"TELEPATHY" CODE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 804, 26 October 1929, Page 28

"TELEPATHY" CODE

THOUGHT-READING SECRET HOW ZANCIG WORKED j Much has been heard during the past day or two of the sensation caused in Loudon twenty years ago by the "thought-reading” feats of the late Julius Zaucig and his wife, which were attributed by many to pure tele- | patby. What has been overlooked is the fact that Mr. Zaucig has within the past few years published (in "Answers”) a full explanation of his | secret, which was nothing but an elab- | orate code. j Mr. Zaucig stated that their system : from first to last was based on the I 26 letters of the alphabet and their j corresponding numbers. In the same ! way the months could be added, and 1 thus the following elementary code ! could be built up:-—- ! A . —l. —January G.—7. —July B. -2.—February H. —S. —-August C. —3. —March I.—9.—September D. —4—April J.—lo. —October E. —s. —May K.—ll.—November F. —6.—June L.—l2.—December The number 1, he explained, stood for more than the letter A. It indicated January as well, and every number stood in the same way for an article, a lady’s name, a gentleman's name, a place, a colour, a profession, and so on. Thus the number 6 stood also for the word "please,” for a letter or telegram, for the men’s names “Frank” and “Fritz,” for the women's names “May” and “Mabel.” for the professions of post office employee and telephone employee. So a detailed code of extraordinary complexity was built up, so that Mr. Zancig was able, by the way in which he phrased his sentences, to indicate to his wife on the stage exactly the answer he wanted. For example:—You will imagine you are moving about among the members of an audience and are being handed various articles to transmit to your partner on the stage. You are handed in succession a watch, a purse, a ring, a toothpick, and a bow. Y’ou would deal with them as follows: Q. —What's this—give. A.—A ring. And this?—A purse. Here, this? —A. ring. But this?—A toothpick. See, try this.—A tie. Wrong.—Bow, I should say. Names, even surnames, says Mr. Zancig, caused less trouble than might be expected:— The name you are transmitting is “James Glover.’* “James,” of course, you cue—“ Give the name.” But how to send “Glover??— You think of the list of professions, because “Glover” is a profession as well as a name, and get the cue “Begin.” But this cue, in the list of names, gives you “Jack,” which may also he a surname. The corresponding women's names, however, are Dorothy and Cora, which are unlikely surnames. So you can use the cue, “Begin—what surname,” to indicate that it is not “Jack,” but "Glover” you want. The suspicion of audiences does not seem to have been aroused by the necessarily eccentric way in which, in order to convey the clues, Mr. Zancig’s sentences were necessarily phrased.