may have been derived from an existing photograph of the deceased;
second, and more frequently, the recognition is illusory and exists
only in the sitter’s imagination.
As regards the first of these points, it should be remembered that
most people are photographed at one time or another, some of them
frequently, and that it is not very difficult to obtain a photograph
of a given person if one goes about it in the right way. A spirit
photographer with an extensive _clientèle_ will find it well worth his
while to take the necessary steps to secure photographs appropriate to
at any rate his more regular sitters, from whom, in the course of a few
_séances_, it will not be difficult to glean enough information to put
him on the right track. It is, of course, particularly easy if they
happen to be well-known people, photographs of whose relatives may have
appeared from time to time in the press. But although this method may
sometimes be employed where circumstances lend themselves thereto, or
when there is some reason which makes a first-rate “test” especially
desirable, I do not think that it is responsible for more than a small
percentage of the recognitions which are claimed.
By far the greater proportion appear to be due to the operation of
subjective factors which lead the sitter to “recognise unmistakably”
an extra which bears no more than a vague general resemblance to the
person whom it is claimed to represent.
Recognition can scarcely be assessed objectively; it is essentially a
subjective affair, and as such liable to all the distorting factors
which affect every mental process.
If I had to summarise the whole of modern psychological doctrines in
one line I should quote the popular saying, “The wish is father to the
thought.” The whole of our mental activity, our thoughts, actions,
opinions, and dreams are moulded by wishes or innate tendencies of one
kind or another. Often, of course, these conflict with one another; but
that does not alter the principle involved.
I believe that the great majority of the recognitions of spirit
photographs are determined either by the definite wish to find evidence
of survival or by the vaguer desire to obtain “positive” results
of some kind, for positive results are always pleasanter and more
satisfactory than negative.
To attempt a full discussion of the psychological process of
recognition in general would take us very far, but I think it may be
conceded that it is based on some kind of a _comparison_ between the
object (“extra”) actually perceived and a visual image of the person
concerned which is evoked for the purpose. But visual images are very
plastic, so to speak, as anyone who tries to visualise the face of
a friend accurately will be able to verify for himself. The general
impression may be clear enough, but details of proportion and the
like are very elusive. We all know, too, how faces get distorted in
dreams (though by somewhat different causes from those which we are
considering here), and it may well be that it is for reasons of this
kind that recognition is so often unreliable even in ordinary life.
Which of us has not been struck by the likeness of a press photograph
to someone whom we know, or who has not been momentarily misled by
the slight resemblance of a passer-by to his contemporary inamorata?
In my judgment it is entirely in conformity with modern psychological
views, or, indeed, a necessary consequence of them, to suppose that
the process of recognition is as subject to the influence of emotional
wish-tendencies as are all the other mental processes which have been
studied.
This supposition is immensely strengthened by a consideration of
the actual material dealt with. I have seen a good many spirit
photographs, and I am sure that those who have seen more will agree
with me that the number which are clear enough to be _capable of
definite recognition at all_ is extremely small. They are almost
invariably blurred, out-of-focus, indistinct things, frequently so
covered in “spirit drapery” as to leave no more than two eyes, a nose
and a mouth visible, while the shape of the head and the hair are quite
indistinguishable. In the great majority of cases it seems to the
unbiassed observer nothing short of absurd to claim that such vague and
indefinite effigies can be “unmistakably” recognised. And when it comes
to recognition being instantly claimed _from the negative_ and before a
print is made--as in a case I heard of not long ago--one almost gives
up hope!
One need hardly point out that, although a medium who merely trusts
to luck will probably score a good proportion of “hits” by ringing
the changes on a few common types of face, he can greatly increase
this proportion by a little adroit “pumping” of the sitter which will
give him a guide to at least the general type of face expected, thus
enabling him to “deliver the goods,” at any rate approximately, at the
next _séance_.
It should also be remembered that in everyday life recognition is a
much more sketchy affair than might at first be suspected. Experiments
have shown that in reading, or in viewing a drawing, we do not take
cognizance of each individual element; on the contrary our attention
flits, so to speak, from point to point, skipping altogether the
intervening matter. We thus obtain an outline or skeleton impression
which we fill up from our own resources. We actually notice a few
salient features and interpolate the rest; hence, for example, the
well-known difficulty of “spotting” mis-prints in proofs. This process
is perfectly satisfactory for ordinary purposes such as reading, and
seldom results in our misinterpreting the symbols before us, and when
it does the context usually puts us right. But in dealing with spirit
photographs the context, if there can properly be said to be any, is
much more likely to put us wrong. The “salient features” which “leap to
the eyes” are, in this case, those which suffice to locate a face as
belonging to a certain general type, while the details which we fill up
for ourselves are just those which are necessary for the identification
of a particular individual. Consequently, false recognition is easy
provided the general type is all right. The “beauty” is emphatically
“in the eye of the beholder.” As “M.A. (Oxon),” a famous spiritualist
and a believer in spirit photographs, well said:
“Some people would recognise anything. A broom and a sheet are quite
enough to make up a grandmother for some wild enthusiasts who go with
the figure in their eye and see what they wish to see.... I have had
pictures that might be anything in this or any other world sent to
me, and gravely claimed as recognised portraits; palpable old women
authenticated as ‘my spirit brother, dead seventeen years, as he
would have been if he had ...’ etc.”
But, as usual, the empirical test of experience is the best.
Considerations such as those outlined above may be valuable in
establishing _a priori_ probabilities, but it is far more important to
ascertain whether _as a matter of fact_ people actually do make false
recognitions with any frequency. The answer to this has already been
given by Mr. Patrick in his account of the Buguet case above.[12] The
most striking feature of the case, as he rightly points out, was the
way in which witnesses swore to having “unmistakably recognised” the
extras they obtained, _and stuck to their recognitions in spite of
Buguet’s own confession of fraud and his description of the methods
employed_. In the face of this sort of thing, who will be bold enough
to maintain that the recognition factor can be assigned any appreciable
weight?
VIII.--RECENT LITERATURE
(W. WHATELY SMITH)
Recent contributions to the literature of spirit photography are not
very numerous. I may first mention the very thorough exposure by Dr.
Walter Prince of the Keeler-Lee-Bocock photographs; this appeared in
the _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research,
vol. xiii., part II, March, 1920. Keeler is a photographic medium
who has practised in the United States for a number of years. For
the benefit of Mrs. Lee he produced, at a price, a long series of
“spirit” photographs purporting to represent the deceased Mr. Bocock
in a variety of situations. Test conditions were either wholly absent
or absurdly inadequate, and the photographs are, on internal evidence
alone, so palpably fraudulent that it is surprising that they were
ever accepted at all. The most obvious indication of fraud is the fact
that through a whole long series of photographs Mr. Bocock’s facial
angle remains the same and identical with that of one of the only two
extant photographs of him, no matter what his posture may be or on
what occupation he may be represented as engaged. This circumstance
clearly points to the use of a single photograph of Mr. Bocock as the
basis of all the fakes. The case is not of sufficient importance to be
worth discussing at length, but it is an interesting example of the art
of critically studying internal evidence and of the almost incredible
effrontery of fraudulent mediums.
More important is Mr. Edward Bush’s “Spirit Photography Exposed,”
a small pamphlet published by the author as a contribution to the
“Nehushtan Crusade.” The object of the latter movement, of which one
gathers that Mr. Bush is the leading spirit, is to show that all the
physical phenomena of Spiritualism are fraudulent and to expose
dishonest mediums. This last object, at least, is admirable, and Mr.
Bush is certainly entitled to consider himself “one up” on Hope in the
matter of spirit photographs.
Briefly, Mr. Bush laid a trap for Hope by writing to the latter under
an assumed name and enclosing a photograph of a living person which he
represented as that of his deceased son. Hope returned the photograph
and gave Mr. Bush an appointment for a _séance_, which he attended,
still under his assumed name (Wood). He duly received an “extra”
in the form of the face portrayed in the photograph which he had
sent,[13] together with a “psychograph” beginning “Dear friend Wood”!
Any reasonable person will say that Mr. Bush has proved his case, that
he laid a trap for Hope and that Hope fell into it as completely as
possible. But an apologetic will doubtless be forthcoming from those to
whom Hope’s integrity is a cardinal article of faith.
Mr. Bush appears, I may add, to be almost wholly ignorant of fraudulent
methods, but he has successfully made good his deficiency in this case
by the exercise of a little diplomacy.
Finally, I must touch on certain articles which have recently appeared
in the well-known spiritualist paper, _Light_. It is with considerable
reluctance that I do so, partly because the candid expression of my
opinion cannot fail to bring me into sharp conflict with a number of
people whom I respect and with whom I would much prefer to remain in
harmony, and partly because exigencies of space compel me to adopt a
brief and almost dogmatic mode of treatment which is likely to provoke
accusations of superficiality and prejudice. To thrash the matter
out thoroughly would necessitate an interminable discussion to which
circumstances do not lend themselves and which would certainly be
fruitless.
For there is an attitude of resolute credulity which is quite proof
against reason. I do not for a moment suggest that spiritualists
enjoy a monopoly of this quality; they do not, for it is equally to
be found in other quarters, among materialistic scientists and party
politicians, for example, who constantly ignore the plain implications
of evidence if the latter happens to conflict with their cherished
beliefs.
But however hopeless the task may be, it seems none the less to be a
duty to protest from time to time against this state of mind, of which
several striking examples are to be found in the articles in question.
The conviction of the genuineness of spirit photographs is a conviction
which is founded on purely negative evidence (namely, that on very
many occasions no fraud has been actually discovered), and held
in the face of definite positive evidence (namely, the occasional
actual discovery of fraud, as by Mr. Bush). But once formed it seems
impossible to shake it, and just as always happens when emotion rather
than reason is responsible for an opinion, every adverse indication is
distorted into an additional corroboration. Just as a lover distorts
the faults of his mistress into virtues--frivolity being regarded
as gaiety, dulness as profundity and intransigeance as strength of
mind--so the plain indications of fraud which leap to the eyes of the
unbiassed student are gravely put forward as evidence of the wonderful
ways in which the spirits work.
Thus in _Light_ for January 29th I find advanced as “most evidential”
the fact that whereas a plate which had been in the possession of the
medium for several days showed an “extra,” others, simultaneously
exposed, which had _not_ been in her possession, did not. (Note.--I
am well aware that the plates sent to the medium for “impregnation by
the psychic influence” were in a sealed packet which was certified
intact when returned. But as anyone who has studied the subject of
sealing knows, it is extremely difficult to devise a really fraud-proof
method. Certainly no ordinary arrangement of strings and knots is
reliable.)[14] Mr. Barlow, who writes the article, correctly argues
that this result indicates that the lens of the camera used “had
nothing to do with the formation of the psychic images which appear to
have been printed on the photographic plate.” But instead of drawing
the obvious conclusion that, in spite of the sealing, the plate which
showed the “extra” had been tampered with, he adopts the view that a
“psychic transparency” is used, that this is at some period applied to
the sensitised surface of the plate by spirit agency and exposed to
spirit light! Comment is needless.
This theory of the psychic transparency is very popular just now and
is being freely invoked to account for the obvious indications of
fraud which even a superficial study of spirit photographs reveals. It
is expounded at some length by the Rev. Chas. L. Tweedale (_Light_,
January 22nd, 1921), who carefully describes the various indications
which show clearly that the extra is often produced by a transparency
of _some_ kind, in terms which could be used almost without alteration
as proof of the fraudulent nature of the productions. Thus the edges
of the “psychic” transparency are said to be clearly visible on many
of Hope’s negatives, and we are told that “in some cases when ‘the
cotton-wool effect’ is introduced, this ring of nebulous whiteness
probably forms the edge of the transparency and ... may conceal its
use.” Most astonishing of all, perhaps, is this author’s credulity in
accepting as genuine a spirit photograph showing two portraits of the
late Mr. Stead of which one was an exact duplicate of the other, but
larger, and clearly showed the “screen effect” of small dots which one
can observe in any printed reproduction of a photograph.[15]
Certainly there is ample evidence to show that some kind of
transparency is frequently used in the production of extras (_Cf._ p.
18 above), especially by Hope, but there seems no reason to suppose
that it is in any way “psychic.” On the contrary, a friend of mine who
enjoyed the privilege of a sitting with this artist not long ago tells
me that when he went to focus the camera (as one is frequently invited
to do), he clearly saw a wholly gratuitous face already projected
on the ground-glass! Now either there was some kind of an objective
apparition present in the camera’s field of view which reflected light
which only became visible after passing through the lens (which is
absurd), or there was a transparency of some kind between the lens and
the ground-glass. Of course it _may_ have been a psychic transparency
born before its time--one cannot possibly say definitely that it was
not, but the more mundane inference seems very much the more probable.
In fact, all this talk of The Problems of Psychic Photography is no
more than an orgy of hypothetising from a mass of utterly unreliable
data.
If only believers in spirit photographs would take the trouble to learn
a little more about fraud and tighten up their control accordingly,
instead of inventing strange hypotheses to bolster up their imperfect
observations, we should hear less of photographic mediums and fewer
people would be duped in this deplorable fashion.
IX.--REAL TEST CONDITIONS
(W. WHATELY SMITH)
To the last sentence of the preceding section someone will probably
retort, “If only critics would stop talking about fraud and examine
the phenomena at first hand, they would be convinced and we should
have a chance of getting on with the war and finding out all sorts
of interesting things.” It is not really a fair retort, because it
is always perfectly legitimate to point out sources of error in any
experimental work without being called upon to repeat the faulty
experiments oneself. But although all the evidence seems to me to point
one way, I freely admit that I may be wrong and that genuine spirit
photographs may be produced. If so, I should very much like to be
able to convince myself of the fact and to give the utmost publicity
in my power to any positive results I might obtain. But it is no use
my attempting to do so under the conditions which normally obtain at
a photographic _séance_. I know, to be sure, a certain amount about
fraudulent methods, and might, perhaps, be not quite so easy a prey as
others who know less. But I am not so conceited as to flatter myself
for a moment that I am a match for a really competent trickster. I
know just enough to realise how very great an advantage the latter
always has and how hopeless it is for any but the very elect to pit
themselves against him. I do not imagine, as apparently do many worthy
spiritualists who do not even know the first word about fraud, that
my not extraordinary powers of observation are a match for the adroit
and experienced medium, and I would no more back myself to spot fraud
every time it was tried than I would back myself to win money off a
cardsharper!
If one were allowed _real_ test conditions, it would be quite another
matter. But one is not. One is allowed to watch--when one’s attention
is not distracted by some natural-seeming incident; one is allowed to
perform for oneself all kinds of operations which are quite irrelevant
to the _modus operandi_ of the trick; one is allowed to bring, if
not always to use, one’s own plates. But as already pointed out, the
loopholes left for fraud are so numerous that it is vain to hope to
guard against them all. In fact, the most suspicious feature about the
whole of psychic photography is the fact that a procedure is insisted
on which _must_ give these innumerable loopholes and the obvious “safe”
procedure is never, so far as I know, allowed at all.
If the account of fraudulent methods given above is referred to again,
it will be seen that of the twenty-two varieties there noted, no less
than eighteen depend on either (_a_) the use of the medium’s faked
camera or slides, or (_b_) the fact that the plates are loaded into
slides, the slides placed in the camera, the plates removed from the
slides and also developed “on the premises.” The only methods to
which this does not apply are the first of all and those involving
preparation of the studio or dark-room and noted in Group II., Section
A, to which might possibly be added the X-ray method. These three
last can easily be eliminated by working in one’s own or a “neutral”
studio, while the former eighteen could all be prevented by using the
investigator’s own magazine or roll-film camera, loading it before the
_séance_, taking it away immediately afterwards, and developing the
plates in private without the medium.
I may very well be wrong, there may very well be methods which I do
not know and cannot imagine which would get round even this degree
of control, but I am inclined to think that this procedure would
be “fraud-proof.” Nothing less rigorous can be so, at any rate for
a single-handed investigator, and even if several were present no
confidence could be felt in the results unless (_a_) they were well
versed in fraud, (_b_) they had planned and rehearsed everything in
advance, (_c_) the medium were completely docile and willing to keep
right away from the plates at the critical moments, and (_d_) the
studio were known to be unprepared.
I shall probably be told that the conditions mentioned above as being
apparently fraud-proof would automatically inhibit the phenomena as
would insistence on full light in the case of telekinesis. I am well
aware that many attempts to lay down test conditions in the past have
rightly met with this retort; but apart from the fact that _if_ the
phenomena are such that real test conditions can never be applied then
their genuineness can obviously never be established, I honestly cannot
see that there is any essential difference between the conditions I
suggest and those under which photographic phenomena _ostensibly_ take
place.
If and when these simple conditions are allowed (the plates being
bought, of course, under circumstances which prevent collaboration by
the vendor), I shall be prepared to admit that the scent is getting
warm and that there may be something in spirit photographs after all.
Until then I must reluctantly maintain my view that they are the most
obviously fraudulent of all spiritualistic phenomena.
* * * * *
In conclusion we must confess that we have little hope of influencing
convinced believers by the preceding discussion. It is just possible
that here and there someone may realise that there is more scope for
trickery than there appeared to be at first sight, may scrutinise
procedure more carefully, may have the courage to distrust his own
powers of observation, may even--if he is lucky--catch a swindler out.
But this is unlikely. “Once convinced always convinced” seems to be the
rule. “What matter if all appearances and all reasoning are against our
beliefs? Did not Satan put marine fossils on the tops of hills to shake
our faith in Genesis? Did not stupid spirits carelessly leave false
beards and dirty muslin in the pockets of Williams and Rita--those
wonderful materialising mediums? Do not even the greatest psychics
resort to fraud when the Power fails?”
No! Some people’s faith could never be shaken, not though we gave them
two hundred methods of fraud instead of twenty and not though a medium
were exposed a hundred times instead of but twice or thrice.
But it may be that there are some who still have doubts and still halt
between two opinions. We hope that to these this paper may be of some
service as a contribution to the evidence available for their study. It
is also possible that it may in some measure act as an antidote to the
unreliable matter which is now so freely disseminated and which does so
much to bring Psychical Research and the better aspects of Spiritualism
into undeserved disrepute.
PRINTED BY THE
ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED,
TIPTREE, ESSEX, ENGLAND.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I am assuming, for the purposes of comparison, that these later
phenomena actually occur--a point on which I am doubtful.
[2] I exclude, of course, the very rare instances when photographs
of apparently supernormal origin have been obtained by amateurs of
unimpeachable integrity. I have yet to meet with a convincing case of
this kind.
[3] Hereward Carrington, _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_.
[4] _E.g._, to verify the “speed” of the plates.
[5] _Cf._ trick slates used by slate-writing mediums.
[6] This method will probably be scoffed at by some enthusiasts, but
it should be remembered that the simpler and more audacious methods
are the most likely to succeed, just because they are so obvious that
no one thinks of them. The sitter _must_ keep still and _must_ look
at the camera for some seconds while the exposure is being made, and
provided the accomplice is revealed by a carefully silenced mechanism
the chances of detection are negligible.
[7] _E.g._, on the back with a diamond.