

Prevaricator

Additional Tell TEchniques

I always try not to second guess myself and recommend that you do the same. As soon as I start

to second-guess myself, I know I’m going to do myself in. Go with your first instinct. If you’re

ever completely unsure and the “Prevaricator” tell doesn’t seem to be exhibiting itself you can

always fall back on Ryan Frame’s “Which Hand Ploy” or one of the other outs described above.

Here are a few more techniques that may help boost your success.

The Pocket Knows

Gregory Wilson

This is a reliable tell that was observed by magician Gregory Wilson and discovered after playing with

“Prevaricator.” If the subjects are standing and asked to pocket the object instead of simply holding the object in his or her hand, the subject who has it is likely to keep the hand in the same pocket that the object is hidden in. In my own observations, I found that this tell is most likely to occur when the subjects are wearing jeans. The object itself must be small enough to comfortably hide in a front pants pocket (Such as a coin or crumpled bill). In addition, the exact language used to set-up “Prevaricator” becomes important.

This is what I have found to be the most effective:

Ask the subject’s to decide who is to take the object and pocket it while miming the action of placing the object in the front pocket. This is enough to communicate where the object should go and leaving your hand in your pocket as you speak subtly reinforces that they’ll do the same.

Silent Tell

Ben Blau

Basic Effect

While the performer turns his back, three people silently decided which among them is to take and hide a coin in one of his two outstretched fists. The other two pretend to take the coin and hold out their two empty fists. The performer turns back, and not only divines who has the object but which fist they’re hiding it in!

Verity

Ben’s ideal version of “Prevaricator” was to perform a “Kurotsuke” (Videomind Vol. 1, Max Maven 1998) style effect that was purely psychological that not only let one tell who has the object but also what hand that object was in. This was his starting point before hitting upon the idea explained in the original “Prevaricator” booklet. Of course, this presentation is a perfect match-up for our “Prevaricator” methodology because it literally came from taking everything one step further. In doing so it was discovered that assigning the role of truth teller and liar is completely unnecessary for the “Prevaricator” tell to function. Asking, “Do you have the object” and asking each person to answer “No” automatically makes one of the three a liar.

Interestingly, as it also turns out, the asking of any question or answers is unnecessary as the same basic tell is created as those who don’t have the object are interested in what the subject who does is going to do to give himself away. Instead of setting up the premise of finding a liar, one simply has to set up the premise that one is looking for the object holder to hive himself away. In essence that person is silently lying even though no question or answer is ever given.

If you’ve read the rest of this booklet and/or watched the DVD, you know that traditionally the truth teller is most interested in what the liar is doing. With this, that same moment is created simply by stopping and shifting the focus of the audience and those involved to each person and pretending to personally focus on each as if looking for each individual to give something away about themselves. In reality, one is paying attention to the

other people while pretending to focus on one individual subject.

This is incredibly strong and effective. Often I’ll use this as part of a three phase “Prevaricator” routine,

performing the first two rounds as per the normal “Prevaricator” routine and closing with a third round without assigning a role or asking any questions. Some of you may have seen me perform this effect this way at

Three or More

Redford / Blau

Using three or more people actually makes finding the “Prevaricator” tell even easier than simply working with two people. This is one of the original uses that Ben Blau and I came up with when first working with the “Prevaricator” concept. The more people you have ‘pointing’ at the odd person out, the easier that person is to find. Ben discovered this prior to “Prevaricator” hitting print and has shared his thoughts amongst close friends. Playing this game with three people is a good stopping point. Any more than that and the situation borders on being too chaotic to pay attention to.

Combining the Truth Teller/Liar game and the “Prevaricator” ploy with the game “Which hand is the object in?” adds an additional moment to potentially tell, via pure psychological methods, who has the object and where it is (see Ben Blau’s “Silence is Golden” in this book).

Advanced Prevaricator

Once you’ve mastered “Prevaricator” and you find yourself competently bored and exasperated in successful completions, try allowing the two participants to both become liars, both truth tellers or one a liar and one a truth teller.  After walking through “The Basic Principle”, if  both subjects seem equally interested in what the other has to say, they have both chosen to play the role of a liar.  If both subjects seem confident in each other, they’re both playing the role of a truth teller.  Remember, they may both choose to play separate roles, and in these cases you’ll proceed as originally noted elsewhere. 

You’ll know when both subject’s have chosen to be the same role because they both will give different answers rather than answering with both ‘yes’ or both ‘no’:

They’re both liars:

Subject one answers “Yes” and subject two answers “no” 

Subject two has the object.

Subject one answers “no” and subject two answers “yes”

subject one has the object.

They’re both truth tellers:

Subject one answers “no” and subject two answers “yes”

Subject two has the object.

Subject one answers “yes” and subject two answers “no”

Subject one has the object.

While this may seem more difficult and more confusing than simply not giving the subjects the option to play whatever role they wish, it really isn’t any more difficult.  When combining this with a logic puzzle. Surprisingly, even when allowing the subjects to choose to be the same roles, the “Sure Fire” ploy (page 26) still works in to

identify  the exact location of the object and who played what role 100% of the time if you find reading for tells impossible.

1. 50% of the time you will get the exact same two responses as you got with the first question.  In this case, the object is in the LEFT HAND of one of the participants but we don’t know who.

2. The other 50% of the time, one of the two participants will have give a different response from one question to the next (a yes to the first and no to the second or vice-versa). If this happens, that participant has the object in the right hand.

In regards to case #1, it may seem as if you are no further than before asking this second question, however not knowing who has it but knowing what hand the object is allows a first guess that 50% of the time will reveal the hand with the object in. The other 50% of the time it will be an empty hand. When revealing an empty hand, this instantly reveals (to the performer) where the other two empty hands are. Without skipping a beat the performer goes on to eliminate the other two empty hands successfully closing in on the hand containing the object. It is important that the performer states that the next two hands are empty before asking them to be opened. This idea is credited to Max Maven. Please see “Kurotsuke” from Volume 1. of Max Maven’s VideoMind (1998) or Verbal Control, written by Phil Goldstein (1976, 1996).

Prevaricator

The Nose Knows

After a subject has secretly chosen a hand to place the object in and brought both hands forward, all you do is look at which direction the subject’s nose is pointing. The direction will be very subtle but there, more times than not, will be a noticeable direction. When this tell works with a subject, it tends to work consistently. In my own personal experience, it is the least reliable of those explained here.

“The Nose Knows” is an old technique that has appeared in many publications, one of the more notable being my friend Banchek’s Psychological Subtleties (1992).

The Blau Thumb Tell

After a subject has secretly chosen a hand to place the object in and brought both hands forward, all you do is look at the thumbs of the subject. The tip of one of them will be curved under the fist slightly. This will be the hand with the object in it. The reason this is very reliable is because the hand that holds something naturally tightens around the object causing the thumb to curve. If the hand is empty, there is no need for this to physiologically occur.

If you’ve had a chance to experience this performed on you without first knowing what the tell is, its frustrating trying to figure out what exactly you’re doing that’s giving the game away. This is one of Ben Blau’s pet

techniques. After using this for many years along side “Prevaricator” and on its own, I noticed one extra addition that tends to happen with some people. I noticed that with some subjects, the thumb wouldn’t always curl under the fist but instead simply bend out while the thumb of the other hand remains flat against the rest of its fist. Equally, some people exhibit this tell consistently in the opposite manner, though this is more rare. Guessing once and getting it wrong allows one to calibrate this technique in the right way working in reverse to what one normally would guess.

The Tightened Hand Tell

This is really simply an extension of “The Blau Thumb Tell”. Carefully observe the knuckles of both of the subject’s hands. No matter the color of the skin, one will appear lighter than the other due to the stress on the skin that naturally occurs when one is trying to hide an object.

The Bulky Hand Tell

This is really simply an extension of the “Tightened Hand Tell” (an extension of an extension?), though not as commonly exhibited. I occasionally find subjects who exhibit this behavior consistently. Examining the two hands you’ll notice that the first and middle fingers are more forward than the rest. One might conclude that this is because the object being held is too large for the subject’s hands to comfortably hide; this isn’t the case. Subject’s whom exhibit this tell do so consistently no matter the size of the object being played with.

The Blau Equilibrium Tell

Go to your kitchen; fill a glass with water all the way to the very rim of the glass. Pick up the glass with one hand and carefully walk across the room. If you try to steady yourself as you walk, while watching the top ofthe glass, you’ll more than likely spill. Here’s the interesting part: instead of looking at the glass, simply walk as you would normally and ignoring the brimming glass in hand. Your body’s equilibrium naturally compensates andsubconsciously prevents the water from spilling. Try it. It really works.

What does water and natural equilibrium have to do with playing the “Which Hand?” game? It turns out, Ben discovered, that the body doesn’t discriminate between trying to prevent a glass from spilling and a closed fist hiding a coin. The body naturally and subconsciously steadies both. This is used to the advantage by asking a subject to take a few steps to the left, right, or to simply stand up if seated. If you imagine both of the subject’s fists with a line connecting between them, the empty fist will shift above or below this line where as the fist hiding the coin will remain stagnant along this line. The difference is very obvious when you know what to look for.

The Size of Coin

The rule follows naturally that the larger the coin, the more obvious the tell. While it might seem unnatural for some to use an American half dollar to play this game, it’s the best size coin to practice with. The larger coin is harder for a subject to simply keep out of the mind. It forces them to constantly be aware of the coin and its location.

Double Coin Ploy: Quarter and

Dime

This is another interesting ploy to help increase the exhibition of the various tells without resorting to an unnatural coin (such as an American half dollar) by using two coins (such as a quarter and a dime). The subject is instructed to place both coins into one hand as if playing the game with one. This double coin forces a subject to keep the hand clenched tighter around the coins so they don’t make noise, and also makes the body more conscious of the fact that there’s something in that hand as it now has bulk to it.

Two Coin Split

After a few successful rounds of “Which Hand?” with a quarter and nickel, ask the subject to take both behind his/her back again. This time, instead of placing both coins in one fist place the quarter in one hand and the dime in the other. To the subject, it now seems more impossible to tell which hand contains what coin as both hands contain a coin. The truth is that the first few rounds conditioned the subject to follow the hand with the larger bulk. When it comes time to split the two coins apart, one in each hand, the subject’s subconsciously still point towards the larger bulk (in this case the quarter).

This makes a fantastic close to a series of “Which Hand?” trials. While Ben Blau has no recollection of coming up with the “Double Coin Ploy” or the “Two Coin Split” and credits it to me, he deserves the credit.

The Relaxation Tell

This isn’t so much a tell as it is a way to draw out other tells that aren’t being exhibited outright. Occasionally there will be a subject that seems to not exhibit any of the above tells. When this happens, take a moment to simply chat with the subject re-explaining the game. The goal is to get the subject to relax and let his or her guard down. Often, I’ll actually ask the subject to relax. This takes the challenge edge off a bit and will make the tensest subject’s drop guard. This is particularly true when looking for the thumb tell. The empty hand tends to relax over a period of time, whereas the hand with the object remains tightly closed.

Open Re-Adjustment

Ben Blau

This technique is more of a fail safe. It is similar to Bryn Renolds BOHT (The Safwan Papers ebook, 2008 pg. 37) technique (see appendix) though stands apart. This allows for a sure-fire guess when playing which hand. If a subject is holding an object in a closed fist, that person naturally holds their fist with the fingers down and the back of the hand up. To open that hand, the subject has to turn their wrist 180 degrees then open the hand; otherwise the object contained within would fall to the floor. If the subject is asked to open the empty hand the fingers begin to open just before the wrist begins to turn.

When Ben is unsure of which hand contains the object he simply guesses pointing to either hand stating, “Open

that hand…” and carefully watches the fingers of the subject. If they begin to open before the wrist turns he

adds, “…it should be empty.” If the hand turns over and no pre-opening action is exhibited, he says nothing and treats it as a successful finding of “Which Hand?”

I compare this ploy very much to the final two cups in a game of my friend Rick Maue’s “Terasabos” (Book of

Haunted Magic, Pittsburgh: Deceptions Unlimited, 2000 pg 87. or Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties Vol. 2.

Blood Signs

This tell is not psychological in nature but does play off of the color of the subject’s fist. While one generally doesn’t have to resort to this kind of ploy, it is a sure fire method. While your back is turned ask the subject to place the fist with the object against his or her forehead and concentrate on it. After a few seconds the subject is asked to place the hand back next to the other closed fist. Because the fist with the object was held up, the blood form that fist has drained partially making that fist slightly lighter in color than the empty fist. All one must do is look for the fist that’s lighter in color and one will find the object.

While this old technique has appeared in various sources over the years my favorite place is Banachek’s

Prevaricator

Crooked Politicians

Joshua Quinn

Charles Cameron gave us angels and demons as a plotline, Banachek presented a Sherlock Holmes plot, and I compare the game to the first time I ever attempted to lie to my parents alongside an interesting puzzle box. My friend Joshua Quinn suggests this interesting angle: the two participants take on the role of a crooked politician and an honest politician. He follows this routine by explaining that politicians aren’t always that cut and dried. In real life, politicians aren’t always honest or dishonest; they can be some or both. The best we can do is attempt to determine how any one of them is acting at any given moment. He then follows with a brilliant bit of thinking using my Truth/Liar Symbiotogram to predict random actions of participants (see Paralies, New Orleans: Mentally Impossible Publications 2008).

Puzzle Presentation

Patrick Redford

While I’ve certainly performed the above variants to great success, at the moment I’ve fallen for a particular puzzle-esque presentation using a Mexican puzzle box that is similar to the Mexican Bill Box made by Viking Manufacturing. The only difference is that the box I have is completely opaque. Here’s how the routine plays: Holding up a small wooden box that has no apparent lid and turning it in his hands, the performer begins:

“I absolutely love puzzles. There’s something really satisfying about being able solve the simple solution to what always seems that it has to be quite complex. This particular puzzle I obtained in one of those stores where everything is fifteen dollars or less. This particular store is packed with imported items from exotic locations. A lot of wooden paperweights and hemp-sewn clothing line the shelves and racks. One particular section I always find of interest is their puzzle shelf. In the back of the store, there is one single shelf with a collection of traditional puzzles made of wood. This small box, stood out from the group. It was the only one of its kind on the shelf of repeated puzzles so for all I knew, someone had miss-shelved it. I picked it up and brought it to a sales person. I asked two questions: First, ‘Is this a puzzle?’ and second, ‘If it is a puzzle, how much?’ She looked at the box for a moment, then back at me, and cautiously responded, ‘I’m not sure, let me ask someone who’ll better be able to answer.’ So she went and got the attention of another sales person working the floor that day. Her answer was that it was in fact a puzzle but she has no idea how to work it, though, a small boy was in the store recently and effortlessly opened and closed the box while she looked on. For five dollars, they sold me the box and I went home to discover its secret.”

The performer passes the box out to a few audience members while continuing, “It’s a really convincing

illusion, isn’t it? It really doesn’t seem like there’s a way in. The issue, though, is that we approach the problem with a traditional paradigm of a normal box. We assume that it has a lid. It doesn’t, at least not in the traditional sense. In a moment I’m going to open the box. If you’d like to know the secret, keep your eyes open, if you don’t want to spoil it for yourself, go ahead and close your eyes for a moment.”