sign in sign up
<<
Home , Joe Nickell

BOOK REVIEWS

to ap pear in photographs. The first Photoghosts: Images of such fakes were produced by Boston photographer William H. Mumler. He the Spirit Realm? discovered that when he recycled glass JOE NICKELL photographic plates, a faint image could remain and so appear as a dim image in Caught on Film: Photographs of the . subsequent pictures if the glass was not By Melvyn Willin. David & Charles, Devon, England, thoroughly cleaned. Spiritu alism then 2007. ISBN-13: 978-0-7153-2728-9. 156 pp. Hardcover, being all the rage, Mumler went into $16.99. business in 1862 as a “spirit photogra- pher,” eventually attracting such clients as Mary Todd Lincoln, whose portrait ince it was founded in London ing from a wedding posy, and the “Virgin included a “spirit” image of her assas- in 1882, the Society for Psychical Mary” outlined in tree branches (52–57)— sinated husband (22–23). However, Research (SPR) has conducted re- as simulacra resulting from our ability to S Mumler was exposed as a fraud when search into paranormal claims. Its found- interpret random patterns, like inkblots or people recognized that some of the sup- ers’ hope was to validate Spiritu alist clouds, as recognizable pictures. Indeed, posed spirits were still among the living phenomena and so unite science and reli- a “sacred elephant in the sky” (62–63) is (Nickell 1994, 146–159, 192–196). gion (Guiley 2000, 353). Over the subse- merely a pachyderm-shaped cloud. Nevertheless, “spirit” photography quent century and a quarter, the society’s Still, Willin is unwilling, it seems, to archives have amassed an important col- avoid mystery mongering altogether. For was off and running, later followed—if lection of anomalous photographs that example, he is too uncritical of “aura” photo- we make a distinction that Willin does (with other collections such as the Fortean graphs, including Kirlian photos (36–37; not—by “” photography. The dif- Picture Library) have been tapped for the 12–43; cf. Nickell 2001, 142–149), as ference? The former began in the studio book Ghosts Caught on Film: Photo- well as the allegedly psychically projected and moved to include the séance room, graphs of the Paranormal. The compila- “thoughtographs” of Ted Serios (Nickell the idea being that spirits of the departed tion is by Dr. Melvyn Willin, the SPR’s 1994, 197–198; Randi 1982, 222–227). were usually conjured up, summoned to Honour able Archive Officer. It is at once Willin’s main focus (so to speak), as his appear in order to communicate with an invaluable compendium—a selection book’s title makes clear, is on ghosts, and the living. In contrast, ghost photo- of curious paranormal photos, many of the majority of his questioned pictures graphs were typically made at supposedly which are treated with appropriate skep- are of that genre: here a spook, there a haunted sites. And whereas spirit photos ticism—and an annoying presentation specter, elsewhere an apparition or phan- were invariably charlatans’ productions, with outright fakes sometimes obfuscated tom—a ghost (or spirit of the dead) by ghost photos could either be faked or by excessive credulity. any other name. appear inadvertently—as by reflection, However, it is important to realize accidental double exposure, or the like. Paranormalities that the earliest photographic processes Willin would do well to note that Willin appropriately debunks such noto- recorded not a single ghost: not the early, ghost photos began to proliferate after rious images as the 1917 Cottingley Glen impermanent experimental images of J. portable cameras became available to fairy photographs produced by two school- Nicephore Niepce in the first quarter of amateurs during the 1880s—especially girls using obvious cutouts (but fooling the the nineteenth century nor the later exper- at the end of the decade when George likes of Sir ) (16–17), iments (1834–39) by Fox Talbot, who Eastman introduced celluloid roll film for and a supposed séance materialization of produced “fixed” prints on paper. The his Kodak camera (Nickell 1994 22–28, spirit “Katie King” that is in fact a depic- first practical photographic process, the 158). Like the earliest spirit photos, those tion of the medium posing daguerreotype (after L.J.M. Daguerre), supposedly depicting ghosts showed them “in her underwear” (Willin 18–19). He which was an nounced in 1839, likewise to look just like people, only more ethe- also correctly explains some images—a recorded no ghosts. And the same is true real. In modern times, that would change “Madonna and Child” seen in a fountain’s of ambro types (from 1855) and tintypes when a variety of ghostly forms—such splashing water, the face of a “cherub” gaz- (patented in 1856) (Coe 1989, 8–37; as strands of “” (an imagined Joe Nickell, PhD, is CSI’s Senior Nickell 1994, 4–29, 147–149). spirit substance) or “orbs” (bright balls of “energy”)—began to appear in snapshots. Research Fellow and author of Debut of Spirits numerous investigative books, includ- The main culprit was the pocket camera ing Entities and Camera Clues. Not until glass-plate negatives came with a built-in flash. The burst of light His Web site is at www.joenickell. on the scene (about 1859), facilitat- could rebound from the wrist strap to com. ing double imaging, did “ghosts” begin produce the ectoplasmic strands or from

54 Volume 32, Issue 4 BOOK REVIEWS dust particles or water droplets to yield ently before the doorway of a thatched- Fairley and Simon Welfare in Arthur C. orbs or from a wandering fingertip, hair, roof building, was supposedly photo- Clarke’s Chron icles of the Strange and jewelry, etc., to produce various other graphed in the 1920s. How ever, the Mysterious (1987, 140), “there is a pale shapes or blurs (Nickell 1994, 159). image did not surface until 1993, and line above each stair-tread, indicating that its place of origin is only assumed to one picture has been superimposed over Photo Analysis be “probably England.” Willin admits the other; a patch of reflected light at the To show how additional facts and anal- that “most people are suspicious of the top of the right-hand banister appears ysis can help illuminate many alleged dramatic drapery” since the majority of twice.” What likely happened is that the ghost photographs, here are a few from ghost sightings look like “real people in camera was shifted slightly during a long, Willin’s compendium that are especially real clothes” (146–147). Yet he adds: two-stage exposure, one with a real figure deserving of such treatment. “One day, technology could well tell us briefly standing on the stairs. Hence, Posing Spirits. A circa 1875 image by this apparition is exactly what it seems the negative would be unaltered. Photo the notorious English spirit photogra- to be: a genuine paranormal presence.” expert Tom Flynn (2008) agrees with this pher Frederick Hudson depicts a seated What it really seems to be is a staged assessment and cites clear evidence that man surrounded by shrouded figures. ghost photo. There is a well-known the photo was not flash-illuminated but “Although known to dress up and pose technique for producing such fakes that shot with available light, thus requiring as his own ‘ghosts’ and to use double does not require any tampering with the a long exposure. This gives away the lie exposure for cheating,” concedes Willin, negative or other darkroom deception. It of the reporters’ claim of having made a “Hudson was ultimately believed to was used by some spirit photographers: quick snapshot. have leavened his frauds with much gen- while the sitter re mained motionless Spirit of “Old Nanna.” A 1991 photo uine .” Reputedly, in for the lengthy exposure, a confeder- depicts a little boy who seems to be this instance the sitter and two friends ate—suitably attired—simply appeared gazing up at a bright vortex of mist that were permitted to operate the camera briefly behind the unwitting person, the intrudes into the photo. But is he really without Hudson’s interference. result being a photo with a semi-trans- looking at the spirit of Old Nanna, his Never mind that Hudson allegedly parent “spirit” (Nickell 1994, 152). The late great grandmother, as family mem- used a specially gimicked Howell cam- same effect can be produced accidentally bers have suggested? Unfortunately, no era; it supposedly held a framed, pre-ex- when someone steps briefly into or out one in the room at the time the picture posed image that moved into position of a scene that is photographed with a was snapped perceived anything out of while the sitter was being photographed long exposure (Nickell 1994, 158–159). the ordinary. Although acknowledging (25). There are other inherent indicators Several other photos published by Willin that “there is not enough verifiable fact that the photograph is bogus. If the extra may be of this type, as he himself some- to support the appearance and photo- figures are subtracted from the picture, what grudgingly admits (e.g., 76–77, graphing of a spirit,” Willin cautions: “If the composition is unaccountably bad: 86–87, 116–117, 132–133, 144–145). the picture is fraudulent then the misty the sitter is positioned not only off cen- Specter on the Stairs. A famous 1936 cloud should be explainable but it’s far ter (being both too far to the right and photograph of a too-good-to-be-true ghost- too big and dense to be, say, cigarette too low), but also too far away, so as to ly figure on a staircase was made at smoke. Neither is there anything to sug- leave an unusual amount of surround- Rayn ham Hall in Norfolk, England, by gest a human form but, of course, what ing space. One can rationalize that the a pair of reporters who claimed first to the boy saw and what we are permitted additional space was left to make room see the apparition and then to quickly to see could be quite different” (20–21). for the spirits, but how would they have take a picture of it. Willin sits on the Ironically, the effect is clearly due known just where to place themselves fence—or is it the banister?—on this to something that Willin is well aware to make a pleasing arrangement? Most one, acknowledging that “there appear of—acknowledging elsewhere (72) how likely the chair and camera had been to be inconsistencies in the photo on frequently the “camera-strap syndrome” pre-positioned by Hudson, who had the stair rail,” while insisting that the can cause just such an anomaly. He already photographed the “spirits.” Still negative appeared to be “genuine” and fails to recognize it in this instance even another indicator of faking comes from there was “a tradition of haunting” at though it has the classic appearance the figures’ wearing shrouds. This seems the house (128–129). He adds, “Let the produced by an unsecured strap getting less a convincing attire for ghosts than viewer decide.” in front of the lens. The braiding of the a suspiciously dramatic convention (as And so expert viewers have. A care- strap is even evident, an effect I have Willin himself notes in the following ful examination of the photograph (in captured in experimental photographs case). much greater enlargement than given in (Nickell 1996, 13–14). Haunted Doorway. A figure, shrouded Willin’s book) shows evidence of dou- Palatial Apparition. At Middlesex, head-to-toe and appearing semi-transpar- ble exposure. “For example,” note John England’s famed Hampton Court

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER July / August 2008 55 BOOK REVIEWS

Palace, on October 7, 2003, surveil- Willin’s compendium. Many others ideas that superficially seem plausible but lance-camera footage captured a spooky, could be noted. Time and again, a on closer examination are internally con- robed figure emerging from open fire spooky picture can best be explained by tradictory or counter to what is possible in doors. Alarms sounded on three occa- invoking Occam’s razor—the rule that the real world. The term has been applied sions, but each time the doors were found the simplest tenable explanation (the to circle-squarers, perpetual motionists, and closed. Although Willin cites the opin- one requiring the fewest assumptions) those who believe the Earth is flat. Some- ion of skeptic that the is preferred. And so, other anomalous times the term “fringe science” is used. figure is likely a person in a costume, he photos are likewise attributable to such We must admit that in the history ends by wondering, “. . . could this be factors as deliberate hoaxing, reflections, of science, some of the early “accepted” the genuine image of an apparition on rebounding flash, defects of camera or ideas would, if judged by the standards of film, one of the most rare things in the film, simulacra, and other factors—not today’s science, qualify as pseudoscientific: world?” (142–143). of another world, but of this one. astrology, alchemy, geocentric solar system I had studied the photograph for models, the luminiferous ether. So how do SI magazine (Nickell 2004) and simi- References we distinguish science from ? larly determined that the image probably Coe, Brian. 1989. The Birth of Photography: Bob Schadewald had a continuing The Story of the Formative Years 1800–1900. depicted an actual person. Examining a Lon don: Spring Books. interest in fringe science and pseudosci- high-resolution electronic copy of the Fairley, John and Simon Welfare. 1987. Arthur ence. This posthumous collection of his photo, I found a clearly solid figure C. Clarke’s Chronicles of the Strange and published and unpublished materials (skill- Mysteri ous. London: Collins. accompanied by shadow patterns that Flynn, Thomas. 2008. Interview by author, fully edited by Schadewald’s sister Lois) is are consistent with a real, human fig- February 29. a highly readable account of several variet- ure appearing in ambient light. The Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. 2000. The Encyclopedia ies of pseudoscience, including Flat Earth of Ghosts and Spirits, 2nd ed. New York: picture thus contrasts with most tradi- Check mark Books. theories, perpetual motion, creationism, tional “ghost” photos that depict trans- Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook and predictions of the end of the world. parent, ethereal figures. I suggested that for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, The unifying theme is “fringe thinkers” al though the footage might be unaltered, Ky.: Uni versity Press of Kentucky. who create their own versions of reality, ———. 1996. Ghostly photos. SKEPTICAL the actual event could well have been INQUIRER 20(4) (July/August), 13–14. contemptuous of the models of nature staged—as suggested by the repeated ———. 2001. Real-Life X-Files: Investigating the accepted by established mainstream sci- opening and closing of the doors and the Paranormal. Lexington, Ky.: University Press ence. Schadewald treats his subjects with of Kentucky. fact that the incidents occurred during ———. 2004. Hampton Court photo: Ghost respect and even sympathy (he knew many the pre-Halloween season. or guest? SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 28(2) (March/ of them personally), but he clearly reveals These are only a few examples from April), 13. why their ideas are flawed and misguided. Randi, James. 1982. Flim Flam: , ESP, Here you will find the stories of colorful characters such as Immanuel Velikovsky, who rewrote the book on solar system Pseudoscientists and astronomy; Charles John son, who was cer- tain that Earth was as flat as a pancake; Their Worlds John Keely, who claimed he could tap DONALD SIMANEK etheric energy to power a freight train coast-to-coast on a gallon of water; and Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided assorted creationists, who freely engaged in Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the “lying for God.” Velikovsky Affair. By Robert Schadewald. Xlibris, 2008. One might suppose that these folks and ISBN 978-1-4363-0435-1. 272 pp. Paper, $19.99; hard- their worldviews have little in common. Surely one who believes the Earth is flat and one who believes it is hollow can- he word pseudoscience is a bit slip- not think alike. But, as this book reveals, pery. It suggests something “fake” they have more in common with each or “fraudulent”—something that Donald Simanek is an emeri- T other than they do with mainstream sci- is not a science but pretends to be. We can tus professor of physics at Lock ence. Looming large in their thinking and easily name some of the classic examples: Haven University of Pennsylvania. their motivations was a literal belief in the astrology, , homeopathy, para- His Web site www.lhup.edu/ King James Bible. Velikovsky used biblical psychology, and creationism. People who ~dsimanek includes science, pseudosci- sources freely. Flat earthers’ beliefs were promote such have been ence, humor, and satire. He can be bound up with fundamentalist religious called “paradoxers,” because they propose reached at [email protected]. beliefs. Crea tionists and flat earthers have

56 Volume 32, Issue 4 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER