It has been said that recognised psychic likenesses exists only in the imagination of the individuals claiming them as such. It is, alas, too true that some well-meaning individuals will see a likeness where none exists. It is, however, equally true that many bigoted sceptics will refuse to acknowledge a likeness that is obvious to the unprejudiced on comparing normal and supernormal photographs. There are two sides to the question of credulity, and I have known sceptics deny the reality of a likeness where the supernormal effect has been an exact (but draped) duplicate of a normal photograph! We must remember that it may be difficult to recognise a likeness between a normal and supernormal photograph where the subject to us is unknown. Two photographs of the same individual, taken at different periods, will often vary considerably, but those acquainted with that individual can recognise the likeness of each photograph to the original without the slightest difficulty. So in a supernormal photograph: those claiming a likeness between the supernormal effect and some near relative, or friend, who has crossed the border, are in a better position, from their knowledge of that person, to speak with authority on the question of recognition than those who never saw the original. This question of recognised likenesses is a point the critic tries to evade. The reader can judge of the value of this evidence from the few illustrations in this booklet which are typical of _hundreds_ of similar results. The mental attitude of some intelligent people to psychic photography is distinctly curious. They have got the idea fixed into their heads that these photographs _must_ be one of two things—“fakes” or “spirits.” Naturally enough, in some of the cases that have been reported they find it difficult to believe that such a result could have been produced entirely by a discarnate entity. Therefore they jump to the false conclusion that the result must of necessity have been faked. In a scientific investigation we should first of all concern ourselves with _facts_, without troubling over-much with theories. A very little first-hand investigation will satisfy any unprejudiced individual as to the reality of psychic photography. Having reached that stage such a person will be in a better position to theorise on the cause of the phenomena. After many years of close concentration on this subject I have arrived at the conclusion that psychic photography differs only in kind and not in degree from other phases of psychic phenomena. _I do not see how we can possibly get away from the fact that many of these photographic effects are produced by discarnate intelligences._ Whilst firmly believing this, I should never be so dogmatic as to claim that _all_ supernormal pictures have been produced by discarnate spirits.