The Lock and Key Library: The Most Interesting Stories of All Nations: Real Life
Science
The Lock and Key Library: The Most Interesting Stories of All Nations: Real Life
Detective and mystery stories; Fiction; Parapsychology
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 medium--as it probably was in the vast majority of
instances--then 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 other--he 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account