diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/61352-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/61352-0.txt | 2628 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2628 deletions
diff --git a/old/61352-0.txt b/old/61352-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bb76c4d..0000000 --- a/old/61352-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2628 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Case Against Spirit Photographs, by -C. Vincent Patrick and W. Whately Smith - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll -have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using -this ebook. - - - -Title: The Case Against Spirit Photographs - -Author: C. Vincent Patrick - W. Whately Smith - -Release Date: February 9, 2020 [EBook #61352] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS *** - - - - -Produced by deaurider, David E. Brown, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - THE CASE AGAINST - SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS - - - BY - - C. VINCENT PATRICK - - AND - - W. WHATELY SMITH - - - LONDON: - KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD. - BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74, CARTER LANE, E.C. - 1921 - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - I. INTRODUCTORY (W. Whately Smith) 5 - - II. HISTORICAL (C. Vincent Patrick) 7 - - III. FRAUD (C. Vincent Patrick) - - A. _General Methods_ 15 - - B. _Experiments in Fraud_ 21 - - C. _Internal Evidence of Fraud_ 27 - - IV. SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS (C. Vincent Patrick) 31 - - V. THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS (C. Vincent Patrick) 33 - - VI. THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES (W. Whately Smith) 36 - - VII. THE VALUE OF RECOGNITION (W. Whately Smith) 39 - - VIII. RECENT LITERATURE (W. Whately Smith) 42 - - IX. REAL TEST CONDITIONS (W. Whately Smith) 45 - - - - -THE CASE AGAINST SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS - -BY C. VINCENT PATRICK AND W. WHATELY SMITH. - - - - -I.--INTRODUCTORY - -(W. WHATELY SMITH) - - -Spirit photographs have long been a source of controversy and -discussion, and signs are not lacking that public interest in them -is at least as keen as ever. A Society for the Study of Supernormal -Pictures has, for example, been formed recently, and it is by no means -uncommon to meet people who owe much of their belief in Spiritualism -to the results they have obtained through photographic mediums. This -considerable public interest would alone suffice to make the subject -important, but, apart from this, it is clear that if all--or even a -fraction--of what is claimed be true the phenomenon must be of unique -value from the point of view of strictly scientific research. - -Photographic phenomena differ from practically all others studied by -psychical researchers in being, so to speak, permanently objective. If -one could be sure that the results obtained were not due to trickery -one would be in a far better position as regards the problems of -their origin and so forth than one is in the case of other types -of “physical” phenomena. One could collect spirit photographs, -compare them with one another, correlate their differences with the -varying conditions of their production, and generally study them at -leisure--a procedure which is not possible with table-levitations, -materialisations, or direct-voice phenomena.[1] The photographic plate -would, in fact, be the most powerful of all weapons of research if only -we could eliminate all possibility of fraud. This is, as usual, the -crux of the whole matter, and, as my collaborator and I hope to show, -it is not nearly so easy to do as might appear at first sight. - -Spiritualists commonly assert that photographic phenomena are easier -to control than any others, and this is in a sense true. They would -be easy to control _IF_ one were allowed to take the necessary -precautions. But one is not, and under the conditions which actually -prevail at photographic _séances_ the procedure lends itself to -fraud more readily, and in more diverse ways, than any other form -of mediumistic activity. Photography is a comparatively complicated -process, and at every stage there is opportunity for the astute -trickster to produce the effect he desires. Part of the proceedings, -moreover, _must_ take place in a light which is inimical to accurate -observation, and it should not be forgotten that, as a rule, the -“sitter” is immobilised and placed _hors de combat_, so to speak, -for an appreciable period while his photograph is being taken. (The -significance of this will appear later.) - -The various fraudulent methods which are or may be used and the -question of the reliance which should be placed on the statements of -those who believe that they have watched the proceedings so carefully -as to exclude the possibility of fraud will be discussed at length -later in this paper. I may as well say at once, however, that I see -no reason for believing that any spirit photographs are, or have ever -been, due to any cause other than fraud.[2] - -But before discussing the various considerations which appear to -justify this view I should like to make it clear that I, personally, -am very willing to be convinced _if and when adequate evidence -is forthcoming_. The question of what kind of evidence should be -considered adequate is one which will be easier to answer after the -various possibilities of fraud which must be eliminated have been -pointed out. So far as I myself am concerned, I am prepared, further, -to admit that photographic phenomena appear to me to be less improbable -on general _a priori_ grounds than many other alleged events of -supposedly supernormal origin. We know that the camera can detect, or -rather that the photographic plate is sensitive to, ether waves which -produce no effect on the retina of the human eye, and it seems, on the -whole, less improbable that “spirits,” if they exist, should produce -subtle and relatively minor etheric disturbances of this kind than that -they should be responsible for the movements of gross material objects -in the way which is often claimed for them. - -I maintain this merely to guard, so far as may be possible, against -the accusations of prejudice which will doubtless be brought forward -by some readers. _A priori_ considerations of this kind have their -legitimate place, but it is on the relevant facts that our final -decision must be based. On _all_ the relevant facts. This is the -important point. It may be a “fact” that some great wise and eminent -man states that he took such and such precautions, “never let the -plates (or slides) out of his sight,” and so forth, but it is necessary -to take into account, along with such statements as this, other facts -about the psychology of deception, the reliability of witnesses, the -potentialities of fraudulent methods and so forth which are usually -ignored by enthusiastic devotees of the subject. - -One does not wish to be too dogmatic, there _may_ be such things -as _bona fide_ spirit photographs, and when satisfactory evidence -is forthcoming one will be very pleased indeed to make the _amende -honorable_ and acknowledge one’s fault. - -But in view of the many methods of trickery which are available and the -known incapacity of untrained observers to detect fraud the evidence at -present available seems scarcely worthy of serious consideration. - - - - -II.--HISTORICAL - -(C. VINCENT PATRICK) - - -During the last half-century--that is, practically since the -introduction of the photographic plate--various abnormalities have -been reported in developed photographs. Some of these have appeared -to reputable observers to be incapable of natural explanation, and -have been eagerly seized upon by spiritualists as proof of survival -after death--the sensitive emulsion being supposed to have recorded -the presence of spirits, otherwise invisible. It is evident that a -permanent photographic record, if its genuineness can be established, -would stand almost alone as evidence of the presence of the -spirit-forms described by clairvoyants. - -Various types of such photographic abnormalities must be distinguished: - -1. “Thought photographs,” “dream photographs,” photographs of “psychic -auras,” and the like. These are rarely distinct, and as they have -little bearing on spirit phenomena they will not be discussed here. - -2. Photographs taken of a visible spirit form. Such have been taken at -_séances_: _e.g._, by Sir William Crookes, of Miss King’s “control,” -Katie. The photographs taken recently at the Goligher circle should -perhaps be included in this category. Similar experiments might, -perhaps, be carried out in a “haunted house”--provided that one can be -found which bears investigation. - -3. The more usual type of “spirit photograph,” with which this article -is chiefly concerned. Here a plate is exposed upon a sitter or -sitters, and on development an “extra” appears, varying from splashes -of light to fully-formed features or figures. The presence of a -medium is usually regarded as being essential for such phenomena; but -similar appearances have occasionally been obtained by amateurs on -several well-attested occasions, either unexpectedly, or upon plates -deliberately exposed for the purpose, no professional medium being -present. - -4. In some cases the plates are not exposed in a camera, but merely -submitted to “spirit influences,” which results in more or less -distinct faces, or even screeds of writing, appearing on development. - -It is not perhaps surprising to find that the spirit photograph -originated in America, where it dates back to the days of the wet-plate -process. The first recorded case comes from Boston, in 1862. One -Mumler, an engraver by trade, made chemistry and photography his -hobby; and having among his friends a professional photographer, he -was frequently dabbling with plates and chemicals in his studio. Up to -this time he had shown no mediumistic tendencies, although it is safe -to assume that he must have known something of spiritualism, since this -was attracting much attention in America at the time. - -One day Mumler suddenly produced a photograph of himself, standing, -with a chair by his side supporting a shadowy female figure. The face -of this figure was not clear, though the upper part of the body was -fairly well defined; below the waist it faded away. The chair and -background were distinctly visible through the extra. He alleged that -this was an untouched photograph, which he had taken by focussing the -camera on the chair, inserting the plate, and standing by the chair for -the period of the exposure. This picture raised a considerable stir, -and Mumler published the following declaration in the press: “This -photograph was taken of myself, by myself, on Sunday, when there was -not a living soul in the room beside myself--‘so to speak.’ The form on -my right I recognise as my cousin who passed away about twelve years -since.--W. H. MUMLER.” - -Not unexpectedly, other people soon wanted their dead relatives to be -photographed with them, and Mumler’s services were in considerable -demand. Many of his sitters were rewarded with extras, and he soon -started a regular business, claiming that he was a medium for taking -spirit photographs. His pictures aroused much interest both in America -and in this country, and he evidently found it a paying business. -The following advertisement with regard to copies of his photographs -appeared in the _Spiritual Magazine_ for 1863: - -“The packet of three photos may be obtained from Mr. Pitman, 20, -Paternoster Row; price 3s. 6d.” - -Very few copies of Mumler’s photographs still exist; they are all -similar in their general characters to the first. Noteworthy points -are that the spirits are always without legs, and are usually on the -right of the sitter. A considerable number of his extras, indistinct -though they were, were recognised by the sitters and their friends as -the dead person whose photograph they were expecting. (The value of -these recognitions is dealt with in a later section.) Naturally, cries -of fraud were raised, and investigators, consisting of men of science -and newspaper representatives, devised “test conditions” to eliminate -this possibility. This they did to their own satisfaction, and obtained -spirit extras; but on reading their accounts it is easy to see that -ample loopholes were left for fraud. In some cases the camera and lens -were minutely inspected, and Mumler’s operations carefully supervised, -but a glass plate provided by Mumler was used for the sensitised -emulsion. (How this renders a natural explanation of the extra possible -is explained in the section on methods of fraud.) In other cases where -tests were instituted the developing-room was in complete darkness, no -ruby light being used, which put the investigators completely in the -medium’s hands. - -On one occasion Mumler was persuaded to forsake his studio for the -private house of an investigator. Here he was not allowed to use any of -his own apparatus--camera, plates, and chemicals all being provided for -him. The result was a complete failure to get anything abnormal on the -plates. Mumler explained that he “thought his (medium’s) influence had -not been sufficiently long in contact with the chemicals.” This one can -readily believe. - -He presently became bolder, and his spirits’ features became more -distinct. This led to a bad mistake, for in February 1863 the sceptics -were able to show that one of Mumler’s spirit extras was the likeness -of a man still alive, and living in Boston; and, worse still, that this -man had had his photograph taken by Mumler a few weeks before. Such -carelessness on the part of the spirits ruined a promising business, -for after the outcry which followed we hear no more of Mumler for some -six years. - -In 1869 he appeared again in New York, and commenced business on -his old lines. Before he had been practising many months, however, -the public authorities arrested him, and prosecuted him for fraud. -At the trial the Boston evidence was disallowed and consequently -little positive evidence of fraud was brought against him, for he had -only been practising in New York for a short time. The chief ground -of the prosecution was a spirit extra which he represented to be a -dead relative of the sitter’s, whereas the latter declared it to be -utterly unlike the relative in question. The trial was interesting, in -that Mumler was defended by many of his sitters, who swore that they -recognised his extras as their dead friends; and by others, including a -professional photographer, who had investigated his processes and had -found no evidence of trickery. He was acquitted for lack of evidence on -the part of the prosecution; but he apparently gave up producing spirit -photographs, for no more is heard of him. - -Three years later spirit photographs were being taken in this country. -Hudson, the principal exponent, was introduced by Mrs. Guppy, a -well-known medium of the time. His performance was on the same lines as -Mumler’s, and his results similar, the faces of the extras being always -partly obscured and the figures draped. Nevertheless, many of them were -recognised. The usual unsatisfactory tests were applied by the more -sceptical sitters; in particular we have the report of an optician -named Slater, who took his own camera and lenses to Hudson, obtaining -“a fine spirit photo” and observing “no suspicious circumstances.” -However, a less easily duped critic soon appeared, in the person of -one Beattie, a professional photographer of Clifton, and a man of high -repute. He showed that in many of Hudson’s photographs not only did -the background appear through the extra--as might perhaps be expected -with an ethereal spirit--but that the background was clearly visible -through the very material bodies of the human sitters! Sometimes the -backgrounds had a double outline; and in one case at least he was -able to point out that clumsy attempts had been made to obliterate, -by retouching, the pattern of a carpet showing through the legs of -the sitter. All this clearly pointed to double exposure and fraud; -and Beattie was joined in denouncing Hudson by the editor of the -_Spiritualist_. In fact, on closer inspection, Hudson’s pictures were -found to be very poor frauds indeed; some of the “spirits” were stated -by the critics to be Hudson himself dressed up! - -Much controversy followed this exposure; while many declared that -spirit photographs were an utter fraud, others considered that though -some were genuine, mediums frequently obtained their spirits by -trickery in order not to disappoint their sitters. Few went so far as -to declare their belief that the phenomena were _all_ genuine, and -these few were mostly those who had identified as their dead relatives -the extras presented to them. Ingenious explanations were offered by -them of the appearances pointed out by Beattie; the spirit aura was, -they declared, doubly refracting; hence the legs of a chair might, by -atmospheric refraction, appear through the legs of its occupant. It is -possible that the unscientific were impressed by such explanations. -Support was certainly lent to them for a time by the statements of -Mr. Russell, of Kingston-on-Thames. Working as an amateur for his own -satisfaction, he declared that he had obtained spirit photographs -showing evident signs of double exposure, whereas only one had taken -place. Challenged to produce his plates, however, he demurred, and -eventually said that they had been accidentally destroyed. - -Disgusted by the trickery he had detected in Hudson, Beattie -determined to experiment for himself as to whether genuine spirit -photographs could actually be obtained. He accordingly set to work -with some friends, one of whom was reputed to be a medium, and held -many _séances_, exposing dozens of plates with but little result. He -procured as his dark-room assistant a certain Josty, whose character, -unfortunately, appears not to have been above suspicion. Thenceforward -streaks and splashes of light were obtained on some of the plates, -though the _séances_ were mostly blanks. Josty discovered himself to be -possessed of clairvoyant faculties, and declared that he saw spirits -at the _séances_; the marks on the plates would then appear in the -positions he had indicated. These marks had only the very slightest -resemblance to human figures: one is described as being like a dragon. -Out of several hundred plates, thirty-two bore these marks. Beattie’s -integrity was never challenged; but it has been suggested that Josty -produced the smudges on the plates--as he very easily could do--in -order to keep himself in employment of a light and lucrative character. -In any case, the results obtained were so trifling, and so different -from the usual professional medium’s photographs, as to be chiefly of -value as negative evidence. - -Similar experiments were made by Dr. Williams, of Haywards Heath. He -exposed plates, in the hope of obtaining spirit extras, over a period -of eighteen months. Out of many hundreds, he obtained three plates with -unexplained marks on them, one of which bore some resemblance to two -eyes and a nose. He also claimed that a complete human figure developed -on one of his plates, only to disappear again; this could scarcely -have had any objective existence, since there was no trace of it in -the finished negative. The value of his experiments, also, can only -be considered as against the occurrence of spirit photography where -trickery plays no part. - -In the summer of 1874 there came to London a Parisian photographer -named Buguet, who represented himself as able to photograph spirits. -Besides being a more skilful photographer than his predecessors, -he appears also to have had a sense of humour. The spirit faces of -Dickens, Charles I., and other celebrities appeared in his photographs! -His spirits had clearly-defined features, and were much better -productions than anything that had appeared before. Many well-known -people sat to him, and were duly rewarded with the spirit features of -their equally well-known friends. Next year he returned to Paris, and, -continuing in business there, produced among other things a photograph -of Stainton Moses, the spiritualist, while the latter was lying in a -trance in London, his spirit being supposed to have visited Buguet’s -studio in Paris. - -Before he had been back long, however, the French authorities -intervened. His studio was raided by the police and a large stock of -cardboard heads, a lay figure, and other incriminating paraphernalia -were found. Buguet was arrested and charged with fraud. At the trial he -made a complete confession. All his spirits had, he said, been obtained -by double exposure. At first his assistants had acted as the ghosts, -but this soon became dangerous on account of constant repetition of -the same features, and he procured the lay figure and cardboard heads -for the purpose. He also explained how he employed his assistants to -extract all possible information from the sitters, as to the facial -characteristics of the spirits they were expecting. And then came the -extraordinary feature of the trial. In spite of the damning material -evidence against him, and of his own confession, witness after witness -came forward to defend him! They said they had sat to him and obtained -unquestionable likenesses of their dead relations, and had satisfied -themselves that no tricks were played upon them. In spite of Buguet -assuring them in court that they had been deceived, they maintained -that it could not be so. Buguet pointed out to the court one face -which had been recognised as the mother of one sitter, the sister of a -second, and the friend of a third. One spirit, recognised by a sitter -as his lifelong friend, was declared by another man to be an excellent -likeness of his still-living--and much annoyed--father-in-law. Buguet -was convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment and a fine -of 100 francs. It was maintained by spiritualists in England that he -had been bribed to make a false confession; and after the expiry of his -sentence he appears to have told the same tale. This, however, quite -fails to explain the finds made at his studio by the French police. - -At the time of Buguet’s trial, another spirit photographer, Parkes by -name, was practising in London. He never produced photographs of any -value, as he gave but little opportunity of watching his proceedings -in the dark-room; nor were many of his extras recognised. Nevertheless -there are certain points of interest in his career. Some of his plates -showed evident marks of double exposure; he was adroit enough to write -articles to the spiritualistic papers, drawing attention to this fact -and suggesting theories to account for it. It had been previously -assumed by spiritualists that the spirit forms, although invisible to -the eye, were present at the side of or behind the sitter, and that -their images were projected on to the plate by refraction through the -lens in the ordinary way. Hence their images on the plate would be -inverted, like the image of the sitter. Parkes, however, described an -experiment, which he professed to have carried out, throwing doubt on -this. He placed, he said, a mirror obliquely across the camera between -the lens and the plate, so as to project the image of the sitter and -background on to a second plate at the side of the camera--the same -principle employed in the viewing screen of the modern reflex camera. -He said that the position of the spirit photograph was unaffected by -the mirror, and that the extra still appeared on the plate at the back -of the camera, while the sitter and background were naturally only -photographed on the side plate. He further declared that the spirit -was not affected by the lens, and appeared _erect_ on the back plate, -instead of inverted as a normal photograph would be. The absurdity -of this statement is evident when we realise that in his ordinary -photographs sitter and spirit appeared the same way up--_i.e._, both -inverted on the plate; in order to effect this and comply with his -other statement, the spirits would have to be standing on their heads -beside the sitters! Now Parkes also professed to have clairvoyant -power, and claimed actually to _see_ the spirits standing with the -sitters; as he never mentions them adopting the inverted attitude we -may safely assume that they did not put themselves to this discomfort. -One, at least, of Parkes’ statements must therefore have been false. - -On one occasion, however, his spirit extra _did_ appear upside down. -The plate--supplied by the sitter--was loaded into the camera by -Parkes in the usual way, and all was ready for the exposure when a -photographer present requested that the plate be inverted in the -camera. This was done, and the exposure made; with the result that on -the developed plate the spirit was inverted with regard to the sitter. -It was indeed fortunate for Parkes’ reputation that the company present -were able to affirm that the plate on which this occurred “had never -been in Parkes’ possession before”! - -Since 1875 a number of spirit photographers have practised in this -country, but few have attained any note. Not many people have -considered their claims seriously, any critical investigation soon -finding cause for suspicion, if not actual evidence, of fraud. Perhaps -the two best known are Boursnell, who was taking spirit photographs in -London during the first decade of this century, and Hope, of Crewe, who -has now been practising for many years, and has attained considerable -proficiency in the art. The conditions allowed have never been such -as to preclude fraud, and the general method of procedure and results -obtained have been so similar to those of their predecessors as to -need no separate description. In 1909 a Commission was appointed, -under the auspices of the _Daily Mail_, to investigate the subject. -The Commission consisted of three spiritualists and three expert -photographers; at the conclusion of the investigation the photographers -reported with regard to the results obtained that “they would not -testify to their supernatural production; they bore on the face of them -evidence of the way in which they had been produced.” They pointed -out that some of the plates had been exposed twice, as shown by the -marks on the edges caused by two different patterns of dark slide. The -spiritualists, on the other hand, reported that “the photographers were -not in a proper frame of mind” to obtain results. - -In America the movement has always found rather more adherents than in -this country. Spirit photography has been practised in different parts -of the United States practically since Mumler’s time to the present -day; the same medium usually producing other kinds of spirit phenomena -as well. The conditions under which most of these photographs have been -taken, and the ridiculous results obtained, renders them unworthy of -serious consideration. It is quite usual to find in the background of -these photographs a dozen or more heads, of all shapes and sizes, and -with all kinds of headgear; bunches of flowers often appear, and even a -spirit buttonhole sometimes ornaments the lapel of the sitter’s coat! -An amusing account is given by Hereward Carrington[3] of a visit to a -medium of this type at Lily Dale in 1907: - -“On arriving at Mr. Norman’s house I was obliged to wait for some time -on the verandah, as he was busy inside the house with a ‘customer.’ -When he came out I was invited to sit ‘just where I was,’ and the -medium disappeared into the house, and the next minute came out -carrying a large camera and two plates, already in the slide, prepared. -There was a white chalk-mark on one side of the double-back plate -slide, and this side was carefully inserted foremost. Mr. Norman erased -the chalk-mark with his finger as he inserted the slide into the -camera. I posed, and the photograph was taken. - -“Next we went indoors. The plate slide was reversed, and the room -placed in total darkness. I was informed that ‘the spirits would -materialise their own light,’ and that none was needed. This was ‘where -the mediumship came in.’ The second plate was then exposed, the cap -being removed about a minute. During that minute I was informed that I -‘should sit for physical manifestations,’ and the medium asked me if I -had ever sat to a spirit photographer before.... - -“When, however, I asked the medium to allow me to examine the process -of development of the plates, he flatly refused to allow anything -of the kind! I said cautiously that I should think it would be very -interesting to watch the development of a plate upon which might appear -spirit faces; the answer was that these faces developed in exactly the -same manner as any other faces. I replied that I should like to watch -the process in order to convince myself that they developed in the -manner stated, and that they were not already on the plate. The result -was to bring forth a flat refusal to allow me to watch the process of -development! It need hardly be said that this refusal to allow any test -conditions of the most elementary order deprives the photographs of all -evidential value; and definite evidence of fraud was brought against -this medium at a later date. For when the photograph was examined, none -of the faces bore the slightest trace of any family resemblance; and, -more than that, the photograph showed unmistakable signs of fraudulent -manipulation. One of the faces, that of a woman, upon being examined -through a magnifying glass, clearly shows the miniature indentations -made by the electric needle in reproducing newspaper cuts. This is -clearly noticeable in the forehead, but can be seen to extend all over -the face, even with the naked eye, examined carefully. This face was -therefore copied from some newspaper or magazine, reproducing it from -the paper in which it originally appeared. The other faces show clear -marks of manipulation.” - -A new method of procedure in taking spirit photographs was apparently -introduced by one Wyllie, of San Francisco, about 1903. No camera -was used; the plates were unpacked in the dark-room and held by the -sitter, Wyllie simply placing his hands on the plate for some seconds. -On development, a face or faces, more or less blurred, would appear. -These were never larger than the print of a thumb, which suggested to -Dr. Pierce--who was investigating Wyllie’s methods--that they were -possibly produced by chemicals pressed into contact with the plate. He -therefore made Wyllie wash his hands before entering the dark-room, -but the extras still appeared. It would, of course, have been a simple -matter for the medium to have had concealed about his person a slip of -thin card or a small rubber stamp, with an “extra” sketched on it in -some suitable chemical; when in the dark-room this would be palmed and -applied to the plate. Dr. Pierce, however, evidently considered the -results were genuine spirit manifestations, and the next year carried -out a series of experiments by himself in London. Needless to say, he -found that without Wyllie’s mediumship no results could be obtained. - -Another modern development, which has been largely exploited by Hope, -of Crewe, is the “psychograph.” For this, again, no camera is used; a -plate is carefully wrapped up, usually sealed, and submitted to the -medium’s influence. The plate is then developed by the victim, and -screeds of writing appear, usually arranged in circles instead of -lines. Sometimes the plate is sent to the medium through the post, -carefully wrapped and sealed, and returned apparently unopened a -few days later. On development, the message appears--and the most -banal rubbish it usually is. Yet many people actually believe that -these productions are the means adopted by higher intelligences to -communicate with us. Surely such folk must be lacking in a sense of -humour? - - - - -III.--FRAUD - -(C. VINCENT PATRICK) - - -_A.--General Methods_ - -The taking of spirit photographs under so-called “test conditions” -has frequently been carefully investigated by men of high reputation -in other walks of life, chiefly men of letters and men of science. In -many cases they have been unable to detect any trickery, and after due -consideration have decided that they know of no natural means by which -the results obtained could be produced, under the conditions employed. -This is in itself a perfectly fair conclusion; but it does not follow -that because they know of no natural method, no such method can -exist; unfortunately the argument is frequently carried to this stage. -Let us suppose that an eminent physicist watches a sleight-of-hand -conjuror, who produces a dozen or more eggs from a small velvet bag, -which was unquestionably empty when examined by the audience a few -seconds previously; he will certainly not assume mediumistic powers on -the part of the conjuror, or postulate the materialisation of a spirit -hen. He realises that he is being deceived; he has had no training in -conjuring, and does not know what to look for in order to “see through” -the trick. How, then, does he expect to be able to detect a trick -played upon him, probably in the dim light of a photographic dark-room, -by a clever medium who has every method of trickery at his fingers’ -ends? Even if he knew what to look for, the chances would be all in -favour of the medium under the conditions which usually obtain; and -in actual fact he probably has no idea of the multiplicity of methods -which may be used for his deception. It seems therefore desirable to -enumerate some of the many methods by which spurious spirit photographs -may be produced. The following list makes no pretensions to being -complete, but may give some idea of the variety of methods which the -accomplished spirit photographer has at his service. - -_Group I._--_Methods Involving Double Exposure and Substitution_, -in which a plate previously prepared with an undeveloped extra is -substituted for the plate provided by the sitter. This gives excellent -photographs, as the extra may be as distinct in detail as is desired, -and the exposures can be calculated to a nicety, giving a suitably -transparent spirit with a more solid portrait of the sitter. The -substitution of the plate may be effected at almost any stage in the -proceedings, for example: - -(_a_).--Methods involving substitution of the entire packet: - -1. The medium may be in league with the shop from which the plates -are purchased, the unfortunate sitter buying a box of plates already -prepared with spirits. Wise sitters buy their plates at a distance, -but mediums frequently demand a particular brand of plate, and if -those brought by the sitter are declared unsuitable, he will have to -go out and purchase the correct ones. He is naturally supplied with -the address of the nearest photographic dealer, and the name of the -brand of plates is written on a slip of paper to show the shopman; this -ensures no mistake being made. - -2. If the sitter brings the right plates he will show the packet to the -medium before entering the dark-room to make sure that they are all -right. The medium takes the packet into his hand for a moment--turning -to the light to read the label--and passes them back with the remark -that they are the right kind--which now they certainly are, for the -sitter’s original packet is in the medium’s breast-pocket. - -3. The sitter may perhaps autograph or otherwise mark his packet -before coming to the medium, in order to prevent any such substitution. -In this case the medium will wait until the wrapper is torn off in -the dark-room, when he may be able to handle the box for a moment on -some pretext,[4] and the dim light makes the substitution easier than -before, particularly as it occurs during the first minute or so in the -reduced light before the sitter’s eyes have become accustomed to it. - -If these methods are employed, the medium usually finds it necessary -previously to mark the plate or plates in the box that have the latent -extras, in such a way that he may be sure of not getting the spirit -inverted: a slight scratch on one edge will suffice for this. - -(_b_).--Methods involving substitution of the faked plate only, after -removal from the original packet: - -1. With an unwary sitter this may be done in the dark-room. The sitter -usually marks the plates; while he is marking one, the medium may be -able to exchange his prepared plate for one of those not yet marked. - -2. A trick dark-slide may be used, having a secret partition, and -already containing the faked plate.[5] If the sitter is content to mark -the plate after it is placed in the slide, he may easily be caused to -mark the prepared plate instead of his own. - -3. If the plates are not marked, it will be a simple matter to -substitute, during the focussing operations, a duplicate slide -containing a faked plate. - -4. Little accidents are apt to happen in the unaccustomed light of the -red lamp; while the sitter is groping on the floor for a wrapper he has -dropped, or while his attention is in some other way diverted for a -moment, the exchange is made. - -I am aware that many will ridicule the idea of such a simple trick -being played upon an intelligent observer; but any conjuror, whose -business it is to do this kind of thing, knows that it is remarkably -easy. - -5. Sometimes the first photographs taken are blanks, the sitter then -returns to the dark-room and loads up some fresh plates out of the -packet. It may not occur to him that an accomplice of the medium has -had access to the dark-room in the meantime, and when he gives this -account of the _séance_ a few days later he will probably have entirely -forgotten that the plates were not all loaded at once. - -Substitution can, of course, be effected in many other ways; every -medium probably has his favourite method which he chiefly practises. - -It may be pointed out here that in the case of a regular sitter who -always marks his plates in the same way, as most do, it would not -be at all difficult to forge his signature on a prepared plate and -substitute this for one of the marked plates. - -_Group II._--_Other Methods_, conveniently classified as follows: - -(_a_).--Methods involving preparation of the studio: - -1. An accomplice may be concealed behind the sitter, and be -photographed with him; this is the simplest way of all, the sitter -facing the camera, and, being told not to move during the exposure, is -unaware that a “spirit face” is behind him, framed in an unsuspected -opening in the background. Being behind the sitter, the face will be a -little out of focus, and will appear rather blurred on the negative.[6] - -2. It has been suggested that a mirror, or sheet of glass--on the -principle of “Pepper’s Ghost”--may be introduced behind the sitter, -producing the spirit by reflection of an accomplice hidden from the -sitter. In practice this would be rather complicated and difficult to -conceal; it would seem to have no advantage over the preceding method. - -3. The extra is frequently sketched on the background--especially if -this be a plain one--in some fluorescent substance, such as quinine -sulphate. Such a sketch is invisible to the eye, but visible to the -photographic plate. Many of Boursnell’s spirits appear to have been -produced in this manner. - -(_b_).--Methods involving the camera and dark slides: - -1. A trick slide may be employed, in which the shutter contains a -positive transparency of the desired extra, held in such a manner that -it can either be withdrawn with the shutter, or left in position in -front of the plate when required; i.e., during the exposure, which will -have to be somewhat longer than usual. - -2. A similar transparency may be inserted in the camera, close to the -plate, and between it and the lens, during the focussing operations. -The black focussing-cloth makes an admirable screen for such -manipulations, while the sitter is of necessity immobilised a few feet -from the camera. It is easy to imagine how a transparency on a spring -mount could be slipped into the camera under cover of the cloth in such -a way as to press up against the plate when the shutter of the slide is -drawn. - -3. It is stated that a doubly refracting lens has been used, focussing -onto the same plate both the sitter and an object concealed at one side -of the studio. Such a contrivance may have been employed, but would -certainly not be cheap to manufacture. - -4. A simpler method of obtaining the same result is to have a pinhole -in the bellows of the camera; a brightly illuminated object at the -side and rather in front of the camera will then throw an image on the -plate. A considerable exposure will be needed to give a fair extra; but -this will present no difficulties, as the pinhole will be open all the -time the plate is in position, and not merely during the few seconds -that the lens is uncapped for the photograph of the sitter. - -5. An extra may be painted on the inner surface of the dark-slide -shutter, in some radio-active chemical. The shutter usually only clears -the surface of the sensitised emulsion by a fraction of a millimetre, -and a fairly distinct extra will be produced if the plate is kept in -the slide for a sufficient length of time--depending, of course, upon -the amount of radio-active substance used. - -(_c_).--Dark-room methods. - -1. In the days of the wet-plate process, when plates were cleaned and -used a second time with fresh emulsion, it would sometimes happen that -the original photograph would re-develop on top of the second, very -careful chemical cleaning of the plate being necessary to prevent -this. Mumler’s first spirit photograph was probably produced in this -way, and the knowledge was turned to good account by several of the -earlier spirit photographers. Some of the unexpected results obtained -by amateurs may be attributable to this cause, because a certain -number of used plates are returned to plate manufacturers, who clean -off the emulsion and use the glass again. The cleansing may sometimes -be imperfect, and in these cases the original image may appear on -development. - -2. Faces may be sketched in chemicals on small pieces of card, or even -on the medium’s fingers. On opportunity arising in the dark-room, -the medium holds or steadies the plate for an instant, bringing the -chemical pictures into contact with the plate. Or he may so manoeuvre -it that the plate is laid face down on a prepared surface of the -dark-room work-bench, probably while it is being marked[7]; upon -development of the plate extras will duly appear. The most refined -version of this method consists in the preparation of small rubber -stamps in which the chemicals are smeared. These can easily be palmed -and dabbed for a moment on the plate in a manner which appears quite -unsuspicious. A number of active chemicals will produce this effect, -but the medium must be careful to know whether the substance he is -using will accelerate or retard development in the affected part; for -cases have occurred in which a positive extra has been produced on the -negative plate, giving a negative spirit on the finished print! - -3. Mr. Bush, in his recent pamphlet, “Spirit Photography Exposed,” -describes a piece of apparatus made out of an empty blacking-tin -containing a small electric bulb, one side of the tin being replaced by -a positive transparency of the desired extra. This, he alleges, is used -by Hope, the Crewe spirit photographer, the transparency being pressed -against the plate and the light switched on for a second. If carefully -faced with black velvet round the transparency, this device should be -quite useful; but it must be remembered that an escaping ray of white -light would at once catch the eye in the dark-room. Skilful palming and -manipulation should make it quite possible for an extra to be printed -on the plate in this way, if the medium can cover it with his hand for -a moment or two. All Hope’s results are certainly not produced in this -way, however, as is implied by Mr. Bush. - -4. The medium may palm a positive transparency; if he is allowed -to handle the plate he will hold it close to the red lamp with the -transparency between; if the lamp is rather bright, or is not a very -deep red, an impression is soon made on the plate. - -5. With a pinhole in the dark-room lamp, and a transparency inside--a -perfectly practicable arrangement with some of the more complicated -dark-room “safe-lights,”--a pinhole projector can be formed, which -will throw an image on a suitably-placed plate. Any leakage of white -light into the dark-room, either from the lamp or from outside, can -be used to produce blotches and streaks on the plate. A very little -mechanical ingenuity will enable a medium who takes a pride in his work -to rig up an arrangement of this kind which can be switched off and -on at will and which will project an image on a predetermined spot on -the bench. By the simple expedient of having the bench so cluttered -up with bottles and miscellaneous rubbish that this spot is the only -unencumbered one, the unsuspecting sitter may be forced to lay a plate -on this spot while, for example, he is marking another. The medium may -ostentatiously stand at the other end of the room and “switch on” for a -moment while the sitter’s attention is engaged with his marking. - -6. Photographic plates are sensitive to rays invisible to the eye, -as has been pointed out in considering the effect of fluorescent -substances. X-rays and ultra-violet rays, for instance, both invisible -yet strongly actinic, might be used in the most baffling manner in the -production of spirit extras. The expense and technical difficulties -would be considerable, but were any medium to take the method up, he -might safely defy the most critical investigation and would soon recoup -himself for the few pounds initial outlay. - -There are undoubtedly many other methods used by mediums for this -purpose; but if the sitter who has obtained spirit extras under test -conditions carefully considers the procedure employed, in the light -of the suggestions made above, he will probably find that several -loopholes were left by which fraud might have been introduced. - - -_B.--Experiments in Fraud_ - -The argument most frequently brought forward, in favour of the -genuineness of spirit photographs, is that the conditions employed in -their taking leave no loophole for fraud. It has been pointed out in -the preceding section that the usual “test conditions” leave not one, -but many, such loopholes. Evidence of fraud has at some time or other -been brought against most spirit photograph mediums, and they have -consequently been more or less discredited. Other mediums have been -more clever--or more fortunate--and many people therefore argue that -they are not all to be tarred with the same brush; it is pointed out -that spirit extras _have_ been obtained under the strictest conditions -imposed by acute observers who have found nothing suspicious of -trickery. - -It occurred to me that the most effective way to refute this argument -was actually to produce bogus spirit photographs under similar, or -even more stringent, test conditions. This I accordingly attempted in -a series of _séances_, held in my rooms at Cambridge in the summer -of 1919. At four of these _séances_ photographs were taken, and on -each occasion one plate showed a more or less conventional spirit -extra. As I was experimenting primarily for my own satisfaction, my -seven victims were drawn from among my own friends, and were enjoined -to keep the matter as quiet as possible. They were not, of course, -specially trained psychic researchers, but could not, I think, be -considered as being particularly easy men to deceive. Five of the seven -were ex-Service men, and all were of B.A. or “fourth year” University -status; they included two chemists, two medical students, a geologist, -and two physiologists who were also studying psychology. They were -all therefore of a scientific bent, and, with possibly one exception, -were completely sceptical about spiritualistic phenomena when the -experiments started. - -I first suggested to four of them that we might try to obtain a spirit -photograph, like those described and reproduced in recent magazine -articles. They did not take me very seriously at first, but after -we had obtained the right atmosphere with a little table-turning, -they consented to try for a spirit photograph. When a spirit face -duly developed in addition to the sitter, everyone present expressed -amazement! I was naturally asked if I was “pulling their legs.” I -hedged and refused to say either yes or no, explaining that I wanted -the experiments to continue under scientific conditions. If, on the one -hand, I declared that I had not in any way faked the photograph, they -would probably believe me, and would not insist on further photographs -being taken under test conditions. If, on the other hand, I refused -to give such an assurance, they would think that I was probably -tricking them, and would take all possible steps to “bowl me out”; -and when they failed to do so would thereby establish evidence of -the genuineness of any further photographs we might be lucky enough -to obtain. After some little demur they saw the point of this--or as -much of it as I wished them to see--and agreed to meet again in my -room on the following Sunday evening, promising that I should be given -no opportunity of playing any tricks. It was also agreed that notes -should be taken during the _séances_ as far as possible, and that full -reports of what occurred should be drawn up afterwards by all of us in -conjunction, which everyone would sign. - -I now quote their report on the next two meetings, omitting nothing -except their names, which I have replaced by single letters, at their -request. - - “On the following Sunday, July 20th, at 8.15, there met in Patrick’s - rooms A, B, C, and D. Saturday being a Bank Holiday, the plates - were purchased on Friday evening by B, and kept by him until the - meeting. B produced his plates, unopened, and after some preliminary - table-turning and rapping, more successful than at the previous - meeting, it was decided to proceed with the photographs. A carried - the plate-box unopened to the dark-room, and he and D sat closely on - either side of Patrick, and watched him open the box and load two - double dark-slides; they were satisfied there was no substitution - or trickery, or anything in the least degree suggestive of it. The - wrapper of the box was broken in full view of both, and Patrick - loaded the top four plates into two double dark-slides, which were - examined by A and D immediately before they were loaded; they did - not leave their sight from the moment of examination until the - photographs were taken. The camera was also subjected to careful - and minute examination, especially by A, who removed the lens and - examined both it and the interior of the camera. The lens was then - replaced, and the focal plane shutter set in the open position, the - exposures being made by the simple expedient of withdrawing the - shutter of the dark-slide. - - “At the request of C, before approaching the camera to focus it, - Patrick removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and was carefully - searched by him. - - “It had been arranged that Patrick should take a photograph of - each of the four others present, under identical conditions. The - background was arranged, as before, of gowns hung over a cupboard, - but was made more complete. The subjects occupied the same chair in - succession; of the others, one stood by the light switch, and the two - others by the camera, to watch the photographer. Patrick attended - both to the camera and the flash production. The exposures were made, - as stated, by withdrawing the shutter of the dark-slide; the focal - plane shutter was not touched throughout. The electric light was - therefore switched off for a few seconds while the shutter was drawn - and the flash being lighted. Sufficient light came through the white - window-curtains (9.30 p.m. Summer Time) to enable those in the room - plainly to see each other, and watch the photographer’s movements. - The four photographs were taken in rapid succession. - - “The slides were taken back into the dark-room, and developed by - A and Patrick in conjunction. B and C watched in turn, and D also - watched part of the time. One of the plates was quickly observed to - have an ‘extra’ developing on it. A bromide print was again taken - from the wet negative, and showed on the photograph of D the head of - an elderly man, besides a very fair photograph of the sitter. The - extra face was above D’s head, and to his right. The “spirit” was - bearded, and partly bald, with a somewhat melancholy expression. - There was a suggestion of a white collar. On the left of the face and - somewhat above it was written in white on the black background what - was apparently a signature, with two final letters of a preceding - word. It was dubiously deciphered as ‘...ly S. Simmonds.’ Neither - face, name, nor writing were recognised by any one, either at the - time or subsequently. - - “The three other photographs were fair portraits, but showed no - abnormality. - - * * * * * - - “A third meeting was held in the same place at 8.15 p.m. on Sunday, - July 27th, when even more stringent conditions were imposed on the - photographer. - - “The plates were bought on Saturday evening by D; other men should - have been present, but did not turn up at the arranged time. D took - the plates to his own rooms, where Patrick sealed them for his own - satisfaction. The box was kept locked up by D till he brought them - to the meeting on Sunday, and he did not part with them till he gave - them to E to take into the dark-room. - - “At this meeting there were present A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, besides - the photographer. - - “When all had arrived, E carried the plates to the dark-room. C - brought a dark-slide, which he had abstracted and kept since the - previous meeting. Before going into the dark-room Patrick, again at - the request of C and E, removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and - was searched, C even going to the length of examining his socks for - possible concealed plates or dark-slides. - - “Patrick wished to load the slides himself, as they were rather - delicate. Accordingly neither slide nor plates were passed into his - hands until he was sitting in front of the ruby light, with E on one - side of him and C and F on the other. He broke the seals, and in full - view of these three loaded a single plate into compartment No. 3 of - the dark-slide. This was then immediately taken from his hands again - by E, and he and C locked it in a drawer of the desk, upon which - stood a reading-lamp, which was never extinguished throughout all the - subsequent proceedings. C kept the key of the drawer, and passed it - to E when the slide was required. - - “Some table-tilting was then carried out by all except C, who - remained at the desk and acted as secretary. The lights were all put - out except the reading-lamp he used, which was, as stated, over the - drawer where the dark-slide lay locked. - - “After half an hour or so of moderate success with the table, E - and Patrick also dropped out, to take a flashlight photograph of - the group round the table. Patrick prepared the flash-powder, and - set up the camera--which had previously been examined--by the side - of the desk and lighted lamp. E again examined the camera, inside - and out, and when Patrick had focussed it examined the view in the - ground-glass screen. (The lights were put up for a few minutes, to - aid the focussing, etc.) When all was ready, E received the key from - C, unlocked the drawer, and took out the dark-slide. He saw that it - was undoubtedly placed in the camera right way about, _i.e._, No. 3 - compartment in use, and the shutter withdrawn. When the table had - commenced its tilting again the flash was fired by Patrick. C took - notes of the movements of the table, and at the same time watched the - camera, which was in the full light of the reading-lamp throughout. - After the flash the shutter of the slide was replaced, and on - removal from the camera the slide immediately passed again into the - possession of E. Any substitution of plate or dark-slide was thus - rendered out of the question. - - “The dark-slide was taken to the dark-room by E, and he and C watched - Patrick open it, remove the plate, and develop it. As before, E kept - the slide till everything was ready, and passed it to Patrick in the - full light of the ruby lamp, C checking the number of the compartment - in which the plate had been loaded, and still remained (No. 3). On - development, Patrick pointed out that there was a hand at the top of - the plate, which could not belong to any of those at the table, and - was pointing with its index finger at one of the group. On fixing, it - was examined more closely, both by Patrick and the two others. All - three distinctly saw the image of a hand and wrist, pointing, the - forearm being draped. It was in fairly sharp focus, and appeared, by - its proportion, to be rather nearer the camera than the centre of - the table, above which it appeared to hang suspended. A shadow cast - by it was plainly seen, larger and less sharply focussed, apparently - on the back wall of the room. (A picture on this wall had previously - been removed, to eliminate any reflection, and leave the background - clear.) There was a general appearance of drapery surrounding the - group, particularly at the sides; there was in this the suggestion - of a trunk to which the hand might belong. The appearance of the - picture was very startling, and Patrick suggested that as the man - at whom it should turn out to be pointing might suffer considerable - uneasiness on seeing it, it might be well to destroy the plate - without attempting to identify him. E and C, after a minute’s - thought, both agreed that this would be the wisest course, and it - was accordingly done. Patrick did not wish to feel that he might - be in any way responsible for causing anyone uneasiness or harm, - such as might well result from such a picture.[8] Accordingly the - three returned to the other room, and explained the situation to - the others, who, though obviously disappointed, did not condemn the - course taken. - - “This concludes the account of these first three meetings. We wish to - record that all through the meetings Patrick desired and requested us - to take all and any precautions we thought fit, to satisfy ourselves - that he introduced no trickery. - - “In conclusion, we, the undersigned, declare this to be an accurate - account of the occurrences to the best of each man’s individual - knowledge. While not committing ourselves to any statements as to our - belief or disbelief in the genuineness of the phenomena observed, - we maintain that the greatest possible care was taken to prevent - any possibilities of trickery; and we consider that, barring the - possibility of Patrick having an accomplice among us, the evidence - should be accepted as proof of the genuineness of the phenomena - observed.” - -This is followed by their seven signatures. E added afterwards a -paragraph of his own as to the interpretation of the word “accomplice.” -E was much the acutest observer and the most obstinate sceptic of the -seven: I think he suspected D of being in some way my accomplice; some -of the others suspected him of being a medium. He certainly was not an -accomplice--for I never had one in the room; he may be a medium for -aught I know--but I should doubt it. - -At the next meeting an eighth investigator appeared, and everybody -seemed to be suspecting everybody else, and not merely the -photographer. The plates were bought at a different shop, chosen by -lot, by a committee of four; and the packet was at once done up with -much red tape and green sealing-wax. When they had finished I requested -to be allowed to put my seal on it too, to assure myself that _they_ -were not playing any tricks! My request was granted. I now quote the -report of the meeting: - - “The box of plates was produced by C, and the seals were found - to be intact. The box was taken into the dark-room by A, and a - plate-carrier--which had been previously examined by several of - those present--by B. The seals were broken, and a plate was loaded in - the presence of A, B, D, and E, who signed their names on stamp-paper - fixed to the back of the plate. - - “In attempting to fit the slide into the camera, the plate was - accidentally exposed. It was discarded, and another plate signed - and loaded by A, C, E, and Patrick. C then locked the plate away - in a drawer, and kept the key until the slide was required for the - photograph.” - - [Table-turning was then indulged in; A, C, E, and myself not taking - part. The usual type of answers was obtained from the table; I omit - this part of the report. During the table-tilting the photograph was - taken under precisely the same conditions as at the last meeting.] - - “The plate was developed by Patrick; A, C, and E watching. An extra - pair of eyes and the upper part of a nose developed, apparently on - the wall; they were brightly illuminated, from the same position as - the other figures. They were larger than those of the other members - of the group, and were over B’s head. - - “We consider that this is a true account of what occurred. Barring - any very abstruse and elaborate explanation, it would seem that the - photograph is undoubtedly genuine.” - -Then follow the signatures. As they made _me_ sign the report on this -meeting, I had to see that it was worded rather carefully, particularly -the last paragraph; the report _was_ true, so far as it went; and the -explanation of the result _was_ rather elaborate; so I felt I could -safely sign it. - -I did not hold another photographic _séance_, but being emboldened by -success, introduced at the next meeting “a medium from London.” (As a -matter of fact he came from Trinity, but I had ascertained that nobody -knew him, which was the important thing.) After suitable preliminaries -we all sat round a large table in semi-darkness, holding hands. When -the medium had arranged “the balance of the circle” to his liking, -he proceeded to go into a trance, when queer things began to happen. -A candlestick was seen to slide along the mantelpiece and crash into -the coal-box, taking a framed photograph with it; sounds were heard -from a small cupboard; the window-curtains were parted; several people -saw spirit forms and eyes; and one was favoured with a spirit touch. -The medium’s Egyptian control, Nemetra, gave us wonderful accounts of -life in Memphis in the days of the Pharaohs--accounts which certainly -made up in picturesque detail for anything they lacked in historical -accuracy. - -Unfortunately this meeting was not a complete success, as, immediately -the show was over, our ever-curious geologist E began hunting about the -floor, and discovered a small loop of fishing-line (being a post-war -fishing-line, the spirit forces had broken it). He could not very well -announce his find at the time, as the medium was not yet roused from -his trance, and the others were busy feeling his pulse, fanning him and -administering cold water! - -By this time the results of the photographic _séances_ had become -pretty generally known, and the undesired notoriety brought so many -requests to allow other visitors at the _séances_ that it became -evident to me that the proceedings must terminate. So the next morning, -after seeing E, I told him and the others that the whole thing had been -a hoax, and that the photographs were frauds. I should like to add that -with one exception they took it extraordinarily well, particularly when -I explained what had been my object. They were still quite in the dark -about _how_ the photographs had been done, particularly when I told -them that there was no accomplice among them. - -All the photographs were obtained by the general method of double -exposure and substitution, the substitution being effected at a -different point on each occasion; the methods used, or slight -variations of them, are all described in the section on “Methods of -Fraud.” - -Now I maintain that the conditions imposed upon me were as strict, -or stricter, than any professional medium allows. If an amateur -photographer but little practised in sleight-of-hand can under such -conditions deceive intelligent observers--not once, but several times -over--how much easier will it not be for the professional spirit -photographer, who makes such frauds his business? - - -_C.--Internal Evidence of Fraud_ - -Since spiritualists claim that the presence of invisible spirits may be -detected by photography, it seems reasonable to inquire how far this -is compatible with established physical facts. If a plate is wrapped -in paper and submitted to “spirit influences”--whatever these may -be--never being exposed in a camera at all, and on development shows -faces or writing, I personally can only find one explanation--trickery. -But if a plate is duly exposed with camera and lens, and unseen faces -appear on development, the matter is not quite so simple. For it is -well recognised that the camera may record what is invisible to the -eye; invisible stars are detected by the photographic plate, and -anyone who has examined a nebula or comet through a telescope, after -seeing a photograph of the same object, realises this fact to his -disappointment. Similarly a can of hot water may be photographed, by -a long exposure, in a perfectly dark room; and another well-known -instance of a similar phenomenon is Sir Robert Ball’s story of -photographing some writing on the side of the “Great Eastern,” years -after it had been painted out and rendered invisible. - -Light, as is well known, is now regarded as consisting of waves in -the ether. Ether waves are known to exist over a very large range of -wave-lengths; some are comparatively long waves, some are short. The -properties of these waves depend upon their wave-length; those visible -to our eyes, which we call “light rays,” form only a small section of -the complete scale; comparing them with sound waves they correspond to -approximately one octave of the whole musical scale. Ether waves of -greater or lesser wave-length than light, _i.e._, of lower or higher -octaves, have very different properties. Radiant heat and ultra-violet -rays are the ether waves nearest in wave-length and properties to -light; X-rays and the waves responsible for wireless telegraphy appear -to be similar waves further removed along the scale of wave-length. - -Now in order to photograph an invisible object we require rays that -(_a_) affect a photographic plate; (_b_) are capable of refraction -by a lens; and (_c_) are invisible to the eye. The properties of the -principal known rays concerned may be summarised as follows: - - _Effect on Plates_ _Refracted by _Visibility_ - Lenses_ - _Infra-red (heat) rays_ v. slight Yes No - _Light rays_ affected Yes Yes - _Ultra-violet rays_ strongly affected Yes No - _X-rays_ affected No No - -It appears, then, that ultra-violet rays are suitable for our purpose; -infra-red rays, if present in an amount sufficient to affect a -photographic plate, would make themselves very evident as heat, and may -therefore be ruled out. - -Ordinary daylight contains ultra-violet rays, as also does the light -of the arc lamp and magnesium flash; lamplight, gas-light, and the -ordinary electric light, are comparatively deficient in them. But are -we to assume that the spirit form is dependent on finding suitable -rays in the surrounding ether, or can it produce its own? Perhaps -some spiritualist will tell me. This is a point of some practical -importance in examining a reputed spirit photograph; for if the spirit -is self-luminous its features will be evenly illuminated and without -shadows, nor will it cast a shadow on the sitter or background, but -rather the reverse. If, on the other hand, the spirit is dependent -on the presence of ultra-violet rays from other sources, which it -can reflect, then the spirit in the photograph will appear to be -illuminated from the same point as the sitter,[9] and by absorption or -reflection of the ultra-violet actinic rays which would otherwise have -passed on, will cast a shadow on the background. Being a shadow cast by -the removal of the ultra-violet rays only, it will of course appear as -such in the photograph, but be invisible to the eye. - -So if a spirit photograph is to be classed as possibly genuine, the -spirit may either appear self-luminous and cast no shadow, or may -appear to be illuminated from the same point as the sitter, and cast -a shadow on the background, if the latter be of a suitable nature to -show it. But on examining a collection of spirit photographs taken by -various professional mediums, we find that as often as not the spirit -and sitter are lighted from opposite sides; or that a spirit face with -a well-marked shadow on one cheek throws no shadow on the background. -If our reasoning be correct, we can at once write such productions -down as frauds. The photographs I produced at my Cambridge _séances_ -show both these faults; two of them have the spirits lighted from the -opposite side to the sitter, and one has the spirit lighted from the -correct side but throwing no shadow, whereas the sitters throw clear -shadows on the wall behind. In the other photograph I managed to get -both the lighting and the shadow of the spirit correct; but in order to -get the shadow I had to photograph the background with the “spirit”; -hence when the sitters were photographed on the same plate there was a -double background, which necessitated a rapid destruction of the plate! - -Of course the average medium does not consider these points at all; his -sitters are usually satisfied with anything they can get, so why should -he worry? But an intelligent observer examining a number of spirit -photographs with regard to these points will quickly satisfy himself -that the majority of them _can_ only be frauds.[10] - -There are a number of other points by which a spirit photograph may -betray its method of production without reference to the conditions -under which it was taken. Many spirit extras are simply copies of -existing photographs, which are usually camouflaged in some way. -Draperies may be substituted for the hair, or the features slightly -retouched. A common method is to reverse the original photograph, right -for left; a number of Hope’s productions were recently published in a -monthly magazine, and alongside them life portraits of the “spirits,” -the letterpress emphasising that, though undoubtedly the same face, -they were different photographs. On examination with a mirror, however, -the photographs were seen to be identical, and careful measurement -of the faces showed the proportions to be exact. In the photographs -more recently published by Mr. Bush, who laid a trap for Hope into -which the latter appears to have fallen, the spirit was not reversed, -nor was even the rather peculiar attitude of the head in the original -photograph altered. A little spirit drapery was added round the face, -and the whole thrown slightly out of focus; it is really a most clumsy -piece of work, and should deceive no one. - -In some spirit photographs produced by double exposure there is a -double background, as occurred in my own photograph referred to above. -There may be either two different backgrounds, or a double outline -of the same background; in either case the “spirit’s background” is -usually fainter than the “sitter’s background,” and shows through the -darker parts of the sitter. Sometimes attempts are made to retouch -these appearances on the negative, and many spirit photographs show -clumsy brush or pencil work, which must immediately stamp them as -frauds. - -Attempts are sometimes made to obliterate other tell-tale marks, such -as a piece of a spirit’s hat or collar, which has accidentally got on -to the plate. Other mediums, however, are less particular, especially -in America, and produce their spirits with ordinary hats, collars and -ties. But as a rule only spirit robes are permitted, apparently made of -butter muslin not quite in focus. Hands are often present: I have seen -a case in which the position of a spirit hand would have necessitated -a many-jointed arm about four feet long; but perhaps spirit arms _are_ -like this. One spirit extra I have seen has two hands, but both appear -to be left hands--evidently a left-handed spirit. - -Frequently, again, careful examination shows that spirit extras are not -photographs at all, but resemble wash drawings. This gives the clue -to their origin, for several of the methods described in a preceding -section produce a result of this kind. It has been several times -pointed out that spirit extras in some cases show the characteristic -dots produced by the half-tone newspaper illustration process; if the -medium cannot obtain a real photograph of the required spirit, he has -to copy a newspaper reproduction. If he is clever, he can eliminate -these process marks by printing in his spirit slightly out of focus; -but very often he does not take the trouble. - -In many, perhaps in the majority, of spirit photographs produced by -professional or semi-professional mediums, a critical observer with -practical photographic experience can point out some such definite -evidence of fraudulent manipulation. In many other cases, where no -one particular point can be singled out as indicative of fraud, minor -points of suspicion are noticeable, which taken together leave little -doubt of the nature of the picture. But photographs _can_ be prepared -by purely mechanical means, especially if no kind of test conditions -are employed, which will contain no internal evidence whatever of -manipulation. By carefully combining enlarged positives, for instance, -and re-photographing the whole, results can be produced which will -defy the most critical examination. But such photographs are seldom -produced, even when the medium is given practically a free hand. - - - - -IV.--SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS - -(C. VINCENT PATRICK) - - -Probably most people have heard, but seldom at first hand, of -unexpected ghosts appearing on plates or films exposed by amateur -photographers. On the rare occasions when such accounts can be traced -to their source, one usually finds that there is some simple and -evident explanation. Streaks and splashes of light on the plates are -comparatively common, and are usually the result of the camera, slides, -or dark-room not being light-tight; very strange results are sometimes -produced in this way. I was once puzzled by a photograph which showed -an arch, like a rainbow, across the sky, when it was quite certain that -there had been no rainbow in the sky when the photograph was taken. -When the result was repeated a few days later, the camera quickly came -under suspicion, and was found to have developed a minute pinhole in -the bellows. This was sealed up, and the rainbow did not reappear. Many -unexplained markings on plates are certainly caused in this or similar -ways; but only under very favourable circumstances could an extra face -on the plate be so produced. Sometimes unexpected results are caused -by an accidental second exposure; but the nature of such a photograph -will quickly be apparent. The use of old glass plates may sometimes be -responsible for similar results, as has been already explained. But -authenticated cases of the appearance of unseen faces in photographs -taken in the absence of a professional medium, and which do not show an -obvious explanation, are few and far between. The classical example is -that of the Combermere photograph, which was published in the _Journal -of the S.P.R._, and aroused much discussion and criticism. - -A Miss Corbet took a photograph of the library of Combermere Abbey, -Cheshire, on December 5th, 1891. She was alone at the time, and left -the camera during the exposure, as it was a long one. She kept a -note-book with records of her photographs, which afterwards showed -that an exposure of one hour had been given, namely from 2 to 3 p.m. -Unfortunately she did not develop the photograph till eight months -later, and was then amazed to find a figure occupying a chair in -a prominent position in the photograph. The figure was faint and -transparent, the legs being quite invisible; the features were not -recognisable; but the presence of a head, shoulders and arm was fairly -plain. Inquiries were made, and it was found that not only was the -chair in question the one Lord Combermere had been wont to occupy, but -that he had died a few days before the photograph was taken, and was -actually being buried some two miles from the Abbey at the hour at -which the photograph was taken. The photograph was naturally shown to -the dead nobleman’s relatives, some of whom professed to recognise it -as Lord Combermere. It was further pointed out that he had lost the use -of his legs in an accident some three weeks before his death, and that -the spirit figure was correspondingly legless! - -The most important contribution to the discussion which followed was -made by Sir William Barrett, who demonstrated that the result could -be duplicated by taking a several minutes’ exposure of a chair, in -which someone was seated for a part of the time. The sitter would -naturally not keep quite still; hence the outlines would be blurred and -the features indistinct. Sir William published a photograph which he -had obtained in this way, reproducing the features of the Combermere -photograph, even to the leglessness. He suggested that someone, -possibly one of the four men-servants in the Abbey, had entered the -library during the prolonged exposure. He had sat down in the chair -for a minute or so, when, noticing the camera, he beat a retreat. The -photograph showed double outlines to all the sharp edges, indicating -that the camera had been moved slightly during the exposure, and -suggesting that someone had entered the room and jarred it. As it was -eight months after the event that the photograph was developed, it was -impossible to ascertain whether anyone _did_ actually so enter the -room. In any case it was a remarkable coincidence, but there is no -proof of it being anything more. - -A somewhat similar case is recorded by Podmore. The photograph was -being taken, this time, in a chapel. On development a faint face was -seen framed in a panel. This was described as being the likeness of -a friend of the photographer’s who had recently died--“a handsome, -melancholy lad of eighteen.” Another critic thought that the face was -that “of a woman of thirty”; it must have been very indistinct. It may -well have been caused in the same manner that was suggested for the -Combermere photograph; a visitor to the chapel standing in the field of -the camera for some moments, probably not realising that an exposure -was in progress. - -Several accounts have been given by amateurs of seeing spirit faces -develop, only to disappear again on fixing; one such is published in -Vol. VII. of the _J.S.P.R._ These are evidently of a subjective nature, -the finished negative showing no evidence of any abnormality. If any -reader of this article knows of any case where an “extra” has been -obtained in the absence of a professional medium, and where the plate -can be produced, I should be very grateful for particulars. - -Experiments have on several occasions been made by amateurs, -deliberately trying for spirit extras, and exposing scores of plates, -usually without success. The unsuccessful attempts of Russell, -Beattie, Dr. Williams, and more recently Dr. Pierce, have already -been alluded to. Experiments of rather a different nature have been -carried out by a Frenchman, Dr. Baraduc. His most interesting--if -somewhat gruesome--result was a series of photographs taken over the -death-bed of his wife, at the time of, and for some hours after, -death. The negatives showed globes of light floating over the bed, -which gradually increased in size and brightness, and coalesced in the -later photographs. The circumstances certainly seem to exclude fraud, -and it is very difficult to understand how the progressive series of -photographs could have been obtained by accidental means, such as a -pinhole in the camera. His results are very interesting, but need -repeating by other experimenters; in any case, they have absolutely -nothing in common with the conventional spirit photographs which show -faces and figures. - - - - -V.--THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS - -(C. VINCENT PATRICK) - - -The so-called “Fairy Photographs” recently published by Sir Arthur -Conan Doyle and Mr. E. L. Gardner do not strictly come under the -heading of “spirit photographs,” but may not inappropriately be -considered here. We have no evidence of the conditions under which -they were taken; as Sir Arthur explains, such “rare results must be -obtained when and how they can.” We have therefore to learn what we can -from an examination of the photographs, or of their reproductions. At -first sight they look like genuine untouched photographs; their general -appearance is excellent, and if frauds, they are certainly good ones. -On examining them more carefully, however, a considerable number of -points are found requiring explanation. Some of these have no doubt -been noticed by different observers; the principal criticisms of the -different photographs are these. - -“_Iris and the Dancing Gnome_” shows some very strange lighting. -Examining Iris’s hat, we find the strongest light is falling, probably -through a gap in the trees, from above and a little to the right; the -shadow behind her arm, and the lighting of the fingers, confirm this. -The gnome stepping up on to Iris’s knee should therefore cast a shadow -upon her white dress, below and to the left; but the photograph shows -no trace of any such shadow. On the other hand, the gnome is lighted -mainly from the _left_; this is plainly shown on the conical cap and -the right upper arm. Apart from these discrepancies, which alone are -quite sufficiently damning, several other grounds for suspicion are -evident. The whole photograph is much too carefully arranged to be -the snapshot it is represented as being. The black legs of the gnome -are contrasted against the white dress of the girl; the lighter body, -face and wings are outlined against the shadows under the trees; the -dark cap is brought with one edge against a wing, the better to show it -up, while the other edge catches the light. A snapshot would indeed be -fortunate in securing such an admirable arrangement! The same thing is -very noticeable in the other three published photographs; the pictorial -arrangement of the figures and background is much too good to be the -result of chance, and suggests careful posing. - -This gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are -told, at four o’clock on a September afternoon which was not sunny; -an exposure of 1/50th of a second was given on “Imperial Rapid” -plates, using a “Midg” quarter-plate camera. With the largest stop in -this camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, _i.e._, -1/5th of a second, would be needed to give a fair negative under -these conditions; 1/2 to 1 second would probably be more correct. -The photograph in question certainly shows signs of under-exposure; -but under the conditions stated one would expect little more than a -silhouette of the white dress and of the sky showing through the trees. -Something is evidently wrong here. - -The gnome’s proportions are certainly not human, as are the fairies’ in -the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar “Brownie” of -the Kodak advertisements. Though stepping up onto the girl’s knee, he -is noticeably looking away from her, and at the camera, which is very -unnatural and likely to cause him a tumble! Criticism has been directed -against the girl’s hand, but this is quite a common photographic -distortion of a hand held rather near the camera. In my copy, however, -the elbow appears rather peculiar. - -The other points, taken together, can leave no possible doubt that the -photograph is a fake. It could have been produced by making a positive -enlargement from the negative of Iris on one of the bromide papers -specially prepared for working up. The gnome would then be sketched on -this--he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph--and the -whole would then be re-photographed on to a quarter-plate. No doubt an -entirely satisfactory result would not be secured at the first attempt; -in fact, Mr. Gardner tells us that “other photographs were attempted, -but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.” Surely such -extraordinary photographs, even if partial failures, would be kept--if -they did not show something that was not intended! We have known plates -to be destroyed on other similar occasions, and for similar reasons. - -“_Alice and the Fairies_” is of a rather different nature. The lighting -of the fairies is badly wrong; they are brightly illuminated from a -point behind the camera, whereas Alice is less brightly illuminated, -and from the left-hand side. Sir Arthur, in his article, points -out that this is accounted for by the “fairy psychoplasm” having a -“faint luminosity of its own.” To appear brighter than the sitter, -photographed by 1/50th of a second exposure at three o’clock on a sunny -July afternoon, the fairies would have to resemble in luminosity a -battery of arc lights! The photograph appears to have been produced by -pasting the “fairies” on to an enlargement of the original photograph -of Alice, and then re-photographing the whole. The fairies could be -obtained by taking posed photographs of children suitably dressed; -these would then be carefully cut out from their backgrounds and pasted -on to the original enlargement. The points of internal evidence on -which this statement is based are as follows: - -1. The very sharp (cut) outlines of all parts of the fairies. This -is particularly noticeable in the outline of the dress and hair of -the third fairy (counting from the left); compare this with the soft -outline of Alice’s hair, against a similar background. - -2. The same fairy’s forearm is much brighter than Alice’s wrist, at the -point where it crosses between it and the camera. Assuming that both -were equally white, and lighted from the same source, the one further -from the camera would normally photograph a little the lighter. - -3. Fairies two and four appear to be photographs of the same model, the -wings being exchanged for the pipe. Note the similarity of the attitude -of the legs, and of the shape of the tail of drapery hanging down -behind. - -4. With the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which -appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, _every part of the fairy -figures is in front of the sitter and background_. This applies to all -four photographs, and is of the utmost importance; superimposing the -fairies on the original photograph in the manner described must of -course produce this effect. - -5. One would have expected to see some blurring due to movement, in the -fairies’ wings and feet at any rate, with a 1/50th of a second exposure -at a distance of four feet. None is visible in the reproduction. - -The two more recently published photographs are very similar to “Alice -and the Fairies,” and the same general criticisms apply. “_Alice -and the Leaping Fairy_” again shows the fairy illuminated from a -point behind the camera, whereas Alice is illuminated from the right -side. (Note that her right cheek, facing the camera, is in shadow.) -Fairy shows no movement-blurring, and comparison with instantaneous -photographs of jumpers shows the attitude to be most unusual. On -tilting the photograph a little to the left, the fairy appears to have -been posed kneeling on the left knee, the support being afterwards cut -away, and the cut-out figure applied to the enlargement of Alice, in a -slightly different vertical axis. - -“_Iris and Fairy with Harebells_” shows similar features. Notice, -again, the different lighting of fairy and Iris; the hard outline of -fairy’s hair, so unlike Iris’s in the same print; and the careful way -the fairy has been placed to secure a well-balanced picture--scarcely -a random snapshot! The harebells seem too large in comparison with the -hedge-leaves at the same distance from the camera. They may be the -result of combining yet a third photograph; or the actual harebells may -have been placed on the enlargement and re-photographed with it. - -An artist to whom I have shown this photograph, together with the -full-length photographs of “Iris” published with the earlier article in -the _Strand Magazine_, is of opinion that the fairy has the same figure -and features as Iris, and, in fact, may very well be a photograph of -Iris herself, attired in a bathing dress and some butter muslin, and -with the addition of wings! The photographs of Iris show a rather -characteristic poise of the head, which is also seen in the fairy. -This is only a suggestion, however; the photographs are too small for -certain identification. In any case, the fairy figure is certainly of -human proportions. - -These photographs have attracted a good deal of attention, and seem to -have been accepted as genuine in some quarters. No doubt much reliance -has been placed on the statement of one experienced photographer, Mr. -Snelling, that they show no evidence of manipulation, disregarding -the adverse criticisms of several other photographers to whom they -were shown. I consider that there is not the slightest doubt that they -are fakes, simply on the internal evidence they provide, and I have -endeavoured to explain the principal points on which this opinion is -based. - - - - -VI.--THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - -(W. WHATELY SMITH) - - -The reliability of witnesses is a crucial question in the study of -psychical phenomena and has for long been a bone of contention between -spiritualists and their critics. If honesty, care, and intelligence -alone sufficed to make a man’s testimony reliable the whole range of -spiritualistic phenomena, including spirit photography, might long ago -have been taken as proved beyond all possibility of doubt. But this -is very far from being the case, and although it is never pleasant to -express flat disbelief of the accuracy of people’s statements, the -Psalmist’s dictum that “all men are liars” should be graven on the -heart of every psychical researcher, especially in the case of those -who attempt to investigate “physical” phenomena.[11] - -I do not propose to repeat the obvious platitudes about the ease -with which conjurers can deceive their audiences, but I should like -to emphasise the fact that such differences as exist between the -circumstances in which conjurers and mediums work are uniformly in -favour of the latter as regards the minor manipulations necessary for -the production of photographic phenomena. (One is not, of course, -concerned with elaborate “stage effects,” but rather with small matters -like the substitution of one plate for another or the distraction of -the sitter’s attention while the required extra is impressed upon -the plate.) The conjurer’s audience _knows_ that it is a trick; the -medium’s does not. Even the most hardened sceptic will probably have -a lingering doubt in his mind as to whether there may not possibly be -“something in it” after all. This is all to the medium’s advantage, -and it must be remembered that not only does he work for much of -his time under lighting conditions which are peculiarly favourable -to fraudulent manipulation, but also that the great majority of his -sitters start with a considerable prepossession to the effect that they -are encountering something inexplicable. - -But these observations must, I suppose, have occurred to all who have -considered such matters at all impartially, and however relevant they -may be they will never by themselves prevail against what we call -“the evidence of our senses.” No amount of general considerations of -this kind will deter the credulous from accepting the _prima facie_ -indications of a “successful” _séance_. The only hope of preserving the -public from the depredations of these swindlers is to show that the -“evidence of the senses” is not worth twopence unless backed by special -knowledge of the relevant technique. - -One would think that anyone who reads Mr. Patrick’s admirable account -of fraudulent methods and of his experiments in their application will -feel chary of claiming that he has wholly eliminated the possibility of -fraud from any photographic _séance_ which he has attended. But there -may be some who will still say: “No doubt these fraudulent methods can -be and have been employed, no doubt many people would allow a medium to -substitute plates under their very noses, or to touch them. But when -_I_ went to such-and-such a medium I am _certain_ that the plates were -never out of my possession, that he never had a chance of touching -them....” and so forth. - -Of course, some of the methods described by Mr. Patrick do not involve -touching the plates at all. It would not be at all impossible for an -artist in such work to allow a sitter to use his own plates, camera, -slides, dishes, and chemicals in his own studio and dark-room, to load, -unload, and develop the plates himself without their ever being touched -by the “medium” and yet to produce a perfectly good extra. - -But I will let that pass and confine myself to the question of whether -the kind of positive statement outlined above is really worth anything -at all. This question was answered once and for all in the emphatic -negative by the classical experiments of the late Mr. S. J. Davey in -“Slate-writing,” which are fully described in the _Proceedings of the -Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii. - -These experiments are not nearly so widely known as they deserve to be, -but it is not too much to say that no one who has not read, marked, -learned, and inwardly digested them is competent so much as to begin to -talk about the genuineness of spirit photography; unless, of course, -he happens to have acquired a knowledge of trick methods and the -scope of deception by other means--such as Mr. Patrick adopted in his -experimental work! - -Very briefly, the story was as follows: Mr. Davey was an amateur -conjurer of some skill who set himself to imitate by trickery -the performances of Slade, Eglington, and other exponents of -“slate-writing” phenomena. In this he succeeded to admiration--so -much so that certain spiritualists characteristically insisted that -he _must_ be a very powerful “medium”! He scrupulously denied himself -the advantage of claiming his results as supernormal, but in spite of -this found no difficulty in imposing on his sitters. The latter were -encouraged to take every possible precaution against trickery and were -instructed to write the most careful reports of what occurred. - -A number of reports were thus obtained from men and women of -unquestionable intelligence and acumen which, if they had been even -approximately accurate, would have established the supernormality of -Mr. Davey’s phenomena beyond any peradventure. But comparison of their -reports with the known and recorded procedure which actually took place -showed the most astonishing discrepancies. Omissions and distortions -of the first importance were abundant and the experiments proved to -the hilt that, for phenomena of this kind, the reports of untrained -witnesses are, in general, not worth the paper they are written on. - -I wish that space permitted me to quote, in parallel columns, some -of these Davey reports and some of those given by witnesses of -photographic _séances_ so that my readers could see how very similar -the circumstances are. - -But I must content myself with pointing out that whereas in the one -case everything turned on whether the “medium” had any chance of -substituting or tampering with _slates_, so in the other it is a matter -of whether there has been any chance of substituting or tampering with -_plates_. The reports of intelligent witnesses proved worthless in the -one case, and it seems reasonable to suppose that they are no more -valuable in the other. - -So, to anyone who thinks that in the mouth of two or three witnesses -the genuineness of spirit photographs shall be established, I would -say, “Go home and invest a few shillings in the _Proceedings of the -Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii.--it will be more -profitable than the same amount laid out in photographic _séances_--and -when you have carefully read their account of the Davey experiments in -conjunction with Mr. Patrick’s paper, see whether your confidence in -spirit photographs is as strong as ever!” - -I have drawn attention to these experiments of Mr. Davey elsewhere and -I am sorry to be obliged to insist on their importance again. But until -people learn that the reports of uninstructed observers--however acute -in other respects--are utterly unreliable, the fraudulent medium will -flourish and the unsuspecting public will be robbed and deceived. - - - - -VII.--THE VALUE OF RECOGNITION - -(W. WHATELY SMITH) - - -Believers in spirit photographs generally consider that they are -playing their trump card when they point out that thousands of “extras” -have been definitely recognised by sitters as portraits of their -deceased friends or relatives. But this card, impressive as it looks, -will not really take the trick. If it could be shown (i.) that a given -“extra” was _unmistakably_ recognisable as a portrait of a deceased--or -even of a living--person, and (ii.) that the medium concerned could -not possibly have obtained a likeness of that person to work from, -then we should be obliged to attach great weight to this factor, even -if the conditions were not otherwise such as to exclude fraud. For -such a result could not be fraudulently produced. But in spite of -the perfectly honest assertions of many investigators, it seems very -doubtful whether this state of affairs has ever been realised. - -There are two ways in which evidence based on recognition may be -defective. - -First, the recognition may be perfectly well founded, but the “extra” -may have been derived from an existing photograph of the deceased; -second, and more frequently, the recognition is illusory and exists -only in the sitter’s imagination. - -As regards the first of these points, it should be remembered that -most people are photographed at one time or another, some of them -frequently, and that it is not very difficult to obtain a photograph -of a given person if one goes about it in the right way. A spirit -photographer with an extensive _clientèle_ will find it well worth his -while to take the necessary steps to secure photographs appropriate to -at any rate his more regular sitters, from whom, in the course of a few -_séances_, it will not be difficult to glean enough information to put -him on the right track. It is, of course, particularly easy if they -happen to be well-known people, photographs of whose relatives may have -appeared from time to time in the press. But although this method may -sometimes be employed where circumstances lend themselves thereto, or -when there is some reason which makes a first-rate “test” especially -desirable, I do not think that it is responsible for more than a small -percentage of the recognitions which are claimed. - -By far the greater proportion appear to be due to the operation of -subjective factors which lead the sitter to “recognise unmistakably” -an extra which bears no more than a vague general resemblance to the -person whom it is claimed to represent. - -Recognition can scarcely be assessed objectively; it is essentially a -subjective affair, and as such liable to all the distorting factors -which affect every mental process. - -If I had to summarise the whole of modern psychological doctrines in -one line I should quote the popular saying, “The wish is father to the -thought.” The whole of our mental activity, our thoughts, actions, -opinions, and dreams are moulded by wishes or innate tendencies of one -kind or another. Often, of course, these conflict with one another; but -that does not alter the principle involved. - -I believe that the great majority of the recognitions of spirit -photographs are determined either by the definite wish to find evidence -of survival or by the vaguer desire to obtain “positive” results -of some kind, for positive results are always pleasanter and more -satisfactory than negative. - -To attempt a full discussion of the psychological process of -recognition in general would take us very far, but I think it may be -conceded that it is based on some kind of a _comparison_ between the -object (“extra”) actually perceived and a visual image of the person -concerned which is evoked for the purpose. But visual images are very -plastic, so to speak, as anyone who tries to visualise the face of -a friend accurately will be able to verify for himself. The general -impression may be clear enough, but details of proportion and the -like are very elusive. We all know, too, how faces get distorted in -dreams (though by somewhat different causes from those which we are -considering here), and it may well be that it is for reasons of this -kind that recognition is so often unreliable even in ordinary life. -Which of us has not been struck by the likeness of a press photograph -to someone whom we know, or who has not been momentarily misled by -the slight resemblance of a passer-by to his contemporary inamorata? -In my judgment it is entirely in conformity with modern psychological -views, or, indeed, a necessary consequence of them, to suppose that -the process of recognition is as subject to the influence of emotional -wish-tendencies as are all the other mental processes which have been -studied. - -This supposition is immensely strengthened by a consideration of -the actual material dealt with. I have seen a good many spirit -photographs, and I am sure that those who have seen more will agree -with me that the number which are clear enough to be _capable of -definite recognition at all_ is extremely small. They are almost -invariably blurred, out-of-focus, indistinct things, frequently so -covered in “spirit drapery” as to leave no more than two eyes, a nose -and a mouth visible, while the shape of the head and the hair are quite -indistinguishable. In the great majority of cases it seems to the -unbiassed observer nothing short of absurd to claim that such vague and -indefinite effigies can be “unmistakably” recognised. And when it comes -to recognition being instantly claimed _from the negative_ and before a -print is made--as in a case I heard of not long ago--one almost gives -up hope! - -One need hardly point out that, although a medium who merely trusts -to luck will probably score a good proportion of “hits” by ringing -the changes on a few common types of face, he can greatly increase -this proportion by a little adroit “pumping” of the sitter which will -give him a guide to at least the general type of face expected, thus -enabling him to “deliver the goods,” at any rate approximately, at the -next _séance_. - -It should also be remembered that in everyday life recognition is a -much more sketchy affair than might at first be suspected. Experiments -have shown that in reading, or in viewing a drawing, we do not take -cognizance of each individual element; on the contrary our attention -flits, so to speak, from point to point, skipping altogether the -intervening matter. We thus obtain an outline or skeleton impression -which we fill up from our own resources. We actually notice a few -salient features and interpolate the rest; hence, for example, the -well-known difficulty of “spotting” mis-prints in proofs. This process -is perfectly satisfactory for ordinary purposes such as reading, and -seldom results in our misinterpreting the symbols before us, and when -it does the context usually puts us right. But in dealing with spirit -photographs the context, if there can properly be said to be any, is -much more likely to put us wrong. The “salient features” which “leap to -the eyes” are, in this case, those which suffice to locate a face as -belonging to a certain general type, while the details which we fill up -for ourselves are just those which are necessary for the identification -of a particular individual. Consequently, false recognition is easy -provided the general type is all right. The “beauty” is emphatically -“in the eye of the beholder.” As “M.A. (Oxon),” a famous spiritualist -and a believer in spirit photographs, well said: - - “Some people would recognise anything. A broom and a sheet are quite - enough to make up a grandmother for some wild enthusiasts who go with - the figure in their eye and see what they wish to see.... I have had - pictures that might be anything in this or any other world sent to - me, and gravely claimed as recognised portraits; palpable old women - authenticated as ‘my spirit brother, dead seventeen years, as he - would have been if he had ...’ etc.” - -But, as usual, the empirical test of experience is the best. -Considerations such as those outlined above may be valuable in -establishing _a priori_ probabilities, but it is far more important to -ascertain whether _as a matter of fact_ people actually do make false -recognitions with any frequency. The answer to this has already been -given by Mr. Patrick in his account of the Buguet case above.[12] The -most striking feature of the case, as he rightly points out, was the -way in which witnesses swore to having “unmistakably recognised” the -extras they obtained, _and stuck to their recognitions in spite of -Buguet’s own confession of fraud and his description of the methods -employed_. In the face of this sort of thing, who will be bold enough -to maintain that the recognition factor can be assigned any appreciable -weight? - - - - -VIII.--RECENT LITERATURE - -(W. WHATELY SMITH) - - -Recent contributions to the literature of spirit photography are not -very numerous. I may first mention the very thorough exposure by Dr. -Walter Prince of the Keeler-Lee-Bocock photographs; this appeared in -the _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research, -vol. xiii., part II, March, 1920. Keeler is a photographic medium -who has practised in the United States for a number of years. For -the benefit of Mrs. Lee he produced, at a price, a long series of -“spirit” photographs purporting to represent the deceased Mr. Bocock -in a variety of situations. Test conditions were either wholly absent -or absurdly inadequate, and the photographs are, on internal evidence -alone, so palpably fraudulent that it is surprising that they were -ever accepted at all. The most obvious indication of fraud is the fact -that through a whole long series of photographs Mr. Bocock’s facial -angle remains the same and identical with that of one of the only two -extant photographs of him, no matter what his posture may be or on -what occupation he may be represented as engaged. This circumstance -clearly points to the use of a single photograph of Mr. Bocock as the -basis of all the fakes. The case is not of sufficient importance to be -worth discussing at length, but it is an interesting example of the art -of critically studying internal evidence and of the almost incredible -effrontery of fraudulent mediums. - -More important is Mr. Edward Bush’s “Spirit Photography Exposed,” -a small pamphlet published by the author as a contribution to the -“Nehushtan Crusade.” The object of the latter movement, of which one -gathers that Mr. Bush is the leading spirit, is to show that all the -physical phenomena of Spiritualism are fraudulent and to expose -dishonest mediums. This last object, at least, is admirable, and Mr. -Bush is certainly entitled to consider himself “one up” on Hope in the -matter of spirit photographs. - -Briefly, Mr. Bush laid a trap for Hope by writing to the latter under -an assumed name and enclosing a photograph of a living person which he -represented as that of his deceased son. Hope returned the photograph -and gave Mr. Bush an appointment for a _séance_, which he attended, -still under his assumed name (Wood). He duly received an “extra” -in the form of the face portrayed in the photograph which he had -sent,[13] together with a “psychograph” beginning “Dear friend Wood”! -Any reasonable person will say that Mr. Bush has proved his case, that -he laid a trap for Hope and that Hope fell into it as completely as -possible. But an apologetic will doubtless be forthcoming from those to -whom Hope’s integrity is a cardinal article of faith. - -Mr. Bush appears, I may add, to be almost wholly ignorant of fraudulent -methods, but he has successfully made good his deficiency in this case -by the exercise of a little diplomacy. - -Finally, I must touch on certain articles which have recently appeared -in the well-known spiritualist paper, _Light_. It is with considerable -reluctance that I do so, partly because the candid expression of my -opinion cannot fail to bring me into sharp conflict with a number of -people whom I respect and with whom I would much prefer to remain in -harmony, and partly because exigencies of space compel me to adopt a -brief and almost dogmatic mode of treatment which is likely to provoke -accusations of superficiality and prejudice. To thrash the matter -out thoroughly would necessitate an interminable discussion to which -circumstances do not lend themselves and which would certainly be -fruitless. - -For there is an attitude of resolute credulity which is quite proof -against reason. I do not for a moment suggest that spiritualists -enjoy a monopoly of this quality; they do not, for it is equally to -be found in other quarters, among materialistic scientists and party -politicians, for example, who constantly ignore the plain implications -of evidence if the latter happens to conflict with their cherished -beliefs. - -But however hopeless the task may be, it seems none the less to be a -duty to protest from time to time against this state of mind, of which -several striking examples are to be found in the articles in question. - -The conviction of the genuineness of spirit photographs is a conviction -which is founded on purely negative evidence (namely, that on very -many occasions no fraud has been actually discovered), and held -in the face of definite positive evidence (namely, the occasional -actual discovery of fraud, as by Mr. Bush). But once formed it seems -impossible to shake it, and just as always happens when emotion rather -than reason is responsible for an opinion, every adverse indication is -distorted into an additional corroboration. Just as a lover distorts -the faults of his mistress into virtues--frivolity being regarded -as gaiety, dulness as profundity and intransigeance as strength of -mind--so the plain indications of fraud which leap to the eyes of the -unbiassed student are gravely put forward as evidence of the wonderful -ways in which the spirits work. - -Thus in _Light_ for January 29th I find advanced as “most evidential” -the fact that whereas a plate which had been in the possession of the -medium for several days showed an “extra,” others, simultaneously -exposed, which had _not_ been in her possession, did not. (Note.--I -am well aware that the plates sent to the medium for “impregnation by -the psychic influence” were in a sealed packet which was certified -intact when returned. But as anyone who has studied the subject of -sealing knows, it is extremely difficult to devise a really fraud-proof -method. Certainly no ordinary arrangement of strings and knots is -reliable.)[14] Mr. Barlow, who writes the article, correctly argues -that this result indicates that the lens of the camera used “had -nothing to do with the formation of the psychic images which appear to -have been printed on the photographic plate.” But instead of drawing -the obvious conclusion that, in spite of the sealing, the plate which -showed the “extra” had been tampered with, he adopts the view that a -“psychic transparency” is used, that this is at some period applied to -the sensitised surface of the plate by spirit agency and exposed to -spirit light! Comment is needless. - -This theory of the psychic transparency is very popular just now and -is being freely invoked to account for the obvious indications of -fraud which even a superficial study of spirit photographs reveals. It -is expounded at some length by the Rev. Chas. L. Tweedale (_Light_, -January 22nd, 1921), who carefully describes the various indications -which show clearly that the extra is often produced by a transparency -of _some_ kind, in terms which could be used almost without alteration -as proof of the fraudulent nature of the productions. Thus the edges -of the “psychic” transparency are said to be clearly visible on many -of Hope’s negatives, and we are told that “in some cases when ‘the -cotton-wool effect’ is introduced, this ring of nebulous whiteness -probably forms the edge of the transparency and ... may conceal its -use.” Most astonishing of all, perhaps, is this author’s credulity in -accepting as genuine a spirit photograph showing two portraits of the -late Mr. Stead of which one was an exact duplicate of the other, but -larger, and clearly showed the “screen effect” of small dots which one -can observe in any printed reproduction of a photograph.[15] - -Certainly there is ample evidence to show that some kind of -transparency is frequently used in the production of extras (_Cf._ p. -18 above), especially by Hope, but there seems no reason to suppose -that it is in any way “psychic.” On the contrary, a friend of mine who -enjoyed the privilege of a sitting with this artist not long ago tells -me that when he went to focus the camera (as one is frequently invited -to do), he clearly saw a wholly gratuitous face already projected -on the ground-glass! Now either there was some kind of an objective -apparition present in the camera’s field of view which reflected light -which only became visible after passing through the lens (which is -absurd), or there was a transparency of some kind between the lens and -the ground-glass. Of course it _may_ have been a psychic transparency -born before its time--one cannot possibly say definitely that it was -not, but the more mundane inference seems very much the more probable. -In fact, all this talk of The Problems of Psychic Photography is no -more than an orgy of hypothetising from a mass of utterly unreliable -data. - -If only believers in spirit photographs would take the trouble to learn -a little more about fraud and tighten up their control accordingly, -instead of inventing strange hypotheses to bolster up their imperfect -observations, we should hear less of photographic mediums and fewer -people would be duped in this deplorable fashion. - - - - -IX.--REAL TEST CONDITIONS - -(W. WHATELY SMITH) - - -To the last sentence of the preceding section someone will probably -retort, “If only critics would stop talking about fraud and examine -the phenomena at first hand, they would be convinced and we should -have a chance of getting on with the war and finding out all sorts -of interesting things.” It is not really a fair retort, because it -is always perfectly legitimate to point out sources of error in any -experimental work without being called upon to repeat the faulty -experiments oneself. But although all the evidence seems to me to point -one way, I freely admit that I may be wrong and that genuine spirit -photographs may be produced. If so, I should very much like to be -able to convince myself of the fact and to give the utmost publicity -in my power to any positive results I might obtain. But it is no use -my attempting to do so under the conditions which normally obtain at -a photographic _séance_. I know, to be sure, a certain amount about -fraudulent methods, and might, perhaps, be not quite so easy a prey as -others who know less. But I am not so conceited as to flatter myself -for a moment that I am a match for a really competent trickster. I -know just enough to realise how very great an advantage the latter -always has and how hopeless it is for any but the very elect to pit -themselves against him. I do not imagine, as apparently do many worthy -spiritualists who do not even know the first word about fraud, that -my not extraordinary powers of observation are a match for the adroit -and experienced medium, and I would no more back myself to spot fraud -every time it was tried than I would back myself to win money off a -cardsharper! - -If one were allowed _real_ test conditions, it would be quite another -matter. But one is not. One is allowed to watch--when one’s attention -is not distracted by some natural-seeming incident; one is allowed to -perform for oneself all kinds of operations which are quite irrelevant -to the _modus operandi_ of the trick; one is allowed to bring, if -not always to use, one’s own plates. But as already pointed out, the -loopholes left for fraud are so numerous that it is vain to hope to -guard against them all. In fact, the most suspicious feature about the -whole of psychic photography is the fact that a procedure is insisted -on which _must_ give these innumerable loopholes and the obvious “safe” -procedure is never, so far as I know, allowed at all. - -If the account of fraudulent methods given above is referred to again, -it will be seen that of the twenty-two varieties there noted, no less -than eighteen depend on either (_a_) the use of the medium’s faked -camera or slides, or (_b_) the fact that the plates are loaded into -slides, the slides placed in the camera, the plates removed from the -slides and also developed “on the premises.” The only methods to -which this does not apply are the first of all and those involving -preparation of the studio or dark-room and noted in Group II., Section -A, to which might possibly be added the X-ray method. These three -last can easily be eliminated by working in one’s own or a “neutral” -studio, while the former eighteen could all be prevented by using the -investigator’s own magazine or roll-film camera, loading it before the -_séance_, taking it away immediately afterwards, and developing the -plates in private without the medium. - -I may very well be wrong, there may very well be methods which I do -not know and cannot imagine which would get round even this degree -of control, but I am inclined to think that this procedure would -be “fraud-proof.” Nothing less rigorous can be so, at any rate for -a single-handed investigator, and even if several were present no -confidence could be felt in the results unless (_a_) they were well -versed in fraud, (_b_) they had planned and rehearsed everything in -advance, (_c_) the medium were completely docile and willing to keep -right away from the plates at the critical moments, and (_d_) the -studio were known to be unprepared. - -I shall probably be told that the conditions mentioned above as being -apparently fraud-proof would automatically inhibit the phenomena as -would insistence on full light in the case of telekinesis. I am well -aware that many attempts to lay down test conditions in the past have -rightly met with this retort; but apart from the fact that _if_ the -phenomena are such that real test conditions can never be applied then -their genuineness can obviously never be established, I honestly cannot -see that there is any essential difference between the conditions I -suggest and those under which photographic phenomena _ostensibly_ take -place. - -If and when these simple conditions are allowed (the plates being -bought, of course, under circumstances which prevent collaboration by -the vendor), I shall be prepared to admit that the scent is getting -warm and that there may be something in spirit photographs after all. -Until then I must reluctantly maintain my view that they are the most -obviously fraudulent of all spiritualistic phenomena. - - * * * * * - -In conclusion we must confess that we have little hope of influencing -convinced believers by the preceding discussion. It is just possible -that here and there someone may realise that there is more scope for -trickery than there appeared to be at first sight, may scrutinise -procedure more carefully, may have the courage to distrust his own -powers of observation, may even--if he is lucky--catch a swindler out. -But this is unlikely. “Once convinced always convinced” seems to be the -rule. “What matter if all appearances and all reasoning are against our -beliefs? Did not Satan put marine fossils on the tops of hills to shake -our faith in Genesis? Did not stupid spirits carelessly leave false -beards and dirty muslin in the pockets of Williams and Rita--those -wonderful materialising mediums? Do not even the greatest psychics -resort to fraud when the Power fails?” - -No! Some people’s faith could never be shaken, not though we gave them -two hundred methods of fraud instead of twenty and not though a medium -were exposed a hundred times instead of but twice or thrice. - -But it may be that there are some who still have doubts and still halt -between two opinions. We hope that to these this paper may be of some -service as a contribution to the evidence available for their study. It -is also possible that it may in some measure act as an antidote to the -unreliable matter which is now so freely disseminated and which does so -much to bring Psychical Research and the better aspects of Spiritualism -into undeserved disrepute. - - - - - PRINTED BY THE - ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED, - TIPTREE, ESSEX, ENGLAND. - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - - -[1] I am assuming, for the purposes of comparison, that these later -phenomena actually occur--a point on which I am doubtful. - -[2] I exclude, of course, the very rare instances when photographs -of apparently supernormal origin have been obtained by amateurs of -unimpeachable integrity. I have yet to meet with a convincing case of -this kind. - -[3] Hereward Carrington, _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_. - -[4] _E.g._, to verify the “speed” of the plates. - -[5] _Cf._ trick slates used by slate-writing mediums. - -[6] This method will probably be scoffed at by some enthusiasts, but -it should be remembered that the simpler and more audacious methods -are the most likely to succeed, just because they are so obvious that -no one thinks of them. The sitter _must_ keep still and _must_ look -at the camera for some seconds while the exposure is being made, and -provided the accomplice is revealed by a carefully silenced mechanism -the chances of detection are negligible. - -[7] _E.g._, on the back with a diamond. - -[8] This may have been true, but was certainly not the principal reason -that I had to have the plate destroyed! I had over-exposed my spirit, -and I feared this plate would not bear closer inspection (I did not -sign the minutes of the first three meetings). - -[9] Unless, of course, there happens to be in the room a source of -ultra-violet rays other than the ordinary illuminant by which the -photograph is taken but which does not emit visible light rays. This -possibility may be disregarded for practical purposes. - -[10] _Note._--Some believers in spirit photography will dissent -from this view on the ground that experiment has shown that when a -photograph is taken the extra is not produced by the reflection of -ultra-violet light from an “object” (partial materialisation or the -like) but by the use of a “psychic transparency” applied to the plate -and exposed to “spirit” light. With the first part of this we cordially -agree, but the hypothesis of the “psychic transparency” seems to be -no more than a resolute attempt to evade the plainest indications of -fraud. _Vide infra._--[ED., P.R.Q.] - -[11] Readers should refer to Mr. E. J. Dingwall’s interesting article -on “Magic and Mediumship” in the January number of the _Psychic -Research Quarterly_. - -[12] Cf. pp. 11-12. - -[13] _Note._--This is a case where recognition _is_ possible because -(_a_) the “extra” and the original portrait can be laid side by side -and directly compared, (_b_) careful measurements can be made of the -facial angle and other characteristics, and (_c_) independent witnesses -in any desired number can make the comparison for themselves. - -[14] Similar observations apply to “The Hunter Test” (_Light_, Feb. -_19th_.) - -[15] _Cf._ p. 30 above. - - - - -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES: - - - Italicized text is surrounded by underscores: _italics_. - - Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. - - Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized. - - Archaic or alternate spellings have been retained. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Case Against Spirit Photographs, by -C. Vincent Patrick and W. Whately Smith - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS *** - -***** This file should be named 61352-0.txt or 61352-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/1/3/5/61352/ - -Produced by deaurider, David E. Brown, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |