INVESTIGATIONS--WISE AND OTHERWISE
Spiritualism has been the cause of much discussion between men of
science, men of magic, and believers in the “Spirit World.” Countless
investigations, wise and otherwise, have been held in most of the
countries of the globe. Many of them have been made by fair-minded,
unbiased men; men who delved deep into the unknown with a clear
conscience and whether successful or not were willing to give the world
the result of their probings. Men who were not afraid to admit that
their experience was not sufficient to cope with the medium’s skill and
years of training and that they had been fooled. But there have been
other so-called investigators who have attended seances wishing to be
fooled and as “the wish is father of the thought” they have been misled.
What these investigators _see_ done and what they _think_ they see
done are in reality two entirely different things and by the time they
start to write their experiences there are usually complications. I
rarely believe a full hundred per cent the explanations I hear or
read. It is to be said to the credit of the investigators that they
do not deliberately make misstatements but the nature of the brain is
such that it is almost impossible to avoid mal-observation and these
mal-observations are the curse of investigation.
Investigations under conditions favorable to the medium cannot be
termed “investigations.” They are nothing more than a demonstration
of the medium’s power to divert the attention, carrying it at will
to any place they wish and numbing the subconscious mind. Under
such conditions they are not only able to delude the innocent and
simple-minded but also men whose accomplishments have proven their
intellects to be above the average.
When a medium is subjected to conditions which are, to say the
least, disconcerting, and the usual effects are not obtained, almost
invariably the claim is made that there are antagonistic waves and
that the “auras” are bad, and if, as often happens, the result is an
unqualified exposé and the medium’s fall from power the followers
of Spiritualism usually put forth a statement saying the medium
overstepped the bounds in trying to give results and resorted to
trickery, but that the majority of previous seances were genuine.
Perhaps my ideas on the subject of how to conduct an investigation are
wrong; I am fully convinced, however, that the only way to conduct a
successful one is to get the committee together previous to the seance,
discuss the expected manifestations, formulate some plan for concerted
action and if possible assign each member some specific part as was
done in the case of Palladino’s fall. These parts should be rehearsed
and then when the seance is held there is a much greater possibility of
the committee being able to judge intelligently. But when scientists
report some feat of legerdemain as being abnormal simply because
they cannot detect the deception, I think it is time to add to each
investigating committee a successful and reputable professional
mystifier, and I might add that all mediums hate to have a magician
attend a seance.
Of the many investigations, since the beginning of modern Spiritualism,
I have selected a few of the most important and will try and show the
reader the necessity of placing on investigating committees men who
cannot be prejudiced or influenced by subdued lights or weird and
mystifying sounds; men who use their God-given gift of reason to the
best of their ability; men whose attention cannot be diverted by the
medium; men whose brain cells are versatile and not overdeveloped
in one particular direction; men who can pay strict attention to
their commission and not be led astray by the glib-tongued medium’s
misdirection. Then we will have real investigations and the world at
large will benefit.
A short time before his death Henry Seybert, an enthusiastic
Spiritualist with a conscientious desire that Spiritualism should
be authentically established, gave the University of Pennsylvania
sufficient money to establish a chair of Philosophy on condition
that a commission should be appointed to investigate “all systems of
morals, Religion or Philosophy which assume to represent the _truth_
and particularly modern Spiritualism.” Accordingly there were selected
from among the doctors and professors of the University ten men to be
known as the “Seybert Commission.” A fairer-minded and more impartial
commission could not have been appointed. Each man had declared
himself holding an open mind and ready to accept whatever there was
evidence to prove, but realizing “that men eminent in intelligence and
attainment yield to Spiritualism an entire credence,” they felt that
one could not “fail to stand aside in tender reverence when crushed
and bleeding hearts are seen to seek it for consolation and for hope.”
In order to be amply prepared to do their work in an intelligent and
understanding manner they provided themselves with the best literature
of the day on the subject and such records of previous investigations
as were available. After a careful digest of all this information
the Commission was ready to begin its actual work in March, 1884.
_The entire ten men_ of the Commission _were willing to believe_, and
their adviser, Mr. Thomas R. Hazard, had been a personal friend of
Mr. Seybert and was known throughout the land as an _uncompromising
Spiritualist_.”
The first medium to which the Commission gave its attention was Mrs.
S. E. Patterson, a slate writing mystifier and automatic writer.
The result of this first case was _nil_. After waiting patiently an
hour and a half for the spirits to move the meeting adjourned to the
disappointment of all. Mr. Hazard was especially chagrined, for the
medium was considered “one of the very best in the world.” She had
given him a private sitting the evening before at which “messages from
the Spirit of Henry Seybert came thick and fast,” but they declined to
manifest for the Commission.
This seance proved to be typical of all that fell to the lot of the
Seybert Commission to investigate. It continued its work for three
years and investigated every case of importance which came before
it. One of these was Margaret Fox, with whom the Commission had two
sittings and became convinced that the raps came from her person. When
she was told of its conclusion she admitted that the seances were not
satisfactory but declined further sittings on the ground of ill health
and because she doubted if more satisfactory results would follow
and admitting that they might result in a “_confirmation_” of the
Commission’s belief as to the cause of the raps.
Many of the most prominent mediums of the day appeared before the
Commission during its three years of work. Some of them underwent a
whole series of tests and the phenomena covered the whole gamut from
simple rapping to spirit photography, automatic and slate writing,
materialization, etc. In every case with but one exception the result
was either a blank seance, a positive failure, or a deliberate cheat.
The exception was when Mr. Harry Kellar was called in as a magician
to demonstrate his power as a slate writer. The Commission was
successfully baffled, not a single member being able to fathom his
method until he explained it.
The Commission carefully weighed all the evidence placed before it
and formed its conclusions with such deliberation and thoroughness
that the most critical on either side found no cause for objecting or
saying that it was swayed or biased by any undue influence whatever.
It pursued its work on purely rational, scientific lines, strenuously
avoiding all conditions which might be construed as conducive to
doubtful conclusions. It was looking for facts in a matter-of-fact way
and as there was no opportunity for screening artifices no occult or
psychic phenomena were proven to have existed. As an evidence of the
fairness with which the Commission was considered to have done its
work, I quote the following letter to the Commission from Dr. Henry
Slade.
“No. 11 E. 13th Street, N. Y., Feb. 4, 1885.
“Dear Mr. Furness:--I take this opportunity to express to
you, and through you to the other members of the Seybert
Commission, my hearty approval of the course pursued by them
in their investigation of phenomena occurring in my presence.
Fully realizing that I am only the instrument or channel
through which these manifestations are produced, it would be
presumption on my part to undertake to lay down a line to
be followed by the unseen intelligence, whose servant I am.
Hence I did say their conditions must be acceded to or I
would return to New York. That they did so, is evident to my
mind from the results obtained, which I regard as a necessary
preliminary to a continuation, when other experiments may
be introduced with better prospects of success. It may be
well not to insist on following the exact course followed by
Professor Zollner, but leave it open to original or impromptu
suggestions that may be adopted without previous consideration,
which, if successful, would be of equal value as evidence of
its genuineness, at the same time give greater breadth to the
experiments. In conclusion, allow me to say that in the event
the Committee desires to continue these experiments through
another series of sittings with me, it will give me pleasure to
enter into arrangements for that purpose.
“Very truly yours,
“Henry Slade.”
If all the investigators were to adopt the rational methods of the
Seybert Commission they might easily discover the truth and no longer
submit to imposition by charlatans nor aid and abet them by accepting
as true the claims made by a class which they admit is of a low type,
dishonest, and otherwise disreputable. If sincere, they would assist in
all reasonable attempts to detect fraud and not accept the irrational
pretext that light and touch are detrimental to the health or life of a
medium.
Following in the footsteps of the Seybert Commission the Society for
Psychical Research was organized in America and England for the purpose
of investigating all so-called phenomena and freak occurrences not
easily accountable for by natural law and in spite of the following
message which it is claimed was sent by the spirit of the late William
Walker, President of the Buxton Camera Club, to the Crewe Circle, I
believe they are doing good work.
“Dear Friends of the Circle,[105]
“I would not spend a moment with the Psychical Research
Society, because they are nothing more or less than fraud
hunters and I want you to come to Buxton for a sitting with
Mrs. Walker, 3, Palace Rd., about the 8th, 9th, of Aug. Then
the spirit friends can further demonstrate the wondrous powers
which to-day are needed more than ever. Peace be with you.
“Yours faithfully,
“W. Walker.”
The membership of these societies is made up of men and women who have
a certain degree of scientific training, all classes of scholarship and
all professions being represented. As a consequence the investigations
have been most exhaustive and carried out by persons especially
qualified for the work, but the results have been most emphatically
against a belief in the return of a soul after death in the guise of a
spirit or the occurrence of anything supernatural at the bidding of a
medium.
Naturally, we might not expect a general agreement among a group
of scientific scholars who had entered the field of research from
different points of view, but I believe I can say without fear of
contradiction, that of all who have undertaken the task without
prejudice the majority agree in the opinion that all phenomena ascribed
to spirit power developed through, and presented by, a medium, are
without foundation in fact, and that the result of their investigations
has agreed perfectly with the findings of the Seybert Commission.
In January, 1869, the London Dialectical Society appointed a committee
with thirty-three members to investigate the phenomena alleged to be
Spiritual manifestations and to report on its findings. Professor
Huxley, Professor John Tyndall, and Mr. George Henry Lewes, were
invited to co-operate with the Committee. Professor Huxley refused to
have anything to do with the investigation and in the following letter,
written in answer to the Committee’s invitation, he terms Spiritualism
a “gross imposture.”[106]
“Sir,--I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation of
the Council of the Dialectical Society to co-operate with a
Committee for the investigation of ‘Spiritualism’, and for
two reasons. In the first place, I have no time for such an
inquiry, which would involve much trouble and (unless it were
unlike all inquiries of that kind I have known) much annoyance.
In the second place, I take no interest in the subject. The
only case of ‘Spiritualism’ I have had the opportunity of
examining into for myself was as gross an imposture as ever
came under my notice. But supposing the phenomena to be
genuine--they do not interest me. If anybody would endow me
with the faculty of listening to the chatter of old women and
curates in the nearest cathedral town, I would decline the
privilege, having better things to do.
“And if the folk in the Spiritual world do not talk more wisely
and sensibly than their friends report them to do, I put them
in the same category.
“The only good that I can see in a demonstration of the truth
of ‘Spiritualism’ is to furnish an additional argument against
suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made
to talk twaddle by a ‘medium’ hired at a guinea a _seance_.
“I am, Sir, &c.,
“T. H. Huxley.”
“29th January, 1869.”
A few days later Mr. Lewes declined the Committee’s invitation as
follows:
“Dear Sir,--I shall not be able to attend the investigation
of ‘Spiritualism’; and in reference to your question about
suggestions would only say that the one hint needful is that
all present should distinguish between facts and inferences
from facts. When any man says that phenomena are produced by
_no_ known physical laws, he declares that he knows the laws by
which they are produced.
“Yours, &c.,
“G. H. Lewes.
“Tuesday, 2nd February, 1869.”
Under date of December 22, 1869, Professor Tyndall wrote the following
in response to his invitation to aid the Committee.
“Sir--You mention in your note to me three gentlemen, two
of whom are personally known to me, and for both of whom I
entertain a sincere esteem.
“The house of one of these, namely Mr. Wallace, I have already
visited, and made there the acquaintance of the lady who was
the reputed medium between Mr. Wallace and the supernatural.
“And if earnestly invited by Mr. Crookes, the editor of the
‘Chemical News,’ to witness phenomena which in his opinion
‘tend to demonstrate the existence of some power (magnetic
or otherwise) which has not yet been recognized by men of
science,’ I should pay due respect to his invitation.
“But understand my position: more than a year ago Mr. Cromwell
Varley, who is, I believe, one of the greatest modern
Spiritualists, did me the favor to pay me a visit, and he
then employed a comparison which, though flattering to my
spiritual strength, seems to mark me out as unfit for spiritual
investigation. He said that my presence at a _seance_ resembled
that of a great magnet among a number of small ones. I throw
all into confusion. Still he expressed a hope that arrangements
might be made to show me the phenomena, and I expressed my
willingness to witness such things as Mr. Varley might think
worth showing to me. I have not since been favored by a visit
from Mr. Varley.
“I am now perfectly willing to accept the personal invitation
of Mr. Crookes, should he consider that he can show me
phenomena of the character you describe.
“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“John Tyndall.”
“G. W. Bennett, Esq.”
Unlike the Seybert Commission, which made a formal report to the
University of Pennsylvania immediately on the completion of its work,
the Committee of the Dialectical Society which was appointed in 1869
did not make any report until 1877 and then only what seems to be a
garbled report of sub-committees. The _Spiritual Magazine_ in 1870
commented on this lack of a report as follows:
“Where is the report of the Dialectical Society? This is the question
which many people are asking, but to which no one seems prepared
to give a satisfactory reply. Has this Report, which was to settle
the question of Spiritualism, only unsettled the Dialectical
Society--causing, as we learn, some of its principal officers and
members to secede from it on finding that the investigations of the
Committee pointed in a different way to what they anticipated, and to
which they had committed themselves? People ask--Have the Committee
come to an opinion on the subject or have they too many opinions?”
The only information I have come in contact with referring to the
Dialectical Committee and its work has been from Spiritualistic
publications, most of them under authorship of Mr. James Burns, and I
copy the following from “The Medium and Daybreak” of November 16, 1877:
“Objection has been taken in some quarters to the fact that the
Society itself did not publish the Report, but left the matter of the
publication as an open question to its Committee.” Again: on the 20th
of July, 1870, the council passed a resolution--“that the request of
the Committee, that the Report be printed under the authority of the
Society, be not acceded to.”
The exact nature of the work done by the Dialectical Society’s
Committee can be summed up by another extract from the same issue of
“The Medium and Daybreak”:
“In due time the Committee presented to the Council the General
and Sub-Reports, supplementing the same by a voluminous mass of
evidence taken directly from the _lips of Spiritualists practically
acquainted with the subject--persons of the highest respectability and
representing nearly every grade of society_.” (The italics are mine.)
Another element of discord in the Dialectical investigation is shown by
the following:
“Attempt has been made, of course, to undervalue these telling
researches. The non-successful Committees have been brought gleefully
into prominence, in hope that _positive_ results obtained by the
successful Committees might thereby be discredited.”
It seems to be a published fact that this movement on the part of the
Dialectical Society resulted in much discord amounting to a split in
the Society. Mr. Burns in his editorial column of the “Medium and
Daybreak” says:
“Our present issue affords an important and valuable addition to the
cheap literature of Spiritualism. It is filled with useful matter for
investigators, _judiciously extracted from the Report of the London
Dialectical Society_.” (My italics.)
The supporters of Spiritualism lay great stress and importance on the
fact that a few of their co-workers are men prominent in scientific and
literary circles, but these are in such a minority, when compared with
men of the same time who do not co-operate, that the Spiritualists in
order to give force and dignity to their argument “ring the changes” on
these few names and keep them prominently to the front, notwithstanding
that it has been proven beyond question, time and again, that these
sages themselves have frequently been the victims of fraudulent
mediums, sometimes knowingly.
Doyle in his book “The New Revelation” says:
“The days are surely passing when the mature and considerate opinions
of such men ... can be dismissed with the empty ‘all rot’ or
‘nauseating drivel’ formulæ.”
Perhaps the most prominent man in this respect and whose conclusions,
especially in his later years, were pointed to by Spiritualists as
being beyond dispute was the eminent chemist, Sir William Crookes. He
became intensely interested in Spiritualistic research work as early as
1870 and for the first four years devoted most of his attention to D.
D. Home, who seemed successful in baffling Crookes’ super-knowledge of
scientific investigation. In 1874 he turned his attention to Florrie
Cook, a fifteen year old medium who had been commanding attention for
about three years. She seems to have captivated him within the first
month to such an extent that he went to her defense in print after a
“_disgraceful occurrence_” had given rise to a “_controversy_,” after
which he entertained her at his house. The most convincing test,
though, took place at her home in Hackney. In February, 1874, he wrote:
“These _seances_ have not been going on many weeks but enough has taken
place to thoroughly convince me of the perfect truth and honesty of
Miss Cook, and to give me every reason to expect that the promises so
freely made to me by Katie will be kept. All I now ask is that your
readers will not hastily assume that everything which is _prima facie_
suspicious necessarily implies deception, and that they will suspend
their judgment until they hear from me again on this subject.”
It was not long, evidently, before the scientist awoke from his dream,
for on August 1st, 1874, he wrote to a Russian lady that after four
years of investigation, including months of experience with Home, Katie
Fox, and Florence Cook, he found “no satisfactory proof that the dead
can return and communicate.” A copy of this letter was sent by Aksakoff
to _Light_, and was published in that journal on May 12, 1900. “Sir W.
Crookes did not dissent.”[107] Sometime along about 1875 forty-four
photographic negatives which he had made of Katie King and her medium,
Florrie Cook, together with what prints he had, were, for some reason
not given, accidentally destroyed and he forbade friends who had copies
to reproduce them. He must have made some sort of a discovery for he
“buried himself in a sulky silence which he would not break” for
forty years. “No one knew whether he was a Spiritualist or not,” his
only statement being that “in all his Spiritualistic research he had
‘come to a brick wall.’”[108] In 1914 when asked plainly if he were
a Spiritualist “he evaded the question.” Perhaps the change in his
opinions came over him when he learned that Florence Cook (who became
Mrs. Corner) was exposed[109] on a continental tour and sent back
disgraced. But in 1916, notwithstanding his statement in 1900 and other
previous statements, he went on record in the December 9th issue of
_Light_ as accepting Spiritualism.
All of this stands as proof that Professor Crookes, even after he was
knighted, was of a vacillating mind and for some reason seemed to be
deficient in rational methods of discovering the truth, or at least
disinclined to put them in force outside of his particular line of
science. Possibly, one of the convincing proofs to him may have been
the “tricks” played on him by Annie Eva Fay, for if I am not in error
his failure to detect her trickery was the turning point which brought
him to a belief in Spiritualism. She told me that when Maskelyne, the
magician, came out with an exposé of her work she was forced to resort
to strategy. Going to the home of Professor Crookes she threw herself
on his mercy and gave a series of special tests. With flashing eyes she
told of taking advantage of him. It appears that she had but one chance
in the world to get by the galvanometer[110] but by some stroke of luck
for her and an evil chance for Professor Crookes, the electric light
went out for a second at the theatre at which she was performing, and
she availed herself of the opportunity to fool him. One of the tests
was duplicated by Professor Harry Cooke, a magician.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this brainy man was
hoodwinked, and that his confidence was betrayed by the so-called
mediums that he tested. His powers of observation were blinded and
his reasoning faculties so blunted by his prejudice in favor of
anything psychic or occult that he could not, or would not, resist
the influence.[111] This seems more difficult to comprehend when one
remembers that he did not accept Spiritualism in full until he was
nearing the end of his earthly career. The weakness and unreliability
of Sir William’s judgment as an investigator is further proved by the
fact that he admitted that many of the tests he proposed were rejected
by the mediums he was investigating. Such conditions made the test
impossible and he did not seem to realize it, but notwithstanding all
this he is one of the most quoted authorities in Spiritualistic realms,
particularly by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Another who was misled by the chicanery of mediums which he
investigated during many years of research is Sir Oliver Lodge.
He failed to find sufficient evidence to prompt him to spread the
teachings of Spiritualism until 1904, after which he occasionally
sent a “glow through the Spiritualistic world by some bold profession
of belief.” In 1905 he was not quite ready to endorse but strongly
commended mediums. But by 1916 he had become “the great scientist
of the movement, the link between the popular belief and scientific
theory.” It is extremely difficult, however, to understand how a
leading scientist can permit his pen to lay before a thinking world
such inconsistent impossibilities as the following:
“A table can exhibit hesitation, it can seek for information, it can
welcome a newcomer, it can indicate joy or sorrow, fun or gravity, it
can keep time with a song as if joining in the chorus and most notably
of all it can exhibit affection in an unmistakable manner.”
_What has all this to do with the spirit of the departed?_ How is it
possible to accept such silly nonsense? Think of it! A _table_ with
intelligence, brains--a _table_ with consciousness--a _table_ with
emotion. Yet that is the sort of reasoning used by Sir Oliver in his
book “Raymond” and it is acceptable to all enthusiastic advocates of
occult teaching. When we read of a mind of such high culture being
overcome by such misfortune we are moved to compassion rather than
censure and can only conjecture that the loss of his beloved son,
Raymond, in an accursed war was the cause of it.
Margaret Deland wrote:
“As for the scientific value of the evidence submitted by Sir Oliver,
one must not lose sight of the fact that by far the greater part of it
is from the experience of others and accepted by him as established
facts, in many cases with little or no investigation as applied to
telepathy. By following his career, one familiar with the psychology of
deception will see that he has been an exceptionally ‘easy mark.’”
In describing a private performance of what is known among magicians as
“long-distance second-sight,” after detailing the tests in full, Sir
Oliver writes:
“As regards collusion and trickery, no one who has witnessed the
absolutely genuine and artless manner in which the impressions are
described, but has been perfectly convinced of the transparent honesty
of all concerned.
“This, however, is not evidence to those who have not been present, and
to them I can only say that to the best of my scientific belief, no
collusion or trickery was possible under the varied circumstances of
the experiments.”
From the above, the reader may form his own opinion as to the value
of Sir Oliver Lodge’s investigation, and at the same time should
bear in mind that his so-called investigation is typical of all the
investigations by scientists and sages who have accepted Spiritualism
as a fact or a religion (?).
The remaining figure of this type most conspicuously in the spotlight
on the Spiritualistic stage at the present time is my esteemed friend,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Very much like Sir Oliver, his opinion hung
in the balance during many years of _investigation_, some thirty or
thirty-five, and it is significant that he did not manifest his deep
concern in the cult until he too, like Sir Oliver, had lost a son in
the late war and his heartstrings had been wrung by a similar grief.
In “The New Revelation,” which was written after he had lost his
son, he tells us that for thirty years he had studied the subject
of Spiritualism “_carelessly_,” _then suddenly in a crisis of
emotion_,[112] he sees a possible balm in it, but instead of realizing
that this was, or should be, the time for real investigation, he threw
up his hands with the cry:
_“The objective side of it ceased to interest, for having made up
one’s mind that it was true there was an end of the matter._”[113]
It is evident from his own confession that he decided to accept
Spiritualism regardless of any real revelation that might present
itself at a future time and the fact that he did cease intelligent
investigation is proved by his own published statements quoted below.
In a letter in the _New York Evening Mail_, Dec. 29, 1921, he says:
“_I don’t need scientific proof of what I hear with my own ears,
see with my own eyes. Nobody does. This is one of the fine things
about Spiritualism. Each person can prove it for himself. It proves
immortality and the better you live here, the further you’ll go there,
progressing finally to the perfect state._”
In the _New York World_, June 22, 1922, he says:
“_That mediums I have recommended have been convicted of fraud; any
medium may be convicted, because the mere fact of being a medium is
illegal by our benighted laws, but no medium I have ever recommended
has been shown to be fraudulent in a sense which would be accepted by
any real psychic student._[114] _This same applies I believe to mediums
recommended by Sir Oliver Lodge._”[115]
In connection with his corroboration of Sir Oliver’s opinion about
mediums Sir Arthur is reported to have said:
_“Sir Oliver is too damn scientific.”_
And the _New York World_ of June 3rd, 1922, quotes him as saying:
“_Most mediums take their responsibilities very seriously and view
their work in a religious light. A temptation to which several great
mediums have succumbed is that of drink. This comes about in a very
natural way, for overworking leaves them in a state of physical
prostration and the stimulus of alcohol affords a welcome relief
and may tend at last to become a custom and finally a curse.[116]
Alcoholism always weakens the moral sense, so that these degenerate
mediums yield themselves more readily to fraud. Tippling and moral
degeneration are by no means confined to psychics._
“_Far from being antagonistic to religion, this psychic movement is
destined to revivify religion. We come upon what is sane, what is
moderate, what is reasonable, what is consistent with gradual evolution
and the benevolence of God. This new wave of inspiration has been sent
into the world by God._”
I will not, at this time, dissect and analyze the above statements,
preferring to let the reader decide for himself after reading them over
carefully and digesting their literal meaning. It is sufficient to
direct attention to the various contradictory statements and variance
in the subjects of law, morality, and religion, and their application
to the subject of Spiritualism.
Sir Arthur is reported as saying that mediumship is like an ear for
music and might exist in “some vulgar person,” but that the medium
is only a carrier of messages comparable to the boy who delivers
telegrams. From the foregoing excerpts of Sir Arthur’s own statements
it will be seen that he depends solely on his _senses_ of _seeing_ and
_hearing_ (the two weakest and most easily deceived) for his evidence.
When once a medium has his confidence he believes implicitly what the
medium tells him, accepts their “hear-say evidence” as gospel truth,
notwithstanding that he admits they are possibly of a vulgar, dishonest
class, often addicted to alcoholism to a degree of debauchery. It is
extremely difficult to harmonize these statements.
As to the sense of sight coupled to the sense of hearing: while at
Washington, D. C., Sir Arthur had a “sitting” with the Zancigs and
after witnessing phenomena at their expert hands and minds, he gave
them a letter of which the following is a transcript:
“I have tested Professor and Mrs. Zancig to-day and am quite
assured that their remarkable performance, as I saw it, was due
to psychic causes (thought transference) and not to trickery.
(Signed) “Arthur Conan Doyle.”
Mr. Jules Zancig is a magician, a member of the Society of American
Magicians of which I have been the President for the past seven years.
I believe he is one of the greatest second-sight artists that magical
history records. In my researches for the past quarter of a century
I have failed to trace anyone his superior. His system seems to be
supreme. He never at any time claimed telepathy and as he has not,
to my knowledge, obtained money by pretending telepathy or spirit
presentations, it would not be fair to disclose his methods despite
the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put the stamp of genuineness on
his work. Undoubtedly it _appeared_ unfathomable to Sir Arthur and he
therefore concluded that it was psychic and that there could be no
other solution.
Mal-observation is responsible for a lot of misunderstanding,
consequently misrepresentation, and as a result much investigation is
rendered valueless. Such misrepresentation is not intended to deceive
but is an honest expression of a conviction based on supposed facts by
persons unaware that they are victims of illusion. One of the most, if
not the most, flagrant instances of mal-observation I have ever known
of is told of in a book by J. Hewat McKenzie, President of the British
College of Psychic Science, entitled “Spirit Intercourse.” On page 107
he says:
“Houdini, called the ‘Handcuff King,’ who has so ably demonstrated his
powers upon public-hall platforms is enabled by psychic power (though
this he does not advertise), to open lock, handcuff, or bolt that is
submitted to him. He has been imprisoned within heavily barred cells,
doubly and trebly locked, and from them all he escaped with ease. This
ability to unbolt locked doors is undoubtedly due to his mediumistic
powers, and not to any normal mechanical operation on the lock. The
force necessary to shoot a bolt within a lock is drawn from Houdini
the medium, but it must not be thought that this is the only means by
which he can escape from his prison, for at times his body has been
dematerialized and withdrawn, but this will be treated in another part
of this chapter.”
As I am the one most deeply concerned in this charge I am also the
best equipped to deny such erroneous statements. I do claim to free
myself from the restraint of fetters and confinement, but positively
state that I accomplish my purpose purely by physical, not psychical
means. The force necessary to “shoot a bolt within a lock,” is drawn
from Houdini the living human being and not a medium. My methods
are perfectly natural, resting on natural laws of physics. I do not
_dematerialize_ or _materialize_ anything; I simply control and
manipulate material things in a manner perfectly well understood by
myself, and thoroughly accountable for and equally understandable
(if not duplicable) by any person to whom I may elect to divulge my
secrets. But I hope to carry these secrets to the grave as they are of
no material benefit to mankind, and if they should be used by dishonest
persons they might become a serious detriment.
On page 112 of his book Mr. McKenzie again refers to me saying:
“Houdini of world wide fame, previously mentioned, has for years
demonstrated dematerialization, and the passage of matter through
matter upon the public platform, while Mrs. Thompson of America, has
demonstrated materialization. Mrs. Zancig has, with her husband,
publicly exhibited her psychic gift, called ‘thought transference,’
which is purely soul projection, in all the leading world centres. Miss
Fay, and several well known Japanese mediums, for years demonstrated
the passage of matter through matter, and also materialization. These
are only a few of the many who might be mentioned, who demonstrate
psychic gifts before the public. Such public mediums do not, of
course, advertise themselves as performing their wonders by occult
powers, or through the help of spirits, and the public are therefore
left in ignorance of how they perform their marvelous tricks, as
they are called. The author has tested each of those mentioned, by a
personal experiment from the stage, and several also in private, and
can testify that they are mediums, performing most, if not all of
their great wonders by spirit agency. They are naturally reluctant
to acknowledge the fact, for the music-hall public would instantly
resent any claims they might make that they performed their wonders by
spirit power. Their audiences would regard such claims as ‘bunkum,’
and probably subject them to insult, if not to ill treatment, for the
general public are entirely ignorant of such possibilities in the
manipulation of psychical matter as related in this book, which a
medium can develop with the co-operation of spirit entities. It can be
left to the reader’s imagination to picture the face of a music-hall
manager if he were asked to allow upon the stage a demonstration of
spirit powers. Horrors! The poor man would not be able to sleep for
nights if he thought ghosts were working around his buildings or upon
his stage. Thus, knowing the attitude of men toward such things these
wonders of wonders are produced upon the music-hall stage as clever
‘mystery’ tricks. The author does not wish his readers to suppose that
the mechanical sleight-of-hand tricks carried out by Maskelyne and
Devant and similar operators, have anything to do with the mediumistic
gift, for they are a mechanical copy of true magic. These tricks are
performed with tons of machinery, whereas the genuine medium can
produce his wonders, if necessary, naked and in an empty room.
“The last occasion on which the author, under strict test conditions
saw Houdini demonstrate his powers of dematerialization, was before
thousands, upon the public stage of the Grand Theatre, Islington,
London. Here a small iron tank, filled with water, was deposited upon
the stage, and in it Houdini was placed, the water completely covering
his body. Over this was placed an iron lid with three hasps and
staples, and these were securely locked. The body was then completely
dematerialized within this tank within one and a half minutes, while
the author stood immediately over it. Without disturbing any of the
locks, Houdini was transferred from the tank direct to the back of
the stage in a dematerialized state. He was there materialized, and
returned to the stage front, dripping with water, and attired in the
blue jersey suit in which he entered the tank. From the time that he
entered it to his appearance on the stage only one and a half minutes
had expired. While the author stood adjacent to the tank, during the
dematerialization process, a great loss of physical energy was felt
by him, such as is usually experienced by sitters in materializing
seances, who have a good stock of vital energy, as in such phenomena,
a large amount of energy is required. Dematerialization is performed
by methods similar in operation to those in which the psycho-plastic
essence is drawn from the medium. The body of the medium may be reduced
to half its ordinary weight in the materializing room, but in the case
of dematerialization the essence continues to be drawn until the whole
physical body vanishes, and the substance composing it is held in
suspension within the atmosphere, much in the same way as moisture is
held by evaporation. While in this state, Houdini was transferred from
the stage to the retiring room behind, and there almost instantaneously
materialized. The speed with which this dematerialization was performed
is much more rapid than is possible in the materializing seance
room, where time is required for the essence to be crystallized into
psycho-plastic matter. Not only was Houdini’s body dematerialized, but
it was carried through the locked iron tank, thus demonstrating the
passage of matter through matter. This startling manifestation of one
of nature’s profoundest miracles was probably regarded by most of the
audience as a very clever trick.”
With the indulgence of the reader, I may be pardoned perhaps, if I
insist that it is just what I claim it to be--_simply a superior
trick_. The effect is original with me and was invented in the course
of my professional career as a public entertainer, for the sole purpose
of _entertaining_ audiences by mystifying them. My success seems to be
attested by Mr. McKenzie in his acknowledgment that he was deceived
into the belief as to my mediumistic powers; that I dematerialized
my body and material substance, and materialized these things, so
restoring them to a normal condition.
In rebuttal of this misconception I can only say that it is a
demonstration of mal-observation; there was nothing supernatural in
my performance. If I really possessed such abnormal powers as Mr.
McKenzie credits me with, I should be only too ready to prove it for
the enlightenment of a waiting world. I disagree with Mr. McKenzie that
such acknowledgment would displease the “music-hall” or theatrical
managers; on the contrary I am sure they would gladly open their stages
to the demonstration and regard it as good management and showmanship.
As to the performance of Mrs. Thompson of America, and Miss Fay their
work is no more psychic than mine. It is simply another phase of
magical deception, and I stand ready to reproduce such performances in
an emergency.
Regarding the personally conducted tests of my work, by Mr. McKenzie,
he did no more or less than all my committees are privileged to do
while on the stage during my acts. Just as all Spiritualist believers
do, so Mr. McKenzie relied on what he _thought_ he saw, and therefore
failed to affirm or negative his misguided and misdirected vision by
rational application of his conscious intelligence. Had he brought his
reasoning faculties to bear, as all sincere, unbiased investigators
should, he would have discovered the utter inconsistency of his
deductions and never have gone on record as the author of such folly,
without a particle of real evidence with which to substantiate his
claim.
Dr. Crawford, whose life was devoted to scientific pursuit and
research, gave the last three years of his life to _investigating_
occult or psychic phenomena, and failed utterly. His mind became
impaired and he ended his own life by suicide, acknowledging that
his brain was overtaxed with abstruse problems. He was so completely
nonplussed and befuddled by the tricks of the Goligher family, that
he gave them publicity as being genuine mediums; and the unfortunate
man died without discovering his own weakness and error. Had he
retained his mental balance a year or two longer, he would have been
disillusioned by his co-worker in science, my friend Mr. E. E. Fournier
d’Albe, the result of whose investigation is to be found elsewhere in
this volume.
The unsuccessful investigations of those I have referred to are typical
of all I have come in contact with or have learned of, and the barrier
to their success has been their perfect willingness to be deceived.
They agree to and tolerate the most absurd propositions as to the
conditions under which the so-called investigations are conducted;
just as they are _fixed_ by the mediums themselves. They acquiesce in
and assist the medium to produce results, and accept such results as
conclusive evidence of the supernatural.
What does it all mean?
What importance can be attached to any one of these supposed phenomena
as proof of the return of departed spirits?