Chapter VI: Part 6

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).