[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—It is manifestly difficult to answer in the short space allotted to me Mr. C. R. M. load's rejoinder to " Spiritualism Challenged." I made it perN.ctly clear in my original article that I was not speaking from my own experience alone, but from that of the whole fourteen members of the Occult Committee, who have lost no opportunity to investigate phenomena claimed to be supernormal. This experience is very extensive indeed, and would have been much more so were it not for the difficulties that have been placed in our way when we wished to attend seances.
What has surprised me most is that Mr. Joad is tho- roughly in agreement with all my main propositions. Where we differ is that he claims to have been much more fortunate than ourselves. He instances three sets of phenomena which he catalogues as " the simple," " the complex " and " the merely odd." I find his classification difficult to understand, but let that pass.
(1) Ile states that "It has been verified again and again by thermographs" that the temperature of a room falls instead of rising during the appearance of spiritualistic phenomena. (The simple.) This is by no means a new assertion, but such phenomena can easily be produced by trickery of a kind that would be difficult to detect, especially during three hours Of semi-darkness. Will Mr. Joad tell us where we can investigate any single instance of its occurrence? (2) A handkerchief is suspended in mid-air. (The complex.) He asks what lifts it and says that "the official reply is ectoplasm." He does not give this his decided support, but leaves the answer vague. (3) The Poltergeist phenomena (the merely odd) which only occur when a girl is present. We invite Mr. Joad to bring her to one of our meetings. Vill he accept the challenge ?
A possible explanation of his difficulties is that Mr. Joad has, like other distinguished persons before him, been, the un- witting victim of trickery. We know that phenomena more difficult to produce and more convincing, as proofs of spiritualism have owed their existence to trickery, too often of a deliberate and callous nature. Let me remind Mr. Joad that there is a definite science of deception which conjurers have laid themselves out, not merely to study, but to extend. In order to decide whether certain phenomena arc or are not due to trickery, an investigator must have a thorough knowledge of the metluxls that can be employed to produce such effects. Mr. JI gul tells us in his Guide to Modern Thought (page 173) : "1 am completely inexpert in conjuring and belong to that numerous class of people who not only do not know how any of the illusions at Maskelyne's are produced, but have_ not even any theories as to how they might be produced; hence my opinion on the matter is of little value." The italics are my own. With every admiration for Mr. Joad's ability and honesty of purpose, I am bound reluctantly to endorse that last sentence. He continues : "I may, however, register my conviction that the Meets I have witnessed upon
various occasions are not due to trickery and that some other explanation must therefore be fOlind for them."
The obvious comment on this is that by his own showing he has omitted to equip himself to _combat trickery and deception by the means that are recognized as the appropriate ones for the purpose. Ile might as well challenge a medical man's diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of a case, whilst admitting that he has never studied medicine, has not troubled to think about the subject, and bases his opinion on an [Mr. Joad is in the United States and can therefore .not, reply to Col. Elliot's questions at present,—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
