magic and real detectives-第39部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



we　see　or　hear　are　always　founded　on　a　combination　of　observation

and　inference；　but　in　daily　life　it　is　seldom　necessary　to

distinguish　between　the　two　elements；　since；　when　the　object　and

its　mode　of　presentation　are　familiar；　our　inferences　are　generally

correct。　　But　it　is　different　when；　owing　to　circumstances；　such　as

a　bad　light；　we　have　to　infer　more　in　proportion　to　what　we

perceive　than　usual；　or　when　some　one；　e。　g。；　a　conjurer　or　a

ventriloquist；　is　trying　to　deceive　us　by　presenting　one　object

under　the　familiar　aspect　of　another；　and　suggesting　false

inferences。　　It　is　not　uncommon　to　find　people　at　seances

encouraging　each　other　in　the　belief　that　they　see；　say；　a　living

human　figure；　when　all　that　they　actually　SEE　is　something　moving

which　is　about　the　size　of　a　human　being；　the　rest　is　inference。〃

How　true　these　last　remarks　are　is　demonstrated　by　the　statement；

made　in　The　Revelations　of　a　Spirit　Medium；　that　an　old　wire　mask

frequently　used　at　materializing　seances　had　been　recognized　〃by

dozens　of　persons　as　fathers；　mothers；　sisters；　brothers；　cousins；

sweethearts；　wives；　husbands；　and　various　other　relatives　and

friends。　　None　but　the　medium　knew　that　it　was　only　a　fifty…cent

wire　mask；　hence　none　but　the　medium　could　enjoy　the　humor　of　the

occasion。〃



One　of　the　most　instructive　incidents　I　know；　in　relation　to　this

question　of　the　psychology　of　deception；　is　the　one　given　by　Doctor

Hodgson＇1＇the　case　of　the　officer　and　the　Hindu　juggler。　　In　this

case；　a　trick　was　performed　before　an　English　officer　and　his　wife；

and　Doctor　Hodgson　happened　to　overhear　this　officer　telling　some

travelers　of　the　experience　at　dinner　that　evening。　　〃Referring　to

the　movements　of　the　coins；　he　said　that　he　had　taken　a　coin　from

his　own　pocket　and　placed　it　on　the　ground　himself；　yet　that　this

coin　had　indulged　in　the　same　freaks　as　the　other　coins。　　His　wife

ventured　to　suggest　that　the　juggler　had　taken　the　coin　and　placed

it　on　the　ground；　but　the　officer　was　emphatic　in　repeating　his

statement；　and　appealed　to　me　for　confirmation。　　He　was；　however；

mistaken。　　I　had　watched　the　transaction　with　special　curiosity；　as

I　knew　what　was　necessary　for　the　performance　of　the　trick。　　The

officer　had　apparently　intended　to　place　the　coin　upon　the　ground

himself；　but　as　he　was　doing　so；　the　juggler　leaned　slightly

forward；　dexterously　and　in　a　most　unobtrusive　manner　received　the

coin　from　the　fingers　of　the　officer；　as　the　latter　was　stooping

down；　and　laid　it　close　to　the　others。　　If　the　juggler　had　not　thus

taken　the　coin；　but　had　allowed　the　officer　himself　to　place　it　on

the　ground；　the　trick；　as　actually　performed；　would　have　been

frustrated。





＇1＇　Proceedings　Society　for　Psychical　Research；　Vol。　IV。；　pp。　385…6。





〃Now　I　think　it　highly　improbable　that　the　movement　of　the　juggler

entirely　escaped　the　perception　of　the　officer；　highly　improbable；

that　is　to　say；　that　the　officer　was　absolutely　unaware　of　the

juggler's　action　at　the　moment　of　its　happening；　but　I　suppose

that；　although　an　impression　was　made　on　his　consciousness；　it　was

so　slight　as　to　be　speedily　effaced　by　the　officer's　IMAGINATION　of

himself　as　stooping　and　placing　the　coin　upon　the　ground。　　The

officer；　I　may　say；　had　obtained　no　insight　into　the　modus　operandi

of　the　trick；　and　his　fundamental　misrepresentation　of　the　only

patent　occurrence　that　might　have　given　him　a　clew　to　its

performance　debarred　him　completely　from　afterwards；　on　reflection；

arriving　at　any　explanation。　　Just　similarly；　many　an　honest

witness　may　have　described　himself　as　having　placed　one　slate　upon

another　at　a　sitting　with　a　medium；　whereas　it　was　the　medium　who

did　so；　and　who　possibly　effected　at　the　same　time　one　or　two　other

operations　altogether　unnoticed　by　the　witness。〃



In　reading　through　descriptions　of　slate…writing　seances；　we　very

seldom　find　the　statement　made　as　to　WHO　placed　the　slates　on　the

table；　or　under　the　table；　etc。；　generally　the　account　reading　〃the

slates　were　then　placed　on　the　table；〃　without　any　qualifying

statement　as　to　WHO　placed　them　there。　　Accounts　of　this　kind　are

absolutely　worthless；　from　an　evidential　standpoint。　　We　must　at

once　ask　ourselves：　who　placed　the　slates　in　that　position？　and　if

it　was　the　mediumas　it　probably　was　in　the　vast　majority　of

instancesthen　that　test；　in　all　probability；　ceases　to　have　any

evidential　weight。　　Anyone　can　read　over　a　number　of　accounts　of

slate…writing　performances；　and　verify　these　statements；　if　he

chooses　to　do　so。　　Frequently；　the　statement　is　made　that　the

sitter　did　actually　place　the　slate　on　the　table；　when　in　reality

the　medium　did　so。　　This　error　is　quite　unconscious　on　the　sitter's

part；　of　course；　but　the　account　is　falsified；　nevertheless。

Mistakes　of　this　kind　are　very　common；　the　sitter　thinking

afterwards　that　he　（the　sitter）　MUST　have　placed　the　slates　on　the

table　himself！



It　will　be　seen　from　the　above　that　there　is　a　great　difference

between　what　ACTUALLY　transpired；　at　any　given　seance；　and　what　the

accounts　SAY　transpired。　　The　general　public　cannot　get　that　all…

important　fact　too　strongly　rooted　in　its　mind：　that　the　events

which　transpired　at　a　seance　may　not　be　reported　accurately；　so

that　the　report　of　the　seance　may　be　altogether　wrong　and

erroneous；　though　the　sitters；　and　those　who　drew　up　the　report；

may　have　been　thoroughly　honest　in　their　belief　that　the　report　is

accurate　in　every　respect。　　The　effect　of　all　this　is　very　great

indeed。　　Many　spiritualistic　seances　are　quite　inexplicable　AS　DE…

SCRIBED；　but　the　description　is　not　a　true　report　of　what　took

place　at　the　seance　in　question。　　The　facts　are　distorted。

Consequently；　the　person　taking　it　upon　himself　to　explain　what

took　place　at　the　seance　is　called　upon　to　explain　a　number　of

things　which；　in　reality；　never　took　place　at　all。　　We　must

remember；　in　this　connection；　that　a　number　of　conjuring　tricks；　AS

DESCRIBED；　would　be　quite　impossible　to　explain　by　any　process　of

trickery。　　The　description　of　the　trick　was　not　correct。



Let　me　make　this　still　clearer；　and　at　the　same　time　illustrate　the

difference　between　what　apparently　occurs；　and　what　actually

happens；　by　the　following　example：　A　conjurer　places　a　coin　（say　a

quarter）　in　each　hand；　and　closes　his　hands。　　Another　quarter　is

now　placed　upon　the　fingers　of　each　hand；　so　that　there　is　now　one

quarter　in　each　hand　and　one…quarter　on　the　fingers　of　each。　　The

magician　announces　that；　by　simply　opening　and　closing　his　hands

which　are　held　at　some　distance　from　each　otherhe　will　thereby

transfer　one　of　the　coins　from　one　hand　to　the　other；　so　that　there

will　be　three　coins　in　one　of　the　hands；　and　only　one　left　in　the

other。



Now；　if　the　sitter　were　writing　out　an　account　of　what　happened；　it

would　most　certainly　read　as　follows：



〃The　magician　then　tried　the　experimentof　opening　and　closing　his

hands　rapidly；　and　causing　the　coin　to　be　transferred；　as　promised

but　failed　in　the　attempt；　the　coins　from　the　back　of　each　hand

falling　on　to　the　table　in　rather　a　clumsy　manner。　　They　were；

however；　again　placed　upon　the　backs　of　the　magician's　hands；　the

movement　was　repeated；　and　this　time　successfully。　　The　coins

disappeared　from　the　backs　of　both　hands；　in　one　of　which　was　now

found　three　of　the　coins；　while　the　other　hand　contained　only　one。〃



Such　is　precisely　the　description　of　the　trick；　as　it　would　be

given　by　the　average　person；　on　seeing　it；　and　it　would　represent

his　honest　opinion　of　what　occurred；　as　it　stands；　it　is　quite

inexplicable　by　trickery。　　Needless　to　say；　the　account　is　NOT　a

true　statement　of　what　actually　occurred；　as　the　following

explanation　will　make　clear：



The　first　time　the　coins　were　dropped　on　to　the　table；　the　movement

was　not　so　〃clumsy〃　as　might　have　been　supposed。　　It　was；　in　fact；

intentional；　being　the　principal　factor　in　the　accomplishment　of

the　trick。　　What　ACTUALLY　transpired　at　that　time　was　this：　The

magician；　by　a　quick　movement；　dropped　both　coins　from　ONE　hand　on

to　the　table；　at　the　same　time　dexterously　opening　the　other　hand　a

trifle；　and　allowing　the　second　coin；　on　that　hand；　to　fall　into

the　interior　of　the　hand　itself。　　Thus；　while　both　hands　are　still

seen　to　be　closed；　one　is　empty；　and　the　other　contains　two　coins。

It　is　obvious；　therefore；　that；　when　a　coin　is　placed　upon　each　of

the　hands　again；　the　magician　has　only　to　repeat　the　opening　and

closing　movement；　and　there　will　be　three　coins　in　one　of　the

hands；　and　only　one　in　the　other。



This　trick　illustrates；　in　a　very　simple　and　striking　manner；　the

possibility　of　reporting　a　fact　in　an　entirely　erroneous　manner；

quite　unconscious　of　the　fact　that　this　error　in　reporting　has　been

committed。　　Just　in　this　same　manner；　are　many　slate…writing　and

other　phenomena　misreported；　and　hence　an　explanation　of　the

seance；　AS　REPORTED；　is　rendered　impossible。　　The　trouble　is　that

the　〃report〃　does　not　REALLY　report　what　actually　occurred。



　　　　　　　　　　。　　　　　　　　　　。　　　　　　　　　　。　　　　　　　　　　。　　　　　　　　　　。



Many　of　my　readers　may　feel　somewhat　insulted　at　this　accusation

that　they　cannot　detect　such　obvious　trickery　when　it　exists；　and

that　they　are　liable　to　make　such　mistakes　in　recording　a　seance　as

those　here　mentioned。　　They　may　comfort　themselves　with　the

thought；　however；　that　it　is　no　disgrace　to　make　mistakes　and

errors　of　this　kind；　for；　as　Professor　Jastrow　pointed　out：＇1＇





＇1＇　Fact　and　Fable　in　Psychology；　p。　148。





〃The　matter　is　in　some　aspects　as　much　a　technical　acquisition　as

in　the　diagnosticating　of　a　disease。　　It　is　not　at　all　to　the

discredit　of　anyone's　powers　of　observation　or　intellectual　acumen

to　be　deceived　by　the　performances　of　a　conjurer；　and　the　same

holds　true　of　the　professional　part　of　mediumistic　phenomena。

Until　this　homely　but　salutary　t