Chapter IX: REAL TEST CONDITIONS (W. Whately Smith) 45 (2)

“After half an hour or so of moderate success with the table, E
and Patrick also dropped out, to take a flashlight photograph of
the group round the table. Patrick prepared the flash-powder, and
set up the camera--which had previously been examined--by the side
of the desk and lighted lamp. E again examined the camera, inside
and out, and when Patrick had focussed it examined the view in the
ground-glass screen. (The lights were put up for a few minutes, to
aid the focussing, etc.) When all was ready, E received the key from
C, unlocked the drawer, and took out the dark-slide. He saw that it
was undoubtedly placed in the camera right way about, _i.e._, No. 3
compartment in use, and the shutter withdrawn. When the table had
commenced its tilting again the flash was fired by Patrick. C took
notes of the movements of the table, and at the same time watched the
camera, which was in the full light of the reading-lamp throughout.
After the flash the shutter of the slide was replaced, and on
removal from the camera the slide immediately passed again into the
possession of E. Any substitution of plate or dark-slide was thus
rendered out of the question.

“The dark-slide was taken to the dark-room by E, and he and C watched
Patrick open it, remove the plate, and develop it. As before, E kept
the slide till everything was ready, and passed it to Patrick in the
full light of the ruby lamp, C checking the number of the compartment
in which the plate had been loaded, and still remained (No. 3). On
development, Patrick pointed out that there was a hand at the top of
the plate, which could not belong to any of those at the table, and
was pointing with its index finger at one of the group. On fixing, it
was examined more closely, both by Patrick and the two others. All
three distinctly saw the image of a hand and wrist, pointing, the
forearm being draped. It was in fairly sharp focus, and appeared, by
its proportion, to be rather nearer the camera than the centre of
the table, above which it appeared to hang suspended. A shadow cast
by it was plainly seen, larger and less sharply focussed, apparently
on the back wall of the room. (A picture on this wall had previously
been removed, to eliminate any reflection, and leave the background
clear.) There was a general appearance of drapery surrounding the
group, particularly at the sides; there was in this the suggestion
of a trunk to which the hand might belong. The appearance of the
picture was very startling, and Patrick suggested that as the man
at whom it should turn out to be pointing might suffer considerable
uneasiness on seeing it, it might be well to destroy the plate
without attempting to identify him. E and C, after a minute’s
thought, both agreed that this would be the wisest course, and it
was accordingly done. Patrick did not wish to feel that he might
be in any way responsible for causing anyone uneasiness or harm,
such as might well result from such a picture.[8] Accordingly the
three returned to the other room, and explained the situation to
the others, who, though obviously disappointed, did not condemn the
course taken.

“This concludes the account of these first three meetings. We wish to
record that all through the meetings Patrick desired and requested us
to take all and any precautions we thought fit, to satisfy ourselves
that he introduced no trickery.

“In conclusion, we, the undersigned, declare this to be an accurate
account of the occurrences to the best of each man’s individual
knowledge. While not committing ourselves to any statements as to our
belief or disbelief in the genuineness of the phenomena observed,
we maintain that the greatest possible care was taken to prevent
any possibilities of trickery; and we consider that, barring the
possibility of Patrick having an accomplice among us, the evidence
should be accepted as proof of the genuineness of the phenomena
observed.”

This is followed by their seven signatures. E added afterwards a paragraph of his own as to the interpretation of the word “accomplice.” E was much the acutest observer and the most obstinate sceptic of the seven: I think he suspected D of being in some way my accomplice; some of the others suspected him of being a medium. He certainly was not an accomplice--for I never had one in the room; he may be a medium for aught I know--but I should doubt it.

At the next meeting an eighth investigator appeared, and everybody seemed to be suspecting everybody else, and not merely the photographer. The plates were bought at a different shop, chosen by lot, by a committee of four; and the packet was at once done up with much red tape and green sealing-wax. When they had finished I requested to be allowed to put my seal on it too, to assure myself that _they_ were not playing any tricks! My request was granted. I now quote the report of the meeting:

“The box of plates was produced by C, and the seals were found
to be intact. The box was taken into the dark-room by A, and a
plate-carrier--which had been previously examined by several of
those present--by B. The seals were broken, and a plate was loaded in
the presence of A, B, D, and E, who signed their names on stamp-paper
fixed to the back of the plate.

“In attempting to fit the slide into the camera, the plate was
accidentally exposed. It was discarded, and another plate signed
and loaded by A, C, E, and Patrick. C then locked the plate away
in a drawer, and kept the key until the slide was required for the
photograph.”

[Table-turning was then indulged in; A, C, E, and myself not taking
part. The usual type of answers was obtained from the table; I omit
this part of the report. During the table-tilting the photograph was
taken under precisely the same conditions as at the last meeting.]

“The plate was developed by Patrick; A, C, and E watching. An extra
pair of eyes and the upper part of a nose developed, apparently on
the wall; they were brightly illuminated, from the same position as
the other figures. They were larger than those of the other members
of the group, and were over B’s head.

“We consider that this is a true account of what occurred. Barring
any very abstruse and elaborate explanation, it would seem that the
photograph is undoubtedly genuine.”

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

I did not hold another photographic _séance_, but being emboldened by success, introduced at the next meeting “a medium from London.” (As a matter of fact he came from Trinity, but I had ascertained that nobody knew him, which was the important thing.) After suitable preliminaries we all sat round a large table in semi-darkness, holding hands. When the medium had arranged “the balance of the circle” to his liking, he proceeded to go into a trance, when queer things began to happen. A candlestick was seen to slide along the mantelpiece and crash into the coal-box, taking a framed photograph with it; sounds were heard from a small cupboard; the window-curtains were parted; several people saw spirit forms and eyes; and one was favoured with a spirit touch. The medium’s Egyptian control, Nemetra, gave us wonderful accounts of life in Memphis in the days of the Pharaohs--accounts which certainly made up in picturesque detail for anything they lacked in historical accuracy.

Unfortunately this meeting was not a complete success, as, immediately the show was over, our ever-curious geologist E began hunting about the floor, and discovered a small loop of fishing-line (being a post-war fishing-line, the spirit forces had broken it). He could not very well announce his find at the time, as the medium was not yet roused from his trance, and the others were busy feeling his pulse, fanning him and administering cold water!

By this time the results of the photographic _séances_ had become pretty generally known, and the undesired notoriety brought so many requests to allow other visitors at the _séances_ that it became evident to me that the proceedings must terminate. So the next morning, after seeing E, I told him and the others that the whole thing had been a hoax, and that the photographs were frauds. I should like to add that with one exception they took it extraordinarily well, particularly when I explained what had been my object. They were still quite in the dark about _how_ the photographs had been done, particularly when I told them that there was no accomplice among them.

All the photographs were obtained by the general method of double exposure and substitution, the substitution being effected at a different point on each occasion; the methods used, or slight variations of them, are all described in the section on “Methods of Fraud.”

Now I maintain that the conditions imposed upon me were as strict, or stricter, than any professional medium allows. If an amateur photographer but little practised in sleight-of-hand can under such conditions deceive intelligent observers--not once, but several times over--how much easier will it not be for the professional spirit photographer, who makes such frauds his business?

_C.--Internal Evidence of Fraud_

Since spiritualists claim that the presence of invisible spirits may be detected by photography, it seems reasonable to inquire how far this is compatible with established physical facts. If a plate is wrapped in paper and submitted to “spirit influences”--whatever these may be--never being exposed in a camera at all, and on development shows faces or writing, I personally can only find one explanation--trickery. But if a plate is duly exposed with camera and lens, and unseen faces appear on development, the matter is not quite so simple. For it is well recognised that the camera may record what is invisible to the eye; invisible stars are detected by the photographic plate, and anyone who has examined a nebula or comet through a telescope, after seeing a photograph of the same object, realises this fact to his disappointment. Similarly a can of hot water may be photographed, by a long exposure, in a perfectly dark room; and another well-known instance of a similar phenomenon is Sir Robert Ball’s story of photographing some writing on the side of the “Great Eastern,” years after it had been painted out and rendered invisible.

Light, as is well known, is now regarded as consisting of waves in the ether. Ether waves are known to exist over a very large range of wave-lengths; some are comparatively long waves, some are short. The properties of these waves depend upon their wave-length; those visible to our eyes, which we call “light rays,” form only a small section of the complete scale; comparing them with sound waves they correspond to approximately one octave of the whole musical scale. Ether waves of greater or lesser wave-length than light, _i.e._, of lower or higher octaves, have very different properties. Radiant heat and ultra-violet rays are the ether waves nearest in wave-length and properties to light; X-rays and the waves responsible for wireless telegraphy appear to be similar waves further removed along the scale of wave-length.

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

_Effect on Plates_ _Refracted by _Visibility_
Lenses_
_Infra-red (heat) rays_ v. slight Yes No
_Light rays_ affected Yes Yes
_Ultra-violet rays_ strongly affected Yes No
_X-rays_ affected No No

It appears, then, that ultra-violet rays are suitable for our purpose; infra-red rays, if present in an amount sufficient to affect a photographic plate, would make themselves very evident as heat, and may therefore be ruled out.

Ordinary daylight contains ultra-violet rays, as also does the light of the arc lamp and magnesium flash; lamplight, gas-light, and the ordinary electric light, are comparatively deficient in them. But are we to assume that the spirit form is dependent on finding suitable rays in the surrounding ether, or can it produce its own? Perhaps some spiritualist will tell me. This is a point of some practical importance in examining a reputed spirit photograph; for if the spirit is self-luminous its features will be evenly illuminated and without shadows, nor will it cast a shadow on the sitter or background, but rather the reverse. If, on the other hand, the spirit is dependent on the presence of ultra-violet rays from other sources, which it can reflect, then the spirit in the photograph will appear to be illuminated from the same point as the sitter,[9] and by absorption or reflection of the ultra-violet actinic rays which would otherwise have passed on, will cast a shadow on the background. Being a shadow cast by the removal of the ultra-violet rays only, it will of course appear as such in the photograph, but be invisible to the eye.

So if a spirit photograph is to be classed as possibly genuine, the spirit may either appear self-luminous and cast no shadow, or may appear to be illuminated from the same point as the sitter, and cast a shadow on the background, if the latter be of a suitable nature to show it. But on examining a collection of spirit photographs taken by various professional mediums, we find that as often as not the spirit and sitter are lighted from opposite sides; or that a spirit face with a well-marked shadow on one cheek throws no shadow on the background. If our reasoning be correct, we can at once write such productions down as frauds. The photographs I produced at my Cambridge _séances_ show both these faults; two of them have the spirits lighted from the opposite side to the sitter, and one has the spirit lighted from the correct side but throwing no shadow, whereas the sitters throw clear shadows on the wall behind. In the other photograph I managed to get both the lighting and the shadow of the spirit correct; but in order to get the shadow I had to photograph the background with the “spirit”; hence when the sitters were photographed on the same plate there was a double background, which necessitated a rapid destruction of the plate!

Of course the average medium does not consider these points at all; his sitters are usually satisfied with anything they can get, so why should he worry? But an intelligent observer examining a number of spirit photographs with regard to these points will quickly satisfy himself that the majority of them _can_ only be frauds.[10]

There are a number of other points by which a spirit photograph may betray its method of production without reference to the conditions under which it was taken. Many spirit extras are simply copies of existing photographs, which are usually camouflaged in some way. Draperies may be substituted for the hair, or the features slightly retouched. A common method is to reverse the original photograph, right for left; a number of Hope’s productions were recently published in a monthly magazine, and alongside them life portraits of the “spirits,” the letterpress emphasising that, though undoubtedly the same face, they were different photographs. On examination with a mirror, however, the photographs were seen to be identical, and careful measurement of the faces showed the proportions to be exact. In the photographs more recently published by Mr. Bush, who laid a trap for Hope into which the latter appears to have fallen, the spirit was not reversed, nor was even the rather peculiar attitude of the head in the original photograph altered. A little spirit drapery was added round the face, and the whole thrown slightly out of focus; it is really a most clumsy piece of work, and should deceive no one.

In some spirit photographs produced by double exposure there is a double background, as occurred in my own photograph referred to above. There may be either two different backgrounds, or a double outline of the same background; in either case the “spirit’s background” is usually fainter than the “sitter’s background,” and shows through the darker parts of the sitter. Sometimes attempts are made to retouch these appearances on the negative, and many spirit photographs show clumsy brush or pencil work, which must immediately stamp them as frauds.

Attempts are sometimes made to obliterate other tell-tale marks, such as a piece of a spirit’s hat or collar, which has accidentally got on to the plate. Other mediums, however, are less particular, especially in America, and produce their spirits with ordinary hats, collars and ties. But as a rule only spirit robes are permitted, apparently made of butter muslin not quite in focus. Hands are often present: I have seen a case in which the position of a spirit hand would have necessitated a many-jointed arm about four feet long; but perhaps spirit arms _are_ like this. One spirit extra I have seen has two hands, but both appear to be left hands--evidently a left-handed spirit.

Frequently, again, careful examination shows that spirit extras are not photographs at all, but resemble wash drawings. This gives the clue to their origin, for several of the methods described in a preceding section produce a result of this kind. It has been several times pointed out that spirit extras in some cases show the characteristic dots produced by the half-tone newspaper illustration process; if the medium cannot obtain a real photograph of the required spirit, he has to copy a newspaper reproduction. If he is clever, he can eliminate these process marks by printing in his spirit slightly out of focus; but very often he does not take the trouble.

In many, perhaps in the majority, of spirit photographs produced by professional or semi-professional mediums, a critical observer with practical photographic experience can point out some such definite evidence of fraudulent manipulation. In many other cases, where no one particular point can be singled out as indicative of fraud, minor points of suspicion are noticeable, which taken together leave little doubt of the nature of the picture. But photographs _can_ be prepared by purely mechanical means, especially if no kind of test conditions are employed, which will contain no internal evidence whatever of manipulation. By carefully combining enlarged positives, for instance, and re-photographing the whole, results can be produced which will defy the most critical examination. But such photographs are seldom produced, even when the medium is given practically a free hand.

IV.--SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

Probably most people have heard, but seldom at first hand, of unexpected ghosts appearing on plates or films exposed by amateur photographers. On the rare occasions when such accounts can be traced to their source, one usually finds that there is some simple and evident explanation. Streaks and splashes of light on the plates are comparatively common, and are usually the result of the camera, slides, or dark-room not being light-tight; very strange results are sometimes produced in this way. I was once puzzled by a photograph which showed an arch, like a rainbow, across the sky, when it was quite certain that there had been no rainbow in the sky when the photograph was taken. When the result was repeated a few days later, the camera quickly came under suspicion, and was found to have developed a minute pinhole in the bellows. This was sealed up, and the rainbow did not reappear. Many unexplained markings on plates are certainly caused in this or similar ways; but only under very favourable circumstances could an extra face on the plate be so produced. Sometimes unexpected results are caused by an accidental second exposure; but the nature of such a photograph will quickly be apparent. The use of old glass plates may sometimes be responsible for similar results, as has been already explained. But authenticated cases of the appearance of unseen faces in photographs taken in the absence of a professional medium, and which do not show an obvious explanation, are few and far between. The classical example is that of the Combermere photograph, which was published in the _Journal of the S.P.R._, and aroused much discussion and criticism.

A Miss Corbet took a photograph of the library of Combermere Abbey, Cheshire, on December 5th, 1891. She was alone at the time, and left the camera during the exposure, as it was a long one. She kept a note-book with records of her photographs, which afterwards showed that an exposure of one hour had been given, namely from 2 to 3 p.m. Unfortunately she did not develop the photograph till eight months later, and was then amazed to find a figure occupying a chair in a prominent position in the photograph. The figure was faint and transparent, the legs being quite invisible; the features were not recognisable; but the presence of a head, shoulders and arm was fairly plain. Inquiries were made, and it was found that not only was the chair in question the one Lord Combermere had been wont to occupy, but that he had died a few days before the photograph was taken, and was actually being buried some two miles from the Abbey at the hour at which the photograph was taken. The photograph was naturally shown to the dead nobleman’s relatives, some of whom professed to recognise it as Lord Combermere. It was further pointed out that he had lost the use of his legs in an accident some three weeks before his death, and that the spirit figure was correspondingly legless!

The most important contribution to the discussion which followed was made by Sir William Barrett, who demonstrated that the result could be duplicated by taking a several minutes’ exposure of a chair, in which someone was seated for a part of the time. The sitter would naturally not keep quite still; hence the outlines would be blurred and the features indistinct. Sir William published a photograph which he had obtained in this way, reproducing the features of the Combermere photograph, even to the leglessness. He suggested that someone, possibly one of the four men-servants in the Abbey, had entered the library during the prolonged exposure. He had sat down in the chair for a minute or so, when, noticing the camera, he beat a retreat. The photograph showed double outlines to all the sharp edges, indicating that the camera had been moved slightly during the exposure, and suggesting that someone had entered the room and jarred it. As it was eight months after the event that the photograph was developed, it was impossible to ascertain whether anyone _did_ actually so enter the room. In any case it was a remarkable coincidence, but there is no proof of it being anything more.

A somewhat similar case is recorded by Podmore. The photograph was being taken, this time, in a chapel. On development a faint face was seen framed in a panel. This was described as being the likeness of a friend of the photographer’s who had recently died--“a handsome, melancholy lad of eighteen.” Another critic thought that the face was that “of a woman of thirty”; it must have been very indistinct. It may well have been caused in the same manner that was suggested for the Combermere photograph; a visitor to the chapel standing in the field of the camera for some moments, probably not realising that an exposure was in progress.

Several accounts have been given by amateurs of seeing spirit faces develop, only to disappear again on fixing; one such is published in Vol. VII. of the _J.S.P.R._ These are evidently of a subjective nature, the finished negative showing no evidence of any abnormality. If any reader of this article knows of any case where an “extra” has been obtained in the absence of a professional medium, and where the plate can be produced, I should be very grateful for particulars.

Experiments have on several occasions been made by amateurs, deliberately trying for spirit extras, and exposing scores of plates, usually without success. The unsuccessful attempts of Russell, Beattie, Dr. Williams, and more recently Dr. Pierce, have already been alluded to. Experiments of rather a different nature have been carried out by a Frenchman, Dr. Baraduc. His most interesting--if somewhat gruesome--result was a series of photographs taken over the death-bed of his wife, at the time of, and for some hours after, death. The negatives showed globes of light floating over the bed, which gradually increased in size and brightness, and coalesced in the later photographs. The circumstances certainly seem to exclude fraud, and it is very difficult to understand how the progressive series of photographs could have been obtained by accidental means, such as a pinhole in the camera. His results are very interesting, but need repeating by other experimenters; in any case, they have absolutely nothing in common with the conventional spirit photographs which show faces and figures.

V.--THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

The so-called “Fairy Photographs” recently published by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Mr. E. L. Gardner do not strictly come under the heading of “spirit photographs,” but may not inappropriately be considered here. We have no evidence of the conditions under which they were taken; as Sir Arthur explains, such “rare results must be obtained when and how they can.” We have therefore to learn what we can from an examination of the photographs, or of their reproductions. At first sight they look like genuine untouched photographs; their general appearance is excellent, and if frauds, they are certainly good ones. On examining them more carefully, however, a considerable number of points are found requiring explanation. Some of these have no doubt been noticed by different observers; the principal criticisms of the different photographs are these.

“_Iris and the Dancing Gnome_” shows some very strange lighting. Examining Iris’s hat, we find the strongest light is falling, probably through a gap in the trees, from above and a little to the right; the shadow behind her arm, and the lighting of the fingers, confirm this. The gnome stepping up on to Iris’s knee should therefore cast a shadow upon her white dress, below and to the left; but the photograph shows no trace of any such shadow. On the other hand, the gnome is lighted mainly from the _left_; this is plainly shown on the conical cap and the right upper arm. Apart from these discrepancies, which alone are quite sufficiently damning, several other grounds for suspicion are evident. The whole photograph is much too carefully arranged to be the snapshot it is represented as being. The black legs of the gnome are contrasted against the white dress of the girl; the lighter body, face and wings are outlined against the shadows under the trees; the dark cap is brought with one edge against a wing, the better to show it up, while the other edge catches the light. A snapshot would indeed be fortunate in securing such an admirable arrangement! The same thing is very noticeable in the other three published photographs; the pictorial arrangement of the figures and background is much too good to be the result of chance, and suggests careful posing.

This gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are told, at four o’clock on a September afternoon which was not sunny; an exposure of 1/50th of a second was given on “Imperial Rapid” plates, using a “Midg” quarter-plate camera. With the largest stop in this camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, _i.e._, 1/5th of a second, would be needed to give a fair negative under these conditions; 1/2 to 1 second would probably be more correct. The photograph in question certainly shows signs of under-exposure; but under the conditions stated one would expect little more than a silhouette of the white dress and of the sky showing through the trees. Something is evidently wrong here.

The gnome’s proportions are certainly not human, as are the fairies’ in the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar “Brownie” of the Kodak advertisements. Though stepping up onto the girl’s knee, he is noticeably looking away from her, and at the camera, which is very unnatural and likely to cause him a tumble! Criticism has been directed against the girl’s hand, but this is quite a common photographic distortion of a hand held rather near the camera. In my copy, however, the elbow appears rather peculiar.

The other points, taken together, can leave no possible doubt that the photograph is a fake. It could have been produced by making a positive enlargement from the negative of Iris on one of the bromide papers specially prepared for working up. The gnome would then be sketched on this--he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph--and the whole would then be re-photographed on to a quarter-plate. No doubt an entirely satisfactory result would not be secured at the first attempt; in fact, Mr. Gardner tells us that “other photographs were attempted, but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.” Surely such extraordinary photographs, even if partial failures, would be kept--if they did not show something that was not intended! We have known plates to be destroyed on other similar occasions, and for similar reasons.

“_Alice and the Fairies_” is of a rather different nature. The lighting of the fairies is badly wrong; they are brightly illuminated from a point behind the camera, whereas Alice is less brightly illuminated, and from the left-hand side. Sir Arthur, in his article, points out that this is accounted for by the “fairy psychoplasm” having a “faint luminosity of its own.” To appear brighter than the sitter, photographed by 1/50th of a second exposure at three o’clock on a sunny July afternoon, the fairies would have to resemble in luminosity a battery of arc lights! The photograph appears to have been produced by pasting the “fairies” on to an enlargement of the original photograph of Alice, and then re-photographing the whole. The fairies could be obtained by taking posed photographs of children suitably dressed; these would then be carefully cut out from their backgrounds and pasted on to the original enlargement. The points of internal evidence on which this statement is based are as follows:

1. The very sharp (cut) outlines of all parts of the fairies. This is particularly noticeable in the outline of the dress and hair of the third fairy (counting from the left); compare this with the soft outline of Alice’s hair, against a similar background.

2. The same fairy’s forearm is much brighter than Alice’s wrist, at the point where it crosses between it and the camera. Assuming that both were equally white, and lighted from the same source, the one further from the camera would normally photograph a little the lighter.

3. Fairies two and four appear to be photographs of the same model, the wings being exchanged for the pipe. Note the similarity of the attitude of the legs, and of the shape of the tail of drapery hanging down behind.

4. With the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, _every part of the fairy figures is in front of the sitter and background_. This applies to all four photographs, and is of the utmost importance; superimposing the fairies on the original photograph in the manner described must of course produce this effect.

5. One would have expected to see some blurring due to movement, in the fairies’ wings and feet at any rate, with a 1/50th of a second exposure at a distance of four feet. None is visible in the reproduction.

The two more recently published photographs are very similar to “Alice and the Fairies,” and the same general criticisms apply. “_Alice and the Leaping Fairy_” again shows the fairy illuminated from a point behind the camera, whereas Alice is illuminated from the right side. (Note that her right cheek, facing the camera, is in shadow.) Fairy shows no movement-blurring, and comparison with instantaneous photographs of jumpers shows the attitude to be most unusual. On tilting the photograph a little to the left, the fairy appears to have been posed kneeling on the left knee, the support being afterwards cut away, and the cut-out figure applied to the enlargement of Alice, in a slightly different vertical axis.

“_Iris and Fairy with Harebells_” shows similar features. Notice, again, the different lighting of fairy and Iris; the hard outline of fairy’s hair, so unlike Iris’s in the same print; and the careful way the fairy has been placed to secure a well-balanced picture--scarcely a random snapshot! The harebells seem too large in comparison with the hedge-leaves at the same distance from the camera. They may be the result of combining yet a third photograph; or the actual harebells may have been placed on the enlargement and re-photographed with it.

An artist to whom I have shown this photograph, together with the full-length photographs of “Iris” published with the earlier article in the _Strand Magazine_, is of opinion that the fairy has the same figure and features as Iris, and, in fact, may very well be a photograph of Iris herself, attired in a bathing dress and some butter muslin, and with the addition of wings! The photographs of Iris show a rather characteristic poise of the head, which is also seen in the fairy. This is only a suggestion, however; the photographs are too small for certain identification. In any case, the fairy figure is certainly of human proportions.

These photographs have attracted a good deal of attention, and seem to have been accepted as genuine in some quarters. No doubt much reliance has been placed on the statement of one experienced photographer, Mr. Snelling, that they show no evidence of manipulation, disregarding the adverse criticisms of several other photographers to whom they were shown. I consider that there is not the slightest doubt that they are fakes, simply on the internal evidence they provide, and I have endeavoured to explain the principal points on which this opinion is based.

VI.--THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES

(W. WHATELY SMITH)

The reliability of witnesses is a crucial question in the study of psychical phenomena and has for long been a bone of contention between spiritualists and their critics. If honesty, care, and intelligence alone sufficed to make a man’s testimony reliable the whole range of spiritualistic phenomena, including spirit photography, might long ago have been taken as proved beyond all possibility of doubt. But this is very far from being the case, and although it is never pleasant to express flat disbelief of the accuracy of people’s statements, the Psalmist’s dictum that “all men are liars” should be graven on the heart of every psychical researcher, especially in the case of those who attempt to investigate “physical” phenomena.[11]

I do not propose to repeat the obvious platitudes about the ease with which conjurers can deceive their audiences, but I should like to emphasise the fact that such differences as exist between the circumstances in which conjurers and mediums work are uniformly in favour of the latter as regards the minor manipulations necessary for the production of photographic phenomena. (One is not, of course, concerned with elaborate “stage effects,” but rather with small matters like the substitution of one plate for another or the distraction of the sitter’s attention while the required extra is impressed upon the plate.) The conjurer’s audience _knows_ that it is a trick; the medium’s does not. Even the most hardened sceptic will probably have a lingering doubt in his mind as to whether there may not possibly be “something in it” after all. This is all to the medium’s advantage, and it must be remembered that not only does he work for much of his time under lighting conditions which are peculiarly favourable to fraudulent manipulation, but also that the great majority of his sitters start with a considerable prepossession to the effect that they are encountering something inexplicable.

But these observations must, I suppose, have occurred to all who have considered such matters at all impartially, and however relevant they may be they will never by themselves prevail against what we call “the evidence of our senses.” No amount of general considerations of this kind will deter the credulous from accepting the _prima facie_ indications of a “successful” _séance_. The only hope of preserving the public from the depredations of these swindlers is to show that the “evidence of the senses” is not worth twopence unless backed by special knowledge of the relevant technique.

One would think that anyone who reads Mr. Patrick’s admirable account of fraudulent methods and of his experiments in their application will feel chary of claiming that he has wholly eliminated the possibility of fraud from any photographic _séance_ which he has attended. But there may be some who will still say: “No doubt these fraudulent methods can be and have been employed, no doubt many people would allow a medium to substitute plates under their very noses, or to touch them. But when _I_ went to such-and-such a medium I am _certain_ that the plates were never out of my possession, that he never had a chance of touching them....” and so forth.

Of course, some of the methods described by Mr. Patrick do not involve touching the plates at all. It would not be at all impossible for an artist in such work to allow a sitter to use his own plates, camera, slides, dishes, and chemicals in his own studio and dark-room, to load, unload, and develop the plates himself without their ever being touched by the “medium” and yet to produce a perfectly good extra.

But I will let that pass and confine myself to the question of whether the kind of positive statement outlined above is really worth anything at all. This question was answered once and for all in the emphatic negative by the classical experiments of the late Mr. S. J. Davey in “Slate-writing,” which are fully described in the _Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii.

These experiments are not nearly so widely known as they deserve to be, but it is not too much to say that no one who has not read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested them is competent so much as to begin to talk about the genuineness of spirit photography; unless, of course, he happens to have acquired a knowledge of trick methods and the scope of deception by other means--such as Mr. Patrick adopted in his experimental work!

Very briefly, the story was as follows: Mr. Davey was an amateur conjurer of some skill who set himself to imitate by trickery the performances of Slade, Eglington, and other exponents of “slate-writing” phenomena. In this he succeeded to admiration--so much so that certain spiritualists characteristically insisted that he _must_ be a very powerful “medium”! He scrupulously denied himself the advantage of claiming his results as supernormal, but in spite of this found no difficulty in imposing on his sitters. The latter were encouraged to take every possible precaution against trickery and were instructed to write the most careful reports of what occurred.

A number of reports were thus obtained from men and women of unquestionable intelligence and acumen which, if they had been even approximately accurate, would have established the supernormality of Mr. Davey’s phenomena beyond any peradventure. But comparison of their reports with the known and recorded procedure which actually took place showed the most astonishing discrepancies. Omissions and distortions of the first importance were abundant and the experiments proved to the hilt that, for phenomena of this kind, the reports of untrained witnesses are, in general, not worth the paper they are written on.

I wish that space permitted me to quote, in parallel columns, some of these Davey reports and some of those given by witnesses of photographic _séances_ so that my readers could see how very similar the circumstances are.

But I must content myself with pointing out that whereas in the one case everything turned on whether the “medium” had any chance of substituting or tampering with _slates_, so in the other it is a matter of whether there has been any chance of substituting or tampering with _plates_. The reports of intelligent witnesses proved worthless in the one case, and it seems reasonable to suppose that they are no more valuable in the other.

So, to anyone who thinks that in the mouth of two or three witnesses the genuineness of spirit photographs shall be established, I would say, “Go home and invest a few shillings in the _Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii.--it will be more profitable than the same amount laid out in photographic _séances_--and when you have carefully read their account of the Davey experiments in conjunction with Mr. Patrick’s paper, see whether your confidence in spirit photographs is as strong as ever!”

I have drawn attention to these experiments of Mr. Davey elsewhere and I am sorry to be obliged to insist on their importance again. But until people learn that the reports of uninstructed observers--however acute in other respects--are utterly unreliable, the fraudulent medium will flourish and the unsuspecting public will be robbed and deceived.

VII.--THE VALUE OF RECOGNITION

(W. WHATELY SMITH)

Believers in spirit photographs generally consider that they are playing their trump card when they point out that thousands of “extras” have been definitely recognised by sitters as portraits of their deceased friends or relatives. But this card, impressive as it looks, will not really take the trick. If it could be shown (i.) that a given “extra” was _unmistakably_ recognisable as a portrait of a deceased--or even of a living--person, and (ii.) that the medium concerned could not possibly have obtained a likeness of that person to work from, then we should be obliged to attach great weight to this factor, even if the conditions were not otherwise such as to exclude fraud. For such a result could not be fraudulently produced. But in spite of the perfectly honest assertions of many investigators, it seems very doubtful whether this state of affairs has ever been realised.

There are two ways in which evidence based on recognition may be defective.

First, the recognition may be perfectly well founded, but the “extra” may have been derived from an existing photograph of the deceased; second, and more frequently, the recognition is illusory and exists only in the sitter’s imagination.

As regards the first of these points, it should be remembered that most people are photographed at one time or another, some of them frequently, and that it is not very difficult to obtain a photograph of a given person if one goes about it in the right way. A spirit photographer with an extensive _clientèle_ will find it well worth his while to take the necessary steps to secure photographs appropriate to at any rate his more regular sitters, from whom, in the course of a few _séances_, it will not be difficult to glean enough information to put him on the right track. It is, of course, particularly easy if they happen to be well-known people, photographs of whose relatives may have appeared from time to time in the press. But although this method may sometimes be employed where circumstances lend themselves thereto, or when there is some reason which makes a first-rate “test” especially desirable, I do not think that it is responsible for more than a small percentage of the recognitions which are claimed.

By far the greater proportion appear to be due to the operation of subjective factors which lead the sitter to “recognise unmistakably” an extra which bears no more than a vague general resemblance to the person whom it is claimed to represent.

Recognition can scarcely be assessed objectively; it is essentially a subjective affair, and as such liable to all the distorting factors which affect every mental process.

If I had to summarise the whole of modern psychological doctrines in one line I should quote the popular saying, “The wish is father to the thought.” The whole of our mental activity, our thoughts, actions, opinions, and dreams are moulded by wishes or innate tendencies of one kind or another. Often, of course, these conflict with one another; but that does not alter the principle involved.

I believe that the great majority of the recognitions of spirit photographs are determined either by the definite wish to find evidence of survival or by the vaguer desire to obtain “positive” results of some kind, for positive results are always pleasanter and more satisfactory than negative.

To attempt a full discussion of the psychological process of recognition in general would take us very far, but I think it may be conceded that it is based on some kind of a _comparison_ between the object (“extra”) actually perceived and a visual image of the person concerned which is evoked for the purpose. But visual images are very plastic, so to speak, as anyone who tries to visualise the face of a friend accurately will be able to verify for himself. The general impression may be clear enough, but details of proportion and the like are very elusive. We all know, too, how faces get distorted in dreams (though by somewhat different causes from those which we are considering here), and it may well be that it is for reasons of this kind that recognition is so often unreliable even in ordinary life. Which of us has not been struck by the likeness of a press photograph to someone whom we know, or who has not been momentarily misled by the slight resemblance of a passer-by to his contemporary inamorata? In my judgment it is entirely in conformity with modern psychological views, or, indeed, a necessary consequence of them, to suppose that the process of recognition is as subject to the influence of emotional wish-tendencies as are all the other mental processes which have been studied.

This supposition is immensely strengthened by a consideration of the actual material dealt with. I have seen a good many spirit photographs, and I am sure that those who have seen more will agree with me that the number which are clear enough to be _capable of definite recognition at all_ is extremely small. They are almost invariably blurred, out-of-focus, indistinct things, frequently so covered in “spirit drapery” as to leave no more than two eyes, a nose and a mouth visible, while the shape of the head and the hair are quite indistinguishable. In the great majority of cases it seems to the unbiassed observer nothing short of absurd to claim that such vague and indefinite effigies can be “unmistakably” recognised. And when it comes to recognition being instantly claimed _from the negative_ and before a print is made--as in a case I heard of not long ago--one almost gives up hope!

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

It should also be remembered that in everyday life recognition is a much more sketchy affair than might at first be suspected. Experiments have shown that in reading, or in viewing a drawing, we do not take cognizance of each individual element; on the contrary our attention flits, so to speak, from point to point, skipping altogether the intervening matter. We thus obtain an outline or skeleton impression which we fill up from our own resources. We actually notice a few salient features and interpolate the rest; hence, for example, the well-known difficulty of “spotting” mis-prints in proofs. This process is perfectly satisfactory for ordinary purposes such as reading, and seldom results in our misinterpreting the symbols before us, and when it does the context usually puts us right. But in dealing with spirit photographs the context, if there can properly be said to be any, is much more likely to put us wrong. The “salient features” which “leap to the eyes” are, in this case, those which suffice to locate a face as belonging to a certain general type, while the details which we fill up for ourselves are just those which are necessary for the identification of a particular individual. Consequently, false recognition is easy provided the general type is all right. The “beauty” is emphatically “in the eye of the beholder.” As “M.A. (Oxon),” a famous spiritualist and a believer in spirit photographs, well said:

“Some people would recognise anything. A broom and a sheet are quite
enough to make up a grandmother for some wild enthusiasts who go with
the figure in their eye and see what they wish to see.... I have had
pictures that might be anything in this or any other world sent to
me, and gravely claimed as recognised portraits; palpable old women
authenticated as ‘my spirit brother, dead seventeen years, as he
would have been if he had ...’ etc.”

But, as usual, the empirical test of experience is the best. Considerations such as those outlined above may be valuable in establishing _a priori_ probabilities, but it is far more important to ascertain whether _as a matter of fact_ people actually do make false recognitions with any frequency. The answer to this has already been given by Mr. Patrick in his account of the Buguet case above.[12] The most striking feature of the case, as he rightly points out, was the way in which witnesses swore to having “unmistakably recognised” the extras they obtained, _and stuck to their recognitions in spite of Buguet’s own confession of fraud and his description of the methods employed_. In the face of this sort of thing, who will be bold enough to maintain that the recognition factor can be assigned any appreciable weight?

VIII.--RECENT LITERATURE

(W. WHATELY SMITH)

Recent contributions to the literature of spirit photography are not very numerous. I may first mention the very thorough exposure by Dr. Walter Prince of the Keeler-Lee-Bocock photographs; this appeared in the _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research, vol. xiii., part II, March, 1920. Keeler is a photographic medium who has practised in the United States for a number of years. For the benefit of Mrs. Lee he produced, at a price, a long series of “spirit” photographs purporting to represent the deceased Mr. Bocock in a variety of situations. Test conditions were either wholly absent or absurdly inadequate, and the photographs are, on internal evidence alone, so palpably fraudulent that it is surprising that they were ever accepted at all. The most obvious indication of fraud is the fact that through a whole long series of photographs Mr. Bocock’s facial angle remains the same and identical with that of one of the only two extant photographs of him, no matter what his posture may be or on what occupation he may be represented as engaged. This circumstance clearly points to the use of a single photograph of Mr. Bocock as the basis of all the fakes. The case is not of sufficient importance to be worth discussing at length, but it is an interesting example of the art of critically studying internal evidence and of the almost incredible effrontery of fraudulent mediums.

More important is Mr. Edward Bush’s “Spirit Photography Exposed,” a small pamphlet published by the author as a contribution to the “Nehushtan Crusade.” The object of the latter movement, of which one gathers that Mr. Bush is the leading spirit, is to show that all the physical phenomena of Spiritualism are fraudulent and to expose dishonest mediums. This last object, at least, is admirable, and Mr. Bush is certainly entitled to consider himself “one up” on Hope in the matter of spirit photographs.

Briefly, Mr. Bush laid a trap for Hope by writing to the latter under an assumed name and enclosing a photograph of a living person which he represented as that of his deceased son. Hope returned the photograph and gave Mr. Bush an appointment for a _séance_, which he attended, still under his assumed name (Wood). He duly received an “extra” in the form of the face portrayed in the photograph which he had sent,[13] together with a “psychograph” beginning “Dear friend Wood”! Any reasonable person will say that Mr. Bush has proved his case, that he laid a trap for Hope and that Hope fell into it as completely as possible. But an apologetic will doubtless be forthcoming from those to whom Hope’s integrity is a cardinal article of faith.

Mr. Bush appears, I may add, to be almost wholly ignorant of fraudulent methods, but he has successfully made good his deficiency in this case by the exercise of a little diplomacy.