Chapter IX: REAL TEST CONDITIONS (W. Whately Smith) 45 (1)

THE CASE AGAINST SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS

BY C. VINCENT PATRICK AND W. WHATELY SMITH.

I.--INTRODUCTORY

(W. WHATELY SMITH)

Spirit photographs have long been a source of controversy and discussion, and signs are not lacking that public interest in them is at least as keen as ever. A Society for the Study of Supernormal Pictures has, for example, been formed recently, and it is by no means uncommon to meet people who owe much of their belief in Spiritualism to the results they have obtained through photographic mediums. This considerable public interest would alone suffice to make the subject important, but, apart from this, it is clear that if all--or even a fraction--of what is claimed be true the phenomenon must be of unique value from the point of view of strictly scientific research.

Photographic phenomena differ from practically all others studied by psychical researchers in being, so to speak, permanently objective. If one could be sure that the results obtained were not due to trickery one would be in a far better position as regards the problems of their origin and so forth than one is in the case of other types of “physical” phenomena. One could collect spirit photographs, compare them with one another, correlate their differences with the varying conditions of their production, and generally study them at leisure--a procedure which is not possible with table-levitations, materialisations, or direct-voice phenomena.[1] The photographic plate would, in fact, be the most powerful of all weapons of research if only we could eliminate all possibility of fraud. This is, as usual, the crux of the whole matter, and, as my collaborator and I hope to show, it is not nearly so easy to do as might appear at first sight.

Spiritualists commonly assert that photographic phenomena are easier to control than any others, and this is in a sense true. They would be easy to control _IF_ one were allowed to take the necessary precautions. But one is not, and under the conditions which actually prevail at photographic _séances_ the procedure lends itself to fraud more readily, and in more diverse ways, than any other form of mediumistic activity. Photography is a comparatively complicated process, and at every stage there is opportunity for the astute trickster to produce the effect he desires. Part of the proceedings, moreover, _must_ take place in a light which is inimical to accurate observation, and it should not be forgotten that, as a rule, the “sitter” is immobilised and placed _hors de combat_, so to speak, for an appreciable period while his photograph is being taken. (The significance of this will appear later.)

The various fraudulent methods which are or may be used and the question of the reliance which should be placed on the statements of those who believe that they have watched the proceedings so carefully as to exclude the possibility of fraud will be discussed at length later in this paper. I may as well say at once, however, that I see no reason for believing that any spirit photographs are, or have ever been, due to any cause other than fraud.[2]

But before discussing the various considerations which appear to justify this view I should like to make it clear that I, personally, am very willing to be convinced _if and when adequate evidence is forthcoming_. The question of what kind of evidence should be considered adequate is one which will be easier to answer after the various possibilities of fraud which must be eliminated have been pointed out. So far as I myself am concerned, I am prepared, further, to admit that photographic phenomena appear to me to be less improbable on general _a priori_ grounds than many other alleged events of supposedly supernormal origin. We know that the camera can detect, or rather that the photographic plate is sensitive to, ether waves which produce no effect on the retina of the human eye, and it seems, on the whole, less improbable that “spirits,” if they exist, should produce subtle and relatively minor etheric disturbances of this kind than that they should be responsible for the movements of gross material objects in the way which is often claimed for them.

I maintain this merely to guard, so far as may be possible, against the accusations of prejudice which will doubtless be brought forward by some readers. _A priori_ considerations of this kind have their legitimate place, but it is on the relevant facts that our final decision must be based. On _all_ the relevant facts. This is the important point. It may be a “fact” that some great wise and eminent man states that he took such and such precautions, “never let the plates (or slides) out of his sight,” and so forth, but it is necessary to take into account, along with such statements as this, other facts about the psychology of deception, the reliability of witnesses, the potentialities of fraudulent methods and so forth which are usually ignored by enthusiastic devotees of the subject.

One does not wish to be too dogmatic, there _may_ be such things as _bona fide_ spirit photographs, and when satisfactory evidence is forthcoming one will be very pleased indeed to make the _amende honorable_ and acknowledge one’s fault.

But in view of the many methods of trickery which are available and the known incapacity of untrained observers to detect fraud the evidence at present available seems scarcely worthy of serious consideration.

II.--HISTORICAL

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

During the last half-century--that is, practically since the introduction of the photographic plate--various abnormalities have been reported in developed photographs. Some of these have appeared to reputable observers to be incapable of natural explanation, and have been eagerly seized upon by spiritualists as proof of survival after death--the sensitive emulsion being supposed to have recorded the presence of spirits, otherwise invisible. It is evident that a permanent photographic record, if its genuineness can be established, would stand almost alone as evidence of the presence of the spirit-forms described by clairvoyants.

Various types of such photographic abnormalities must be distinguished:

1. “Thought photographs,” “dream photographs,” photographs of “psychic auras,” and the like. These are rarely distinct, and as they have little bearing on spirit phenomena they will not be discussed here.

2. Photographs taken of a visible spirit form. Such have been taken at _séances_: _e.g._, by Sir William Crookes, of Miss King’s “control,” Katie. The photographs taken recently at the Goligher circle should perhaps be included in this category. Similar experiments might, perhaps, be carried out in a “haunted house”--provided that one can be found which bears investigation.

3. The more usual type of “spirit photograph,” with which this article is chiefly concerned. Here a plate is exposed upon a sitter or sitters, and on development an “extra” appears, varying from splashes of light to fully-formed features or figures. The presence of a medium is usually regarded as being essential for such phenomena; but similar appearances have occasionally been obtained by amateurs on several well-attested occasions, either unexpectedly, or upon plates deliberately exposed for the purpose, no professional medium being present.

4. In some cases the plates are not exposed in a camera, but merely submitted to “spirit influences,” which results in more or less distinct faces, or even screeds of writing, appearing on development.

It is not perhaps surprising to find that the spirit photograph originated in America, where it dates back to the days of the wet-plate process. The first recorded case comes from Boston, in 1862. One Mumler, an engraver by trade, made chemistry and photography his hobby; and having among his friends a professional photographer, he was frequently dabbling with plates and chemicals in his studio. Up to this time he had shown no mediumistic tendencies, although it is safe to assume that he must have known something of spiritualism, since this was attracting much attention in America at the time.

One day Mumler suddenly produced a photograph of himself, standing, with a chair by his side supporting a shadowy female figure. The face of this figure was not clear, though the upper part of the body was fairly well defined; below the waist it faded away. The chair and background were distinctly visible through the extra. He alleged that this was an untouched photograph, which he had taken by focussing the camera on the chair, inserting the plate, and standing by the chair for the period of the exposure. This picture raised a considerable stir, and Mumler published the following declaration in the press: “This photograph was taken of myself, by myself, on Sunday, when there was not a living soul in the room beside myself--‘so to speak.’ The form on my right I recognise as my cousin who passed away about twelve years since.--W. H. MUMLER.”

Not unexpectedly, other people soon wanted their dead relatives to be photographed with them, and Mumler’s services were in considerable demand. Many of his sitters were rewarded with extras, and he soon started a regular business, claiming that he was a medium for taking spirit photographs. His pictures aroused much interest both in America and in this country, and he evidently found it a paying business. The following advertisement with regard to copies of his photographs appeared in the _Spiritual Magazine_ for 1863:

“The packet of three photos may be obtained from Mr. Pitman, 20, Paternoster Row; price 3s. 6d.”

Very few copies of Mumler’s photographs still exist; they are all similar in their general characters to the first. Noteworthy points are that the spirits are always without legs, and are usually on the right of the sitter. A considerable number of his extras, indistinct though they were, were recognised by the sitters and their friends as the dead person whose photograph they were expecting. (The value of these recognitions is dealt with in a later section.) Naturally, cries of fraud were raised, and investigators, consisting of men of science and newspaper representatives, devised “test conditions” to eliminate this possibility. This they did to their own satisfaction, and obtained spirit extras; but on reading their accounts it is easy to see that ample loopholes were left for fraud. In some cases the camera and lens were minutely inspected, and Mumler’s operations carefully supervised, but a glass plate provided by Mumler was used for the sensitised emulsion. (How this renders a natural explanation of the extra possible is explained in the section on methods of fraud.) In other cases where tests were instituted the developing-room was in complete darkness, no ruby light being used, which put the investigators completely in the medium’s hands.

On one occasion Mumler was persuaded to forsake his studio for the private house of an investigator. Here he was not allowed to use any of his own apparatus--camera, plates, and chemicals all being provided for him. The result was a complete failure to get anything abnormal on the plates. Mumler explained that he “thought his (medium’s) influence had not been sufficiently long in contact with the chemicals.” This one can readily believe.

He presently became bolder, and his spirits’ features became more distinct. This led to a bad mistake, for in February 1863 the sceptics were able to show that one of Mumler’s spirit extras was the likeness of a man still alive, and living in Boston; and, worse still, that this man had had his photograph taken by Mumler a few weeks before. Such carelessness on the part of the spirits ruined a promising business, for after the outcry which followed we hear no more of Mumler for some six years.

In 1869 he appeared again in New York, and commenced business on his old lines. Before he had been practising many months, however, the public authorities arrested him, and prosecuted him for fraud. At the trial the Boston evidence was disallowed and consequently little positive evidence of fraud was brought against him, for he had only been practising in New York for a short time. The chief ground of the prosecution was a spirit extra which he represented to be a dead relative of the sitter’s, whereas the latter declared it to be utterly unlike the relative in question. The trial was interesting, in that Mumler was defended by many of his sitters, who swore that they recognised his extras as their dead friends; and by others, including a professional photographer, who had investigated his processes and had found no evidence of trickery. He was acquitted for lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution; but he apparently gave up producing spirit photographs, for no more is heard of him.

Three years later spirit photographs were being taken in this country. Hudson, the principal exponent, was introduced by Mrs. Guppy, a well-known medium of the time. His performance was on the same lines as Mumler’s, and his results similar, the faces of the extras being always partly obscured and the figures draped. Nevertheless, many of them were recognised. The usual unsatisfactory tests were applied by the more sceptical sitters; in particular we have the report of an optician named Slater, who took his own camera and lenses to Hudson, obtaining “a fine spirit photo” and observing “no suspicious circumstances.” However, a less easily duped critic soon appeared, in the person of one Beattie, a professional photographer of Clifton, and a man of high repute. He showed that in many of Hudson’s photographs not only did the background appear through the extra--as might perhaps be expected with an ethereal spirit--but that the background was clearly visible through the very material bodies of the human sitters! Sometimes the backgrounds had a double outline; and in one case at least he was able to point out that clumsy attempts had been made to obliterate, by retouching, the pattern of a carpet showing through the legs of the sitter. All this clearly pointed to double exposure and fraud; and Beattie was joined in denouncing Hudson by the editor of the _Spiritualist_. In fact, on closer inspection, Hudson’s pictures were found to be very poor frauds indeed; some of the “spirits” were stated by the critics to be Hudson himself dressed up!

Much controversy followed this exposure; while many declared that spirit photographs were an utter fraud, others considered that though some were genuine, mediums frequently obtained their spirits by trickery in order not to disappoint their sitters. Few went so far as to declare their belief that the phenomena were _all_ genuine, and these few were mostly those who had identified as their dead relatives the extras presented to them. Ingenious explanations were offered by them of the appearances pointed out by Beattie; the spirit aura was, they declared, doubly refracting; hence the legs of a chair might, by atmospheric refraction, appear through the legs of its occupant. It is possible that the unscientific were impressed by such explanations. Support was certainly lent to them for a time by the statements of Mr. Russell, of Kingston-on-Thames. Working as an amateur for his own satisfaction, he declared that he had obtained spirit photographs showing evident signs of double exposure, whereas only one had taken place. Challenged to produce his plates, however, he demurred, and eventually said that they had been accidentally destroyed.

Disgusted by the trickery he had detected in Hudson, Beattie determined to experiment for himself as to whether genuine spirit photographs could actually be obtained. He accordingly set to work with some friends, one of whom was reputed to be a medium, and held many _séances_, exposing dozens of plates with but little result. He procured as his dark-room assistant a certain Josty, whose character, unfortunately, appears not to have been above suspicion. Thenceforward streaks and splashes of light were obtained on some of the plates, though the _séances_ were mostly blanks. Josty discovered himself to be possessed of clairvoyant faculties, and declared that he saw spirits at the _séances_; the marks on the plates would then appear in the positions he had indicated. These marks had only the very slightest resemblance to human figures: one is described as being like a dragon. Out of several hundred plates, thirty-two bore these marks. Beattie’s integrity was never challenged; but it has been suggested that Josty produced the smudges on the plates--as he very easily could do--in order to keep himself in employment of a light and lucrative character. In any case, the results obtained were so trifling, and so different from the usual professional medium’s photographs, as to be chiefly of value as negative evidence.

Similar experiments were made by Dr. Williams, of Haywards Heath. He exposed plates, in the hope of obtaining spirit extras, over a period of eighteen months. Out of many hundreds, he obtained three plates with unexplained marks on them, one of which bore some resemblance to two eyes and a nose. He also claimed that a complete human figure developed on one of his plates, only to disappear again; this could scarcely have had any objective existence, since there was no trace of it in the finished negative. The value of his experiments, also, can only be considered as against the occurrence of spirit photography where trickery plays no part.

In the summer of 1874 there came to London a Parisian photographer named Buguet, who represented himself as able to photograph spirits. Besides being a more skilful photographer than his predecessors, he appears also to have had a sense of humour. The spirit faces of Dickens, Charles I., and other celebrities appeared in his photographs! His spirits had clearly-defined features, and were much better productions than anything that had appeared before. Many well-known people sat to him, and were duly rewarded with the spirit features of their equally well-known friends. Next year he returned to Paris, and, continuing in business there, produced among other things a photograph of Stainton Moses, the spiritualist, while the latter was lying in a trance in London, his spirit being supposed to have visited Buguet’s studio in Paris.

Before he had been back long, however, the French authorities intervened. His studio was raided by the police and a large stock of cardboard heads, a lay figure, and other incriminating paraphernalia were found. Buguet was arrested and charged with fraud. At the trial he made a complete confession. All his spirits had, he said, been obtained by double exposure. At first his assistants had acted as the ghosts, but this soon became dangerous on account of constant repetition of the same features, and he procured the lay figure and cardboard heads for the purpose. He also explained how he employed his assistants to extract all possible information from the sitters, as to the facial characteristics of the spirits they were expecting. And then came the extraordinary feature of the trial. In spite of the damning material evidence against him, and of his own confession, witness after witness came forward to defend him! They said they had sat to him and obtained unquestionable likenesses of their dead relations, and had satisfied themselves that no tricks were played upon them. In spite of Buguet assuring them in court that they had been deceived, they maintained that it could not be so. Buguet pointed out to the court one face which had been recognised as the mother of one sitter, the sister of a second, and the friend of a third. One spirit, recognised by a sitter as his lifelong friend, was declared by another man to be an excellent likeness of his still-living--and much annoyed--father-in-law. Buguet was convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment and a fine of 100 francs. It was maintained by spiritualists in England that he had been bribed to make a false confession; and after the expiry of his sentence he appears to have told the same tale. This, however, quite fails to explain the finds made at his studio by the French police.

At the time of Buguet’s trial, another spirit photographer, Parkes by name, was practising in London. He never produced photographs of any value, as he gave but little opportunity of watching his proceedings in the dark-room; nor were many of his extras recognised. Nevertheless there are certain points of interest in his career. Some of his plates showed evident marks of double exposure; he was adroit enough to write articles to the spiritualistic papers, drawing attention to this fact and suggesting theories to account for it. It had been previously assumed by spiritualists that the spirit forms, although invisible to the eye, were present at the side of or behind the sitter, and that their images were projected on to the plate by refraction through the lens in the ordinary way. Hence their images on the plate would be inverted, like the image of the sitter. Parkes, however, described an experiment, which he professed to have carried out, throwing doubt on this. He placed, he said, a mirror obliquely across the camera between the lens and the plate, so as to project the image of the sitter and background on to a second plate at the side of the camera--the same principle employed in the viewing screen of the modern reflex camera. He said that the position of the spirit photograph was unaffected by the mirror, and that the extra still appeared on the plate at the back of the camera, while the sitter and background were naturally only photographed on the side plate. He further declared that the spirit was not affected by the lens, and appeared _erect_ on the back plate, instead of inverted as a normal photograph would be. The absurdity of this statement is evident when we realise that in his ordinary photographs sitter and spirit appeared the same way up--_i.e._, both inverted on the plate; in order to effect this and comply with his other statement, the spirits would have to be standing on their heads beside the sitters! Now Parkes also professed to have clairvoyant power, and claimed actually to _see_ the spirits standing with the sitters; as he never mentions them adopting the inverted attitude we may safely assume that they did not put themselves to this discomfort. One, at least, of Parkes’ statements must therefore have been false.

On one occasion, however, his spirit extra _did_ appear upside down. The plate--supplied by the sitter--was loaded into the camera by Parkes in the usual way, and all was ready for the exposure when a photographer present requested that the plate be inverted in the camera. This was done, and the exposure made; with the result that on the developed plate the spirit was inverted with regard to the sitter. It was indeed fortunate for Parkes’ reputation that the company present were able to affirm that the plate on which this occurred “had never been in Parkes’ possession before”!

Since 1875 a number of spirit photographers have practised in this country, but few have attained any note. Not many people have considered their claims seriously, any critical investigation soon finding cause for suspicion, if not actual evidence, of fraud. Perhaps the two best known are Boursnell, who was taking spirit photographs in London during the first decade of this century, and Hope, of Crewe, who has now been practising for many years, and has attained considerable proficiency in the art. The conditions allowed have never been such as to preclude fraud, and the general method of procedure and results obtained have been so similar to those of their predecessors as to need no separate description. In 1909 a Commission was appointed, under the auspices of the _Daily Mail_, to investigate the subject. The Commission consisted of three spiritualists and three expert photographers; at the conclusion of the investigation the photographers reported with regard to the results obtained that “they would not testify to their supernatural production; they bore on the face of them evidence of the way in which they had been produced.” They pointed out that some of the plates had been exposed twice, as shown by the marks on the edges caused by two different patterns of dark slide. The spiritualists, on the other hand, reported that “the photographers were not in a proper frame of mind” to obtain results.

In America the movement has always found rather more adherents than in this country. Spirit photography has been practised in different parts of the United States practically since Mumler’s time to the present day; the same medium usually producing other kinds of spirit phenomena as well. The conditions under which most of these photographs have been taken, and the ridiculous results obtained, renders them unworthy of serious consideration. It is quite usual to find in the background of these photographs a dozen or more heads, of all shapes and sizes, and with all kinds of headgear; bunches of flowers often appear, and even a spirit buttonhole sometimes ornaments the lapel of the sitter’s coat! An amusing account is given by Hereward Carrington[3] of a visit to a medium of this type at Lily Dale in 1907:

“On arriving at Mr. Norman’s house I was obliged to wait for some time on the verandah, as he was busy inside the house with a ‘customer.’ When he came out I was invited to sit ‘just where I was,’ and the medium disappeared into the house, and the next minute came out carrying a large camera and two plates, already in the slide, prepared. There was a white chalk-mark on one side of the double-back plate slide, and this side was carefully inserted foremost. Mr. Norman erased the chalk-mark with his finger as he inserted the slide into the camera. I posed, and the photograph was taken.

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

“When, however, I asked the medium to allow me to examine the process of development of the plates, he flatly refused to allow anything of the kind! I said cautiously that I should think it would be very interesting to watch the development of a plate upon which might appear spirit faces; the answer was that these faces developed in exactly the same manner as any other faces. I replied that I should like to watch the process in order to convince myself that they developed in the manner stated, and that they were not already on the plate. The result was to bring forth a flat refusal to allow me to watch the process of development! It need hardly be said that this refusal to allow any test conditions of the most elementary order deprives the photographs of all evidential value; and definite evidence of fraud was brought against this medium at a later date. For when the photograph was examined, none of the faces bore the slightest trace of any family resemblance; and, more than that, the photograph showed unmistakable signs of fraudulent manipulation. One of the faces, that of a woman, upon being examined through a magnifying glass, clearly shows the miniature indentations made by the electric needle in reproducing newspaper cuts. This is clearly noticeable in the forehead, but can be seen to extend all over the face, even with the naked eye, examined carefully. This face was therefore copied from some newspaper or magazine, reproducing it from the paper in which it originally appeared. The other faces show clear marks of manipulation.”

A new method of procedure in taking spirit photographs was apparently introduced by one Wyllie, of San Francisco, about 1903. No camera was used; the plates were unpacked in the dark-room and held by the sitter, Wyllie simply placing his hands on the plate for some seconds. On development, a face or faces, more or less blurred, would appear. These were never larger than the print of a thumb, which suggested to Dr. Pierce--who was investigating Wyllie’s methods--that they were possibly produced by chemicals pressed into contact with the plate. He therefore made Wyllie wash his hands before entering the dark-room, but the extras still appeared. It would, of course, have been a simple matter for the medium to have had concealed about his person a slip of thin card or a small rubber stamp, with an “extra” sketched on it in some suitable chemical; when in the dark-room this would be palmed and applied to the plate. Dr. Pierce, however, evidently considered the results were genuine spirit manifestations, and the next year carried out a series of experiments by himself in London. Needless to say, he found that without Wyllie’s mediumship no results could be obtained.

Another modern development, which has been largely exploited by Hope, of Crewe, is the “psychograph.” For this, again, no camera is used; a plate is carefully wrapped up, usually sealed, and submitted to the medium’s influence. The plate is then developed by the victim, and screeds of writing appear, usually arranged in circles instead of lines. Sometimes the plate is sent to the medium through the post, carefully wrapped and sealed, and returned apparently unopened a few days later. On development, the message appears--and the most banal rubbish it usually is. Yet many people actually believe that these productions are the means adopted by higher intelligences to communicate with us. Surely such folk must be lacking in a sense of humour?

III.--FRAUD

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

_A.--General Methods_

The taking of spirit photographs under so-called “test conditions” has frequently been carefully investigated by men of high reputation in other walks of life, chiefly men of letters and men of science. In many cases they have been unable to detect any trickery, and after due consideration have decided that they know of no natural means by which the results obtained could be produced, under the conditions employed. This is in itself a perfectly fair conclusion; but it does not follow that because they know of no natural method, no such method can exist; unfortunately the argument is frequently carried to this stage. Let us suppose that an eminent physicist watches a sleight-of-hand conjuror, who produces a dozen or more eggs from a small velvet bag, which was unquestionably empty when examined by the audience a few seconds previously; he will certainly not assume mediumistic powers on the part of the conjuror, or postulate the materialisation of a spirit hen. He realises that he is being deceived; he has had no training in conjuring, and does not know what to look for in order to “see through” the trick. How, then, does he expect to be able to detect a trick played upon him, probably in the dim light of a photographic dark-room, by a clever medium who has every method of trickery at his fingers’ ends? Even if he knew what to look for, the chances would be all in favour of the medium under the conditions which usually obtain; and in actual fact he probably has no idea of the multiplicity of methods which may be used for his deception. It seems therefore desirable to enumerate some of the many methods by which spurious spirit photographs may be produced. The following list makes no pretensions to being complete, but may give some idea of the variety of methods which the accomplished spirit photographer has at his service.

_Group I._--_Methods Involving Double Exposure and Substitution_, in which a plate previously prepared with an undeveloped extra is substituted for the plate provided by the sitter. This gives excellent photographs, as the extra may be as distinct in detail as is desired, and the exposures can be calculated to a nicety, giving a suitably transparent spirit with a more solid portrait of the sitter. The substitution of the plate may be effected at almost any stage in the proceedings, for example:

(_a_).--Methods involving substitution of the entire packet:

1. The medium may be in league with the shop from which the plates are purchased, the unfortunate sitter buying a box of plates already prepared with spirits. Wise sitters buy their plates at a distance, but mediums frequently demand a particular brand of plate, and if those brought by the sitter are declared unsuitable, he will have to go out and purchase the correct ones. He is naturally supplied with the address of the nearest photographic dealer, and the name of the brand of plates is written on a slip of paper to show the shopman; this ensures no mistake being made.

2. If the sitter brings the right plates he will show the packet to the medium before entering the dark-room to make sure that they are all right. The medium takes the packet into his hand for a moment--turning to the light to read the label--and passes them back with the remark that they are the right kind--which now they certainly are, for the sitter’s original packet is in the medium’s breast-pocket.

3. The sitter may perhaps autograph or otherwise mark his packet before coming to the medium, in order to prevent any such substitution. In this case the medium will wait until the wrapper is torn off in the dark-room, when he may be able to handle the box for a moment on some pretext,[4] and the dim light makes the substitution easier than before, particularly as it occurs during the first minute or so in the reduced light before the sitter’s eyes have become accustomed to it.

If these methods are employed, the medium usually finds it necessary previously to mark the plate or plates in the box that have the latent extras, in such a way that he may be sure of not getting the spirit inverted: a slight scratch on one edge will suffice for this.

(_b_).--Methods involving substitution of the faked plate only, after removal from the original packet:

1. With an unwary sitter this may be done in the dark-room. The sitter usually marks the plates; while he is marking one, the medium may be able to exchange his prepared plate for one of those not yet marked.

2. A trick dark-slide may be used, having a secret partition, and already containing the faked plate.[5] If the sitter is content to mark the plate after it is placed in the slide, he may easily be caused to mark the prepared plate instead of his own.

3. If the plates are not marked, it will be a simple matter to substitute, during the focussing operations, a duplicate slide containing a faked plate.

4. Little accidents are apt to happen in the unaccustomed light of the red lamp; while the sitter is groping on the floor for a wrapper he has dropped, or while his attention is in some other way diverted for a moment, the exchange is made.

I am aware that many will ridicule the idea of such a simple trick being played upon an intelligent observer; but any conjuror, whose business it is to do this kind of thing, knows that it is remarkably easy.

5. Sometimes the first photographs taken are blanks, the sitter then returns to the dark-room and loads up some fresh plates out of the packet. It may not occur to him that an accomplice of the medium has had access to the dark-room in the meantime, and when he gives this account of the _séance_ a few days later he will probably have entirely forgotten that the plates were not all loaded at once.

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

It may be pointed out here that in the case of a regular sitter who always marks his plates in the same way, as most do, it would not be at all difficult to forge his signature on a prepared plate and substitute this for one of the marked plates.

_Group II._--_Other Methods_, conveniently classified as follows:

(_a_).--Methods involving preparation of the studio:

1. An accomplice may be concealed behind the sitter, and be photographed with him; this is the simplest way of all, the sitter facing the camera, and, being told not to move during the exposure, is unaware that a “spirit face” is behind him, framed in an unsuspected opening in the background. Being behind the sitter, the face will be a little out of focus, and will appear rather blurred on the negative.[6]

2. It has been suggested that a mirror, or sheet of glass--on the principle of “Pepper’s Ghost”--may be introduced behind the sitter, producing the spirit by reflection of an accomplice hidden from the sitter. In practice this would be rather complicated and difficult to conceal; it would seem to have no advantage over the preceding method.

3. The extra is frequently sketched on the background--especially if this be a plain one--in some fluorescent substance, such as quinine sulphate. Such a sketch is invisible to the eye, but visible to the photographic plate. Many of Boursnell’s spirits appear to have been produced in this manner.

(_b_).--Methods involving the camera and dark slides:

1. A trick slide may be employed, in which the shutter contains a positive transparency of the desired extra, held in such a manner that it can either be withdrawn with the shutter, or left in position in front of the plate when required; i.e., during the exposure, which will have to be somewhat longer than usual.

2. A similar transparency may be inserted in the camera, close to the plate, and between it and the lens, during the focussing operations. The black focussing-cloth makes an admirable screen for such manipulations, while the sitter is of necessity immobilised a few feet from the camera. It is easy to imagine how a transparency on a spring mount could be slipped into the camera under cover of the cloth in such a way as to press up against the plate when the shutter of the slide is drawn.

3. It is stated that a doubly refracting lens has been used, focussing onto the same plate both the sitter and an object concealed at one side of the studio. Such a contrivance may have been employed, but would certainly not be cheap to manufacture.

4. A simpler method of obtaining the same result is to have a pinhole in the bellows of the camera; a brightly illuminated object at the side and rather in front of the camera will then throw an image on the plate. A considerable exposure will be needed to give a fair extra; but this will present no difficulties, as the pinhole will be open all the time the plate is in position, and not merely during the few seconds that the lens is uncapped for the photograph of the sitter.

5. An extra may be painted on the inner surface of the dark-slide shutter, in some radio-active chemical. The shutter usually only clears the surface of the sensitised emulsion by a fraction of a millimetre, and a fairly distinct extra will be produced if the plate is kept in the slide for a sufficient length of time--depending, of course, upon the amount of radio-active substance used.

(_c_).--Dark-room methods.

1. In the days of the wet-plate process, when plates were cleaned and used a second time with fresh emulsion, it would sometimes happen that the original photograph would re-develop on top of the second, very careful chemical cleaning of the plate being necessary to prevent this. Mumler’s first spirit photograph was probably produced in this way, and the knowledge was turned to good account by several of the earlier spirit photographers. Some of the unexpected results obtained by amateurs may be attributable to this cause, because a certain number of used plates are returned to plate manufacturers, who clean off the emulsion and use the glass again. The cleansing may sometimes be imperfect, and in these cases the original image may appear on development.

2. Faces may be sketched in chemicals on small pieces of card, or even on the medium’s fingers. On opportunity arising in the dark-room, the medium holds or steadies the plate for an instant, bringing the chemical pictures into contact with the plate. Or he may so manoeuvre it that the plate is laid face down on a prepared surface of the dark-room work-bench, probably while it is being marked[7]; upon development of the plate extras will duly appear. The most refined version of this method consists in the preparation of small rubber stamps in which the chemicals are smeared. These can easily be palmed and dabbed for a moment on the plate in a manner which appears quite unsuspicious. A number of active chemicals will produce this effect, but the medium must be careful to know whether the substance he is using will accelerate or retard development in the affected part; for cases have occurred in which a positive extra has been produced on the negative plate, giving a negative spirit on the finished print!

3. Mr. Bush, in his recent pamphlet, “Spirit Photography Exposed,” describes a piece of apparatus made out of an empty blacking-tin containing a small electric bulb, one side of the tin being replaced by a positive transparency of the desired extra. This, he alleges, is used by Hope, the Crewe spirit photographer, the transparency being pressed against the plate and the light switched on for a second. If carefully faced with black velvet round the transparency, this device should be quite useful; but it must be remembered that an escaping ray of white light would at once catch the eye in the dark-room. Skilful palming and manipulation should make it quite possible for an extra to be printed on the plate in this way, if the medium can cover it with his hand for a moment or two. All Hope’s results are certainly not produced in this way, however, as is implied by Mr. Bush.

4. The medium may palm a positive transparency; if he is allowed to handle the plate he will hold it close to the red lamp with the transparency between; if the lamp is rather bright, or is not a very deep red, an impression is soon made on the plate.

5. With a pinhole in the dark-room lamp, and a transparency inside--a perfectly practicable arrangement with some of the more complicated dark-room “safe-lights,”--a pinhole projector can be formed, which will throw an image on a suitably-placed plate. Any leakage of white light into the dark-room, either from the lamp or from outside, can be used to produce blotches and streaks on the plate. A very little mechanical ingenuity will enable a medium who takes a pride in his work to rig up an arrangement of this kind which can be switched off and on at will and which will project an image on a predetermined spot on the bench. By the simple expedient of having the bench so cluttered up with bottles and miscellaneous rubbish that this spot is the only unencumbered one, the unsuspecting sitter may be forced to lay a plate on this spot while, for example, he is marking another. The medium may ostentatiously stand at the other end of the room and “switch on” for a moment while the sitter’s attention is engaged with his marking.

6. Photographic plates are sensitive to rays invisible to the eye, as has been pointed out in considering the effect of fluorescent substances. X-rays and ultra-violet rays, for instance, both invisible yet strongly actinic, might be used in the most baffling manner in the production of spirit extras. The expense and technical difficulties would be considerable, but were any medium to take the method up, he might safely defy the most critical investigation and would soon recoup himself for the few pounds initial outlay.

There are undoubtedly many other methods used by mediums for this purpose; but if the sitter who has obtained spirit extras under test conditions carefully considers the procedure employed, in the light of the suggestions made above, he will probably find that several loopholes were left by which fraud might have been introduced.

_B.--Experiments in Fraud_

The argument most frequently brought forward, in favour of the genuineness of spirit photographs, is that the conditions employed in their taking leave no loophole for fraud. It has been pointed out in the preceding section that the usual “test conditions” leave not one, but many, such loopholes. Evidence of fraud has at some time or other been brought against most spirit photograph mediums, and they have consequently been more or less discredited. Other mediums have been more clever--or more fortunate--and many people therefore argue that they are not all to be tarred with the same brush; it is pointed out that spirit extras _have_ been obtained under the strictest conditions imposed by acute observers who have found nothing suspicious of trickery.

It occurred to me that the most effective way to refute this argument was actually to produce bogus spirit photographs under similar, or even more stringent, test conditions. This I accordingly attempted in a series of _séances_, held in my rooms at Cambridge in the summer of 1919. At four of these _séances_ photographs were taken, and on each occasion one plate showed a more or less conventional spirit extra. As I was experimenting primarily for my own satisfaction, my seven victims were drawn from among my own friends, and were enjoined to keep the matter as quiet as possible. They were not, of course, specially trained psychic researchers, but could not, I think, be considered as being particularly easy men to deceive. Five of the seven were ex-Service men, and all were of B.A. or “fourth year” University status; they included two chemists, two medical students, a geologist, and two physiologists who were also studying psychology. They were all therefore of a scientific bent, and, with possibly one exception, were completely sceptical about spiritualistic phenomena when the experiments started.

I first suggested to four of them that we might try to obtain a spirit photograph, like those described and reproduced in recent magazine articles. They did not take me very seriously at first, but after we had obtained the right atmosphere with a little table-turning, they consented to try for a spirit photograph. When a spirit face duly developed in addition to the sitter, everyone present expressed amazement! I was naturally asked if I was “pulling their legs.” I hedged and refused to say either yes or no, explaining that I wanted the experiments to continue under scientific conditions. If, on the one hand, I declared that I had not in any way faked the photograph, they would probably believe me, and would not insist on further photographs being taken under test conditions. If, on the other hand, I refused to give such an assurance, they would think that I was probably tricking them, and would take all possible steps to “bowl me out”; and when they failed to do so would thereby establish evidence of the genuineness of any further photographs we might be lucky enough to obtain. After some little demur they saw the point of this--or as much of it as I wished them to see--and agreed to meet again in my room on the following Sunday evening, promising that I should be given no opportunity of playing any tricks. It was also agreed that notes should be taken during the _séances_ as far as possible, and that full reports of what occurred should be drawn up afterwards by all of us in conjunction, which everyone would sign.

I now quote their report on the next two meetings, omitting nothing except their names, which I have replaced by single letters, at their request.

“On the following Sunday, July 20th, at 8.15, there met in Patrick’s
rooms A, B, C, and D. Saturday being a Bank Holiday, the plates
were purchased on Friday evening by B, and kept by him until the
meeting. B produced his plates, unopened, and after some preliminary
table-turning and rapping, more successful than at the previous
meeting, it was decided to proceed with the photographs. A carried
the plate-box unopened to the dark-room, and he and D sat closely on
either side of Patrick, and watched him open the box and load two
double dark-slides; they were satisfied there was no substitution
or trickery, or anything in the least degree suggestive of it. The
wrapper of the box was broken in full view of both, and Patrick
loaded the top four plates into two double dark-slides, which were
examined by A and D immediately before they were loaded; they did
not leave their sight from the moment of examination until the
photographs were taken. The camera was also subjected to careful
and minute examination, especially by A, who removed the lens and
examined both it and the interior of the camera. The lens was then
replaced, and the focal plane shutter set in the open position, the
exposures being made by the simple expedient of withdrawing the
shutter of the dark-slide.

“At the request of C, before approaching the camera to focus it,
Patrick removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and was carefully
searched by him.

“It had been arranged that Patrick should take a photograph of
each of the four others present, under identical conditions. The
background was arranged, as before, of gowns hung over a cupboard,
but was made more complete. The subjects occupied the same chair in
succession; of the others, one stood by the light switch, and the two
others by the camera, to watch the photographer. Patrick attended
both to the camera and the flash production. The exposures were made,
as stated, by withdrawing the shutter of the dark-slide; the focal
plane shutter was not touched throughout. The electric light was
therefore switched off for a few seconds while the shutter was drawn
and the flash being lighted. Sufficient light came through the white
window-curtains (9.30 p.m. Summer Time) to enable those in the room
plainly to see each other, and watch the photographer’s movements.
The four photographs were taken in rapid succession.

“The slides were taken back into the dark-room, and developed by
A and Patrick in conjunction. B and C watched in turn, and D also
watched part of the time. One of the plates was quickly observed to
have an ‘extra’ developing on it. A bromide print was again taken
from the wet negative, and showed on the photograph of D the head of
an elderly man, besides a very fair photograph of the sitter. The
extra face was above D’s head, and to his right. The “spirit” was
bearded, and partly bald, with a somewhat melancholy expression.
There was a suggestion of a white collar. On the left of the face and
somewhat above it was written in white on the black background what
was apparently a signature, with two final letters of a preceding
word. It was dubiously deciphered as ‘...ly S. Simmonds.’ Neither
face, name, nor writing were recognised by any one, either at the
time or subsequently.

“The three other photographs were fair portraits, but showed no
abnormality.

* * * * *

“A third meeting was held in the same place at 8.15 p.m. on Sunday,
July 27th, when even more stringent conditions were imposed on the
photographer.

“The plates were bought on Saturday evening by D; other men should
have been present, but did not turn up at the arranged time. D took
the plates to his own rooms, where Patrick sealed them for his own
satisfaction. The box was kept locked up by D till he brought them
to the meeting on Sunday, and he did not part with them till he gave
them to E to take into the dark-room.

“At this meeting there were present A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, besides
the photographer.

“When all had arrived, E carried the plates to the dark-room. C
brought a dark-slide, which he had abstracted and kept since the
previous meeting. Before going into the dark-room Patrick, again at
the request of C and E, removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and
was searched, C even going to the length of examining his socks for
possible concealed plates or dark-slides.

“Patrick wished to load the slides himself, as they were rather
delicate. Accordingly neither slide nor plates were passed into his
hands until he was sitting in front of the ruby light, with E on one
side of him and C and F on the other. He broke the seals, and in full
view of these three loaded a single plate into compartment No. 3 of
the dark-slide. This was then immediately taken from his hands again
by E, and he and C locked it in a drawer of the desk, upon which
stood a reading-lamp, which was never extinguished throughout all the
subsequent proceedings. C kept the key of the drawer, and passed it
to E when the slide was required.

“Some table-tilting was then carried out by all except C, who
remained at the desk and acted as secretary. The lights were all put
out except the reading-lamp he used, which was, as stated, over the
drawer where the dark-slide lay locked.