Part 5

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.

First, the recognition may be perfectly well founded, but the “extra” 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.