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.