This, it will be perceived, was an affirmation indirectly disclaiming the Farrow messages, but I did not so recognize it, and reminded them that they had reproached me for not trusting them in this matter. “You are logical within your limits,” was Maynard’s only reply to that. “And you still expect me to go on with your work?” “You have had many manifestations of our force,” Mary K. returned. “Mr. Kendal will show you how this occurred.” When I mentioned, with some heat, that some one would have to show me, as they had asked me to shoulder a heavy responsibility in this matter, she said: “You are puzzled and frightened, but knowledge of our constructive work through you should decide your action.” Remembering how fear and grief and despair, in certain cases, and cynical indifference in others, had been banished from the lives of the men and women to whom these messages had come, I conceded the constructive work. “Then come along and build.... You are unable to distinguish the difficulties under which we work. Many messengers have failed to convey the message we have tried to give.... Many mistakes happen with the best messengers.” “Was this my mistake?” I asked. “No. You make only one mistake, so far. You shut us out by doubt. Don’t doubt. We are all working for the same great end.” Eventually, although far from satisfied about the Farrow affair, I decided to go to L——, feeling that if disillusionment must come to the Gaylord family, it would better come now than later, but still hoping that some explanation would be given while I was with them. In this I was disappointed. Not until a fortnight later did I even begin to understand it. But after the first interview with Frederick at L——, I wrote Cass (April 17th): “If ever I had any doubts about the truth of this, they are gone! Somebody did something I don’t understand, but this is _real_.” I have given this experience in some detail, not only because it corroborates the statements that malevolent and crafty forces are about us, striving to thwart progressive effort, but because it seems also to offer at least a partial explanation of the inconsistencies and contradictions that long have baffled and discouraged investigators of psychic phenomena. Obviously, until the identity and character of the invisible communicating personality have been established and clearly recognized, and the purpose prompting the communication manifested through a series of experiments, it is unsafe to rely upon information received in this way. And it is equally obvious that forces of disintegration could scarcely find a more fruitful method of implanting in the human mind doubt and cynicism concerning the possibility of obtaining authentic and enlightening revelations from planes beyond, than by contradicting and confusing such messages, or by deliberately misleading the applicant for information.