Chapter IX: REAL TEST CONDITIONS (W. Whately Smith) 45 (3)

Finally, I must touch on certain articles which have recently appeared in the well-known spiritualist paper, _Light_. It is with considerable reluctance that I do so, partly because the candid expression of my opinion cannot fail to bring me into sharp conflict with a number of people whom I respect and with whom I would much prefer to remain in harmony, and partly because exigencies of space compel me to adopt a brief and almost dogmatic mode of treatment which is likely to provoke accusations of superficiality and prejudice. To thrash the matter out thoroughly would necessitate an interminable discussion to which circumstances do not lend themselves and which would certainly be fruitless.

For there is an attitude of resolute credulity which is quite proof against reason. I do not for a moment suggest that spiritualists enjoy a monopoly of this quality; they do not, for it is equally to be found in other quarters, among materialistic scientists and party politicians, for example, who constantly ignore the plain implications of evidence if the latter happens to conflict with their cherished beliefs.

But however hopeless the task may be, it seems none the less to be a duty to protest from time to time against this state of mind, of which several striking examples are to be found in the articles in question.

The conviction of the genuineness of spirit photographs is a conviction which is founded on purely negative evidence (namely, that on very many occasions no fraud has been actually discovered), and held in the face of definite positive evidence (namely, the occasional actual discovery of fraud, as by Mr. Bush). But once formed it seems impossible to shake it, and just as always happens when emotion rather than reason is responsible for an opinion, every adverse indication is distorted into an additional corroboration. Just as a lover distorts the faults of his mistress into virtues--frivolity being regarded as gaiety, dulness as profundity and intransigeance as strength of mind--so the plain indications of fraud which leap to the eyes of the unbiassed student are gravely put forward as evidence of the wonderful ways in which the spirits work.

Thus in _Light_ for January 29th I find advanced as “most evidential” the fact that whereas a plate which had been in the possession of the medium for several days showed an “extra,” others, simultaneously exposed, which had _not_ been in her possession, did not. (Note.--I am well aware that the plates sent to the medium for “impregnation by the psychic influence” were in a sealed packet which was certified intact when returned. But as anyone who has studied the subject of sealing knows, it is extremely difficult to devise a really fraud-proof method. Certainly no ordinary arrangement of strings and knots is reliable.)[14] Mr. Barlow, who writes the article, correctly argues that this result indicates that the lens of the camera used “had nothing to do with the formation of the psychic images which appear to have been printed on the photographic plate.” But instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that, in spite of the sealing, the plate which showed the “extra” had been tampered with, he adopts the view that a “psychic transparency” is used, that this is at some period applied to the sensitised surface of the plate by spirit agency and exposed to spirit light! Comment is needless.

This theory of the psychic transparency is very popular just now and is being freely invoked to account for the obvious indications of fraud which even a superficial study of spirit photographs reveals. It is expounded at some length by the Rev. Chas. L. Tweedale (_Light_, January 22nd, 1921), who carefully describes the various indications which show clearly that the extra is often produced by a transparency of _some_ kind, in terms which could be used almost without alteration as proof of the fraudulent nature of the productions. Thus the edges of the “psychic” transparency are said to be clearly visible on many of Hope’s negatives, and we are told that “in some cases when ‘the cotton-wool effect’ is introduced, this ring of nebulous whiteness probably forms the edge of the transparency and ... may conceal its use.” Most astonishing of all, perhaps, is this author’s credulity in accepting as genuine a spirit photograph showing two portraits of the late Mr. Stead of which one was an exact duplicate of the other, but larger, and clearly showed the “screen effect” of small dots which one can observe in any printed reproduction of a photograph.[15]

Certainly there is ample evidence to show that some kind of transparency is frequently used in the production of extras (_Cf._ p. 18 above), especially by Hope, but there seems no reason to suppose that it is in any way “psychic.” On the contrary, a friend of mine who enjoyed the privilege of a sitting with this artist not long ago tells me that when he went to focus the camera (as one is frequently invited to do), he clearly saw a wholly gratuitous face already projected on the ground-glass! Now either there was some kind of an objective apparition present in the camera’s field of view which reflected light which only became visible after passing through the lens (which is absurd), or there was a transparency of some kind between the lens and the ground-glass. Of course it _may_ have been a psychic transparency born before its time--one cannot possibly say definitely that it was not, but the more mundane inference seems very much the more probable. In fact, all this talk of The Problems of Psychic Photography is no more than an orgy of hypothetising from a mass of utterly unreliable data.

If only believers in spirit photographs would take the trouble to learn a little more about fraud and tighten up their control accordingly, instead of inventing strange hypotheses to bolster up their imperfect observations, we should hear less of photographic mediums and fewer people would be duped in this deplorable fashion.

IX.--REAL TEST CONDITIONS

(W. WHATELY SMITH)

To the last sentence of the preceding section someone will probably retort, “If only critics would stop talking about fraud and examine the phenomena at first hand, they would be convinced and we should have a chance of getting on with the war and finding out all sorts of interesting things.” It is not really a fair retort, because it is always perfectly legitimate to point out sources of error in any experimental work without being called upon to repeat the faulty experiments oneself. But although all the evidence seems to me to point one way, I freely admit that I may be wrong and that genuine spirit photographs may be produced. If so, I should very much like to be able to convince myself of the fact and to give the utmost publicity in my power to any positive results I might obtain. But it is no use my attempting to do so under the conditions which normally obtain at a photographic _séance_. I know, to be sure, a certain amount about fraudulent methods, and might, perhaps, be not quite so easy a prey as others who know less. But I am not so conceited as to flatter myself for a moment that I am a match for a really competent trickster. I know just enough to realise how very great an advantage the latter always has and how hopeless it is for any but the very elect to pit themselves against him. I do not imagine, as apparently do many worthy spiritualists who do not even know the first word about fraud, that my not extraordinary powers of observation are a match for the adroit and experienced medium, and I would no more back myself to spot fraud every time it was tried than I would back myself to win money off a cardsharper!

If one were allowed _real_ test conditions, it would be quite another matter. But one is not. One is allowed to watch--when one’s attention is not distracted by some natural-seeming incident; one is allowed to perform for oneself all kinds of operations which are quite irrelevant to the _modus operandi_ of the trick; one is allowed to bring, if not always to use, one’s own plates. But as already pointed out, the loopholes left for fraud are so numerous that it is vain to hope to guard against them all. In fact, the most suspicious feature about the whole of psychic photography is the fact that a procedure is insisted on which _must_ give these innumerable loopholes and the obvious “safe” procedure is never, so far as I know, allowed at all.

If the account of fraudulent methods given above is referred to again, it will be seen that of the twenty-two varieties there noted, no less than eighteen depend on either (_a_) the use of the medium’s faked camera or slides, or (_b_) the fact that the plates are loaded into slides, the slides placed in the camera, the plates removed from the slides and also developed “on the premises.” The only methods to which this does not apply are the first of all and those involving preparation of the studio or dark-room and noted in Group II., Section A, to which might possibly be added the X-ray method. These three last can easily be eliminated by working in one’s own or a “neutral” studio, while the former eighteen could all be prevented by using the investigator’s own magazine or roll-film camera, loading it before the _séance_, taking it away immediately afterwards, and developing the plates in private without the medium.

I may very well be wrong, there may very well be methods which I do not know and cannot imagine which would get round even this degree of control, but I am inclined to think that this procedure would be “fraud-proof.” Nothing less rigorous can be so, at any rate for a single-handed investigator, and even if several were present no confidence could be felt in the results unless (_a_) they were well versed in fraud, (_b_) they had planned and rehearsed everything in advance, (_c_) the medium were completely docile and willing to keep right away from the plates at the critical moments, and (_d_) the studio were known to be unprepared.

I shall probably be told that the conditions mentioned above as being apparently fraud-proof would automatically inhibit the phenomena as would insistence on full light in the case of telekinesis. I am well aware that many attempts to lay down test conditions in the past have rightly met with this retort; but apart from the fact that _if_ the phenomena are such that real test conditions can never be applied then their genuineness can obviously never be established, I honestly cannot see that there is any essential difference between the conditions I suggest and those under which photographic phenomena _ostensibly_ take place.

If and when these simple conditions are allowed (the plates being bought, of course, under circumstances which prevent collaboration by the vendor), I shall be prepared to admit that the scent is getting warm and that there may be something in spirit photographs after all. Until then I must reluctantly maintain my view that they are the most obviously fraudulent of all spiritualistic phenomena.

* * * * *

In conclusion we must confess that we have little hope of influencing convinced believers by the preceding discussion. It is just possible that here and there someone may realise that there is more scope for trickery than there appeared to be at first sight, may scrutinise procedure more carefully, may have the courage to distrust his own powers of observation, may even--if he is lucky--catch a swindler out. But this is unlikely. “Once convinced always convinced” seems to be the rule. “What matter if all appearances and all reasoning are against our beliefs? Did not Satan put marine fossils on the tops of hills to shake our faith in Genesis? Did not stupid spirits carelessly leave false beards and dirty muslin in the pockets of Williams and Rita--those wonderful materialising mediums? Do not even the greatest psychics resort to fraud when the Power fails?”

No! Some people’s faith could never be shaken, not though we gave them two hundred methods of fraud instead of twenty and not though a medium were exposed a hundred times instead of but twice or thrice.

But it may be that there are some who still have doubts and still halt between two opinions. We hope that to these this paper may be of some service as a contribution to the evidence available for their study. It is also possible that it may in some measure act as an antidote to the unreliable matter which is now so freely disseminated and which does so much to bring Psychical Research and the better aspects of Spiritualism into undeserved disrepute.

PRINTED BY THE
ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED,
TIPTREE, ESSEX, ENGLAND.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] I am assuming, for the purposes of comparison, that these later phenomena actually occur--a point on which I am doubtful.

[2] I exclude, of course, the very rare instances when photographs of apparently supernormal origin have been obtained by amateurs of unimpeachable integrity. I have yet to meet with a convincing case of this kind.

[3] Hereward Carrington, _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_.

[4] _E.g._, to verify the “speed” of the plates.

[5] _Cf._ trick slates used by slate-writing mediums.

[6] This method will probably be scoffed at by some enthusiasts, but it should be remembered that the simpler and more audacious methods are the most likely to succeed, just because they are so obvious that no one thinks of them. The sitter _must_ keep still and _must_ look at the camera for some seconds while the exposure is being made, and provided the accomplice is revealed by a carefully silenced mechanism the chances of detection are negligible.

[7] _E.g._, on the back with a diamond.

[8] This may have been true, but was certainly not the principal reason that I had to have the plate destroyed! I had over-exposed my spirit, and I feared this plate would not bear closer inspection (I did not sign the minutes of the first three meetings).

[9] Unless, of course, there happens to be in the room a source of ultra-violet rays other than the ordinary illuminant by which the photograph is taken but which does not emit visible light rays. This possibility may be disregarded for practical purposes.

[10] _Note._--Some believers in spirit photography will dissent from this view on the ground that experiment has shown that when a photograph is taken the extra is not produced by the reflection of ultra-violet light from an “object” (partial materialisation or the like) but by the use of a “psychic transparency” applied to the plate and exposed to “spirit” light. With the first part of this we cordially agree, but the hypothesis of the “psychic transparency” seems to be no more than a resolute attempt to evade the plainest indications of fraud. _Vide infra._--[ED., P.R.Q.]

[11] Readers should refer to Mr. E. J. Dingwall’s interesting article on “Magic and Mediumship” in the January number of the _Psychic Research Quarterly_.

[12] Cf. pp. 11-12.

[13] _Note._--This is a case where recognition _is_ possible because (_a_) the “extra” and the original portrait can be laid side by side and directly compared, (_b_) careful measurements can be made of the facial angle and other characteristics, and (_c_) independent witnesses in any desired number can make the comparison for themselves.

[14] Similar observations apply to “The Hunter Test” (_Light_, Feb. _19th_.)

[15] _Cf._ p. 30 above.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

Italicized text is surrounded by underscores: _italics_.

Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized.

Archaic or alternate spellings have been retained.