diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63693-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63693-0.txt | 8725 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 8725 deletions
diff --git a/old/63693-0.txt b/old/63693-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index a7be508..0000000 --- a/old/63693-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,8725 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mental Radio, by Upton Sinclair - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this ebook. - -Title: Mental Radio - -Author: Upton Sinclair - -Contributor: William McDougall - Albert Einstein - Walter Franklin Prince - -Release Date: November 09, 2020 [EBook #63693] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Richard Tonsing, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was - produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital - Library.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MENTAL RADIO *** - - - - - MENTAL RADIO - - -[Illustration: - - MARY CRAIG SINCLAIR - - 1883–1961 -] - - (_Revised Second Printing_) - - - - - MENTAL RADIO - - - _By_ - UPTON SINCLAIR - - _Introduction by_ - WILLIAM McDOUGALL - - _Preface by_ - ALBERT EINSTEIN - - _With a Report by_ - WALTER FRANKLIN PRINCE - -[Illustration] - - CHARLES C THOMAS · PUBLISHER - _Springfield · Illinois · U.S.A_ - - - - - CHARLES C THOMAS · PUBLISHER - BANNERSTONE HOUSE - 301–327 East Lawrence Avenue, Springfield, Illinois, U.S.A. - - This book is protected by copyright. No part - of it may be reproduced in any manner without - written permission from the publisher. - - © _1930 and 1962, by_ CHARLES C THOMAS · PUBLISHER - Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 62–12057 - - _With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all details of - manufacturing and design. It is the Publisher’s desire to present books - that are satisfactory as to their physical qualities and artistic - possibilities and appropriate for their particular use. THOMAS BOOKS - will be true to those laws of quality that assure a good name and good - will._ - - - _Printed in the United States of America_ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - -Mr. Upton Sinclair needs no introduction to the public as a fearless, -honest, and critical student of public affairs. But in the present book -he has with characteristic courage entered a new field, one in which -reputations are more easily lost than made, the field of Psychic -Research. When he does me the honor to ask me to write a few words of -introduction to this book, a refusal would imply on my part a lack -either of courage or of due sense of scientific responsibility. I have -long been keenly interested in this field; and it is not necessary to -hold that the researches of the past fifty years have brought any -solidly established conclusions in order to feel sure that further -research is very much worth while. Even if the results of such research -should in the end prove wholly negative that would be a result of no -small importance; for from many points of view it is urgently to be -wished that we may know where we stand in this question of the reality -of alleged supernormal phenomena. In discussing this question recently -with a small group of scientific men, one of them (who is perhaps the -most prominent and influential of American psychologists) seemed to feel -that the whole problem was settled in the negative when he asserted that -at the present time no American psychologist of standing took any -interest in this field. I do not know whether he meant to deny my -Americanism or my standing, neither of which I can establish. But his -remark if it were true, would not in any degree support his conclusion; -it would rather be a grave reproach to American psychologists. Happily -it is possible to name several younger American psychologists who are -keenly interested in the problem of telepathy. - -And it is with experiments in telepathy that Mr. Sinclair’s book is -chiefly concerned. In this part, as in other parts, of the field of -Psychic Research, progress must largely depend upon such work by -intelligent educated laymen or amateurs as is here reported. For -facility in obtaining seemingly supernormal phenomena seems to be of -rare and sporadic occurrence; and it is the duty of men of science to -give whatever encouragement and sympathetic support may be possible to -all amateurs who find themselves in a position to observe and carefully -and honestly to study such phenomena. - -Mrs. Sinclair would seem to be one of the rare persons who have -telepathic power in a marked degree and perhaps other supernormal -powers. The experiments in telepathy, as reported in the pages of this -book, were so remarkably successful as to rank among the very best -hitherto reported. The degree of success and the conditions of -experiment were such that we can reject them as conclusive evidence of -some mode of communication not at present explicable in accepted -scientific terms only by assuming that Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair either are -grossly stupid, incompetent and careless persons or have deliberately -entered upon a conspiracy to deceive the public in a most heartless and -reprehensible fashion. I have unfortunately no intimate personal -knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair; but I am acquainted with some of Mr. -Sinclair’s earlier publications; and that acquaintance suffices to -convince me, as it should convince any impartial reader, that he is an -able and sincere man with a strong sense of right and wrong and of -individual responsibility. His record and his writings should secure a -wide and respectful hearing for what he has to tell us in the following -pages. - -Mrs. Sinclair’s account of her condition during successful experiments -seems to me particularly interesting; for it falls into line with what -has been observed by several other workers; namely, they report that a -peculiar passive mental state or attitude seems to be a highly -favorable, if not an essential, condition of telepathic communication. -It would seem that if the faint and unusual telepathic processes are to -manifest themselves, the track of the mind must be kept clear of other -traffic. - -Other experiments reported in the book seem to imply some supernormal -power of perception of physical things such as is commonly called -clairvoyance. It is natural and logical that alleged instances of -clairvoyance should have from most of us a reception even more skeptical -than that we accord to telepathic claims. After all, a mind at work is -an active agent of whose nature and activity our knowledge is very -imperfect; and science furnishes us no good reasons for denying that its -activity may affect another mind in some fashion utterly obscure to us. -But when an experimenter seems to have large success in reading printed -words shut in a thick-walled box, words whose identity is unknown to any -human being, we seem to be more nearly in a position to assert -positively—That cannot occur! For we do seem to know with very fair -completeness the possibilities of influence extending from the printed -word to the experimenter; and under the conditions all such -possibilities seem surely excluded. Yet here also we must keep the open -mind, gather the facts, however unintelligible they may seem at present, -repeating observations under varied conditions. - -And Mrs. Sinclair’s clairvoyant successes do not stand alone. They are -in line with the many successful “book-tests” recorded of recent years -by competent workers of the English Society for Psychical Research, as -well as with many other less carefully observed and recorded incidents. - -Mr. Sinclair’s book will amply justify itself if it shall lead a few -(let us say two per cent) of his readers to undertake carefully and -critically experiments similar to those which he has so vividly -described. - - WILLIAM MCDOUGALL - - _Duke University, N. C. - September, 1929_ - - - - - PREFACE - - -Ich habe das Buch von Upton Sinclair mit grossem Interesse gelesen und -bin überzeugt, dass dasselbe die ernsteste Beachtung, nicht nur der -Laien, sondern auch der Psychologen von Fach verdient. Die Ergebnisse -der in diesem Buch sorgfältig und deutlich beschriebenen telepathischen -Experimente stehen sicher weit ausserhalb desjenigen, was ein -Naturforscher für denkbar hält. Andererseit aber ist es bei einem so -gewissenhaften Beobachter und Schriftsteller wie Upton Sinclair -ausgeschlossen, dass er eine bewusste Täuschung der Leserwelt anstrebt; -seine bona fides und Zuverlässigkeit darf nicht bezweifelt werden. Wenn -also etwa die mit grosser Klarheit dargestellten Tatsachen nicht auf -Telepathie, sondern etwa auf unbewussten hypnothischen Einflüssen von -Person zu Person beruhen sollten, so wäre auch dies von hohem -psychologischen Interesse. Keinesfalls also sollten die psychologisch -interessierten Kreise an diesem Buch achtlos vorübergehn. - - gez A. EINSTEIN - - _den 23. Mai 1930_ - - - - - PREFACE - - -I have read the book of Upton Sinclair with great interest and am -convinced that the same deserves the most earnest consideration, not -only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. The -results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in -this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator -holds to be thinkable. On the other hand, it is out of the question in -the case of so conscientious an observer and writer as Upton Sinclair -that he is carrying on a conscious deception of the reading world; his -good faith and dependability are not to be doubted. So if somehow the -facts here set forth rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious -hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high -psychological interest. In no case should the psychologically interested -circles pass over this book heedlessly. - - [signed] A. EINSTEIN - - _May 23, 1930_ - - - - - FOREWORD - - -I contemplated a statement introducing this book to the reader, but on -further thought I realized that the book introduces itself and speaks -for itself all the way through. I will only say that Mary Craig -Kimbrough was my wife for almost half a century. She guarded me, managed -me, and worried about me during that period—for the task was an unending -one. I was often engaged in politically and socially dangerous tasks, -and Craig was the one who realized the dangers and undertook the task of -saving me. This went on all through our marriage, and in the end her -heart weakened, and for almost ten years I dropped all my other tasks -and devoted myself to keeping her alive. She died in April, 1961. - -I wrote the text of _Mental Radio_, 1929, under her direction; she -revised every word and had it exactly the way she wanted it. She was the -most conscientious and morally exacting person I have ever known. -Loyalty to the truth was her religion; and every sentence in this book -was studied so that it would be exactly true and so clear that nobody -could misunderstand it. She knew just how we did our experiments; she -had told me exactly what to do, and I had done it; if I set it down -wrong in the manuscript, she made it right. - -She has told of her early psychic experiences, and they were enough to -fill her with determination to make sure they were real, and if possible -to find out what they meant. It was she who laid down all the procedures -in our tests. It was she who studied the results and got the record -exact to the last comma. In reading this book bear in mind, there are no -errors. If the book says that the experiment was done in a certain -precise way, that is the way it was done; and always it was done without -prejudice, without a preconception or anything that could affect the -result. When the record was put on paper every word had to be studied, -and every little mistake that I made had to be corrected by her -tenacious memory. - -So trust this book. Understand that what is told here happened exactly -as it has been told. Don’t think that maybe there was a slight slip, or -that there is a careless word. I remember in the course of the years -some learned psychologist suggesting that maybe Craig had unconsciously -got some idea of what the drawings were by seeing the movement of my pen -or pencil. This meant just one thing—the learned gentleman didn’t want -to believe, and hadn’t taken the trouble to go back and study the book. -You who are going to read now will note again and again that I went into -another room to make the drawing, and I shut the door. Make note now and -bear it in mind all through the book, I never made a drawing in the same -room with Craig; and always the door was shut. To have done otherwise -would have been to waste her time as well as mine, and she saw to it -that I did not waste either. She wanted to _know_; she was _determined_ -to _know_; she laid down the law, and I obeyed it. The only way you can -reject the evidence in this book is to decide that we were a pair of -unconscionable rascals. - -I’ll give you one opinion about that. Albert Einstein, possessor of one -of the greatest modern brains, and also of a high character, was one of -our close friends. He came to our home, and we came to his, and he -witnessed some of our experiments. When this book was ready for -publication in 1929 I sent him a set of the proofs and asked him if he -would care to write a preface for the German edition. He consented and -wrote the letter in German to the German publisher. Unfortunately, the -publisher went out of business. - -What you are going to read is the exact text of Craig’s book as it was -written in the year 1929 and published in the next year. The only -changes I have made have to do with the lapse of thirty years since the -text was written. Near the end are one or two references to friends who -have since died, but you probably never knew those persons, so it -doesn’t matter. - -At the end of the book I have published a few comments on it, and an -account, written by myself, of later experiments. Also I give an -extensive summary of the results of a study of the drawings published by -Dr. Walter Franklin Prince, a Boston clergyman who resigned from his -pulpit in order to become Research Officer of the Boston Society for -Psychic Research. Dr. Prince asked if we would be willing to entrust the -documents to his examination, and I immediately bundled them up and sent -them to him by registered mail. The long commentary which he wrote -appeared in the _Bulletin_ of the society for April, 1932. - -Perhaps the most important single item concerning _Mental Radio_ is the -following: - -Prof. William MacDougall, who had been head of the Department of -Psychology at Oxford University and later head of the Department of -Psychology at Harvard—and who had won the title of “Dean of American -Psychology”—came to see us in Pasadena soon after the publication of -this book. He told Craig that he had just accepted the job of head of -the Department of Psychology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, -and would have at his disposal a considerable fund for research. He had -read _Mental Radio_ and had written the preface which is in this book, -and he said that he would like to be able to say that he himself had -witnessed a test of the genuineness of Craig’s telepathic power. - -Craig had always shrunk from anything of that sort because her power -depended entirely upon solitude and concentration; but her respect for -MacDougall was great, and she told him she would do her best. He said -that he had some pictures in his inside coat pocket, and he would like -to see if she could describe them. She sat quietly with her eyes closed -and presently said that she saw a building with stone walls and narrow -windows, and it seemed to be covered with green leaves. MacDougall took -from his inside coat pocket a postcard of one of the buildings at Oxford -covered with ivy. - -Other tests with him will appear later. Here I add one more story, how -we took the good man for a test with Arthur Ford, who was then head of a -spiritualistic church in Los Angeles. I had picked out four letters or -postcards from well-known persons, one of them Jack London and another -Georg Brandes, the Danish critic, highly respected. I wrapped each of -these documents in a sheet of green paper to remove any possibility of -holding them up to the light or otherwise getting a glimpse. I showed -this to MacDougall, and he agreed that the concealment was effective. We -then sealed them in four numbered envelopes, and in a little ante-room -of the church Arthur Ford lay back in his chair, covered his eyes with a -handkerchief, and put the envelopes one by one on his forehead. - -I subsequently wrote an article about the experiment which was published -in the _Psychic Observer_, but I do not have the text at hand. Ford told -us significant things about the contents of all those envelopes, and I -remember that afterwards MacDougall, Craig and I strolled down the -street and stopped at a little kiosk where we ordered lemonade or orange -juice. I said, “Well, what do you think of it?” and MacDougall’s answer -was, “I should say that it is undoubtedly supernormal.” - -He then told Craig that what she had done had already decided him—he was -going to Duke University in a week or two and his first action would be -to set up a Department of Parapsychology. That was a little over thirty -years ago, and I think it is correct to say that what MacDougall did, -with the help of J. B. Rhine, his assistant and later his successor, has -made the subject of Parapsychology scientifically respectable throughout -the United States and Europe. - -And now, to the text, as published, 1931. - - UPTON SINCLAIR - - - - - CONTENTS - - - _Page_ - - _Introduction_ by WILLIAM MCDOUGALL v - - _Preface_ by ALBERT EINSTEIN viii - - _Foreword_ xi - - MENTAL RADIO 3 - - _Addendum_: The Sinclair Experiments for Telepathy - (by WALTER FRANKLIN PRINCE) 149 - - _Epilogue_ 237 - - - - - MENTAL RADIO - - - - - _1_ - -If you were born as long as fifty years ago, you can remember a time -when the test of a sound, common-sense mind was refusing to fool with -“new-fangled notions.” Without exactly putting it into a formula, people -took it for granted that truth was known and familiar, and anything that -was not known and familiar was nonsense. In my boyhood, the funniest -joke in the world was a “flying machine man”; and when my mother took up -a notion about “germs” getting into you and making you sick, my father -made it a theme for no end of domestic wit. Even as late as twenty years -ago, when I wanted to write a play based on the idea that men might some -day be able to make a human voice audible to groups of people all over -America, my friends assured me that I could not interest the public in -such a fantastic notion. - -Among the objects of scorn, in my boyhood, was what we called -“superstition”; and we made the term include, not merely the notion that -the number thirteen brought you bad luck, not merely a belief in -witches, ghosts and goblins, but also a belief in any strange phenomena -of the mind which we did not understand. We knew about hypnotism, -because we had seen stage performances, and were in the midst of reading -a naughty book called _Trilby_; but such things as trance mediumship, -automatic writing, table-tapping, telekinesis, telepathy and -clairvoyance—we didn’t know these long names, but if such ideas were -explained to us, we knew right away that it was “all nonsense.” - -In my youth I had the experience of meeting a scholarly Unitarian -clergyman, the Rev. Minot J. Savage of New York, who assured me quite -seriously that he had seen and talked with ghosts. He didn’t convince -me, but he sowed the seed of curiosity in my mind, and I began reading -books on psychic research. From first to last, I have read hundreds of -volumes; always interested, and always uncertain—an uncomfortable mental -state. The evidence in support of telepathy came to seem to me -conclusive, yet it never quite became real to me. The consequences of -belief would be so tremendous, the changes it would make in my view of -the universe so revolutionary, that I didn’t believe, even when I said I -did. - -But for thirty years the subject has been among the things I hoped to -know about; and, as it happened, fate was planning to favor me. It sent -me a wife who became interested, and who not merely investigated -telepathy, but learned to practice it. For three years I watched and -assisted in this work, day by day and night by night, in our home. So I -could say that I was no longer guessing. Now I really know. I am going -to tell you about it, and hope to convince you; but regardless of what -anybody can say, there will never again be a doubt about it in my mind. -I KNOW! - - - - - _2_ - - -Telepathy, or mind-reading: that is to say, can one human mind -communicate with another human mind, except by the sense channels -ordinarily known and used—seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and -touching? Can a thought or image in one mind be sent directly to another -mind and there reproduced and recognized? If this can be done, how is it -done? Is it some kind of vibration, going out from the brain, like radio -broadcasting? Or is it some contact with a deeper level of mind, as -bubbles on a stream have contact with the water of the stream? And if -this power exists, can it be developed and used? Is it something that -manifests itself now and then, like a lightning flash, over which we -have no control? Or can we make the energy and store it, and use it -regularly, as we have learned to do with the lightning which Franklin -brought from the clouds? - -These are the questions; and the answers, as well as I can summarize -them, are as follows: Telepathy is real; it does happen. Whatever may be -the nature of the force, it has nothing to do with distance, for it -works exactly as well over forty miles as over a few feet. And while it -may be spontaneous and may depend upon a special endowment, it can be -cultivated and used deliberately, as any other object of study, in -physics and chemistry. The essential in this training is an art of -mental concentration and auto-suggestion, which can be learned. I am -going to tell you not merely what you can do, but how you can do it, so -that if you have patience and real interest, you can make your own -contribution to knowledge. - -Starting the subject, I am like the wandering book-agent or peddler who -taps on your door and gets you to open it, and has to speak quickly and -persuasively, putting his best goods foremost. Your prejudice is against -this idea; and if you are one of my old-time readers, you are a little -shocked to find me taking up a new and unexpected line of activity. You -have come, after thirty years, to the position where you allow me to be -one kind of “crank,” but you won’t stand for two kinds. So let me come -straight to the point—open up my pack, pull out my choicest wares, and -catch your attention with them if I can. - -Here is a drawing of a table-fork. It was done with a lead-pencil on a -sheet of ruled paper, which has been photographed, and then reproduced -in the ordinary way. You note that it bears a signature and a date (Fig. -1): - -[Illustration: Fig. 1] - -This drawing was produced by my brother-in-law, Robert L. Irwin, a young -business man, and no kind of “crank,” under the following circumstances. -He was sitting in a room in his home in Pasadena at a specified hour, -eleven-thirty in the morning of July 13, 1928, having agreed to make a -drawing of any object he might select, at random, and then to sit gazing -at it, concentrating his entire attention upon it for a period of from -fifteen to twenty minutes. - -At the same agreed hour, eleven-thirty in the morning of July 13, 1928, -my wife was lying on the couch in her study, in our home in Long Beach, -forty miles away by the road. She was in semi-darkness, with her eyes -closed; employing a system of mental concentration which she has been -practicing off and on for several years, and mentally suggesting to her -subconscious mind to bring her whatever was in the mind of her -brother-in-law. Having become satisfied that the image which came to her -mind was the correct one—because it persisted, and came back again and -again—she sat up and took pencil and paper and wrote the date, and six -words, as follows (Fig. 1a): - -A day or two later we drove to Pasadena, and then in the presence of Bob -and his wife, the drawing and writing were produced and compared. I have -in my possession affidavits from Bob, his wife, and my wife, to the -effect that the drawing and writing were produced in this way. Later in -this book I shall present four other pairs of drawings, made in the same -way, three of them equally successful. - -[Illustration: Fig. 1a] - -Second case. Here is a drawing (Fig. 2), and below it a set of five -drawings (Fig. 2a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 2] - -[Illustration: Fig. 2a] - -The above drawings were produced under the following circumstances. The -single drawing (Fig. 2) was made by me in my study at my home. I was -alone, and the door was closed before the drawing was made, and was not -opened until the test was concluded. Having made the drawing, I held it -before me and concentrated upon it for a period of five or ten minutes. - -The five drawings (Fig. 2a) were produced by my wife, who was lying on -the couch in her study, some thirty feet away from me, with the door -closed between us. The only words spoken were as follows: when I was -ready to make my drawing, I called, “All right,” and when she had -completed her drawings, she called “All right”—whereupon I opened the -door and took my drawing to her and we compared them. I found that in -addition to the five little pictures, she had written some explanation -of how she came to draw them. This I shall quote and discuss later on. I -shall also tell about six other pairs of drawings, produced at this same -time. - -Third case: another drawing (Fig. 3a), produced under the following -circumstances. My wife went upstairs, and shut the door which is at the -top of the stairway. I went on tip-toe to a cupboard in a downstairs -room and took from a shelf a red electric-light bulb—it having been -agreed that I should select any small article, of which there were -certainly many hundreds in our home. I wrapped this bulb in several -thicknesses of newspaper, and put it, so wrapped, in a shoe-box, and -wrapped the shoe-box in a whole newspaper, and tied it tightly with a -string. I then called my wife and she came downstairs, and lay on her -couch and put the box on her body, over the solar plexus. I sat -watching, and never took my eyes from her, nor did I speak a word during -the test. Finally she sat up, and made her drawing, with the written -comment, and handed it to me. Every word of the comment, as well as the -drawing, was produced before I said a word, and the drawing and writing -as here reproduced have not been touched or altered in any way (Fig. -3a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 3a] - -The text of my wife’s written comment is as follows: - -“First see round glass. Guess nose glasses? No. Then comes V shape again -with a ‘button’ in top. Button stands out from object. This round top is -of different color from lower part. It is light color, the other part is -dark.” - -To avoid any possible misunderstanding, perhaps I should state that the -question and answer in the above were my wife’s description of her own -mental process, and do not represent a question asked of me. She did not -“guess” aloud, nor did either of us speak a single word during this -test, except the single word, “Ready,” to call my wife downstairs. - -The next drawings were produced in the following manner. The one at the -top (Fig. 4) was drawn by me alone in my study, and was one of nine, all -made at the same time, and with no restriction upon what I should -draw—anything that came into my head. Having made the nine drawings, I -wrapped each one in a separate sheet of green paper, to make it -absolutely invisible, and put each one in a plain envelope and sealed -it, and then took the nine sealed envelopes and laid them on the table -by my wife’s couch. My wife then took one of them and placed it over her -solar plexus, and lay in her state of concentration, while I sat -watching her, at her insistence, in order to make the evidence more -convincing. Having received what she considered a convincing telepathic -“message,” or image of the contents of the envelope, she sat up and made -her sketch (Fig. 4a) on a pad of paper. - -[Illustration: Fig. 4] - -[Illustration: Fig. 4a] - -The essence of our procedure is this: that never did she see my drawing -until hers was completed and her descriptive words written; that I spoke -no word and made no comment until after this was done; and that the -drawings presented here are in every case exactly what I drew, and the -corresponding drawing is exactly what my wife drew, with no change or -addition whatsoever. In the case of this particular pair, my wife wrote, -“Inside of rock well with vines climbing on outside.” Such was her guess -as to the drawing, which I had meant for a bird’s nest surrounded by -leaves; but you see that the two drawings are for practical purposes -identical. - -Many tests have been made, by each of the different methods above -outlined, and the results will be given and explained in these pages. -The method of attempting to reproduce little drawings was used more than -any other, simply because it proved the most convenient; it could be -done at a moment’s notice, and so fitted into our busy lives. The -procedure was varied in a few details to save time and trouble, as I -shall later explain, but the essential feature remains unchanged: I make -a set of drawings, and my wife takes them one by one and attempts to -reproduce them without having seen them. Here are a few samples, chosen -at random because of their picturesque character. If my wife wrote -anything on the drawing, I add it as “comment”; and you are to -understand here, and for the rest of this book, that “comment” means the -exact words which she wrote _before_ she saw my drawing. Often there -will be parts of this “comment” visible in the photograph. I give it all -in print. Note that drawings 1, 2, 3, etc. are mine, while 1a, 2a, 3a, -etc., are my wife’s. - -In the case of my drawing numbered five, my wife’s comment was: -“Knight’s helmet.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 5] - -[Illustration: Fig. 5a] - -On figure 6, the comment was: “Desert scene, camel, ostrich, then -below”—and the drawing in figure 6a. On the reverse side of the page is -further comment: “This came in fragments, as if I saw it being drawn by -invisible pencil.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 6] - -[Illustration: Fig. 6a] - -And here is a pair with no comment, and none needed (Figs. 7, 7a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 7] - -[Illustration: Fig. 7a] - -On the following, also, no comment was written (Figs. 8, 8a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 8] - -[Illustration: Fig. 8a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 9] - -[Illustration: Fig. 9a] - -I drew Figure 9, and my wife drew 9a, a striking success, and wrote the -comment: “May be elephant’s snout—but anyway it is some kind of a -running animal. Long thing like rope flung out in front of him.” - -Next, a series of three pairs, which, as it happened, were done one -after the other, numbers three, four and five in the twenty-third series -of my drawings. They are selected in part because they are amusing. -First, I tried to draw a bat, from vague memories of boyhood days when -they used to fly into the ball-rooms at Virginia springs hotels, and -have to be massacred with brooms, because it was believed that they -sought to tangle themselves in the hair of the ladies (Figs. 10, 10a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 10] - -[Illustration: Fig. 10a] - -My wife’s comment on the above reads: “Big insect. I know this is right -because it moves his legs as if flying. Beetle working its legs. Legs in -motion!” - -And next, my effort at a Chinese mandarin (Figs. 11, 11a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 11] - -[Illustration: Fig. 11a] - -The comment reads: “More beetles, or legged bugs”—and she draws the -mustaches of the mandarin and his hair. “Head of dragon with big mouth. -See also a part of his body—in front, or shoulders” The association of -mandarins with dragons is obvious. - -And finally, my effort at a boy’s foot and roller-skate, which undergoes -a strange telepathic transformation. I have put it upside down for -easier comparison (Figs. 12, 12a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 12] - -[Illustration: Fig. 12a] - -The comment, complete, reads: “Profile of head and neck of animal—lion -or dog—a muzzle. Maybe pig snout.” - -The above are samples of our successes. Altogether, of such drawings, 38 -were prepared by my secretary, while I made 252, a total of 290. I have -classified the drawings to the best of my ability into three groups: -successes, partial successes, and failures. The partial successes are -those drawings which contain some easily recognized element of the -original drawing: such as, for example, the last one above. The profile -of a pig’s head is not a roller skate, but when you compare the -drawings, you see that in my wife’s first sketch the eyes resemble the -wheels of the roller-skates, and in her second sketch the snout -resembles my shoe-tip; also there is a general similarity of outline, -which is what she most commonly gets. - -In the 290 drawings, the total of successes is 65, which is roughly 23 -per cent. The total of partial successes is 155, which is 53 per cent. -The total of failures is 70, which is 24 per cent. I asked some -mathematician friends to work out the probabilities on the above -results, but I found that the problem was too complicated. Who could -estimate how many possible objects there were, which might come into my -head to be drawn? Any time the supply ran short, I would pick up a -magazine, and in the advertising pages find a score of new drawings to -imitate. Again, very few of the drawings were simple. We began with such -things as a circle, a square, a cross, a number or a letter; but soon we -were doing Chinese mandarins with long mustaches, and puppies chasing a -string. Each of these drawings has many different features; and what -mathematician could count the number of these features, and the chances -of reproducing them? - -It is a matter to be judged by common sense. It seems to me any one must -agree that the chances of the twelve drawings so far shown having been -reproduced by accident is too great to be worth considering. A million -years would not be enough for such a set of coincidences. - - - - - _3_ - - -Much of the evidence which I am using rests upon the good faith of Mary -Craig Sinclair; so, before we go further, I ask your permission to -introduce her. She is a daughter of the far South; her father a retired -planter, bank president and judge, of Mississippi. The fates endowed his -oldest child with the blessings of beauty, health, wealth and wisdom—and -then spoiled it, by adding a curse in the shape of a too tender heart. -The griefs of other people overwhelm Craig like a suffocation. Strangers -take one glance at her, and instantly decide that here is one who will -“understand.” I have seen her go into a store to buy a piece of ribbon, -and come out with tears in her eyes, because of a tragic story which -some clerk was moved to pour out to her, all in a moment, without -provocation. She has always said that she “gets” the feelings of people, -not by their words, but by intuition. But she never paid any attention -to this gift; never associated it with “psychic” matters. She was always -too busy, first with eight younger brothers and sisters, and then with -the practical affairs of an unpractical author-husband. - -Early in childhood, things like this would happen: her mother would say -to a little negro servant, “Go and find Miss Mary Craig”; but before the -boy could start, Craig would know that her mother wanted her, and would -be on the way. This might, of course, have been coincidence; if it stood -alone, it would have no value. But the same thing happened with dreams. -Craig dreamed there was a needle in her bed, and woke up and looked for -it in vain; in the morning she told her mother, who slept in another -room. The mother said: “How strange! I dreamed the same thing, and I -woke up and really found one!” - -Of her young ladyhood, Craig told this story, one of many: Driving with -a girl friend, miles from home, she suddenly remarked: “Let’s go home; -Mr. B is there.” Now this was a place to which Mr. B had never come; it -was three hundred miles from his town. But Craig said: “I have just had -an impression of him, sitting on our front porch.” Going home, they -found him there. - -Another instance, of more recent date. Shortly after our coming to -California, my wife all at once became greatly worried about Jack -London; she insisted that he was in terrible mental distress. As it -happened, George Sterling had told us much about Jack’s troubles, but -these were of old standing, and there was nothing to account for the -sudden notion which my wife took up on a certain day. We had a lot of -conversation about it; I offered to take her to the London ranch, but -she said she would not attempt to meddle in the affairs of a married -man, unless at his wife’s request. I made the laughing suggestion that -she go alone, in the guise of a gypsy fortune-teller—a rôle which in her -young ladyhood she had played with social éclat. Two days later we read -that Jack London was dead, and very soon came letters from George -Sterling, telling us that he had taken his own life. This, again, might -be coincidence; if it stood alone I would attach no importance to it. -But taken with this mass of evidence, it has a share of weight. - -When we were married, seventeen years ago, we spent some time in -England, and there we met a woman physician, interested in “mental -healing,” and full of ideas about “psychic” things. Both Craig and I -were in need of healing, having been through a siege of trouble. Craig -was suffering with intense headaches, something hitherto unknown in her -life; while I had an ancient problem of indigestion, caused by excess of -brain work and lack of body work. We began to experiment with healing by -the “laying on of hands”—without knowing anything about it, just groping -in the dark. I found that I could cure Craig’s headaches—and get them -myself; while she found that she could take my indigestion, a trouble -she had never known hitherto. Each of us was willing to take the other’s -pains, but neither was willing to give them, so our experiments came to -a halt. - -We forgot the whole subject for more than ten years. I was busy trying -to reform America; while Craig was of the most intensely materialistic -convictions. Her early experiences of evangelical religion had repelled -her so violently that everything suggestive of “spirituality” was -repugnant to her. Never was a woman more “practical,” more centered upon -the here and now, the things which can be seen and touched. I do not go -into details about this, but I want to make it as emphatic as possible, -for the light it throws upon her attitude and disposition. - -But shortly after the age of forty, her custom of carrying the troubles -of all who were near her resulted in a breakdown of health. A story of -suffering needless to go into: suffice it that she had many ills to -experiment upon, and mental control became suddenly a matter of life and -death. In the course of the last five or six years Craig has acquired a -fair-sized library of books on the mind, both orthodox scientific, and -“crank.” She has sat up half the night studying, marking passages and -making notes, seeking to reconcile various doctrines, to know what the -mind really is, and how it works, and what can be done with it. Always -it was a practical problem: things had to _work_. If now she believes -anything, rest assured that it is because she has tried it out in the -crucibles of pain, and proved it in her daily regimen. - -She was not content to see psychic phenomena produced by other persons. -Even though authorities warned her that trances might be dangerous, and -that _rapport_ with others might lead to dissociations of -personality—even so, she had to find out for herself. A hundred times in -the course of experiments of which I am going to tell, she has turned to -me, saying: “Can you think of any way this can be chance? What can I do -to make it more sure?” When I said, the other night: “This settles it -for me. I am going to write the story,” her reply was, “Wait a while!” -She wants to do more experimenting; but I think that enough is enough. - - - - - _4_ - - -Two years ago Craig and I heard of a “psychic,” a young foreigner who -was astounding physicians of Southern California, performing feats so -completely beyond their understanding that they were content to watch -without trying to understand. We went to see this young man, and -befriended him; he came to our home every day, and his strange -demonstrations became familiar to us. He had the ability to produce -anaesthesia in many parts of his body, and stick hatpins through his -tongue and cheeks without pain; he could go into a deep trance in which -his body became rigid and cold; and I put his head on one chair and his -heels on another, and stood in the middle, as if he were a two-inch -plank. We have a motion picture film, showing a 150-pound rock being -broken with a sledge-hammer on his abdomen while he lay in this trance. -The vital faculties were so far suspended in this trance that he could -be shut up in an airtight coffin and buried underground for several -hours; nor was there any hocus-pocus about this—I know physicians who -got the coffins and arranged for the tests and watched every detail; in -Ventura, California, it was done in a ball park, and a game was played -over the grave. - -In our home he gave what appeared to be a demonstration of levitation -without contact. I do not say that it really was levitation; I merely -say that our friends who witnessed it—physicians, scientists, writers -and their wives, fourteen persons in all—were unable even to suggest a -normal method by which the event could have happened. There was no one -present who could have been a confederate, and the psychic had been -searched for apparatus; it was in our home, where he had no opportunity -whatever for preparation. His wrists and ankles were firmly held by -persons whom I know well; and there was sufficient light in the room so -that I could see the outline of his figure, slumped in a chair. Under -these circumstances a 34-pound table rose four feet into the air and -moved slowly a distance of eight feet over my head. - -We saw this; our friends saw it; yet, in my mind, and likewise in -theirs, the worm of doubt would always creep in. There are so many ways -to fool people; so many conjuring tricks—think of Houdini, for example! -I was unwilling to publish what I had seen; yet, also, I was unwilling -not to publish it—for think of the possible importance of faculties such -as this, locked up in our minds! Here was my wife, ill, suffering pain; -and these facilities might perhaps be used in healing. If by -concentration and auto-suggestion it was possible for the mind to -control the body, and put a veto upon even a few of its disorders, -certainly it was worth while for us to prove the fact. I could not -escape the moral obligation to probe these matters. - -This “psychic” claimed also to possess and demonstrate the power of -telepathy, or mind-reading. He would go out of the room while one of us -selected mentally some object in the room, not revealing the choice to -any one else. The “psychic” would then come back, and tell us to stand -behind him and concentrate our thoughts upon that object, and follow -close behind him, thinking of it. He would wander about the room for a -while, and in the end pick up the object, and do with it whatever we -mentally “willed” him to do. - -We saw him make this test not less than a hundred times, in California, -New York, and Boston; he succeeded with it more than half the time. -There was no contact, no word spoken, nothing that we could imagine as -giving him a clue. Did we unconsciously make in our throats some faint -pronunciation of words, and did the young man have a super-acuity of -hearing? Again, you see, the worm of doubt, and we never could quite -decide what we really believed about this performance. After puzzling -over it for a year or more, my wife said: “There is only one way to be -certain. I am going to learn to do these things _myself_!” - -This young man, whom I will call Jan, was a peculiar person. Sometimes -he would be open and frank, and again he would be mysterious and -secretive. At one time he would agree to teach us all he knew, and again -he would hold on to his arts, which he had had to go all the way to -India to get. Was it that he considered these forces too dangerous for -amateurs to play with? Or was it merely that he was considering his -means of livelihood? - -Jan was a hypnotist; and my wife had come to realize that all illness is -more or less amenable to suggestion. She had had the idea of being -hypnotized and given curative suggestions; but she did not know enough -about this stranger, and was unwilling to trust him. After she got to -know him better, her purposes changed. Here was a fund of knowledge -which she craved, and she put her woman’s wits to work to get it. She -told him to go ahead and hypnotize her—and explained to me her purpose -of trying to turn the tables on him. Jan fixed his eyes upon hers in the -hypnotic stare, and made his magnetic passes; at the same time his -patient stared back, and I sat and watched the strange duel of -personalities. - -An essential part of Jan’s technique, as he had explained it, was in -outstaring the patient and never blinking his eyes. Now suddenly he -blinked; then he closed his eyes and kept them closed. “Do your eyes -hurt?” asked his patient, in pretended innocence. “No,” he replied. “Are -you tired?” she asked. “No, thank you,” said he. “What was I thinking?” -she asked. “To hypnotize me,” he replied, sleepily. But Craig wanted -further proof, so she closed her eyes and willed that Jan should get up -and go to the telephone. “Shall I go on treating you?” he asked. “Yes,” -said she. He hesitated a moment, then said, “Excuse me, I have to -telephone to a friend!” - -I am telling about these matters in the order of time, as they came to -us. I am sorry that these stories of Jan come first, because they are -the strangest, and the least capable of proof. In the hope of taking -part of the onus from our shoulders, let me quote from a book by Charles -Richet, a member of the Institute of Medicine in France, and a leading -scientist; he is citing Pierre Janet, whose name is known wherever in -the world the human mind is studied. The statement reads: - -“P. Janet, a most eminent French psychiatrist, and one of the founders -of the famous Salpetriere school of psychology in Paris, and a careful -and sceptical observer, has verified that a patient of his, Leonie B., -being put into hypnotic sleep by himself, or his brother (from whom -Leonie in her hypnotic sleep was unable to distinguish him), could -recognize _exactly_ the substance that he placed in his mouth—sugar, -salt, pepper. One day his brother, J. Janet, in an adjoining room, -scorched his right arm above the wrist. Leonie, who could have known -nothing about it normally, gave signs of real pain, and showed to P. -Janet (who knew nothing of the occurrence), the exact place of the -burn.” - -Or let me cite the late Professor Quackenbos, of Columbia University, -who wrote many books on hypnotism as a therapeutic agency, and tells of -numerous cases of the same kind. He himself would sometimes go -involuntarily into hypnotic sleep with his patient, and so, sometimes, -would the nurse. Frequently between the hypnotist and the subject comes -what is called _rapport_, whereby each knows what is in the other’s -mind, and suggestions are taken without their being spoken. You may -believe this, or refuse to believe it—that is your privilege. All I want -to do is to make clear that my wife is claiming no special achievement, -but merely repeating the standard experiences of the textbooks on this -subject. - -This _rapport_ between Craig and her protégé was developed to such an -extent that she could tell him what was in his mind, and what he had -been doing; she told him many stories about himself, where he had been -and what he had done at a certain hour. This was embarrassing to a young -man who perhaps did not care to have his life so closely overseen; also, -possibly, he was wounded in his _amour propre_, that a mere amateur—and -a woman at that—should be coming into possession of his secret arts. - -The trick depends upon a process of intense concentration, which will -later be described in detail. After this concentration, Craig would give -to her subconscious mind the suggestion, or command, that it should -bring to her consciousness a vision of what Jan was doing. This giving -an order to the subconscious mind is much the same sort of thing that -you do when you seek to remember a name; whether you realize it or not, -you order your subconscious mind to get that bit of information and -bring it to you. Whatever came to Craig, she would write it out, and -when next she met Jan, she would use her woman’s wits to verify it -without Jan’s knowing what was happening. At times it would be very -amusing—when he would find himself accused of some youthful misdemeanor -which his preceptress was not supposed to know about. In his efforts to -defend himself, he would fail entirely to realize the telepathic aspects -of the matter. - - - - - _5_ - - -Please let me repeat, I am not telling here a set of fairy tales and -fantasies; I am presenting a record of experiments, conducted in strict -scientific fashion. All the results were set down day by day in writing. -For an hour or two every day for the past three years my wife has been -scribbling notes of her experiments, and there are eight boxes full in -her study, enough to fill a big trunk. No statement in all the following -rests upon our memories; everything is taken from memoranda now in my -hands. Admitting that new facts can be learned about the mind, I do not -see how any one can use more careful methods than we have done. - -My wife “saw” Jan carrying a bouquet of flowers, wrapped in white paper, -on the street, and she wrote this down. She later ascertained that at -this hour Jan had carried flowers to a friend in a hospital in Los -Angeles, and she telephoned this friend and verified the facts. On -another occasion when Jan was in Santa Barbara, a hundred miles from our -home, she “saw” him escorting a blonde girl in a blue dress from an auto -to a hotel over a rainy pavement; she wrote this down, and later -ascertained that it had actually been happening. The details were -verified, not merely by Jan, but by another member of the party. I ought -to add that in no case did my wife tell the other persons what she had -“seen” until after these persons had told her what had happened. No -chance was taken of their making up events to conform to her records. -Always Craig kept her cold-blooded determination to know what was _real_ -in this field where so much is invented and imagined. - -Again, she “saw” Jan preparing to commit suicide, dressed in a pair of -yellow silk pajamas; then she “saw” him lying dead on the floor. She was -much disturbed—until Jan reminded her that he had been seven times -publicly “buried” in Southern California before she met him. Several -weeks later she learned that in one of these “burials” he had worn -yellow silk pajamas. Jan had forgotten this, but Dr. Frank Sweet, of -Long Beach, who had overseen the procedure, remembered the pajamas, and -how they had been ruined by mud. - -Craig saw a vision of a bride, at a time when Jan, in his room in a far -part of the city, was awakening from sleep with a dream about a friend’s -wedding. On two occasions, while “concentrating,” she got the impression -that Jan and a friend of his had returned unexpectedly from Santa -Barbara to Hollywood. In both cases she made careful record, and it -turned out to be correct; I have a written statement of the two young -men, confirming the second instance, and saying that it could not have -been normally known to my wife. - -I have also a detailed record—some twenty pages long—of a “clairvoyant” -vision of Jan’s movements about the city of Long Beach, including his -parking of a car, carrying something over his arm, visiting a -barber-shop and a flower-shop, and stopping and hesitating and then -going on. The record includes a detailed description of the streets and -their lay-out, a one-story white building, etc. Jan had been doing all -this at approximately the time specified. He had carried his trousers to -a tailor-shop, with a barber-shop directly opposite; he had stopped in -front of a flower-shop and debated whether to buy some flowers; he had -taken a letter to be copied by a typist, and had stopped on the street, -hesitating as to whether to wait for this copying to be done. All these -details he narrated to my wife _before_ he knew what was in her written -record. - -Another curious experience: I took Jan to the home of Dr. John R. Haynes -of Los Angeles, to give a demonstration of his mind-reading. Jan said he -felt ill, and would not be successful. Only one or two of the tests -succeeded. But meanwhile my wife was at home, concentrating, and -ordering her subconscious mind to show her what Jan and I were doing. -When I returned I found that she had written a detailed description of -Dr. Haynes’ home, including a correct ground plan of the entrance hall, -stairs and drawing-room, and a description of the color and style of -decorations, furniture, lamps, vases, etc., in good part correct. Craig -has never been in this house. - -Jan goes into one of his deep states—a cataleptic trance, he calls it—in -which his body is rigid and cold. He has the power to fix in advance the -time when he will come out of the trance, and his subconscious mind -apparently possesses the power to keep track of time—days, hours, -minutes, even seconds. I have seen him amaze a group of scientists by -coming out on the second, while they held stop-watches on him. - -But now my wife thinks she will vary this procedure. Jan goes into the -trance in our home and Craig sits and silently wills, “Your right leg -will come out; you will lift it; you will put it down again. You will -sit erect”—and so on. Without speaking a word, she can make him do -whatever she pleases. - -Another incident, quite a long one. I ask you to have patience with the -details, promising that in the end you will see what it is all about. I -am in the next room, and I hear Jan and my wife having one of their -regular evening arguments, because he will not tell her how he does this -or that; at one moment he insists that he has told her—and the next -moment he insists that he does not know. My wife finally asks him to -concentrate upon an object in the room, and she will see if she can -“get” it. He selects the gas stove, in which a fire is burning; and -Craig says, “I see a lot of little flames.” Jan insists that is “no -good,” she didn’t get the stove; which annoys her very much—she thinks -he does not want to allow any success to a woman. He is a “continental -male,” something she makes fierce feminist war upon. - -Craig is suffering from neuralgia in neck and shoulder, and Jan offers -to treat her. He will use what he calls “magnetism”; he believes there -is an emanation from his finger-tips, and so, with his two forefingers -he lightly traces the course of the nerves of her neck and shoulder and -arm. For ten or fifteen minutes his two fingers are tracing patterns in -front of her. - -Then it is time for him to go home, and he is unhappy, and she succeeds -in drawing the explanation from him—he has to walk, and his shoes are -tight and hurt him. He has to have them stretched, he tells her. She -offers him a pair of my big tennis shoes to wear home, and then she -scolds him because he has the fashionable notion that white canvas -tennis shoes are not proper footwear for eleven o’clock in the evening. -Finally he puts them on and departs; and my wife lies down and makes her -mind a blank, and orders it to tell her what Jan is doing. - -She has a pencil and paper, and presently she is writing words. They are -foreign words, and she thinks they must be in Jan’s native language; -they come drifting through her mind for several minutes. Next day comes -Jan for the daily lesson, and she shows him this record. He tells her -that the words are not in his language, but German—which he knows, but -never uses. My wife knows no German; except possibly sauerkraut and -kindergarten. But here she has written a string of German and -near-German words. I have the original sheet before me, and I give it as -well as I can make out the scrawl: “ei einfinen ein-fe-en swenfenz -fingen sweizzen czie ofen weizen ofen fingen swienfen swei fingern efein -boden fienzen meifen bogen feingen Bladen Meichen frefen eifein.” - -Some of this is nonsense; but there are a few German words in it, and -others which are guesses at German words, such as might be made by a -person hearing a strange language, and trying to set down what he hears. -Part of the effort seems to be concentrated on getting one expression, -“zwe Fingern”—two fingers! You remember the two fingers moving up and -down over Craig’s neck and shoulder! And “Ofen”—the argument about the -stove! And “bladen”—to stretch shoes over a block of wood. Where these -ideas came from seems plain enough. But where did the German come -from—unless from the subconscious mind of Jan? - -A further detail, especially curious. Jan gave my wife the meaning for -the word “bladen”: “to stretch shoes over a block of wood”; I have the -memo which he wrote at the time. But looking up the word in the -dictionaries, I do not find it, nor can I find any German who knows it. -Apparently there is no such word; and this would clearly seem to -indicate that my wife got her German from Jan. If so, it was by -telepathy, for he spoke no word of it that evening. - -It is the fashion among young ladies of the South to tease the men; and -Craig found in this episode a basis for tormenting her psychic -instructor. He had assured his patient that during the treatment he was -sending her “curative thoughts.” But what kind of telepathic healer was -it who sent gas-stoves and shoe-blocks into a neuralgic shoulder? Jan, -missing the humor, and trying to save his reputation, declared that he -hated the German language so greatly, he did not even allow himself to -think in it! Germany was associated in his mind with the most painful -memories, and all that previous day he had been fighting depression -caused by these memories. You see, in this blundering defense, a -significant bit of evidence. Jan had really had the German language in -his thoughts at the time Craig got them! - -I have before me a letter from Jan to my wife, postmarked Santa Barbara, -October 19, 1927. He says: “May these lovely Cosmos bring you such peace -and contentment as they have brought me.” He has cut a double slit in -the paper, and inserted cosmos blossoms and violets. Prior to the -receipt of this letter, my wife was making the record of a dream, and -here is what she wrote down: “I dreamed Jan had a little basket of -flowers, pink roses and violets, shaped like this.” (A drawing.) “He -lifted them up and said they were for me, but a girl near him took them -and said, ‘But I want them.’” When Jan came to see us again, my wife -asked about the circumstance, and learned the following: a woman friend, -who had given Jan the flowers, had accused him of meaning to send them -to a girl; but he had answered that they were for “a middle-aged and -distinguished lady.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 13] - -[Illustration: Fig. 13a] - -I present here the basket of “pink roses and violets” which my wife -drew, and then the spray of pink double cosmos and violets which met her -eyes when she opened the young “psychic’s” letter a day or two later. I -explain that my wife’s drawing (Fig. 13) is partly written over by the -words of her notes; while in Jan’s letter the violets had to be at once -traced in pencil, as they would not last. My wife drew pencil marks -around them and wrote the word “violet” in three places, to indicate -what the marks meant. The cosmos flowers, pressed and dried, are still -exactly as Jan stuck them into position and as they remained until I -took them to be photographed (Fig. 13a). - - - - - _6_ - - -As I have said, I hesitate to tell about incidents such as these. They -are hard to believe, and the skeptic may say that my wife was hypnotized -by Jan, and made to believe them. But it happens that Craig has been -able to establish exactly the same _rapport_ with her husband, who has -never had anything to do with hypnosis, except to watch it a few times. -A Socialist “muck-raker,” much wrapped up in his job, the husband sits -and reads, or revises manuscript, while the wife works her white magic -upon his mind. Suddenly his train of thought is broken by an -exclamation; the wife has “willed” him to do such and so—and he has done -it! Or maybe she has been asleep, and come out with the tail end of a -dream, and has written down what appears to be a lot of rubbish—but -turns out to be a reproduction of something the husband has been reading -or writing at that very moment! Hear one or two instances of such -events, all written down at the time. - -Colonel Lindbergh has flown to France, but Craig does not know much -about it, because she is not reading the papers, she is asking, “What is -life?” A year passes, and in the mail I receive a monthly magazine, the -_Lantern_, published by Sacco-Vanzetti sympathizers in Boston. I open -it, and find an article by a young radical, assailing Lindbergh because -he does not follow in his father’s footsteps; his father was a radical -congressman, but now the son allows himself to be used by the army and -navy people, and by the capitalist press, to distract the minds of the -masses from social justice. So runs the charge; and before I am through -reading it, my wife comes downstairs from a nap. “What are you reading?” -she asks, and I answer: “Something about Lindbergh.” Says my wife: “Here -are my notes about a dream I just had.” She hands me a sheet of paper, I -have it before me now as I write, and I give it with misspelling and -abbreviations exactly as she wrote it in a hurry, not anticipating that -it would ever become public: - -“‘I do not believe that Lindberg flew across the ocean in order to take -a ransome from a foreign gov as well as from his own. Nor in order to -induce the nations of the earth to a war in the air.’ Words which were -in my mind as I awoke from nap on aft May 25.” - -I should add that my wife had had no opportunity to look at the Boston -magazine, whether consciously or unconsciously. She tells me that -Lindbergh had not been in her conscious mind for a long time, and she -had no remotest idea that the radicals were attacking him. - -Another instance: I am reading the latest “book of the month,” which has -just come in the mail, and to which my wife has paid no attention. She -interrupts me with a question: “Are there any flowers in what you are -reading?” I answer, “Yes,” and she says: “I have been trying to -concentrate, and I keep seeing flowers. I have drawn them.” She hands me -two drawings (Figs. 14a, 14b): - -The book was Mumford’s _Herman Melville_, and I was at page 346, a -chapter entitled, “The Flowering Aloe.” On this page are six lines from -a poem called “The American Aloe on Exhibition.” On the preceding page -is a discussion of the habits of this plant. While my wife was making -the left-hand drawing (Fig. 14a), I had been reading page 344: “the red -clover had blushed through the fields about their house”; and “he would -return home with a handful of clover blossoms.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 14a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 14b] - -Of experiences like this there have been many. Important as the subject -is, I find it a bother, because I am called upon to listen to long -narratives of dreams and telepathy, while my mind is on Sacco and -Vanzetti, or the Socialist presidential campaign, or whatever it is. -Sometimes the messages from the subconscious are complicated and take -patience to disentangle. Consider, for example, a little drawing (Fig. -15)—one of nearly three hundred which this long-suffering husband has -made for his witch-wife to reproduce by telepathy: a football, you see, -neatly laced up. In her drawing (Fig. 15a) Craig gets the general effect -perfectly, but she puts it on a calf. Her written comment was: -“Belly-band on calf.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 15] - -[Illustration: Fig. 15a] - -While Craig was making this particular experiment, her husband was -reading a book; and now, wishing to solve the mystery, she asks, “What -are you reading?” The husband replies, wearily: “DeKruif’s _Hunger -Fighters_, page 283.” “What does it deal with?” “It is a treatise on the -feeding of cows.” “Really?” says Craig. “Will you please write that down -for me and sign it?” - -But why did the cow become a calf? That, too, is something to be -explained. Says Craig: “Do you remember what I used to tell you about -old Mr. Bebb and his calves?” Yes, the husband knows the story of the -half-crazy old Welshman, who thirty or forty years ago was the caretaker -of the Kimbrough summer home on the Mississippi Sound. Old Mr. Bebb made -his hobby the raising of calves by hand, and turning them into parlor -pets. He would teach them to use his three fingers as a nursing bottle, -and would make fancy embroidered belly-bands for them, and tie them up -in these. So to the subconscious mind which was once little Mary Craig -Kimbrough of Mississippi, the idea of a calf sewed up like a football is -one of the most natural in the world. - -Since my wife and I have no secrets from each other, it does not trouble -me that she is able to see what I am doing. While I am away from home, -she will “concentrate” upon me, and immediately afterwards write out -what she “sees.” On one occasion she described to me a little red book -which I had got in the mail at the office. By way of establishing just -what kind of book she had “seen,” she had gone to my bookcase and picked -out a French dictionary—and it happened that I had just received the -Italian dictionary of that same series, uniform in binding. On another -occasion, while making a study of dream-material, she wrote out a dream -about being lost in long and involved concrete corridors—while I was -trying to find my way through the locker-rooms of a Y. M. C. A. -basement, running into one blind passage after another, and being much -annoyed by doors that wouldn’t open. - -Dreams, you understand, are products of subconscious activity, and to -watch them is one method of proving telepathy. By practice Craig has -learned to lie passive, immediately after awakening, and trace back a -long train of dreams. Here is one of the results, a story worth telling -in detail—save that I fear you will refuse to believe it after it is -told. - -On the afternoon of January 30, 1928, I was playing tennis on the courts -of the Virginia Hotel, in Long Beach, California, and my wife was taking -a nap. She did not know that I was playing tennis, and has no knowledge -about the places where I play. She takes no interest in the game, -regarding it as a foolish business which will some day cause her husband -to drop dead of heart failure—and she declines to be present on the -occasion. When I entered the house, she said: “I woke up with a long -involved dream, and it seemed so absurd I didn’t want to write it out, -but I did so.” Here are the opening sentences verbatim: - -“Dreamed I was on a pier, watching a new kind of small, one or two -seated sport-boat, a little water car into which a woman got and was -shot by machinery from the pier out to the water, where she skidded -around a minute or two and was drawn back to the pier. With us on the -pier were my sister and child, and two young men in white with white -caps. These appeared to be in charge of this new sport-boat. This boat -is not really a boat. It is a sort of miniature car. I’ve never seen -anything like it. Short, so that only one or two people could sit in it. -An amusement thing, belonging to the pier. The two young men were -intensely interested, and stood close together watching it out on the -water,” etc., etc. - -Understand that this dream was not supposed to have anything to do with -me. It was before Craig had come to realize the state of _rapport_ with -me; she had not been thinking about me, and when she told me about this -dream, she had no thought that any part of it had come from my mind. But -here is what I told her about my afternoon: - -The Virginia Hotel courts are close to what is called “The Pike,” and -there is an amusement pier just across the way, and on it a so-called -“Ferris wheel,” with little cars exactly like the description, which go -up into the air with people in them. That afternoon it happened that the -tennis courts were crowded, so my partner and I waited out a set or two. -We sat on a bench, in white tennis suits and hats, and watched this -wheel, and the cars which went up in the air, and at a certain point -took a slide on long rods, which made them “skid around,” and caused the -women in them to scream with excitement. Underneath the pier was the -ocean, plainly visible along with the little cars. - -(Footnote, 1962: The hotel and the Pike no longer exist, so do not waste -your time trying to verify all this.) - -I should also mention the case of our friend, Mrs. Kate Crane-Gartz, -with whom there is a _rapport_ which my wife does not tell her about. My -wife will say to me, “Mrs. Gartz is going to phone,” and in a minute or -two the phone will ring. She will say, “Mrs. Gartz is coming. She wants -me to go to Los Angeles with her.” Of course, a good deal of guessing -might be possible, in the case of two intimate friends. But consider -such guessing as this: My wife had a dream of an earthquake and wrote it -down. Soon thereafter occurred this conversation with Mrs. Gartz. I -heard it, and my wife recorded it immediately afterwards, and I quote -her written record: - -“Mrs. Gartz dreamed of earthquake. ‘Wasn’t it queer that I dreamed of -swaying slowly from side to side.’” - -“‘I dreamed the same,’ I said. ‘But I was in a high building.’” - -“‘So was I,’ she replied.” - -Craig calls attention to the word “slowly,” as both she and Mrs. Gartz -commented on this. They didn’t believe that an earthquake would behave -that way; but I pointed out that it would happen just so with a -steel-frame building. - - - - - _7_ - - -I come now to a less fantastic and more convincing series of -experiments; those made with the husband of my wife’s younger sister, -Robert L. Irwin. Eight years ago the doctors gave Bob only a few months -to live, on account of tuberculosis. Needless to say, he has much time -on his hands, waiting for the doctors’ clairvoyance to be verified. He -proved to be a good “subject”—the best of all in the tests with Jan. One -day in our home, a series of five tests were made, with Bob holding an -object in mind, while sitting several feet away from Jan. The latter -found the object, and made the correct disposition of it, as willed by -Bob, in four out of the five trials. This included such unlikely things -as picking up a striped blanket and wrapping it about my shoulders. - -Bob and Craig made the arrangement that at a certain hour each day, Bob, -in his home in Pasadena, was to take pencil and paper and make a drawing -of an object, and sit and concentrate his mind upon that drawing. At the -same hour Craig, in our home in Long Beach, forty miles away, was to go -into her state of “concentration,” and give orders to her subconscious -mind to find out what was in Bob’s mind. The drawings were to be dated, -and filed, and when the two of them met, they would compare the results, -in the presence of myself and Bob’s wife. If there should turn out to be -a correspondence between the drawings, greater than could be attributed -to chance, it would be evidence of telepathy, as good as any that could -be imagined or desired. - -The results were such as to make me glad that it was another person than -myself, so as to afford a disinterested witness to these matters, so -difficult of belief. I repeat that Bob is a young American business man, -priding himself on having no “crank” ideas; he has had a Socialist -brother-in-law for ten years or more without being in the slightest -degree affected in manners, morals, or convictions. Here is his first -drawing, done on a half sheet of green paper. The word “CHAIR” -underneath, and the date, were written by Bob, while the words “drawn by -Bob Irwin” were added for purposes of record by Craig (Fig. 16): - -[Illustration: Fig. 16] - -[Illustration: Fig. 16a] - -And now for Craig’s results. I give her report verbatim, with the two -drawings which are part of her text: - -“At 10 o’clock or a little before, while sewing (without effort) I saw -Bob take something from black sideboard—think it was the glass -candlestick. At 11:15 (I concentrate now) I saw Bob sitting at dining -room table—a dish or some small object in front of him (on N. E. corner -table). I try to see the object on table—see white something at last. I -can’t decide what it is so I concentrate on seeing his drawing on a -green paper as it is about 11:20 now and I think he has made his -drawing. I try hard to see what he has drawn—try to see a paper with a -drawing on it, and see a straight chair. Am not sure of second drawing. -It does not seem to be on his paper. It may be his bed-foot. I -distinctly see a chair like 1st on his paper.” (Fig. 16a.) - -When Bob and my wife discussed the above test, she learned that he had -sat at the northeast corner of the table, trying to decide what to draw, -and facing the sideboard on which were silver candlesticks. Later he -went to his bedroom and lay down, gazing through the foot of his bed at -the chair which he had taken as his model for the drawing. The bed has -white bars running vertically, as in my wife’s second drawing. The -chair, like Bob’s drawing, has the strips of wood supporting the back -running crossways, and this feature is reproduced in Craig’s first -drawing. Her report goes on to add that she sees a star and some -straight lines, which she draws; they are horizontal parallel lines, as -in the back of the chair. The back of the chair Bob had looked at had a -carved star upon it. - -The second attempt was the next day, and Bob drew his watch (Fig. 17). -Craig first drew a chair, and then wrote, “But do not feel it is -correct.” Then she drew the following (Fig. 17a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 17] - -[Illustration: Fig. 17a] - -The comment was: “I see this picture. Later I think it is not flower but -wire (metal, shining). The ‘petals’ are not petals but wire, and should -be _uniform_. This is hasty drawing so not exact as seen. What I mean -is, I try to see Bob’s drawing and not what he drew from. So I see no -flower but shape of one on paper. Then decide it is of wire, but this -may be merely because I see drawing, which would have no flower color. -However, I see it shining as if it is metal. Later a glass circle.” -Drawings then show an ellipse, and then a drinking glass and a glass -pitcher. It is interesting to note that Bob had in front of him a glass -bowl with goldfish. - -The next day Bob drew a pair of scissors (Fig. 18): - -[Illustration: Fig. 18] - -The drawings of Craig follow without comment (Figs. 18a, 18b): - -[Illustration: Fig. 18a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 18b] - -Three days later Bob drew the table fork, which has already been -reproduced (Fig. 1), and Craig made the report which has been given in -facsimile (Fig. 1a): “See a table fork. Nothing else.” - -One more test between Bob and Craig, the most sensational of all. It is -quite a story, and I have to ask your pardon for the medical details -involved. So much vital knowledge hangs upon these tests that I have -asked my brother-in-law to forget his personal feelings. The reader will -please consider himself a medical student or hospital nurse for the -moment. - -The test occurred July 11, 1928. My wife made her drawing, and then told -me about the matter at once. Also she wrote out all the details and the -record is now before me. She saw a feather, then a flower spray, and -then she heard a scream. Her first thought in case of illness or danger -is her aged parents, and she took it for her mother’s voice, and this so -excited her that she lost interest in the experiment. But soon she -concentrated again, and drew a series of concentric circles, with a -heavy black spot in the center. Then she saw another and much larger -spot, and this began to spread and cover the sheet of paper. At the same -time came a feeling of intense depression, and Craig decided that the -black spot was blood, and that Bob had had a hemorrhage. Here is her -drawing (Fig. 19a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 19a] - -Two or three days later Bob’s wife drove him to our home, and in the -presence of all four of us he produced the drawing he had made. He had -taken a compass and drawn a large circle; making, of course, a hole in -the center of the paper. “Is that all you thought of during the time?” -asked my wife. “No,” said Bob, “but I’d hate to have you get the rest of -it.” “What was it?” “Well, I discovered that I had a hemorrhoid, and -couldn’t put my mind on anything else but the thought, ‘My God, my -lungs—my kidneys—and now this!’” - -A hemorrhoid is, of course, apt to be accompanied by a hemorrhage; and -it seems clear that my wife got the mood of depression of her -brother-in-law, his thoughts of blood and bodily breakdown, as well as -the circle and the hole in the paper. There is another detail which does -not appear in the written record, but is fixed in my memory. My wife -said: “I wanted to draw a little hill.” Upon hearing that, I called up a -physician friend who is interested in these tests, and asked him what a -drawing of a hemorrhoid would look like, and he agreed that “a little -hill” was about as near as one could come. I hope you will note that -this particular drawing test is supported by the testimony of four -different persons, my wife, her sister, the sister’s husband, and -myself. I do not see how there could possibly be more conclusive -evidence of telepathic influence—unless you suspect all four of us of a -series of stupid and senseless falsehoods. Let me repeat that Bob and -his wife have read this manuscript and certified to its correctness so -far as concerns them. The comment written by my wife reads: “All this -dark like a stain—feel it is blood; that Bob is ill—more than usual.” - -(Note: Bob Irwin died not long afterwards.) - - - - - _8_ - - -The experiments just described were all that were done with Bob, because -he found them a strain. Craig asked me to make some drawings for her, -and I did so, sitting in the next room, some thirty feet away, but -always behind a closed door. Thus you may verify my assertion that the -telepathic energy, whatever it may be, knows no difference between -thirty feet and forty miles. The results with Bob and with myself were -about the same. - -The first drawings made with me are those which have already been given -(Figs. 2, 2a), but I give them again for the sake of convenience. I -explain that in these particular drawings the lines have been traced -over in heavier pencil; the reason being that Craig wanted a carbon -copy, and went over the lines in order to make it. This had the effect -of making them heavier than they originally were, and it made the whirly -lines in Craig’s first drawing more numerous than they should be. She -did this in the case of two or three of the early drawings, wishing to -send a report to a friend. I pointed out to her how this would weaken -their value as evidence, so she never did it again. - -After my wife and I had compared the above drawings, she wrote a note to -the effect that just before starting to concentrate, she had been -looking at her drawing of many concentric circles, which she had made in -a test with Bob the previous day (Fig. 19a). So her first vision was of -a whirl of circles. This turned sideways, and then took the shape of an -arrowhead, and then of a letter A, and finally evolved into a complete -star. As the agent in this test, I wish to repeat that I made my drawing -in my study with the door closed, that I kept the drawing before my eyes -the entire time, and that the door stayed closed until Craig called that -she was through. - -I do not find it easy to concentrate on a drawing, because my active -mind wanders off to side issues. If I draw a lighted cigarette, I -immediately think of the odious advertising now appearing in the papers; -or I think: “Will Craig get this right, and what does it mean, and will -the world accept evidence on this subject from me?”—and so on. Several -times my wife has “got” such thoughts, and so we took to noting them on -the record. On July 29, I drew a cigarette, with two little curls for -smoke, each running off like a string of the letter “eeeee,” written by -hand. Underneath I wrote as follows: “My thought: ‘cigarette with curls -of smoke.’ I said to myself these words: ‘she got the curls but not the -cigarette.’” This would appear to be telepathy coming from Craig to me, -for her drawing was found to contain a lot of different curves—a curly -capital S, several other half circles twisted together, and three ??? -one inside the other. She added the following words: “I can’t draw it, -but curls of some sort.” - -[Illustration] - -Again, here is a work of art from my facile pen, dated July 21, and -having underneath my notation: “Concentrated on bald head” (Fig. 20). - -[Illustration: Fig. 20] - -My wife’s note was: “Saw Upton’s face.” Then she drew a line through the -words, and wrote the following explanation: “Saw two half circles. Then -they came together making full circle. But I felt uncertain as to -whether they belonged together or not. Then suddenly saw Upton’s profile -float across vision.” - -July 20 I drew a three-pronged fork, and made the note that I was not -sure if it was a hay-fork or an oyster-fork, and decided it was the -latter, whereupon my mind went off to “society” people and their many -kinds of forks. Craig wrote: “I thought it was an animal’s head with -horns and the head was on a long stick—a trophy mounted like this”—and -she drew a two-pronged fork. - -July 17 I drew a large round stone with a smaller stone on top: at least -so I thought, and then decided they were two eggs. Craig drew two almost -tangent circles, and wrote: “I see two round things, not one inside the -other, as in Bob’s drawing of circles. Then the above vanished and I saw -as below”—and she drew four little oblongs, tangent, which might be a -cluster of fish-eggs or fly-eggs. - -July 20 I drew two heavy straight lines making a capital letter T, and -Craig drew a complete cross or square X, which is, of course, the T with -vertical arm prolonged. July 14 I drew a sort of jack-lantern. It is on -next page (Fig. 21). I looked at this drawing and thought of the eyes of -M.C.S., and said mentally, “I should have drawn the curves over eyes.” -Afterwards I told Craig about this, and she noted it down on the -drawing. On the reverse side of the sheet she added the following: “I -told U. it was shaped like a half moon with something in center—I -supposed it must be a star, though I did not see it as star but as -indistinct marks.” Her drawing follows, turned upside down for greater -convenience (Fig. 21a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 21] - -[Illustration: Fig. 21a] - - - - - _9_ - - -A new method of experiment invented itself by accident; and makes -perhaps the strangest story yet. There came a letter from a clergyman in -South Africa, saying that he was sending me a copy of his wife’s novel -dealing with South African life. I get many letters from strangers, and -answer politely, and as a rule forget them quickly. Some time afterwards -came two volumes, entitled, “Patricia, by Marcus Romondt,” and I did not -associate them with the clergyman’s letter. I glanced at the preface, -and saw that the work had something to do with the religious cults of -the South African natives. I didn’t read more than twenty lines—just -enough to classify the book as belonging in Craig’s department. -Everything having to do with philosophy, psychology, religion and -medicine is first read by her, and then fed back to me in her eager -discourses. I took the volumes home and laid them on her table, saying, -“This may interest you.” The remark attracted no special attention, for -the reason that I bring her a book, or a magazine, or some clippings at -least once a day. She did not touch these volumes, nor even glance at -the title while I was in the room. - -I went into the kitchen to get some lunch, and when it was ready I -called, “Are you going to eat?” “Let me alone,” she said, “I am writing -a story.” That also is a common experience. I ate my lunch in silence, -and then came into the living room again, and there was Craig, absorbed -in writing. Some time later she came to me, exclaiming, “Oh, I have had -the most marvelous idea for a story! Something just flashed over me, -something absolutely novel—I never heard anything like it. I have a -whole synopsis. Do you want to hear it?” “No,” I said, “you had better -go and eat”—for it was my job to try to keep her body on earth. “I can’t -eat now,” she said, “I am too excited. I’ll read a while and get quiet.” -So she went to her couch, and there was a minute or two of silence, and -then an exclamation: “Come here!” - -Craig had picked up one of the two volumes from South Africa, and was -staring at it. “Look at this!” she said. “Look what I opened to!” I -looked at a page in the middle of the book—she has the devilish habit of -reading a book that way—and in the center of the page, in capital -letters, I read the words: “THE BLACK MAGICIAN.” “What about it?” I -said. “Did you ever hear of that idea?” asked Craig. I answered that I -had, and she said, “Well, I never did. I thought it was my own. It is -the theme of the ‘story’ I have just been writing. I have made a -synopsis of a whole chapter in this book, and without ever having -touched it!” - -So Craig had a new set of experiments to try all by herself, without -bothering her busy husband. She would go to one of my bookcases, with -which she had hitherto had nothing to do, since her own books are kept -in her own place. With her back to the bookcase, she would draw a book, -and take it to her couch and lie down, placing the book upon her solar -plexus, and taking every precaution to make sure that it never came into -her line of vision. Most of the books, being new, were in their paper -jackets, so there was no lettering that could be felt with her fingers. -This, you note, is not a test of telepathy, for no human mind knew what -particular book Craig’s hand had fallen upon. If she could tell anything -about the contents of that book, it would appear to be clairvoyance, or -what is known as “psychometry.” - -My books are oddly varied in character. There are new novels, and works -of history, biography, travel and economics. In addition, there are what -I call “crank books”; the queerly assorted volumes which are destined by -donors all over the world to convert me to vegetarianism, -antivivisection, anarchism, Mormonism, Mohammedanism, infanticide, the -abolition of money, or the doctrine that alopecia is caused by onanism. -Believe me, the person who sets out to guess the contents of the books -that come to me in the course of a month has his or her hands full! - -But Craig was able to do it. She did it on so many occasions that she -would sit and stare at me and exclaim, “Now what do you make of _that_?” -She would insist that I sit and watch the process, so as to be able to -state that she never had the book in her line of vision. In my presence -she picked out a volume, and, keeping it hidden from both of us, she -said, “I see a blue cover, with a rising sun and a bare landscape.” It -happened to be a volume circulated by the followers of “Pastor Russell,” -and as the preface tells me that 1,405,000 have been sold, it may be -that you too have it in your library. The title is _Deliverence_, by J. -F. Rutherford, and it has a blue cloth cover, with a gold design of a -sun rising behind a mass of clouds and a globe. - -On another occasion Craig wrote: “One big eye, with nothing else -distinct—then lines or spikes came around it, or maybe these project -from the head like stiff long hairs, or eye-lashes. Can’t tell what kind -of head—but feel it must be a tropical something, tho the eye looks -human,” etc. The book was _Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island_, by H. G. -Wells, and in this book is a chapter headed, “The Friendly Eye,” with -the following sentences: “I became aware that an Eye observed me -continually.... It was a reddish brown eye. It looked out from a system -of bandages that also projected a huge shock of brown hair upward and a -great chestnut beard ... the eye watched me with the illuminating but -expressionless detachment of a head-lamp.... Polyhemus, for that was my -private name for the man.” - -A long string of such surprises! Craig picked up a book and wrote: -“Black wings—a vampire flying by night.” The title of the book was _The -Devil’s Jest_. She picked up one and wrote: “A Negro’s head with a light -around it.” It is a German volume, called “Africa Singt,” and has a big -startling design exactly as described. She picked up a book by Leon -Trotsky, and wrote the word “Checkro”—which may not sound like Russian -to Trotsky, but does to Craig! And a book with Mussolini on the cover, -wearing a black coat and feeding a lion: she got the shape of the Duce’s -figure, only she labeled him “Black Bird.” And here is a part of the -jacket design of “wings” on the “Literary Guild” books—and below is what -Craig made of it. She added the comment: “Motion—the thing is traveling, -point first (Fig. 22, 22a).” - -[Illustration: Fig. 22] - -[Illustration: Fig. 22a] - -Another volume was described as follows: “A pale blue book. Lonely -prairie country, stretch of flat land against sky, and outlined against -it a procession of people. Had feeling of moving—wheeled vehicle which -seemed to be baby-carriage. This was strange, because country was -covered with snow.” Upon examination, the book proved to be bound in -mottled pale blue boards, title, “I’m Scairt,” with subtitle, “Childhood -Days on the Prairies.” On the first page of the preface occurs the -following: “It was in those days that a company of Swedes left their -beloved homeland in the far North and came to make a home for themselves -and their children on the Kansas prairie.” - -Finally, I have obtained the publisher’s consent to reproduce the jacket -design of a recent book, so that I may put Craig’s telepathy alongside -it, and give you a laugh or two. Observe the jolly little tourists, and -what they have turned into! And then the efforts of Craig’s subconscious -mind at French. They taught it to her in a “finishing school” on Fifth -Avenue, and you can see that it was finished before it began (Figs. 23, -23a). - -Yet another form of experiment invented itself under the pressure of -necessity. Impossible to have such a witch-wife without trying to put -her to use! - -[Illustration: Fig. 23] - -[Illustration: Fig. 23a] - -I have the habit of working out a chapter of a new book in my head, and -writing down a few notes on a scrap of paper, and sticking it away in -any place that is handy; then, next day, or whenever I am ready for -work, it is gone, and there is the devil to pay. I wander about the -house for an hour or two, trying to imagine where I can have put that -scrap of paper, and reluctant to do the work all over again. On one -occasion I searched every pocket, my desk, the trash-baskets, and then, -deciding that I had dropped it outdoors, where I work with my -typewriter, I figured the direction of the wind, and picked up all the -scraps of paper I saw decorating the landscape of our beach home. Then I -decided it must be in a manuscript which I had given to a friend in Los -Angeles, and I was about to phone to that friend, when Craig asked what -the trouble was, and said, “Come, let’s make an experiment. Lie down -here, and describe the paper to me.” - -I told her, a sheet off a little pad, written on both sides, and folded -once. She took my hand, and went into her state of concentration, and -said, “It is in the pocket of a gray coat.” I answered, “Impossible; I -have searched every coat in the house half a dozen times.” She said, “It -is in a pocket, and I will get it.” She got up off the couch, and went -to a gray coat of mine, and in a pocket I had somehow overlooked, there -was the paper! Let me add that Craig had had nothing to do with my -clothing in the interim, and had never seen the paper, nor heard of it -until I began roaming about the house, grumbling and fussing. Neither of -us know of any “normal” way by which her subconscious mind could have -got this information. - -My secretary lost two screw-caps of the office typewriter, and I said to -my wife, “I will bring him over, and you see if you can tell him where -to look.” But my wife was ill, and did not want to meet any one, so she -said, “I will see if I can get it through you.” Be it understood, Craig -has not been in the office in a year, and has met my secretary only -casually. She said, “I see him standing up at his typewriting.” That is -an unusual thing for a typist to do, but it happened to be true. Said -Craig: “He has put the screw-caps on something high. They are in the -south room, above the level of any table or desk.” I went to the phone -to ask my secretary, and learned that he had just found the screws, -which he had put on top of a window-sash in the south room. - -The third incident requires the statement that, a few months back, while -my wife was away, our home had been loaned to friends, and I had camped -at the little house which I was using as an office. Some medical -apparatus had been left there; at least I had a vague impression that I -had had it there, and I said, “I’ll go and look.” Said Craig: “Let’s try -an experiment.” She took my hand, and told me to make my mind a blank, -and presently she said, “I see it under the kitchen sink.” I went over -to the office, and found the object, not under the sink, but under the -north end of the bathtub. I took it back to the house, and before I -spoke a word, my wife said: “I tried to get you on the phone. I -concentrated again, and saw the thing and wrote it out.” She gave me a -slip of paper, from which I copy: “Down under something, wrapped in -paper—on N. side of room—under laundry tub on floor or under bath tub on -floor in N. corner.” - -You may say, of course, if you are an incurable skeptic: “The man’s wife -had been over to the office and seen the object; she had been searching -his pockets, and had seen the paper.” Craig is positive that she did -nothing of the sort; but of course it is conceivable that she may have -done it and then forgotten it. Therefore, I pass on to a different and -more acceptable kind of evidence—a set of drawing tests, in which I -watched and checked every step of the proceedings at my wife’s -insistence. Here again I am a co-equal witness with her, and the skeptic -has no alternative but to say that the two of us have contrived this -elaborate hoax, making nearly three hundred drawings with fake -reproductions, in order to get notoriety, or to sell a few books. I -really hope nobody will say that is possible. Very certainly I could -sell more books with less trouble by writing what the public wants; and -if I were a dishonest man, I should not have waited until the age of -fifty-one to begin such a career. - - - - - _10_ - - -Concerning these drawings, there are preliminary explanations to be -made. They were done hastily, by two busy people. Neither is a trained -artist, and our ability to convey what we wish is limited. When I start -on a giraffe, I manage to produce a pretty good neck, but when I get to -the body, I am disturbed to note it turning into a sheep or a donkey. -When I draw a monkey climbing a tree, and Craig says, “Buffalo or lion, -tiger—wild animal”—I have to admit that may be so; likewise when my limb -of a tree is called a “trumpet,” or when Craig’s “wild animal” resembles -a chorus girl’s legs. I will let you see those particular drawings. -Figure 24 is mine, while 24a and 24b are my wife’s. - -[Illustration: Fig. 24] - -[Illustration: Fig. 24a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 24b] - -Again, I draw a volcano in eruption, and my wife calls it a black -beetle, which hardly sounds like a triumphant success; but study the -drawings, and you see that my black smoke happens to be the shape of a -beetle, while the two sides of the volcano serve very well for the long -feelers of an insect (Figs. 25, 25a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 25] - -[Illustration: Fig. 25a] - -The tests began with four series of drawings, 38 in all, made by my -secretary. Following these were 31 series drawn by myself, comprising -252 separate drawings. Each drawing would be wrapped in an extra sheet -of paper, and sealed in a separate envelope, and the envelopes handed to -my wife when she was ready for the tests. She would put them on the -table by her couch, and lie down, putting the first envelope, unopened, -over her solar plexus, covered by her hand. Her head would be lying back -on a pillow, eyes closed, and head at such an angle that nothing but the -ceiling could be seen if the eyes were open. A dim light to avoid sense -stimulation; enough light to see everything plainly. When she had what -she judged was the right image, she would take a pad and pencil and make -the drawing or write the description of what she “saw.” Then she would -open the envelope and compare the two drawings, and number both for -identification. - -This recording was, of course, an interruption of her passive state, and -made the task difficult. In a few cases she repeated a number or forgot -the number, and this leaves a chance for confusion. I have done my best -to clear up all such uncertainties, but there is a margin of error of -one or two per cent to be noted. This is too small to affect the -results, but is mentioned in the interest of exactness. - -Since I found the sealing of envelopes tiresome, and Craig found the -opening of them more so, we decided half way through the tests to -abandon the sealing, and later we abandoned the envelopes altogether. We -reasoned that acceptance of the evidence rests upon our good faith -anyhow, and all that any sensible reader can ask is that Craig make sure -of never letting a drawing get within her range of vision. She was doing -this laborious work to get knowledge for herself, and she certainly made -sure that she was not wasting her own time. - -At present the practice is this: I make her a set of six or eight -drawings on little sheets of pad paper, and lay them face down on her -table, with a clean sheet of paper over them. She lies down, and with -her head lying back on the pillow and her eyes closed, she reaches for -one of the drawings, and slides it over and onto her body, covered by -her hand. It is always out of her range of vision, even if the drawing -were turned toward her eyes, which it never is. - -For the comfort of the suspicious, let me add that the relaxing of the -conditions caused no change in the averages. In the first four series, -drawn by my secretary, and sealed by him in envelopes, there were only -five complete failures in thirty-eight tests, which is thirteen per -cent; whereas in the 252 drawings made by me there have been 65 outright -failures, which is nearly twice as large a percentage. Series number -six, which was carefully sealed up, produced four complete successes, -five partial successes, and no failures; whereas series twenty-one, -which was not put in envelopes at all, produced no complete successes, -three partial successes, and six failures. Perhaps I should explain that -by a “series” I mean simply a group of drawings which were done at one -time. It is my custom to make from six to a dozen and when Craig has -finished with them, they are put into an envelope and filed away. - -I will add that Craig again and again begged me to sit and watch her -work, so that I might be able to add my testimony to hers; I did so, -watching tests both with envelopes and without, and assure you she left -no loophole for self-deception. There was plenty of light to see by, and -some of the most startling successes were produced under my eyes. I will -add that no one could take this matter with more seriousness than my -wife. She is the most honorable person I know, and she has worked on -these experiments with rigid conscientiousness. - - - - - _11_ - - -I shall give a number of the successful drawings, and some of the -partial successes, but none of the failures, for these obviously are -merely waste. When I draw a cow, and my wife draws a star or a fish or a -horseshoe, all you want is the word “Failure” and then you want to know -the percentage of failures, so that you can figure the probabilities. -Failures prove nothing that you do not already believe; if your ideas -are to be changed, it is successes that will change them. - -I begin with series three, because of the interesting circumstances -under which it was made. Late in the afternoon I phoned my secretary to -make a dozen drawings; and then, after dark, Craig and I decided to -drive to Pasadena, and on the way I stopped at the office and got the -twelve sealed envelopes which had been laid on my desk. I picked them up -in a hurry and slipped them into a pocket, and a minute or two later I -put them on the seat beside me in the car. - -After we had started, I said, “Why don’t you try some of the drawings on -the way?” We were passing through the Signal Hill oil-field, amid -thunder of machinery and hiss of steam and flashing of headlights of -cars and trucks. “It will be interesting to see if I can concentrate in -such circumstances,” said Craig, and took one envelope and held it -against her body in the darkness, while I went on with my job of -driving. After a few minutes Craig said, “I see something long and -oblong, like a stand.” She got a pad and pencil from a pocket of the -car, and switched on the ceiling light, and made a drawing, and then -opened the envelope. Here are the pictures; I call it a partial success -(Figs. 26, 26a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 26] - -[Illustration: Fig. 26a] - -Here is the next pair, done on the same drive to Pasadena (Figs. 27, -27a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 27] - -[Illustration: Fig. 27a] - -Then came a drawing of an automobile. Considering the attendant -circumstances, it was surely not surprising that Craig should report it -as “a big light in the end of a tube or horn.” There were many such -lights in her eyes. - -Then a fourth envelope: she said, “I see a little animal or bug with -legs, and the legs are sticking out in bug effect.” When she looked into -the envelope, she was so excited that she tried to get me to look—at -forty miles an hour on a highway at night! Here is the drawing, meant to -be a skull and cross-bones, but so done that a “bug with legs” is really -a fair description of it (Fig. 28): - -[Illustration: Fig. 28] - -After we arrived at our destination, my wife did some more of the -drawings, and got partial successes. On this telephone the comment was: -“Goblet with another one floating near or above it inverted” (Figs. 29, -29a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 29] - -[Illustration: Fig. 29a] - -And then this arrow (Figs. 30, 30a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 30] - -[Illustration: Fig. 30a] - -Concerning the above my wife wrote: “See something that suggests a -garden tool—a lawn rake, or spade.” And for the next one (Fig. 31) she -wrote: “A pully-bone”—which is Mississippi “darky” talk for a wish-bone -of a chicken. I don’t know whether it means a bone that you pull, or -whether it is Creole for “poulet.” Here is what my secretary had drawn -(Fig. 31): - -[Illustration: Fig. 31] - -I had asked my secretary at the outset to make simple geometrical -designs, letters and figures, thinking that these would be easier to -recognize and reproduce. But they brought only partial successes; Craig -would get elements of the drawing but would not know how to put them -together. There were seven in the first series, and there is some -element right in every one. An oblong was drawn exactly, and then two -fragments of oblongs added to it. A capital M in script had the first -stroke done exactly, with the curl. A capital E in script was done with -the curls left out. - -And the same with the second series. Here is a square—but you see that -the two halves of it are wandering about (Figs. 32, 32a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 32] - -[Illustration: Fig. 32a] - -And here is a letter Y, but by telepathy it has been turned from script -into print (Figs. 33, 33a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 33] - -[Illustration: Fig. 33a] - -A quite different story began when my secretary allowed his imagination -a little play. He knows that my wife lives in part on milk, and he knows -that she is particular about the quality, because he has to handle the -bills. So he has a little fun with her, and you see that immediately she -gets, not the form, but the color and feeling of it (Figs. 34, 34a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 34] - -[Illustration: Fig. 34a] - -The comment reads: “Round white foamy stuff on top like soap suds or -froth.” As she drinks her milk sour and whipped, you see that its -foaminess is a prominent feature. - -Then comes an oil derrick. We live in the midst of these unsightly -objects, and are liable to be turned out of house and home by drilling -nearby; moreover, I have written a book called “Oil!” and the -exclamation mark at the end has been justified by the effect of it on -our lives. My wife made a figure five with long lines going out, and -wrote: “I don’t know why the five should have such a thing as an -appendage, but the appendage was most vivid, so there it is” (Figs. 35, -35a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 35] - -[Illustration: Fig. 35a] - -After she had opened the envelope and seen the original drawing, the -problem became, not why a figure five should have an appendage, but why -an oil derrick should have a figure five. Craig puzzled over this, and -then lay down and told her subconscious mind to bring her the answer. -What came was this: the German version of my book, called “Petroleum,” -has three oil derricks on the front, and a huge dollar sign on the back -of the cover, and this was what Craig had really “seen.” She had looked -at this book when it arrived, a year or more back, and it had been filed -away in her memory. Of course, this may not be the correct explanation, -but it is the one which her mind brought to her. - - - - - _12_ - - -These drawing tests afford a basis for psycho-analysis, and it is -interesting to note some of the facts thus brought up from the childhood -of my wife. For example, fires! She was raised in the “black belt,” -where there are nine Negroes to one white, and the former are still -close to Africa. When Craig was a girl, a nurse in the family, having -been discharged, set fire to the home while the adults were away, and -the children asleep. Another servant, jealous of an unfaithful husband, -put her two babies into a barrel full of feathers and burned them alive. -Other fires occurred; so now, in her home, Craig keeps an uneasy eye out -for greasy rags, or overheated stoves, or whatever else her fears -suggest. When in these drawing tests there has been anything indicating -fire or smoke, she has “got” it, with only one or two failures out of -more than a dozen cases. Sometimes she “got” the fire or smoke without -the object; sometimes she supplied fire or smoke to an object which -might properly have it—a pipe, for example. The results are so curious -that I assemble them together—a series of fire-alarms, as it were. - -You recall the fact that in one of the early drawing tests—those in -which, instead of giving the drawings to my wife, I sat in my study and -concentrated upon them—I drew a lighted cigarette, and thought of the -curls of smoke. Craig filled up her drawing with curves, and wrote: “I -can’t draw it, but curls of some sort.” At this time the convention that -“curls stood for smoke” had not been established. But now, in the series -drawn by my secretary, appeared a little house with smoking chimney, and -you will see that my wife got the smoke better than the house (Figs. 36, -36a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 36] - -[Illustration: Fig. 36a] - -This apparently established in her mind the association of curls with -smoke. So when, in series six, I drew a pipe with smoke-curls, my wife -first drew an ellipse, and then wrote: “Now it begins to spin, round and -round, and is attached to a stick.” She then drew (Figs. 37, 37a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 37] - -[Illustration: Fig. 37a] - -In series eight I drew a sky-rocket going up. My first impulse had been -to draw a bursting rocket, with a shower of stars, but I realized that -would be difficult, so I drew this instead (Fig. 38): - -[Illustration: Fig. 38] - -My wife apparently took my first thought, rather than my drawing. -Anyhow, she made half a dozen sketches of whirligigs and light (Figs. -38a, 38b, 38c): - -[Illustration: Fig. 38a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 38b] - -[Illustration: Fig. 38c] - -And here in series twenty-two is a burning lamp (Figs. 39, 39a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 39] - -[Illustration: Fig. 39a] - -And here in series thirty-four another, with comment: “flame and sparks” -(Figs. 40, 40a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 40] - -[Illustration: Fig. 40a] - -I drew another pipe in series twenty-two, with the usual curls of smoke; -and Craig wrote: “Smoke stack.” I drew another in series thirty-three -with the result that, five drawings in advance of the correct one, Craig -drew a pipe with smoke. Of course, this may have been a coincidence; but -wait till you see how often such coincidences happen! (Figs. 41, 41a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 41] - -[Illustration: Fig. 41a] - -In series twenty-one I drew a chimney, and Craig drew a chimney, and -added smoke. In thirty-four I drew an old-fashioned trench-mortar; and -here again she supplied the smoke (Figs. 42, 42a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 42] - -[Illustration: Fig. 42a] - -Cannons are especially horrible things to her, as you may note again and -again in her published war-sonnets: - - The sharpened steel whips round, the black guns blaze, - Waste are the harvests, mute the songs of birds. - -So when, in series eleven, I drew the muzzle half of an old-style -cannon, Craig’s imagination got to work one drawing ahead of time. She -wrote: “Fire and smoke—smoke—flame,” and then drew as follows (Fig. -43a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 43a] - -The next drawing was the cannon, and I give it, along with the drawing -Craig made to go with it. The comment she wrote was: “Half circle—double -lines—light inside—light is fire busy whirling or flaming” (Figs. 44, -44a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 44] - -[Illustration: Fig. 44a] - -So much for fires, and things associated with fire. Now consider another -detail about life in the Yazoo delta, brought out in the course of our -psycho-analysis. In the days of Craig’s childhood, poisonous snakes were -an ever-present menace, and fear of them had to be taught to children, -and could hardly be taught too early. There is a family story of a -little tot crawling under the house and coming back to report, “I see -nuffin wiv a tail to it!” In the swamps back of Craig’s summer home on -the Mississippi Sound I have counted a dozen copperheads and moccasins -in the course of a half hour’s walk. Also, her father has some childhood -complex buried in his mind, which causes him to have a spell of nausea -at the sight of a snake. All this, of course, strongly affected the -child’s early days, and now it is in her mental depths. So when I drew a -hissing snake, just see the uproar I caused! She made no drawing, but -wrote a little essay. I give my drawing, and her essay following (Fig. -45): - -[Illustration: Fig. 45] - -“See something like kitten with tail and saucer of milk. Now it leaps -into action and runs away to outdoors. Turns to fleeing animal outdoors. -Great activity among outdoor creatures. Know it’s some outdoor thing, -not indoor object—see trees, and a frightened bird on the wing (turned -sidewise). It’s outdoor thing, but none of above seems to be _it_.” - -In other words, little Mary Craig Kimbrough is back on the plantation, -seeing terror among birds and poultry, and not knowing what causes it! -Study the drawing, and you see that I got the action of the snake, but -didn’t get the coils very well, so they might be a “saucer of milk”—and -a sure-enough kitten’s tail sticking out from it. Another childhood -horror here! Craig was a fat little thing, and she slipped and plumped -down on her favorite pet kitten, and exploded it. - - - - - _13_ - - -The person whom we are subjecting to this process of psycho-analysis has -a strong color sense, and wanted to be a painter. So we note that she -“gets” colors and names them correctly. Here is my drawing of what I -meant to be a bouquet of pink roses (Figs. 46, 46a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 46] - -[Illustration: Fig. 46a] - -Or take this case of a lobster. Craig’s comment was: “Gorgeous colors, -red and greenish tinges.” Apparently I had failed to decide whether I -was drawing a live lobster or a boiled one! My wife wrote further: “Now -it turns into a lizard, camelian, reds and greens.” When she sees this -about to be made public, she is embarrassed by her bad spelling; but she -says: “Please do not overlook the fact that a chameleon is a reptile—and -so is a lobster.” I dutifully quote her, even though her zoology is even -worse than her spelling! (Figs. 47, 47a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 47] - -[Illustration: Fig. 47a] - -While we are on the “reptiles,” I include this menacing crab, which may -have got hold of little Mary Craig’s toe on the beach of the Mississippi -Sound (Fig. 48): - -[Illustration: Fig. 48] - -For the crab, Craig made two drawings, on opposite sides of the paper -(Figs. 48a, 48b): - -[Illustration: Fig. 48a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 48b] - -The comments on the above read: “Wings, or fingers—wing effect, but no -feathers, things like fingers instead of feathers. Then many little dots -which all disappear, and leave two of them, O O, as eyes of something.” -And then, “Streamers flying from something.” - -Another color instance: I drew the head of a horse, and Craig drew a lot -of apparently promiscuous lines, and at various places wrote “yellow,” -“white,” “blue,” “(dark),” and then a general description, “Oriental.” -Afterwards she said to me: “That looks like a complete failure; yet it -was so vivid, I can’t be mistaken. Where did you get that horse?” Said -I: “I copied it from a Sunday supplement.” We got the paper from the -trash-basket, and the page opposite the horse contained what Craig -described. We shall note several other cases of this sort of intrusion -of things I did not draw, but which I had before me while drawing. - -Also anything with metal or shine seems to stand a good chance of being -“got.” For example, these nose-glasses (Figs. 49, 49a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 49] - -[Illustration: Fig. 49a] - -The comment reads: “Opalescent shine or gleam. Also peafowl.” - -Or again, a belt-buckle; my wife writes the word “shines” (Figs. 50, -50a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 50] - -[Illustration: Fig. 50a] - -Or this very busy alarm clock—she writes the same word “shines” (Figs -51, 51a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 51] - -[Illustration: Fig. 51a] - -She has got at least part of a watch whenever one has been presented. -You remember the one Bob drew (Fig. 17). There was another in series -thirty-three; Craig made a crude drawing and added: “Shines, glass or -metal” (Figs. 52, 52a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 52] - -[Illustration: Fig. 52a] - -Also, on the automobile ride to Pasadena, series three, there was a -watch-face among the drawings, and Craig drew the angle of the hands, -and added the words, “a complication of small configurations.” Having -arrived in Pasadena, she took the twelve drawings and tried them over -again. This time, of course, she had a one in twelve chance of guessing -the watch. She wrote: “A white translucent glimmering, or shimmering -which I knew was not light but rather glass. It was like heat waves -radiating in little round pools from a center.... Then in the center I -saw a vivid black mark.... So it was bound to be the watch, and it was.” - -And here is a fountain. You see that it appears to be in a tub, and is -so drawn by Craig. But you note that the “shine” has been got. “These -shine!” (Figs. 53, 53a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 53] - -[Illustration: Fig. 53a] - -Another instance, even more vivid. I made a poor attempt to draw a bass -tuba, as one sees them on the stage—a lot of jazz musicians dressed up -in white duck, and a row of big brass and nickel horns, polished to -blind your eyes. See what Craig drew, and also what she wrote (Figs. 54, -54a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 54] - -[Illustration: Fig. 54a] - -The comments, continued on the other side of the sheet, are: “Dull gold -ring shimmers and stands out with shadow behind it and in center of it. -Gleams and moves. Metal. There is a glow of gold light, and the ring or -circle is out in the air, suspended, and moves in blur of gold.” - -You see, she gets the feeling, the emotional content. I draw a child’s -express-wagon, and she writes: “Children again playing but can’t get -exactly how they look. Just feel there are children.” Or take this one, -which she describes as “Egyptian.” I don’t know if my pillar is real -Egyptian, but it seems so to me, and evidently to my wife, for you note -all the artistry it inspired (Figs. 55, 55a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 55] - -[Illustration: Fig. 55a] - -Sometimes Craig will embody the feeling in some new form of her own -invention; as for example, when I draw an old-fashioned cannon on -wheels, and she writes: “Black Napoleon hat and red military coat.” I -draw a running fox—well drawn, because I copy it from a picture; she -rises to the occasion with two crossed guns, and a hunting horn with a -lot of musical notes coming out of it (Figs. 56, 56a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 56] - -[Illustration: Fig. 56a] - -I draw an auto, and she replies with the hub and spokes of a wheel. Not -satisfied with this, she sets it aside, and tries again a little -later—without looking at the original drawing—and this time she produces -a horn, with indication of a noise. I give both her drawings, which are -on two sides of the same slip of paper (Figs. 57a, 57b): - -[Illustration: Fig. 57a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 57b] - - - - - _14_ - - -An extraordinary incident occurred in connection with the fourth series -of drawings. While my secretary, E. M. Hart, was making the drawings, -there came into the office his brother-in-law, R. H. Craig, Jr., a -teller of the Security First National Bank of Long Beach, a person -entirely unknown to my wife. He heard what was going on, and said, “I’ll -give her some that’ll stump her.” He took a pen and drew two pictures, -which were duly wrapped in sheets of green paper and sealed in -envelopes, and put with the rest of the series. I was not at the office, -and nothing was said to me about Mr. Craig having taken part in the -matter. - -My wife did this series under my eyes; and when she came to the first of -Mr. Craig’s two drawings, she wrote, “Some sort of grinning monster,” -and added an elaborate description. Then she opened the envelope, and -found a roller skate with a foot and leg attached. This, naturally, was -called a failure; but seven drawings later in the same series came Mr. -Craig’s other drawing, which was as follows (Fig. 58): - -[Illustration: Fig. 58] - -Now read the amazing description which my wife had written, seven -drawings back, when the first of Mr. Craig’s drawings had come under her -hand: - -“Some sort of grinning monster—see only the face and a vague idea of -deformed neck and shoulders. It is a man, but it looks like a cat’s -face, cat eyes and whiskers. Don’t know just how I know it is a man—it -is a deformity. Not a cat. See color of skin which is deep, flat pink, -as of a colored picture. The face of the creature is broad and weird. -The flesh of neck, or somewhere, gives effect of rolls or creases.” - -I asked my secretary what this drawing was meant to be, and he said “a -Happy Hooligan.” My cultural backwardness is such that I wasn’t sure -just what a “Happy Hooligan” might be, but my secretary told me it is a -comic supplement figure, and I then looked it up in the paper, and found -that the face of the figure as printed is a very pale pink, and the -little cap on top is a bright red. I called Mr. Craig on the phone and -asked him this question: “If you were to think of a color in connection -with a ‘Happy Hooligan,’ what color would it be?” He answered, “Red.” - -Now I ask you, what chance do you think there is of a person’s writing a -description such as the above by guess work? To be sure, my wife had -eight guesses; but do you think that eight million guesses would -suffice? And if we call it telepathy, do we say that my wife’s mind has -the power to dip into the mind of a young man whom she has never seen, -nor even heard of? Or shall we say that his mind affected his -brother-in-law’s, the brother-in-law’s affected mine, and mine affected -my wife’s? Or, if we decide to call it clairvoyance, or psychometry, -then are we going to say there is some kind of vibration or emanation -from Mr. Craig’s drawing, so powerful that when one of his drawings is -handed to my wife, she gets what is in another drawing which has been -done at the same time? - -Whatever may be the explanation, here is the fact: Again and again we -find Craig getting, not the drawing she is holding under her hand, but -the next one, which she has not yet touched. When she picks up the first -drawing, she will say, or write: “There is a little man in this series”; -or: “There is a snow scene with sled”; or: “An elephant, also a -rooster.” I am going to show you these particular cases; but first a -word as to how I have counted such “anticipations.” - -Manifestly, if I grant the right to more than one guess, I am increasing -the chances of guesswork, and correspondingly reducing the significance -of the totals. What I have done is this: where such cases have occurred, -I have called them total failures, except in a few cases, where the -description was so detailed and exact as to be overwhelming—as in the -case of this “Happy Hooligan.” Even so, I have not called it a complete -success, only a partial success. In order to be classified as a complete -success, my wife’s drawing must have been made for the particular -drawing of mine which she had in her hand at that time; and throughout -this account, the reader is to understand that every drawing presented -was made in connection with the particular drawing printed alongside -it—except in cases where I expressly state otherwise. - -Now for a few of the “anticipations.” In the course of series six, drawn -by me on Feb. 8, 1929, drawing number two was a daisy, and Craig got the -elements of it, as you see (Figs. 59, 59a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 59] - -[Illustration: Fig. 59a] - -Her mind then went ahead, and she wrote, “May be snow scene on hill and -sled.” The next drawing was an axe, which I give later (Fig. 145); she -got the elements of this very well, and then added on the back: “I get a -feeling again of a snow scene to come in this series—a sled in the -snow.” That was number three; and when number five came Craig made this -annotation: “Opened it by mistake, without concentrating. It’s my -expected sled and snow scene.” Here is the drawing (Fig. 60): - -[Illustration: Fig. 60] - -Series number eight, on Feb. 10, brought even stranger results. This is -the series in which the laced-up football was turned into a calf wearing -a belly-band (Figs. 15, 15a). But even while I was engaged in making the -drawings, sitting in my study apart, and with the door closed, Craig’s -busy magic, whatever it is, was bringing her messages. She called out: -“I see a rooster!” I had actually drawn a rooster; but of course I made -no reply to her words. She at once drew a rooster and several other -things, and after I had brought my drawings into the room, but before -she had started to work with them, she wrote as follows: - -“While Upton was making these drawings I sat before the fire thinking -how to dry felt slippers which I had washed. I had my mind on them. Hung -them on grating to see if they would hang there without burning. -Suddenly saw rooster crowing. Then thought, ‘Can U be drawing rooster?’ -Decided to make note of this. Did so. Then saw”—and she draws a circle -with eight radiating lines, like spokes of a wheel. - -In due course came drawing number eight, and before looking at it, Craig -wrote: “Rooster.” Then she added, “But no—it looks like a picture of -coffee-pot—see spout and handle.” This is hard on me as an artist, but I -give the drawing and let you judge for yourself (Fig. 61): - -[Illustration: Fig. 61] - -What about the circle and the radiating spokes? That was, apparently, a -fore-glimpse of drawing number five. I give you that, together with what -Craig drew for that particular test when it came. Her effort suggests -the kind of humor with which the newspaper artists used to delight my -childhood; a series of drawings in which one thing turns into some other -and quite unexpected thing by gradual changes. You will see here how the -hub of a wagon-wheel may turn into the muzzle of a deer! (Figs. 62, -62a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 62] - -[Illustration: Fig. 62a] - - - - - _15_ - - -What are the principles upon which I have classified the drawings, as -between success, partial successes, and failures? I will use this -series, number eight, to illustrate. There are eight drawings, and I -have set them down as one success, six partial successes, one failure. -The success is the rooster (Fig. 61), called “a rooster,” even though it -“looks like a coffee pot.” The partial successes are, first, an electric -light bulb, very crudely imitated as to shape in three drawings. Perhaps -this was hardly good enough to be counted; it was a border-line case, -and probably the poorest that I admitted to the classification of -“partial successes” (Fig. 63a). - -[Illustration: Fig. 63a] - -Second, the ascending sky-rocket, already printed as fig. 38, giving -rise to six different drawings of whirligigs and light. Third, the -following drawing, for which Craig wrote: “See spider, or some sort of -legged pest. If this is not a spider, there is a spider in the lot -somewhere! This I know!” (Fig. 64): - -[Illustration: Fig. 64] - -The fourth partial success was a drawn bow, with arrow fitted, ready to -be launched. Craig wrote as follows: “Picked this up and saw inside as -it dropped on floor—so did not try it. Suddenly recall I have already -‘seen’ it earlier.” Before starting the tests, along with her written -mention of “a rooster,” she had drawn a bow and crude arrow, and the -resemblance is so exact that it seems to me entitled to be called a -partial success (Figs. 65, 65a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 65] - -[Illustration: Fig. 65a] - -Fifth, the wagon hub (Fig. 60), which became the deer’s muzzle. And -finally the laced-up football (Fig. 15) which became a belly-band on a -calf (Fig. 15a). - -As for the failure in this series, it is a cake of soap, which was -called “whirls.” There are a couple of other drawings in the series, -marked: “Too tired to see it,” and “Tired now and excited and keep -seeing old things”—meaning, of course, the preceding drawings. - -I tried to avoid drawing the same object more than once, but now and -then I slipped up. In series eleven I drew another rooster, and there -followed, not one “anticipation,” but several. Drawing number one was a -tooth; Craig wrote: “First see rooster. Then elephant.” Drawing number -two was an elephant; and Craig wrote: “Elephant came again. I try to -suppress it, and see lines, and a spike sticking some way into -something.” She drew it, and it seems clear that the “spike” is the -elephant’s tusk, and the head of the “spike” is the elephant’s eye -(Figs. 66, 66a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 66] - -[Illustration: Fig. 66a] - -Next, number three, was the rooster. But Craig had set “rooster” down in -her mind as a blunder, so now she wrote: “I don’t know what, see a -bunch, or tuft clearly. Also a crooked arm on a body. But don’t feel -that I’m right.” Here are the drawings, and you can see that she was -somewhat right (Figs. 67, 67a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 67] - -[Illustration: Fig. 67a] - -This series eleven, containing fourteen drawings, is marked: “Did this -lot rapidly, without holding (mind) blank. The chicken and elephant came -_at once_, on a very earnest request to my mind to ‘come across.’” I -have classified in this series two successes, five partial, and five -failures: throwing out numbers twelve and fourteen, because Craig wrote: -“Nothing except all the preceding ones come—too many at once—all past -ones crowding in memory”; and again, “Nothing but everything in the -preceding. Too many of them in my mind.” - -The anticipations run all through this series in a quite fascinating -way. Thus, for number four Craig wrote: “Flower. This is a vivid one. -Green spine—leaves like century plant.” She drew Figure 68a: - -[Illustration: Fig. 68a] - -And then again, for drawing number seven, she did more flowers, with -this comment: “This is a _real_ flower, I’ve seen it before. It’s vivid -and returns. Century plant? Now it turns into candle stick. See a -candle” (Fig. 69a). - -All this was wrong—so far. Number four was a table, and number seven was -the rear half of a cow. But now we come to number eleven, the plant -known as a “cat-tail,” which seems to resemble rather surprisingly the -lower of the two drawings in Figure 69a. My drawing is given as Figure -70, and the one Craig made for it is given as 70a. - -[Illustration: Fig. 69a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 70] - -[Illustration: Fig. 70a] - -Comment on the above read: “Very pointed. Am not able to see what. Dog’s -head?” - -Drawing five was a large fish-hook; and this inspired the experimenter -to a discourse, as follows: “Dog wagging—see tail in air busy -wagging—jolly doggie—tail curled in air.” And then: “Now I see a cow. I -fear the elephant and chicken got me too sure of animals. But I see -these.” - -Now, a big fish-hook looks not unlike a “tail curled in air.” But when -we come to number seven, we discover what Craig was apparently -anticipating. It is the drawing of what I have referred to as “the rear -half of a cow.” It is badly done, with a cow’s hoof, but I forgot what a -cow’s tail is like, and this tail that I drew would fit much better on a -“jolly doggy,” you must admit (Fig. 71): - -[Illustration: Fig. 71] - -Drawing number six was a sun, as children draw it, a circle with rays -going out all round. Craig wrote: “Setting sun and bird in sky. Big bird -on wing—seagull or wild goose.” This I called a partial success. Number -nine was the muzzle end of an old-style cannon, already reported in -Figures 46, 46a. - -I conclude the study of this particular series with drawing thirteen, to -which was added the comment: “Think of a saucer, then of a cup. It’s -something in the kitchen. Too tired to see” (Figs. 72, 72a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 72] - -[Illustration: Fig. 72a] - -In series fourteen, drawing three, Craig wrote: “Man running, can’t draw -it.” She drew as follows (Fig. 73a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 73a] - -Next came my drawing four, as follows (Fig. 73): - -[Illustration: Fig. 73] - -In series thirty-five I first drew a fire hydrant, and Craig wrote, -“Peafowl,” and added the following drawing, which certainly constitutes -a partial success (Figs. 74, 74a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 74] - -[Illustration: Fig. 74a] - -My next drawing was the peafowl, as you see. For this Craig wrote: -“Peafowl again,” and apparently tried to draw the peafowl’s neck, and a -lot of those spots which I had forgotten are an appurtenance of peafowls -(Figs. 75, 75a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 75] - -[Illustration: Fig. 75a] - -In series twenty-nine I drew an elevated railway. If you turn it upside -down, as I have done here, it looks like water and smokestacks. Anyhow, -Craig drew a steamboat (Figs. 76, 76a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 76] - -[Illustration: Fig. 76a] - -And then came my next drawing—a steamboat! Craig wrote: “Smoke again,” -and drew the smoke and the stack (Figs. 77, 77a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 77] - -[Illustration: Fig. 77a] - -She added two more drawings, which appear to be the wheel of the boat in -the water, and the smoke (Figs. 77b, 77c): - -[Illustration: Fig. 77b] - -[Illustration: Fig. 77c] - -In series thirty I drew a fish-hook with line, and you see it turned -into a flower (Figs. 78, 78a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 78] - -[Illustration: Fig. 78a] - -Then came an obelisk, and Craig got it, but with novel effects, thus -(Figs. 79, 79a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 79] - -[Illustration: Fig. 79a] - -Now why should an obelisk go on a jag, and have little circles at its -base? The answer appears to be: it inherited the curves from the -previous fish-hook, and the little circles from the next drawing. You -will see that, having used up her supply of little circles, Craig did -not get the next drawing so well (Figs. 80, 80a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 80] - -[Illustration: Fig. 80a] - -In series twenty-two I first drew a bed, and Craig made two attempts to -draw a potted plant. My second drawing was a maltese cross, and Craig -turned it into a basket (Figs. 81, 81a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 81] - -[Illustration: Fig. 81a] - -But she could not give up her plant. She added: “There is a flower -basket in this lot, or potted plant.” The next drawing was a -fleur-de-lis, which looks not unlike a potted plant or hanging basket -(Fig. 82): - -[Illustration: Fig. 82] - -In drawing four she got the elements of a door-knob pretty well, and -added: “See head of bird, too—eagle beak.” Drawing seven was a crane, -with beak open. - - - - - _16_ - - -I could go through all thirty-five of the series, listing such -“anticipations” as this: but I have given enough to show how the thing -goes. Such occurrences make it hard for Craig because, when she has once -drawn a certain object, she naturally resists the impulse to draw it -again, thinking it is nothing but a memory. Thus, in series thirteen, my -first drawing was a savage woman carrying a bundle on her head, and -Craig drew the profile of a head with a long nose. My next drawing was -the profile of a head, with a very conspicuous nose, and Craig wrote: -“Face again, but [I] inhibit this. Then come two hands, and below”—and -she draws what might be a cross section of a skull, side view. - -Yet sometimes she overcomes this handicap triumphantly. Series twelve is -marked: “Hastily done,” and she adds the general comment: “Several times -saw bristles on things of different shapes, some flowers, some bristled -brushes. Saw flower, also more than once”—and then she appends a drawing -of a four-leaf clover. As it happened, this series contained a -three-leaf clover, and it contained another flower, and also a -cactus-plant—more of one kind of thing than it was fair to put into one -set of drawings. Nevertheless, Craig scored one of her successes with -the cactus, setting it down as “fuzzy flower” (Figs. 83, 83a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 83] - -[Illustration: Fig. 83a] - -Nor was she afraid to repeat herself when she came to another “fuzzy -flower” in this series (Figs. 84, 84a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 84] - -[Illustration: Fig. 84a] - -Frequently she will make a good drawing of an object, but name it badly. -In that same series twelve I drew a hoe, and she got the shape of it, -but wrote: “May be scissors, may be spectacles with long stem ears” -(Figs. 85, 85a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 85] - -[Illustration: Fig. 85a] - -Also in the same series these reindeer horns, which she calls “holly -leaves.” It is psychologically interesting to note that reindeer and -holly trees were both associated with Christmas in Craig’s childhood -(Figs. 86, 86a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 86] - -[Illustration: Fig. 86a] - -And in series eighteen, this fat baby bird of mine is hardly -recognizable when called “flounder” (Figs. 87, 87a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 87] - -[Illustration: Fig. 87a] - -This very dim stalk of celery, drawn by me, I must admit looks more like -a fish-fork (Figs. 88, 88a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 88] - -[Illustration: Fig. 88a] - -Craig’s verbal description of the above reads: “Stone set in platinum; -may be diamond, as points seem to be white light—at least it shines, not -red shine of fire but white shine.” How does a stalk of celery, which -looks like a fish-fork, come to have a diamond set in it? You may -understand the reason when you hear that three drawings later in the -same series is a diamond set in a stick. Just why it occurred to me to -set a diamond thus I cannot now recall, but the drawing is plain, and it -led to a bit of fun. I had been to lunch with Charlie Chaplin that day, -and had come home and told my wife about it; so here my sparkling -diamond undergoes a transfiguration! “Chaplin,” writes my wife, and -adds: “I don’t see why he has on a halo” (Figs. 89, 89a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 89] - -[Illustration: Fig. 89a] - -From the point of view of bad guessing, the most conspicuous series is -number twenty. In this I have recorded four successes, seven partial, -and one failure; yet there is hardly an object that is correctly named. -Here are the three which I call successes; there may be dispute about -any one of them, but it seems to me the essential elements have been -got. You may be surprised at a necktie which “began to smoke”—but not -when you see that the next drawing is a burning match! (Figs. 90, 90a; -90, 91a; 90, 92a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 90] - -[Illustration: Fig. 90a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 91] - -[Illustration: Fig. 91a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 92] - -[Illustration: Fig. 92a] - -As for the partial successes, I give six of them by way of samples. For -the first, Craig’s comment was: “The body is vague, but see there is a -body.” You will agree that my mountain landscape looks oddly like a body -(Figs. 93, 93a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 93] - -[Illustration: Fig. 93a] - -And the pedals of this harp make a charming pair of lady’s feet (Figs. -94, 94a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 94] - -[Illustration: Fig. 94a] - -This balloon is described in my wife’s comment as: “Shines in sunlight, -must be metal, a scythe hanging among vines or strings.” - -[Illustration: Fig. 95] - -[Illustration: Fig. 95a] - -This, which is called “front foot and leg of dog, though I don’t see the -dog,” is really drawn more like the spigot of my drawing (Figs. 96, -96a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 96] - -[Illustration: Fig. 96a] - -A butterfly’s wings are “got” remarkably well (Figs. 97, 97a). And the -trade-marks on my little box are called “tiny stars, or sparks” (Figs. -98, 98a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 97] - -[Illustration: Fig. 97a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 98] - -[Illustration: Fig. 98a] - - - - - _17_ - - -I have referred to the fact that my wife’s drawings sometimes contain -things which are not in mine, but which were in my mind while I was -making them, or while she was “concentrating.” One of the most curious -of such cases came in series twenty-eight, which was after we had given -up, as too great a nuisance, all precautions in the way of sealing the -drawings in envelopes. I made eight drawings, and laid them face down on -my wife’s table, and then went out and took a walk while she did them. -So, of course, it was easy for her to do what she pleased—and maybe she -“peeked,” the skeptic will say. But as it happens, she didn’t get a -single one right! Instead of reproducing my drawings, what she did was -to reproduce my thoughts while I was walking up and down on the ocean -front. It seems to me that in so doing, she provided a perfect answer to -those who may attribute these results to any form of deception, whether -conscious or unconscious. - -There was a moon behind a bank of dark clouds, and it produced an -unusual effect—a well-defined white cross in the sky. I watched it for -nearly half an hour, and my continued thought was: “If this were an age -of superstition, that would be a portent, and we should hear about it in -history.” It was so strange that I finally went home and called my wife -out onto the street. I did not tell her why. I wanted to see her -surprise, so I purposely gave no hint. I said: “Come out! Please come!” -Finally she came, and her comment was: “I just drew that!” We went back -into the house, and she handed me a drawing. I give it alongside my -drawing of an Indian club, which Craig had held while doing hers. You -may see exactly how much of her impulse came from that source (Figs. 99, -99a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 99] - -[Illustration: Fig. 99a] - -The “comment” reads: “Light ‘fingers’—moonlight.” Also: “black shadow.” - -Let me add also that in the eight drawings I handed to Craig there was -neither moon, cloud, cross, nor light. Two of these eight my wife failed -to mark, and so I cannot identify them as belonging to this series; but -we examined all eight at the time, and made sure of this point. Those -which I now have are a flag, a bearded man, a chiffonier, a cannon, a -dirt-scraper, and the Indian club, given above. - -You will ask, perhaps, did Craig look out of the window. As it happened, -this sky effect was invisible from any window, and I have her word that -she had not moved from her couch. I should add that she is nervous, and -keeps the curtains tightly drawn at night, and never goes out at night -unless it is to be driven somewhere. It was early in March, with a cold -wind off the sea, and I had to labor to persuade her to put a wrap over -her dressing gown and step out into the middle of the street to look up -at the sky. - - - - - _18_ - - -The casual reader may be bored by too many of these drawings, but they -are easy to skip, or to take in at a glance, and there may be students -who will want to examine them carefully. So I will add a selection of -the significant drawings, with only brief remarks. I begin with what I -have called partial successes, and then add a few more of those I have -called “complete.” - -Let us return to the early drawings, made by my secretary. On the -automobile ride to Pasadena, there was an ash-can (Fig. 100): - -[Illustration: Fig. 100] - -For the above my wife wrote: “I see a chain dangling from -something—resembling little chimney pot on top of house.” - -And here is design for which the comment was: “These somehow belong -together but won’t get together” (Figs. 101, 101a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 101] - -[Illustration: Fig. 101a] - -Here is a fan, with comment: “Inside seems irregular, as if cloth draped -or crumpled” (Figs. 102, 102a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 102] - -[Illustration: Fig. 102a] - -Here is a one-half success (Figs. 103, 103a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 103] - -[Illustration: Fig. 103a] - -Here is a broom, drawn by my secretary (Fig. 104), and several efforts -to reproduce it (Figs. 104a, 104b): - -[Illustration: Fig. 104] - -[Illustration: Fig. 104a] - -[Illustration: Fig. 104b] - -The comments accompanying these drawings read: “All I’m sure of is a -straight line with something curved at end of it; once it came” (here is -drawing of the flower). “Then it doubled, or reappeared, I don’t know -which. (Am not sure of curly edges.) Then it was upside down.” - -The next drawing was a heart, and my wife got the upper half with what -are apparently blood-drops added (Figs. 105, 105a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 105] - -[Illustration: Fig. 105a] - -The above is interesting, as suggesting that whatever agency furnished -the information knew more than it was telling. For if Craig’s drawing, a -pair of curves, constituted a crude letter N, or had no significance, -why add the blood-drops, which were not in the original? On the other -hand, if her subconscious mind knew it was a heart, why not give her the -whole heart, and let her draw it? - -So much for the drawings of my secretary; and now for my own early -drawings. When I was a school boy, we used to represent human figures in -this way; and, as you see, Craig got the essentials (Figs. 106, 106a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 106] - -[Illustration: Fig. 106a] - -Several weeks later, I drew a pair of such figures in action and the -comment was: “It’s a whirligig of some sort” (Figs. 107, 107a). - -[Illustration: Fig. 107] - -[Illustration: Fig. 107a] - -After the following drawing, Craig asked me not to do any more hands, -for the reason that she “got” this, but thought it was my own hand doing -the drawing. She guessed something else, and wrote: “Turned into pig’s -head, then rabbit’s” (Figs. 108, 108a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 108] - -[Illustration: Fig. 108a] - -Next, this bat, with very striking comment. - -“Looks like ear-shaped something,” and again: - -“Looks like calla lily” (Figs. 109, 109a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 109] - -[Illustration: Fig. 109a] - -A butterfly net (Figs. 110, 110a). - -[Illustration: Fig. 110] - -[Illustration: Fig. 110a] - -A key (Figs. 111, 111a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 111] - -[Illustration: Fig. 111a] - -This highly humorous sunrise (Figs. 112, 112a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 112] - -[Illustration: Fig. 112a] - -A carnation which came after the preceding drawing, and apparently had -been anticipated in the “sunrise” (Figs. 113, 113a). - -[Illustration: Fig. 113] - -[Illustration: Fig. 113a] - -Note that this camp-stool, as I drew it, really does appear to be -standing on water (Figs. 114, 114a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 114] - -[Illustration: Fig. 114a] - -For this little waiter, who follows, no drawing was made by my wife. Her -written comment was: “I see at once the profile of human face. Am -interrupted by radio tune. Something makes me think of a cow. Now see -two things sticking out like horns” (Fig. 115). - -[Illustration: Fig. 115] - -The following had no comment (Figs. 116, 116a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 116] - -[Illustration: Fig. 116a] - -Nor the next ones (Figs. 117, 117a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 117] - -[Illustration: Fig. 117a] - -The comment on this caterpillar was: “Fork—then garden tool—lawn rake. -Leaf.” I might add that we have a lawn-rake made of bristly bamboo, -which looks very much like my drawing (Figs. 118, 118a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 118] - -[Illustration: Fig. 118a] - -In the following case I drew sixteen stars, and you may count and see -that Craig got twelve of them, and made up the difference with a moon! -(Figs. 119, 119a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 119] - -[Illustration: Fig. 119a] - -Comment on the following: “Looks like a monkey wrench, but it may be a -yardstick” (Figs. 120, 120a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 120] - -[Illustration: Fig. 120a] - -In the next one, the curve of the worm is amusingly reproduced by the -bird’s neck. The comment added: “But it may be a snake.” Craig says this -is an example of how one part of the drawing comes to her, and then, in -haste, her memory-trains and associations supply what they think should -be the rest (Figs. 121, 121a). - -[Illustration: Fig. 121] - -[Illustration: Fig. 121a] - -The umbrella brings up Craig’s reptile “complex” again. I assure you -that in her garden, she turns sticks into snakes when they are far less -snake-like than my drawing. Her comment was: “I feel that it is a snake -crawling out of something—vivid feeling of snake, but it looks like a -cat’s tail” (Figs. 122, 122a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 122] - -[Illustration: Fig. 122a] - -I drew a wall-hook to hang your coat on (Figs. 123, 123a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 123] - -[Illustration: Fig. 123a] - -A design, evidently felt as a design, though not well got (Figs. 124, -124a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 124] - -[Illustration: Fig. 124a] - -A screw, with comment: “light-house or tower. Too fat at base.” If -Craig’s drawing were made narrower at base, it would reproduce the screw -very well. Note that in the right-hand “tower” the screw-like effect of -the “set backs” is kept (Figs. 125, 125a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 125] - -[Illustration: Fig. 125a] - -Here is a love story which seems to go wrong, the hearts being turned to -opposition (Figs. 126, 126a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 126] - -[Illustration: Fig. 126a] - -Here is the flag, made simpler—“e pluribus unum!” (Figs. 127, 127a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 127] - -[Illustration: Fig. 127a] - -Here is a cow, as seen by the cubists. Comment: “Something sending out -long lines from it” (Figs. 128, 128a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 128] - -[Illustration: Fig. 128a] - -Telegraph wires, apparently seen as waves in the ether (Figs. 129, -129a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 129] - -[Illustration: Fig. 129a] - -Comment on the following: “Horns. Can’t see what they are attached to” -(Figs. 130, 130a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 130] - -[Illustration: Fig. 130a] - -And here is a parrot turned into a leaf, with comment. “See veins and -stem with sharp vivid bend in it”—which seems to indicate a sense of the -parrot’s beak (Figs. 131, 131a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 131] - -[Illustration: Fig. 131a] - - - - - _19_ - - -The border-line between successes and failures is not easy to determine. -Bear in mind that we are not conducting a drawing class, nor making -tests of my wife’s eyesight: we are trying to ascertain whether there -does pass from my mind to hers, or from my drawing to her mind, a -recognizable impulse of some sort. So, if she gets the essential feature -of the drawing, we are entitled to call it evidence of telepathy. I -think the fan with “crumpled cloth” (Fig. 102), and the umbrella handle -that may be a “snake crawling out of something,” but that “looks like a -cat’s tail” (Fig. 122), and the screw that was called a “tower” (Fig. -126)—all these are really successes. I will append a number of examples, -about which there seems to me no room for dispute, and which I have -called successes. The first is a sample of architecture (Figs. 132, -132a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 132] - -[Illustration: Fig. 132a] - -And here is an hourglass, with sand running through it. Not merely did -Craig write “white sand,” but she made the tree the same shape as the -glass. I have turned the hourglass upside down so that you can get the -effect better. It should be obvious that “upside-downness” has nothing -to do with these tests, as Craig is as apt to be holding a drawing one -way as another (Figs. 133, 133a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 133] - -[Illustration: Fig. 133a] - -And these three circles, with comment: “Feel sure it is,” written above -the drawing (Figs. 134, 134a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 134] - -[Illustration: Fig. 134a] - -As to the next comment, “Trumpet flower,” let me explain that we have -them in our garden, whereas we do not have any musical trumpets or horns -(Figs. 135, 135a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 135] - -[Illustration: Fig. 135a] - -This strange object from my pencil tried to be a conch-shell, but got a -bad start, and was left unclassified. Craig made it “life buoy in -water,” which is good, except for the spelling. She insists upon my -pointing out that shells also belong in water (Figs. 136, 136a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 136] - -[Illustration: Fig. 136a] - -This one, described in good country fashion, “Muley cow with tongue -hanging out” (Fig. 137): - -[Illustration: Fig. 137] - -This next one was described by the written word: “Goat” (Fig. 138): - -[Illustration: Fig. 138] - -And this one is so striking that I give the words in facsimile (Figs. -139, 139a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 139] - -[Illustration: Fig. 139a] - -For the following, my wife described a wrong thing, and then added: “Now -a sudden new thing, cone-shaped or goblet-like. This feels like _it_” -(Figs. 140, 140a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 140] - -[Illustration: Fig. 140a] - -This was correctly named: “2 legs of something running” (Figs. 141, -141a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 141] - -[Illustration: Fig. 141a] - -This Alpine hat with feather seems to me no less a success because it is -called “Chafing dish” (Figs. 142, 142a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 142] - -[Illustration: Fig. 142a] - -Nor this wind-mill because the sails are left off (Figs. 143, 143a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 143] - -[Illustration: Fig. 143a] - -These concentric circles are called “Horn (very curled), or shell” -(Figs. 144, 144a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 144] - -[Illustration: Fig. 144a] - -And here is a curious one, which came early in the tests. I call -attention to the comment about the handle, which ran off the sheet of -paper without any ending, just as she says. “Letter A with something -long above it. Key or a sword, there seems to be no end to the handle. -Think it’s a key” (Figs. 145, 145a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 145] - -[Illustration: Fig. 145a] - -And finally, this still more astonishing one, to serve as a climax. Let -me explain that I am not so good an artist as this; I copied my drawing -from some magazine (Figs. 146, 146a): - -[Illustration: Fig. 146] - -[Illustration: Fig. 146a] - -You note that my wife “got,” not merely the whole top of the drawing, -but some impression of the arms, which are crossed in a peculiar way. I -ask her about this case—the drawing having been made less than a month -ago—and I find that she remembers it well. She saw what she thought was -a turban wound about the head, and got the impression of color. She -wrote the words “not hair” to make this clear. The rest of the comment -written at the time was: “See back of head, ear, and swirling scarf tied -around head.” - - - - - _20_ - - -I have now given nearly all the 65 drawings which I call “successes,” -and about half the 155 which I call “partial successes.” This, I think, -is enough for any purpose. No one can seriously claim that such a set of -coincidences could happen by chance, and so it becomes necessary to -investigate other possible explanations. - -First, a hoax. As covering that point, I prepared a set of affidavits as -to the good faith of myself, my wife, her sister, and her sister’s -husband. These affidavits were all duly signed and witnessed; but -friends, reading the manuscript, think they use up space to no purpose, -and that the reader will ask no more than the statement that this book -is a serious one, and that the manuscript was carefully read by all four -of the persons mentioned above, and approved by them as representing the -exact truth. - -That a group of persons should enter into a conspiracy to perpetrate a -hoax is conceivable. Whether or not it is conceivable of the group here -quoted is something of which the reader is the judge. But this much is -clear: any reader who, having read the above, still suspects us, will -not be convinced by further protestations. - -How about the possibility of fraud by one person? No one who knows Mary -Craig Sinclair would suspect her; but you who do not know her have, -naturally, the right to consider such an hypothesis. Can she be one of -those women who enjoy being talked about? The broaching of this idea -causes her to take the pencil away from her husband, and you now hear -her own authentic voice, as follows: - -“I happen to be a daughter of that once very living thing, ‘the Old -South,’ and there are certain ideals which are in my blood. The -avoidance of publicity is one of them. But even if I had ever had a -desire for publicity, it would have been killed by my actual experiences -as the wife of a social crusader. My home is besieged by an endless -train of persons of every description, who travel over the place, -knocking on doors and windows, and insisting upon having a hearing for -their various programs for changing the nature of the universe. I have -been driven to putting up barriers and fences around my garden, and -threatening to flee to the Himalayas, and become a Yogic mistress, or -whatever a Yogic ‘master’ of my sex is called. - -“Jack London tried to solve this problem by putting a sign on the front -door which read, ‘Go to the back door,’ and on the back door one which -read, ‘Go to the front door.’ But when I tried this, one seeker of -inspiration took his seat halfway between the two doors, and declared -that he would remain there the rest of his life, or until his wishes -were acceded to. Another hid himself in the swimming-pool, and rose up -from its depths to confront me in the dusk, when, as it happened, I was -alone on the place, and went out into the garden for a breath of air. A -third announced that he had a million dollars to present to my husband -in person, and would not be persuaded to depart until my brother invited -him to go downtown to supper, and so got him into a car. Having -faithfully fed the hungry millionaire, my brother drove him to the -police-station, where, after a serious talking-to by the chief, he -consented to carry his million dollars away. A fourth introduced himself -by mail as having just been released from the psychopathic ward in Los -Angeles, and intending to call upon us, for reasons not stated. A fifth -announced himself by telephone, as intending to come at once and shoot -my husband on sight. Yet another, seven feet tall and broad in -proportion, announced that he had a revelation direct from God, and had -come to have the manuscript revised. When politely asked as to its -nature, he rose up, towering over my none too husky spouse and declaring -that no human eye had ever beheld it, and no human eye would ever be -permitted to behold it. Such experiences, as a continuing part of a -woman’s life, do not lead her to seek publicity; they tend rather to -develop a persecution complex. - -“Speaking seriously, I consider that I have every evidence of the effect -of people’s thoughts on each other. And my distrust of human nature, in -its present stage of evolution, is so great, that the idea of having -many persons concentrate their attention on me is an idea from which I -shrink. I agree with Richet that the fact of telepathy is one of the -most terrifying in existence; and nothing but a deep love of truth has -induced me to let this very personal story be told in print.” - -Next, what about the possibility of unconscious fraud? This also is a -question to be frankly met. All students of psychology know that the -subconscious mind has dubious morals. One has only to watch his own -dreams to discover this. A person in a trance is similar to one talking -or walking in sleep, or a drunken man, or one under the influence of a -drug. But in this case it must be noted that my wife has never been in a -trance. In these mind-reading tests, no matter how intense the -“concentration,” there is always a part of her mind which knows what she -is doing. If you speak to her, she is immediately “all there.” When she -has her mental pictures, she sits up and makes her drawing, and compares -it with mine, and this is a completely conscious act. - -Moreover, I point out that a great deal of the most impressive evidence -does not depend upon Craig alone. The five drawings with her -brother-in-law, Figures 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, constitute by themselves -evidence of telepathy sufficient to convince any mind which is open to -conviction. While it would have been possible for Craig and Bob to hoax -Dollie and me, it could certainly not have been done without Bob’s -connivance. If you suggest that my wife and my brother-in-law may have -been fooling me, I reply that there is a still greater mass of evidence -which could not have been a hoax without my connivance. When I go into -my study alone—a little sun-parlor at the front of a beach-house, with -nothing but a couch, a chair and a table—I certainly know that I am -alone; and when I make a drawing and hold it before my eyes for five or -ten minutes, I certainly know whether any other person is seeing it. -This covers the drawings presented as Figures 2, 20, and 21, with four -others told about in the same series. It seems to me these seven cases -by themselves are evidence of telepathy sufficient to convince any open -mind. - -Furthermore, there are the several score drawings which I made in my -study and sealed up in envelopes, taking them to my wife and watching -her lay them one by one upon her body and write down more or less -accurately what was in them. I certainly know whether I was alone when I -made the drawings, and whether I made the contents of the envelopes -invisible, and whether my wife had any opportunity to open the envelopes -before she made her drawings. Of course, I understand the familiar -conjuring trick whereby you open one envelope, and hide it in your palm, -and pretend to be describing the next one while really describing the -one you have seen. But I would stake my life upon the certainty that my -wife knows no sleight-of-hand, and anyhow, I made certain that she did -not open the first one; I sat and watched her, and after each test she -handed me the envelopes and drawings, one by one—the envelopes having -previously been numbered by me. She would turn out the reading-light -which was immediately over her head, but there was plenty of light from -other parts of the room, enough so that I could look at drawings as they -were shown to me. Often these tests were done in the daytime, and then -all we did was to pull down the window-shades back of the couch. - -It should be obvious that I stand to lose much more than I stand to gain -by publishing a book of this sort. Many have urged me not to take the -risk. It is the part of prudence not to believe too many new and strange -ideas. Some of my Socialist and materialist friends are going to -say—without troubling to read what I have written: “Sinclair has gone in -for occultism; he is turning into a mystic in his old age.” It is true -that I am fifty-one, but I think my mind is not entirely gone; and if -what I publish here is mysticism, then I do not know how there can be -such a thing as science about the human mind. - -We have made repeated tests to see what happens; we have written down -our observations as we go along; we have presented the evidence -carefully and conscientiously, without theories; and what any scientist -can do, or ask to have done, more than this, I cannot imagine. Those who -throw out these results will not be scientists, but merely another set -of dogmatists—of whom new crops are continually springing up, wearing -new disguises and new labels. The plain truth is that in science, as in -politics and religion, it is a lot easier to believe what you have been -taught, than to set out for yourself and ascertain what happens. - -Of course the thing would be more convincing if it were done in the -presence of strangers. That brings up a question which is bound to be -asked, so I will save time by answering it here. The first essential to -success in these tests is a state of mind; and at present my wife is a -sensitive woman, at the stage of life described as “glandular -imbalance.” She has never tried these experiments in the presence of a -stranger, and has no idea whether she could get the necessary -concentration. She learned from her experiments with her sick -brother-in-law that the agent can send you pain and fear, as well as -chairs and table-forks, and she would certainly not enter lightly into a -condition of _rapport_ with those whom she did not know and trust. - -She insists that the way for you to be really certain is to follow her -example. If you sat and watched her do it, you might go away with -doubts, as she did after her experiments with Jan. But when you have -done it yourself, then you _know_. One reason the thing has not been -proven to the public is that people depend on professional mediums, many -of whom are deliberate and conscious cheats. Others are vain and -temperamental, difficult to manage; and research is hindered by their -instability. That is why Craig set to work and learned to do it, and she -believes that others can do the same, if they have the desire and the -patience. - - - - - _21_ - - -The next thing is to carry out our promise and tell you the technique. -My wife has, among her notes, a mass of writing on this subject in the -form of instructions to Bob, and others who were interested. I tried to -condense it, but found I could not satisfy her, and in the end I -realized that her point of view is correct. No one objects to repetition -of phrases in a legal document, where the one essential is precision; -and the same thing applies to descriptions of these complicated mental -processes. This was the most difficult writing task she ever undertook, -and the reason lies in its newness, and the complexity of the mind -itself. - -If you want to learn the art of conscious mind-reading, this will tell -you how; and if you don’t want to learn it, you can easily skip this -section of the book. Here is Craig’s statement: - -“The first thing you have to do is to learn the trick of undivided -attention, or concentration. By these terms I mean something quite -different from what is ordinarily meant. One ‘concentrates’ on writing a -chapter in a book, or on solving a problem in mathematics; but this is a -complicated process of dividing one’s attention, giving it to one detail -after another, judging, balancing, making decisions. The kind of -concentration I mean is putting the attention on _one_ object, or one -_uncomplicated_ thought, such as joy, or peace, and holding it there -steadily. It isn’t thinking; it is inhibiting thought, except for one -thought, or one object in thought. - -“You have to inhibit the impulse to think things about the object, to -examine it, or appraise it, or to allow memory-trains to attach -themselves to it. The average person has never heard of such a form of -concentration, and so has to learn how to do it. Simultaneously, he must -learn to relax, for strangely enough, a part of concentration is -complete relaxation. - -“There seems to be a contradiction here, in the idea of simultaneous -concentration and relaxation. I do not know whether this is due to a -contradiction in the nature of the mind itself, or to our -misunderstanding of its nature. Perhaps we each have several mental -entities, or minds, and one of these can sleep (be blankly unconscious), -while another supervises the situation, maintaining the first one’s -state of unconsciousness for a desired period, and then presenting to it -some thought or picture agreed on in advance, thus restoring it to -consciousness. - -“Anyway, it is possible to be unconscious and conscious at the same -time! Almost everyone has had the experience of knowing, while asleep, -that he is having a bad dream and must awaken himself from it. Certainly -some conscious entity is watching the dream, and knowing it is a dream; -and yet the sleeper is ‘unconscious.’ Or perhaps there is no such thing -as complete relaxation—until death. - -“All I can say is this: when I practice this art which I have learned, -with my mind concentrated on one simple thing, it is a relaxation as -restful, as seemingly ‘complete’ as when I am in that state called -normal sleep. The attention is not allowed to be on the sensations of -the body, or on anything but the one thing it is deliberately -‘concentrated’ on. - -“Undivided concentration, then, means, for purposes of this experiment, -a state of complete relaxation, under specified control. To concentrate -in this undivided way you first give yourself a ‘suggestion’ to the -effect that you will relax your mind and your body, making the body -insensitive and the mind a blank, and yet reserving the power to ‘break’ -the concentration in a short time. By making the body insensitive I mean -simply to relax completely your mental hold of, or awareness of, all -bodily sensation. After giving yourself this suggestion a few times, you -proceed to relax both body and mind. Relax all mental interest in -everything in the environment; inhibit all thoughts which try to wander -into consciousness from the subconsciousness, or from wherever else -thoughts come. This is clearly a more thorough affair than ‘just -relaxing.’ - -“Also, there is something else to it—the power of supervising the -condition. You succeed presently in establishing a blank state of -consciousness, yet you have the power to become instantly conscious, -also; to realize when you are about to go into a state of sleep, in -which you have not the power of instantly returning to consciousness. -Also, you control, to a certain degree, what is to be presented to -consciousness when you are ready to become conscious. For example, you -want a message from the person who is sending you a message; you do not -want a train of subconscious ‘day dreams.’ - -“All this is work; and so far, it is a bore. But when you have learned -to do it, it is an art worth knowing. You can use it, not only for such -experiments as telepathy and clairvoyance, but for improving your bodily -health. To relax thoroughly several times each day while holding on to a -suggestion previously ‘planted’ in the subconsciousness is more -beneficial to health than any other one measure I know. - -“The way to relax is to ‘let go.’ ‘Let go’ of every tense muscle, every -tense spot, in the body. Pain is tension. Pain can be inhibited by -suggestion _followed by complete relaxation_. Drop your body, a -dead-weight, from your conscious mind. Make your conscious mind a blank. -It is the mind, conscious or subconscious, which holds the body tense. -Give to the subconsciousness the suggestion of concentrating on one -idea, and then completely relax consciousness. To make the conscious -mind a blank it is necessary to ‘let go’ of the body; just as to ‘let -go’ of the body requires ‘letting go’ of consciousness of the body. If, -after you have practiced ‘letting go’ of the body, you find that your -mind is not a blank, then you have not succeeded in getting your body -rid of all tension. Work at it until you can let both mind and body -relax completely. - -“It may help you to start as follows: Relax the body as completely as -possible. Then visualize a rose, or a violet—some pleasant, familiar -thing which does not arouse emotional memory-trains. Gaze steadily, -peacefully, at the chosen object—think only of it—try not to let any -memories it may arouse enter your mind. Keep attention steady, just -seeing the color, or the shape of the flower and nothing else. Do not -think things about the flower. Just look at it. Select one thing about -it to concentrate on, such as its shape, or its color, or the two -combined in a visual image: ‘pink and round.’ - -“If you find that you are made nervous by this effort, it is apt to be -due to the fact that you are thinking things. Maybe the object you have -chosen has some buried memories associated with it—something which -arouses unconscious memories of past unhappy events. Roses may suggest a -lost sweetheart, or a vanished garden where you once were happy and to -which you long to return. If so, select some other flower to concentrate -on. Flowers are usually the most restful, the things which are not so -apt to be involved with distressing experiences. A bottle of ink might -suggest the strain of mental work, a spoon might suggest medicine. So, -find a peace-inspiring object to look at. When you have found it, just -look at it, with undivided attention. - -“If you succeed in doing this, you will find it hard not to drop asleep. -But you must distinguish between this and the state you are to maintain. -If you drop asleep, the sleep will be what is called auto-hypnotic -sleep, and after you have learned to induce it, you will be able to -concentrate on an idea, instead of the rose, and to carry this idea into -the sleep with you as the idea to dominate the subconsciousness while -you sleep. This idea, taken with you into sleep in this way, will often -act in the subconsciousness with the same power as the idea suggested by -a hypnotist. If you have ever seen hypnotism, you will know what this -means. You can learn to carry an idea of the restoration of health into -this auto-hypnotic sleep, to act powerfully during sleep. Of course this -curative effect is not always achieved. Any idea introduced into the -subconsciousness may meet a counter-suggestion which, if you are ill, -already exists in the subconsciousness, and a conflict may ensue. Thus, -time and perseverance may be necessary to success. - -“But this is another matter, and not the state for telepathy—in which -you must avoid dropping into a sleep. After you have practiced the -exercise of concentrating on a flower—and avoiding sleep—you will be -able to concentrate on holding the peculiar blank state of mind which -must be achieved if you are to make successful experiments in telepathy. -There may be strain to start with, but it is getting rid of strain, both -physical and mental, which constitutes relaxation, or blankness, of the -conscious mind. Practice will teach you what this state is, and after a -while you can achieve it without strain. - -“The next step: ask someone to draw a half-dozen simple designs for you -on cards, or on slips of paper, and to fold them so that you cannot see -the contents. They should be folded separately, so that you can handle -one at a time. Place them on a table, or chair, beside your couch, or -bed, in easy reach of your hand, so that you can pick them up, one at a -time, while you are stretched out on the bed, or couch, beside them. It -is best at first to experiment in the dark, or at least in a dimly lit -room, as light stimulates the eyes and interferes with relaxation. If -you experiment at night, have a table lamp within easy reach, so that -you can turn the light off and on for each experiment without too much -exertion, as you must keep your body and mind as passive as possible for -these experiments. If you have no reading light near, use a candle. You -must have also a writing pad and pencil beside you. - -“After you have placed the drawings on the table, turn off the light and -stretch your body full length on the couch. Close your eyes and relax -your body. Relax completely. Make the mind a complete blank and hold it -blank. Do not think of anything. Thoughts will come. Inhibit them. -Refuse to think. Do this for several moments. It is essential to induce -a passive state of mind and body. If the mind is not passive, it feels -body sensations. If the body is not relaxed, its sensations interfere -with the necessary mental passivity. Each reacts on the other. - -“The next step, after having turned off the light and closed your eyes -and relaxed mind and body full length on the couch, is to reach for the -top drawing of the pile on the table. Hold it in your hand over your -solar plexus. Hold it easily, without clutching it. Now, completely -relaxed, hold your mind a blank again. Hold it so for a few moments, -then give the mental order to the unconscious mind to tell you what is -on the paper you hold in your hand. Keep the eyes closed and the body -relaxed, and give the order silently, and with as little mental exertion -as possible. - -“However, it is necessary to give it clearly and positively, that is, -with concentration on it. Say to the unconscious mind, ‘I want the -picture which is on this card, or paper, presented to my consciousness.’ -Say this with your mind concentrated on what you are saying. Repeat, as -if talking directly to another self: ‘I want to see what is on _this_ -card.’ Then relax into blankness again and hold blankness a few moments, -then try gently, without straining, to see whatever forms may appear on -the void into which you look with closed eyes. Do not try to conjure up -something to see; just wait expectantly and let something come. - -“My experience is that fragments of forms appear first. For example, a -curved line, or a straight one, or two lines of a triangle. But -sometimes the complete object appears; swiftly, lightly, dimly-drawn, as -on a moving picture film. These mental visions appear and disappear with -lightning rapidity, never standing still unless quickly fixed by a -deliberate effort of consciousness. They are never in heavy lines, but -as if sketched delicately, in a slightly deeper shade of gray than that -of the mental canvas. A person not used to such experiments may at first -fail to observe them on the gray background of the mind, on which they -appear and disappear so swiftly. Sometimes they are so vague that one -gets only a notion of how they look before they vanish. Then one must -‘recall’ this first vision. Recall it by conscious effort, which is not -the same thing as the method of passive waiting by which the vision was -first induced. Instead, it is as if one had seen with open eyes a -fragment of a real picture, and now closes his eyes and looks at the -_memory_ of it and tries to ‘see’ it clearly. - -“It is necessary to recall this vision and make note of it, so as not to -forget it. One is _sure_ to forget it—indeed it is his duty to do so—in -the process of the next step, which is one of blankness again. This -blankness is, of course, a deliberate putting out of the conscious mind -of all pictures, including the one just visioned. One must now order the -subconscious not to present it to the conscious mind’s picture-film -again unless it is the right picture, _i.e._, the one drawn on the card -which is held in hand. Make the conscious mind blank again for a brief -space. Then look again on the gray canvas of mind for a vision. This is -to test whether the first vision came from subconscious guessing, or -whether it came from the deeper mind—from some other source than that of -the subconscious, which is so apt to offer a ‘guess,’ or false picture. - -“Do this whole performance two or three times, and if the first vision -persists in coming back, accept it. As soon as you have accepted it—that -is, decided that this is the correct vision—turn on the light, and -without looking at the card, or paper, which contains the real picture, -pick up the writing pad and pencil and make a sketch of every detail of -the vision-picture. This is a nuisance, as it interrupts concentration -and the desired passivity. But it is absolutely necessary to record the -vision in every detail, before one looks at the real picture, the one on -the card he has been holding in hand. If one does not make a record of -his vision in advance of looking at the card picture, he is certain to -forget at least some part of it—maybe something which is essential. -Worse yet, he is apt to fool himself; the mind is given to -self-deception. As soon as it sees the real drawing, it not only forgets -the vision, but it is apt to imagine that it visioned the picture it now -sees on the card, which may or may not be true. Imagination is a far -more active function than the average person realizes. This -conscious-subconscious mind is ‘a liar,’ a weaver of fiction. It is the -dream-mind, and also it is the mind of memory trains. - -“Do not omit fragments which seem to be out of place in a picture. These -fragments may be the real things. If in doubt as to what the object of -your vision is, do not try to guess. But if you have a ‘hunch’ that -something you have seen is connected somehow with a watch, for example, -or with an automobile, make a note of this ‘hunch.’ I use this popular -word to indicate a real presentation from some true source, something -deeper and more dependable than our own subconscious minds. I call this -the ‘deep mind’ in order to have a name for it. I do not know what it -is, of course—I am only judging from the behavior of the phenomena. - -“Do not fail to record what seems to be a very stray fragment, for it -may be a perfect vision of some portion of the real picture. Record -everything, and then later you can compare it carefully with the real -drawing. Of course, do not be fantastic in your conclusions. Do not -think you have gotten a correct vision of an automobile because you saw -a circle which resembled a wheel. However, I once saw a circle and -_felt_ that it was an automobile wheel—felt it so vividly that I became -overwhelmed with curiosity to see if my ‘feeling’ was correct, and -forthwith turned on the light and examined the real picture in my hand. -I found that it was indeed the wheel of an automobile. But I do not do -this kind of thing unless I have a very decided ‘hunch,’ as it tends to -lead back to the natural impulse of the mind to ‘guess’—and guessing is -one of the things one has to strive to avoid. To a certain extent, one -comes to know a difference between a guess and a ‘hunch.’ - -“The details of this technique are not to be taken as trifles. The whole -issue of success or failure depends on them. At least, this is so in my -case. Perhaps a spontaneous sensitive, or one who has a better method, -has no such difficulties. I am just an average conscious-minded person, -who set out deliberately to find a way to test this tremendously -important question of telepathy and clairvoyance, without having to -depend on a ‘medium,’ who might be fooling himself, or me. It was by -this method of careful attention to a technique of details that I have -found it possible to get telepathic messages and to see pictures on -hidden cards, and symbolic pictures of the contents of books. - -“This technique takes time, and patience, and training in the art of -concentration. But this patience is in itself an excellent thing to -learn, especially for nervous and sick people. The uses of mental -concentration are too various and tremendously beneficial to enumerate -here. The average person has almost no power of concentration, as he -will quickly discover by trying to hold his undivided attention on one -simple object, such as a rose, or a bottle of ink, for just a few -minutes. He will find that a thousand thoughts, usually association -trains connected with the rose, or the ink, will appear on his mental -canvas, interrupting his concentration. He will find that his mind -behaves exactly like a moving-picture film, or a fireworks display. It -is the division of attention that uses up energy, if I am not mistaken. - -“Of course this technique is not ‘original.’ I got it by selecting from -hints here and there in my reading, and from my general study and -observation of the behavior of the mind. - -“Among the difficulties to be overcome—and this is one which is easily -detected—is the appearing of visions of objects one has observed in the -environment just before closing the eyes. When I close my eyes to make -the next test, I invariably find that the last picture, and my own -drawing of it, and also the electric light bulb which I have lighted in -order to see the last picture—all these immediately appear on the -horizon of my mind. It often takes quite a while to banish these -memory-ghosts. And sometimes it is a mistake to banish them, as the -picture you hold in your hand may be quite similar to the preceding one. -If, therefore, a picture resembling the preceding continues obstinately -to represent itself, I usually accept it, and often find that the -preceding and present cards contain similar pictures. - -“Another difficulty is the way things sometimes appear in fragments, or -sections, of the whole picture. A straight line may appear, and it may -be either only a portion of the whole, or it may be all there is on the -card. Then I have to resist the efforts of my imagination to speculate -as to what object this fragment may be part of. For instance, I see a -series of points, and have the impulse to ‘guess’ a star. I must say no -to this guesswork, unless the indescribable ‘hunch’ feeling assures me -it is a star. I must tell myself it may be indeed a part of a star, but, -on the other hand, it may be a complete picture of the drawing in hand, -perhaps the letter W, or M, or it may be a part of a pennant, or what -not. Then I must start over, and hold blank a while. Then repeat the -request to the deep mind for the true picture. Now I may get a more -complete picture, or maybe this fragment reappears alone, or maybe it -repeats itself upside-down, or doubled up in most any way. - -“I start all over once more and now I may get a series of fragments -which follow each other and jump together as do the comic cartoons which -are drawn on the screen with pen and ink. For instance, two points -appear, then another appears separately and jumps to the first two, and -joins up with them, then two more. The result is a star, and this may be -the true picture. It usually is. But sometimes this is the subconscious -mind, or perhaps the conscious, trying to finish the object as it has -‘guessed’ it should be. This error of allowing the conscious or the -subconscious mind to finish the object is one to be most careful about. -As one experiments, he realizes more and more that these two minds, the -conscious and the subconscious, are really one, subconsciousness being -only a disorderly store-house of memories. The third, or ‘deep mind’ is -apparently the one which gives us our psychic phenomena. Again I say, I -do not know what this ‘deep mind’ is; I use the words merely to have a -name for that ‘other thing’ which brings the message. - -“The conscious mind, combined with the subconscious, not only wants to -finish the picture, but decides sometimes to eliminate a detail which -does not belong to what it has guessed should be there. For example, I -will discuss the drawings which have been given as Figures 35, 35a, in -this book. I ‘visioned’ what looked like a figure 5, except that at the -top where there should be a small vertical line projecting toward the -right, there was a flare of very long lines converging at one end. I -consciously decided that the long lines were an exaggeration and -multiplication of what should properly be at the top of a five, and that -I should not accept them. Here was conscious mind making a false -decision. But by obeying the rules I had laid down in advance, I was -saved from this error of consciousness. I closed my eyes, gave a call -for the true picture, and the lines appeared again, so I included them -in my drawing. When I opened the envelope and looked at the picture -inside, it was an oil derrick. So the flare of long lines was the real -thing, while the figure 5 was the interloper—at least, so I now -consciously decided. I thought that the figure 5 and the flare of lines -were entirely separate mental images, one following the other so rapidly -that they appeared to belong together. - -“But again my conscious decision was in error. Several hours later, -after I had put the whole matter out of my mind and had been attending -to household duties, I suddenly remembered the paper jacket of a German -edition of my husband’s novel, ‘Oil,’ which was on a shelf in the next -room to the one in which I had made my experiments. Why did I suddenly -remember this book? I had not noticed it for a long time—its jacket -drawings were out of sight, as the book was wedged between many others -on the book shelves in an inconspicuous place in the room. On one side -of the jacket of this book was a picture of three oil derricks; on the -other side was a large dollar mark, almost covering one entire side of -the book. I had seen this jacket, had indeed taken special notice of it, -at the time of its arrival from Germany. So here seems to have been a -clear case of the subconscious mind at work during my experiment, adding -to my true vision of an oil derrick, the subconsciously remembered -dollar mark which looked like a figure 5, partly hidden by the oil -derrick in my vision. Here was a grand mix-up of the false guesses of -consciousness and subconsciousness, and the true presentations from the -‘deep mind.’ - -“But this was not the end. This confusion in regard to the dollar mark -went forward, in memory-trains to two other experiments. Several days -later, I was trying a new set of drawings, and one of them caused in my -mind a vision of the capital letter S. Instantly, two parallel straight -lines crossed it, turning it into a dollar mark: $. Then it became an S -again without the lines. Then the lines came back. This strange behavior -of my vision continued. I was in a quandary as to which to accept, the S -or the $. Then there appeared an old-fashioned money-bag, such as I used -to see in my father’s bank as a child, full of small coins. It took its -place in the vision beside the dollar mark. I decided with the usual -erroneous consciousness that this money-bag was a hint from my real -mind, so I accepted the dollar mark as correct. But it turned out not to -be. When I looked at the drawing in hand it was a letter S. My -subconsciousness had supplied the money-bag, and the two parallel lines. - -“Several days later, in a vision with a third set of drawings, I saw a -letter S, and then at once the bag of small change appeared, but there -were no parallel lines on the S. This time the real drawing was a dollar -mark! So, my subconsciousness, as soon as the dollar mark had appeared -in subconsciousness, had meddled again; it had remembered the last -experiment and the scolding I had given it for its guess work, so it now -subtracted the parallel lines from the new vision to make it correct, -according to the last experiment. It had remembered the last experiment -only, forgetting the first one, of the oil derrick, just as I had -ordered it to do on the occasion of the second experiment. So, it -subtracted the two parallel lines, but it added the remembered bag of -money, which I had included in my scolding. From this kind of -interference by the subconsciousness, I realized that it is indeed no -simple matter to get things into consciousness from the ‘deep mind’ -without guesses and additions and subtractions made by the -subconsciousness. Why the subconscious should meddle, I do not know. But -it does. Its behavior is exactly like that of the conscious mind, which -is also prone to guessing. All this sounds fantastic—to anyone who has -not studied his mind. But I tell you how it seems to me. - -“Maybe everything comes from the subconscious. Maybe there is no ‘deep -mind.’ Maybe the subconscious gets its knowledge of what is on the -drawing directly from the drawing, and is merely blundering around, -adding details by guesswork to what it has seen incompletely. But I -think that these experiments prove that this is not the case. I think a -study of them shows that a true vision comes into the subconsciousness, -not directly from the drawing, but from another mind which has some -means of knowing, and sending to consciousness via the subconsciousness -whatever I ask it for. Of course I cannot attempt to prove this here. It -was one of the questions to which I was seeking an answer, and the -result seems to point to the existence of a deeper mind, showing how its -behavior is quite different from that of the subconscious. - -“I wanted to find out if the true vision could in any way be -distinguished from ‘imagination,’ or these busy guesses of the -subconsciousness. To help myself in this matter, I first made an -examination of exactly how these guesses come. I said to myself: every -thought that ever comes to consciousness, excepting those due to direct -outside stimulation, may proceed from some deeper source, and by -subconscious memory-trains attaching to them, appear to be the work of -subconsciousness. So I shut my eyes and made my mind blank, without -calling on my mind to present any definite thing. I had no drawing in my -hand. After a brief space of blankness, I relaxed the enforced blankness -and waited, dreamily, for what might come. A picture soon came, with a -whole memory-train. First a girl in a large garden hat, then a garden -path and flowers bordering it, then a spade, a wheelbarrow, and so -on—things associated in my memory with a girl in a garden hat. As to -where the girl in the hat came from, I know not. As to why she should -come instead of any other of billions of things seen by me during my -life, I know not. I had not asked my mind for her. The question of why -she came is interesting. - -“But it was easy to account for the other things—the association-train. -I learned from this experiment, and several repetitions of it, that -something always came—a girl, or a steamship, or the fact that I had not -attended to some household duty, or what not—and a train of associated -ideas followed. I learned, in a more or less vague way, how these things -behaved, and how I _felt_ about them. This enabled me to notice, when -later I got a true vision, that there was a difference between the way -this true vision came and the way the ‘idle’ visions came. When the true -visions came, there usually came with them a ‘something’ which I call a -‘hunch.’ There was, of course, always in my consciousness the question: -is this the right thing, or not? When the true vision came, this -question seemed to receive an answer, ‘yes,’ as if some intelligent -entity was directly informing me. - -“This was not always the case. At times no answer came, or at least, if -it came, it was obscured by guesses. But usually it did, after I had -watched for it, and a sort of thrill of triumph came with it, quite -different from the quiet way in which the money-bag had appeared in -answer to my uncertainty. The subconscious answers questions, and its -answers are always false; its answers come quietly, like a thief in the -night. But the ‘other’ mind, the ‘deep mind’ answers questions, too, and -these answers come, not quietly, but as if by ‘inspiration,’ whatever -that is—with a rustling of wings, with gladness and conviction. These -two minds seem different from each other. One lies and rambles; the -other sings, and is truthful. - -“But do not misunderstand me. I am not a religious convert. I am -searching for knowledge, and recording what I find. Others on this -search may have found these same things, but the conclusions they have -drawn may not turn out to be the ones I shall draw. - -“One or two other things of interest should perhaps be mentioned. First, -I found that, in doing a series of several drawings, the percentage of -successes was higher in the first three attempts. Then there began to be -failures, alternating with successes. This may have been due to the fact -that the memory-pictures of these first three experiments now -constituted a difficulty. So much attention had to be given to -inhibiting these memory-pictures, and in deciding whether or not they -were to be inhibited. Or it may be due to some other cause, such as -fatigue or boredom. - -“The second detail is that during the earliest experiments, I developed -a headache. I think this was due to the fact that I strained my closed -eyes trying to see with them. I mean, of course, trying to see a vision, -not the card in my hand. Using the eyes to see with is a habit, and -habits are not easily overcome. I soon learned not to use my eyes, at -least not in a strained way, and this was the end of the headaches. -However, this use of the eyes in telepathy may perhaps mean more than a -mere habit. The mental canvas on which these ‘visions’ are projected -seems to be spread in the eyes, and it is the eyes which seem to see -them—despite the fact that the room may be dark, the eyes closed, and -the drawing on the paper be wrapped in thick covering and not within -normal range of the eyes. But this may be due to the habit of -associating all pictures with your eyes.” - - - - - _22_ - - -So much for the art of voluntary mind-reading. In conclusion I, the -husband, attempt to say a few words about what these phenomena mean, and -how they come about. - -This attempt involves me in a verbal duel with my wife, which lasts into -the small hours of morning. It involves the everlasting debate between -the vitalists and the mechanists, which had best be left to Dr. Watson -and Professor McDougall, and the others who are no more able than I am -to look at the neurons of the brain in action, to see what happens. But -I insist that until Craig and Dr. Watson, Professor Eddington and Mrs. -Eddy have found out positively whether the universe is all mind or all -matter, I must go on speaking in the old-fashioned way, as if there were -two worlds, the physical and the mental, two sets of phenomena which -interact one upon the other continuously, even though the manner of this -happening is beyond comprehension. - -With this much apology, I obtain permission to put forth my humble guess -as to the part played by mental concentration in the causing of -telepathy, clairvoyance, and trance phenomena. It seems to me that the -process of intense concentration may cause the nervous energy, or brain -energy, whatever it is, to be withdrawn from some of the brain centers -and transferred to others; and it may be this displacement and -disturbance of balance which accounts for such phenomena as catalepsy, -automatism, and somnambulism. Portions of the mind which are ordinarily -below the level of consciousness are raised to more intense forms of -activity. New levels of mind are tapped, new “personalities” or -faculties are brought into action, and persons under hypnotism develop -mental powers they do not consciously possess. - -That it is intense concentration upon one suggestion—the narrowing of -the attention to one focus—which produces the cataleptic trance is -something which my wife set out to prove, and by going close to the -border-line she feels that she did prove it. The rigidity began at the -extremities and crept rapidly over the body. In spite of my protests, -Craig insisted that she was going the whole way, and asked me to stand -by and make some tests. I was to wait three minutes, and then lift her -up by the feet. I did so, and found an extraordinary thing—the body was -perfectly rigid, like a log of wood, except at the neck! When I lifted -her by her feet, the neck bent, so that the head remained on the pillow, -while the feet were raised at least a yard in the air. Later, when Craig -had relaxed, she told me that she had known what was happening; there -had been one point of consciousness left, and she had the belief that -she could let that go in another moment, but was afraid to do so, -because she might not come out again. For an instant, she had felt that -strange terror one feels at the moment he ceases to struggle against the -fumes of gas or ether, and plunges into oblivion. The difference is -that, in the case of gas or ether, one cannot hold on to consciousness; -but in the case of the cataleptic state, he can recall his receding -consciousness. Craig, of course, had not concentrated with complete -attention to one idea; one portion of her mind was concentrated upon -achieving rigidity, while another was watching and protesting against -oblivion. - -Dr. Morton Prince wrote to Craig: “You are playing with powerful and -dangerous forces.” And so she dropped this form of experiment. But more -should be known about these trances, which often occur spontaneously, -and can be caused by fear—that is to say, an intense concentration on -the idea of escape from danger, which produces a tension amounting to -paralysis. In such cases there are a number of new dangers; one being -that some doctor will try to restore you with drugs and wrong -suggestions. Every suggestion of fear on the part of the onlookers must -be avoided in case of trances, for the subconscious mind of the victim -hears every word, and believes it; also telepathy has to be remembered. -One must not only speak quietly and firmly, repeating that everything is -all right, and that the person will come out safely; one must also -_think_ this. The trance may last a long time, but keep calm and sure of -success, and keep the doctor and the undertaker away. The condition of -catalepsy is more common than is realized, and it is unpleasant to think -how many persons are embalmed while in this condition. - -All this sounds disturbing, but it has nothing to do with our telepathy -experiments, in which the state of concentration is not one of tension -accompanied by the suggestion of rigidity, or of fear, but on the -contrary is a state of relaxation, accompanied by the suggestion of -control, or supervision. This matter of supervision has been carefully -set forth by Craig in her statement. It is one of the mind’s great -mysteries: how, while thinking about nothing, you can not only remember -to give a suggestion, but can also act upon it. Craig insists that we -have three minds; and she has in this the backing of William McDougall, -an Englishman, who was called the “dean” of American psychologists. -McDougall talks about the various “monads” of the mind; so let us say -that one “monad” gives an order to a second “monad” to become blank, -after it has given an order to a third to present to the first a -picture. - -The psychic Jan gives such “autosuggestions” to himself when he goes -into a trance, and tells his trance mind to bring him out at a certain -moment. How that trance mind can measure time as exactly as a clock is -another of the mysteries; but that it happens is beyond doubt. My wife -took Jan to a group of scientists in Boston, and several of them held -watches and expressed their surprise at what Jan was able to do. It is -obvious that when the psychic lets himself be buried six feet under the -ground in an ordinary pine-wood coffin, he is staking his life upon his -certainty that he will not come out of the state of lethargy until after -he has been dug up. - -He also stakes it upon the hope that the physicians who have the test in -charge will have sufficient sense to realize the importance of having -him dug out at the time agreed. In one case they were several minutes -late, and Jan nearly suffocated. I never saw one of these burials, -because Craig obtained his promise not to do them after she knew him; -but I have talked with several physicians who watched and directed all -the details, and I have a moving-picture film of one. - - - - - _23_ - - -Mention telepathy in company, and almost everyone has a story to tell. -You can find a clairvoyant to tell you about yourself for a dollar—and -maybe she is a fraud, but then again, maybe she is a person with a gift -which she does not understand, and the police throw her into jail -because they don’t understand it either. I am sorry if I aid the mass of -fraud which I know exists in this field, but there is no power of man -which may not and will not be abused. The person who invented high -explosives and made possible great tunnels and bridges, also made -possible the destruction of the Louvain library. The person who makes a -dynamo may electrocute himself. - -In spite of all fraud, I am convinced that there are thousands of -genuine clairvoyants and psychics. My friend Will Irwin told me recently -how he spent a year or so collecting material and writing an exposure of -fraud, “The Medium Game,” published in _Collier’s Weekly_ some twenty -years ago. At the end of his labors he went, on sudden impulse, into a -“parlor” on Sixth Avenue, a cheap neighborhood of New York, and a fat -old woman in a greasy wrapper took his dollar, and held his hand in -hers, and told him things which he believed were known to no human being -but Will Irwin. - -“What is the use of it?” some will ask. I reply with another question: -“What was the use of the lightning which Franklin brought down from the -clouds on his kite-string?” No use that Franklin ever knew; yet today we -make his lightning turn the wheels of industry, and move great railroad -systems, and light a hundred million homes, and spread jazz music and -cigarette advertising thousands of miles in every direction. It is an -axiom of the scientist that every scrap of knowledge will be put to use -sooner or later; get it, and let the uses wait. The discovery of the -cause of bubonic plague was made possible because some foolish-minded -entomologist had thought it worth-while to collect information about the -fleas which prey upon the bodies of rats and ground squirrels. - -I know a certain Wall Street operator who employed a “psychic” to sit in -at his business conferences, and tell him if the other fellow was -honest. I believe it didn’t work very well; perhaps the circumstances -were not favorable to concentration. Needless to say, Craig and I have -no interest in such uses to be made of our knowledge. What telepathy -means to my wife is this: it seems to indicate a common substratum of -mind, underlying our individual minds, and which we can learn to tap. -Figure the conscious mind as a tree, and the subconscious mind as the -roots of that tree: then what of the earth in which the tree grows, and -from which it derives its sustenance? What currents run through that -earth, affecting all the trees of the forest? If one tree falls, the -earth is shaken—and may not the other trees feel the impulse? - -In other words, we are apparently getting hints of a cosmic -consciousness, or cosmic unconsciousness: some kind of mind stuff which -is common to us all, and which we can bring into our individual -consciousness. Why is it not sensible to think that there may be a -universal mind-stuff, just as there is a universal body-stuff, of which -we are made, and to which we return? - -When Craig orders her mind, or some portion of it, or faculty of it, to -get what is in Bob’s mind, while Bob is forty miles away—and when her -mind does that, what are we to picture as happening? If I am correct in -my guess, that mind and body are two aspects of one reality, then we -shall find some physical form of energy being manifested, just as we do -when we communicate by sound waves. The human brain is a storage -battery, capable of sending impulses over the nerves. Why may it not be -capable of sending impulses by means of some other medium, known or -unknown? Why may there not be such a thing as brain radio? - -Certainly we know this, that every particle of energy in the universe -affects to some slight extent every other particle. The problem of -detecting such energy is merely one of getting a sufficiently sensitive -device. Who can say that our thoughts are not causing vibrations? Who -can set a limit to the distance they may travel, or to the receiving -powers of another brain, in some way or other attuned thereto? Any truly -scientific person will admit that this is a possibility, and that it is -purely a question of experimenting, to find out if it does happen, and -how. - -Again, consider the problem of clairvoyance, suggested by Craig’s -ability to tell what is inside a book she holds in her hand without -seeing it, or to reproduce drawings when no human mind knows what -drawing she holds. How are we to figure that as happening? Shall we say -that brain vibrations affect material things such as paper, and leave -impressions which endure for a long time, possibly forever? Can these -affect another brain, as in the case of a bit of radium giving off -emanations? It seems to me correct to say that, theoretically, it is -inevitable. Every particle of energy that has ever been manifested in -the universe goes on producing its effects somewhere, somehow, and the -universe is forever different because of that happening. The soil of -Britain is still shaking with the tramp of Caesar’s legions, two -thousand years old. Who can say that some day we may not have -instruments sensitive enough to detect such traces of energy? On the -very day that I am reading the galley proofs of this book, I find in my -morning paper an Associated Press dispatch, from which I clip a few -paragraphs. - -“A fundamental discovery in photography that takes the ‘pictures’ -directly on cold, hard untreated metal without the usual photographer’s -medium of a sensitized plate was made public tonight at Cornell -University. It reveals that seemingly impervious metal records on its -surface unseen impressions from streams of electrons and that these -marks can be brought into visibility by the right kind of a ‘developer,’ -exactly as photographic images are brought out on sensitized paper.... - -“While studying sensitivity of photographic plates to electron rays it -suddenly was realized that polished metal surfaces might be able to pick -up impressions of these beams, and when tests were made they showed that -not only could such records be made on metals, but the amazing fact -appeared that some metals are almost as sensitive as photographic film, -and for very low velocity electrons much more sensitive.... - -“This young physicist one day was looking at the rough spots produced on -the metal target of an x-ray tube by electron bombardment. Such spots -are commonplace, familiar sights to laboratory workers. It occurred to -Dr. Carr that perhaps long before the electrons produced the rough place -they made an invisible impression, which might be ‘developed’ in the -same manner that the still invisible image on a photo is brought out by -putting it into a developing bath. Carr shot the electron rays at gold -plates and developed them with mercury vapor, he shot them at silver and -developed with iodine, he used hydrochloric acid to develop zinc plates -and iodine to develop copper.” - -And now, if x-rays leave a permanent record on metal, why might not -brain-rays, or thought-rays, leave a record upon a piece of paper? Why -might not such energies be reflected back to another brain, as light is -reflected by a mirror? Or perhaps the record might stay as some other -form of energy, turned back into brain-rays or thought-rays by the -percipient. We are familiar with this in the telephone, where sound -vibrations are turned into electrical vibrations, and in this form -transported across a continent and under an ocean, and then turned back -into sound vibrations once again. - -That mental activities do leave some kind of record on matter seems -certain; at any rate, it is the basic concept of the materialistic -psychologist. For what is memory, to the materialist, but some kind of -record upon brain cells? He compares these cells to photoelectric cells, -and imagines a lot of stored up records which we can consult. If now it -should be found that such memory records are impressed, not merely upon -living brain cells, but upon the molecules or electrons which compose -any form of matter, what would be so incredible about that? - -I have gone this far, in the effort to meet my materialist friends -halfway. For my part, I have no metaphysics; I am content to say that I -do not know what matter is, nor what mind is, nor how they interact. If -you want to realize the inadequacies of the materialistic dogma, so far -as concerns this special field, you may consult the work of Dr. Rudolph -Tischner, a qualified scientist of Germany, whose book, _Telepathy and -Clairvoyance_, is published in translation by Harcourt, Brace and -Company. The last chapter, called “Theory,” deals with the suggested -explanations in more detail than I have the space for here. - - - - - _24_ - - -April 21, 1929. I am over at the office fixing up this manuscript to -send to the publisher; and just as I have it nicely wrapped, it has to -be opened again—for this is what has happened. Craig, with her anxiety -complex, has had this thought: “Here is Upton committing himself in this -public way, on a subject about which people know so little and suspect -so much; and suppose this faculty, whatever it is, should be gone in -these last few weeks, while I have been fussing over spring -housecleaning! Suppose I should find I can never do it again!” - -She has to make sure all over again. She has in her desk a fat envelope -marked: “To try.” A lot of old drawings, left-overs from different -series that she has tried and failed on during the past several months; -some that she herself has drawn for friends; some that she was -interrupted while doing—a job lot, in short. She does not know how many, -as she has stuck them in from time to time, and never looked into the -envelope; but it is well filled. Now she takes out some drawings, with -averted eyes, and lies down and tries them. The house is quiet, a good -opportunity, so she does nine drawings, and there is only one complete -failure in the lot. - -One is a marvel—as good as any. It is a drawing I had made, a donkey’s -head and neck, with a wide collar. Craig writes: “Cow’s head in -‘stock’”—a “stock” being in Mississippi a wooden yoke made to keep -cattle from jumping fences. She draws the head of the so-called “cow” -and the “stock”; it is a perfect donkey’s head, facing just as mine -does. - -And then there is a duck, about to eat a snail. Such a jolly duck, and -such a wheely snail shell! Craig has made this drawing to amuse the -little daughter of Bob and Dolly, who had a pet duck, called “Mary Ann,” -fed on snails. Craig made this drawing several months ago, to let the -child “concentrate” on, and try telepathy like the grown-ups. And now, -with this drawing under her hand, Craig writes: “See wheels. Think of -children. Has to do with children.” The drawing of the snail shell is -plainly a lot of “wheels.” - -Now, of course, Craig had previously seen every one of these drawings, -and so they were all in her subconscious mind. But these drawings had -never been seen by her at the same time. They were put into the -envelope, some at one time, some at another. Now she has taken out a few -at random. What a jumble for any subconscious mind to keep track of! How -is Craig’s mind to know which drawings she has taken out, and which one -she is holding under her hand? - -Again we have something more than telepathy. For no human mind knows -what drawings she has taken from that envelope. No human mind but her -own even knows that she is trying an experiment. Either there is some -superhuman mind, or else there is something that comes from the -drawings, some way of “seeing,” other than the way we know and use all -the time. Make what you can of this, but don’t laugh at it, for most -certainly it happens. - - - - - _25_ - - -October, 1929. At my wife’s insistence, I have held up this book for six -months, in order to think it over, and have the manuscript read by -friends whose opinions we value. A score or more have read it, and made -various suggestions, many of which I have accepted. Some of the -reactions of these friends may be of interest to the reader. - -The news that I was taking up “psychic” matters brought me letters both -of curiosity and protest. My friend Isaac Goldberg of Boston reported -the matter in the Haldeman-Julius publications under the title: -“Sinclair Goes Spooky.” I hope that when he has read this book, he will -find another adjective. My friends, both radical and respectable, must -realize that I have dealt here with facts, in as patient and thorough a -manner as I have ever done in my life. It is foolish to be convinced -without evidence, but it is equally foolish to refuse to be convinced by -real evidence. - -There came to me a letter of warning from a good comrade, T. H. Bell of -Los Angeles, an elderly Scotchman who has grown up in the Socialist -movement, and known the old fighters of the days when I was a child. He -begged me not to jeopardize my reputation; so I thought he would be a -good test for the manuscript, and asked him to read it. Some of his -suggestions I accepted, and the work is the better for them. But Comrade -Bell was not able to believe that Craig’s drawings could have come by -telepathy, for the reason that it would mean that he was “abandoning the -fundamental notions” on which his “whole life has been based.” - -Comrade Bell brought many arguments against my thesis, and this was a -service, because it enables me to answer my critics in advance. First, -what is the value of my memory? Can I be sure that it does not -“accommodate itself too easily to the statement Sinclair wishes to -believe?” My answer is that few of the important cases in the book rest -upon my memory; they rest upon records written down at once. They rest -upon drawings which were made according to a plan devised in advance, -and then duly filed in envelopes numbered and dated. Also, my memory has -been checked by my wife’s, who is a fanatic for accuracy, and has caused -me torment, through a good part of our married life, by insisting upon -going over my manuscripts and censoring every phrase. Also Bob and -Dollie and my secretary have read this narrative, and checked the -statements dealing with them. - -Next objection, that I am “a man without scientific training.” The -acceptance of that statement depends upon the definition of the word -“scientific.” If it includes the social sciences, then I have had -twenty-five years of very rigid training. I have made investigations and -published statements, literally by thousands, which were criminal libels -unless they were true and exact; yet I have never had any kind of libel -suit brought against me in my life. As to the scientific value of the -particular experiments described in this book, the reader can do his own -judging, for they have been described in detail. I don’t see how -scientific training could have increased our precautions. We have -outlined our method to scientists, and none has suggested any change. - -Next, the fact that in the past I have shown myself “naïve and credulous -at times.” No doubt I have; but I have learned by such experiences, and -I am not so naïve and credulous as when I was younger. Neither do I see -how these qualities can play much part in the present matter. I surely -know the conditions under which I made my drawings, and whether I had -them under my eyes while my wife was making her drawings in another -room; I know about the ones I sealed in envelopes, and which were never -out of my sight. As for my wife, she certainly has nothing of the -qualities of naïveté and credulity. She was raised in a family of -lawyers, and was given the training and skeptical point of view of a -woman of the world. “Trust people, but watch them,” was old Judge -Kimbrough’s maxim; and following it too closely has almost made a -pessimist of his daughter. - -Next, that Craig is “in poor health.” That is true, but I do not see how -it matters here. She has often been in pain, but it has never affected -her judgment. She chose her own times for experimenting, when she felt -in the mood, and her mind was always clear and keen for the job. - -Next, “a husband and wife are a bad pair to make telepathic experiments. -Living so much together, their common life does tend to make them think -of the same thing at the same time.” This is true; but how does it -account for the half-dozen successes with a brother-in-law, twenty or -thirty with a secretary, and many with Jan? How does it account for the -covers and jackets of books in which I had no interest, but which had -come to me by chance, and which Craig had never even glanced at, so far -as she remembers? - -It is true that in the early days most of our drawings were of obvious -things which lay about the house, scissors, table-forks, watches, -chairs, telephones; so there was a better chance of guess work. How much -chance, was determined by my son and his wife, who, hearing that Craig -and I were trying telepathy experiments, decided to try a few -also—without knowing anything about the technique. They also drew -scissors, table-forks, watches, chairs, telephones, and such common -objects. The only trouble was that when David tried to reproduce Betty’s -drawings, he drew the chair where she had drawn the scissors, and drew -the watch where she had drawn the table-fork, and so on. They did not -get a single success. - -I think that if you will go back and look over those drawings as a -whole, you must admit that the objects were as varied as the imagination -could make them. I do not see how any one could choose a set of objects -less likely to be guessed than the series which I have numbered from 5 -to 12—a bird’s nest full of eggs and surrounded by leaves, a spiked -helmet, a desert palm-tree, a star with eight double points, a coconut -palm, a puppy chasing a string, a flying bat, a Chinese mandarin, and a -boy’s foot with a roller-skate on it. None of these objects has any -relationship whatever to my life, or to Craig’s, or to our common life. -To say that a wife can guess such a series, because she knows her -husband’s mind so well, seems to me out of all reason. - -Next, the point that some of the cases are not convincing by themselves. -I am familiar with this method of argument, having encountered it with -others of my books. Let me beg you to note that the cases are _not_ -taken by themselves, but are taken as a whole. I can think, for example, -of several ways by which Craig might have known that I had put my little -paper of written notes into the pocket of my gray coat, or that I had -left some medical apparatus under the bathtub at the office. She might -have seen these things, and then have forgotten it, and her subconscious -mind might have brought back to her the location of the objects, but -failed to remind her of the previous seeing. If such cases had stood -alone, I would not have thought it worth while to write this book. - -The same thing applies to Craig’s production of German words. Having -spent several weeks with me in Germany, and having known many Germans, -she no doubt has German words in her subconscious mind. This also -applies to certain dream cases. Any one who wants to can go through the -book and pick out a score of cases which can be questioned on various -grounds. Perhaps it would be wiser for me to cut out all except the -strongest cases. But I rely upon your common sense, to realize that the -strongest cases have caused me to write the book; and that the weaker -ones are given for whatever additional light they may throw upon the -problem. - -If you want to deal fairly with the book, here is what you have to -explain. How did it happen that at a certain agreed hour when Bob at -Pasadena drew a table-fork and dated and signed the drawing, Craig in -Long Beach wrote: “See a table-fork, nothing else,” and dated and signed -her words? If you call this a coincidence, how are you going to account -for the chair, and the watch, and the circle with the hole in the -middle, and the sense of pain and fear, and the spreading black stain -called blood, all reproduced under the same perfect conditions? I say -that if you call all this coincidence, you are violating the laws of -probability as we know them. I say that there are only two possible -explanations,—either telepathy, or that my wife and her brother-in-law -were hoaxing me. - -But if you want to assume a hoax, you have to face the fact that my wife -a few days later was reproducing a series of drawings which I made and -kept in front of my eyes in a separate room from her, in such a position -that she could not see them if she wanted to. If I thought it worth -while, I could draw you a diagram of the place where she sat and the -place where I sat, and convince you that neither mirrors, nor a hole in -the wall, nor any other device would have enabled my wife to see my -drawings, until I took them to her and compared them with her drawings. -The only way you can account for that series of successes is to say that -I am in on the hoax. - -My good friend and comrade, Tom Bell, does not suggest that I am in it; -but others may say it, so I will answer. Let me assure you, there is no -reason in the world why I should take the field on behalf of the -doctrine of telepathy—except my conviction that it has been proved. I -don’t belong to any church which teaches telepathy. I don’t hold any -doctrine which is helped by it. I don’t make any money by advocating or -practicing it. There is no more reason why I should be concerned to -vindicate telepathy, than there is for my coming out in support of the -Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or the Mormon doctrine -of Urim and Thummim, or the Koreshan doctrine that the earth is a hollow -sphere and we live on the inside of it. - -I assure you I am as cold-blooded about the thing as a man can be. In -fact, I don’t like to believe in telepathy, because I don’t know what to -make of it, and I don’t know to what view of the universe it will lead -me, and I would a whole lot rather give all my time to my muckraking job -which I know by heart. I don’t expect to sell especially large -quantities of this book; I am sure that by giving the same amount of -time and energy to other books I have in mind, I could earn several -times as much money. In short, there isn’t a thing in the world that -leads me to this act, except the conviction which has been forced upon -me that telepathy is real, and that loyalty to the nature of the -universe makes it necessary for me to say so. - -My friend and publisher Charles Boni thinks that I should write this -book without protestations; taking a dignified position, sure that my -readers will trust me. But as it happens, I have read, not merely the -literature of psychic research, but also the literature in opposition to -it, and I know the arguments advanced by persons who are unwilling to -change their “fundamental notions.” It seems common sense to answer here -the objections which are certain to be made. - -I submitted this manuscript to the two leading psychologists of America, -Morton Prince and William McDougall. Dr. Prince was taken by death -before he found time to read it, but Professor McDougall read it, and -has stated his reactions in the preface. In writing to me, he expressed -the hope that my wife would be able to make some of these telepathy -tests under the observation of well-known scientists. In replying, I -assured him that my wife and I shared this hope; but whether it can ever -be realized is a problem for the future. All Craig’s work so far has -depended upon a state of complete peace and relaxation. As she has -pointed out, it is a matter of “undivided concentration,” and even such -disturbing things as light and noise are an interference. One friend who -has tried to experiment lately at our instigation gave it up because of -automobile horns in the street outside. She declared that these had -never disturbed her before, but that the effort not to hear them when -concentrating only caused her to concentrate on the horns, and so -threatened to give her a case of “nerves.” - -Whether Craig would be able to get the necessary state of mind in the -presence of strangers, skeptical or possibly hostile, is a problem yet -to be solved. Unless we are going to beg the question, we have to assume -that telepathy may be a reality; and if it be a reality, then certainly -what is in the other person’s mind makes a difference, and certainly it -is a serious matter to ask a woman in delicate health to open her mind -to the moods of strangers. Some day in the future Craig is going to make -the test, but whether it succeeds or fails will not alter, so far as I -am concerned, what has already happened in my presence. - -Another of my friends who read the manuscript was Floyd Dell, and he -thinks that readers of my books will wish to know to what extent, if -any, my interest in the subject of telepathy is going to change my -attitude to the struggle for social justice. To that I reply that I have -been interested in psychic research for the past thirty-five years, ever -since, as a youth, I met Minot J. Savage; but this has not kept me from -believing ardently in the abolition of parasitism, exploitation, and -war. While the telepathy experiments were going on I wrote “Boston,” a -novel of some 325,000 words, in less than a year. While I am consulting -with my friends about this manuscript, I am writing a novel, “Mountain -City,” which I hope my Socialist friends will find of interest. The only -discovery that can weaken my interest in the economic problem will be -one which enables human beings to live without food, clothing, and -shelter. But in the meantime, I see no reason why Socialists are -required to be ignorant of psychology. - -James Fuchs, another patient critic of my writings, thinks I appear -naïve in this book, and should reveal some knowledge of the vast -literature on the subject. My reason for not doing so is that very -vastness; one would need several volumes to handle it. In the -Proceedings of the American and British Societies for Psychical Research -lies buried endless evidence on the subject; but scientific authority -remains for the most part uninterested in that evidence, and would not -be interested in my rehash of it. I have written this book to tell my -readers and friends what I myself have seen with my own eyes. That is my -job, and I leave the rest to others who are better qualified. - -Fuchs reminds me that “umbilical sensory perception” is a well-known -psychic phenomenon, and that Craig, in holding the drawings over her -solar plexus, is repeating the method of Justinus Kerner (1786–1862), -about whom you will find an article in the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” -Craig knew about that from various sources, and some of her experiments -were designed to test the explanation. I made eight drawings and laid -them face down on the table by her couch, perhaps three feet from her -head. I put them there while she was out of the room, and I sat and -watched, to be sure she did not ever touch them. She lay on the couch -and made some notes and drawings which reproduced the essential features -of half a dozen of my drawings—all at once! So, if Craig has an -umbilical eye, she must also have one in the side of her head which can -see through several thicknesses of paper. - -My daughter-in-law at that time also made suggestions which I accepted. -She spoke for the new generation of radicals, saying: “The book aroused -a storm of metaphysical speculation in my mind, and I could wax eloquent -with slight provocation.” This is different from refusing to “abandon -the fundamental notions on which my whole life has been based.” - - - - - _26_ - - -One interesting point I observe: in any company where the subject of -this manuscript is brought up, invariably some person declares that he -or she has had such experiences. One lady, highly educated, assured me -that she and her husband had developed telepathy to a point where it -served them on a lonely ranch in the place of telegraph and telephone. -Only a few days ago I met at luncheon Bruno Walter, orchestra leader, -who had come from Germany to conduct concerts in the Hollywood Bowl. Mr. -Walter narrated to me the incident which follows: - -While conducting in some middle western city, he was a guest at a -luncheon, and found himself becoming very ill. He explained matters to -his host, who called a taxicab, but this cab did not arrive, and Mr. -Walter, in great distress, took his hat and left the house, saying that -he would look for a cab. Turning the corner of the street, he came upon -his manager, driving a car, and hailed him. “A most fortunate accident!” -exclaimed the sick man, but the manager assured him that it was no -accident; about half an hour previously, the manager had been seized by -an intense feeling that Mr. Walter was in trouble, and had been moved to -get into his car and drive. He did not know where Mr. Walter had gone, -but simply followed his impulse to drive in a certain direction. - -Another incident, told me by Fremont Older, editor of the San Francisco -_Call_, and a veteran fighter in the cause of social justice. Older had -seen many demonstrations of telepathy, and was completely convinced of -its reality. A friend of his, living on a ranch, employed a cook named -Sam who had the gift, and agreed to give a demonstration for the Olders. -Sam asked Older to get a book and wrap it in thick paper, and Sam would -tell the name of the book and the author. Older went out to his car, but -could find no book, only a folder of maps, which he wrapped in several -thicknesses of paper. Sam put the package to his head, and after a -minute or two said, “This is not a book, it is a map or something. Why -don’t you get me a regular book?” So Older went to his car again and -found a book belonging to his wife, and wrapped it with care and tied -it. Sam put it to his head, and began to spell letters, and finally -stated as follows: “Julia France and her Times, by Gertrude Atherton, -published by the Macmillan Company.” This was correct. Sam added: “I get -another name. What has Ernest Hopkins got to do with this book?” Older -and his wife were dumbfounded; for the name was that of a member of the -newspaper staff who had been asked to review the book, but Mrs. Older -had taken the copy from him because at the last moment she wanted -something to read on her trip. - -As this book is going to the printer, my attention is called to the fact -that Dr. Carl Bruck of Berlin has published a book entitled -“Experimentelle Telepathie,” in which he reports a series of tests -closely resembling those here described. The main difference is that he -used hypnotized subjects, four different young men, as the recipients of -his telepathic messages. He made drawings at home, and locked them in a -large portfolio, which he placed in an adjoining room from the subject, -two or three yards distant through a wall. He himself sat in front of -the hypnotized subject, and concentrated upon “sending” one of the -drawings. Under these conditions, in a total of 111 experiments, -one-third were successful. The Berlin correspondent of the “Scientific -American” reported these tests in the issue of May, 1924, where those -interested may read the details, and inspect twelve of the drawings. The -tests were conducted in the presence of various physicians and -scientists; and I am interested in a recent comment on the matter by a -German physician living in Mexico City: “Bruck’s work has gone almost -wholly unnoticed.” - -I say to scientific men, that such work deserves to be noticed. There is -new knowledge here, close to the threshold, waiting for us; and we -should not let ourselves be repelled by the seeming triviality of the -phenomena, for it is well known that some of the greatest discoveries -have come from the following up of just such trivial clews. - -What did Benjamin Franklin have to go on when he brought the lightning -down from the clouds on the string of a kite? Just a few hints, picked -up in the course of the previous hundred years; a few traces of -electricity noted by accident. The fact that you got a spark if you -stroked a cat’s fur; the fact that you got the same kind of a spark by -rubbing amber, and a bigger one by storing the energy in a glass jar -lined with tinfoil—that was all men had as promise of the miracles of -our time, dynamos and superpower, telegraph and telephone, x-ray -surgery, radio, wireless, television, and new miracles just outside our -door. If now it be a fact that there is a reality behind the notions of -telepathy and clairvoyance, to which so many investigators are bearing -testimony all over the world, who can set limits to what it may mean to -the future? What new powers of the human mind, what ability to explore -the past and future, the farthest deeps of space, and those deeps of our -own minds, no less vast and marvelous? - -To set limits to such possibilities is not to be scientific, it is -merely to be foolish. The true scientist sets no limits to human powers, -he merely asks that we verify our facts. This my wife and I have tried -to do, and I think that, so far as concerns telepathy at least, we can -claim success. We present here a mass of real evidence, and we shall not -be troubled by any amount of ridicule from the ignorant. I tell you—and -because it is so important, I put it in capital letters: TELEPATHY -HAPPENS! - - - - - ADDENDUM - - - The following was originally published as Part I of Bulletin XVI of - the Boston Society for Psychic Research in April, 1932. The figure - numbers listed herein refer to the illustrations in _Mental Radio_, - with the exception of Figures 147, 148, and 149 which appeared in the - Bulletin only. - - The author of the report was Dr. Walter Franklin Prince, Research - Officer of the society. He was a doctor of divinity of the Methodist - Episcopal Church and had been pastor of several churches. Later he - retired and took up the work of the society. He died two years after - this report appeared. - - - - - THE SINCLAIR EXPERIMENTS FOR TELEPATHY - - -About eighteen months ago I first opened a new book by the novelist -Upton Sinclair, entitled _Mental Radio_, then newly issued. In 239 pages -it outlined the story of the discovery and development of what purported -to be a supernormal faculty possessed by his wife, and rehearsed a large -number of experiments in which she seemed to have achieved a large and -convincing percentage of successes as a telepathic “percipient,” the -“agent” generally being Mr. Sinclair, but sometimes her brother-in-law -or another person. I confess to misgivings as I began to read, first for -the very reason that the writer is a novelist (unmindful of Wells and -certain other writers of fiction who, nevertheless, have shown -themselves capable of serious and even scientific thinking),[1] and -secondly because I had suspected, rightly or wrongly, that once or twice -in the past he had failed to discover the devices of certain clever -professionals. To be sure, his wife was not a professional, and all the -conditions could be under his own hand, but sometimes through sheer -confidence people are deceived by their own relatives. - -This, to be frank, was my initial attitude—one of cautious interrogation -and alertness to find signs of credulity, failure to appreciate the -possibilities of chance, or lack of data by which the calculus of chance -coincidence could be determined. But as I read on and studied the -reproductions of drawings it became more and more evident that something -besides chance had operated, that the conditions of many of the -experiments had been excellently devised, and that where the conditions -were relaxed Mr. Sinclair had been quite aware of the fact and was -candid enough to admit it. He stated that such relaxation did not -increase the percentage of success, and it certainly so appeared from -the examples given. He reported the total number of experiments, and -estimated the percentages of successes, partial successes, and failures. -In 290 experiments, he made these percentages: successes, approximately -23 per cent; partial successes, 53 per cent; failures, 24 per cent. He -admitted that judges probably would not agree upon exactly the same -ratios. In fact I personally think that certain examples which he did -not publish are better than a few which he did, but have not yet found -reason to quarrel with his general estimates. - -After considerable study of the book, becoming interested beyond any -expectation, I wrote to Mr. Sinclair, stating that I had become -favorably impressed, and making the somewhat audacious proposal that he -should send me all the original materials for a fresh study by the -individual standards and through the particular methods of a -professional investigator. One can think of several reasons which might -make the most honest and confident man hesitant to assent to such a -proposal, coming from one whom he had never seen, and who might for all -he knew have a set of prejudices which after all would cause him to make -a lawyer’s argument against the case. I was really surprised that the -bundle of materials was sent as quickly as it could be gotten -together.[2] - -Among the objects in mind were: (1) To study the materials in their -strict chronological order, day by day. The mode of presentation in -_Mental Radio_ was to give some of the most striking results first, then -many more that were more or less classified according to subjects and -aspects. This is effective for popular reading but not satisfactory to -the serious student. (2) To see if there were signs, in any part of the -results, of profiting from normal knowledge, whether consciously or -subconsciously acquired, of what the “agent” had drawn. Mr. Sinclair -took this theory into account and quite decidedly killed it, but it was -my duty to try it out anew by my own processes, with the same rigor -shown in relation to my own wife and my daughter in _The Psychic in the -House_. Later, in summary fashion, these tests will be set forth. (3) To -try out other theories to account for the ratios and degrees of -correspondence between “original drawings” and “reproductions” in the -Sinclair experiments, such as involuntary whispering and chance -coincidence. (4) To make a large number of guessing tests on the basis -of the Sinclair originals, both as a means of deciding whether the “mere -coincidence” theory is tenable (as aforesaid) and, if it should prove -otherwise, in order to make a rough measurement of the disparity between -telepathic results and those of guessing. (5) In the event that there -appeared to be no reasonable escape from conclusion that telepathy is -displayed by the material, to ascertain (a) whether the telepathic -faculty with Mrs. Sinclair was constant, vacillating, progressively -constant, or what; (b) whether the telepathic impressions came to her in -the form of ideas, images, names or in more than one fashion; (c) -whether any further hints as to the mental processes involved could be -discerned or any particular pieces of information isolated which might -be helpful in this field of study. (6) Finally, to urge readers to -institute experiments of their own, and to give amateurs some directions -as to procedure. If many could be persuaded to start “games” of this -character with their friends, doubtless favorable subjects could be -discovered or developed. Attention being called to these persons, series -of tests could be made with them under conditions against which none of -the old objections could be offered.[3] - -The Sinclair experiments are treated first in this Bulletin, since they -are its chief subject. The drier Historical Notes, presenting a sketch -of the first steps in methodical research relating to alleged -Thought-Transference, with summaries of some of the classic series of -tests, particularly such as are based upon drawings, are relegated to -Part Two. The more earnest and methodical students of such matters will -prefer to read that first. - -Mr. Upton Sinclair, about fifty-two years old when his book _Mental -Radio_ was issued, is, as everyone is supposed to know, one of the -leading novelists of the United States. His stories are all, or nearly -all, characterized by an intense purpose. To those who claim that art -should be exercised only for art’s sake this may be obnoxious. But from -the point of view of this examination of his book purporting to prove -telepathy, the fact that his novels also attempt to prove something, on -the basis of studies made by him, is quite in his favor.[4] Whether he -has in fact proved the thesis of his respective tales is not within our -province to determine; we do propose rigidly to analyze and review his -claims to have proved telepathy. - -Mr. Sinclair is a Socialist, and a very active and prominent one; he has -been Socialist candidate for Congress in New Jersey and later in -California, besides having been Socialist candidate for the United -States Senate and for Governor in the latter-named State. Political -prejudices or predilections should be strictly excluded from the minds -of readers of the book or this review of it.[5] It is another gratifying -indication that Mr. Sinclair was not deterred from publishing _Mental -Radio_ by the solicitations or irony of influential friends in his -political group, for the scientific spirit is in part compounded of -courage, honesty and candor. - -Mrs. Sinclair, née Mary Craig Kimbrough, somewhere about forty-five -years old when the experiments afterwards published took place, is the -daughter of a retired judge, bank president, and planter of Mississippi. - -The reader may judge of the quality of her mentality by reading Appendix -1. That is, in part, the reason that it is printed. It is a piece of -writing by Mrs. Sinclair shortened according to permission given. Almost -immediately after my suggestion that the experimental materials should -be sent for examination, they were bundled up and sent, together with -some stray scraps, among which was this unfinished piece of manuscript -which, as it proved, the Sinclairs did not know had been included. In -spots the composition may be a bit diffuse and repetitious, but the -woman really thinks and reasons, which is more than many do. - -There is in it a sincerity, earnestness and intensity of desire to know, -which can hardly be counterfeited. Its writer fairly rivals Descartes in -her determination to find some salient and secure spot from which to -start in her quest. But in a manner she goes back farther than -Descartes, at least she splits his ultimate in two. She is satisfied -with “I am,” not because “I think,” but because “I am conscious of -thinking”; but she does not so readily grant the “_I_ think.” She wants -to know, “Am _I_ doing all the thinking I am conscious of?” - -In fact, the document is so intense in its eagerness to penetrate the -secret of personality in relation to its cosmic environment that it is -almost febrile. At least in its first pages there is something -pathological. To paint life with such dark colors and to dwell so upon -its “discouragements” is not an indication of perfect health. - -And yet it is certain that the writer is not self-absorbed. The painful -reactions of the kind which she has experienced, the torture produced in -her by the existence of so much in life that seems unmeaning and -disappointing, she supposes to be quite general with her fellow-men and -so feels a great pity for them. Whereas, in my belief, while more are -complaining than are happy or contented, it is common to fret because of -income taxes, and inability to wear such fine clothes as those of Mrs. -Jones, and cold weather and squalling cats, and such sordid matters, but -uncommon to be agonized by the desire to fathom the mysteries of the -human spirit. - -The main points of what Mr. Sinclair tells us of the characteristics of -his wife are to be discerned in this revealing manuscript. He says “She -has nothing of the qualities of naïveté and credulity. She was raised in -a family of lawyers and was given the training and sceptical point of -view of a woman of the world. ‘Trust people, but watch them,’ was old -Judge Kimbrough’s maxim, and following it too closely has almost made a -pessimist of his daughter. In the course of the last five or six years -Craig has acquired a fair-sized library of books on the mind, both -orthodox, scientific, and ‘crank.’ She has sat up half the night -studying, marking passages and making notes, seeking to reconcile -various doctrines, to know what the mind is, and how it works, and what -can be done with it.” This began with a breakdown of health when she was -about forty years old. “A story of suffering needless to go into; -suffice it that she had many ills to experiment upon, and mental control -became suddenly a matter of life and death.” This breakdown, it is said, -resulted directly from “her custom of carrying the troubles of all who -were near her.” She is intensely sympathetic, we are told. “The griefs -of other people overwhelm Craig like a suffocation.”[6] - -The book relates several spontaneous experiences of Mrs. Sinclair when -she was young and which, taken together, strongly indicate telepathy. -Her husband rightly remarks that it is the number of such incidents -which is impressive; one or two might well be coincidence. Still the -coincidence of being suddenly impressed that Mr. B, whose home was three -hundred miles away, was at her home where he had never been, and turning -back from a drive and finding him there, even taken by itself, is a very -striking one. Mr. Sinclair himself is witness to the fact that she -suddenly, for no known reason became very much worried about Jack -London, insisting that he was in mental distress, whereas it proved that -London committed suicide at about that time. - -Such incidents indicate that her experimental successes were not solely -the result of the method which she explains at length, but that she had -an inborn gift from early childhood. Her interest in that gift seems to -have been much stimulated by her acquaintance with “Jan,” the “young -hypnotist” of Appendix I, whose advent is probably not in that narrative -placed in chronological order. She became convinced that he showed -evidence of telepathy, and tried in turn to ascertain what he was -thinking or what he was doing when absent, and became convinced that -many times she had been successful. Also, “Craig has been able to -establish exactly the same _rapport_ with her husband,” who relates -instances. These were “written down at the time.” So few even -intelligent people do make immediate record of such things that we would -have suspected, even if he had not informed us on another page, that he -has made a considerable study of the literature of psychic research. - -One of these incidents we shall particularly notice here, and that -because Mr. Sinclair himself has either not noticed all of its -evidential value, or has not fully called attention to it. * * * [Refer -to Figs. 14a and 14b and experiment.] - -Probably Mr. Sinclair thought it would be sufficiently obvious to the -reader that the first drawing is as similar in shape to a clover blossom -as a person having no gift for drawing would be likely to make it, in -addition to the correspondence of color. But it should also be remarked -that the second drawing is like the flower-head of the American aloe, as -one may see by comparing it with the cut shown in the article entitled -“Agave,” in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_. The article provokingly fails -to tell us what are the colors of the flower, but the cut shows that it -is at least much lighter above than below. - -Another incident is remarkable for its apparent revelation of -subconscious mechanisms. Seemingly here Mrs. Sinclair not only got an -impression of what her husband had drawn, but it was modified by -something he was then reading, and that by the aid of memories from -childhood. His drawing represented a football, “neatly laced up” (Fig. -15). Hers (Fig. 15a) shows a band of exactly the same shape on a figure -not so very far from that of a football, but with an extension -suggesting the head of an animal, and a line suggesting a leg. And she -wrote “Belly-band on calf.” * * *! - -“Wishing to solve the mystery!” But why should the lady have felt that -there was any mystery in her drawing and script, any more than in the -generality of her results? But she evidently did, or she would not have -asked the question. It is one of the most interesting features of this -experiment that she seemed to feel that something else than the original -drawing or her husband’s thoughts about it was influencing her -impression, and suspected that this something was his contemporaneous -reading. - -Sometimes the apparent telepathy was exercised in a dream, especially -during its latter stage, while the lady was gradually emerging into full -consciousness.[7] - - - The Sinclair-Irwin Long-distance Group of Experiments - -On July 8, 1928, the first formal set of experiments with drawings -began, by arrangement between Mrs. Sinclair and the husband of her -younger sister; Robert L. Irwin, “a young American business man, priding -himself on having no ‘crank’ ideas.” The arrangement was that at a -stated hour Mr. Irwin should seat himself in his home in Pasadena, make -a drawing, and then fix his mind upon the drawing from fifteen to twenty -minutes. At the same hour in her home at Long Beach, twenty-five or -thirty miles distant as the crow flies, Mrs. Sinclair proposed to lie on -a couch, in semi-darkness and with closed eyes, compose her mind -according to the rules she had by this time evolved, and after coming to -a decision, make a drawing corresponding with her mental impression. It -appears that there was one such experiment on July 8, two on the 9th, -two on the 10th and one each on the 11th and 13th. - -We have here, then, a set of seven experiments under ideal conditions. -Since something like thirty miles separated the parties, there could be -no contact, no “involuntary whispering” that would carry that far and no -conceivable other source of information or material for surmise. - -1. On July 8, Irwin drew a chair with horizontal bars at the back (Fig. -16). Mrs. Sinclair drew first a chair with horizontal bars (Fig. 16a), -then a chair with vertical ones. And she distinctly set down on the same -paper her sense of greater satisfaction with her first drawing, her -feeling that the second was not as “Bob” had drawn it, and her feeling -that the second may really express the foot of his bed. She also set -down that his drawing was on “green paper.” Here is a remarkable -combination of impressions: (a) his drawing on _green paper_, (b) seen -as a _chair_ “on his paper,” (c) his chair with _horizontal bars_, (d) -her chair with vertical bars _perhaps derived from “his bed-foot.”_ Even -had there been, as there was not, a pre-understanding that some object -familiar in daily life was to be drawn, to hit exactly the same one -would be very unlikely. To do this and also to get the unusual color of -the paper he drew on is remarkable. To get all the enumerated -particulars exactly correct is incalculably beyond chance expectation. -For he drew a chair, on green paper, with horizontal bars, then gazed at -the chair through the vertical bars of his bed! * * * [Refer to Figs. 16 -and 16a and experiment.] - -She added that she sees a star and straight lines, and draws the star -and the lines, horizontal like those of the chair. - -There are several partial correspondences besides those we have -enumerated. Bob did sit at the northeast corner of the dining-room -table. He faced a sideboard (but apparently did not take anything out of -it) where were silver (not glass) candlesticks; there is a star on the -back of the chair; whether any white object was in front of him as he -sat at the table, before lying down on the bed, is not reported. But it -is to be presumed that Mrs. Sinclair was familiar with his room and -furniture, and these particulars add comparatively little. Once she got -the chair, subconscious memory might supply the star; but it would not -give any clue to the green paper or to his looking through vertical -bars. - -2. On July 9, at the stated hour, Bob drew a watch (Fig. 17).[8] First -Mrs. Sinclair drew a chair, but cancelled it with the words then written -down, “but do not feel it is correct.” Then she drew Figure 17a. * * * - -This is not a success, but the flower which is not a flower, the petals, -which are not petals and should be more uniform, the “metal,” the “wire” -(adumbration of the hands?), the “glass circle,” the bridging across the -extremities of the “petals” as if from an urge toward making a circle, -the black center corresponding with the center post of a watch, taken -together are very suggestive. Other impressions resulted in the addition -of an ellipse, a drinking-glass and a glass pitcher, and Bob did have in -front of him a glass bowl of goldfish, which may have furnished a -telepathic hint, but this is doubtfully evidential. - -3. Another experiment was scheduled for the same day. Bob made an -elaborate drawing of a telephone receiver, transmitter, dial, cord and -all. The top part, the transmitter, as drawn, is strikingly like a -round, black, glass ink-bottle, seen with mouth facing the spectator. -Mrs. Sinclair made four drawings. The first looks like such an -ink-bottle seen from the side, and she writes, “Ink bottle?” The second -drawing shows a twisted line attached to a triangle, reminding one of -the twisted telephone cord attached to a sharp angle of the base, and -the third repeats the twisting line. The fourth inverted is considerably -like the base of the telephone. The correspondences are very suggestive. - -4. On the 10th, Bob drew, on the back of the paper having the telephone -drawing (he should not have done this), which he of course saw anew, -what is probably intended to represent a square frame containing a -picture, both very black. The percipient first drew two lines forming an -angle and placed in relation to it about as the dial of the telephone is -placed in relation to the angle of the telephone base, a black disc. Her -next and last drawing was a circle containing about a dozen round spots, -as the circular dial of the telephone contains eight spots. - -5. On the 10th, also, Bob drew a pair of scissors (Fig. 18), and the -percipient made two attempts which, taken together, certainly do sense -its parts (Figs. 18a and 18b). - -6. On the 11th, Bob, whose health had been in bad shape for several -years, made a circle with a compass, of course producing a hole in the -center of it. And this is what Mrs. Sinclair got (Fig. 19a). There is a -circle—in fact, a number of them concentrically arranged—and there is a -central dot corresponding to the mark made by the compass leg. But other -impressions came to Mrs. Sinclair, accompanied by poignant emotions, and -she seemed to see and tried to draw a spreading stain of blood. She -wrote her feeling and her conviction: “All this dark like a stain,—feel -it is blood; that Bob is ill, more than usual.” She did not draw, but -directly told her husband, “I wanted to draw a little hill.” And why all -this? It transpired that while Bob was making the circle he was in a -state of distress, for, he afterwards testified, “I discovered that I -had a hemorrhoid, and couldn’t put my mind on anything but the thought, -‘My God, my lungs—my kidneys—and now this!’” It is hardly necessary, -perhaps, to point out that a hemorrhoid is like a little hill and that -one is very likely to bring on hemorrhage,[9] so that this possibility -was probably in Bob’s mind. - -Had Mrs. Sinclair been in a laboratory with one professor of psychology -or of physics, and her brother-in-law in another laboratory with -another, not all the apparatus of both laboratories nor all the -ingenuity of both professors could have made the conditions more rigid, -or tested the essence of the matter farther. There would simply have -been the testimony of four persons, two at each end, and that is exactly -what there is. Bob’s affliction was of sudden occurrence, and the -particular terms of Mrs. Sinclair’s impressions could not have been -produced by any hint of knowledge. His willingness in the interest of -psychic research, in order that this remarkable demonstration of -telepathy should not be lost, to put aside squeamishness, is a rebuke to -the human violets who shrink, for no intelligible reason from allowing -evidence to be used which relates to them. - -7. On the 13th, Bob drew a table fork (Fig. 1), and Mrs. Sinclair, at -the same hour, many miles away, drew nothing but wrote, “See a table -fork. Nothing else.” (Fig. 1a.) - -These seven experiments[10] are all that were undertaken between Mrs. -Sinclair and her brother-in-law. This is unfortunate, for it certainly -appears from this short but remarkable series as though they were -remarkably suited to each other, for reasons we cannot yet fathom, for -long-distance experiments. But “he found them a strain,” and since his -health was so poor and strains were most undesirable, we cannot blame -him for discontinuing them. - -One pauses to consider the words “he found them a strain.” May it be -that when experiments reveal thought-transference the agent generally -does feel a strain beyond that involved in merely gazing at an object -and wishing (or willing, or what you please) that the percipient may get -the idea of it. If so, it would seem to imply, not necessarily some -energy proceeding outwardly, but at any rate some process going on -within which causes the special exhaustion. But no statistics bearing on -this question have been gathered from successful agents. It is one of -the many sorts of data which must be accumulated in the future. - -Mr. Irwin and his wife made corroborating affidavits, as follows: - - To whom it may concern: - - Robert L. Irwin, having been duly sworn, declares that he has read - the portion of manuscript by Upton Sinclair dealing with his - experiments in telepathy with Mary Craig Sinclair, and that the - statements made therein having to do with himself are true according - to his clear recollection. The drawings attributed to him were - produced by him in the manner described, and are recognized by him - in their photographic reproductions. The experiments were conducted - in good faith, and the results may be accepted as valid. - - [Signed] ROBERT L. IRWIN. - - To whom it may concern: - - Dollie Kimbrough Irwin, having been duly sworn, declares that she - has read the portion of manuscript by Upton Sinclair dealing with - experiments in telepathy by her sister, Mary Craig Sinclair, and - having to do with her husband, Robert L. Irwin; that she was present - when the drawings were made and the tests conducted, and also when - the completed drawings were produced and compared. The statements - made in the manuscript are true according to her clear recollection, - and the experiments were made in good faith and with manifest - seriousness. - - [Signed] DOLLIE KIMBROUGH IRWIN. - - These statements were severally. - - “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of July, 1929, - [Signed] LAURA UNANGST, Notary Public in and for the County of - Denver, Colorado.” - - - The Sinclair-Sinclair Group of July 14–29, 1928 - -We are in two passages told precisely the conditions of this group of -experiments. Since her brother-in-law felt obliged to withdraw from -participation, Mrs. Sinclair asked her husband to make some -drawings. * * * - -1. July 14. Mr. Sinclair made the above drawing (Fig. 2), a very -imperfectly constructed six-pointed star. Mrs. Sinclair, reclining 30 -feet away, with a closed door between, produced five drawings (Fig. -2a).[11] Immediately after the agent’s and percipient’s drawings had -been compared, the lady stated that just before starting to concentrate -she had been looking at her drawing of many concentric circles made on -the previous day in the concluding test of the Sinclair-Irwin group. -This was bad method, but we can hardly regret it, as the sequel is -illuminating. At first she got a tangle of circles: “This turned -sideways [thus assuming the shape of one of the star-points], then took -the shape of an arrowhead [confused notion of the stair-point, one would -conjecture], and then of a letter A [another attempt to interpret the -dawning impression], and finally evolved into a complete star.” The star -so nearly reproduces the oddities of the original star, its peculiar -shape and the direction which its greatest length takes, that had it -been produced in one of the unguarded series, one would have been -tempted to think that the percipient “peeked.” But the original was -actually _made_, as well as gazed at, behind a closed door, so that -there is no possible basis for imagining any such accident or any -inadvertence on the part of either experimenter. - -2. July 14. In his room Mr. Sinclair drew the grinning face of Figure -21, and then Mrs. Sinclair drew in hers Figure 21a. Two eyes in his, one -“eye” in hers. Look at the agent’s drawing upside down (how can we or he -be sure that he did not momentarily chance to look at it reversed and -retain the impression?), and note the parallels. At the top of his two -eyes—at the top of hers one “eye”; midway in his two small angles -indicating the nose—somewhat above midway in hers, three similarly small -angles unclosed at the apexes; at the bottom of his a crescent-shaped -figure to indicate a mouth, with lines to denote teeth—at the bottom of -hers a like crescent, minus any interior lines. Had the percipient drawn -what would be instantly recognizable as a face, though a face of very -different lines, it would be pronounced a success. But such a fact would -be very much more likely as a guess than a misinterpreted, almost -identical crescent (she thought it probably a “moon”), so similar little -marks, angularly related (she “supposed it must be a star”), and an -“eye,” all placed as in the original. - -3. July 17. Mr. Sinclair, lying on a couch in one room, drew and then -gazed at a drawing which can easily be described; it is a broad ellipse -with its major axis horizontal, like an egg lying on its side, and a -smaller and similar one in contact over it. Mrs. Sinclair, lying on a -couch in another room, first drew a broad ellipse (not quite closed at -one end), with major axis horizontal, and beside it and not quite -touching, a somewhat smaller circle not quite closed at one end. Then -she got an impression represented in a second drawing, four ellipses of -equal size, _two of them in contact with each other_. - -4. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew two heavy lines -like a capital T. Mrs. Sinclair drew what is like an interrogation point -with misplaced dot, then a reversed S with two dots enclosed, then an -upright cross composed of lines of equal length, and finally such a -cross circumscribed by a tangential square. Though, as Mr. Sinclair -remarks, the cross is the T of the original with its vertical line -prolonged, I should call this experiment barely suggestive. - -5. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a long-handled -fork with three short tines. Mrs. Sinclair, to use the language of her -own record, “kept seeing horns,” and she attempted to draw them. She -also “thought once it was an animal’s head with horns, and the head was -on a long stick—a trophy mounted like this....” But her drawing was like -a long-handled fork with two short tines combining to make a curve very -close to that of the two outer tines of the original. - -6. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a cup with a -handle. Mrs. Sinclair twice drew a figure resembling the handle of the -original, then the same with an enclosed dot, then lines parallel and at -an angle. She felt confused and dissatisfied. It is possible that her -first impression was derived from the cup, but we can hardly urge this -evidentially. - -7. July 21. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a man’s face in -profile (Fig. 20). Mrs. Sinclair wrote: “Saw Upton’s face—saw two -half-circles. Then they came together, making full circle. But I felt -uncertain as to whether they belonged together or not. Then suddenly saw -Upton’s profile float across vision.” Well, Mr. Sinclair is a man, hence -his face is a man’s face, and it was seen in profile like the original -drawing. - -Thus far there is no gap in the record of this group. There were -experiments on July 27 and 29, but apparently two or more papers are -missing. It is certain that on the 29th, under the same conditions, Mr. -Sinclair drew a smoking cigarette and wrote beneath it, “My thought, -‘cigarette with curls for smoke,’” and that Mrs. Sinclair drew a variety -of curving lines and wrote, “I can’t draw it, but curls of some sort.” -So it appears that on this date there was a suggestive result, but as -there is doubt whether one or two other experiments may not have been -tried, the papers of which were not all preserved, we had better regard -the group as closed with No. 7. - -So far as concerns the question solely whether Mrs. Sinclair has shown -telepathic powers, I would be willing to rest the case right here, after -but fourteen experiments under the conditions which have been -stated.[12] Every intelligent reader who really applies his mind to them -must see the extreme unlikelihood that the results of those fourteen -experiments, taking them as they stand, successes, partial successes, -suggestive and failures, are the products of chance. And any one who has -had hundreds of experiments in guessing, as I have done, will know that -there is no likelihood of getting out of many thousands of guesses -anything like the number and grades of excellence in correspondence -found in these fourteen consecutive tests for telepathy. - -We cannot take space to comment on all the tests made, the papers of -which were sent us, and we here pass over three on as many dates, one a -success though not a perfect one, two failures. - - -The Series of January 28, 1929 - -Mr. Sinclair asked his secretary “to make simple geometrical designs, -letters and figures, thinking that these would be easier to recognize -and reproduce.” It seems a little strange that when things were going on -so well, he should have wanted a change, though any experiment is -interesting. It is by no means certain, and I very much doubt from these -and earlier printed experiments, that the assumption is a correct one. -It may well be that geometrical diagrams, letters of the alphabet and -such like fail to interest the agent and afford him a lively mental -representation, as do pictures of miscellaneous objects. And if I -understand rightly, another change of method was also initiated, and -that was for Mrs. Sinclair to try to get the drawings not while the -maker of them was gazing intently at them, but after they had left his -hands. This certainly was often the case later on. - -I wrote and asked Mr. Sinclair if Mrs. Sinclair was told the fact that -this and several other series of original drawings consisted of -geometrical drawings, letters and figures, and he said that she was not -so told, that he would have regarded this as a vitiation of the -experiments. It would certainly increase the chance of getting drawings -right by guess, but it would hardly have ruined the experiments. In -fact, some people think that the most scientific experiments are those -in which the range of chance guess is limited to an extent known to the -percipient, as when the problem is to determine which of the 52 cards of -a pack is being looked at, or which of only ten known diagrams. This -opinion is probably based on the fact that then the ratio of success to -chance expectation can be exactly calculated, though why it should be -more satisfactory to know that the chance of a correct guess is exactly -1 in 10 than it is not to be able to tell exactly what the chance is but -to be sure at least that it cannot be 1 in 100, I do not know. - -Unless I had carefully recorded at the time that there was no chance of -the percipient having a hint that the drawings were now for a time to -consist of geometrical designs, letters and figures, I would not dare to -be certain of it after several years have passed. If Mrs. Sinclair had -no inkling, the change in the general character of her drawings is a -fact of great interest. But we will take cognizance only of whatever -resemblance may or may not be found between the several reproductions -and their originals. - -The first series of drawings by the secretary were seven in number, and, -says Mr. Sinclair, “They brought only partial successes; Craig would get -elements of the drawing, but would not know how to put them together.... -There is some element right in every one.” Let us see. - -1. _Agent’s_ drawing, a script B; _Percipient’s_ drawing, a figure very -like a script 3, practically the B without its vertical line. - -2. _Agt._, a script S; _Per._, a script J. As made, each has two -balloon-like parts joined at the small ends, certain details of course -different. - -3. _Agt._, a hexagon; _Per._, two lines forming an acute angle, like two -sides of the hexagon, also a capital E with a line drawn down at an -acute angle to the left from the upper extremity of the vertical line. - -4. _Agt._, script M made with a peculiar twist in its first line; -_Per._, almost precisely that first line with its twist. - -5. _Agt._, a thin, long, quadrilateral, like a shingle; _Per._, (1st -drawing) what would be almost exactly the same quadrilateral, narrow and -long, but its shorter sides are wanting, and (2nd drawing) a closely -similar quadrilateral, with another and longer one attached to its side -at a sharp angle. - -6. _Agt._, an interrogation point; _Per._, a figure hard to describe, a -round dot with curves springing from it like concentric 3’s, and two -parallel lines shooting to the left. The points which attract notice are -the dot, like that of the original, and the curves similar to that of -the interrogation point. - -7. _Agt._, script E; _Per._, same minus the “curls.” - -Several of the above are not impressive taken alone; taken together, the -greater or less approaches to the several originals defeat chance, -though how much no man can measure. Counter-tests by guessing will come -the nearest to measuring. - - -The Series of January 28–29, 1929 - -This series also has to do with drawings made by Mr. Sinclair’s -secretary. - -1. _Agent’s_ drawing, a diamond or rhombus (Fig. 32); _Percipient’s_ -drawing, the two halves of a rhombus, “wandering about,” as Mr. Sinclair -says (Fig. 32a); if connected they would make a rhombus closely similar -to the original. - -2. _Agt._, a script capital Y; _Per._, a print capital Y. (Figs. 33 and -33a.) - -3. The _Agent’s_ drawing, a bottle of milk with “certified” written on -it, was suggested by his knowledge that Mrs. Sinclair to a considerable -extent lives on milk and is particular about its quality; _Per._, an -ellipse much like the top of the bottle, a straight line depending -therefrom, and the script “Round white foamy stuff on top like soapsuds -or froth.” And foam is characteristic of her milk, as she drinks it sour -and whipped (Figs. 34 and 34a). Here the percipient failed to get much -as to shape, but got considerable in the way of associated ideas. - -4. _Agt._, an oil derrick (Fig. 35); _Per._, got what will be seen in -Figure 35a. There are long lines diverging like the long lines of the -oil derrick, but at a slant, and with a 5 or perhaps a 9 at the top -which has no counterpart in the original. This is not a very -satisfactory reproduction, but the general shape and long downward lines -are suggestive. - -5. _Agt._, something like a poplar leaf; _Per._, three scrawls like -letters or parts of letters. A failure. - -6. _Agt._, three small ellipses attached to a stem; _Per._, script “See -what looks like spider’s web,” but drawing shows a bunch of elliptic -figures. - -7. _Agt._, apparently an apple with stem; _Per._, (1) what looks like a -tall script V, (2) the same less tall, (3) one so low and broad that it -is nearly equivalent to the top of the apple minus the stem. - -8. _Agt._, a house from whose chimney proceeds smoke represented by a -spiral line (Fig. 36). _Per._, (1) a double spiral cut by a straight -line, same slant as in the original, (2) single spiral of nearly the -same slant, (3) what looks like a battlement, the crenels or openings of -which are like the windows of the house minus the upper sides (Fig. -36a). The rectangular openings are three in number, the rectangular -openings in the house (two windows and a door) are also there. - -9. _Agt._, an open fan (Fig. 102); _Per._, a drawing represented by -Figure 102a, accompanied by the script, “Inside seems irregular, as if -cloth draped or crumpled.” Two words, “cloth,” and “draped,” suggest -what takes place as one begins to shut a fan, though the drawing is an -incorrect representation. - -10. _Agt._, the figures 13 (Fig. 103); _Per._, (1) what would be a 3 but -for a supernumerary curve, (2) a 3 (Fig. 103a). - -11. _Agt._, a conventional heart (Fig. 105); _Per._, practically the -upper part of such a heart, with three spots which may or may not -represent blood-drops, according to Mr. Sinclair’s conjecture (Fig. -105a). We can hardly contend, as an evidential point, that this is the -meaning of the round spots. Some obscure subconscious recollection of -expressions like “My heart bleeds,” expressing suffering, may have come -out in the drawing, though in that case one wonders why the whole heart -was not drawn. But it may be that the three marks proceeding in the -direction of the right side of the original came from a feeling that -_something_ should line in that direction. - -12. _Agt._, a broom (Fig. 104); _Per._, several attempts all more or -less resembling the original (Figs. 104a, 104b), and a valuable script: -“All I’m sure of is a straight line with something curved at the end of -it [and this description, _all that she was sure of_, is so far -correct]; once it came [here see the drawing at the left]—then it -doubled, or reappeared, I don’t know which [referring to the upper right -drawing] (am not sure of the curly edges) [and she was justified in her -doubt. Probably the curly edges resulted from the intermingling of her -surmise that the curved something at the end of a line might be a -flower]. Then it was upside down.” - - -Series of February 8, 1929 - -Tests with drawings in carefully sealed envelopes. - -1. _Agt._, a coiled snake (Fig. 45); _Per._, no drawing, but this -script: “See something like kitten with tail and saucer of milk. Now it -leaps into action and runs away to outdoors. Turns to fleeing animal -outdoors. Great activity among outdoor creatures. Know it’s some outdoor -thing, not indoor object—see trees, and a frightened bird on the wing -(turned sidewise). It’s outdoor thing, but none of above seems to be -_it_.” - -This is much more interesting than if there had been the perfect success -of writing the word “snake,” because we seem to get inklings of the -internal process. “Saucer of milk”—observe that the serpent’s coil plus -the unattached ellipse in the center (due to Mr. Sinclair’s confessed -bad drawing) really does look like a saucer. “Something like a kitten -with a tail”—why mention tail? Most kittens have tails. But a tail -sticks up back of the saucer. Later neither kitten, trees nor frightened -bird is _it_, yet something is causing great commotion among outdoor -creatures. It is an outdoor thing, therefore not a kitten, but evidently -something alive. The scene is very appropriate to the appearance of a -snake. Mr. Sinclair tells us that his wife’s childhood was in part spent -where there were many poisonous snakes, and that fear of them was bred -in her. As he conjectures, it is very likely that dawning in the -subconsciousness, not fully emerging in the conscious, the subject of -the drawing stirred up imagery from childhood. I surmise that, if the -truth, which she may not consciously remember, could be known, she saw -while a child a kitten fleeing from a snake. - -2. _Agt._, a daisy (Fig. 59); _Per._ got what is very like the petals -around the disk of the daisy, also two stems, also various curving lines -more or less like the daisy leaves or vegetation at least (Fig. 59a). - -3. _Agt._, an axe, seemingly a battle-axe, with AX printed (Fig. 145); -_Per._, as in Figure 145a. Note the parallels: (a) “letter A [right as -far as it goes], (b) with something long (c) above it”; (d) “there seems -to be no end to the handle”; (e) the drawing much resembles the -original, in fact one type of ancient battle-axe was very much of the -same shape. Although she finally guessed that it was a key, yet a -suspicion of military use enters in the conjecture “a sword,” which is -perhaps all the more striking since the drawing bears little resemblance -to a sword. - -4. _Agt._, a crab (Fig. 48); _Per._ drew as in Figures 48a, 48b, and -wrote “Wings, or fingers—wing effect, but no feathers, things like -fingers, instead of feathers. Then many little dots which all disappear, -and leave two of them, O O, as eyes of something.” And again, “streamers -flying from something.” The reader will judge for himself whether the -drawings do not suggest the crab’s nippers, and one of them the joint -adjoining. “Wing effect but no feathers, things like fingers”—especially -the lower pair in Mr. Sinclair’s remarkable crab _do_ look like fingers. -“Many dots”; well the original has four. Then she sees but two of them -and they are “O O, eyes of something.” True enough, two of the “dots” in -the crab are O O, and they are eyes. - -5. _Agt._, a man in a sledge driving a dog-team (Fig. 60). _Per._ by -accident opened this drawing, so of course could not experiment with it. -But after she had made her drawings for No. 2 she wrote “Maybe snow -scene on hill with a sled.” On the back of No. 3, which was so brilliant -a success, she wrote “I get a feeling again of a snow scene to come in -this series—a sled in the snow.” It is unfortunate that an accident -prevented her trying No. 5 when she had actually reached it, but she -certainly got it by anticipation. - -6. _Agt._, a tobacco pipe with smoke issuing therefrom (Fig. 37); Per. -first drew an ellipse and wrote “Now it begins to spin, round and round, -and is attached to a stick”; (2) next she made the conventional “curl” -which usually means smoke; (3) then she made another curl of smoke and -pushed the open end of an ellipse into it,[13] joined a line to the -ellipse just about where the stem of a pipe meets the bowl and at the -end of the line made a small circle, which certainly is not found in the -original but may express the feeling that there is a circular opening -(Fig. 37a). - -7. _Agt._, a house with smoking chimney; _Per._, two figures, each very -like the frame of a window lacking the upper side, or like the crenels -or openings in the battlement of Figure 36a, but longer. In connection -with that drawing (Experiment of January 28–29) we made the remark -(which may have seemed fanciful) that the number of these openings or -uncompleted rectangles was the same as that of the windows and door in -the original drawing. Here the uncompleted 2 rectangles equal in number -the one window plus the one door of the house. She also wrote “There is -something above this—can’t see what it is part of.” True, the roof and -chimney are above the window and door. - - -Series of February 10, 1929 - -1. _Agt._, a bat (Fig. 109); _Per._, as in Fig 109a. The drawing at the -top is accompanied by the remark “Looks like ear shape something.” And -certainly each of the bat’s wings does resemble an ear in shape. The -middle left drawing gets the idea that there are two symmetrical and -diverging curves, but fails to complete them; space is left between them -which in the agent’s drawing is occupied by the body. The middle right -figure again has symmetrical diverging curves, with a further approach -toward shaping the wings. This time they are incorrectly joined at the -bottom, but the perpendicular line between betrays an inkling that -something belongs there. Imperfect as all these attempts are, they -contain hints which it is difficult to attribute to chance. The agent, -looking at his drawing, would of necessity have his attention focus -first on one part of it and then upon another, and the percipient’s -drawings seem as though they caught his several moments of wandering -attention. - -2. _Agt._, a hand with pointing finger, and thumb held vertically (Fig. -108); _Per._, (1) a drawing not reproduced here of a negro’s head with a -finger-like projection drawn vertically from his skull, (2) then script -“Turned into a pig’s head, (3) then a rabbit’s,” as in Figure 108a. In -one sense the _percipient’s_ drawings are all failures; that is, none of -them would be recognized as a hand. But in all three a feeling seems to -express itself that there is _something_ sticking up. This is the more -remarkable in Drawing 1, since such an excrescence does not belong on a -head. Drawing 2 gets rid of the face, and the thumb of the original -becomes a peculiarly thumb-like ear. - -3. For this experiment see the “line-and-circle men” and their -evidentially suggestive sequel (Figs. 144, 144a). - -4. _Agt._, a rudely drawn caterpillar (Fig. 118); _Per._, script: -“Fork—then garden tool—lawn rake. Leaf,” and drawing representing a leaf -which has a certain fantastic resemblance to the caterpillar (Fig. -118a). Mr. Sinclair makes the illuminating remark that he owned “a -lawn-rake made of bristly bamboo, which looks very much like my -drawing.” - -5. _Agt._, a smoking volcano (Fig. 25); _Per._, what she called a “Big -black beetle with horns” (Fig. 25a). But the body of the beetle closely -matches the smoke of the volcano, while the antennae or “horns” nearly -correspond to the outline of the mountain. - - -A Series of February 15, 1929[14] - -Let us now inspect a complete and long series of February 15, 1929. It -contains no such brilliant success as in Experiment 4 of February 20, -but out of 13 experiments there is but one absolute failure, the first. -In this the agent drew a rat, the percipient two crossed objects like -keys. - -2. In Figure 147, the agent’s drawing represents a door with lattice on -the upper half; it is made up of perpendicular and horizontal lines -only. The percipient’s drawing (Fig. 147a) consists of four -perpendicular lines finishing at the top in curves like fish-hooks, and -these lines are crossed by three horizontal lines. There is in the -crossed lines a suggestion of the agent’s drawing, a resemblance greater -than to any other of the thirteen. - -[Illustration: Fig. 147] - -[Illustration: Fig. 147a] - -3. The agent’s next drawing (Fig. 93) represents a sun over hills. Mrs. -Sinclair first seems to have got the notion of a sun, which was right -(Fig. 93a). Then she made another circle and put features in it, as will -be seen suggested in the agent’s drawing (actually, in the original -drawing, the features are plainly to be seen). Then she got the idea of -something stretching out below it with curving lines, interpreted it to -be a body, so probably, from mere inference, clapped her sun with -features on to it. - -4. Agent’s Figure 97 is a butterfly but the percipient did not get the -idea of a butterfly (Fig. 97a). However, the divergent lines and the -spots, five instead of four, and similarly placed, do seem to bear a -relation to it. - -5. In Figure 96a, Mrs. Sinclair’s drawing resembles a part of her -husband’s (Fig. 96), although she misinterpreted her mental picture. -What she thought to be the leg of an animal, and which she drew twice, -was judged by the way it bends to be a front one, but the knee of the -leg roughly corresponds with the elbow of the pipe. Note that she seems -to have got the bulge at the end of the pipe, translating it into a -“foot,” naturally at the end of the leg. - -6. In Figures 98 and 98a, compare the three “sparks” with the three -crosses on the box. - -7. The shape of Figure 94a is like that of Figure 94 reversed, and there -is a suggestion of the strings, while the feet represent the pedals of -the harp. - -8. The percipient in the case of Figure 95a did not get the picture of -the whole balloon bag of the agent (Fig. 95), but she did of half of it, -with a strong suggestion of the cords. - -[Illustration: Fig. 148] - -[Illustration: Fig. 148a] - -9. In Figure 148a, bad as the percipient’s drawings are, regarded as -reproductions of Figure 148, yet they do contain suggestions of it. In -her left upper drawing we may suppose that an impression of the -leaf-stem (but badly twisted) was expressed with a leaf-lobe directly -below the stem, together with an idea of the veining, that in the right -upper one the stem is corrected, and that in the lower drawing a notion -of the veining alone is conveyed. Exactly so would the attention of the -agent, when drawing the leaf or afterward looking at or thinking of it, -pass from and to, or at least stress, one part of the leaf after -another. - -10. The agent drew a necktie (Fig. 90). The percipient first drew what -much resembled the necktie, even to the shaded knot (not given here), -and almost exactly like Figure 90a aside from the “smoke.” Next she -wrote “Then it began to smoke,” and drew as in Figure 90a. One would -suppose that the knobby extremity and the diverging lines suggested a -burning match. - -11. But no, the alteration appears to have been an anticipation of the -agent’s next drawing, already prepared (Fig. 91)! In this case Mrs. -Sinclair achieved a complete success (Fig. 91a), though she distrusted -it, writing beside the drawing, “Must be memory of the last one.” - -12. In Figure 92a the percipient got the first two links of the agent’s -chain (Fig. 92) fairly well. The succeeding ones are suggested by a -series of partially superposed ovals, owing to misinterpretation of her -impressions. She wrote: “An egg-shaped thing smoking? Anyway, curls of -something coming out of end of egg.” Note that her combined “egg” and -“curls” describe a curve similar to that of the chain, and one not far -from the same length. - -13. The last experiment of this date resulted in two percipient drawings -(Fig. 149a), similar but with differences as noted below. Presumably the -“arm” of the upper drawing is a reflection of the neck of the violin -(Fig. 149), the “hand” of its bridge, the “strings” of the violin -strings, while the “something” very imperfectly stands for the body of -the instrument. The bracelet (?) on the arm may result from an obscure -impression of _something_ curving in that region, really the volute -termination above the keys. The lower drawing stops with the strings, -but makes them more nearly parallel, like those of the violin. - -[Illustration: Fig. 149] - -[Illustration: Fig. 149a] - -No exact mathematics can be applied to such experiments as these. But, -considering the multitude of objects and shapes which must have been -familiar to both experimenters, do you believe that there was 1 chance -in 16 of the successes in Experiments 10, 11 and 12? Or more than 1 -chance in 4 for Experiments 5, 6 and 7? Or more than an average of 1 in -2 for such small degree of success as is discoverable in the rest, -excluding the failure of the first? Multiply accordingly, and divide the -product, let us say, by 2 for this failure. The result, on what I think -a moderate basis, is 1 chance in 16,777,216. Figure any other way you -like, but be reasonable. - -Or substitute the first above percipient drawing for that in any and -every one of the above 12 pairs. Then take the next drawing and match it -with the other originals. And thus with the others, if your patience -holds out to the end of 132 exchanges. Have you found a single one which -will suit as well as in its actual position? - - - COUNTER-TESTS WHICH PROVE THE VAST DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RESULTS - OBTAINED IN THE SERIES OF FEBRUARY 15TH AND THOSE OBTAINED BY GUESSING - -It is proposed at this point to interrupt the review of Mr. Sinclair’s -report of his experiments for telepathy by a test applied to the series -which has just been exhibited. In the light of the test, as it proves, -the evidential weight of both the earlier series and those which will -come later ought to be better appreciated. The only way to explain (?) -such results is to hazard the conjecture that they were due to the -possibilities of chance guessing. Well then, let us have a lot of -guessing done on the basis of the same originals and see what we get and -how it compares.[15] - -It seems almost incredible that any intelligent person would hold, or -suggest it possible, that the several degrees of resemblance between 12 -of the 13 originals in this series and the reproductions could have come -about by chance guessing. Surely, no one possessing an average quality -of logical and mathematical faculty, if he takes time to consider, will -be guilty of so monstrous a _faux pas_ of the intellect. But experience -teaches that some, even of excellent academic or professional standing, -to whom the notion of the possibility of telepathy has long been -obnoxious, are indeed capable of dismissing an exhibit such as this -after a passing glance, with the exclamation, “Merely chance -coincidence.” It is well, then, to make a large number of experiments in -order to test the chances of chance-coincidence to produce such a -result. Perhaps, after that is done, even those most convinced that -chance cannot account for such correspondences as we have seen will be -astonished to find the extent to which results where telepathy has -played a part and results of mere guessing differ. - -Ten ladies offered themselves for experimentation. Of course the -likelihood was very small that any one of them would show a trace of -telepathic faculty. As it proved, there developed no reason to suspect -its possession by a single one of them. And it is certain that no one -who disbelieves that _any one_ gets impressions by telepathy will -complain of our conclusion that the ten ladies did nothing more than -guess. - -If they did nothing more than to guess, it made no difference what -method we employed, so long as the ladies were given no inkling of the -original drawings. Nevertheless, the exact replicas of Mr. Sinclair’s 13 -drawings of February 15th were separately sealed in numbered envelopes, -and the lady was asked to hold the envelopes, one by one, in her hand, -and to draw what came into her mind visually or by concept, choosing -from such impressions according to vividness, recurrence or by whatever -criterion seemed to her most congenial. She was told to take all the -time she wished and was then left alone. Thus the conditions of the -Sinclair experiments were imitated as closely as possible. The time -occupied by the ladies for the series varied from half an hour to nearly -an hour and a half. Every woman would have been pleased, naturally, if -her results had been such as to give grounds for suspecting telepathy, -but the results of the ladies differed in quality only by narrow -degrees, and, as said, there was not the slightest reason to suppose -that with any of them there was anything but chance in play. - -It is, of course, not practicable to reproduce their 130 drawings in -this Bulletin. But they are to be mounted, the ten for each original -drawing on a separate sheet together with a copy of the Sinclair -original and reproduction, and the 13 sheets will be preserved by the -Boston Society for Psychic Research as a permanent exhibit which any -visitor may inspect and judge for himself. - -As has been seen, we classified the Sinclair reproductions of this -series as Successes, Partial Successes, Suggestive and Failures. This is -a rough method, and others might increase or decrease the number -assigned to any of these classes, except the last. There can be no -question that there is but one entire failure. But however faulty our -standard of rating, it is the same standard which is applied to the -drawings of the ten ladies. - -Not only did I use the utmost care in rating the drawings of the ten -ladies, but I asked my secretary, Miss Hoffmann, a lady of education and -keen intelligence, to do the same. Her rating of the guessing sets was -as absolutely independent of mine as mine was independent of hers. - -Our mutually independent estimates were surprisingly alike. According to -both, there were among the 130 trials (by 10 women) not a single -Success, only 1 (Miss H) or 2 (W. F. P.) deserving to be entitled to -Partial Success, 7 Suggestive, 5 Slightly Suggestive and 116 (W. F. P.) -or 117 (Miss H) Failure. Compare with the Sinclair set, 3 Success, 5 -Partial Success, 4 Suggestive, 1 Failure, out of a total of but 13. - -Before the foregoing judging was done, I had Miss Hoffman guess the -whole set, twice a day, until another 10 sets were produced, based upon -the same Sinclair series. Our wholly independent estimates of the total -results of these additional 130 experiments in guessing proved again to -be surprisingly alike. Neither found a single Success, 1 (W. F. P.) or -no (Miss H) reproduction deserved to be called a Partial Success, 5 (W. -F. P.) or 7 (Miss H) were rated Suggestive, 8 (W. F. P.) or 7 (Miss H) -as Slightly Suggestive and 116 as Failures. - -We will now tabulate the two groups (the sets of the 10 ladies and Miss -H’s 10 sets), taken together (260 experiments in guessing). - - _W. F. P.’s Estimate_ _Miss H’s Estimate_ - ───────────────────────────────────────────────── - S. 0 S. 0 - P. S. 3 P. S. 1 - Sug. 12 Sug. 14 - S. Sug. 13 S. Sug. 12 - F. 232 F. 233 - -If we calculate the averages for the 20 sets of experiments, we can more -directly compare with the Sinclair results. - - _Sinclair Set_ _Average of the 20 Guessing Sets_ - ────────────────────────────────────────────────── - _W. F. P.’s _Miss H’s - Estimate_ Estimate_ - ────────────────────────────────────────────────── - S. 3 S. 0 S. 0 - P. S. 5 P. S. 3⁄20 P. S. 1⁄20 - Sug. 4 Sug. 3⁄5 Sug. 7⁄10 - S. Sug. 0 S. Sug. 13⁄20 S. Sug. 3⁄5 - F. 1 F. 11 3⁄5 F. 11 13⁄20 - -But there is perhaps a surer way of making comparisons. It is sometimes -difficult to draw the line between a Success and a Partial Success, a -Partial Success and a Suggestive, a Suggestive and a Slightly -Suggestive. But when the drawings represent not simple diagrams, but -objects animate and inanimate, and a reproduction by Mrs. Sinclair is -placed beside a like-numbered one in any of the 20 guessing sets, it is -very seldom that one cannot be certain whether one is better as compared -with the common original, and within fair limits how much better. And -the proof of this statement is found in the fact that when two persons -passed upon the 20 sets of guessing reproductions, comparing them with -the 1 set of Sinclair reproductions, to determine, case for case, in -260, which were more nearly like the originals, and to what degree, -their rating was almost identical, although they worked in entire and -absolute mutual independence of each other. - -In the following table, Si. = Sinclair drawing, G. = a Guessing drawing, -v.m.b. = very much better, m.b. = much better, b. = better. - -W. F. P. found the guessing reproduction of experiment 1 to be bad to a -degree equal with the Mrs. Sinclair failure, in 16 instances. Miss -Hoffmann found it equally bad also in 16 instances, and deemed another -reproduction equally to possess some tiniest resemblance to the original -in 1 instance. Aside from these we have - - - IN THE 20 SETS (10 LADIES AND MISS H’S 10) - - _W. F. P.’s Estimate_ _Miss H’s Estimate_ - ───────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Si.v.m.b. 222 Si.v.m.b. 222 - Si.m.b. 11 Si.m.b. 13 - Si.b. 7 Si.b. 4 - G.v.m.b. 2 G.v.m.b. 2 - G.b. 2 G.b. 2 - ——— — ——— — - 240 4 239 4 - -It is almost incredible that two human beings could come to so close an -agreement, unless one had some clue to the opinions of the other, but it -is even so, no smallest hint passed in either direction. The fact is -that in very few instances can there be the slightest hesitancy in -deciding which is nearer the common original, the Sinclair or the -guessing reproduction. - -If there is any reproduction of the Sinclair series whose resemblance to -the original might seem illusory it is that coupling with the leaf of a -tree or plant (Figs. 148, 148a). But of the 20 guesses of that original -not one is so near; in 18 instances (W. F. P.) or at least 15 (Miss H) -Mrs. Sinclair’s is very much the better, in 1 (W. F. P.) to 3 (Miss H) -it is much better, and in 1 (W. F. P.) or 2 (Miss H) it is better. - -Perhaps some persons would think that such resemblance as there is -between the butterfly and Mrs. Sinclair’s reproduction (Figs. 97, 97a) -is too faint to count, or at least is accidental. But, by the -independent judgment of two persons, not a single one of the -corresponding guessing reproductions is as near the original or anything -like so near. - -Or one might sneer at calling Mrs. Sinclair’s reproduction of Figure 147 -“Suggestive.” Only 5 vertical lines, wrongly curving at the top, crossed -by three lines, to stand for a “door with hinges, lower sash,” and wire -screen covering the upper half! But not a single one of the 20 guesses -approaches so much resemblance. Miss H says that of 19 of these, and W. -F. P. of 16, “Si.v.m.b.” Miss H says of 1, W. F. P. of 2, “Si.m.b.,” -while W. F. P. at least is sure of his remaining 2, “Si.b.” - -In the light of such tests as those just now made, even such degrees of -resemblance as we have found in the very weakest numbers of the 13 in -this Sinclair series take on deep significance. And the whole mass of -our counter-experiments clearly indicates that the reproductions by Mrs. -Sinclair in that series are prodigiously beyond the reach of chance -guessing. - -[Illustration: The Best of the Twenty Guessing-Sets] - -As already remarked, it is hardly practicable to reproduce here the 260 -drawings resulting from 20 sets of attempts to guess what the 13 -originals (the same as those in the Sinclair series of February 15th) -were. But following is shown Mrs. P—n’s set of guesses, the one which -made the nearest, though so distant, approach to success. Let the reader -compare her drawings, one by one, with the reproductions of Mrs. -Sinclair, and judge for himself both which were nearer the originals -they had in common, and by how much. - - -A Series of February 17, 1929[16] - -The conditions under which this series of experiments was conducted were -excellent, and will be given partly in Mr. Sinclair’s words and partly, -for greater conciseness, abridged from his statement, aided by an -examination of the materials. - -(a) The original drawings were made by Mr. Sinclair when he was alone in -his study. (b) They were made on green paper. (c) Each drawing was -enclosed “in a separate sheet of green paper.” (d) Each drawing with its -enclosing sheet was folded once, making four thicknesses. (e) And each -pair of sheets, that with the drawing and the blank outside one, was put -in an envelope [Experiment shows that not even when held up to a strong -light can a drawing made and enclosed in such paper and placed in an -envelope be seen at all]. (f) The envelope was sealed. (g) The nine -sealed envelopes were laid on the table by Mrs. Sinclair’s couch. (h) -Her procedure was to put an envelope, and each in turn as the tests -proceeded, over her solar plexus, and when she had made her decision, to -sit up and draw upon a paper pad. (i) Meanwhile, at her own insistence, -Mr. Sinclair watched her throughout. (j) “Never did she see my drawing,” -he declares, “until hers was completed and her descriptive words -written.” (k) “I spoke no word and made no comment until after this was -done.” He adds: “The drawings represented here are in every case exactly -what I drew, and the corresponding drawing is exactly what my wife drew, -with no change or addition whatsoever.” - -1. _Agt._, a geographical globe; _Per._, an obscure drawing most -probably representing the head and neck of some animal. Failure.[17] - -2. _Agt._, a wall-hook (Fig. 123); _Per._, the drawing of Figure 123a, -which resembles the original to a certain limited degree, having a -narrow extension to the left though not curving, and broadening to the -right with a suggestion of curving at the bottom. - -3. _Agt._, a monkey hanging from a bough and grasping at another (Fig. -24); _Per._ drew as in Figures 24a, 24b (except that in the former the -cut fails to give all of the pencil drawing. Instead of four curving -lines hanging from the flower or whatever it is, the ends of each pair -should be united by a curve) and it seems as though elements of the -original were caught but misplaced. Each figure is of the shape of the -under branch in the original drawing, but with the slant of the monkey; -there are two as-it-were arms reaching down instead of one; and while -the drawings do not suggest any animal, the script begins “Buffalo or -lion. Tiger,” and concludes with the conviction that there is at least -some “wild animal.” - -4. _Agt._, man and woman standing together; _Per._, two drawings, one -almost exactly the shape of the woman’s skirt, with two black spots -below and touching its bottom line, exactly as the feet of the woman -appear below her skirt; the other drawing similar but less like the -original. - -5. _Agt._, an animal shape, probably intended for a goat (certain -species, as the Angora, have long horns which resemble those of the -drawing, and goats generally have a short tail) (Fig. 138); _Per._, no -drawing, but the single word “Goat.” - -6. _Agt._, a mandolin, its neck drawn with several parallel lines, the -body of the instrument composed of four curving lines with three -straight ones for the strings; _Per._, what may perhaps be intended for -a flower, but its long stem indicated by several parallel lines and its -blossom drawn with curving and straight lines constitute a strong -resemblance, and entitle it to be regarded a partial success. - -7. _Agt._, a nearly round bag with a dollar mark on it, pursed and drawn -up on top, as by a string; _Per._, (1) a circle with a vertical line -protruding from its upper edge, (2) a cup-like figure with a line from -its bottom to above its upper edge. - -8. _Agt._, a Lima bean (?); _Per._, a head wearing a turban, which in -shape is conspicuously like the bean. - -9. _Agt._, a nest containing seven eggs and surrounded by leaves (Fig. -4); _Per._, a drawing which she interpreted as “Inside of rock well with -vines climbing on outside,” but which presents features startlingly like -the original (Fig. 4a). - -There is the outer rim, like that of the nest, and which would probably -have completed the circle if the top of the paper had not been reached. -There are the “stones,” for some unknown reason obscured in the cut but -some of them in the center showing more plainly and more regularly ovoid -in the pencil drawing, resembling the eggs of the original. And there -are not only surrounding leaves as in the original, but they are leaves -of similar shape. - - -Series of February 20, 1929 - -There were four experimental tests made this day, the same when the -remarkable case of spontaneous telepathy occurred, in which Mrs. -Sinclair sensed that her husband was reading about flowers and described -them by drawings and script (p. 30). - -In the 1st, Mr. Sinclair drew a fire hydrant (Fig. 74); Mrs. Sinclair -drew as in Figure 74a. This was certainly a partial success, as the -drawings compare. And for aught we know it may in fact have been a still -better success, since Mr. Sinclair in looking at his drawing may well -have imagined water bursting forth from the spout of the hydrant. Oddly, -Mrs. Sinclair first wrote “Peafowl,” and then drew what had nothing to -do with a peafowl. This is one of the many cases where it seems as -though Mrs. Sinclair had glimpses ahead in a series. - -For the agent’s second drawing _was_ a peacock (Fig. 75). And the -percipient not only said “peafowl again,” which constitutes a complete -success, but she also drew what it seems likely are impressions of the -peacock’s long neck and of the “eyes” or spots of his wings (Fig. 75a). - -The agent’s third drawing was of an hourglass, with sand running from -its upper to its lower part (Fig. 133). The resemblance in shape of the -percipient’s tree (Fig. 133a) to the upper half of the hourglass is -evident, its trunk may represent the slender line of flowing sand, and -“white” sand is placed relatively like the sand in the lower part of the -hourglass. The percipient’s results seem to be partly from the lines of -the original drawing, but also from Mr. Sinclair’s thoughts about the -sand. - -Mr. Sinclair’s fourth drawing represents an animal (dog?) running after -a ball attached to a string (Fig. 9). Mrs. Sinclair’s drawing shows (a) -an animal, (b) also running, (c) in the same direction, (d) having a -short tail as in the original, (e) the tail represented by two diverging -lines, (f) a line extending from its nose, but touching the nose, while -there is a space between in the original, (g) the line running left and -at about the same angle from the horizontal. Besides the script which -appears in the cut (Fig. 9a) Mrs. Sinclair wrote “Long thing like rope -flung out in front of him.” - -I should say that the addition of that “rope” drawn in front of the -animal at that angle made chance guessing of the combination at least -ten times as unlikely, and, on the basis of my hundreds of experiments -in guessing, I should not _expect_ in ten thousand such experiments on -the basis of the same original drawing one reproduction as good in the -summation of its correspondences. - - -Series of March 11, 1929 - -1. _Agt._, a fountain which, were it taken alone, might be taken for a -tree, standing in what superficially appears like a long shallow -tub-like structure (Fig. 53); _Per._, a long, shallow tub, with two -tree-like objects above it and on its rim, (2) a drawing, the upper -portion of which parts in the center and leans to either side, as does -the fountain. The tree or plant-like objects are both said to “shine,” -which does not so well comport with a tree or plant as with a fountain -sparkling in the sunshine (Fig. 53a). - -2. _Agt._, a melon on an inclined plane, having a stem and leaf on the -stem; _Per._, three drawings: (1) what suggests the leaf and stem of the -original twice over, (2) an unnameable figure, but slanting like the -original, (3) what looks like some kind of fruit with stem, also -slanting like the original. - -3. _Agt._, the figure 6 followed by the mark indicating _per cent_, not -single-line drawn but having breadth as if cut out of cardboard; _Per._, -the letter F, a failure except for the curious parallel that this also -is formed as if made with strips of cardboard. - -4. _Agt._, a fishhook (Fig. 78); _Per._, (1) a figure very much like the -fishhook except that the barb is transformed into a tiny flower (Fig. -78a). - -5. _Agt._, an obelisk (Fig. 79); _Per._, two drawings, the first of -which shows the three long lines of the obelisk but with a slight -curvature (Fig. 79a).[18] - -6. _Agt._, as in Figure 80; _Per._, as in Figure 80a. Only point of -resemblance the two angles formed by the legs of the reclining seat. - -7. _Agt._, what was probably intended to represent a German -_Pickelhaube_ (Fig. 5); _Per._, what the accompanying script called a -“Knight’s helmet”; very similar (Fig. 5a). - -8. _Agt._, a row of five pillars (shown with a rather extraordinary -perspective slant), each mainly indicated by three or four vertical -parallel lines, an entablature above (Fig. 132); _Per._, four -pillar-like objects constructed of vertical parallel lines, three to -five, the presumed pillars having no entablature but in themselves and -additional lines showing the same slant as in the original. The presumed -pillars are likewise nearly equally spaced, but are of unequal heights, -indicating that the percipient’s impression was a visual one and that -she had no clear idea what she was drawing (Fig. 132a). - -9. _Agt._, presumably a palm tree (Fig. 8); _Per._, two objects hard to -name, but each in a general way curiously like the original, even to the -bend in what is presumably the trunk, though it is not the same bend -(Fig. 8a). - - -Series of March 16, 1929 - -There were seven tests on this date. - -1. _Agt._, a burning lamp (Fig. 40); _Per._, as in Figure 40a, whether -the drawing represents a tube from which flame proceeds, or the wick and -that part of the lamp which is within the chimney, at any rate the same -lines which conventionally signify light appear as in the original. -Accompanying script says “flame and sparks.” - -2. _Agt._, a butterfly net (Fig. 110); _Per._, the handle of the net is -duplicated, and the general shape of the net is pretty well shown (Fig. -110a). - -3. _Agt._, a carnation with four near-angles along its upper edge (Fig. -113); _Per._, four triangles in a row with a hint of lines below (Fig. -113a). - -4. _Agt._, a trench mortar (Fig. 42); _Per._, a figure considerably like -but shorter than the trench mortar, and likewise pointing upward, a -stem-like extension like the axle in the original but on the other side, -whiffs of smoke emerging (Fig. 42a). Here the impressions received seem -partly visual, partly ideational. - -5. _Agt._, a telegraph pole and four wires proceeding horizontally from -it in two directions (Fig. 129); _Per._, something like a pole, and five -lines proceeding from it in one direction (Fig. 129a). - -6. _Agt._, two hearts side by side, transfixed horizontally by an arrow -(Fig. 126); _Per._, two balloon-like shapes side by side, transfixed -horizontally by a line (Fig. 126a). - -7. _Agt._, a frieze (Fig. 124); _Per._, what looks like a detail of a -different design yet one which also consists of parallel lines enclosing -narrow tracts which run in different directions (Fig. 124a). Even so -much of distant resemblance would not occur anything like once in ten -times by chance. - - -Miscellaneous Examples - -February 23, 1929. The agent drew a steamboat with incorrectly designed -stem paddle wheel (Fig. 77). The percipient’s results are very -interesting (Figs. 77a, 77b, 77c). There is smoke, so labeled, by -itself, then the smoke stack with smoke issuing from it, then the paddle -wheel in the water, its paddles more correctly placed externally to the -rim, then what may mean smoke containing cinders. The cut of the paddle -wheel has left out the axle-end, very distinctly indicated in the -original pencil drawing. - -February 17, 1929. The agent drew an Alpine hat with a feather (Fig. -142). Of the shapes drawn by the percipient (Fig. 142a) the one on the -right may very possibly be related to the rim and the band of the hat, -the top left one is very suggestive of the feather, and the bottom one, -though called in the script a “chafing dish,” is very like the hat. All -this suggests that the attention of the agent was directed first to one -part, then to another and another of his drawing. - -February 29, 1929. The agent drew a very intricate and unusual cross, -one with eight arms, notched at the ends (see Figs. 7, 7a). The -percipient also drew a circle of notched arms, but seven in number. One -would suppose that when she began she had no idea where the drawing -would end, or it would be more regular. - -Through all the experiments of the period covered by the book _Mental -Radio_, and enough more to make 300, there is no other agent drawing -resembling this. And nowhere is there another percipient drawing like -it. Granting that the percipient should make such a drawing once, which -was by no means certain (nothing like it appears among the 564 -Guess-drawings reported in this Bulletin), then the chance of its -coinciding in place with the eight-armed cross of the agent would be 1 -in 300. - -February 17, 1929. The agent drew an open umbrella, with curved handle -(Fig. 122). The percipient wrote, “I feel that it is a snake crawling -out of something—vivid feeling of snake, but it looks like a cat’s -tail.” And in her drawing (Fig. 122a) we have the curved umbrella -handle, but it has sprouted a tongue and an eye; the ellipse of the -umbrella rim is retained but it is a smaller one; otherwise the -“something” is shaped wrongly. - -We have cited instances where Mrs. Sinclair proved that she got an -inkling of some drawing in a series before reaching it, by writing down -at the moment her conviction. In _Mental Radio_ our attention is called -to a number of instances of seeming anticipations even where Mrs. -Sinclair was not so conscious of them, or at least did not write down -her expectation that some particular thing was coming. Here is an -instance not mentioned in the book. The next agent’s drawing after the -umbrella _was_ a snake. Had it not been for the dawning consciousness of -_that_ snake, the umbrella handle might not have undergone -metamorphosis.[19] - -February ?, 1929. The agent made an American flag, with pole surmounted -by a ball (Fig. 127). The percipient failed to get the stars but she got -the stripes and the pole, and the ball, which last has wandered from its -place, although the neighborhood in which it should be is sensed (Fig. -127a). - -March ?, 1929. Mrs. Sinclair wrote “Muley cow with tongue hanging out.” -And this is the drawing her husband had made (Fig. 137). In 260 -experiments in guessing, the originals being replicas of Mr. Sinclair’s -drawings on February 15, there was not one success. We would have said -that Mrs. Sinclair had a success in this case had she merely said “Cow.” -But she did better than this, for she got the particular “tongue hanging -out,” which certainly increases the value tenfold. I venture to say that -not one time in twenty will a picture of a cow show her with her tongue -hanging out. - -Pursuing the tests past the period until more than 300 have been had, we -find that Mr. Sinclair drew a cow’s head three times. Once the -percipient’s response was technically a failure; it resembled horns, or -rather antlers. The second time she got a chicken’s face, again strictly -a failure, but at least something with animal life. The third time was -the “cow with tongue hanging out.” - -And there were three other times that Mrs. Sinclair either drew a cow’s -head or wrote “cow” or “calf.” For the first see Figures 15, 15a. In the -second instance the agent had drawn a face, not that of a cow but of a -man. The third was a brilliant success, not in name but in form. The -agent had drawn what was doubtless intended for a donkey with a harness -band across its neck. In the reproduction the donkey’s long ears were -metamorphosed to resemble horns, and across the cow’s neck is a band, -which the lady interpreted in the following script: “Cow’s head in -stock.” - -March 2, 1929. The agent drew six concentric circles (Fig. 144). As in -the case of the balloon (see Figs. 95, 95a), the percipient seemed to -“see” only part of the original. She also draws concentric circles, but -omits about a quarter of each (Fig. 144a). - -We can allow space but for one more exhibit, and this because of its -seeming suggestiveness (Figs. 56, 56a). Of course, when we move away -from correspondences in visual form or direct correspondences in idea we -enter a region where the possibilities of chance relation are -considerable. Nevertheless, literature abounds in associations between -fleeing foxes on the one hand and guns and sounding horns on the other. -It seems likely enough, therefore (though I would not bring forward this -case as _proof_), that the sensing of the original drawing found a path -for emergence through association ideas. - -There are many more tests described and illustrated in Mr. Sinclair’s -book. What we have given has been, save for a few exceptions, according -to selected and entire groups or series on particular dates. - - - PERCIPIENT SEQUELAE TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF AGENT DRAWINGS - -Mr. Sinclair remarks that “when in these drawing tests there has been -anything [that is, in his drawings] indicating fire or smoke she has -‘got’ it, with only one or two failures out of more than a dozen cases.” -This would mean a much larger ratio of success for the drawings so -characterized than that for the total number of drawings. Mr. Sinclair -accounts for this by the fact that his wife, owing to terrifying -incidents in her childhood, is exceedingly sensitive to the thought of -fire and given to taking unusual precautions. Readers will probably -agree that this is a plausible and sensible theory. I propose to -tabulate _all_ such tests, including the original drawings significant -of light. - - - Original Drawings Indicating Fire or Smoke - - 1928 - - 1. July 29. O:[20] Smoking cigarette—R: Various curved lines, and “I - can’t draw it, but curls of some sort.” - - 1929 - - 2. Jan. 28. O: House with smoking chimney—R: Curls as of smoke. (See - Figs. 36, 36a.) - - 3. Feb. ?. O: Lighted lamp—R: Pipe, and “Pipe with fire in it.” - - 4. Feb. 8. O: Pipe with smoke—R: Drawing similar to a pipe, with - smoke. (See Figs. 37, 37a.) - - 5. Feb. 8. O: House with smoking chimney—R: _Failure_. - - 6. Feb. ?. O: Pipe with smoke—R: Written, “Smoke stack.” - - 7. Feb. 10. O: Smoking mountain—R: (No _thought_ of smoke but) Drawing - very like O. (See Figs. 25, 25a.) - - 8. Feb. 15. O: Smoking match—R: Smoking match. (See Figs. 91, 91a.) - - 9. Feb. 23. O: Steamboat with smoking stack—R: Draws smoke, “Smoke - again,” and draws figure like stack with smoke. (See Figs. 77, - 77a, 77b, 77c.) - - 10. Mar. 16. O: Lighted lamp—R: Drawing somewhat like the part of a - lamp within the chimney, and “Flame and sparks.” (See Figs. - 40, 40a.) - - - Original Drawings Not Indicating But Significant of Fire or Smoke - - 1929 - - 11. Feb. ?. O: Pipe—R: _Failure_ (But a smoking pipe in same series of - 8). - - 12. Feb. 2. O: Candelabrum—R: Base of candelabrum correctly drawn. - - 13. Feb. 10. O: Fire-rocket (felt unable to draw it bursting)—R: Six - drawings labelled “light,” several like swirling rocket, and - words “whirling light lines.” - - 14. Feb. 11. O: Muzzle of end of cannon, mouth indicated by double - circle—R: Drawing of “half circle double lines—light - inside—light is fire busy whirling or flaming.” - - 15. Feb. 16. O: Gable and chimney—R: Chimney with smoke. - - 16. Mar. 7. O: Cannon—R: “Black Napoleon hat and red military - coats.”[21] - - 17. Mar. 16. O: Trench mortar, with wheels and axle—R: Drawing similar - to mortar and axle, plus smoke. (See Figs. 42, 42a.) - - - Original Drawings Significant of Light - - 1929 - - 18. Feb. ?. O: Electric light bulb—R: Drawing and script very - suggestive; but nothing about _light_. - - 19. Feb. 10. O: Electric light bulb—R: Two drawings somewhat like O in - shape; nothing about _light_. - - 20. Feb. 11. O: Sun—R: “Setting sun and bird in sky.” - - 21. Feb. 15. O: Sun over hills—R: Sun over a “body.” (See Figs. 93, - 93a.) - -This is a very noteworthy exhibit. In idea, shape or both, all the 21 -reproductions show marked correspondences, with 3 exceptions only, one -of which is doubtfully an anticipation of an original in the same group, -and another very possibly connected by an interior association of ideas. - - - Originals Representing Forms of Animal Life - -In some cases, after the agent had drawn an animal, a bird, or some -other creature possessing animal life, the percipient’s drawing was -successful, partly successful or at least suggestive in shape; in many -instances it was a flat failure. But as examination proceeded it began -to appear that a number of the failures represented some other form of -the animal kingdom, however diverse. A careful canvass was made, -including the material in hand produced subsequent to that in the -Sinclair book, embracing in all 388 experiments; drawings of human -beings, animals, birds, fishes, insects, and parts of bodies, as a hand -or a leg, were included. - -The Agent drew 103 such out of 388. - -The Percipient drew 98 such out of 388. - -There were found to be 39 correspondences;[22] that is, in 39 cases, -where the agent drew some animal form or part thereof, the percipient -also drew some animal form or part thereof. If out of a total of 388, -the agent makes 103 drawings of this character, chance would give about -26 correspondences, so defined, among the 98 reproductions. In fact, -there are 39, another proof, by a peculiar test, that something more -than chance is in operation. - -Now let us make another test, this time including the material only up -to the close of the period covered by the book, and not insisting, as we -have done above, on strict recognition of reproductions, but stating -precisely how they compare with the originals in form. - - - Where the Original Drawings Represent Vegetable Forms - - 1929 - - Feb. 2. O: Plant with 18 spots for flowers (?)—R: 9 similar spots and - writing “Many dots.” - - Feb. 6. O: Daisy—R: 8 small assembled figures shaped like petals of - daisy, and other figures indicating vegetation. - - Feb. 11. O: Cat-tail—R: Three angular protrusions somewhat like - cat-tail leaves, and “Dog’s head?” - - Feb. 12. O: Flower with stalk—R: Flower resembling O; no stalk. - - Feb. 15. O: Stalk of celery—R: Flower and stalk somewhat resembling O. - - Feb. 15. O: Leaf—R: Indeterminate drawings, but with features like O. - - Feb. 16. O: Acorn—R: Drawing looks like an acorn, whatever is meant by - it. - - Feb. 16. O: Flower and leaves—R: _Absolute failure_. - - Feb. 17. O: Lima bean—R: Man’s head, but his large turban is curiously - shaped like O. - - Feb. 17. O: Leaves around nest of eggs—R: Same shape of leaves around - what much resembles the nest of eggs. - - Feb. ?. O: Fleur-de-lis—R: _Failure_. - - Feb. 20. O: “Red” flower[23]—R: “Red” flower. (See Fig. 14a.) - - Feb. 22. O: Odd tree—R: Similar odd tree. - - Feb. 24. O: Branch of tree with thorns—R: Apparently branch of tree, - not thorned. - - Mar. 11. O: Melon, with stalk and leaf—R: Indeterminate vegetable or - flower, with stalk, and what looks like two leaves similar to - the leaf in O. - - Mar. 11. O: Palm tree—R: 2 indeterminate figures, curiously like O. - - Mar. ?. O: Dead tree with pointed limbs—R: 3 “horns,” somewhat - suggestive. - - Mar. ?. O: Bouquet of “pink” roses, and leaves—R: An odd half - flower-like figure, marked “green” exteriorly and “pink” - inside. - - Mar. 16. O: Carnation—R: Similar exterior four sharp angles; no other - resemblance. - - - All the Original Drawings Representing Crosses - - 1929 - - 1. Feb. ?. O: Swastika cross (Fig. 101)—R: 3 drawings which together - give 3 of the 4 rectangular quarters of the swastika cross, - and the directions in which they open; 2 drawings, each of - which practically represents a half of the cross, but one of - these reversed (Fig. 101a). - - 2. Feb. 6. O: Swastika cross—R: _Failure_. - - 3. Feb. ?. O: Pattée cross (Fig. 81)—R: A figure, four of which - rightly placed make the cross; but by adding a bail (because - of inference?) it is made a basket (Fig. 81a). - - 4. Feb. 10. O: Eight-armed crosses (Fig. 64)—R: Script, “See spider, - or some sort of legged pest.” (Note that the Arachnida are - eight-legged.) - - 5. Feb. 15. O: Three four-armed crosses on a box—R: Three six-armed - crosses. (See Figs. 98, 98a.) - - 6. Mar. ?. O: Eight-armed cross with notched ends (Fig. 7)—R: - Seven-armed cross with notched ends (Fig. 7a). - - - Originals Representing the Sun - -In the course of 300 experiments, extending a little beyond the period -reported by the book, there were but two of these. - -The first was on February 11, 1929. The agent made a sun as children -draw it, a circle with rays surrounding it. The percipient made no -drawing but wrote “Setting sun and bird in the sky. Big bird on the -wing—sea gull or wild goose.” Mr. Sinclair calls this a partial success, -and surely it is. - -The second was on February 15, more than fifty experiments having -intervened. The agent drew a sun over hills, the percipient a circle -with rays around it actually labelled “a sun,” over a “body.” (See Figs. -93, 93a.) This also was a partial success. - -Thus both times out of 300 experiments when Mr. Sinclair made a sun, his -wife “got it” and drew one also. - -But twice, also, Mrs. Sinclair drew what was meant for the upper half of -a sun at the horizon when there was no sun in the original. In one of -these instances the original did have something, not a sun, considerably -like the reproduction, and there was a certain degree of resemblance in -the other. But let these count as failures. We will allow the reader to -figure out the chances of two of Mrs. Sinclair’s four suns, in the -course of 300 experiments, being drawn at the same time when Mr. -Sinclair drew his two suns. - - - “Line-and-Circle-Men” Originals - -On February 6, 1929, Mr. Sinclair made a line-and-circle man; that is, -one drawn in schoolboy fashion (Fig. 106). The percipient got the head -circle, adding dots for features, and her crossing lines, properly -placed below the circle, roughly represent the spread of arms and legs -(Fig. 106a). - -On February 10th, thirty experiments having intervened, the agent made -two such men, facing each other in boxing attitudes (Fig. 107). It will -be seen that just two vertical lines, longer than any of the others, -enter into their composition. The longest lines in what the percipient -drew are also two and vertical. And she got a confused notion of the -legs and arms, each with its angle for knee or elbow. She failed to get -any circles (Fig. 107a). - -All through the period covered by the book, and past it until the 300th -experiment, there is no other line-and-circle man original. The -percipient in the same number of experiments made one drawing in which -head and body are represented by a circle and an ellipse, and the rest -of the man by single lines. And she made one fairly well drawn head with -hair, the rest of the figure represented by single lines. - - - A STUDY IN “ANTICIPATIONS” - - -Series of February 11, 1929 - -We have been pursuing the rigorous rule of estimating a percipient -drawing by its correspondence or lack of correspondence with the agent -drawing then in hand. Only when Mrs. Sinclair announced in advance that -a described drawing would come in a series, and it actually came, have -we given weight to an anticipation. Such an instance was that of the -snow and sled drawing of February 8th. This is not by any means to say -that other “anticipations” have not had weight, as a matter of fact. In -some of the instances exhibited in _Mental Radio_ the original drawings -represented objects of such character that it was extremely unlikely -that there should be a near correspondence among the half dozen or dozen -reproductions constituting the whole series, or in fifty guesses. - -Again, there could be a series with so many of these correspondences out -of order that one is mathematically[24] and logically compelled to -acknowledge that there was anticipation. Such a series is that of -February 11, 1929. - -1. _Agt._, a molar tooth; _Per._, an ellipse containing 19 tiny circles. -This is emphatically a failure compared with the contemporaneous -original drawing. However, see No. 12. Before the drawing was made, the -percipient wrote “First see rooster. Then elephant.” - -2. And now _Agt.’s_ drawing _was_ an elephant, as far back as but -lacking hind legs. And _Per._ wrote “Elephant comes again. I try to -suppress it, and see lines, and a spike sticking some way into -something.” And she draws two vertical lines, related to each other in -ribbon fashion, what looks like a pin with circle for head, crossing the -band through a slit indicated by two short vertical lines, and below the -“spike” two widely separated vertical lines. The “spike” crosses what I -have called a ribbon exactly as the elephant’s tusk crosses his trunk, -the round eye of the elephant has moved slightly to form the head of the -“spike,” and the vertical lines below may stand for a feeling that -_something_ (really the front legs) should be below. We have some -warrant for our interpretation from the words “Elephant comes again. I -try to suppress it.” Had she not tried to suppress it (because of the -erroneous notion that it is but a memory of the elephant impression of -Experiment 1), it is fair to assume that she would have tried to draw an -elephant. She “tried to suppress” the animal, but his eye and “spike,” -which was really “sticking into something,” but not in the manner drawn, -seem to have persisted. (See Figs. 66, 66a.) - -3. And now _Agt._ _did_ draw a rooster. Both elephant and rooster, with -which she was impressed at Experiment 1, had come by the time Experiment -3 had been reached. This is rather too much for “chance coincidence,” -especially as the Sinclairs do not have an elephant among their domestic -pets. But this is not all. As _Per._ not only announced an elephant in -advance but got details of the elephant when that animal actually was in -hand as the original, so not only was a rooster announced in advance but -when the original is a rooster, _Per._ gets correspondences. She writes -“I don’t know what, see a bunch, or tuft clearly. Also a crooked arm on -a body. But don’t feel that I’m right.” What she drew was remarkably -like the rear three-quarters of the rooster, the “tuft” representing its -tail, “the crooked arm” its two legs in conjunction. (See Figs. 67, -67a.) - -4. _Agt._, a table; _Per._, “Flower. This is a very vivid one. -Green-spine-leaves like century plant,” and a corresponding drawing with -tall flowering spike in the center. (See Fig. 68a.) A flat failure, but -wait for Experiments 7 and 11. - -5. _Agt._, a fishhook; _Per._, no drawing but script: “Dog wagging -tail—see tail in air busy wagging—jolly doggie—tail curled in the air.” -Well, a fishhook _is_ somewhat like a tail curled in the air. But script -followed: “Now I see a cow. I fear the elephant and chicken got me too -sure of animals. But I see these.” A tail curled in the air—a dog or a -cow! Wait for No. 7. - -6. _Agt._, a sun represented by a large circle surrounded by rays; -_Per._, “Setting sun and bird in the sky. Big bird on wing—sea gull or -wild goose.” Obviously this is a partial success. - -7. _Agt._, what was intended for the rear half of a cow, with tail -curled almost exactly like a fishhook. Remember that in No. 5 _Per._ had -an impression of a dog with “tail curled in the air” and a later -impression of a cow. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sinclair’s cow does not -have a cow’s tail but one made in the fashion of a hound’s tail. _Per._ -in this No. 7 experiment makes a drawing like that of No. 4, except that -the central spike is not so long, and writes “This is a _real_ flower. -I’ve seen it before. It’s vivid and returns. Century plant. Now it turns -into a candlestick. See a candle.” And she drew what she probably meant -for a five-armed candlestick, with one candle in the center. But it is -much like the plant called “cat-tail,” except that the leaves diverge -too widely. (See Fig. 69a.) - -8. _Agt._, a long line with seven short evenly-spaced lines running from -it at right angles—probably meant for a rake-head; _Per._, what is -probably intended for two sticks of wood, fire proceeding from one of -them, and smoke above. Script: “Fire and smoke—flame.” Also, “Must be -campfire as I now see an Indian warrior near it in a war dress—feathered -headpiece, etc.” There is a certain amount of resemblance between the -rake-head and the stick of wood with the more or less straight lines -springing from one side of it. (See Fig. 43a.) And one remembers that an -Indian headdress, of the type which hangs down the back, consists of -feathers on one side and directed outwardly from the band to which they -are attached. But these are only suggested possibilities of connection, -and are doubtful. There is even another possible connection, for it may -be that “Fire and smoke” was influenced by the cannon of the following -original. - -9. _Agt._, the forward part of an old-style cannon, a double-line -ellipse marking its mouth seen in perspective; _Per._, the half of a -double-line ellipse with a curving tangle as of smoke, labeled “Fire,” -and outside the script: “Half circle, double lines—light inside—light is -fire busy whirling or flaming.” Partly right and very suggestive. (See -Fig. 44a.) - -10. _Agt._, three concentric triangles; _Per._, two wheels and over them -the suggestion of some vehicle-body—only a line and two angles. Failure. - -11. _Agt._, a “cat-tail,” its leaves by no means correctly drawn, but -there is no doubt of its identity; _Per._, a drawing doubtfully marked -“Dog’s head,” its ears, if such they are, also its muzzle, long and -pointed, much resembling the upper halves of Mr. Sinclair’s cat-tail -leaves. But remember Mrs. Sinclair’s “century plant” of No. 2 with its -somewhat similar leaves and its central spike; remember especially the -“candlestick” of No. 7, which so much resembles a cat-tail. (See Figs. -69a, 70, 70a.) - -12. _Agt._, ten small circles arranged in rows, pyramidal fashion; -_Per._ wrote only “Nothing except all the preceding ones come—too many -at once—all past ones crowding in memory.” I wish she had stated which -past one, if any, crowded most, and which came first. For it happens -that her drawing for No. 2, so different from the impressions “a -rooster” and “an elephant,” set down at the same time, also consisted of -little circles, also in rows, but more in number and enclosed within an -elliptical line. - -13. _Agt._, a drinking-glass with double elliptic line at the top and -small ellipse indicating the bottom; _Per._, double elliptic line above, -same below with indefinite lines rising from the latter. The script is -more significant: “Think of a saucer, then of a cup. It’s something in -the kitchen. Too tired to see.” Pretty close. (See Figs. 72, 72a.) - -The occurrence of so many correspondences, direct and oblique, among -thirteen consecutive experiments constituting the entire series -performed at one time, and these by mere accidental coincidence, is -practically unthinkable. - - -Later Experiments by Professor William McDougall - -In the main, this review has dealt only with the period covered by -_Mental Radio_, although it has exhibited some experiments not -illustrated or even mentioned therein. A few of the special tabulations -have also included a part or all of the later tests made by Mr. and Mrs. -Sinclair, to the number of more than a hundred, the materials of which -are in my hands. When the tabulations have reached so far, the fact has -been stated. - -But it may be well to say something about tests made by Professor -William McDougall during a sojourn in California, July-August, 1930. He -examined the proofs of previous work and consented to write an -introduction to _Mental Radio_, saying: “A refusal would imply on my -part a lack either of courage or of due sense of scientific -responsibility. * * * It is the duty of men of science to give whatever -encouragement and sympathetic support may be possible to all amateurs -who find themselves in a position to observe and carefully and honestly -to study such phenomena. Mrs. Sinclair would seem to be one of the rare -persons who have telepathic power in a marked degree and perhaps other -supernormal powers. The experiments in telepathy, as reported in the -pages of this book, were so remarkably successful as to rank among the -very best hitherto reported. The degree of success and the conditions of -experiment were such that we can reject them as conclusive evidence of -some mode of communication not at present explicable in accepted -scientific terms only by assuming that Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair either are -grossly stupid, incompetent and careless persons, or have deliberately -entered upon a conspiracy to deceive the public in a most heartless and -reprehensible fashion.” As we have seen, the circle of conspirators -would have to be enlarged to admit Mr. and Mrs. Irwin, for they vouched -for an extraordinarily successful series of experiments at long -distance. And it would have to be enlarged to include Professor -McDougall himself, since he sent me the materials of his experiments, -whose results, though inferior to many of the series of 1928 and 1929, -yet show a ratio and quality of correspondence vastly beyond chance -expectation. Remember that the 260 Guessing tests resulted in not one -drawing which, being compared with the original, could possibly be -regarded as a Success, and this by the independent verdicts of two -judges. Of course, this does not mean that another set of 260 guesses -would not show one Success or more than one, but it does show the great -improbability that a particular drawing made by guess will correspond -with the particular original enough so that it is possible to call it a -Success. The 260 guess-drawings, according to one of the judges, showed -3 Partial Successes, 1 according to the other. Then say there was no -Success and but 3 Partial Successes, and it is still unlikely that a -particular drawing made in any short guess series will correspond with -the particular original to the extent of being worthy of the title -Success or Partial Success. On the basis of those 260 guesses we would -be warranted in assuming that there would be about one-third of a -likelihood of getting either a Success or a Partial Success in a series -of 25. But another series of 260 guesses might be more fortunate, so -call it an expectation of getting one. Professor McDougall had 25 -experiments with Mrs. Sinclair. - -On July 19th, “five cards drawn or chosen and sealed in envelope and -thick paper at Santa Monica and presented in turn sealed to Mrs. S. at -Long Beach.” Reproductions 1, 3 and 4 were failures. But agent’s No. 2 -was a “prairie schooner” showing two wheels with spokes and a long black -line crossing the wheels at their hubs and standing for both the bottom -of the vehicle-body and the shafts in front, while the percipient drew -(1) a wheel with spokes and a long black line running from the hub, and -(2) a wheel-like shape without spokes, but the line extending far in one -direction and passing through the hub and beyond the wheel a short way -in the other direction, as in the original. Here we have a distinct -Partial Success. Agent’s No. 5 was a postal-card picture of a part of -Oxford, the most conspicuous feature in which is the tower of Magdalen -College with pinnacles and high, narrow windows. The percipient made a -drawing which anyone would recognize as a tower, with bristling short -lines projecting upward from the top suggesting pinnacles, and high, -narrow windows. The proportions of height and width are approximately -correct. Below the lower window level are two parallel horizontal lines, -which call attention to such lines in the original. This was drawn, -however, while the percipient was holding agent’s No. 4, his No. 5, the -tower, still being in his pocket. It looks like an anticipation. But -when she arrived at No. 5 she wrote “Turret of a castle and trees,” and -now she is right for the very original in hand, which does display, -besides a river, a bridge and buildings, the conspicuous tower, and -trees prominent in the picture. She added “Sword,” “Scissors,” and -“Key,” which may possibly be erroneous impressions from the pinnacles. -So we have here a striking result, worthy to be called a Success. I have -again taken pains to go through all the originals and all the -reproductions, 413 of each, and find that but once besides did an -original represent a tower. It was the Eiffel Tower, and all will -remember its tall, slender and tapering shape. The percipient’s drawing -represented a long, slender and tapering cone—a Partial Success. And but -once besides, among all 413 drawings, did the percipient present a -tower. This was on the following August 16th, when, apparently as an -experiment, the drawings were “done in a hurry” and no record made of -the order. If compared with a particular one of the originals, the -“tower top” is a Partial Success, but it probably was a Failure. So here -we have the factors: out of 418 agent drawings two represent towers, and -one results in a percipient Success, the other in a Partial Success; out -of 418 percipient drawings two represent towers, and one is a Success, -the other a Failure. - -On July 20th Professor McDougall made 5 drawings “at one end of a long -room, while Mrs. Sinclair tried to reproduce them at the other end.” The -agent made what is supposed to be a stork, each foot furnished with -three toes. The percipient made two long legs with three-toed feet, the -legs extending from a curved line like the under side of a bird. Above -and isolated is what looks like a crest, which the stork does not have. -Partial Success. The 4th agent drawing is of a ringed target and a -feathered arrow sticking in it, the barb not visible. The percipient -drawing is practically the feathered part of the shaft. Partial Success. -The 5th agent drawing shows a drum-like object with elliptical top, from -the center of which a tube or spout projects vertically, with water -rising from the spout, parting and falling to right and to left so that -it looks something like a tree. The percipient drew (1) an ellipse, (2) -an ellipse, (3) something like a very round teapot, with elliptic top -and spout at an angle of 45 degrees, (4) something like the vertical -trunk of a tree surmounted by a ball of foliage. Success; there are too -many suggestive partial parallels to allow this to be doubted. - -July 26th there were 5 experiments, all drawn by Professor McDougall -except one, that being a postal-card picture of trees, bushes and the -yucca in bloom. Agent’s No. 2 was a wheel with spokes and tire nicely -drawn. Percipient made three circles in a row with something like the -connecting rod of a locomotive across them. This is at least Suggestive. -Directly before the yucca picture, the percipient described plants with -flowers, but the description did not fit the original next to come, nor -did the impression of flowers persist when the yucca was at hand, so I -do not allow this to count at all. There were no other successes in any -degree. - -Then followed experiments, one a day, with Professor McDougall drawing -at Santa Monica, Mrs. Sinclair drawing at the same time at Pasadena, -thirty miles distant. - -July 30th. A failure. - -August 2nd. Original drawing: a coffee-pot, its spout at the right of -peculiar shape, somewhat like the profile of a boat’s stern. The -percipient’s drawing was principally made up of a vertical line like the -edge of the coffee-pot, and turned to the right from its upper extremity -a projection curiously like the coffee-pot’s spout. To the left of the -vertical line seven dots. It may be a mere coincidence that in the -original there are several, but not seven, dark spots in the drawing, -placed relatively about as far from the right edge of the coffee-pot as -the dots are from the vertical line in the percipient drawing. The -drawing is Suggestive, at least. - -August 10th. Original drawing a teapot, and percipient’s drawing, a palm -frond, was relatively to it, a failure. - -August 11th. Agent drew a faucet. Percipient wrote “Teapot,” which is a -failure. But agent had drawn a teapot the previous day—did percipient -get a deferred telepathic impression? - -August 13th. Agent drew a palm tree and percipient’s result was a -failure. But, records agent, “Had it in mind to draw the palm in patio -several days before. Mrs. S. seemed to get it August 10th.” No agent -should have in mind to draw one thing when he actually draws another. If -the result is from telepathy, not clairvoyance, a percipient is at least -as likely to get that on which the agent’s mind has dwelt. On the whole -it would perhaps be fair to count this as a Success. - -August 16th. Agent drew a flower-pot and in it a plant with sword-shaped -leaves, somewhat like a century plant. Percipient first drew what one -might take to be a stalk with five straight, short leafless branches, -but with the script “Velvet bow with band.” She added, “Then saw” and -drew a plant—no pot—with leaves exactly of the form of the leaves in the -original, and added, “I have too many leaves in the above.” Right: she -had 11 leaves, the original had 7. This certainly is at least a Partial -Success. - -August 17th, August 18th and August 19th each yielded a Failure. - -Now let us take account of stock. On the basis of our 260 experiments in -guessing we would have about one-third of an expectation of finding in -the McDougall experiments one Partial Success, but as another series of -260 guesses might be more fortunate we proposed to reckon a full -likelihood of getting one Success or Partial Success, on the theory that -Mrs. Sinclair was guessing also. But we have found 3 Successes and 4 -Partial Successes (not counting a possible “anticipation,” and 2 -instances of Suggestive). It is not mathematics, it is not logic, it is -not common-sense to conclude that we have not, even in this series of -Professor McDougall, although it does not equal some which have been -exhibited, something for which chance is wholly unable to account. - -It is not at all difficult to account for the fact that Professor -McDougall’s results were not quite up to the average of Mrs. Sinclair’s -work during the period covered by _Mental Radio_, both quantity and -quality taken into consideration. In the first place, it has for many -years been evident that something depends upon the degree of _rapport_ -between agent and percipient; in other words, that some persons are -better suited than others to act as agents in relation to a particular -percipient. Thus, we are told in the book (pages 33–34) that among the -friends of Mrs. Sinclair there was one peculiarly adapted in this -respect—Mrs. Kate Crane-Gartz. I venture to relate my own very limited -experience, as fact, not scientifically guaranteed. I have had reason to -suppose that I was getting telepathic messages only with two persons. -One was with my wife the first time I ever experimented with her, and -then I got most of the objects she was thinking of, more or less -satisfactorily, in about eight trials. But I never again had _any_ -measurable success with her, though I tried repeatedly. The other person -I was for a time in sympathetic relations with, and there occurred a -number of incidents which convinced me that I was acting as a -spontaneous percipient. The most striking category of these is the same -which Mr. Sinclair describes when he says: “My wife will say to me, -‘Mrs. Gartz is going to phone,’ and in a minute or two the phone will -ring.” Repeatedly, when I had no particular reason to think that the -lady to whom I refer would ‘phone me, and when I was occupied with work, -I would suddenly, as by a jerk, look at the ‘phone, expecting it to -ring, and in a few moments it would do so. I have even gone to the -‘phone, almost without thinking, and stood there for half a minute or so -before it did so. This period lasted for perhaps three or four months -only, then faded out. Never at any other time, nor with any other -person, not even with my daughter between whom and me there is the most -cordial sympathy, has there been evidence of this kind sufficiently -striking and repetitious to arrest serious attention. So it may well be -that Professor McDougall, however amiable and fairminded he is, not -having been long known to the percipient and being invested with the awe -of a psychologist of extended reputation, was not so well adapted to be -an agent in relation to her as her husband or her brother-in-law. - -But again, while at times Mrs. Sinclair to the last of her -experimentation analyzed by me got excellent results, I find that, -whether because she was wearied, or too much occupied by other things, -or more anxious and less spontaneous, or for whatever reason, did not in -the later months do so well on the average as during the earlier months. -The poorest stretch of the period after the material covered by the book -was that from August 1 to August 28, 1929, inclusive. There were 27 -experiments, of which, according to my reckoning, 2 were Successes, 1 a -Partial Success, 3 Suggestive, 2 Slightly Suggestive and 19 Failures in -a series of 27 experiments. The poorest stretch of experiments during -the book period was that ending with the series of February 17, 1929, -nevertheless shown on account of its significance. Here there were 4 -Successes, 8 Partial Successes, 4 Suggestive, 1 Slightly Suggestive and -10 Failures out of the same total number of 27. So, after all, while the -McDougall results did not reach the highest level of the later period, -they did not by any means mark the lowest level. They greatly transcend -the expectation of chance, and, with the exception of five experiments -only, were achieved when agent and percipient were either thirty miles -apart or at the two ends of a long room. - - - Attempts to Explain Otherwise Than by Telepathy - - -Would Chance Coincidence Explain? - -It has already been proved by experiments in guessing that even the -comparatively poor Dessoir results were far beyond the reach of chance. -And it has been shown by experiments in guessing that the Sinclair -results were much farther beyond the reach of chance. Such counter-tests -may be repeated by any reader _ad libitum_. - - -Would the Kindred Ideas of Relatives Explain? - -It makes one feel foolish to add anything more about the curious “thob” -to the effect that what is taken for telepathy between husbands and -wives is really coincidence brought about by their community of thought -and tendency to think about the same things. It should be evident that -even if a husband and wife knew only one hundred objects in common, that -astonishing fact of limitation would not imply that the lady would be -likely to think of a particular one of these, say No. 92, at the -particular time that her spouse chose it. For once it may be well to -show just how narrow and connubial a range of drawings a husband may -submit to his wife. (See Appendix II.) - - -Would Conscious or Subconscious Fraud on the Part of the Percipient -Explain? - -We must squarely face every possible theory, and this is one. Mr. -Sinclair himself dealt with it. We must do so more thoroughly, in spite -of Mrs. Sinclair’s testimony to remarkable telepathic experiences in her -earlier years (_Mental Radio_, p. 16), in spite of her husband’s -testimony about her actually setting down in writing what “Jan” was -doing at a distance before she got from him the substantially -corresponding facts (pp. 21–24), and getting in dreams or by -“concentration” facts concerning himself at a distance (pp. 31–33), in -spite of Mrs. Sinclair’s reputation for practicality and non-credulity -(pp. 17, 139), honor and conscientiousness (p. 53), her impressing her -husband as being “a fanatic for accuracy” (pp. 138–139), the grave -reasons which caused her to institute these experiments (p. 18; Appendix -I), her intense desire to be sure, and to satisfy every misgiving of her -own (pp. 136–137), her urgency that her husband should watch her work -(p. 53), her variations in the methods of experimentation to see what -effect they would have (pp. 80, 136–137, 144), her reluctance that her -husband should publish his book until still more experiments were had -(p. 137), and the great pains she takes to describe her method of -development and “preparation” in order to encourage others to experiment -(pp. 116, 128). All these considerations are cumulatively almost -overwhelming, yet we proceed in disregard of them. - -But the 7 experiments with “Bob” were at long distance, and the -conditions guaranteed by “Bob” and his wife. - -The 7 experiments of July 24–29, 1928, were conducted with the agent in -one room and the percipient in another, thirty feet away, with a closed -door between. That is to say, Mr. Sinclair, in one room, would call out -“All right” when ready to draw, his wife, lying in another room, would -call “All right” when she had completed her drawing, and then the two -drawings were compared. He declares that there was no possible way by -which Mrs. Sinclair could have seen his drawing. So that any charge of -fraud would have to include him. - -The 9 experiments of February 17, 1929, were thus conducted. The -original drawings were made by the agent, Mr. Sinclair, while alone in -his study, on green paper, enclosed in a sheet of green paper, the whole -folded, making four thicknesses absolutely impervious to sight (as -established in the office of the B.S.P.R.), put in an envelope, the -envelope sealed, and the 9 envelopes put on a table by the percipient’s -couch. She took each in turn and placed it over her solar plexus, kept -it there until her decision was made, then sat up and made her drawing. -All the while her husband sat near, but absolutely speechless until her -drawing was done, when the wrappings were taken from the original -drawing and it was immediately compared with the reproduction. If the -experiments were at night, the reading light immediately over the -percipient’s head was extinguished, since she found that somewhat -subdued illumination favored passivity, but there remained sufficient -light in the room for comparison of the drawings, and every movement of -the woman was distinctly visible. If in the daytime, the window shades -back of the couch were lowered, but again every object was distinctly -visible. Under precisely these conditions, step by step, no professional -magician could have obtained knowledge of the original drawing before -making his own.[25] - -As we have seen, 9 of Professor McDougall’s experiments, later than the -period of the book and reaching results defying the doctrine of chance, -were made with thirty miles between the parties, and 10 of them with the -parties at opposite ends of a long room. Five more were done with -McDougall at least watching his sealed envelopes. It will probably not -be suggested that he was in a conspiracy to deceive the public, but in -these cases fraud could hardly have been practiced by the percipient -alone. - -Already we have 47 experiments, 16 with an intervening distance of above -thirty miles, 7 with agent and percipient in different rooms, and 10 -with agent and percipient at the two ends of a room; 14 with agent near -the percipient but closely watching her and his sealed opaque envelopes. - -But since Mr. Sinclair says that “several score drawings” were drawn in -his study, sealed in envelopes made impervious to sight, and watched by -him as one by one his wife laid them on her body and set down her -impressions, the total number of experiments, guarded to this or a -greater extent, aside from the later ones by McDougall, could hardly -have fallen short of 120. - -Later, since Mr. Sinclair was very busy writing his novel “Boston” and -disliked the interruptions, he ceased (about midway of the whole lot, he -tells us) to enclose his drawings in envelopes and to watch his wife’s -work. Had this been the case throughout, any report based on such -“experiments” would not, scientifically speaking, be worth the paper it -was written on. As it is, I should be quite willing to rest the whole -case on the 120 or more guarded experiments covered by the last two -paragraphs. More than that, I would be willing to rest it upon the 33 -experiments conducted with the participants separated by the length of a -room, thirty feet and a closed door, or thirty miles. - -But the logic of the situation is entirely against the assumption that -fraud was used any more after it became easily possible than before, -when it would have been possible only by the connivance of various -conspirators. Let us see. - -1. If advantage were to be taken of the relaxation of precautions it -would plainly be but for one purpose, to increase the number or the -excellence of favorable results, or both. But neither the number nor the -excellence of favorable results was enhanced. On the contrary, not at -once, but by a general though irregular decline, the results -deteriorated. The last 120 experiments of the period covered by the book -brought about half again as many complete Failures as the first 120 had -done. Mr. Sinclair reminds us that “Series No. 6 which was carefully -sealed up, produced 4 complete Successes, 5 Partial Successes, and no -Failures; whereas Series 21, which was not put in envelopes at all, -produced no complete Successes, 3 Partial Successes, and 6 Failures.” -The declension, which has been noted in experiments with other persons, -continued, in irregular fashion, after the period of the book. We have -already noted that the worst consecutive run of 27 experiments during -that last period yielded 19 Failures, while the worst consecutive run of -experiments during the period of the book yielded but 10 Failures. Nor -is there ever again, after precautions were relaxed, a single -consecutive run of seven experiments with quite such astounding results -as those of the first seven experiments of all, with “Bob,” at some -thirty miles distance in an air-line. Hence the percipient took no -advantage of the relaxation of conditions, or she did so to make her -work poorer on the average than it had been, which is against human -nature and practically inconceivable. - -2. It was almost silly to go further after fixing the fact that the -opening up of opportunities for improving results by clandestine means -was followed not by improvement but deterioration of results. But an -examination was made to see whether the drawings underwent any -modification such as would rather be expected from the introduction of a -new causative factor. None; they continued to express in seemingly the -same proportions, some the shape, some the idea. Still in many cases -they were unrecognizable as any namable object, yet when compared with -the original, showed more or less of its marked characteristics. - -3. We even went so far as to compare the most of the later drawings with -what could be seen of them folded and in envelopes, but unenclosed in -opaque paper, when held up to the light. To be sure, Mrs. Sinclair had -been accustomed to subdue the light, to lie with closed eyes in such a -position that only the ceiling would have been visible had they been -open, and to hold the envelope, or after the envelope itself was -discarded, the paper in her hand lying on her solar plexus, all of which -is an arrangement ill-adapted to “peeking.” And, to be sure, Mr. -Sinclair would have been considerably surprised had he come in and found -a different situation. But our experiments were meant to test whether, -on the supposition that she did alter her procedure, her drawings were -such as would have been explained by what was seen, even accidentally, -through the folded paper held up to the light. Certainly, in that case, -there would have been signs of the selection of heavy lines which showed -through clearly, and some evidence of the effects from the paper being -doubled. The result of the tests was negative. - -It is concluded, mainly on the basis of Section 1 above, but assisted by -Sections 2 and 3 were assistance necessary, that Mrs. Sinclair was as -honest when unwatched as when watched, since, had fraud been used, it -would have left traces. But, let me reiterate, I am favorable to any -proposition to take into account only the guarded experiments, or even -those guarded to an extent beyond cavil. - - -Would Involuntary Whispering Explain? - -F. C. C. Hansen and Alfred Lehmann, Danish psychologists, in 1895 -published a pamphlet of 60 pages entitled _Über Unwillkürliches -Flüstern_ (_On Involuntary Whispering_). This brochure reported -experiments by the authors which, they claimed, showed that the apparent -success in telepathic transmissions of numbers achieved under the -control of representatives of the S. P. R. and published in its -_Proceedings_ (Vols. VI and VIII) might not have been due to telepathy, -but to involuntary whispering with closed lips. Messrs. Hansen and -Lehmann sat between concave spherical mirrors so that the concentration -of sound, their heads occupying the foci, would presumably be an -equivalent for the hyperaesthesia of a _hypnotized_ “percipient.” Each -in turn acted as agent, to see if figures could be conveyed by -“involuntary whispering,” and seemed to have a large degree of success. -How it is possible to test whether audible whispering can be produced -with closed lips and do so without the exercise of volition is something -of a mystery. And how they could be certain that some factor of -telepathy did not enter into their own experiments is not clear.[26] But -Professor Sidgwick, who five years before Hansen and Lehmann’s pamphlet -had considered and discussed the possibility of “unconscious -whispering,”[27] later instituted experiments of his own and concluded -that something in this direction was possible. But he, William James and -others thoroughly riddled the Hansen and Lehmann dream that perhaps they -had explained the published S. P. R. series of experiments for the -transfer of numbers. For one thing, a part of the experiments had been -with the parties in different rooms. And the notion that when the -voluntarily involuntary whisper[28] of a digit was misheard, a digit -whose name somewhat resembled was most likely to be selected by the -agent, was riddled too, so far as it applied to the English experiments. -The Danish gentlemen had never claimed that their explanatory theory was -proved, but only that it was probable. Later they quite frankly -acknowledged that the Sidgwick and James “experiments and computations” -had weakened even its probability. - -Since their pamphlet had attracted much and widespread interest, as it -deserved to do, and since if they could establish or even strengthen the -probability of their theory it would mean a restoration and enhancement -of their prestige, set back by the counter-strokes of Sidgwick, James, -Schiller and others, it would seem that the inducement not to stop -short, but to go on with the experimentation would be almost -irresistible. But they either did stop there or their results were -disappointing, for nothing more, so far as I can learn, was ever heard -from them on this subject. - -Nevertheless, the possibility, especially on the part of a -hyperaesthetic percipient, of catching, to some extent, the sound of -unintended whispering by the agent stationed nearby, especially where -there is no guarantee that his lips are always closed, must be -admitted. This possibility has impressed some investigators, and -especially Herr Richard Baerwald, even beyond all logical grounds. The -named writer has said _also fort mit den Nahversuchen_ (so away with -near-experimentation)! I certainly agree that experiments for -telepathy should be made with sufficient space between agent and -percipient to make the suggestion that there may have been some -perception of involuntary whispering manifestly incredible and absurd. -Such was Mrs. Sinclair’s success under such conditions as to make it -probable that if there had been many scores of experiments under the -same conditions a like staggering ratio of success would have been -maintained. Nevertheless, I must maintain that the involuntary -whispering theory fails to touch many of the Sinclair experiments -attended with one or another degree of success, considering their -nature and the peculiar character of the percipient drawings. - -In the first place, let me observe that where the experiments were to -transfer numbers the range of choice on the part of the percipient, -endeavoring to interpret any faintly heard indications by the posited -involuntary whispering, was strictly limited. If the agent were to -choose a figure from one to naught inclusive, the percipient’s range for -guessing would be but ten digits. If the agent was to choose some figure -from one to ninety-nine inclusive, the range for guessing would of -course be greater, yet more limited than at first appears to be the -case. There would be the ten digits, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, -fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, and in addition only combinations -from among the foregoing or made up of a digit with “teen” or “ty” -added. But where the agent drew whatever he pleased, generally an -object, his range was unlimited, and the task of the percipient -interpreting any indications by involuntary whispering would be much -more difficult. But still it would be theoretically possible. So we turn -to the next and overwhelming point. - -Whenever the agent’s drawing was one which could be indicated by a name, -and the percipient’s result corresponded to the extent covered by the -name, it is easy to apply the theory of involuntary whispering if the -agent was near the percipient. Granting that this was the case (which -often, as will appear later, we cannot grant, since the facts forbid -it), it is easy theoretically to explain the response “Sailboat” to the -drawing of a sailboat. We have only to suppose that the agent was so -intently interested that, unknown to himself, he faintly whispered the -name, and that the percipient, having _ex hypothesi_, abnormal alertness -of hearing, caught the word, or enough of it so that she successfully -guessed the whole. Still easier is it to imagine the transmission of Y -in the series of January 28–29. The agent, being absorbed and desirous, -simply whispered “Y, Y, Y,” until the percipient got it. The reader may -pick for himself other plausible instances in Mr. Sinclair’s book, or -even from the materials furnished in this Bulletin, such as the helmet -experiment (Figs. 5, 5a). It is even conceivable that the agent’s eye, -flitting over the drawing of the peacock (Fig. 75) caused him to whisper -“long neck” and “spots” or “eyes” (Fig. 75a), although no spots appear -in this drawing and “peacock” is the word he would be expected to -whisper, if any. But every increasing complexity in the agent’s drawing, -which finds duplication in that of the percipient, every increasing -difficulty of defining the drawing by one or two words increases the -difficulty of the explanation. Take the remarkable correspondence -between Figures 7, 7a. The agent, it seems, would have to whisper the -following, or its equivalent: “Cross” (or “radiating figure”), “eight -arms” (or “many arms”), “arms not made of a single line but having -breadth,” “notches in the ends.” That is a lot for the agent to whisper, -and it appears improbable, but maybe it is “conceivable.” - -A much-esteemed friend writes me: “Those willing to press the -unconscious whispering hypothesis to its extreme consequences need not -invariably postulate the _transmission direct_ of a word. They may go -further. Let us suppose that in an experiment at close quarters the name -thought of by the agent is ‘Napoleon,’ and that the percipient gets a -small island and the name ‘Helen.’ It is theoretically conceivable that, -nevertheless, the explanation is to be sought in involuntary whispering; -the name ‘Napoleon’ was perceived in a normal way (unconsciously) and -then in the percipient’s subconscious _transformed_ into an idea -associated with Napoleon’s name. I do not say this is my opinion, but -what I do say is that such an hypothesis is no more absurd than other -‘explanations’ put forward in the sphere of psychical research. Anyhow, -experiments at close quarters seem to be open to the grave objection -that some competent investigators reject them altogether—whatever we may -think of the grounds of such objection.” - -Conceivable, yes, though hardly likely. When a medium for “automatic” -writing or speaking is in undoubted trance, she habitually makes direct -response to any intimations from without, and it is common to make it a -reproach that she makes direct and unblushing use of any information -inadvertently dropped by a person present. Why the subconscious should -act in so devious a fashion in another species of experimentation, why -it should either from device or some mechanism now set in motion -withhold the word “Napoleon” caught from the agent’s involuntary -whispering and set down instead words significantly associated with -Napoleon, is something of a puzzle. The trance-medium’s subconscious, -according to the explanation theory, is always eager to shine, and takes -advantage of every source of information or inference to improve its -product. Yet the subconsciousness of the percipient in experiments for -telepathy, having heard the word “Napoleon” involuntarily whispered, -deliberately avoids achieving a full success! If done at all, I should -judge this was consciously done, that the percipient consciously heard -and consciously avoided the word. And this is conceivable. - -_But that there should be so many reproductions which strikingly -resemble the originals in shape, yet which do not represent the objects -which the agent drew, and have no more ideational connection with them -than can be traced between a cockroach and an archangel, or between a -violin and an eel, and yet that the explanation for the correspondences -should lurk in the involuntary whispering of the agent, I maintain is -practically inconceivable._ Between Figures 25 and 25a there is an -unmistakable close resemblance of shape, in each two lines forming an -inverted and sprawling V, with a swirl of lines in each forming a -similar shape of similar dimensions proceeding in the same direction -from the apex. But the percipient wholly misinterpreted the meaning of -what she was impressed to draw. What affinity is there between an active -volcano and a “big black beetle with horns”? Run through all the terms -you can think of which the agent could have involuntarily whispered -descriptive of his drawing, if he whispered anything—“volcano,” -“mountain,” “smoke,” “angle,” etc., and what could possibly have -suggested the impression which the percipient received? Look at Figures -118, 118a in the same series, and ask what the agent could have -whispered about his caterpillar which should suggest a shape -considerably resembling that of the caterpillar but intended to -represent a long narrow leaf with serrated edge. To be sure, a -caterpillar sometimes walks on a leaf, as a big black beetle may perhaps -light on the side of a volcano, but surely it will not be concluded that -the agent would have whispered so discursive a remark. Whispering -“caterpillar” would not result in “leaf,” and if “legs” had been -whispered, surely legs would have resulted and “many” would at least -have increased their number beyond the number of points in the -reproduction. View again Figures 108 and 108a in the same series with -the two foregoing. If the agent whispered anything, would it not have -been “hand,” solely first and principally? Imagine, if you please, that -he also whispered “thumb sticking up.” But a negro’s head is not a hand, -nor what the word “hand” would suggest, nor does a thumb ever grow out -of a negro’s head, yet out of this negro’s head rises that projection -curiously like a thumb. Neither would “hand” suggest a “pig’s head,” yet -the pig’s ear resembles the thumb, and the rest of the head carries a -certain amount of analogy with the hand. Again, “rabbit’s head” is -written, but little more than the ears are drawn, each a thumb-like -projection, and as in the other attempts at reproduction and in the -original, straight upward. There is no association of ideas between a -hand and a pig’s or rabbit’s head. Look at Figure 20, representing a -coiled snake, and read again the description of her impressions which -the percipient wrote. Between the snake and much of that description -there _is_ an association of ideas which we can follow. The whispered -word “snake” might naturally rouse a picture of the fright which the -apparition of a snake inflicts upon birds and small animals. While it -does not seem like either the conscious or subconscious, having heard -the word “snake,” which surely would have been the first and foremost -one to whisper, to suppress it and make a clear success a debatable one, -we admit that this is “conceivable.” But what about the “saucer of -milk”? The agent may theoretically be supposed to whisper “snake,” -“coiled,” “tail,” “head,” but hardly “saucer.” I may here be reminded -that some snakes drink milk, whether from a saucer or any other -receptacle. But in Mrs. Sinclair’s imagery it is a kitten that is -associated with the milk—a much more common combination. Leaving this -case, which is conceivably conceivable as the result of involuntary -whispering plus a strange effort to spoil a success in hand, let us turn -to the series of February 15th. Most of its members are to the point, -but we will mention only a few. What association of ideas is there -between a spigot and a dog’s leg (Figs. 96, 96a)? The name “Napoleon” -might indeed cause one to think of an island named St. Helena, or -another one named Elba, or a woman named Josephine. But why on earth -should the whispered word “spigot” cause one to think of a dog’s leg and -“front foot”? The association of ideas is not there, but the curiously -resembling particulars of shape are there. Whatever the agent may be -supposed to whisper in connection with the drawing shown in Figure 98, -surely “box” would be a part of it. And as surely, if the three marks of -the box were mentioned in the whispering they would have been called -“crosses,” and not “stars” or “sparks” as in the reproduction. And -“crosses” do not naturally suggest either stars or sparks. Figures 94 -and 94a unquestionably have resemblances in general shape, in the two -pedals which are transformed into feet, in vertical lines within the -periphery. But why should the word “harp” bring a woman’s skirt and feet -peeping beneath it? Perhaps we shall be told it is because a woman plays -on a harp. A _woman_ does, yes, but not half a woman, and that half -standing so that her skirt takes the form of a harp. If conceivable that -“Napoleon” should rouse a vision of an island and induce the drawing of -an island, would the island take the shape of half of Napoleon’s body? -The mind, conscious or subconscious, does not act in that fashion. -Again, the percipient’s drawing which was the sequel to the agent’s -balloon (Figs. 95, 95a) is not by itself recognizable as a balloon, and -was not recognized by the percipient as a balloon, for she wrote, as we -inadvertently neglected earlier to state, “Shines in sunlight, must be -metal, a scythe hanging among vines or strings.” The involuntarily -whispered word “balloon” would hardly, by any association of ideas, have -led to such a reaction; nor would the agent have whispered “half a -balloon” or “scythe.” But we _can_ understand how the agent’s eye may -have dwelt upon one side or half of the balloon and how his attention -may have wandered to the cords, with corresponding telepathic results. -See Figures 92, 92a. Here the analogies of form, although imperfect, are -nevertheless unmistakable, but what association of ideas could have led -from the involuntarily whispered word “chain” or “links,” to “eggs” and -“smoke,” or to “curls of something coming out of the end of an egg”? At -a later date the agent drew a mule’s head and neck, with breast-strap -crossing the lower part of his neck, forming a strip curving very -slightly up from the horizontal. The percipient’s drawing is of the head -and part of the neck of a cow, turned in the same direction. The long -ears of the mule have become the horns of the cow, and matching the -breast-strap of the mule there appears a narrow horizontally extended -parallelogram in front of the cow’s neck and extremity of its muzzle, -which last the percipient seemingly tries to explain by the script -“Cow’s head in ‘stock.’” But if the agent involuntarily whispered -“mule,” it would hardly suggest a cow, if he whispered “long ears,” it -should not have resulted in long horns, if “breast-strap” or “strap” or -“harness,” this would hardly bring as its reaction the narrow -parallelogram, which, whatever it is, is manifestly no part of a -harness. The resemblances in shape are distinct and unmistakable, but -they are incomprehensible as the result of overheard whispering. Or look -again at Figures 78, 78a. The percipient, especially in the first of her -two drawings, very nearly reproduces the original, but the barb of the -fishhook has become a tiny flower with a curving stem. The resemblance -in shape is exceedingly impressive, but what words could have been -whispered about a fishhook which by association of ideas led to the -flower? - -So we might go on citing examples in the same category, which the -doctrine of transformation by association of ideas of words whispered -and heard utterly fails to explain. But the reader may find them for -himself, either in this Bulletin or from the wider range of -illustrations in _Mental Radio_.[29] - - -Concluding Observations - -We have remarked that if there was involuntary whispering, it could -easily explain the percipient response “Sailboat,” and that by no -circumambulatory process but by direct reaction, since the original -drawing was a sailboat and “sailboat” would be the most natural if not -inevitable word for an agent, intent on the experiment, and anxious for -its success, to whisper involuntarily. The same may be said of the goat -(Fig. 138), the chair (Figs. 16, 16a), the fork (Figs. 1, 1a), the star -(Figs. 2, 2a)—except the extraordinary correspondence of odd shape, and -the man’s face (Fig. 20). But the star and man’s face results were -obtained when the agent was thirty feet away in another room with closed -door between, while the agent looked at it but probably did not whisper -so as not to attract his own attention but to be audible through walls -for thirty feet. The chair and the fork were reproduced when the agent -was some thirty miles away. The sailboat and goat were made in the -latter period when the percipient was left alone with the drawings, and -involuntary whispering is not a possible explanation. Part of the other -examples given are from the period when Mr. Sinclair sat in the same -room and watched the percipient’s work, and partly from the later -unguarded period. - -So, in order to explain the results of the experiments as a whole they -have to be divided into three categories, and a different theory applied -to each. - -I. Experiments in which the agent was near the percipient. Theory: -_Involuntary Whispering_. Insuperable difficulty in applying the theory: -_Many of the percipient drawings are shaped significantly like the -originals in whole or in parts, yet do not represent the same objects as -do the originals, or objects which whispered words relevant to the -original objects would suggest, directly or by association of ideas._ - -II. Experiments of the later stage when the percipient was left alone -unwatched with the original drawings in her possession. Theory: -_Conscious or unconscious inspection of the original drawings_. -Difficulty which the theory faces: _The results did not improve or -undergo alterations due to a new cause during the unguarded period_. - -III. Experiments when agent and percipient were either thirty feet apart -in different rooms, with a closed door between, under which -circumstances it is incredible that involuntary whispering could have -been heard, or thirty miles apart, in which case it is unquestionably -impossible that involuntary whispering could have carried. Theory: -_Chance coincidence_. This is the only theory left for such experiments, -unless conspiracy is charged, and that at different times would have to -include not only Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair, but Mr. Irwin, Mrs. Irwin, the -Sinclairs’ secretary and Professor McDougall. Refutation of the theory: -_The experiments in this class were of such number and had such success -both in number and quality as to challenge the production of any such -success by guessing though hundreds of series each of an equal number of -experiments should be gone through with_. - -It is credible that the large percentage of Successes and Partial -Successes in the first 14 experiments and 24 among the latest ones -should have been obtained by one method, that (aside from these) during -the earlier months another and quite different method should have been -employed, and that (still aside from these) later a third and quite -different method should have been resorted to, and yet the whole mass of -results be homogeneous? It would certainly be expected that the -inauguration of any new method would in some way be reflected in the -nature of the results. But the lot produced with intervening distances -too great to admit of the involuntary whispering theory melts -imperceptibly into the lot produced with the agent and percipient -together so that the involuntary whispering process is conceivable, and -this in turn melts imperceptibly into the lot where all precautions are -discarded, and this again into long-distance experiments and out, -without it being possible to detect any changes in the character of the -results at the points of junction. Throughout there is homogeneity, some -successes being correct literally, some incompletely and partially, some -results only suggestive and some entire failures. Throughout we find -some corresponding in both shape and meaning, some in idea but not -shape, and some in shape only and misinterpreted by the percipient; in -fact, all the peculiarities of Mrs. Sinclair’s work are to be found in -about equal proportions in all stages. There is perceptible a gradual -though irregular tendency to decline in the ratio of success achieved, -but in such a manner that the decline cannot be chronologically -connected with any of the changes of method. - -The “peeking” theory cannot be applied to the experiments of Class I. -The “involuntary whispering” theory cannot be applied to the experiments -of Class II. Neither the “peeking” nor the “involuntary whispering” -theory can be applied to experiments of Class III. - -Only the theory of chance coincidence can be applied as a single -explanation of the experiments of all three classes. Let this be done -and there is simply massed a greater amount of material for the -demolition of the chance coincidence theory by anyone who will undertake -a large series of precisely parallel experiments in Guessing. - -For myself, I am willing to say, perhaps for the fourth time, that I am -willing to rest the whole case on those experiments to which no one, -presumably, will have the hardihood to apply either the theory of -“involuntary whispering” or that of “peeking,” that is to say, those -experiments in which agent and percipient were either in separate rooms -or many miles apart. - - - An Interpretation of Mrs. Sinclair’s Directions - -Mrs. Sinclair, on pages 116–128 of _Mental Radio_, outlines on the basis -of her own experience the method which she thinks best calculated to -develop an ability to attain at will a mental state which will enable -some of her readers to receive and record telepathic impressions to an -evidential degree. I propose, at the same time recommending that -prospective experimenters shall obtain the book and read the full -directions, to attempt a condensation of them. To some extent I shall -interpret them; that is, state them in other terms, which it is hoped -will not be the less lucid. As a matter of psychological fact, you -cannot “make your mind a blank,” though you can more or less acquire the -art of doing at will what you sometimes involuntarily do—you can -practice narrowing the field of consciousness, so that instead of being -aware of many things external and of various bodily sensations, your -attention is fixed almost exclusively for a time on one mental object. -Some persons at times become so absorbed in a train of thought that with -eyes open and with conversation around them they are hardly conscious of -anything seen or heard. But it is best to assist the attainment of such -a state as Mrs. Sinclair does, by closing the eyes, and it is best that -silence should prevail. When one remembers how in revery he has become -oblivious to all around him, or how when witnessing an entrancing -passage in a play everything in the theatre except the actors and their -immediate environment has faded out of consciousness, he will have no -difficulty in understanding what Mrs. Sinclair really means by saying -that “it is possible to be unconscious and conscious at the same time,” -although taken literally that is not a correct statement. - -But, according to her, in order to be in the state best fitted for -telepathic reception, it is not enough to narrow the field of -consciousness until, approximately, only one train of thought on a -mentally conceived subject occupies it. There must be cultivated also, -in as high a degree as possible, an ability to shut out memories and -imaginations, and to wait for and to receive impressions, particularly -those of mental imagery, which seem to come of themselves, and to expend -the mental energy upon watching, selecting from and determining these. - -We are told that it is important to relax—“to ‘let go’ of every tense -muscle, every tense spot, in the body,” and that auto-suggestion, -mentally telling oneself to relax, will help. Along with this there -should be a letting-go, or progressive quietening, of consciousness. - - * * * * * - -She wisely says that if in spite of you the selected mentally-visualized -rose or violet rouses memories by suggesting a lost sweetheart, a -vanished happy garden, or what not, you should substitute thinking of -another flower which has no personal connotations for you. It must be -some “peace-inspiring object,” even a spoon might suggest medicine. The -reader will understand that we are now discussing the means for -cultivating ability to fall at will into the state for telepathic -reception; we are not talking about experiments with that end in view. - -After considerable practice of this kind one will tend to fall asleep. -It seems that it is right to nearly come to that point, but one must -stop a little this side of the sleeping stage. - -When one feels that some success has attended the practice described -above, he may proceed to actual experiments. The amateur experimenter is -advised at first to experiment in the dark, or at least in a dimly-lit -room, as light stimulates the eyes. - - * * * * * - -She goes on to say what means that you should induce mental relaxation -and passivity, narrow the field of consciousness. But at this point I -must depart from Mrs. Sinclair’s precepts and recommend her own best -practice. Her very first seven formal experiments were with her -brother-in-law making his drawings some thirty miles away. The results -were so remarkable that they deserve to arrest the attention of every -psychologist. The next seven experiments were made with agent and -percipient in different rooms, shut off from each other by solid walls; -and their results also were very impressive. Therefore I see no reason -why amateurs experimenting according to the light that they get from -Mrs. Sinclair should not make their very first attempts in another room -from the agent. Let the latter do as we find in the book was done; make -his drawing, call out “All right” when he is done, and gaze steadfastly -at the drawing until the percipient has made hers and signalized the -fact by calling out “All right,” then proceed to make another and repeat -the process. At least part of the time, let there be another person with -the agent keeping watch upon his lips and throat muscles, lest the -desperate theory should be advanced that at the distance of, say, thirty -feet and through solid walls “involuntary whispering” on the part of the -agent reached the ears of the percipient. - -But how shall the percipient further conduct herself (we are here -supposing the percipient is a woman) as the means of getting telepathic -impressions? Adapting the directions given in the book, we should say -that, lying on the couch with eyes dosed, and having sunk into that -state of mental abstraction which she is supposed now to be capable of -attaining, she is to order her subconscious mind, very calmly but -positively, to bring the agent’s drawing to her mind. - -And now we quote literally from the book, even to the expressions about -making the mind a blank. Although not technically correct, it may be -that to many not versed in psychology the expressions will be actually -the best to suggest to them what they are to do. - - * * * * * - -Mrs. Sinclair warns that “the details of this technique are not to be -taken as trifles,” and that to develop and make it serviceable “takes -time, and patience, and training in the art of concentration.” There are -special difficulties, at least in her case. In undertaking a new -experiment what she last saw before closing her eyes again, particularly -the electric light bulb which she lighted in order to make her drawing -or drawings, appeared in her mind, and also the memory of the last -picture. “It often takes quite a while to banish these memory ghosts. -And sometimes it is a mistake to banish them,” a fact which we have -noted several times in the account of her work. Another difficulty is to -restrain one’s tendency when a part or what may be a part of the -original appears, to guess what the rest may be, and to keep the -imagination bridled. - - * * * * * - -It is quite probable—and this Mrs. Sinclair recognizes—that the -procedure, now fairly clearly outlined, may not in all its details be -suited to all minds capable of telepathic reception. Mr. Rawson, as we -shall see in Part II, when successful, was nearly always so almost -instantly. On the other hand, the percipients in the Schmoll and Mabire -series were often as long as fifteen minutes making their choice. But it -would be wise to begin along the lines of the instructions, and make -modifications of method, if any, in the light of what personal -experience suggests. - -It is hoped that there will be readers of this Bulletin disposed to -school themselves and to experiment in conformity with the above -instructions, patiently and persistently, and that, successful or not, -they will make careful records and report to the Research Officer. - - - APPENDIX I - - - Why Are We Like This? - - (_Parts of a Hitherto Unpublished Manuscript by Mrs. Sinclair_) - -There comes a time in the life of each of us when we begin to wonder -what it is all about—this life. I mean, to want, with all one’s -bewildered and troubled heart, to _know_. What is life, what is the -purpose of it, above all, what is the reason for the preponderance of -the pain of it? This brief earthly existence, with its series of cares -and sorrows and bafflements—what is the purpose of it? It seemed so full -of purpose in our youth—full, rather of purposes, for youth has no one -purpose. Youth’s purpose is to fulfill what seems to be the little -purposes of each day, such as evading unpleasant things and pursuing the -pleasant ones. But as we pass on through the days of our youth, toward -early middle-age, we realize that these eagerly, zestfully pursued -purposes of youth were thwarted, one by one. If achieved, they brought -some penalty, or disappointment. - -Three years ago, being ill and not happy,[30] reached the crisis of -questioning. I wanted to know how to get well, and I wanted to know why -I wanted to get well. And so, I began to ask, where is the path toward -knowledge? In which little store-house will I find a clue to the answer? -I went to see the medical men who have access to one little store-house. -I went to the psychological healers who have access to another little -store-house. And I went to the only religious group in the world today -which seemed to have any real, or living religion.[31] From all three of -these sources, one clue, one hint, stood out as a real clue. From the -mass of purported knowledge it appeared to me to be the most -significant. It seemed to be the thing which produced results in all -these three domains, though the priests and priestesses of but one of -them seemed aware of the great significance of this hint. - -It had to do with man’s mind, to begin with, but it seemed to lead into -the very heart of all the universe—into our “material bodies,” as well -as into our mental hopes and longings and joys and despairs. So I set to -work to experiment first with telepathy and clairvoyance. If -clairvoyance is real, I said, then we may have access to all knowledge. -We may really be fountains, or outlets of one vast mind. To have access -to _all knowledge_. - -If telepathy is real, I said, then my mind is not my own. I’m just a -radio receiving set, which picks up the thoughts of all the other -creatures of this universe. I and the universe of men are _one_. I had -long known, of course, that my body was not my own—that it picked up -sun-rays, and cold-waves, and sound-vibrations, which shook the atoms of -my being into new forms; that I picked up iron and sulphur, and -phosphorus, and vitamines, and what not, when I ate the plants and -animals of my universe; in short, that I had to pick up the constituents -of a new body in the form of “fresh air” and “water” and “food” every -day of my life in order to maintain the hold I had on the thing I called -_my_ body. But somehow, in the vague way in which we think of the mind, -I had felt that mine was entirely my own. Surely it was not dependent -on, nor at the mercy of, outside forces—except in the one horrible, -inexorable way of its dependence on my own body. It was free, of course, -to accept ideas from other minds, if it wished; but it did not have to, -unless it wanted to. So I had believed. Now, with my new clue, I began -to wonder if all my life I had not been in error in my thinking, if I -had not got the scheme of things turned upside down. Had I been looking -at an image in a mirror, a reversal of the truth? Was my body dependent -on my mind when I had thought my mind was dependent on my body? Was it -sick when my mind was, and did it die when my mind died—of -discouragement? And was my mind my own, or did it receive and accept -thoughts constantly from all the other creatures of the universe without -my being able to prevent it, without my even knowing it? * * * - -What is myself, anyway—body or mind, or both, or one and the same thing, -or—what? I must find out! Is my mind a hodge-podge of its own thoughts -and the silent, ever-changing thoughts of all other creatures, just as -my body is a hodge-podge of the elements of the plants and animals and -light-rays it is fed on and made of? - -Here were a lot of questions which had become terribly important, and I -couldn’t answer them, I couldn’t really answer any of them. But I had a -clue—a new clue which might lead—anywhere—to heaven or to hell. * * * - -Some of the best scientific minds of the world have experimented with -telepathy and believe that it is a proven fact. I have read much of this -evidence, and I have watched a “medium” demonstrate telepathy. But -perhaps he was deceiving himself—perhaps he used some trick without -realizing it, such as listening to the breathing of the sender of the -thoughts he received. I do not see how this could be, but it is -possible, so I am told by experienced investigators of psychic -phenomena. However, there is this mass of evidence, in books, written by -men of the highest scientific training who have made experiments in -telepathy and who are convinced that it is a fact. * * * - -But despite all this evidence, I seem to be uncertain. And this is too -serious a matter to leave to uncertainty. So I set to work to make my -own experiments. I have experimented already with a “medium,” but I have -been warned about the mediumistic temperament. These psychically -sensitive persons are, thanks to the very quality of mind which causes -them to be sensitive, overly prone to unconscious thinking which is -supposed to take a form of conscious instability. So I must find a -hard-boiled materialistic-thinking person to experiment with—one who is -prone to object thinking, who can maintain a wide-awake consciousness -with which to watch his own thoughts to prevent any self-deception, -while I, by a trustworthy mechanical device, _i.e._, a writing pad and -pencil, protect my mind from deceiving itself. I find such a hard-boiled -object mind in the person of my brother-in-law, who is a most capable, -practical business man, and whose philosophy of life does not include -any “mysticism,” or unconscious knowledge. Being ill, however, and with -no better way to pass the time, he consents to act as sender of -telepathic messages to me. He is domiciled thirty miles away from me, -and so we cannot look over each other’s shoulders at drawings, nor -listen to each other’s breathing. - -We proceed as follows: Each day at one o’clock, an hour which suits the -convenience of both of us, he sits at a table in his home and makes a -drawing of some simple object, such as a table-fork, or an ink-bottle, a -duck, or a basket of fruit.[32] Then he gazes steadily at his drawing -while he concentrates his mind intently on “visualizing” the object -before him. In other words, he does not let his mind wander one instant -from the picture of the fork, or the ink-bottle, or whatever he has -drawn. He may gaze at the original object instead of at his drawing, but -he must not think of anything else but how it looks. The purpose of the -drawing is for proof to me that this was actually what he thought of at -the appointed hour. If his mind wanders off to thoughts of something -else, which he has no drawing of, I may get these wandering thoughts. -Then he will forget these wandering, unrecorded thoughts, and I will -have nothing to prove that he ever thought them. - -When he has finished the fifteen minutes of steady concentration on one -object, he dates his drawing and puts it away, until the time when we -are to meet and compare our records. At my end of the “wireless,” I have -done a different mental stunt. I have reclined on a couch, with body -completely relaxed and my mind in a dreamy, almost unconscious state, -alternating with a state of gazing, with closed eyes, into grey space, -looking on this grey background for whatever picture, or thought-form -may appear there. When a form appears, I record it at once. I reach for -my pad and pencil and write down what I have seen, and make a drawing of -it, and then I relax again and look dreamily into space again to see if -another vision will appear, or if this same one will return to assure me -that it is the right one. At the end of fifteen minutes, the period of -time we arbitrarily agreed upon for each day’s experiment, I date my -drawing and file it until the day comes to compare notes with my -brother-in-law. - -Each day thereafter, for several days, my brother-in-law goes through -this same performance, varying it only by his choice of a different -object to draw and concentrate upon each time. Every three or four days -we meet and compare notes. - -One day, while I lay passively waiting for a “vision,” a chair of a -certain design floated before my mind. It was so vivid that I felt -absolutely certain that this was the object my brother-in-law, thirty -miles away, was visualizing for me. Other objects on other occasions had -been vivid, but this one was not merely vivid; in some mysterious way, -it carried absolute conviction with it. I knew positively that my mind -was not deceiving me. I was so sure that this chair had come “on the -air” from my brother-in-law’s mind to mine, that I jumped up and went to -the telephone and rang him up. His wife was in the room with him and my -husband was in the room with me, and we called on them as witnesses—for -we had set out on the experiment determined that there was to be no -deception, of each other, nor of ourselves. I wanted the truth about -this matter—I was at life’s crisis, at the place where my whole soul -cried out, “What is the meaning of it all, anyway?” And my -brother-in-law knew my mood, and a painful, lingering illness was -rapidly bringing him to share it. My vision of the chair, and my drawing -of it, were entirely correct. This was our first thrilling success. -Others followed it, and in the meantime, my husband and I had made -together some similar experiments, with success. Before the summer was -over, four persons—my husband, my brother-in-law, his wife, and I—had -become convinced of the reality of telepathy. Then, having read a book -by an English physicist (_An Experiment With Time_, by J. W. Dunne), I -began keeping records of my dreams according to Mr. Dunne’s method, in -order to see if, as he thought, they would render evidence of -foreknowledge of future events. Clairvoyance is the usual term for this -form of psychic phenomena, but Mr. Dunne, being a physicist, is averse -to mixing it with psychic things to the extent of using the regular -language, so he calls it “an experiment with time” and writes a book -about it in the language of physics. Not being a physicist, I’m quite -willing to stick to the well-known word, clairvoyance, even at the risk -of repelling those ignorant persons who think that all psychic phenomena -is trickery. There are hordes of charlatans who call themselves mediums, -just as there are hordes of physicians who are charlatans, and of -Christians who are cheats, and of bankers who are dishonest. So, having -read Mr. Dunne’s useful book, I set out to record my dreams and to watch -for their “coming true.” Some of them did. Some which could not be -accounted for by coincidence. Some others came true which were clearly -due to telepathy between my husband’s mind and my own. I dreamed that I -was doing things which it turned out he was actually doing, at a -distance from me, and at the time at which I was having the dream. Also, -during these months, I made some experiments on a young hypnotist I -knew. I had no intention of letting him hypnotize me, but I asked him to -try to. I knew he would never consent to the telepathy experiment if he -suspected it; he would not want me reading his secret thoughts. But he -had played some tricks on me, so I felt justified. And so, when he -concentrated on the task of putting me into a hypnotic sleep, I -concentrated on “seeing” his thoughts. Again and again I succeeded in -this experiment. I discovered his sorrows, his sins, his hopes, his -daily adventures. And I recorded them and faced him with them and became -his “Mother Confessor,”—and most generously rewarded his unintentional -confidence. I am sure he will agree that I made a full return to him for -the knowledge he inadvertently enabled me to obtain—the knowledge of the -interaction of minds. * * * - - - APPENDIX II - -Classified complete list of drawings made by Mr. Upton Sinclair in his -experiments with Mrs. Sinclair, plus those by his secretary, mostly -diagrams, and the seven by her brother-in-law, from July 8, 1928, to -March 16, 1929, inclusive, being the period covered by his book. - - - Diagrams, Etc. - - Asterisks—five. Circles—five small, Circles—ten small, Circles—six - concentric, Circles—three interlinking, Circle and Center, etc, - Crescent—approximate, Cross—pattée, Cross—swastika, Cross—swastika, - Cross—eight arms, notched at ends, Diamond, Heart, Hexagon, - Horn-shaped figure, Oblong—vertical, Oval—over larger oval and - touching it, Spiral, Spiral, Squares—four concentric, - Star—odd-shaped, Star—six-pointed, Triangles—three concentric, - Wheel—figure like rimless. - - - Letters of Alphabet - - (Script) B, E, M, Y. (Print) KKK, M.C.S., M.C.S., T, UPTON, W—lying - on its side? - - - Figures, Etc. - - 2, 5, 13, 6, $ - - - Human Beings - - Boy—with hoop, Eye—dropping tears, Face—grinning, Face—grinning, - Face—hairy, Face—man’s, bearded, Face—round, with round ears, - Foot—with roller skate, Girl, Hand—with pointing finger, “Happy - Hooligan,” Head—of boy, wearing hat, Head—of girl, wearing hat, - Head—of man, bald, profile, Head—profile, Head and Bust—of woman, - bundle on head, Leg and Foot—in buckled shoe, Leg and Foot—with - roller skate, Legs—two, one of wood, Man—line and circle, - Man—profile, waiter, Man—walking, Man and Woman, Mandarin, Men—line - and circle, Skull and Crossbones, Woman—nude. - - - Mammals - - Bat, Bat—with wings spread, Cow—head, Cow—head, tongue protruding, - Cow—horned, Cow—rear half, Cow—rear half, Deer—running, front part, - Dog—and man’s foot, Elephant, Fox—running, Goat (probably), - Horse—head, Kitten—running after string, Monkey—hanging from bough, - Rat, Reindeer, Walrus, Whale—spouting, Wolf—head. - - - Birds - - Bird—baby, Bird—head, Chicken—coming from shell, Chicken—cooked, on - plate, Duck—with feet, Eagle, Heron, Nest—with eggs, Parrot—head, - Peacock, Rooster. - - - Insects, Fishes, Etc. - - Butterfly, Caterpillar, Crab, Fish, Inch-worm—curved, - Insect—eight-legged, Lobster, Shell—sea, Snake, Snake, Spider, - Turtle. - - - Vegetation - - Acorn, Apple, Bean—lima (?), Cactus—branch, Carnation, Cat-tail, - Cat-tail, Celery, Clover—three-leaf (?), Clover—three-leaf (?), - Daisy, Flower, Flower—on stalk, Flower—with narrow leaves, Leaf, - Leaf—poplar (?), Melon—on inclined plane, Plant—potted, Roses—pink, - with green leaves, Tree—branch, Tree—odd, Tree—palm, Tree—bare, with - pointed limbs. - - - Household - - Ash-can—with bail, Bed, Bottle, Bottle—milk, Bottle—square, lower - half shaded, Broom, Broom, Bureau and mirror, Camp-stool, - Candelabrum, Chair, Chair, Chair—easy, Cup—with handle, - Desk—four-legged, Dish—with rising steam, Door-knob, Electric Light - Bulb—(_object itself_), Electric Light Bulb, Fork—table, - Fork—three-pronged, long handle, Glass—drinking, Key, Key, - Lamp—burning, Lamp—burning, Picture—black frame, Spigot, Table, - Table—with curved legs, Telephone, Telephone, Vase—ovoid, Wall-hook. - - - Personal - - Bag, Bag—round, with protruding top, Belt-buckle, Book—black, - Bottle—pen and ink, Box—rounded, with cover up, Cane, Cane, Cap, - Cigarette—smoking, Clock—alarm, Eye-glasses, Eye-glasses, Fan—partly - spread, Fan—spread, Hat, Hat, Hat—with feather, Necktie, - Pin—diamond, Pipe—smoking, Pipe—smoking, Ring—with stone, Scissors, - Shoe, Soap—cake, Suit—man’s, with knee breeches, Tooth-brush, - Tooth-brush, Watch, Watch, Watch, Watch—face. - - - War, Hunting, Etc. - - Arrow, Bow and Arrow, Cannon, Cannon—muzzle, Daggers—with hilts, - crossed, Epaulet, Fish-hook, Fish-hook, Fish-hook, Helmet, - Trench-mortar—pointing up. - - - Recreation - - Balloon, Cart—child’s, Dumb-bell, Dumb-bell, Football, Hammock—slung - from post, Indian Club, Skyrocket, Sled, Tennis Racket, Tennis - Racket, Tennis Racket. - - - Transportation - - Automobile, Elevated Railroad, Railroad Engine, Sailboat, Sailboat, - Sailboat—side view, Sled—drawn by dogs, Steamboat—on water. - - - Objects Related to Sound - - Bell, Bell, Bell—lines radiating from tongue, Harp, Horn—straight, - Mandolin, Musical Staff, Notes—musical, Tuba—brass, Violin. - - - Buildings, Etc. - - Column, Derrick—oil, Derrick—oil, Door—with grating, Frieze Design, - Gable end—with tall chimney, House—with many dots for windows, - House—with smoking chimney, House—with smoking chimney, Obelisk, - Pillar, etc., Pillars—row, etc., Wind-mill. - - - Miscellaneous - - Ax and written word “Ax,” Box—open, Box—with three crosses, - Butterfly-net, Flag, Flag—Japanese, fringed, on staff, Fleur-de-lis, - Gate, Gibbet and Noose, Globe—world, Hearts—two, pierced by arrow, - Hill—with birds above, Hill—with sun above, Hoe, Hook—in hasp, - Hose—end, with water, Hourglass—with running sand, Hydrant, Ladder, - Machine—scraper (?), Mail Bag, Money—five-cent piece, Mortuary - monument (?), Police Billy, Rake—head, Rule, Screw, Shovel, Sun, - Telegraph Wires and Pole, Trowel, Volcano, Wheel. - - - - - EPILOGUE - - -Such was the end of Dr. Prince’s study; as careful and precise a piece -of scientific investigation as I have ever come upon. She did not fail -to appreciate it, and to thank him. He died a couple of years later. - -Craig survived him by a quarter of a century; but she did no more -experimenting. She had satisfied herself, her husband, and such -authorities as Dr. Prince, Prof. McDougall, and Albert Einstein, and -that was enough. Her mind went on to speculate as to the meaning of such -phenomena; to psychology, philosophy, and religion. What was the source -of the powers she possessed and had demonstrated? What was the meaning -of the mystery called life? Where did it come from, and what became of -it when it left us, or appeared to? She filled a large bookcase with -works on these subjects, studied them far into the night, and discussed -them with a husband who would have preferred to wait and see. - -At the age of seventy she had her first heart attack, and from that time -on was never free of pain. For eight years I had her sole care, because -that was the way she wished it. Her death took many weeks, and to go -into details would serve no good purpose. I mention only one very -curious circumstance: During her last year she had three dreadful falls -on a hard plastone floor, and I had taken these to be fainting spells. A -few days after her death I received a letter from a stranger in the -Middle West, telling me that he had just had a séance with Arthur Ford -and had a communication from Mary Craig Sinclair, asking him to inform -me that her supposed fainting spells had been light strokes. I called -the doctor who with two other doctors had performed an autopsy; I did -not mention the letter, but asked him the results, and he told me that -the brain lesions showed she had had three light strokes. - -I tell this incident for what it may be worth. I myself have no -convictions that would cause me to prejudge it, to say nothing of -inventing it. - -Ford has promised me a visit. - ------ - -Footnote 1: - - Oliver Wendell Holmes was a poet and novelist, but as the - _Encyclopedia Britannica_ says: “In 1843 he published his essay on the - _Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever_, which stirred up a fierce - controversy and brought upon him bitter personal abuse, but he - maintained his position with dignity, temper and judgment, and in time - was honored as the discoverer of a beneficent truth.” It was about the - same time that Semmelweiss was making similar observations, but he did - not take preventive measures until 1847, and Lister came still later. - - S. Weir Mitchell was one of the most prominent novelists of America at - the close of the 19th century, but he was also conspicuous as a - neurologist and member of many scientific societies. - - The mentality of a man cannot be determined by his profession or by - his prevailing occupation. Mendel, who influenced biology hardly less - than did Darwin, was a monk and an abbot. Copernicus, who - revolutionized solar astronomy, was canon of a cathedral, and - astronomy was only his avocation. - - A thing _is_ as it acts. An automobile is a good automobile if it - behaves as an automobile should. We shall see how Mr. Sinclair carried - on his experiments and how he reported them. At times he pursued a - defective method, but he was aware of the fact and reports it, while - certain technically scientific investigators of telepathy and other - matters have not seemed even to be aware of their mistakes. - -Footnote 2: - - From earlier correspondence and other sources, Mr. Sinclair was quite - aware that the man to whom he was sending the materials is hard-boiled - enough to reject them and drop the whole case or report on it - adversely if the results of examination were unsatisfactory. - -Footnote 3: - - In some cases it might be necessary to increase rigidity of the - conditions gradually, as friendly confidence and ease of the - percipient became better established. It is futile to ignore the fact - that nervous excitement and mental unrest are unfavorable to success. - -Footnote 4: - - For example, in 1906 Mr. Sinclair assisted the Government in the - investigation of the Chicago stockyards. - -Footnote 5: - - [Historical reference deleted.] - -Footnote 6: - - If there are those who think there is no value in knowing something of - the make-up of the chief witnesses in this case, I emphatically do not - agree with them. That such knowledge is not absolutely determinative - is, of course, true. - - We are investigating a field of phenomena by all the methods which are - practicable. The larger part of the phenomena are sporadic and - spontaneous, and can hardly be expected to occur in a laboratory. - There are many cases where a man has experienced but one apparition in - his lifetime, and that at or close to the time when the person imaged - died. Will any director of a laboratory consent to keep people under - surveillance for a lifetime, to test if such an experience will take - place in a laboratory, and can any persons be found who will consent - so to spend a lifetime? And if under such conditions an apparition - should be experienced and it should prove beyond doubt that the person - imaged died at that moment, even though the apparitional experience - occurred in a laboratory, in no sense would or could _laboratory_ - tests be applied to it. The authentication of the incident would be - the _testimonies_ of the scientific gentlemen present, to the effect - that the story of the apparition was related to them and written down - before the death of the person was known, with, perhaps, details of - how the person who experienced the apparition looked and acted at the - time. But the testimonies of witnesses outside of the laboratory are - evidence of precisely as much weight, _provided that_ their mentality - and reputation for veracity are equal. - - With favorable subjects experiments for telepathy can sometimes be and - sometimes have been carried on with all the rigidity of method and the - scrupulosity of a laboratory, or, if there remain doubts and - objections on grounds seemingly almost of as “occult” a nature as - telepathy itself, doubtless in time to come methods will be devised to - meet these doubts and objections. But subjects of singularly calm and - poised nature will be required. It seems to be a fact with which we - have to deal, however regrettable, that with most persons who under - friendly and unstrained conditions at times strongly evidence - telepathic powers, suddenly to place them in a room containing strange - apparatus, and before a committee of strangers, some perhaps cold and - stern in appearance, others whose amiable demeanor nevertheless - betrays an amused scepticism, is to make it improbable that they can - exhibit telepathy at all. It will have to be recognized as a - scientific datum that a state of mental tranquillity and passivity is - generally requisite for such manifestations. Nor is this peculiar to - psychical manifestations; the principle applies more or less to a - variety of psychological manifestations and powers. Mark Twain could - reel off witty utterances when he was mentally at ease, but had he - been surrounded by a solemn-visaged group of psychologists with his - wrists harnessed to a sphygmometer, and placed in face of an apparatus - for recording graphs and a stenographer with poised pencil, it is very - certain that his reactions would not have been those of brilliant and - original humor. So I have seen a prominent violinist, invited to play - at a reception, try to keep on amidst the waxing murmur of - conversation, and finally falter and almost break down. - - In this laboratory-fixation age it is well to remember that certain - even of the physical sciences quite or mostly elude laboratory - experimentation. Take astronomy, a great and promising but difficult - and problematical field of research. No sun of all the millions, no - planet, no planetary satellite, no comet, no tiniest of the asteroids - can be brought into a laboratory. Once in a while a meteoric stone - reaches the earth, and this can be analyzed, but no laboratory can - control or predict time or place of its falling. It is necessary to - devise agencies, telescopes, spectroscopes and so on, which, in a - sense, go out and bring back data about the subjects of this science, - and to develop methods of mathematical deduction by which to reach - conclusions which are accepted by most people on authority only, since - to most people the mathematics is quite unintelligible. - - Astronomy, perhaps entitled to be called the most ancient of sciences, - is one of the most difficult. A multitude of theories to account for - its multitudinous phenomena have been supplanted by others; within the - memory of persons now living many opinions once firmly held have been - discarded or at least called in question. This is not in the least to - the discredit of the science, but it is a fact. Today there are many - contradictions of opinion among astronomers. While an article by a - scientific man was printing in the _Scientific American_ expressing - the common view that in a little while, about a million million years, - the earth will become too cold for anybody to live on it, another - scientist was announcing to the world his reasons for questioning that - conclusion. Even facts of a declared visual character are called in - question. Professor Percival Lowell to his death in 1916 supported - Schiaparelli’s announced discovery of canals on Mars, described them - as he saw them through the telescope, and declared that they must be - of artificial origin. It is said that there are astronomers who can - see the canals but who question that they are artificial. And it is - certain that there are astronomers who deny that there are any canals - at all, and who claim that what seem to be canals to some are optical - illusions or sheer hallucinations. (Is not astronomy getting to look - like psychic research?) - - But in spite of all its shifting and reconstruction of theories, its - assertions and counter-assertions, the complexity and enormous - difficulty of its numerous problems, and the exceedingly subtle - methods by which, in a great measure, these problems must be studied, - no one is so foolish as to think that astronomical investigation - should not be pursued, or that there does not lie before it a great - field for the pursuit of truth. - - To a very large extent psychic research is analogous with astronomy. - It, the youngest of the sciences (by few as yet acknowledged to be a - science), has a very difficult field, lying as far apart from the - ordinary life of most men as the multitudinous realities of infinite - space lie outside the range of thought of ordinary men; its problems - are many, theories are shifting and contradictory, certain facts are - both affirmed and denied, and, what is more to the point for our - present purpose, only to a limited extent can its problems be taken - into the laboratory, but for the most part techniques and logical - methods have to be devised to fit the nature of the facts with which - we deal. In astronomy, most of the subjects of study can be found in - place at any time; the great drawback is that they are so fearfully - distant as to be sensed very slightly. On the other hand, with certain - exceptions, either of kind or degree, the subjects of psychical study - cannot be found in place whenever wanted but appear occasionally, yet - when they do appear often do so with a nearness and clearness which - spares the witnesses the necessity of those cautious qualifying - phrases so common in articles dealing with astronomy. - - In order at length to turn the attention of scientific men to a - quarter of reality to which most of them are now voluntarily blind, we - must continue to do what some people contemn as “old stuff,” and that - is to multiply the number of _intelligent_ and _reputable_ witnesses - by teaching people how to observe and how to record, and by ridding - them of the cowardice which now keeps at least five out of six - potential witnesses of such standing silent. - -Footnote 7: - - It is so judged from such expressions as “Or maybe she has been asleep - and comes out with the tail end of a dream, and has written down what - appears to be a lot of rubbish but turns out to be a reproduction of - something her husband has been reading or writing at that very - moment”; “Says my wife, ‘There are some notes of a dream I just had.’” - -Footnote 8: - - The words “Bob drew watch,” etc., were added by Mrs. Sinclair after - she had read his statement. - -Footnote 9: - - “Ulceration and bleeding are also common symptoms, hence the term - ‘bleeding piles.’” _Encyclopedia Britannica._ - -Footnote 10: - - [Deleted.] - -Footnote 11: - - “I explain that in these particular drawings the lines have been - traced over in heavier pencil; the reason being that Craig wanted a - carbon copy, and went over the lines in order to make it. This had the - effect of making them heavier than they originally were, and it made - the whirly lines in Craig’s first drawing more numerous than they - should be. She did this in the case of two or three of the early - drawings, wishing to send a report to a friend. I pointed out to her - how this would weaken their value as evidence, so she never did it - again.” - -Footnote 12: - - Of course, there would be theoretical possibility that the four - persons involved joined in a conspiracy to deceive, and there would be - the same theoretical possibility if four psychologists from the - _sanctum sanctorum_ of a laboratory announced similar results. - -Footnote 13: - - The cut does not show that the end is open like a pipe, but it is - plainly so in the pencil drawing. - -Footnote 14: - - “A Series” since there was another of the same date at a different - hour. - -Footnote 15: - - If it be objected that we are not told exactly what the conditions of - the series of February 15th were, though assured that all series were - carried out with scrupulous honesty, that is true. But it is also true - that the results of this series were not better than some where we do - know that the conditions were excellent, and that this series contains - no successes of such astounding significance as three in the - Sinclair-Irwin Group, when many miles separated the experimenters. I - would have been quite willing to have employed for the guessing tests - the originals in that group, plus those of February 17th, done under - excellently satisfactory conditions. (To be sure, the parties were in - the same room, but it will be shown later that, even granting all - which the egregious “unconscious whispering” theory claims, it could - not account for the results actually obtained.) In fact, the - Sinclair-Irwin Group was avoided for the test for the very reason that - it is an exceptionally good one. That of February 15th was selected - because I wanted a series of a considerable number of experiments, an - unbroken one produced at one time, and one which exhibited results of - a more nearly average character. - -Footnote 16: - - “_A_ series” because there were other experiments at another hour of - the same day. - -Footnote 17: - - The general assumption is that Mrs. Sinclair got her successful - results by telepathy. But could Mr. Sinclair remember just in what - order his drawings came, so to be thinking of each just when his wife - was holding that particular one? Unfortunately he did not record - whether he laid them down in the order of their production. - - We have judged Experiment 1 to be a failure. And yet it is not - fanciful to say that if the drawing of the globe is looked at from its - left side there is considerable resemblance between the very - incorrectly drawn South America and Isthmus of Panama on the one hand, - and the “animal’s” head and neck on the other. If clairvoyance were - involved, there would be no necessary guarantee that the drawing would - be sensed—to a degree—right side up. Nor do we know how the envelope - was held. - -Footnote 18: - - Mr. Sinclair says, “Now why should an obelisk go on a jag, and have - little circles at its base? The answer appears to be: it inherited the - curves from the previous fish-hook, and the little circles from the - next drawing.” - - It is psychologically likely that a drawing just before made or even - looked at sometimes unfortunately influences a succeeding drawing. The - most interesting apparent example of this is Figure 8a made just after - Mrs. Sinclair had been looking at the several concentric circles of - her last reproduction in the Sinclair-Irwin Group. First she got a - whirl of circles, then the whirl assumed the shape of a triangle, then - came two angles differently characterized, and finally the angles - multiplied and constituted a star duplicating the original. And a - careful study makes it impossible to doubt that there were - anticipations. Some are too striking to be likely as accidents in the - same series, and in some cases Mrs. Sinclair announced ahead that - such-and-such an object would be found among the originals, and was - right. Indeed, in cases where a set of originals was not viewed by the - agent one by one, as the tests were proceeding, but were submitted in - a heap together, it is a wonder that as a general rule the - correspondences were found in due order, and we are hardly able to - explain it. I do not, however, count any feature theoretically left - over from the previous drawing as evidential, but only as an - interesting glimpse into the mental processes. Neither does Mr. - Sinclair, as I understand him. Nor do I reckon any “anticipation” as - evidential, unless it was announced in advance, and then only in a - reduced degree. And Mr. Sinclair’s principles of estimation were - nearly the same. For he says (the italics mine): - - “Manifestly, if I grant the right to more than one guess, I am - increasing the chances of guesswork, and correspondingly reducing the - significance of the totals. What I have done is this: where such - _cases have occurred, I have called them total failures, except in a - few cases, where the description was so detailed and exact as to be - overwhelming—as in the case of this ‘Happy Hooligan.’_ Even so, I have - not called it a complete success, only a partial success. In order to - be _classified as a complete success, my wife’s drawing must have been - made for the particular drawing of mine which she had in her hand at - that time_; and throughout this account, the reader is to understand - that every drawing presented _was made in connection with the - particular drawing printed alongside it—except in cases where I - expressly state otherwise_.” - -Footnote 19: - - When she reached the snake original, the percipient made no drawing, - but wrote “Man running fast.” If the reader will turn back to - Experiment 2 of February 8th, where the original was a snake, he will - again find the cat’s tail and living things fleeing. I more than ever - suspect that buried in her subconsciousness is the memory of some - incident wherein a snake and a cat and something else in flight - figure. - -Footnote 20: - - O—original drawing. R—reproduction. Quoted matter was written by Mrs. - S as a part of her result. - -Footnote 21: - - Statistically this must be rated a failure. But it is quite possible - that in fact there is an underlying real connection. Perhaps Mrs. S - had read the life of Napoleon, and had been aware that he was by - education primarily an artillerist, and that the increased and - peculiar use of artillery was the chief distinctive feature of his - campaigns. If so, it is quite possible that the idea of cannon, - struggling for emergence in her mind, by association of ideas got - sidetracked to Napoleon, and became expressed in “Black Napoleon hat - and red military coat.” I have not discovered what the uniform of - Napoleon’s artillerists was; his infantry, at any rate, wore coats - brilliantly faced with red. - -Footnote 22: - - Let it be understood that there were reproductions rated as - Suggestive, Partial Successes or even Successes, where there was no - such “correspondence.” That is to say, the reproduction might not - recognizably represent any living thing, might even be indeterminable - as to its nature, and yet so notably imitate the leading features of - the original (though omitting something necessary for identification) - as to give it one grade or another of ranking otherwise than Failure. - -Footnote 23: - - Here the original was not a drawing but a “red flower” that Mr. - Sinclair was simultaneously reading about. - -Footnote 24: - - Mathematically, that is, on the basis of a large number of counted - experiments in guessing. - -Footnote 25: - - Unless by “involuntary whispering,” a theory to be attended to later. - -Footnote 26: - - There was one experiment with drawings. One of the Danish - experimenters drew a candlestick, with a lighted candle in it. The - other in response drew what in the cut looks like a crooked - milk-bottle with a short curved line proceeding from one end and two - short curved lines proceeding from one side. The latter says he meant - it for a cat, but does not know why he furnished it with only two - “legs.” The only use made of this drawing in the pamphlet is to - compare it with a selected and very poor example from the Richet - series and to assert that it is as good a reproduction. The utmost I - should grant for the Richet drawing is that, regarded as one of a - series containing a number of far more impressive ones, it is - Suggestive, and the most I could grant for the “cat,” is that it may - possibly be Slightly Suggestive. But did Hansen and Lehmann think - there was any resemblance between their reproduction and original? If - so, how did they know that there was no thought-transference and why - did they not continue to experiment with drawings? Were they afraid - that if they did, they might have an intractable problem on their - hands? But if they thought there was no real resemblance, what - possible weight had their failure against a series of experiments - wherein a large percentage of the reproductions beyond question _did_ - notably resemble the originals? - -Footnote 27: - - S.P.R. _Proceedings_, VI, 164–5. - -Footnote 28: - - Professor Sidgwick declared that the whispering of himself and his - colleagues was certainly voluntary, and that there was no success - otherwise. - -Footnote 29: - - Neither M. C. S. or I ever made the faintest trace of a sound during - an experiment. That was the law. And I never knew which drawing she - was holding. I had just one order: to watch steadily, and be able to - say that she never “peeked.” I did this, and I say it, on my honor. - This is an honest book.—Upton Sinclair. - -Footnote 30: - - She was undergoing the menopause; hence the special depression. It is - important that every such fact should be stated. It might even be that - the condition heightened the telepathic faculty. - -Footnote 31: - - Of course Mrs. Sinclair is solely responsible for this as every other - of her expressed opinions. - -Footnote 32: - - This was written when it was expected that the experiments with the - brother-in-law would continue some time. The general character of the - objects is stated. In fact neither duck nor basket of fruit figured. - The experiments with “Bob” soon ceased, not only because they involved - a strain upon him in his then condition of health but because Mrs. - Sinclair suspected that she was telepathically having her own feelings - of depression increased by his. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES - - - 1. P. 66, changed “lizard, camelian, reds” to “lizard, chameleon, - reds”. - 2. P. 69, changed “Also, an the automobile ride to Pasadena” to “Also, - on the automobile ride to Pasadena”. - 3. P. 190, did not alter February 29, 1929. - 4. Ignored variations in “MacDougall” and “McDougall”. - 5. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling. - 6. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed. - 7. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at - the end of the last chapter. - 8. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MENTAL RADIO *** - -***** This file should be named 63693-0.txt or 63693-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/6/9/63693/ - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |