Part 4

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

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

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.