 |
 |
| Home > Articles > Physical Phenomena Observed in a Mediumistic London Circle
Summary: In the course of three visits during the late Spring of 2,000, a wide range of physical phenomena was experienced by visitors to a small mediumistic circle. The precautions taken against deception are given, together with illustrations of three of the more impressive supposedly paranormal effects: elaborately bent investigators' forks; burnt holes in a protective netting (third sitting); and Polaroid pictures, of which two were produced during the third sitting in circumstances which appear to preclude fraud. References to, and comparisons with, earlier investigations, together with some observations on the criteria for assessing the authenticity of such phenomena, are also included. Written September 2002. The events described in this paper all took place in a converted reception room at the home in London of Mrs Margaret Wehling (MW) between May 16 and June 18 2000. They comprised one of the most concentrated and diverse series of physical phenomena to have been recorded in recent decades. Although the conditions under which they were observed were far from perfect, those which took place during the last of the three séances described occurred under a more carefully controlled environment, yet produced results which have not yielded a plausible normal explanation. Together with her late husband, MW had been a member of the SPR, and was eager to invite the Society to investigate the production of various physical phenomena which she claimed to be taking place during séances held at her home. Indeed, she said she had the SPR in mind when forming her small “circle”, which she designated the Cema Group. She exhibited to several of those attending SPR lectures in the early months of 2000 a range of allegedly paranormally created Polaroid pictures produced during séances in the dark. The matter was briefly reported to and discussed by the Survival Research Committee of the Society, when it was agreed that I should seek an early opportunity to discuss the procedural requirements which would meet SPR evidential standards. When I learnt that she and her companion, Norbert Roth (NR) were shortly to leave on an extended visit for Australia, where both had property and family interests, I felt it advisable to set the machinery for trial sittings in motion as soon as possible. I therefore arranged for a special exploratory séance, at a few hours’ notice, to be held at her home on May 16th. The fact that MW had readily agreed to the introduction of a thermal imaging camera for this sitting impressed me as an unlikely reaction of the intention was to practice deception. Unfortunately the offer of this costly piece of specialised machinery was withdrawn at the last moment, but MW was not aware of this before the sitting. The “group” comprised MW and NR, the medium, D, accompanied by his wife. Only the medium was believed to be in trance during each of the three sittings I attended, and then for only part of the time. MW, a well-educated, elderly lady of strong character, acted as mistress of ceremonies, requesting appearances, seeking approval, ordering particular phenomena and generally arranging events in what appeared to be a fairly well-establish sequence. Seated alongside her and not invariably obedient to her commands, NR was almost equally talkative, and rather excitable. The medium himself was a quiet spoken Asian, who ran a small business repairing videos, televisions and the like. He appeared to be drained of energy at the end of each session. On the occasions when his wife was present she remained mute and (as it later transpired) disapproving. The three sittings were held in a room measuring some 12’ x 12’ (3.6m X 3.6m). The sole access was from the kitchen/passage area, save for double doors at the rear which led into a converted apsidal sun-lounge, totally walled in to create a “sanctuary”. A small w.c./shower closet was situated on the rear right. An illustration of the layout appears in Fig. 1 which shows the seating arrangements during the third sitting (June 18th). These were similar to those operating at the two earlier sittings, save for the fact that Mary Rose Barrington and Peter Flew attended the second séance along with my wife and myself, while the investigators at the third sitting comprised Professor David Fontana, Maurice Grosse and my wife and myself. As the plan indicates, the room was cluttered with furniture and domestic impedimenta. Three or four fine threads hung from the ceiling supporting a triangular set of bells, a whistle and a plastic dome, in the last of which the energies were believed by the Group to concentrate. On the wood block floor were several artefacts. They included a small “begging bowl” in which minor apports were said to be placed (and were later found); a larger bowl with some water, the contents of which were to be sprinkled over the sitters towards the end of the sitting as some kind of blessing (a benediction duly experienced by startled investigators), and a set of small drums with a beater in the shape of a miniature baseball bat. In the top left corner as seen from the entrance was a stand on which rested an open clear plastic packet of 50 coloured balloons. Alongside it on the floor was a small bin. A large architect’s drawing board, angled towards the ceiling, occupied the centre of the room. Clipped to it was a sheet of paper on which rather crudely executed drawings, mainly portraits, had been made in charcoal, and it was apparently awaiting further embellishment. In front of it was a small mahogany pedestal table, some 20cm in diameter, with a visibly defective leg. On the top were stacked some sheets of A4 paper roughly fixed at the corners with Sellotape. Two pencils and a pen surrounded it and were similarly affixed, although somewhat unreliably. Three strips of luminous material were stuck to the circumference. Similar strips were used to mark the objects suspended from the ceiling, one of which, a translucent plastic dome, was immediately above the table. A few feet in front of the entrance to the room, on the left, and adjacent to where I was to sit during the first sitting with my armchair blocking the doorway, was a small side table bearing a lamp equipped with a red bulb to be used with a dimmer so that eyes could accustom themselves more gradually when the main light was switched on and off. I placed a blank sheet of paper on this table, together with a pen (which I had been asked to bring to the first sitting). MW then fixed a luminous band round the pen. I laid it on the paper which I privately marked with a segment of the round base of the lamp to check any subsequent movement. The same room had been used two days earlier when SPR members Jenny Eales (now Mrs Ayres) and Chris Pettit attended a sitting. I later compared notes with them and, although different phenomena were experienced, I found no obvious inconsistencies. D was seated cross-legged on a raised soft armchair against the wall on the right of the entrance. Alongside him during the first séance were MW, NR and the medium’s wife, and myself. At subsequent sittings the investigators sat immediately behind them (see Fig. 1). There was thus no circle in the literal sense; nor were there any restraints on the medium or on any of the sitters save for the second sitting, when Miss Barrington fixed a light tether to D’s wrist and held the end of the tether taut from her seat immediately behind him – although she later expressed doubts about the reliability of this control. Various objects in the room were identifiable only by luminous tabs. Procedure. With the exception of my fixing a plastic mesh netting across the room immediately in front of the ‘circle’ comprising MW, NR and D, and my placing a pen and paid on the floor by the base of the side table, instead of on it, these arrangements remained virtually unchanged for the third sitting. At the first sitting, NR dimmed and extinguished the light and returned to his chair. After a request from MW for the spirits’ guidance and protection she invited each by name to perform various specialist functions in sequence. The precautions against deception were clearly inadequate, since the sitting, like the subsequent two séances, was purely exploratory. It was the intention, by trial and error, to establish just what sort of controls would prove compatible with the production of phenomena, while complying with evidential standards likely to be acceptable to the SPR. However, as will be seen, some of the phenomena challenged normal explanation despite the acknowledged security deficiencies. Most of the details which follow are equally relevant to the more impressive second and third sittings. The proceedings were tape-recorded by NR, who handed me the original tape without demur. There was audible disruption of the tape-recording equipment during the second sitting, which denied the investigators an opportunity to check their recollection of events. During the third sitting a tape-recorder was held by Mr Grosse, and the tape handed by him to NR, but it could not be traced when MW and NR returned some months later from Australia, a fate which was hardly surprising having regard to the fairly chaotic state of the place, and the upheaval attributable to their imminent departure. The old-fashioned system of inviting one knock for "Yes" and two for "No" was employed throughout, save when there was discussion through the (apparently entranced) medium; but the oral quality of these latter transmissions was very poor, sometimes sounding like little more than a series of low-level croaks. The knocks, however, were significantly more noisy than could readily have been made by any of the “group”, especially from a sitting posture. I summarise below the main physical events that occurred during the first sitting, and most of which were repeated in the later sessions Table-tilting. MW’s method of introducing the visitors to the principal spirit communicator, Kindlegau, took the form of table levitation almost at the start of the proceedings. The three luminous tabs on the top of the round table could be seen to float upwards. The table top gradually bent towards each of the visitors. From the disposition of the luminous tabs, and changes in their elliptical pattern, it was apparent that the table top was moving across the room, acknowledging each of us in turn by nodding above our heads, a foot or two above us. Later the table, again inverted, moved in time with the music. For the second and third sittings more luminous tabs had been affixed to the surface, making it easier to determine the angle at which moved above our heads. If it had been held by hand, the grip would have been fairly near the ceiling. Indeed we heard bumps indicating that the table could be raised no further. It was noteworthy that, despite the presence of suspended impedimenta in the form of a whistle, two bells and a plastic dome in the area where the table was being manipulated, we heard nothing to indicate a collision. Artistry. Before the sittings MW placed on her lap a large board to which she attached a blank sheet of paper using several clips. She explained that her right hand was controlled by a force responsible for enabling her to make a series of rapid scribbles in the dark with a short pencil. We heard noises of scribbling after MW had besought Kindlegau’s help to guide her hand. I examined the results immediately after the first sitting, and was barely able to discern even with MW’s help the image of a woman’s face underlying the scribbles. I then took the board into the “sanctuary” and placed it on a table, and closed the sliding door while we repaired for refreshments to the adjoining kitchen/dining room area so that no-one could the room unobserved. A short time later, no more than 15 or 20 minutes, we returned to the sanctuary to see whether there had been any post-séance change in the appearance of the drawing. Chris Pettit had reported such a development to me after his séance. I found that the picture had been improved dramatically. The face of a woman with a nun’s coif was now quite unmistakable. Most of the irrelevant scribbles had been erased, although without any detectable sign of an erasure. I saw no such changes in drawings made in the two subsequent sittings. Fork-bending. I had been asked to bring a fork. I took a sturdy pre-war electro-plated nickel silver fork which I left on a side table. Towards the end of the sitting MW asked whether a spirit would make my fork “pretty”. Afterwards, I found it with the two outer prongs bent down in one direction, and the two inner prongs bent in the opposite direction, giving the appearance of a palm tree. The toughness of the metal would have made it necessary to employ considerable force with the aid of a vice and pliers, probably assisted by a metal rod over which to bend the tines. I ascertained that the fork was the one I had brought in. I retained it, and have since compared it with a miscellaneous collection of forks in my kitchen, all of them considerably less robust. I was unable to bend any of their tines unaided . Subsequent exhibition of this and similarly bent forks after public lectures has failed to produce any theories of how such changes could have been wrought. (See plate 1). Fork-bending, at MW’s request, was a feature of the later sittings. During the third sitting, when a similar fork had been sealed inside a plastic fruit punnet, the bent instrument was found where it was placed, but the netting stretched across the top had been damaged so that, whoever or whatever was responsible, had torn a small hole in order to extract and replace the implement. Apports. Although MW had expressed her distaste for “not another coin” after she had asked whether the spirits could “bring something this evening”, there immediately followed a clunk from the direction of the centre of the room. She asked whether this was something “from outside” and received a single knock in response. Subsequently we found a small hollow Chinese coin in the metal “begging bowl”. MW gave it to me to identify (it turned out to be a valueless coin current in modern China). It is worthy of note that a similar coin was deposited noisily and accurately during the third sitting when the bowl, little wider than a breakfast cup, was behind the plastic netting. It may be argued that the term “apport” covers the occasion when MW’s requested a collaborating entity to place a paper hat on Miss Barrington’s head: it actually fell into her lap. Animals: One entity regularly imported spirit animals, or certainly the noises characteristic of their movements. Most impressive was a spirit owl, which appeared to have become caught in the netting: the sound made was disconcertingly realistic, and all the more impressive since I had given no prior notice of my intention to erect this form of barrier. No less disturbing was “mamba”, a snake which Professor Fontana said he stroked, considerably to the alarm of my wife, seated alongside him. Music: For the first sitting, a twin cassette player was placed by NR on a side table against the left wall about four feet in front of me, so that I was closer to it than any of the other four persons present. I inserted two music tapes myself. For the third sitting the machine was placed on a high shelf near the ceiling, and accessible only by someone standing on a chair or bench, neither of which was present. Throughout the sitting the machine was tended by some unseen hand or force which altered the volume, switched from one tape to the other or moved to different passages on the tapes. When a somewhat dirge-like pavane was being played to accompany lights which appeared to be moving to the music, it was abruptly stopped and exchanged for a livelier Bach gigue, to which the levitated and upended pedestal table moved rhythmically. During the third sitting, music changes and table movement took place simultaneously, but on different sides of the net barrier. It was obvious that someone or something was operating the cassette deck. According to MW Gerhardt, her late husband, was responsible. By contrast with the music generally required at the commencement of most séances to rouse the spirits and establish the right vibrations, etc., the CEMA music was almost entirely classical. Lights. Although the lights were by no means as spectacular or varied as they had been at Scole, they were nevertheless of interest, if only because (a) several lights were seen simultaneously; (b) the clutter of objects on the floor would have made moving around by one of the group hazardous, even if he could see where he was going; (c) the speed and vertical spread of the lights’ movements, from floor to ceiling, would have made physical manipulation by a single person difficult, and (d) there was no sign of the elaborate equipment which would have been required to produce this phenomenon. MW asked for a rainbow, but nothing appeared. However, there was a demonstration during which several lights were moving and swaying in time to Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No 3. Most of the lights could have been the luminous tabs, but one which appeared before my eyes, and was said by MW to be connected with a trumpet used for direct voice that I had not noticed earlier, was sharp, bright and crescent-shaped. Balloon-blowing. Towards the end of the first sitting MW asked a named communicator (who apparently was accustomed to performing this trick) to select a green balloon from the open bag. I had previously chosen green, and I was to be presented with one blown up and tied. There followed a sound as though someone was fiddling with a crinkly plastic bag. Then there were two noisy exhalations, a short pause while we waited for the balloon to be tied and presented to me, and a rapid deflation. MW rebuked the entity for frivolity, reminded it of the required colour, and asked it to try again. After a few seconds, we heard two similar inflating puffs, the first longer and louder than the second as one would expect, and a similar release, to MW's voluble annoyance. After the sitting I noted an exhausted white and a blue balloon on the floor, some distance from the corner where the packet of balloons was kept. NR showed me a red balloon, semi-inflated, which he said had been made for him. As I was examining the tie which sealed it, the balloon opened and immediately deflated. Balloon blowing was undertaken more successfully at the second sitting, and tied balloons were wafted to both Miss Barrington and me. Letter-writing. Throughout
this first sitting, which lasted about 90 minutes, I could see the
luminous band which MW had placed around my pen. When she asked
an entity to write a message for me, the luminous tab round the
pen flew into the air. There was a sound of crinkling paper while
the tab hovered around before flying back to the circular side-table
close to my left hand, and with my feet stretched out in front of
it. After the sitting, I found it resting there. On the paper, which
was now on the other side of the table lamp with the pen on top,
was an all but illegible scrawl which might be interpreted as "Janet".
During a later sitting, when a similar aerial performance was clearly
visible thanks to the luminous tabs, an apparently discarnate voice
commented favourably on the “quality pen”, a gift from
a Concorde voyage, which my wife had left behind on the floor next
to Peter Flew’s feet. At the end of the sitting I immediately went to the camera and found, beside it, the protective cover and one film beneath it. (See Plate 2) It was clearly much more detailed than just an arbitrary splash of colour, and seemed to me to bear some resemblance to an Aubrey Beardsley-like floating image of an elegant, slim and gaudily attired woman with an extravagant fan or flounce. Only later did I discern towards the base left an image of what appears to be an owl or similar bird in flight. However, it did not resemble MW. For the second sitting, the same camera with its partly-used contents was used, and the lens obscured by sealing tape. MW told us that some of the films in the cassette used for the first sitting had been developed during a visit by the group to Dortmund, where several rather similar pictures were said to have been produced. I have retained copies of them. All the films have some common features: highly coloured, some very detailed, largely but not entirely abstract, and with substantial areas of olive-green. Before the séance, I expelled a blank film from this cassette as a control, and noted its identification number on this frame to ensure that, after taking account of the Dortmund pictures, the code number would match that on the bird picture produced at the first sitting. It did. Peter Flew, who had sat with the Group on a number of occasions, observed me. There were no luminous identification tabs on or around the camera which might have enabled anyone during the séance to locate its whereabouts in total darkness. During the sitting, after MW had asked for pictures to be made, we heard the sound of two film plates being withdrawn, a distinctive and readily audible operation. After the sitting I asked the three members of the Group (i.e. MW, NR and D, the medium) to remain seated so that I could ensure that none of the objects which might have been influenced by them or worked on during the sitting were touched by them. On visiting the camera I could at first see nothing amiss until Peter Flew drew my attention to the side table immediately adjacent to the position of the camera, where we found two developed pictures, both highly ornate and colourful, and both in sequence. (Plates 3 and 4). I again expelled a control to check the sequence of numbers and to ensure that the film was unexposed, and hence black. It was. I then removed the cassette to satisfy myself that my original mark was on it. There was one unusual feature of the control film during this second sitting which was not apparent on the succeeding occasion: it began to develop an image, watched by most of those present. The image appeared first to be an impression of grained wood, but was gradually seen to be cathedral-like. I did not myself see any further progression than this, because I was occupied elsewhere, but I was told that some human image had begun to emerge also. Then it began to fade, and was soon reduced to a black film, although retaining some iridescence. To double-check the correct sequence, and discover whether this effect might be repeated, I pulled out a second control film. This remained completely black. Of the two films produced at this sitting, by far the more important evidentially was the defective plate, where the developing liquid failed to spread itself over the entire surface. I comment on this in some detail later. For the third sitting on June 18 I bought a new camera of identical make, and loaded it with a freshly bought cassette opened in the presence of Maurice Grosse (MG), David Fontana (DF) and Veronica Ford (VF) before the sitting. The identification of the cassette by secret marking, and the obscuring of the lens by with black adhesive Velcro, scored with a gold felt tip to detect any displacement of marking material tape, were undertaken by DF and MG. Before leaving the loaded camera on a small table in the far right corner of the séance room, adjoining the toilet door, I expelled the protective cover card and the first plate to ensure that the camera was working properly, that the film was correctly blank, and to note the serial number printed so as to preclude substitution. Access by any member of the Group was made hazardous not only by a plastic mesh screen I had fixed to the walls and the floor about two feet in front of their seats (see Fig. 1 and Plate 5), and by the presence of two pots on the floor and the large architect’s drawing frame, but by a group of three small Temple bells suspended from the top of the plastic mesh. Although this had not been my original purpose in placing the bells there – I was simply looking for somewhere to hang them so that they would not knock into my head while I fixed up the netting – it later became apparent that the bells would immediately respond should anyone move the net, thereby alerting the investigators. This proved, fortuitously, to be a significant barrier to anyone seeking access to the other side of the netting, since, with the exception of the small pedestal table and the paper pad and pen provided by VF for aerial writing, all the objects relevant to the subsequent physical effects were behind the net. On the right wall, near the medium’s seat, the net was stapled to a wooden pole wedged behind the radiator and affixed with sealing tape to both the radiator and the wall. On the left wall opposite I had taped the mesh to a small coffee table and to the wall, securing it also between a wall plug and its socket. I fixed the base of the mesh with a number of seals on the wooden floor. The height of the screen was about 1.7 metres, dipping by a few centimetres in the centre. During this final sitting, the investigators heard the sounds made by the manual extraction of two photographic plates, at an interval of no more than a minute, I should estimate. I found two pictures (see Plates 6 and 7) lying alongside the camera. Their serial numbers checked with a control I had earlier extracted. I retained all the relevant originals and controls relevant to all three sittings for inspection. They have been examined by a large number of people, some with photographic expertise. Since the films represent what I consider to be the best single evidence of paranormality, it is important to appreciate the precise mechanism by which such pictures are produced normally. Each Polaroid plate has on one side a small flat sac containing a chemical which develops the film after the picture has been taken. The resistance experienced as the extraction ring is tugged in order to expel the film is created by a roller which squeezes this chemical over the entire surface of the film as it is extruded. Within 20 or 30 seconds, the chemical then develops the image created inside the camera from the picture transmitted by light through the lens. If the lens remains closed and sealed, however, no normal image can be created. Should an image nevertheless appear, then (unless some unknown intruder into the Sanctuary has managed to obtain the camera and gone through an elaborate process of removing the lens, taking a picture in bright light at a very finely determined distance between image and lens, replacing the lens covering so that the interference remains undetectable, and then manages to pass the camera back through Sellotaped double doors undetected to a member of the Group) it would appear to follow that some system has been employed to create the image after the film has been expelled from the camera. There is a sophisticated art form in the manipulation of Polaroid prints aimed at the production of striking and imaginative pictures (Carr 2002), but this relates to the post-exposure interference with the developing gel before it has set and while it is still possible to effect changes in the appearance of a normal photograph. In the Cema sittings, the hypothetical faker is not only dealing with a much smaller and less complex piece of equipment than the Polaroid SX-70 camera used for professional manipulations, but is working in total darkness with a lens-sealed camera which cannot take normal pictures. And he has only some 20 to 30 seconds available in which to push the gel around so as to create an image of three dimensional appearance containing fine tracery. It is in fact possible to create interesting and even artistic images in this way. Prompted by a referee, I undertook a number of tests which showed that quite impressive, even detailed and fissured, images could be created in the dark after extracting a plate from a Joycam lens-covered camera. Others have provided examples of this novel art-form (see Plate 9). A demonstration that such images can
be fabricated after a blank plate has been pulled from the camera
does not necessarily mean that it was made by human hand, of course,
especially if other circumstances make this unlikely, but it does
weaken the evidence for paranormality. However, whatever else may
be said about the rest of the pictures qualitatively, it is fortunately
possible to demonstrate from the example of the defective film in
the second séance that the image was created inside the camera.
This showed that there had been insufficient developing liquid to
cover the entire surface of the frame, a production fault I had
experienced previously during the Ibiza experiments with the Scole
Group in June 1997. An alternative method of producing an image could arise if the faker opened the camera, removed the cassette and pushed out the film, then used his own pressure to squeeze all or part of the gel over the unexposed surface while making impressions over the gelled area. Apart from the fact that it is difficult to reconcile this method with the appearance of a smooth edge to the gelled area, it would not be consistent with the sound made by pulling a film out of the camera (this cannot be done in the absence of the cassette). My own experiments have shown that, while colourful impressions can be made by pushing the gel around, the sort of precision seen on some of the films has to be created by a sharp instrument, which leaves indentations on the plastic film protecting the sensitized plate, thus making the interference readily detectable. However, even could this be avoided, it would not overcome the clinching objection I have demonstrated in relation to the defective picture. An alternative hypothesis has been advanced by those who think it possible that the camera cover might have been opened in order that the film plate in the cassette could be exposed to a torch, the cover glass of which was coated with coloured images. These would then be transmitted to the undeveloped film, the cover snapped closed, the exposure button pressed and the film ejected. The process would then be repeated with the aid of another torch carrying a different pattern. There are several practical reasons which do not favour this suggestion, apart from the difficulty of ensuring that no light could be seen by those less than ten feet away, and the problem of muffling the noise made by the camera cover when snapped open or closed: experience in enlarging the original films shows that a very precise distance between source of image and position of plate must be determined by the normal trial-and-error focusing procedure. There is no way in which this could have been done in the conditions which prevailed at the Cema sittings. Perhaps unsurprisingly, efforts to obtain independent assessments from photographic experts have proved unavailing. The pictures in themselves cannot be accounted paranormal, and cannot convey the history of their origin. Hence it would be pointless to ask anyone to examine the films for the purpose of pronouncing upon their genuineness without first describing precisely the conditions in which they were known to have been produced. Not unexpectedly, therefore, attempts which involved seeking the help of the Royal Photographical Society and readers of a large-circulation magazine for professional photographers have produced no takers. Polaroid themselves considered such films outside their remit, their job being to deal with pictures produced from light rays transmitted through a lens. It is perhaps worth observing that, since the defective film provides evidence of genuineness, it would be questionable to argue that the remainder were fakes. Indeed if the submission is accepted, a mantle of authenticity is cast over the other ostensibly paranormal phenomena occurring in the same room and under the same constraints imposed by darkness, the barrier of the net and the obstacles on the floor. In fact only one person, the medium, is suspect. His wife did not attend all three sittings, and indeed was absent when the defective picture was produced. The only other members of the ‘Group’ were MW and NR, both of whom were talking, sometimes arguing and commentating, throughout the proceedings, and notably during the times when the films were being produced. These times can be fairly precisely determined by the brief intervals recorded in the first of the three sittings following MW’s request to ‘Kindlegau’ for pictures, the characteristic sound made when the yellow ring was apparently pulled to extract the film, and the ringing of bells, and loud knocks in response to MW’s questions about the completion of the operation and the degree of satisfaction with the quality of the results. Before analyzing further the hypothesis of fraud, a brief note on some of the other physical phenomena is required. In part this is for the sake of completeness; in part because, while it may be reasonable to contend that controls against deception were inadequate for any single operation, apart from the films, when all the phenomena are taken in their entirety, it is not reasonable. Whether in a court of law or in a scientific examination, the commonsense rule requires that all the evidence must be taken together, particularly having regard to the sheer physical difficulty of attributing to a single individual the execution of a wide range of phenomena both in front of and behind the plastic netting (see Appendix). Some of these phenomena were of special significance: the begging bowl, little larger than a tea-cup, must have been seen precisely, since we heard the sound of a coin dropped or thrown into it, and I later retrieved it for examination and valuation. The audiotape player with its two music cassettes required rather more than visual location, since for the third sitting it had been deliberately placed (by NR) out of normal reach. Despite this, both the volume of music and interference with the tapes themselves were audible throughout the séances. Other physical effects difficult to reconcile with the existence of a single fraudster behind the curtain, include: (a) the appearance of small lights
in a number of places simultaneously; The cumulative effect of these obstacles, combined with the range, variety and inherent difficulty of providing all the visual and acoustic effects, taken with the camera evidence, makes the hypothesis of wholesale faking by the same person so inherently improbable that the concept may seem offensive to common sense. Discussion Claims for the existence of a paranormal phenomenon are likely to be more readily accepted if they are not unique; and while I am not aware of any precise parallel for the creation of images inside a blanked-off Polaroid camera, there are precedents for the imprinting of images by mental means, whether from discarnate or human sources. Apart from the many examples given in the Scole Report, and the much larger number of pictures produced from still frames claimed by the Group themselves in advance of the arrival of SPR investigators, the most celebrated example of so-called thoughtography is of Ted Serios, as described by his mentor Dr Jule Eisenbud (Eisenbud, 1966). It is by no means the only example, however. Dr Tokichi Fukurai was an earlier pioneer (Fukurai, 1931). Despite the physical obstructions, the constant danger of exposure and the absence of any visible means to effect some of them, it could be argued that any one of these phenomena, taken separately, might have been possible, considering the absence of traditional precautions such as the physical constraint of the medium, the presence of reasonable light or infra-red video cameras. I have already referred to the importance of the bundle-of-sticks argument, but it must be observed that, for some of these individual phenomena, fraud would appear very unlikely: in particular the fork-bending and net-scorching, both of which would have required tools for on-the-spot employment. It is also relevant to bear in mind the background and personalities of the people under suspicion. Any deception would have to have been carefully prepared, and known to all the participants. Mrs Wehling and her late husband were known as respectable SPR members, with no history of fraud or magicianship. The success of the third séance had encouraged me to make plans for continued sittings in a different location where physical controls would be easier to establish. However, by the time they returned to Britain the following autumn, D, whether through domestic pressures, business reasons, exhaustion resulting from constant trance sittings while in Australia, or differences with MW and NR, had left the Group. This brought to an unexpected and disappointing end our ambitious plans for further sittings. References: Eisenbud, J. (1968) The World of Ted
Serios, Jonathan Cape, London. Appendix The following summary of the physical effects noted during the third sitting is based on my contemporaneous notes, as amplified and confirmed by an independent summary prepared by DF very shortly after he returned home. (i) Table ‘greets’ visitors |
All
content © Copyright 2008 The Montague Keen Foundation. All
rights reserved. Montague Vernon Keen ™ No part of this website may be reproduced without permission. |