Produced by deaurider, David E. Brown, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)









  THE CASE AGAINST
  SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS


  BY

  C. VINCENT PATRICK

  AND

  W. WHATELY SMITH


  LONDON:
  KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.
  BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74, CARTER LANE, E.C.
  1921




CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE

     I. INTRODUCTORY (W. Whately Smith)                                5

    II. HISTORICAL (C. Vincent Patrick)                                7

   III. FRAUD (C. Vincent Patrick)

          A. _General Methods_                                        15

          B. _Experiments in Fraud_                                   21

          C. _Internal Evidence of Fraud_                             27

    IV. SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS (C. Vincent Patrick)  31

     V. THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS (C. Vincent Patrick)                    33

    VI. THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES (W. Whately Smith)               36

   VII. THE VALUE OF RECOGNITION (W. Whately Smith)                   39

  VIII. RECENT LITERATURE (W. Whately Smith)                          42

    IX. REAL TEST CONDITIONS (W. Whately Smith)                       45




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.

  “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.

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.