MAGICIANS AS DETECTORS OF FRAUD
The alacrity with which Spiritualists seize upon letters or other
statements of magicians that they believe the so-called spirit
manifestations which they have witnessed were not accomplished by
means of legerdemain but were attributable to supernatural or occult
powers has astonished me and while I intend to refute them I want to
call attention at the same time to the incompetence of the opinion of
the ordinary magician with a knowledge of two or three experiments
in Spiritualism who stands up and claims that he can duplicate the
experiments of any medium who ever lived.
My personal opinion is that notwithstanding the fact that innumerable
exposures have been successfully made, such fact is no proof that any
investigator, legerdemain artist or otherwise, is fully capable of
fathoming each and every effect produced.
Some magicians with a knowledge of pseudo-Spiritualistic effects
imagine that they have all they need to qualify them as investigators,
and should anything transpire at a seance which they cannot explain
they are mystified into temporary belief and write letters or make
statements which they are quite likely to regret as the years roll
on.[125]
A good card “shark” or “brace game”[126] gambler can cheat and fleece
the slickest sleight-of-hand performer that ever lived, unless the
performer has made a specialty of gambling tricks. It seems strange,
but it is true, that card magicians are poor gamblers, and mediums,
like the gamblers, resort to deception and take advantage of the
sitters at all angles.
It is manifestly impossible to detect and duplicate all the feats
attributed to fraudulent mediums who do not scruple at outraging
propriety and even decency to gain their ends. A slick medium will
even resort to drawing on the sitters[127] for desired information by
recourse to what may be palmed off for a mere lark, and if the bait
is swallowed by the sitter the circumstance is turned to good account
for the perpetration of deliberate fraud to his consternation and
bewilderment.
Again many of the effects produced by mediums are impulsive, spasmodic,
done on the spur of the moment, inspired or promoted by the attending
circumstances, and could not be duplicated by themselves. Because the
circumstances of their origin and performance are so peculiar detection
and duplication of Spiritualistic phenomena is sometimes a most complex
task. Not only are mediums alert to embrace every advantage offered
by auto-suggestion but they also take advantage of every accidental
occurrence. For instance, my greatest feat of mystery was performed in
1922 at Seacliffe, L. I., on the Fourth of July, at the home of Mr.
B. M. L. Ernest. The children were waiting to set off their display
of fireworks when it started to rain. The heavens fairly tore loose.
Little Richard in his dismay turned to me and said:
“Can’t you make the rain stop?”
“Why certainly,” I replied and raising my hands said appealingly, “Rain
and Storm, I command you to stop.”
This I repeated three times and, as if by miracle, within the next two
minutes the rain stopped and the skies became clear. Toward the end
of the display of fireworks the little fellow turned to me and with a
peculiar gleam in his eyes said:
“Why, Mr. Houdini, it would have stopped raining anyway.”
I knew I was risking my whole life’s reputation with the youngster but
I said:
“Is that so? I will show you.”
Walking out in front I raised my hands suppliantly toward the heavens
and with all the command and force I had in me called:
“Listen to my voice, great Commander of the rain, and once more let the
water flow to earth and allow the flowers and trees to bloom.”
A chill came over me for as if in response to my command or the prayer
of my words another downpour started, but despite the pleading of the
children I refused to make it stop again. I was not taking any more
chances.
I am also aware of the fact that there are effects produced by
magicians which they declare are accomplished by natural agencies,
which other magicians are entirely unable to account for or
satisfactorily explain. A notable case was a card performance by
Dr. Samuel C. Hooker which included the levitation of a life-sized
head of an animal, possessed of life-like movement while in a state
of suspension and still there were no visible means of support. A
number of these seances were given to groups of magicians only. On one
occasion a dozen or more of the most expert professional magicians
were in attendance, but no one could offer a satisfactory solution.
Many magical mysteries as practised for entertainment are just as
incomprehensible as so-called Spiritualistic Phenomena and it is not
to be wondered at that even minds trained to analytical thinking are
deceived and misguided. Were I at a seance and not able to explain
what transpired it would not necessarily be an acknowledgment that I
believed it to be genuine Spiritualism. The fact that I have mystified
many does not signify that what I have done, though unexplainable to
them, was done by the help of the Spirits. Mr. Kellar frequently,
particularly during the last two years of his appearance on the stage,
said to the audience:
“Do not be ashamed if I mystify you; I have seen Houdini and his work
and I do not know how he does it.”
The simple fact that a thing looks mysterious to one does not signify
anything beyond the necessity of analytic investigation for a fuller
understanding. But to return to possibilities; I believe that the
great majority of so-called manifestations can be duplicated but I am
not prepared to include all, because, as before explained, some are
spontaneous, and cannot be reproduced by the mediums themselves unless
the identical opportunity should present itself, which is as uncertain
as lightning striking twice in the same place--possible but improbable.
It would be extremely difficult, if not out of the question, to
reproduce much of the “phenomena” by description as given by those who
have witnessed it. The lapse of time and the fact that a story twice
told never loses, renders such reproduction extremely doubtful. Were
I to be challenged to duplicate any particular phase as presented by
a medium, permission would have to be granted to allow me not less
than three demonstrations. At the first, not wishing to accept any
one’s word as to what happened I should want to see the manifestation
so that there would be no surprise attack on my mind afterwards. At
the second sitting I would be prepared to watch what I had seen at the
first sitting and the third time I would try to completely analyze
for duplication. It might be that some peculiar formation or years
of special practice enabled the medium to do a certain action and
naturally it would require at least three seances to become thoroughly
cognizant of the _modus operandi_, or the manipulative process used.
If there were no fraud, then there could be no objection to the
demonstrations.
Let us dissect a few of the magician’s statements. First: Belachini,
conjuror to the imperial German Court, is claimed by Spiritualists as
a great magician countenancing and acknowledging the genuineness of
Spiritualism, but by no possible stretch of imagination could he be
so classed despite the efforts of modern Spiritualists to prove that
he was, for the very nature of his tricks belie his statement. No
present day magician would permit him to be mentioned as an authority
on Spiritualism notwithstanding the fact that Spiritualists are trying
to prove from his letters that he was, just as they have ever since the
letters were written.
I have received reports from Karl Wilmann, of Hamburg; A. Herman, of
Berlin, and Rosner of Haisenhaid, to the effect that Belachini was
solely an apparatus or mechanical conjuror with an adroit and daring
address. In fact, his unbounded self-confidence won him the position
for which he is famous. He was performing for Kaiser Wilhelm I. who sat
amazed at his suave dexterity. The climax of the performance came when
Belachini, bowing, proffered a pen to Wilhelm.
“Take this, your Majesty,” he requested, “and attempt to write with
it. I warn you it is a magical pen and subject only to my control; I
can write anything with it or cause anything to be written; you cannot.”
Wilhelm laughingly took the pen with a confident mien, hiding his real
awe of Belachini. He applied it to the paper before him but in spite
of his most careful efforts, the pen balked, spluttering and splashing
ink, while Belachini stood by smiling.
“Well,” said the Kaiser, “tell me what to write.”
Belachini reflectively caressed his chin, then replied with a dry smile:
“Write this. I hereby appoint Belachini Court Conjuror.”
The monarch chuckled at the wit and without difficulty wrote and signed
the order.
A second, famous in his day, was “Herr Alexander,” a magician whose
full name was Alexander Heinberger. He gave seances at the White House
for President Polk who sent him to South America once on a man-of-war.
The President was willing to believe that Heinberger was guided and
aided by the Spirits but Heinberger would neither affirm nor deny
the suspected origin of his feats but like a good showman left his
observers to their own deductions as was the practice of the Davenport
Brothers. He lived to be ninety years old, and was a most remarkable
old man. I visited him at his home in Munster, Westphalia.
Sometimes a misunderstanding entangles a magician with Spiritualism.
The following instance comes to my mind. It is a popular belief among
Spiritualists that certain letters and statements bearing the signature
of Robert Houdin are acknowledgments of his belief in Spiritualism.
On the contrary they refer simply to certain acts of clairvoyance
purported to have taken place at the instance of one Alexis Didier.
The first statement has been translated as an interview of considerable
length which is concluded as follows:
“Ah, Monsieur (Alexis Didier, as addressed by Houdin), that
may seem so to a man of no experience in these matters, to the
ordinary person,--though even then such a mistake is hardly
admissible,--but to the expert! Just consider, Monsieur, that
all my cards are faked, marked, often of unequal sizes, or
at least artistically arranged. Again I have my signals and
telegraphs. But in this case a fresh pack was used which I
had just taken out of its wrapper, and which the somnambulist
cannot have studied. There is another point, where deception
is impossible, namely, in the handling of the cards: in the
one case, the entire artlessness of the performance, in the
other, that tell-tale air of effort which nothing can entirely
disguise. Add to this his total blindness, for need I insist on
the impossibility--the absolute impossibility--of his having
seen. _Besides, even supposing he could see, how can we account
for the other phenomena?_ With regard to my own ‘second-sight’
performances, without being able to divulge my secret to you
now, bear in mind that I am careful to tell you every evening,
that I only promise a _second_ sight! Consequently in my case a
first sight is indispensable.
“The following day Robert Houdin gave me (Alexis Didier) the
following signed statement:
“‘While I am by no means inclined to accept the compliments
which M---- is kind enough to pay me, and while I am
particularly anxious that my signature should not be held
to prejudice in any way my opinion, either for or against
magnetism, still I cannot refrain from affirming that the
incidents recorded above are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, _and that the
more I think about them the more impossible I find it to class
them with those which form the subject of my profession and of
my performances_.
“‘Robert Houdin.
“‘May 4th, 1847.’”
It will be seen at a glance that the signature in this case refers to
a mystification by card handling, clairvoyance, forecasting, etc. His
second letter was written a fortnight later and is as follows:
“Monsieur, (Alexis Didier) as I informed you, I was anxious
to have a second sitting. This sitting which was held at
Marcillet’s house yesterday proved even more extraordinary
than the first, and has left me without a shadow of a doubt as
to the clairvoyance of Alexis. I went to this seance, fully
determined to keep a careful watch on the game of _écarté_,
which had astounded me so much before. This time I took much
greater precautions than at the first seance, for distrusting
myself I took a friend, whose natural imperturbability enabled
him to form a cool judgment and helped me to steady mine. I
append an account of what took place, and you will see that
trickery could never have produced such results as those which
I am about to recount.
“I undo a pack of cards, which I had brought with me in a
marked wrapper to guard against another pack being substituted
for it. I shuffle and it is my deal. I deal with every
precaution known to a man well up in all the dodges of his
profession. It is all of no use, Alexis stops me, and pointing
to one of the cards that I had just placed in front of him on
the table, says:
“‘I’ve got the King.’
“‘But you can’t possibly know yet; the trump card has not been
turned up.’
“‘You will see,’ he replies. ‘Go on.’
“As a matter of fact I turn up the eight of Diamonds, and his
was the King of Diamonds. The game was continued in an odd
enough manner, for he told me the cards I had to play, though
my cards were hidden under the table and held close together in
my hands. To each lead of mine he played one of his own cards
without turning it up, and it was always the right card to have
played against mine. I left this seance then in the greatest
possible state of amazement, and convinced of the utter
impossibility of chance or conjuring having been responsible
for such marvellous results.--Yours, etc.,
(Signed) “Robert Houdin,
“16th May, 1847.”
I here embrace the opportunity to make a correction of a statement in
“The Unmasking of Robert Houdin” (page 287). The record and source of
information at that time was published in Berlin, Germany. It gave the
impression that the “letters” cited above referred to Spiritualistic
phenomena, but now, having come into possession of a true translation
of these documents complete, as published by the Society for Psychical
Research,[128] I am of the opinion that Houdin did treat the subject of
Spiritualism with conservative prudence and impartiality, as recorded
by Professor Hoffmann.
But I wish to say that in my estimation of Robert Houdin, despite
his wonderful reputation and record as mentioned in Larousse’s
Encyclopedia, I cannot agree with his statements, because he
misrepresented so much in his “Memoirs of a Magician.” In “The
Unmasking of Robert Houdin” I devoted a whole chapter to his ignorance
of magic and by investigating I have found that he was not competent as
an investigator of the claims of Spiritualists.
It came quite as a shocking surprise to me to find that the letters
which were supposed to refer to Spiritualistic seances, and which
have been quoted so often as being such, refer only to his experience
with Alexis the clairvoyant. It must be apparent, even to the casual
observer, that they have no bearings whatsoever on Spiritualism, but
refer only to sittings with a clairvoyant in a game of sharp card
practice. Knowing, as I do now, what it all meant, the fact that he
wrote the letters does not surprise me in the least. I believe a lot of
things transpired in that room which he could not see, or know whether
there was confederacy, for clairvoyants as well as mediums often get
information from the most unexpected sources. Clairvoyance, like
Spiritualism, was not in the direct line of professional observation to
Robert Houdin. What would he or any of his confreres, who were supposed
to be adepts at that time, say if they could visit a seance of some of
our present day clairvoyants who are appearing before the public and
making use of radio, wireless, induction coils, etc.? What a wonderful
bunch of letters they might write because of the simple fact that they
could not tell how the effects were produced. It is ridiculous for
any magician to say that the work he witnesses is not accomplished by
conjuring or legerdemain simply because he cannot solve the problem.
As to his qualifications for adjudging the work of a clairvoyant, we
have but to revert to his own narration of the origin and development
of second-sight as used by himself. This account can be found in the
English edition of his Memoirs:
“My two children were playing one day in the drawing-room at a game
they had invented for their own amusement; the younger had bandaged his
elder brother’s eyes and made him guess the objects that he touched,
and when later he guessed right they changed places. This simple
game suggested to me the most complicated idea that ever crossed my
mind. Pursued by the notion, I ran and shut myself in my workshop, and
was fortunately in that happy state when the mind follows easily the
combinations traced by fancy. I rested my head in my hands, and in my
excitement laid down the first principles of second sight.”
It is hard to reconcile this statement with truth in view of the
fact that memory training, as he describes it, was in vogue and
practised long before[129] his time and is not the way second sight is
learned. It could not have been discovered or invented by him except
coincidentally by his utter lack of knowledge bearing on the methods of
seership and clairvoyance as practised either in his time or antiquity.
Let me explain clearly, and I hope once for all, the valuelessness of
his letters as far as they relate to Spiritualism and clairvoyance.
In the first place the blindfold test[130] as produced by Alexis Didier
to mystify Houdin. Putting cotton on the eyes and covering it with a
handkerchief is now used by amateurs in the cheapest kind of what we
term “muscle reading.” There is not the slightest difficulty in seeing
beneath such a bandage, sometimes over it, and the range of vision can
easily be determined by a test. In Paris I saw a mysterious performer,
named Benoval, who had his eyes glued together with adhesive paper, on
top of it cotton was placed, and over the cotton a handkerchief, but he
danced around bottles and burning candles without any difficulty.
Regarding the information given clairvoyantly to Madame Robert Houdin
during another seance with Alexis; Houdin at that time was one of the
best known characters of Paris, a public person, and it was the easiest
thing in the world for Alexis to gather information concerning him and
his family. Houdin may not have been acquainted with the subtlety of
what we now term “fishing,” “stalling,” or “killing time,” in order to
get information or put something over. He might have been mystified but
his knowledge of Spiritualism and clairvoyance was nil according to his
own statement.
One of the demonstrations presented by Alexis to mystify Houdin was
the reading from a book, by the seer, several pages in advance of a
page designated by the person holding the book at the time. There
does not seem to be any really authentic details reported regarding
the exact performance of this man, Alexis, consequently much must of
necessity be left to conjecture and a knowledge of the orthodox methods
for doing such things. Such information as there is available seems
to have passed through several hands and in all probability was first
presented to the public through a Spiritualistic publication. However,
the particular effect referred to is neither new nor strange but has
always been a feature in second sight acts and with clairvoyants. The
reading of a book from memory is quite possible to persons of abnormal
mind or special training in co-relative memorizing; a very clever
system with surprising possibilities. There are many cases on record of
persons who, having read a book once, could repeat every word and even
tell where the punctuation was. The ability to recite entire chapters
or parts of them is much more common, and is not difficult for trained
minds such as are possessed by members of theatrical stock companies,
who are oftentimes obliged to commit to memory simultaneously three or
four plays, and this too while on the road. In order to be prepared to
play one part in the afternoon and an entirely different one the same
night, stock actors frequently have to do some marvellous memorization
work on short notice. It is not an exception but the rule. They get
long parts with from fifty to a hundred and fifty “sides,” each side
containing from one to ten speeches. The foster-mother’s speech in
“Common Clay” is over three pages, and the Duchess’ in the first
act of Oscar Wilde’s “Lady Wildmere’s Fan” is about four pages. The
well-known actress, Miss Beatrice Moreland, told me that she memorized
them both in an hour and was almost letter perfect. The actor’s rule
for memorizing parts is to take ten pages first and when they have been
committed to memory take ten more. If such feats can be done as the
result of training how easy it must be for an abnormal mind to memorize
a book.
There comes to my mind a phenomenal memory feat by a blind slave boy
called “Blind Tom.” He would listen while a composer played an original
composition. As soon as the composer finished Tom seated himself at the
piano and reproduced the entire piece with all the composer’s delicacy
of shading and technique.
There is a case on record of a memory performance, I think in
Rousseau’s time, where a poet read a piece of poetry, a long monody, to
the King. At its conclusion the King said:
“Why, that is quite an old story, I have heard it before. As a matter
of fact the man who related it to me is in my palace now; I will send
for him and have him recite it for you.”
He spoke to a servant who left the room and returned in a few minutes
with the memory man who stood in the center of the room and recited the
entire poem. It appears that the King, wishing to mystify the poet,
had the memory man hidden in a closet where he could hear the poem read.
Inaudi, a Frenchman, has given performances both in America and Europe
in which he looks at a blackboard covered with figures written by a
committee, then turns around and immediately tells correctly every
figure on the board and its position; adds, subtracts, and multiplies
them, with lightning-like rapidity, and all without looking at the
board a second time. He makes no claim to psychic or clairvoyant powers
but simply explains his wonderful performance as being the result of a
photographic memory.
I might repeat such instances indefinitely but I think I have given
enough to substantiate my claim of precedence for God’s natural laws
and their marvellous, even incomprehensible working, over any so-called
supernatural endowment of a class of people so thoroughly disqualified
by all known laws of moral sociology, as many professional mediums are
admitted to be by their most ardent supporters.
Even such an eminent mystifier as Robert Houdin can misjudge when it
comes to fathoming the so-called manifestations of the professional
medium. As I have explained in “The Unmasking of Robert Houdin,”
page 291, he makes two flagrant errors in attempting to explain the
Davenport Brothers’ trick. First he claims that “by dint of special
practice on the part of the mediums, the thumb is made to lie flat in
the hand, when the whole assumes a cylindrical form of scarcely greater
diameter than the _wrist_.” Secondly, he declares that the Davenport
Brothers possessed the power of seeing in the dark as the result of
practice or training.
Releasing myself from fastenings of all sorts, from ropes to
straightjackets, has been my profession for over thirty-five years,
therefore I am in a position to positively contradict Houdin’s first
statement. I have met thousands of persons who claimed that the rope
trick as well as the handcuff trick was accomplished by folding the
hand together or by making the wrist larger than the hand, but I have
never met the man or woman who could make the hand smaller than the
wrist. I have even gone so far as to have iron bands made to press my
hands together, hoping to make them smaller than my wrists eventually,
but it was no use. Even if the thumbs were cut away I believe it would
be impossible to slip a rope that is properly bound around the wrist.
Furthermore I know that Houdin was wrong in regard to the Davenports
because of what Ira Erastus Davenport himself told me.
Equally preposterous is the gift of seeing in the dark with which
Houdin endowed the Davenports. Professor Hoffmann defends Houdin by
citing instances of prisoners who had been confined in a dungeon for
an indefinite period and had learned to see in the dark. Ira Erastus
Davenport laughed at the idea and Morelle, who was confined in a
dungeon for a number of years, told me that all the years he had spent
in darkness did not accustom his eyesight at all and that to have seen
an article plainly he would have been forced to hold it close to his
eyes and even then would have had to stretch his imagination.
Baggally, an investigator, a member of the Society for Psychical
Research, London, England, emphatically records that he believes the
Zancigs are _genuine telepathists_, and my friend, Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle, though he says that Zancig has given proof numerous times that
he works with a code, nevertheless has stated in writing that he
believed the Zancigs to be genuine. I want to go on record that the
Zancigs never impressed me as being anything but clever, silent and
signal codists. Zancig has admitted freely to members of the Society
of American Magicians, of which he is a member, that they were not
telepathists but, as we term it, “second sight artists.” They simply
have a wonderful code which the public cannot detect. It is interesting
to know that after Mrs. Zancig’s death, Zancig took a street-car
conductor from Philadelphia and broke him in to do the act. This young
man soon quit his teacher, married, and began presenting the act with
his wife. Then Zancig took young David Bamberg, an intelligent son
of Theodore Bamberg, one of our well-known magicians. The boy proved
exceptionally clever but on account of unexpected circumstances he left
and went abroad. Zancig came to me for an assistant and I introduced
him to an actress. He said he would guarantee to teach her the code
inside of a month, but they never came to an agreement on financial
matters. Zancig has now married again, this time a school teacher,
and they are doing a very clever performance. In passing I would note
that in 1906 or 1907 I engaged Zancig to go with my show. I had ample
opportunity to watch his system and codes. They are swift, sure, and
silent, and I must give him credit for being expertly adept in his
chosen line of mystery, but I have his personal word, given before a
witness, that telepathy does not enter into it.
Charles Morritt has a code for second sight which is very simple and
can be taught to anyone in thirty minutes. He has given me the secret.
He gave this code to a banker who performed it with his sister, and
Morritt, although he had taught the signals, could not follow or detect
them once they began to work smoothly. Of course he knew what they were
doing but simply could not follow them.
Regarding the possibility of using codes and cues before others without
being detected I can say positively that it is not only possible but
simple and practical. I had a fox terrier by the name of “Bobby” that
I trained to pick up cards by a cue. On May 31, 1918, I performed with
this dog before the Society of American Magicians and I do not believe
that there was one in the audience who detected my silent cue. I spoke
about this to a number of expert professionals who thought, to all
intents and purposes, that Bobby was listening to my speech, whereas
I was silently cueing him all the time. I do not wish to expose the
silent cue as I know that the great dog trainers of the world use it
and it would not be fair to them to make it public. I was able to give
Bobby his silent cue in any room or even a newspaper office and the
spectators could watch me closely all the time because I never made a
move they could see or a sound they could hear.
It is common to train other animals in a similar way. During one of
my tours in Germany I saw a horse called “Kluge Hans” that was able
to spell, add, subtract, pick out cards, and with his feet make one
tap for yes and two taps for no. Kluge Hans fooled the professors for
a long time but finally it came out that he got his cues from the
trainer’s assistant. It is not generally known that, owing to the
position of his eyes, a horse can look backwards to a certain degree
and the investigators did not notice the assistant who stood just back
of the horse’s head.
At one time William Eglinton, an English medium, was undoubtedly
considered by Spiritualists the most powerful professional psychic not
only in England but throughout a greater part of Europe. In 1876 he
held the palm as a successor to Slade in slate writing tricks. He was a
strong card for the cause and was extolled and lauded to the skies by
the Spiritualistic press. He produced varied phenomena in addition to
his slate writing effects, such as the movement of articles, production
of Spirit lights, and materialization. The Spiritualists have told
that “he was so skillful that several practised conjurors as well
as many investigators” were at a loss to detect or account for his
methods. That may have been so. Half a century ago conjurors were not
up on Spiritualism as they are to-day, and besides, it must be conceded
that even conjurors are not immune to being deceived. Nevertheless
there were conjurors and lay investigators fully qualified to discover
and expose his frauds.
In 1876, while in his prime as a medium, he was exposed in the
materialization of an Arab. This Arab’s flowing beard and draperies
were very familiar to English Spiritualists and as proof of the actual
materialization sitters were permitted to cut fragments from the beard
and robes. Archdeacon Colley, an interested member of a circle of
sitters, suspecting fraud, secured some clippings and a few days later
when opportunity offered “he _found_ in Eglinton’s portmanteau a false
beard and a quantity of muslin to which the detached relics perfectly
corresponded.” He was also exposed several other times but this did not
prevent the Spiritualist paper, _Light_, from publishing in October,
1886, a mass of testimony given by more than a hundred observers,
including persons of high culture and social standing, to show that
the phenomena at his seances were not due to any deliberate action on
the part of the medium but to “conclusively establish the existence of
some objective, intelligent force, capable of acting externally to the
medium and in contravention of the recognized laws of matter.”
The publication of such statements inspired Professor H. Carvill
Lewis[131] to visit Eglinton for the purpose of investigation and
arrangements were made for him to have a first sitting in November
just a month after the extravagant statement in _Light_. Aware of
the frailty of memory Professor Lewis made notes during the seance
and wrote out his deductions and conclusions immediately after. He
discovered at an early stage that close scrutiny did not produce an
atmosphere sufficiently wholesome for desired results. While his
attention was concentrated on the medium the “_objective intelligent
force_” seemed totally inoperative, but whenever he turned his
attention from the medium and apparently became absorbed in making
notes the “_intelligent force_” became active instanter. Under the
observation of Professor Lewis, Eglinton failed utterly at times and
at others simply _declined_ to work when conditions were against him.
Professor Lewis quotes him as claiming that he had converted Kellar to
Spiritualism but refutes such a claim in the following words:
“So far is this from being the case that Mr. Kellar, whom I know
personally, is nightly offering in America twenty pounds to anyone
who will produce Spiritualistic phenomena that he cannot imitate by
conjuring.”
The facts are that Kellar had a sitting with Eglinton in Calcutta to
see if he could reproduce his effects by natural means. His mind was
unbiased, and failing to detect Eglinton’s method he remarked, “If
my senses are to be relied on the writing is in no way the result of
trickery or sleight-of-hand.” But note the qualification in his remark:
“If my senses are to be relied upon.” Evidently he had his misgivings
then and he must have worked out the problem soon after for two
years later, as Professor Lewis told, he was producing the effect in
America, and not long after performed both the Slade and Eglinton slate
tricks before the Seybert Commission in Philadelphia to its complete
amazement.
It was not strange that Kellar did not detect Eglinton’s method
instantly nor is it strange that he acknowledged that he was baffled.
No magician is immune from being deceived and it is no way beneath a
magician’s dignity or demeaning to professional reputation to openly
admit that he cannot always account for what he thinks he sees.
Ernst Basch, of the famous Basch family, who made the major apparatus
for the magicians of the world, told me that he made hundreds of
wireless tables before wireless was so well known under the name of
“The Bewitched Table.” He was a great illusion inventor and builder
with a wonderful knowledge but in all his experience and contact with
mediums he had never seen anything which would make him believe in
Spiritualism. Neither has Francis J. Martinka, who traveled around the
world with Haselmeyer, the magician, and who has sold magical apparatus
in New York City for over forty years. I have the following letter from
him in regard to Spirit-communication.
“146 East 54th Street,
New York City,
March 23rd, 1921.
“Dear Mr. Houdini:
“In answer to your question if I believe in Spiritualism,
or the possibility of the return to this earth after death,
how can I believe in such a thing as Spiritualism, when for
more than two score years as the prominent magical dealer and
manufacturer of mysterious effects I have supplied almost
every known and thousands of unknown tricks or apparatus
to the great majority of magicians, and indirectly to
well-known mediums (one instance you may remember owing to the
hullabaloo it raised at the time, when I sold luminous paint
to Hereward Carrington, at the exact time when he was manager
of the celebrated medium, E. Palladino, who had baffled the
scientists of the world), also to all the managers of magician
supply houses in existence.
“No, I must say positively I do not believe in Spiritualism and
it has always amused me to see how easy it is to deceive the
human beings who seek solace for their grief or those who delve
into the mysteries of which they know nothing.
“In the forty years experience I have never seen anything that
could convince me that such a thing as Spiritualism existed.
“And to show you that I wish my letter to be positively
authentic, have two friends sign as witnesses.
“Regards.
“Sincerely yours,
(Signed) “Francis J. Martinka.
“Witnesses.
(Signed) Jean A. Leroy,
133 3rd Ave.
(Signed) Billy O’Connor,
Magicians’ Club,
London.”
Another who finds nothing but “gross fraud” in Spiritualism after sixty
years of study is A. M. Wilson, M. D., of Kansas City, Mo., Editor and
Publisher of _The Sphinx_. He wrote me as follows:
1007 Main St.,
Kansas City, Mo.
My dear Houdini:--
For almost sixty-one years I have been witnessing and
investigating Spiritualism and Spiritism as propagated by
mediums through their so-called communications with the dead.
Up to this time I have not met a medium, celebrated or
obscure, that was not a gross fraud, nor seen a manifestation
that was not trickery and that could not be duplicated by
any expert magician and that without the conditions and
restrictions demanded by the mediums or explained by perfectly
natural mental or physical methods.
Sure there are certain mental and psychic phenomena peculiar to
a few persons who use their special gift to delude believers
(as well as other credulous persons) with the belief that their
work is supernatural, but even these phenomena can be analyzed
and explained by any competent psychologist.
The thing that first aroused my suspicion and disbelief and
started me to thinking and investigating, was, why could not
the dear departed communicate direct with their relatives and
friends? why talk, or rap, or write or materialize through a
medium, the majority of whom are ignorant men and women, though
shrewd and cunning; and if through a medium why should the
medium need a control, especially of an old Indian chief or
prattling Indian maiden? Why a control at all?
True there are a few well educated, intelligent and refined
mediums in the business and which advantage makes them the more
dangerous but none the less fraudulent than their more ignorant
confreres.
I repeat, that from my first seance in Aurora, Ind., February,
1863, until this date of 1923 I have never met a medium
that was not a fraud or seen a manifestation of any kind or
character that was not fraudulent. In other words was a more
or less crude or skillful magical performance by a clever
trickster or tricksteress.
(Signed) A. M. Wilson, M. D.,
Editor _The Sphinx_.