Probably most people have heard, but seldom at first hand, of
unexpected ghosts appearing on plates or films exposed by amateur
photographers. On the rare occasions when such accounts can be traced
to their source, one usually finds that there is some simple and
evident explanation. Streaks and splashes of light on the plates are
comparatively common, and are usually the result of the camera, slides,
or dark-room not being light-tight; very strange results are sometimes
produced in this way. I was once puzzled by a photograph which showed
an arch, like a rainbow, across the sky, when it was quite certain that
there had been no rainbow in the sky when the photograph was taken.
When the result was repeated a few days later, the camera quickly came
under suspicion, and was found to have developed a minute pinhole in
the bellows. This was sealed up, and the rainbow did not reappear. Many
unexplained markings on plates are certainly caused in this or similar
ways; but only under very favourable circumstances could an extra face
on the plate be so produced. Sometimes unexpected results are caused
by an accidental second exposure; but the nature of such a photograph
will quickly be apparent. The use of old glass plates may sometimes be
responsible for similar results, as has been already explained. But
authenticated cases of the appearance of unseen faces in photographs
taken in the absence of a professional medium, and which do not show an
obvious explanation, are few and far between. The classical example is
that of the Combermere photograph, which was published in the _Journal
of the S.P.R._, and aroused much discussion and criticism.
A Miss Corbet took a photograph of the library of Combermere Abbey,
Cheshire, on December 5th, 1891. She was alone at the time, and left
the camera during the exposure, as it was a long one. She kept a
note-book with records of her photographs, which afterwards showed
that an exposure of one hour had been given, namely from 2 to 3 p.m.
Unfortunately she did not develop the photograph till eight months
later, and was then amazed to find a figure occupying a chair in
a prominent position in the photograph. The figure was faint and
transparent, the legs being quite invisible; the features were not
recognisable; but the presence of a head, shoulders and arm was fairly
plain. Inquiries were made, and it was found that not only was the
chair in question the one Lord Combermere had been wont to occupy, but
that he had died a few days before the photograph was taken, and was
actually being buried some two miles from the Abbey at the hour at
which the photograph was taken. The photograph was naturally shown to
the dead nobleman’s relatives, some of whom professed to recognise it
as Lord Combermere. It was further pointed out that he had lost the use
of his legs in an accident some three weeks before his death, and that
the spirit figure was correspondingly legless!
The most important contribution to the discussion which followed was
made by Sir William Barrett, who demonstrated that the result could
be duplicated by taking a several minutes’ exposure of a chair, in
which someone was seated for a part of the time. The sitter would
naturally not keep quite still; hence the outlines would be blurred and
the features indistinct. Sir William published a photograph which he
had obtained in this way, reproducing the features of the Combermere
photograph, even to the leglessness. He suggested that someone,
possibly one of the four men-servants in the Abbey, had entered the
library during the prolonged exposure. He had sat down in the chair
for a minute or so, when, noticing the camera, he beat a retreat. The
photograph showed double outlines to all the sharp edges, indicating
that the camera had been moved slightly during the exposure, and
suggesting that someone had entered the room and jarred it. As it was
eight months after the event that the photograph was developed, it was
impossible to ascertain whether anyone _did_ actually so enter the
room. In any case it was a remarkable coincidence, but there is no
proof of it being anything more.
A somewhat similar case is recorded by Podmore. The photograph was
being taken, this time, in a chapel. On development a faint face was
seen framed in a panel. This was described as being the likeness of
a friend of the photographer’s who had recently died--“a handsome,
melancholy lad of eighteen.” Another critic thought that the face was
that “of a woman of thirty”; it must have been very indistinct. It may
well have been caused in the same manner that was suggested for the
Combermere photograph; a visitor to the chapel standing in the field of
the camera for some moments, probably not realising that an exposure
was in progress.
Several accounts have been given by amateurs of seeing spirit faces
develop, only to disappear again on fixing; one such is published in
Vol. VII. of the _J.S.P.R._ These are evidently of a subjective nature,
the finished negative showing no evidence of any abnormality. If any
reader of this article knows of any case where an “extra” has been
obtained in the absence of a professional medium, and where the plate
can be produced, I should be very grateful for particulars.
Experiments have on several occasions been made by amateurs,
deliberately trying for spirit extras, and exposing scores of plates,
usually without success. The unsuccessful attempts of Russell,
Beattie, Dr. Williams, and more recently Dr. Pierce, have already
been alluded to. Experiments of rather a different nature have been
carried out by a Frenchman, Dr. Baraduc. His most interesting--if
somewhat gruesome--result was a series of photographs taken over the
death-bed of his wife, at the time of, and for some hours after,
death. The negatives showed globes of light floating over the bed,
which gradually increased in size and brightness, and coalesced in the
later photographs. The circumstances certainly seem to exclude fraud,
and it is very difficult to understand how the progressive series of
photographs could have been obtained by accidental means, such as a
pinhole in the camera. His results are very interesting, but need
repeating by other experimenters; in any case, they have absolutely
nothing in common with the conventional spirit photographs which show
faces and figures.
V.--THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS
(C. VINCENT PATRICK)
The so-called “Fairy Photographs” recently published by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and Mr. E. L. Gardner do not strictly come under the
heading of “spirit photographs,” but may not inappropriately be
considered here. We have no evidence of the conditions under which
they were taken; as Sir Arthur explains, such “rare results must be
obtained when and how they can.” We have therefore to learn what we can
from an examination of the photographs, or of their reproductions. At
first sight they look like genuine untouched photographs; their general
appearance is excellent, and if frauds, they are certainly good ones.
On examining them more carefully, however, a considerable number of
points are found requiring explanation. Some of these have no doubt
been noticed by different observers; the principal criticisms of the
different photographs are these.
“_Iris and the Dancing Gnome_” shows some very strange lighting.
Examining Iris’s hat, we find the strongest light is falling, probably
through a gap in the trees, from above and a little to the right; the
shadow behind her arm, and the lighting of the fingers, confirm this.
The gnome stepping up on to Iris’s knee should therefore cast a shadow
upon her white dress, below and to the left; but the photograph shows
no trace of any such shadow. On the other hand, the gnome is lighted
mainly from the _left_; this is plainly shown on the conical cap and
the right upper arm. Apart from these discrepancies, which alone are
quite sufficiently damning, several other grounds for suspicion are
evident. The whole photograph is much too carefully arranged to be
the snapshot it is represented as being. The black legs of the gnome
are contrasted against the white dress of the girl; the lighter body,
face and wings are outlined against the shadows under the trees; the
dark cap is brought with one edge against a wing, the better to show it
up, while the other edge catches the light. A snapshot would indeed be
fortunate in securing such an admirable arrangement! The same thing is
very noticeable in the other three published photographs; the pictorial
arrangement of the figures and background is much too good to be the
result of chance, and suggests careful posing.
This gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are
told, at four o’clock on a September afternoon which was not sunny;
an exposure of 1/50th of a second was given on “Imperial Rapid”
plates, using a “Midg” quarter-plate camera. With the largest stop in
this camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, _i.e._,
1/5th of a second, would be needed to give a fair negative under
these conditions; 1/2 to 1 second would probably be more correct.
The photograph in question certainly shows signs of under-exposure;
but under the conditions stated one would expect little more than a
silhouette of the white dress and of the sky showing through the trees.
Something is evidently wrong here.
The gnome’s proportions are certainly not human, as are the fairies’ in
the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar “Brownie” of
the Kodak advertisements. Though stepping up onto the girl’s knee, he
is noticeably looking away from her, and at the camera, which is very
unnatural and likely to cause him a tumble! Criticism has been directed
against the girl’s hand, but this is quite a common photographic
distortion of a hand held rather near the camera. In my copy, however,
the elbow appears rather peculiar.
The other points, taken together, can leave no possible doubt that the
photograph is a fake. It could have been produced by making a positive
enlargement from the negative of Iris on one of the bromide papers
specially prepared for working up. The gnome would then be sketched on
this--he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph--and the
whole would then be re-photographed on to a quarter-plate. No doubt an
entirely satisfactory result would not be secured at the first attempt;
in fact, Mr. Gardner tells us that “other photographs were attempted,
but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.” Surely such
extraordinary photographs, even if partial failures, would be kept--if
they did not show something that was not intended! We have known plates
to be destroyed on other similar occasions, and for similar reasons.
“_Alice and the Fairies_” is of a rather different nature. The lighting
of the fairies is badly wrong; they are brightly illuminated from a
point behind the camera, whereas Alice is less brightly illuminated,
and from the left-hand side. Sir Arthur, in his article, points
out that this is accounted for by the “fairy psychoplasm” having a
“faint luminosity of its own.” To appear brighter than the sitter,
photographed by 1/50th of a second exposure at three o’clock on a sunny
July afternoon, the fairies would have to resemble in luminosity a
battery of arc lights! The photograph appears to have been produced by
pasting the “fairies” on to an enlargement of the original photograph
of Alice, and then re-photographing the whole. The fairies could be
obtained by taking posed photographs of children suitably dressed;
these would then be carefully cut out from their backgrounds and pasted
on to the original enlargement. The points of internal evidence on
which this statement is based are as follows:
1. The very sharp (cut) outlines of all parts of the fairies. This
is particularly noticeable in the outline of the dress and hair of
the third fairy (counting from the left); compare this with the soft
outline of Alice’s hair, against a similar background.
2. The same fairy’s forearm is much brighter than Alice’s wrist, at the
point where it crosses between it and the camera. Assuming that both
were equally white, and lighted from the same source, the one further
from the camera would normally photograph a little the lighter.
3. Fairies two and four appear to be photographs of the same model, the
wings being exchanged for the pipe. Note the similarity of the attitude
of the legs, and of the shape of the tail of drapery hanging down
behind.
4. With the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which
appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, _every part of the fairy
figures is in front of the sitter and background_. This applies to all
four photographs, and is of the utmost importance; superimposing the
fairies on the original photograph in the manner described must of
course produce this effect.
5. One would have expected to see some blurring due to movement, in the
fairies’ wings and feet at any rate, with a 1/50th of a second exposure
at a distance of four feet. None is visible in the reproduction.
The two more recently published photographs are very similar to “Alice
and the Fairies,” and the same general criticisms apply. “_Alice
and the Leaping Fairy_” again shows the fairy illuminated from a
point behind the camera, whereas Alice is illuminated from the right
side. (Note that her right cheek, facing the camera, is in shadow.)
Fairy shows no movement-blurring, and comparison with instantaneous
photographs of jumpers shows the attitude to be most unusual. On
tilting the photograph a little to the left, the fairy appears to have
been posed kneeling on the left knee, the support being afterwards cut
away, and the cut-out figure applied to the enlargement of Alice, in a
slightly different vertical axis.
“_Iris and Fairy with Harebells_” shows similar features. Notice,
again, the different lighting of fairy and Iris; the hard outline of
fairy’s hair, so unlike Iris’s in the same print; and the careful way
the fairy has been placed to secure a well-balanced picture--scarcely
a random snapshot! The harebells seem too large in comparison with the
hedge-leaves at the same distance from the camera. They may be the
result of combining yet a third photograph; or the actual harebells may
have been placed on the enlargement and re-photographed with it.
An artist to whom I have shown this photograph, together with the
full-length photographs of “Iris” published with the earlier article in
the _Strand Magazine_, is of opinion that the fairy has the same figure
and features as Iris, and, in fact, may very well be a photograph of
Iris herself, attired in a bathing dress and some butter muslin, and
with the addition of wings! The photographs of Iris show a rather
characteristic poise of the head, which is also seen in the fairy.
This is only a suggestion, however; the photographs are too small for
certain identification. In any case, the fairy figure is certainly of
human proportions.
These photographs have attracted a good deal of attention, and seem to
have been accepted as genuine in some quarters. No doubt much reliance
has been placed on the statement of one experienced photographer, Mr.
Snelling, that they show no evidence of manipulation, disregarding
the adverse criticisms of several other photographers to whom they
were shown. I consider that there is not the slightest doubt that they
are fakes, simply on the internal evidence they provide, and I have
endeavoured to explain the principal points on which this opinion is
based.
VI.--THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES
(W. WHATELY SMITH)
The reliability of witnesses is a crucial question in the study of
psychical phenomena and has for long been a bone of contention between
spiritualists and their critics. If honesty, care, and intelligence
alone sufficed to make a man’s testimony reliable the whole range of
spiritualistic phenomena, including spirit photography, might long ago
have been taken as proved beyond all possibility of doubt. But this
is very far from being the case, and although it is never pleasant to
express flat disbelief of the accuracy of people’s statements, the
Psalmist’s dictum that “all men are liars” should be graven on the
heart of every psychical researcher, especially in the case of those
who attempt to investigate “physical” phenomena.[11]
I do not propose to repeat the obvious platitudes about the ease
with which conjurers can deceive their audiences, but I should like
to emphasise the fact that such differences as exist between the
circumstances in which conjurers and mediums work are uniformly in
favour of the latter as regards the minor manipulations necessary for
the production of photographic phenomena. (One is not, of course,
concerned with elaborate “stage effects,” but rather with small matters
like the substitution of one plate for another or the distraction of
the sitter’s attention while the required extra is impressed upon
the plate.) The conjurer’s audience _knows_ that it is a trick; the
medium’s does not. Even the most hardened sceptic will probably have
a lingering doubt in his mind as to whether there may not possibly be
“something in it” after all. This is all to the medium’s advantage,
and it must be remembered that not only does he work for much of
his time under lighting conditions which are peculiarly favourable
to fraudulent manipulation, but also that the great majority of his
sitters start with a considerable prepossession to the effect that they
are encountering something inexplicable.
But these observations must, I suppose, have occurred to all who have
considered such matters at all impartially, and however relevant they
may be they will never by themselves prevail against what we call
“the evidence of our senses.” No amount of general considerations of
this kind will deter the credulous from accepting the _prima facie_
indications of a “successful” _séance_. The only hope of preserving the
public from the depredations of these swindlers is to show that the
“evidence of the senses” is not worth twopence unless backed by special
knowledge of the relevant technique.
One would think that anyone who reads Mr. Patrick’s admirable account
of fraudulent methods and of his experiments in their application will
feel chary of claiming that he has wholly eliminated the possibility of
fraud from any photographic _séance_ which he has attended. But there
may be some who will still say: “No doubt these fraudulent methods can
be and have been employed, no doubt many people would allow a medium to
substitute plates under their very noses, or to touch them. But when
_I_ went to such-and-such a medium I am _certain_ that the plates were
never out of my possession, that he never had a chance of touching
them....” and so forth.
Of course, some of the methods described by Mr. Patrick do not involve
touching the plates at all. It would not be at all impossible for an
artist in such work to allow a sitter to use his own plates, camera,
slides, dishes, and chemicals in his own studio and dark-room, to load,
unload, and develop the plates himself without their ever being touched
by the “medium” and yet to produce a perfectly good extra.
But I will let that pass and confine myself to the question of whether
the kind of positive statement outlined above is really worth anything
at all. This question was answered once and for all in the emphatic
negative by the classical experiments of the late Mr. S. J. Davey in
“Slate-writing,” which are fully described in the _Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii.
These experiments are not nearly so widely known as they deserve to be,
but it is not too much to say that no one who has not read, marked,
learned, and inwardly digested them is competent so much as to begin to
talk about the genuineness of spirit photography; unless, of course,
he happens to have acquired a knowledge of trick methods and the
scope of deception by other means--such as Mr. Patrick adopted in his
experimental work!
Very briefly, the story was as follows: Mr. Davey was an amateur
conjurer of some skill who set himself to imitate by trickery
the performances of Slade, Eglington, and other exponents of
“slate-writing” phenomena. In this he succeeded to admiration--so
much so that certain spiritualists characteristically insisted that
he _must_ be a very powerful “medium”! He scrupulously denied himself
the advantage of claiming his results as supernormal, but in spite of
this found no difficulty in imposing on his sitters. The latter were
encouraged to take every possible precaution against trickery and were
instructed to write the most careful reports of what occurred.
A number of reports were thus obtained from men and women of
unquestionable intelligence and acumen which, if they had been even
approximately accurate, would have established the supernormality of
Mr. Davey’s phenomena beyond any peradventure. But comparison of their
reports with the known and recorded procedure which actually took place
showed the most astonishing discrepancies. Omissions and distortions
of the first importance were abundant and the experiments proved to
the hilt that, for phenomena of this kind, the reports of untrained
witnesses are, in general, not worth the paper they are written on.
I wish that space permitted me to quote, in parallel columns, some
of these Davey reports and some of those given by witnesses of
photographic _séances_ so that my readers could see how very similar
the circumstances are.
But I must content myself with pointing out that whereas in the one
case everything turned on whether the “medium” had any chance of
substituting or tampering with _slates_, so in the other it is a matter
of whether there has been any chance of substituting or tampering with
_plates_. The reports of intelligent witnesses proved worthless in the
one case, and it seems reasonable to suppose that they are no more
valuable in the other.
So, to anyone who thinks that in the mouth of two or three witnesses
the genuineness of spirit photographs shall be established, I would
say, “Go home and invest a few shillings in the _Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research_, vols. iv. and viii.--it will be more
profitable than the same amount laid out in photographic _séances_--and
when you have carefully read their account of the Davey experiments in
conjunction with Mr. Patrick’s paper, see whether your confidence in
spirit photographs is as strong as ever!”
I have drawn attention to these experiments of Mr. Davey elsewhere and
I am sorry to be obliged to insist on their importance again. But until
people learn that the reports of uninstructed observers--however acute
in other respects--are utterly unreliable, the fraudulent medium will
flourish and the unsuspecting public will be robbed and deceived.
VII.--THE VALUE OF RECOGNITION
(W. WHATELY SMITH)
Believers in spirit photographs generally consider that they are
playing their trump card when they point out that thousands of “extras”
have been definitely recognised by sitters as portraits of their
deceased friends or relatives. But this card, impressive as it looks,
will not really take the trick. If it could be shown (i.) that a given
“extra” was _unmistakably_ recognisable as a portrait of a deceased--or
even of a living--person, and (ii.) that the medium concerned could
not possibly have obtained a likeness of that person to work from,
then we should be obliged to attach great weight to this factor, even
if the conditions were not otherwise such as to exclude fraud. For
such a result could not be fraudulently produced. But in spite of
the perfectly honest assertions of many investigators, it seems very
doubtful whether this state of affairs has ever been realised.
There are two ways in which evidence based on recognition may be
defective.