No, jo, I haven't contacted Docc privately. This forum, the Magic Café, makes that possible though. It is here for all of us -- you, me, Docc, inventors and patrons -- to share thoughts -- and sometimes uncomfortable subjects come up among friends.

All the best, fib

I understand, Fib, I'm just concerned about too much info given out. Perhaps I should PM you with my method?

Not to muddy the waters too much, but ANY telephone can be used. The prevalence of cell phones today provides more opportunities to perform this effect because you are not dependent on traditional, wired land-lines.

A handling is provided that would allow me to use my mother-in-law's wall-mounted, hard-wired, rotary-dial phone successfully.

Bob

Finally, I have also found a handling that meets the major requirements (semi-) "impromptu", "close-up" and "everybody can be called". There may well be some major glitch remaining, but I think it is possible to pull this off.


Given the comments by other people I think my method is not identical to the published CM method. I specifically require a cell phone with a certain feature.

So far, it is just a method, not a field-tested and working routine. Probably I should post this in the restricted session. Hopefully, this encourages discussions to make this approach workable. Personally, I don't dare to pull this off yet.

Hmmm working from the ad as stated.

You get someone on the line who starts complaining, swearing and otherwise screaming about being called at some horrible hour (remember we can dial overseas) and you calmly ask them what country they are in. You happen to find someone in the room who can speak Nairobi or the particular dialect of Chinese emitting from the phone by the irate callee... and they confirm that among other things the caller is an irresponsible *^%))##! and the person who wrote down their thought on that billet has lousy handwriting but seems to have scribbled something about their child's birthday.

;)

Yes, FIB, but that doesn't include openly revealing and discussing the method of someone else's effect on a public forum. Even the restricted section is not that restricted and you have to be careful. Besides, that's just simply unethical.

BTW, I'm not saying you are revealing the secret. I'm just pointing this out.

If someone doesn't want us to analyze what something IS, why give us a list of what it isn't???

Slim,
There's nothing wrong with analyzing it and trying to figure out what it is based on what it isn't. But everything's wrong with analyzing it by discussing and revealing methods on a public forum.

-- Jheff

I would never reveal a secret on ANY public forum unless it was my own. But all of this talk of misleading or misrepresenting or mis...whatever. Seems like the ad is a little off. Just my opinion after reading the posts. I don't own this. So my opinion doesn't really mean that much, but I am into "Over the Phone" effects and I'm not so sure this is one.

Slim,

Don't underestimate your opinion. It's much appreciated. But just because the ad may be a bit misleading, the effect is solid. You'll notice that others are saying the same thing. I would pay attention to what people are saying about the effect not the ad. That's really what's important, right? After all, Slim, in your show, are you performing effects or reading ads?

-- Jheff

Jheff
WOW...I am performing effects, and NOT reading ads...Very Clear!....And Correct!
Dave

Stay away, run away from this effect, I just saw it and the ad is misleading.

Ok. I won't try "fishing" the method, I swear. But nobody wants spend 40 bucks to read something like: "turn on you cell and let the other person listening to the conversation". I like Docc stuff an I´m thinking in buy that booklet, but I want to be wrong about the method, am I?

Yes, you are wrong. Very wrong!

Jheff: But you seem to have forgotten one key point. It works. And it stuns audiences.

Just wanted to comment that that is probably the most important statement of it all, but also wanted to state that yes, the advertisment is partly misleading.

First, not ANY person can be called. There are two handlings provided. In one it has to be a total stranger. So it's not ANY And in the other one it's still not ANY person. Spec can't call is brother for the same reason everybody recommends in this thread that one does not use someone elses cell phone.

Second: The statement that the person called is the person telling the spec his or her thought, is incorrect. Yes, one could argue against that (and I can't unfortunately explain in more detail), but one would stand on shaky grounds here. It certainly is a misleading, in one of the two handlings this is clearly wrong. And actually in the other one.......with A LOT of good-will it's right.

MY MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THIS DISCUSSION IS
THIRD: A sentence as stated in the add "the person phoned can be completely unkown to you or anyone in the audience" truly misleads the customer. The tricky part about this add is this: there are two handlings provided in the manuscript and the approach will really be quite different - and the claims made in the add can only pertain to one of them. In handling one I would object with regards to the statement just quoted: MUST (not CAN) be unkown to the audience (unless the spectator participating in this effect is not considered part of the audience). And in handling two I would object: Entire statement untrue. So while everything in the add can be done, it can only be done if you have one spec today and another one tomorrow and you are using one handling today, one tomorrow.

Very sneaky. Honestly, I do understand if people stay away from this just because of this, EVEN IF the effect might be worth it, there is still a lot of magic out there that doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth.

I do, however, only partly agree with the statement that someting has been left out in the description of the effect. But that is normal and happens all the time to protect the secret. I could name you several videos on penguinmagic where "the move" does not show up on the video, because it's, say, a slight. For example, I watched the video for Jay Sankey's "Just imagine" once and was convinced that I had figured it out, but there was one little thing bothering me, I just could not have pulled it off without buying it for this simple reason. Turns out after I bought it he winged it a little bit in the demon-video. Is that misleading? Though it certainly is, I think they should be forgiven, for an effect like "just imagine" could not be figured out by most of us after watching it once, so it's not fair to have the chance to watch it 10 times and then know it. So can it be fair to mislead people in a way? I think so, cuz Just imagine is just a stunner an that is what you are getting for your money. Or consider "one for the money" by goldman and read the advertising on whatever magic-website, it is also only 98 percent correct. This happens ALL the time, but if you tried to make it 100 percent fair you would have tipped off the method.

In this case I am not sure. I personally think this is just another method of revealing a thought, just like there is a thousand methods to reveal a card. And one should cost 40 bucks? Sure. If the effect kills, and we probably have to trust the ones who have performed it, I haven't. But: it is recommended that one own another magic prop which I can't mention here, but if you don't have it and are not experienced enough to find an alternative, than you will have to buy either a book on mentalism or the mentioned prop first. So in a way this may not be ready to perform out of the box.

Speaking of which, would anyone consider sending me a few pages of their phone books, I live in Mexico and they don't even sell eml on ebay. That would be so awesome. Do it with the Gringos on the street )))

Let me also add: in the method when the person calls and tells the spectator the thought, that person is NOT selected from a telephone-book. I think it's only fair to mention this.

I can’t believe people are complaining about “Cellular Mitosis”. Have you seen the advertisement for “Nostrum Necromancy”?

Here’s an excerpt:

“You will look at the most beautiful woman at the table, extend your open hand and
she'll smile and leave with you! I know it must sound like an ad in the back of a comic book, but it's true. If you're married, you can use this hypnotic control to get a fellow to buy you the cocktail of your choice. You will end up with complete control of the subject”.

The man is offering you an unlimited supply of free beer and your choice of any woman in the world. Still, you’re complaining. I don’t get it.

:)

Elliott

@Elliot, I remember reading that one day, I even almost bought it!!!! LOL!

I know what you mean. I’m waiting to hear the feedback on these claims.

:)

Well, I'm a little bit curious about thist thread regarding Cellular mitosis. Please don't understand my post wrong but IMO there is nothing misleading in the ad for CM.

Well we all, especially mentalism insiders, know that noone can read minds and thus ther must be a method involved. So the ad usually transmitts the impression the effect looks from the audience point of view.

And that exactly is what the ad says. The person called can indeed be unknown to audience and performer. Of course its just one of the two options but it is true and if you take a phonebook with you at the show you always can perform this variation.

And regarding the fact that the person on the phone tells the spectator what she thought of is also true. Of course this also only can happen in one of the two variations.

So please, don't get me wrong but IMO it really is very naiv to complain about single wording.

If we would judge an ad of an effect like this than almost EVERY ad of effects woudl be misleading. So I suggest for the future all dealers and inventors should include the whole explanation within the ad so everyone can judge if it is correct and not misleading.

But wait...that wouldn't be so good because then everybody knows the secret and noone would buy the effect. But then the ad would at least be not miesleading and so we have no need to complain about it here.

So again please get my post wrong but I just wanted to point out that sometimes we really think too much as mentalists and magicians.

IMO an ad always should give the impressions what an effect looks like from audience view. In additional information it also can give some hints on the method.

And at cellular mitosis it says that the any person can be callec- TRUE and the person on the phone can tell the spectator what she thought of -- TRUE.

It didn't say that all this is the only one kind of performing the effect.
I used it quite often now, even in some of my shows and it ALWAYS got huge reactions no matter which variation I performed. I like them both and love to perform it.

Though I'm also not a fan of all products published by Docc, I think CM really is nice thinking and a strong effect.

Just my thoughts
THomas