photograph, like those described and reproduced in recent magazine
articles. They did not take me very seriously at first, but after
we had obtained the right atmosphere with a little table-turning,
they consented to try for a spirit photograph. When a spirit face
duly developed in addition to the sitter, everyone present expressed
amazement! I was naturally asked if I was “pulling their legs.” I
hedged and refused to say either yes or no, explaining that I wanted
the experiments to continue under scientific conditions. If, on the one
hand, I declared that I had not in any way faked the photograph, they
would probably believe me, and would not insist on further photographs
being taken under test conditions. If, on the other hand, I refused
to give such an assurance, they would think that I was probably
tricking them, and would take all possible steps to “bowl me out”;
and when they failed to do so would thereby establish evidence of
the genuineness of any further photographs we might be lucky enough
to obtain. After some little demur they saw the point of this--or as
much of it as I wished them to see--and agreed to meet again in my
room on the following Sunday evening, promising that I should be given
no opportunity of playing any tricks. It was also agreed that notes
should be taken during the _séances_ as far as possible, and that full
reports of what occurred should be drawn up afterwards by all of us in
conjunction, which everyone would sign.
I now quote their report on the next two meetings, omitting nothing
except their names, which I have replaced by single letters, at their
request.
“On the following Sunday, July 20th, at 8.15, there met in Patrick’s
rooms A, B, C, and D. Saturday being a Bank Holiday, the plates
were purchased on Friday evening by B, and kept by him until the
meeting. B produced his plates, unopened, and after some preliminary
table-turning and rapping, more successful than at the previous
meeting, it was decided to proceed with the photographs. A carried
the plate-box unopened to the dark-room, and he and D sat closely on
either side of Patrick, and watched him open the box and load two
double dark-slides; they were satisfied there was no substitution
or trickery, or anything in the least degree suggestive of it. The
wrapper of the box was broken in full view of both, and Patrick
loaded the top four plates into two double dark-slides, which were
examined by A and D immediately before they were loaded; they did
not leave their sight from the moment of examination until the
photographs were taken. The camera was also subjected to careful
and minute examination, especially by A, who removed the lens and
examined both it and the interior of the camera. The lens was then
replaced, and the focal plane shutter set in the open position, the
exposures being made by the simple expedient of withdrawing the
shutter of the dark-slide.
“At the request of C, before approaching the camera to focus it,
Patrick removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and was carefully
searched by him.
“It had been arranged that Patrick should take a photograph of
each of the four others present, under identical conditions. The
background was arranged, as before, of gowns hung over a cupboard,
but was made more complete. The subjects occupied the same chair in
succession; of the others, one stood by the light switch, and the two
others by the camera, to watch the photographer. Patrick attended
both to the camera and the flash production. The exposures were made,
as stated, by withdrawing the shutter of the dark-slide; the focal
plane shutter was not touched throughout. The electric light was
therefore switched off for a few seconds while the shutter was drawn
and the flash being lighted. Sufficient light came through the white
window-curtains (9.30 p.m. Summer Time) to enable those in the room
plainly to see each other, and watch the photographer’s movements.
The four photographs were taken in rapid succession.
“The slides were taken back into the dark-room, and developed by
A and Patrick in conjunction. B and C watched in turn, and D also
watched part of the time. One of the plates was quickly observed to
have an ‘extra’ developing on it. A bromide print was again taken
from the wet negative, and showed on the photograph of D the head of
an elderly man, besides a very fair photograph of the sitter. The
extra face was above D’s head, and to his right. The “spirit” was
bearded, and partly bald, with a somewhat melancholy expression.
There was a suggestion of a white collar. On the left of the face and
somewhat above it was written in white on the black background what
was apparently a signature, with two final letters of a preceding
word. It was dubiously deciphered as ‘...ly S. Simmonds.’ Neither
face, name, nor writing were recognised by any one, either at the
time or subsequently.
“The three other photographs were fair portraits, but showed no
abnormality.
* * * * *
“A third meeting was held in the same place at 8.15 p.m. on Sunday,
July 27th, when even more stringent conditions were imposed on the
photographer.
“The plates were bought on Saturday evening by D; other men should
have been present, but did not turn up at the arranged time. D took
the plates to his own rooms, where Patrick sealed them for his own
satisfaction. The box was kept locked up by D till he brought them
to the meeting on Sunday, and he did not part with them till he gave
them to E to take into the dark-room.
“At this meeting there were present A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, besides
the photographer.
“When all had arrived, E carried the plates to the dark-room. C
brought a dark-slide, which he had abstracted and kept since the
previous meeting. Before going into the dark-room Patrick, again at
the request of C and E, removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and
was searched, C even going to the length of examining his socks for
possible concealed plates or dark-slides.
“Patrick wished to load the slides himself, as they were rather
delicate. Accordingly neither slide nor plates were passed into his
hands until he was sitting in front of the ruby light, with E on one
side of him and C and F on the other. He broke the seals, and in full
view of these three loaded a single plate into compartment No. 3 of
the dark-slide. This was then immediately taken from his hands again
by E, and he and C locked it in a drawer of the desk, upon which
stood a reading-lamp, which was never extinguished throughout all the
subsequent proceedings. C kept the key of the drawer, and passed it
to E when the slide was required.
“Some table-tilting was then carried out by all except C, who
remained at the desk and acted as secretary. The lights were all put
out except the reading-lamp he used, which was, as stated, over the
drawer where the dark-slide lay locked.
“After half an hour or so of moderate success with the table, E
and Patrick also dropped out, to take a flashlight photograph of
the group round the table. Patrick prepared the flash-powder, and
set up the camera--which had previously been examined--by the side
of the desk and lighted lamp. E again examined the camera, inside
and out, and when Patrick had focussed it examined the view in the
ground-glass screen. (The lights were put up for a few minutes, to
aid the focussing, etc.) When all was ready, E received the key from
C, unlocked the drawer, and took out the dark-slide. He saw that it
was undoubtedly placed in the camera right way about, _i.e._, No. 3
compartment in use, and the shutter withdrawn. When the table had
commenced its tilting again the flash was fired by Patrick. C took
notes of the movements of the table, and at the same time watched the
camera, which was in the full light of the reading-lamp throughout.
After the flash the shutter of the slide was replaced, and on
removal from the camera the slide immediately passed again into the
possession of E. Any substitution of plate or dark-slide was thus
rendered out of the question.
“The dark-slide was taken to the dark-room by E, and he and C watched
Patrick open it, remove the plate, and develop it. As before, E kept
the slide till everything was ready, and passed it to Patrick in the
full light of the ruby lamp, C checking the number of the compartment
in which the plate had been loaded, and still remained (No. 3). On
development, Patrick pointed out that there was a hand at the top of
the plate, which could not belong to any of those at the table, and
was pointing with its index finger at one of the group. On fixing, it
was examined more closely, both by Patrick and the two others. All
three distinctly saw the image of a hand and wrist, pointing, the
forearm being draped. It was in fairly sharp focus, and appeared, by
its proportion, to be rather nearer the camera than the centre of
the table, above which it appeared to hang suspended. A shadow cast
by it was plainly seen, larger and less sharply focussed, apparently
on the back wall of the room. (A picture on this wall had previously
been removed, to eliminate any reflection, and leave the background
clear.) There was a general appearance of drapery surrounding the
group, particularly at the sides; there was in this the suggestion
of a trunk to which the hand might belong. The appearance of the
picture was very startling, and Patrick suggested that as the man
at whom it should turn out to be pointing might suffer considerable
uneasiness on seeing it, it might be well to destroy the plate
without attempting to identify him. E and C, after a minute’s
thought, both agreed that this would be the wisest course, and it
was accordingly done. Patrick did not wish to feel that he might
be in any way responsible for causing anyone uneasiness or harm,
such as might well result from such a picture.[8] Accordingly the
three returned to the other room, and explained the situation to
the others, who, though obviously disappointed, did not condemn the
course taken.
“This concludes the account of these first three meetings. We wish to
record that all through the meetings Patrick desired and requested us
to take all and any precautions we thought fit, to satisfy ourselves
that he introduced no trickery.
“In conclusion, we, the undersigned, declare this to be an accurate
account of the occurrences to the best of each man’s individual
knowledge. While not committing ourselves to any statements as to our
belief or disbelief in the genuineness of the phenomena observed,
we maintain that the greatest possible care was taken to prevent
any possibilities of trickery; and we consider that, barring the
possibility of Patrick having an accomplice among us, the evidence
should be accepted as proof of the genuineness of the phenomena
observed.”
This is followed by their seven signatures. E added afterwards a
paragraph of his own as to the interpretation of the word “accomplice.”
E was much the acutest observer and the most obstinate sceptic of the
seven: I think he suspected D of being in some way my accomplice; some
of the others suspected him of being a medium. He certainly was not an
accomplice--for I never had one in the room; he may be a medium for
aught I know--but I should doubt it.
At the next meeting an eighth investigator appeared, and everybody
seemed to be suspecting everybody else, and not merely the
photographer. The plates were bought at a different shop, chosen by
lot, by a committee of four; and the packet was at once done up with
much red tape and green sealing-wax. When they had finished I requested
to be allowed to put my seal on it too, to assure myself that _they_
were not playing any tricks! My request was granted. I now quote the
report of the meeting:
“The box of plates was produced by C, and the seals were found
to be intact. The box was taken into the dark-room by A, and a
plate-carrier--which had been previously examined by several of
those present--by B. The seals were broken, and a plate was loaded in
the presence of A, B, D, and E, who signed their names on stamp-paper
fixed to the back of the plate.
“In attempting to fit the slide into the camera, the plate was
accidentally exposed. It was discarded, and another plate signed
and loaded by A, C, E, and Patrick. C then locked the plate away
in a drawer, and kept the key until the slide was required for the
photograph.”
[Table-turning was then indulged in; A, C, E, and myself not taking
part. The usual type of answers was obtained from the table; I omit
this part of the report. During the table-tilting the photograph was
taken under precisely the same conditions as at the last meeting.]
“The plate was developed by Patrick; A, C, and E watching. An extra
pair of eyes and the upper part of a nose developed, apparently on
the wall; they were brightly illuminated, from the same position as
the other figures. They were larger than those of the other members
of the group, and were over B’s head.
“We consider that this is a true account of what occurred. Barring
any very abstruse and elaborate explanation, it would seem that the
photograph is undoubtedly genuine.”
Then follow the signatures. As they made _me_ sign the report on this
meeting, I had to see that it was worded rather carefully, particularly
the last paragraph; the report _was_ true, so far as it went; and the
explanation of the result _was_ rather elaborate; so I felt I could
safely sign it.
I did not hold another photographic _séance_, but being emboldened by
success, introduced at the next meeting “a medium from London.” (As a
matter of fact he came from Trinity, but I had ascertained that nobody
knew him, which was the important thing.) After suitable preliminaries
we all sat round a large table in semi-darkness, holding hands. When
the medium had arranged “the balance of the circle” to his liking,
he proceeded to go into a trance, when queer things began to happen.
A candlestick was seen to slide along the mantelpiece and crash into
the coal-box, taking a framed photograph with it; sounds were heard
from a small cupboard; the window-curtains were parted; several people
saw spirit forms and eyes; and one was favoured with a spirit touch.
The medium’s Egyptian control, Nemetra, gave us wonderful accounts of
life in Memphis in the days of the Pharaohs--accounts which certainly
made up in picturesque detail for anything they lacked in historical
accuracy.
Unfortunately this meeting was not a complete success, as, immediately
the show was over, our ever-curious geologist E began hunting about the
floor, and discovered a small loop of fishing-line (being a post-war
fishing-line, the spirit forces had broken it). He could not very well
announce his find at the time, as the medium was not yet roused from
his trance, and the others were busy feeling his pulse, fanning him and
administering cold water!
By this time the results of the photographic _séances_ had become
pretty generally known, and the undesired notoriety brought so many
requests to allow other visitors at the _séances_ that it became
evident to me that the proceedings must terminate. So the next morning,
after seeing E, I told him and the others that the whole thing had been
a hoax, and that the photographs were frauds. I should like to add that
with one exception they took it extraordinarily well, particularly when
I explained what had been my object. They were still quite in the dark
about _how_ the photographs had been done, particularly when I told
them that there was no accomplice among them.
All the photographs were obtained by the general method of double
exposure and substitution, the substitution being effected at a
different point on each occasion; the methods used, or slight
variations of them, are all described in the section on “Methods of
Fraud.”
Now I maintain that the conditions imposed upon me were as strict,
or stricter, than any professional medium allows. If an amateur
photographer but little practised in sleight-of-hand can under such
conditions deceive intelligent observers--not once, but several times
over--how much easier will it not be for the professional spirit
photographer, who makes such frauds his business?
_C.--Internal Evidence of Fraud_
Since spiritualists claim that the presence of invisible spirits may be
detected by photography, it seems reasonable to inquire how far this
is compatible with established physical facts. If a plate is wrapped
in paper and submitted to “spirit influences”--whatever these may
be--never being exposed in a camera at all, and on development shows
faces or writing, I personally can only find one explanation--trickery.
But if a plate is duly exposed with camera and lens, and unseen faces
appear on development, the matter is not quite so simple. For it is
well recognised that the camera may record what is invisible to the
eye; invisible stars are detected by the photographic plate, and
anyone who has examined a nebula or comet through a telescope, after
seeing a photograph of the same object, realises this fact to his
disappointment. Similarly a can of hot water may be photographed, by
a long exposure, in a perfectly dark room; and another well-known
instance of a similar phenomenon is Sir Robert Ball’s story of
photographing some writing on the side of the “Great Eastern,” years
after it had been painted out and rendered invisible.
Light, as is well known, is now regarded as consisting of waves in
the ether. Ether waves are known to exist over a very large range of
wave-lengths; some are comparatively long waves, some are short. The
properties of these waves depend upon their wave-length; those visible
to our eyes, which we call “light rays,” form only a small section of
the complete scale; comparing them with sound waves they correspond to
approximately one octave of the whole musical scale. Ether waves of
greater or lesser wave-length than light, _i.e._, of lower or higher
octaves, have very different properties. Radiant heat and ultra-violet
rays are the ether waves nearest in wave-length and properties to
light; X-rays and the waves responsible for wireless telegraphy appear
to be similar waves further removed along the scale of wave-length.
Now in order to photograph an invisible object we require rays that
(_a_) affect a photographic plate; (_b_) are capable of refraction
by a lens; and (_c_) are invisible to the eye. The properties of the
principal known rays concerned may be summarised as follows:
_Effect on Plates_ _Refracted by _Visibility_
Lenses_
_Infra-red (heat) rays_ v. slight Yes No
_Light rays_ affected Yes Yes
_Ultra-violet rays_ strongly affected Yes No
_X-rays_ affected No No
It appears, then, that ultra-violet rays are suitable for our purpose;
infra-red rays, if present in an amount sufficient to affect a
photographic plate, would make themselves very evident as heat, and may
therefore be ruled out.
Ordinary daylight contains ultra-violet rays, as also does the light
of the arc lamp and magnesium flash; lamplight, gas-light, and the
ordinary electric light, are comparatively deficient in them. But are
we to assume that the spirit form is dependent on finding suitable
rays in the surrounding ether, or can it produce its own? Perhaps
some spiritualist will tell me. This is a point of some practical
importance in examining a reputed spirit photograph; for if the spirit
is self-luminous its features will be evenly illuminated and without
shadows, nor will it cast a shadow on the sitter or background, but
rather the reverse. If, on the other hand, the spirit is dependent
on the presence of ultra-violet rays from other sources, which it
can reflect, then the spirit in the photograph will appear to be
illuminated from the same point as the sitter,[9] and by absorption or
reflection of the ultra-violet actinic rays which would otherwise have
passed on, will cast a shadow on the background. Being a shadow cast by
the removal of the ultra-violet rays only, it will of course appear as
such in the photograph, but be invisible to the eye.
So if a spirit photograph is to be classed as possibly genuine, the
spirit may either appear self-luminous and cast no shadow, or may
appear to be illuminated from the same point as the sitter, and cast
a shadow on the background, if the latter be of a suitable nature to
show it. But on examining a collection of spirit photographs taken by
various professional mediums, we find that as often as not the spirit
and sitter are lighted from opposite sides; or that a spirit face with
a well-marked shadow on one cheek throws no shadow on the background.
If our reasoning be correct, we can at once write such productions
down as frauds. The photographs I produced at my Cambridge _séances_
show both these faults; two of them have the spirits lighted from the
opposite side to the sitter, and one has the spirit lighted from the
correct side but throwing no shadow, whereas the sitters throw clear
shadows on the wall behind. In the other photograph I managed to get
both the lighting and the shadow of the spirit correct; but in order to
get the shadow I had to photograph the background with the “spirit”;
hence when the sitters were photographed on the same plate there was a
double background, which necessitated a rapid destruction of the plate!
Of course the average medium does not consider these points at all; his
sitters are usually satisfied with anything they can get, so why should
he worry? But an intelligent observer examining a number of spirit
photographs with regard to these points will quickly satisfy himself
that the majority of them _can_ only be frauds.[10]
There are a number of other points by which a spirit photograph may
betray its method of production without reference to the conditions
under which it was taken. Many spirit extras are simply copies of
existing photographs, which are usually camouflaged in some way.
Draperies may be substituted for the hair, or the features slightly
retouched. A common method is to reverse the original photograph, right
for left; a number of Hope’s productions were recently published in a
monthly magazine, and alongside them life portraits of the “spirits,”
the letterpress emphasising that, though undoubtedly the same face,
they were different photographs. On examination with a mirror, however,
the photographs were seen to be identical, and careful measurement
of the faces showed the proportions to be exact. In the photographs
more recently published by Mr. Bush, who laid a trap for Hope into
which the latter appears to have fallen, the spirit was not reversed,
nor was even the rather peculiar attitude of the head in the original
photograph altered. A little spirit drapery was added round the face,
and the whole thrown slightly out of focus; it is really a most clumsy
piece of work, and should deceive no one.
In some spirit photographs produced by double exposure there is a
double background, as occurred in my own photograph referred to above.
There may be either two different backgrounds, or a double outline
of the same background; in either case the “spirit’s background” is
usually fainter than the “sitter’s background,” and shows through the
darker parts of the sitter. Sometimes attempts are made to retouch
these appearances on the negative, and many spirit photographs show
clumsy brush or pencil work, which must immediately stamp them as
frauds.
Attempts are sometimes made to obliterate other tell-tale marks, such
as a piece of a spirit’s hat or collar, which has accidentally got on
to the plate. Other mediums, however, are less particular, especially
in America, and produce their spirits with ordinary hats, collars and
ties. But as a rule only spirit robes are permitted, apparently made of
butter muslin not quite in focus. Hands are often present: I have seen
a case in which the position of a spirit hand would have necessitated
a many-jointed arm about four feet long; but perhaps spirit arms _are_
like this. One spirit extra I have seen has two hands, but both appear
to be left hands--evidently a left-handed spirit.
Frequently, again, careful examination shows that spirit extras are not
photographs at all, but resemble wash drawings. This gives the clue
to their origin, for several of the methods described in a preceding
section produce a result of this kind. It has been several times
pointed out that spirit extras in some cases show the characteristic
dots produced by the half-tone newspaper illustration process; if the
medium cannot obtain a real photograph of the required spirit, he has
to copy a newspaper reproduction. If he is clever, he can eliminate
these process marks by printing in his spirit slightly out of focus;
but very often he does not take the trouble.
In many, perhaps in the majority, of spirit photographs produced by
professional or semi-professional mediums, a critical observer with
practical photographic experience can point out some such definite
evidence of fraudulent manipulation. In many other cases, where no
one particular point can be singled out as indicative of fraud, minor
points of suspicion are noticeable, which taken together leave little
doubt of the nature of the picture. But photographs _can_ be prepared
by purely mechanical means, especially if no kind of test conditions
are employed, which will contain no internal evidence whatever of
manipulation. By carefully combining enlarged positives, for instance,
and re-photographing the whole, results can be produced which will
defy the most critical examination. But such photographs are seldom
produced, even when the medium is given practically a free hand.
IV.--SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS