summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/61352-h/61352-h.htm
blob: f48493f3055b737f22f6515f4431b9807ec28b1a (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Case Against Spirit Photographs, by C. Vincent Patrick and W. Whately Smith.
    </title>
<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

    h1,h2,h3 {
    text-align: center;
    clear: both;
}

p {
    margin-top: .51em;
    text-align: justify;
    margin-bottom: .49em;
}

div.chapter {page-break-before: always;}
h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;}

div.titlepage {text-align: center; page-break-before: always; page-break-after: always;}
div.titlepage p {text-align: center; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.5; margin-top: 2em;}

hr {
    width: 33%;
    margin-top: 2em;
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    margin-left: 33.5%;
    margin-right: 33.5%;
    clear: both;
}

hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
hr.tb   {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;}



table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
}

    .tdi      {text-align: left; text-indent: 3em;}
    .tdr      {text-align: right;}
    .tdc      {text-align: center;}

.pagenum {
    position: absolute;
    left: 92%;
    font-size: smaller;
    text-align: right;
}



.center   {text-align: center;}



.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}



.large {font-size: 125%;}
.xlarge {font-size: 140%;}
.ph1 {text-align: center; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;}
.ph2 {text-align: center; font-size: large; font-weight: bold;}


.figcenter   {
    margin: auto;
    text-align: center;
}

p.drop-cap {
  text-indent: -0.2em;
}


p.drop-cap:first-letter
{
  float: left;
  margin: 0.15em 0.1em 0em 0em;
  font-size: 250%;
  line-height:0.55em;
  text-indent: 0em;
}
@media handheld
{
  p.drop-cap {
    text-indent: 0em;
  }
  p.drop-cap:first-letter
  {
    float: none;
    margin: 0;
    font-size: 100%;
  }
}


.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}

.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: super;
    font-size: .8em;
    text-decoration:
    none;
}



.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
    color: black;
     font-size:smaller;
     padding:0.5em;
     margin-bottom:5em;
     font-family:sans-serif, serif; }
    </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 61352 ***</div>

<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="" /></div>
<hr class="chap" />
<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i_title.jpg" alt="" /></div>
<hr class="tb" />

<div class="titlepage">
<h1>
<small>THE CASE AGAINST</small><br />
SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS</h1>


<p><span class="smcap">By</span><br />

<span class="xlarge">C. VINCENT PATRICK</span><br />

AND<br />

<span class="xlarge">W. WHATELY SMITH</span></p>


<p><span class="large">LONDON:</span><br />
<span class="large">KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER &amp; CO., <span class="smcap">Ltd.</span></span><br />
BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74, CARTER LANE, E.C.<br />
1921</p>
</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
CONTENTS</h2></div>

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" summary="table">


<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="tdr"><small>PAGE</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>I.</small></td><td>   <span class="smcap">Introductory</span> (W. Whately Smith)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_5">      5</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>II.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">Historical</span> (C. Vincent Patrick)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">      7</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>III.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">Fraud</span> (C. Vincent Patrick)</td></tr>

<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="tdi">A. <i>General Methods</i></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">     15</a></td></tr>

<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="tdi">B. <i>Experiments in Fraud</i></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_21">      21</a></td></tr>

<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="tdi">C. <i>Internal Evidence of Fraud</i></td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_27">      27</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>IV.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">Spirit Photographs Obtained by Amateurs</span>  (C. Vincent Patrick)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_31">      31</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>V.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">The Fairy Photographs</span> (C. Vincent Patrick)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_33">      33</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>VI.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">The Reliability of Witnesses</span> (W. Whately Smith)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_36">      36</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>VII.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">The Value of Recognition</span> (W. Whately Smith)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_39">      39</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>VIII.</small></td><td>    <span class="smcap">Recent Literature</span> (W. Whately Smith)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_42">      42</a></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr"><small>IX.</small></td><td>   <span class="smcap">Real Test Conditions</span> (W. Whately Smith)</td><td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_45">      45</a></td></tr>
</table>

<hr class="chap" />


<div class="chapter">
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>







<p class="ph1">THE CASE AGAINST SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS<br />



<span class="smcap">By C. Vincent Patrick and W. Whately Smith.</span></p>




<h2 class="nobreak">I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Introductory</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">W. Whately Smith</span>)</b></p>


<p class="drop-cap">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&mdash;or
even a fraction&mdash;of what is claimed be true the phenomenon must
be of unique value from the point of view of strictly scientific research.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;physical&#8221;
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&mdash;a procedure
which is not possible with table-levitations, materialisations, or direct-voice
phenomena.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>IF</i> one were allowed to take the necessary
precautions. But one is not, and under the conditions which actually
prevail at photographic <i>séances</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>
at every stage there is opportunity for the astute trickster to produce
the effect he desires. Part of the proceedings, moreover, <i>must</i> take
place in a light which is inimical to accurate observation, and it should
not be forgotten that, as a rule, the &#8220;sitter&#8221; is immobilised and placed
<i>hors de combat</i>, so to speak, for an appreciable period while his photograph
is being taken. (The significance of this will appear later.)</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>if and when adequate evidence is forthcoming</i>.
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
<i>a priori</i> 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 &#8220;spirits,&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>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. <i>A priori</i> considerations of this kind have their
legitimate place, but it is on the relevant facts that our final decision
must be based. On <i>all</i> the relevant facts. This is the important point.
It may be a &#8220;fact&#8221; that some great wise and eminent man states that
he took such and such precautions, &#8220;never let the plates (or slides)
out of his sight,&#8221; 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>One does not wish to be too dogmatic, there <i>may</i> be such things as
<i>bona fide</i> spirit photographs, and when satisfactory evidence is forthcoming
one will be very pleased indeed to make the <i>amende honorable</i>
and acknowledge one&#8217;s fault.</p>

<p>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.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
II.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Historical</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">C. Vincent Patrick</span>)</b></p>


<p>During the last half-century&mdash;that is, practically since the introduction
of the photographic plate&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Various types of such photographic abnormalities must be distinguished:</p>

<p>1. &#8220;Thought photographs,&#8221; &#8220;dream photographs,&#8221; photographs
of &#8220;psychic auras,&#8221; and the like. These are rarely distinct, and as
they have little bearing on spirit phenomena they will not be discussed
here.</p>

<p>2. Photographs taken of a visible spirit form. Such have been
taken at <i>séances</i>: <i>e.g.</i>, by Sir William Crookes, of Miss King&#8217;s
&#8220;control,&#8221; 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 &#8220;haunted house&#8221;&mdash;provided that
one can be found which bears investigation.</p>

<p>3. The more usual type of &#8220;spirit photograph,&#8221; with which this
article is chiefly concerned. Here a plate is exposed upon a sitter or
sitters, and on development an &#8220;extra&#8221; 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.</p>



<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>4. In some cases the plates are not exposed in a camera, but
merely submitted to &#8220;spirit influences,&#8221; which results in more or less
distinct faces, or even screeds of writing, appearing on development.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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: &#8220;This photograph was taken of myself, by myself, on Sunday,
when there was not a living soul in the room beside myself&mdash;&#8216;so to
speak.&#8217; The form on my right I recognise as my cousin who passed
away about twelve years since.&mdash;<span class="smcap">W. H. Mumler.</span>&#8221;</p>

<p>Not unexpectedly, other people soon wanted their dead relatives to
be photographed with them, and Mumler&#8217;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 <i>Spiritual Magazine</i> for 1863:</p>

<p>&#8220;The packet of three photos may be obtained from Mr. Pitman,
20, Paternoster Row; price 3s. 6d.&#8221;</p>

<p>Very few copies of Mumler&#8217;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 &#8220;test conditions&#8221; to eliminate this
possibility. This they did to their own satisfaction, and obtained spirit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>
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&#8217;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&#8217;s hands.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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 &#8220;thought his
(medium&#8217;s) influence had not been sufficiently long in contact with the
chemicals.&#8221; This one can readily believe.</p>

<p>He presently became bolder, and his spirits&#8217; features became more
distinct. This led to a bad mistake, for in February 1863 the
sceptics were able to show that one of Mumler&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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&#8217;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>
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 &#8220;a fine spirit photo&#8221; and observing
&#8220;no suspicious circumstances.&#8221; 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&#8217;s photographs not only did the background appear through
the extra&mdash;as might perhaps be expected with an ethereal spirit&mdash;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 <i>Spiritualist</i>. In fact, on closer inspection,
Hudson&#8217;s pictures were found to be very poor frauds indeed; some of
the &#8220;spirits&#8221; were stated by the critics to be Hudson himself dressed
up!</p>

<p>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 <i>all</i> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>séances</i>, 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 <i>séances</i> were mostly blanks. Josty discovered
himself to be possessed of clairvoyant faculties, and declared that he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>
saw spirits at the <i>séances</i>; 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&#8217;s integrity was never challenged; but it has been suggested
that Josty produced the smudges on the plates&mdash;as he very easily
could do&mdash;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&#8217;s photographs, as
to be chiefly of value as negative evidence.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&#8217;s studio in Paris.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>
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&mdash;and much annoyed&mdash;father-in-law.
Buguet was convicted and sentenced to twelve months&#8217; 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.</p>

<p>At the time of Buguet&#8217;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&mdash;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 <i>erect</i> 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&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>,
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>
clairvoyant power, and claimed actually to <i>see</i> 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&#8217; statements must therefore
have been false.</p>

<p>On one occasion, however, his spirit extra <i>did</i> appear upside down.
The plate&mdash;supplied by the sitter&mdash;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&#8217; reputation that the company
present were able to affirm that the plate on which this occurred
&#8220;had never been in Parkes&#8217; possession before&#8221;!</p>

<p>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 <i>Daily Mail</i>, 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 &#8220;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.&#8221; 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 &#8220;the photographers were not
in a proper frame of mind&#8221; to obtain results.</p>

<p>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&#8217;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>
lapel of the sitter&#8217;s coat! An amusing account is given by Hereward
Carrington<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> of a visit to a medium of this type at Lily Dale in 1907:</p>

<p>&#8220;On arriving at Mr. Norman&#8217;s house I was obliged to wait for some
time on the verandah, as he was busy inside the house with a &#8216;customer.&#8217;
When he came out I was invited to sit &#8216;just where I was,&#8217; 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.</p>

<p>&#8220;Next we went indoors. The plate slide was reversed, and the
room placed in total darkness. I was informed that &#8216;the spirits would
materialise their own light,&#8217; and that none was needed. This was
&#8216;where the mediumship came in.&#8217; The second plate was then exposed,
the cap being removed about a minute. During that minute I was
informed that I &#8216;should sit for physical manifestations,&#8217; and the
medium asked me if I had ever sat to a spirit photographer before....</p>

<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>

<p>A new method of procedure in taking spirit photographs was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>
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&mdash;who was investigating Wyllie&#8217;s methods&mdash;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 &#8220;extra&#8221; 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&#8217;s
mediumship no results could be obtained.</p>

<p>Another modern development, which has been largely exploited
by Hope, of Crewe, is the &#8220;psychograph.&#8221; For this, again, no camera
is used; a plate is carefully wrapped up, usually sealed, and submitted
to the medium&#8217;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&mdash;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?</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
<span class="smcap">III.&mdash;Fraud</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">C. Vincent Patrick</span>)</b></p>


<h3><i>A.&mdash;General Methods</i></h3>

<p>The taking of spirit photographs under so-called &#8220;test conditions&#8221;
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>
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
&#8220;see through&#8221; 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&#8217; 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.</p>

<p><i>Group I.</i>&mdash;<i>Methods Involving Double Exposure and Substitution</i>,
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:</p>

<p>(<i>a</i>).&mdash;Methods involving substitution of the entire packet:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;turning
to the light to read the label&mdash;and passes them back with the
remark that they are the right kind&mdash;which now they certainly are,
for the sitter&#8217;s original packet is in the medium&#8217;s breast-pocket.</p>

<p>3. The sitter may perhaps autograph or otherwise mark his packet<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>
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,<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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&#8217;s eyes have become accustomed
to it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(<i>b</i>).&mdash;Methods involving substitution of the faked plate only, after
removal from the original packet:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>2. A trick dark-slide may be used, having a secret partition, and
already containing the faked plate.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>séance</i> a few days later he will probably have
entirely forgotten that the plates were not all loaded at once.</p>

<p>Substitution can, of course, be effected in many other ways; every
medium probably has his favourite method which he chiefly practises.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>
at all difficult to forge his signature on a prepared plate and substitute
this for one of the marked plates.</p>

<p><i>Group II.</i>&mdash;<i>Other Methods</i>, conveniently classified as follows:</p>

<p>(<i>a</i>).&mdash;Methods involving preparation of the studio:</p>

<p>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 &#8220;spirit face&#8221; 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.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>

<p>2. It has been suggested that a mirror, or sheet of glass&mdash;on the
principle of &#8220;Pepper&#8217;s Ghost&#8221;&mdash;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.</p>

<p>3. The extra is frequently sketched on the background&mdash;especially
if this be a plain one&mdash;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&#8217;s spirits appear to have been
produced in this manner.</p>

<p>(<i>b</i>).&mdash;Methods involving the camera and dark slides:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;depending, of course, upon the
amount of radio-active substance used.</p>

<p>(<i>c</i>).&mdash;Dark-room methods.</p>

<p>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&#8217;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.</p>

<p>2. Faces may be sketched in chemicals on small pieces of card, or
even on the medium&#8217;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
man&oelig;uvre it that the plate is laid face down on a prepared surface of
the dark-room work-bench, probably while it is being marked<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>; 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!</p>

<p>3. Mr. Bush, in his recent pamphlet, &#8220;Spirit Photography Exposed,&#8221;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>
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&#8217;s results are certainly
not produced in this way, however, as is implied by Mr. Bush.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>5. With a pinhole in the dark-room lamp, and a transparency
inside&mdash;a perfectly practicable arrangement with some of the more
complicated dark-room &#8220;safe-lights,&#8221;&mdash;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 &#8220;switch on&#8221; for a moment while the sitter&#8217;s attention
is engaged with his marking.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p>


<h3><i>B.&mdash;Experiments in Fraud</i></h3>

<p>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 &#8220;test conditions&#8221; 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&mdash;or more fortunate&mdash;and many people therefore
argue that they are not all to be tarred with the same brush; it is
pointed out that spirit extras <i>have</i> been obtained under the strictest
conditions imposed by acute observers who have found nothing suspicious
of trickery.</p>

<p>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 <i>séances</i>, held in my rooms at Cambridge in the summer of
1919. At four of these <i>séances</i> 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 &#8220;fourth year&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;pulling their legs.&#8221; 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 &#8220;bowl me out&#8221;;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>
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&mdash;or as
much of it as I wished them to see&mdash;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 <i>séances</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>&#8220;On the following Sunday, July 20th, at 8.15, there met in
Patrick&#8217;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>
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&#8217;s movements.
The four photographs were taken in rapid succession.</p>

<p>&#8220;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 &#8216;extra&#8217; 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&#8217;s head, and to his right. The &#8220;spirit&#8221;
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 &#8216;...ly S.
Simmonds.&#8217; Neither face, name, nor writing were recognised by any
one, either at the time or subsequently.</p>

<p>&#8220;The three other photographs were fair portraits, but showed no
abnormality.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;At this meeting there were present A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, besides
the photographer.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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&mdash;which had previously been examined&mdash;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>i.e.</i>, 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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>
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&#8217;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.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;In conclusion, we, the undersigned, declare this to be an accurate
account of the occurrences to the best of each man&#8217;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.&#8221;</p></blockquote>

<p>This is followed by their seven signatures. E added afterwards a
paragraph of his own as to the interpretation of the word &#8220;accomplice.&#8221;
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&mdash;for I never had one in the room; he may be a
medium for aught I know&mdash;but I should doubt it.</p>

<p>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
<i>they</i> were not playing any tricks! My request was granted. I now
quote the report of the meeting:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>&#8220;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&mdash;which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>
had been previously examined by several of those
present&mdash;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>

<p>[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.]</p>

<p>&#8220;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&#8217;s head.</p>

<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p></blockquote>

<p>Then follow the signatures. As they made <i>me</i> sign the report on
this meeting, I had to see that it was worded rather carefully, particularly
the last paragraph; the report <i>was</i> true, so far as it went;
and the explanation of the result <i>was</i> rather elaborate; so I felt I
could safely sign it.</p>

<p>I did not hold another photographic <i>séance</i>, but being emboldened
by success, introduced at the next meeting &#8220;a medium from London.&#8221;
(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 &#8220;the balance of the circle&#8221;
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&#8217;s Egyptian control, Nemetra, gave us
wonderful accounts of life in Memphis in the days of the Pharaohs&mdash;accounts
which certainly made up in picturesque detail for anything
they lacked in historical accuracy.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>
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!</p>

<p>By this time the results of the photographic <i>séances</i> had become
pretty generally known, and the undesired notoriety brought so many
requests to allow other visitors at the <i>séances</i> 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 <i>how</i> the photographs had been done, particularly when
I told them that there was no accomplice among them.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;Methods of Fraud.&#8221;</p>

<p>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&mdash;not once, but
several times over&mdash;how much easier will it not be for the professional
spirit photographer, who makes such frauds his business?</p>


<h3><i>C.&mdash;Internal Evidence of Fraud</i></h3>

<p>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 &#8220;spirit influences&#8221;&mdash;whatever
these may be&mdash;never being exposed in a camera at all, and on development
shows faces or writing, I personally can only find one explanation&mdash;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&#8217;s story of photographing
some writing on the side of the &#8220;Great Eastern,&#8221; years after
it had been painted out and rendered invisible.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>
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 &#8220;light rays,&#8221; 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>i.e.</i>, 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.</p>

<p>Now in order to photograph an invisible object we require rays that
(<i>a</i>) affect a photographic plate; (<i>b</i>) are capable of refraction by a lens;
and (<i>c</i>) are invisible to the eye. The properties of the principal known
rays concerned may be summarised as follows:</p>

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" summary="table">

<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td><i>Effect on Plates</i> </td><td>  <i>Refracted by Lenses</i>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </td><td>    <i>Visibility</i></td></tr>

<tr><td><i>Infra-red (heat) rays</i> &nbsp; </td><td>     v. slight </td><td class="tdc">              Yes </td><td class="tdc">              No</td></tr>
<tr><td><i>Light rays</i></td><td>                affected </td><td class="tdc">               Yes  </td><td class="tdc">               Yes</td></tr>
<tr><td><i>Ultra-violet rays</i></td><td>         strongly affected  &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td class="tdc">      Yes  </td><td class="tdc">               No</td></tr>
<tr><td><i>X-rays</i> </td><td>                   affected </td><td class="tdc">               No   </td><td class="tdc">               No</td></tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
removal of the ultra-violet rays only, it will of course appear as such
in the photograph, but be invisible to the eye.</p>

<p>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 <i>séances</i> 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 &#8220;spirit&#8221;; hence when the sitters were photographed
on the same plate there was a double background, which necessitated
a rapid destruction of the plate!</p>

<p>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 <i>can</i> only be frauds.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p>

<p>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&#8217;s productions were recently published
in a monthly magazine, and alongside them life portraits of the
&#8220;spirits,&#8221; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;spirit&#8217;s background&#8221;
is usually fainter than the &#8220;sitter&#8217;s background,&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>Attempts are sometimes made to obliterate other tell-tale marks,
such as a piece of a spirit&#8217;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 <i>are</i> like this. One spirit extra I have seen has two hands, but
both appear to be left hands&mdash;evidently a left-handed spirit.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>can</i> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>
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.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
IV.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Spirit Photographs Obtained by Amateurs</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">C. Vincent Patrick</span>)</b></p>


<p>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 <i>Journal of
the S.P.R.</i>, and aroused much discussion and criticism.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>
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&#8217;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!</p>

<p>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&#8217; 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 <i>did</i>
actually so enter the room. In any case it was a remarkable coincidence,
but there is no proof of it being anything more.</p>

<p>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&#8217;s who had recently died&mdash;&#8220;a handsome,
melancholy lad of eighteen.&#8221; Another critic thought that the face
was that &#8220;of a woman of thirty&#8221;; 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>J.S.P.R.</i> 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 &#8220;extra&#8221; has been
obtained in the absence of a professional medium, and where the plate
can be produced, I should be very grateful for particulars.</p>

<p>Experiments have on several occasions been made by amateurs,
deliberately trying for spirit extras, and exposing scores of plates,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>
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&mdash;if
somewhat gruesome&mdash;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.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
V.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Fairy Photographs</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">C. Vincent Patrick</span>)</b></p>


<p>The so-called &#8220;Fairy Photographs&#8221; recently published by Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle and Mr. E. L. Gardner do not strictly come
under the heading of &#8220;spirit photographs,&#8221; but may not inappropriately
be considered here. We have no evidence of the conditions under
which they were taken; as Sir Arthur explains, such &#8220;rare results
must be obtained when and how they can.&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>&#8220;<i>Iris and the Dancing Gnome</i>&#8221; shows some very strange lighting.
Examining Iris&#8217;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&#8217;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 <i>left</i>; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>This gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are
told, at four o&#8217;clock on a September afternoon which was not sunny;
an exposure of <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>50</sub>th of a second was given on &#8220;Imperial Rapid&#8221; plates,
using a &#8220;Midg&#8221; quarter-plate camera. With the largest stop in this
camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, <i>i.e.</i>, <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>5</sub>th of a second,
would be needed to give a fair negative under these conditions; <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>2</sub>
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.</p>

<p>The gnome&#8217;s proportions are certainly not human, as are the
fairies&#8217; in the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar
&#8220;Brownie&#8221; of the Kodak advertisements. Though stepping up onto
the girl&#8217;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&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph&mdash;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 &#8220;other photographs
were attempted, but proved partial failures, and plates were
not kept.&#8221; Surely such extraordinary photographs, even if partial
failures, would be kept&mdash;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.</p>

<p>&#8220;<i>Alice and the Fairies</i>&#8221; 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>
points out that this is accounted for by the &#8220;fairy psychoplasm&#8221;
having a &#8220;faint luminosity of its own.&#8221; To appear brighter than
the sitter, photographed by <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>50</sub>th of a second exposure at three o&#8217;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 &#8220;fairies&#8221; 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:</p>

<p>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&#8217;s hair, against a similar background.</p>

<p>2. The same fairy&#8217;s forearm is much brighter than Alice&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>4. With the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which
appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, <i>every part of the fairy figures
is in front of the sitter and background</i>. 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.</p>

<p>5. One would have expected to see some blurring due to movement,
in the fairies&#8217; wings and feet at any rate, with a <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>50</sub>th of a second
exposure at a distance of four feet. None is visible in the reproduction.</p>

<p>The two more recently published photographs are very similar to
&#8220;Alice and the Fairies,&#8221; and the same general criticisms apply.
&#8220;<i>Alice and the Leaping Fairy</i>&#8221; 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.</p>



<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>&#8220;<i>Iris and Fairy with Harebells</i>&#8221; shows similar features. Notice,
again, the different lighting of fairy and Iris; the hard outline of fairy&#8217;s
hair, so unlike Iris&#8217;s in the same print; and the careful way the fairy
has been placed to secure a well-balanced picture&mdash;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.</p>

<p>An artist to whom I have shown this photograph, together with the
full-length photographs of &#8220;Iris&#8221; published with the earlier article
in the <i>Strand Magazine</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">
VI.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Reliability of Witnesses</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">W. Whately Smith</span>)</b></p>


<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;s
statements, the Psalmist&#8217;s dictum that &#8220;all men are liars&#8221; should be
graven on the heart of every psychical researcher, especially in the case
of those who attempt to investigate &#8220;physical&#8221; phenomena.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>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 &#8220;stage effects,&#8221; but rather with small
matters like the substitution of one plate for another or the distraction
of the sitter&#8217;s attention while the required extra is impressed upon the
plate.) The conjurer&#8217;s audience <i>knows</i> that it is a trick; the medium&#8217;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
&#8220;something in it&#8221; after all. This is all to the medium&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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
&#8220;the evidence of our senses.&#8221; No amount of general considerations of
this kind will deter the credulous from accepting the <i>prima facie</i>
indications of a &#8220;successful&#8221; <i>séance</i>. The only hope of preserving
the public from the depredations of these swindlers is to show that the
&#8220;evidence of the senses&#8221; is not worth twopence unless backed by
special knowledge of the relevant technique.</p>

<p>One would think that anyone who reads Mr. Patrick&#8217;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 <i>séance</i> which he has attended.
But there may be some who will still say: &#8220;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>I</i> went to such-and-such a medium
I am <i>certain</i> that the plates were never out of my possession, that he
never had a chance of touching them....&#8221; and so forth.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;medium&#8221; and yet to produce a perfectly good extra.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>
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
&#8220;Slate-writing,&#8221; which are fully described in the <i>Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research</i>, vols. iv. and viii.</p>

<p>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&mdash;such as Mr. Patrick
adopted in his experimental work!</p>

<p>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 &#8220;slate-writing&#8221;
phenomena. In this he succeeded to admiration&mdash;so much
so that certain spiritualists characteristically insisted that he <i>must</i> be
a very powerful &#8220;medium&#8221;! 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.</p>

<p>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&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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
<i>séances</i> so that my readers could see how very similar the
circumstances are.</p>

<p>But I must content myself with pointing out that whereas in the
one case everything turned on whether the &#8220;medium&#8221; had any
chance of substituting or tampering with <i>slates</i>, so in the other it is a
matter of whether there has been any chance of substituting or tampering
with <i>plates</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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,
&#8220;Go home and invest a few shillings in the <i>Proceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> vols. iv. and viii.&mdash;it will be more profitable than the
same amount laid out in photographic <i>séances</i>&mdash;and when you have
carefully read their account of the Davey experiments in conjunction
with Mr. Patrick&#8217;s paper, see whether your confidence in spirit photographs
is as strong as ever!&#8221;</p>

<p>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&mdash;however
acute in other respects&mdash;are utterly unreliable, the fraudulent
medium will flourish and the unsuspecting public will be robbed and
deceived.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">VII.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Value of Recognition</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">W. Whately Smith</span>)</b></p>


<p>Believers in spirit photographs generally consider that they are
playing their trump card when they point out that thousands of
&#8220;extras&#8221; 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 &#8220;extra&#8221; was <i>unmistakably</i> recognisable as a portrait of a deceased&mdash;or
even of a living&mdash;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.</p>

<p>There are two ways in which evidence based on recognition may
be defective.</p>

<p>First, the recognition may be perfectly well founded, but the
&#8220;extra&#8221; 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&#8217;s imagination.</p>

<p>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 <i>clientèle</i> 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 <i>séances</i>,
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>
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 &#8220;test&#8221; especially
desirable, I do not think that it is responsible for more than a small
percentage of the recognitions which are claimed.</p>

<p>By far the greater proportion appear to be due to the operation of
subjective factors which lead the sitter to &#8220;recognise unmistakably&#8221;
an extra which bears no more than a vague general resemblance to the
person whom it is claimed to represent.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If I had to summarise the whole of modern psychological doctrines
in one line I should quote the popular saying, &#8220;The wish is father to
the thought.&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;positive&#8221; results of
some kind, for positive results are always pleasanter and more satisfactory
than negative.</p>

<p>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 <i>comparison</i> between the object
(&#8220;extra&#8221;) 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.</p>

<p>This supposition is immensely strengthened by a consideration of
the actual material dealt with. I have seen a good many spirit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>
photographs, and I am sure that those who have seen more will agree
with me that the number which are clear enough to be <i>capable of
definite recognition at all</i> is extremely small. They are almost invariably
blurred, out-of-focus, indistinct things, frequently so covered
in &#8220;spirit drapery&#8221; 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 &#8220;unmistakably&#8221; recognised. And when it
comes to recognition being instantly claimed <i>from the negative</i> and before
a print is made&mdash;as in a case I heard of not long ago&mdash;one almost
gives up hope!</p>

<p>One need hardly point out that, although a medium who merely
trusts to luck will probably score a good proportion of &#8220;hits&#8221; by
ringing the changes on a few common types of face, he can greatly
increase this proportion by a little adroit &#8220;pumping&#8221; of the sitter
which will give him a guide to at least the general type of face expected,
thus enabling him to &#8220;deliver the goods,&#8221; at any rate approximately,
at the next <i>séance</i>.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;spotting&#8221; 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 &#8220;salient features&#8221;
which &#8220;leap to the eyes&#8221; 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 &#8220;beauty&#8221; is
emphatically &#8220;in the eye of the beholder.&#8221; As &#8220;M.A. (Oxon),&#8221; a
famous spiritualist and a believer in spirit photographs, well said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>&#8220;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 &#8216;my
spirit brother, dead seventeen years, as he would have been if he had ...&#8217; etc.&#8221;</p></blockquote>




<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>But, as usual, the empirical test of experience is the best. Considerations
such as those outlined above may be valuable in establishing
<i>a priori</i> probabilities, but it is far more important to ascertain
whether <i>as a matter of fact</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> The most striking
feature of the case, as he rightly points out, was the way in which
witnesses swore to having &#8220;unmistakably recognised&#8221; the extras
they obtained, <i>and stuck to their recognitions in spite of Buguet&#8217;s own
confession of fraud and his description of the methods employed</i>. 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?</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">VIII.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Recent Literature</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">W. Whately Smith</span>)</b></p>


<p>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 <i>Proceedings</i> of the American Society for Psychical
Research, vol. xiii., part <span class="smcap">II</span>, 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
&#8220;spirit&#8221; 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&#8217;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.</p>

<p>More important is Mr. Edward Bush&#8217;s &#8220;Spirit Photography
Exposed,&#8221; a small pamphlet published by the author as a contribution
to the &#8220;Nehushtan Crusade.&#8221; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>
expose dishonest mediums. This last object, at least, is admirable, and
Mr. Bush is certainly entitled to consider himself &#8220;one up&#8221; on Hope
in the matter of spirit photographs.</p>

<p>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 <i>séance</i>, which he
attended, still under his assumed name (Wood). He duly received an
&#8220;extra&#8221; in the form of the face portrayed in the photograph which
he had sent,<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> together with a &#8220;psychograph&#8221; beginning &#8220;Dear friend
Wood&#8221;! 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&#8217;s integrity is a cardinal article of
faith.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Finally, I must touch on certain articles which have recently
appeared in the well-known spiritualist paper, <i>Light</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The conviction of the genuineness of spirit photographs is a
conviction which is founded on purely negative evidence (namely, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>
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&mdash;frivolity being regarded
as gaiety, dulness as profundity and intransigeance as strength of
mind&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Thus in <i>Light</i> for January 29th I find advanced as &#8220;most evidential&#8221;
the fact that whereas a plate which had been in the possession of the
medium for several days showed an &#8220;extra,&#8221; others, simultaneously
exposed, which had <i>not</i> been in her possession, did not. (Note.&mdash;I
am well aware that the plates sent to the medium for &#8220;impregnation
by the psychic influence&#8221; 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.)<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> Mr. Barlow, who writes the article, correctly argues that
this result indicates that the lens of the camera used &#8220;had nothing to
do with the formation of the psychic images which appear to have been
printed on the photographic plate.&#8221; But instead of drawing the
obvious conclusion that, in spite of the sealing, the plate which showed
the &#8220;extra&#8221; had been tampered with, he adopts the view that a
&#8220;psychic transparency&#8221; 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.</p>

<p>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 (<i>Light</i>,
January 22nd, 1921), who carefully describes the various indications
which show clearly that the extra is often produced by a transparency
of <i>some</i> kind, in terms which could be used almost without alteration
as proof of the fraudulent nature of the productions. Thus the edges
of the &#8220;psychic&#8221; transparency are said to be clearly visible on many of
Hope&#8217;s negatives, and we are told that &#8220;in some cases when &#8216;the
cotton-wool effect&#8217; is introduced, this ring of nebulous whiteness
probably forms the edge of the transparency and ... may conceal
its use.&#8221; Most astonishing of all, perhaps, is this author&#8217;s credulity
in accepting as genuine a spirit photograph showing two portraits of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>
the late Mr. Stead of which one was an exact duplicate of the other,
but larger, and clearly showed the &#8220;screen effect&#8221; of small dots which
one can observe in any printed reproduction of a photograph.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>

<p>Certainly there is ample evidence to show that some kind of transparency
is frequently used in the production of extras (<i>Cf.</i> p. 18
above), especially by Hope, but there seems no reason to suppose that
it is in any way &#8220;psychic.&#8221; 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&#8217;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 <i>may</i> have been a psychic transparency
born before its time&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter">

<h2 class="nobreak">IX.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Real Test Conditions</span></h2></div>

<p class="center"><b>(<span class="smcap">W. Whately Smith</span>)</b></p>


<p>To the last sentence of the preceding section someone will probably
retort, &#8220;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.&#8221; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>
photographic <i>séance</i>. 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!</p>

<p>If one were allowed <i>real</i> test conditions, it would be quite another
matter. But one is not. One is allowed to watch&mdash;when one&#8217;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 <i>modus operandi</i> of the trick; one is allowed to bring, if
not always to use, one&#8217;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
<i>must</i> give these innumerable loopholes and the obvious &#8220;safe&#8221; procedure
is never, so far as I know, allowed at all.</p>

<p>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 (<i>a</i>) the use of the medium&#8217;s faked
camera or slides, or (<i>b</i>) the fact that the plates are loaded into slides,
the slides placed in the camera, the plates removed from the slides and
also developed &#8220;on the premises.&#8221; 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&#8217;s own or a &#8220;neutral&#8221; studio,
while the former eighteen could all be prevented by using the investigator&#8217;s
own magazine or roll-film camera, loading it before the
<i>séance</i>, taking it away immediately afterwards, and developing the
plates in private without the medium.</p>

<p>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 &#8220;fraud-proof.&#8221; 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 (<i>a</i>) they were well versed in
fraud, (<i>b</i>) they had planned and rehearsed everything in advance, (<i>c</i>)
the medium were completely docile and willing to keep right away from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>
the plates at the critical moments, and (<i>d</i>) the studio were known to be
unprepared.</p>

<p>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 <i>if</i>
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 <i>ostensibly</i>
take place.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>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&mdash;if he is lucky&mdash;catch a swindler out.
But this is unlikely. &#8220;Once convinced always convinced&#8221; seems to
be the rule. &#8220;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&mdash;those wonderful materialising mediums? Do not even the
greatest psychics resort to fraud when the Power fails?&#8221;</p>

<p>No! Some people&#8217;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="chap" />


<p class="center">
PRINTED BY THE<br />
ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED,<br />
TIPTREE, ESSEX, ENGLAND.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<div class="chapter">
<p class="ph2">FOOTNOTES:</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> I am assuming, for the purposes of comparison, that these later phenomena
actually occur&mdash;a point on which I am doubtful.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Hereward Carrington, <i>The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>E.g.</i>, to verify the &#8220;speed&#8221; of the plates.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> trick slates used by slate-writing mediums.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> 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 <i>must</i> keep still and <i>must</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>E.g.</i>, on the back with a diamond.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Note.</i>&mdash;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 &#8220;object&#8221;
(partial materialisation or the like) but by the use of a &#8220;psychic transparency&#8221;
applied to the plate and exposed to &#8220;spirit&#8221; light. With the first part of this
we cordially agree, but the hypothesis of the &#8220;psychic transparency&#8221; seems to be
no more than a resolute attempt to evade the plainest indications of fraud. <i>Vide
infra.</i>&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Ed.</span>, P.R.Q.]</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Readers should refer to Mr. E. J. Dingwall&#8217;s interesting article on &#8220;Magic
and Mediumship&#8221; in the January number of the <i>Psychic Research Quarterly</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Cf. pp. 11-12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Note.</i>&mdash;This is a case where recognition <i>is</i> possible because (<i>a</i>) the &#8220;extra&#8221;
and the original portrait can be laid side by side and directly compared, (<i>b</i>)
careful measurements can be made of the facial angle and other characteristics,
and (<i>c</i>) independent witnesses in any desired number can make the comparison
for themselves.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Similar observations apply to &#8220;The Hunter Test&#8221; (<i>Light</i>, Feb. <i>19th</i>.)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> p. 30 above.</p></div>

<hr class="chap" />

<div class="chapter">
<div class="transnote">
<p class="ph2">TRANSCRIBER&#8217;S NOTES:</p>


<p>Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.</p>

<p>Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized.</p>

<p>Archaic or alternate spellings have been retained.</p>
</div></div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 61352 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-03-30 02:04:14 +0000