On Feb 21, 2017, matthewmello wrote:
No problem, Sleepy! I'm curious, do you already own The Prodigal, or are you trying to choose between the two?

While you can still purchase P.A.T.H.S. directly from myself, this project is now available on Penguin Magic, E-Mentalism, Mentalism Center, and Lybrary.

http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8039

https://e-mentalism.com/collections/newp......tt-mello

http://pathsmentalism.blogspot.com

http://www.lybrary.com/paths-p-899638.html

On Feb 22, 2017, matthewmello wrote:
I can understand your point of view. I can't be certain, but P.A.T.H.S. may be one of the first approaches to this work where there's nothing within the presentation that would be perceived as a guess.

If we ask about something, the participant knows exactly why we're asking about it, and the reason makes logical sense to them within the framework of the demonstration. And yet, it's still incredibly fooling, and if anything, it should seem MORE impossible to the participant than a typical P.A. presentation.

On Feb 23, 2017, matthewmello wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, Eli! Just wait until you get to the P.A.s following the "Anagram Architecture" chapter. They're so simple, but extremely powerful! I'd love to hear what you think when you've had a chance to process everything.

Sleepy, Madison was referring to "Path III", and all is explained in the manuscript.

Where "Path I" and "Path II" are more presentational shifts which can be applied to any anagram, "Path III" is a way to build an entirely new type of anagram.

The "Path III" design was my attempt to remove the need to ask questions. But it does have some limitations that the other paths don't have, regarding the groups of items you might be able to use. For instance, you could apply "Path I" or "Path II" to Atlas' Superhero anagram, but you wouldn't be able to apply "Path III" to it.

I typically use "Path III" with playing cards, where a spectator is given a chunk of cards, randomly thinks of one, and I'm able to discover which card they've mentally selected from the group. You could also have two or three people mentally select a card from the group, and you can identify what each person is thinking of.

On Mar 1, 2017, matthewmello wrote:
Those are definitely some strong choices you've made, Jay!

And I'm curious, would anyone be interested in seeing a demo video made up only of reaction shots? I obviously can't show the full performance without giving away my presentation and approach, but the reactions would at least demonstrate how powerful and deceptive this work can be for the participant.

On Mar 1, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
I dunno, it still feels like guessing to me even with the presentation. I will still obviously go ahead and perform this just to see how well it plays!

Sleepy

On Mar 2, 2017, MadisonH wrote:
I just got a sneak peek at an updated copy of this where Matt has added 2 new PATHS!

Both of these new paths take it up to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL.

Imagine telling your spectator they can either be a liar or a truth teller as they answer the anagram questions!

Or they can simply imagine a "no" and a "yes" button in the air in any configuration they want and simply "press" the button with their eyes.

This just goes to show Matt's brilliance. He came up with a very simple, effective, and 100% invisible way to know all the info necessary to still know their words and it requires no extra process. Simply going through the anagrams gives you everything you need to know.

This really is genius. The spectator will now believe they are giving absolutely no information away. This amps up PA to a whole new level. I will be adapting this to my anagram work ASAP.

Be on the lookout! This method could easily been sold as it's own release for another $40!