Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [16]
The five fairy photographs reproduced in this book were obtained from what are believed to be the original glass negatives. Brian Coe, of Kodak in London, carefully prepared several prints from each negative when the material was submitted to him by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for his opinion. Mr. Coe is no Snelling; he objectively examined the prints and negatives. His discoveries are quite interesting. Reproductions in Gardner's book Fairies and later printings of Doyle's opus are very poor, and access to the original negatives is important. In the case of photo number two, it appears that the negative is severely deteriorated, or else it is a bad copy, but certainly more puzzling than that is the fact that it was not made with the Midg camera, for the plate holder used would not fit that camera at all! However, in view of the other evidence in the case, this is of little import, as is my observation that the photos in Gardner's book are heavily retouched, though no mention is made of this in his text.
The first photo, of Francis and the four fairies, shows that the technical information given is false. The light on Frances's face in the photograph indicates subdued, indirect illumination. She was not in bright sunlight. The emulsion used on the Imperial Rapid plates could not possibly have registered such a photo if the shutter speed had been 1/50 second, but would have required a 1½-second to 2-second exposure. Tables of exposure factors from Kodak show this to be an inarguable fact. To clinch the claim, we need only look at the waterfall in the background. Such a blurring effect is obtained with exposures of this length and longer, and experiments by Mr. Coe verify this. Why did Gardner claim second? Simply because he knew that even fairies in motion cannot be "frozen" in a photo unless the shutter speed is 1/50 second or less! But he forgot the waterfall... .
Mr. Coe's analysis of the plate-holder shadow indicates that a Midg camera was probably used for photo number one. But the distance is wrong, a fact easily determined by looking through the viewfinder. It was at least seven feet, not four feet as claimed by the "experts."
The experts also declared in their reports that the fairies were in "rapid motion." Snelling told Gardner that each figure was independently in motion, and that the movement shows as a blur. Nonsense. The figures could not have been in motion, particularly since the shutter speed was 1½ seconds or longer. Unless the fairies' flying mechanism is a radical departure from that used by the butterfly, the assertion that they were moving is not acceptable here.
Frances is not looking at the fairies. Must we accept the explanation given by Gardner—that she was "accustomed to them"? Hardly. My explanation is that she had seen lots of cutouts and didn't much care about Elsie's project!
As for photo number two, the best that can be said for it is that the distance given is probably correct within two feet. Elsie's strange, elongated hand is explained by the chance juxtaposition of her two hands one behind the other, so that a cursory examination of the photo seems to show a very abnormal right hand with impossibly long fingers. Said Gardner about this, "On my very first meeting with Elsie, I asked to examine her hand... I took a pencil outline of the hand and fingers... and they proved to be a good deal longer than average. The appearance of dislocation at the wrist... I cannot explain, except as a result of foreshortening and movement." Poppycock! Gardner was supposed to have examined this photo in great detail and with the aid of experts. His tracing did not account for the appearance of the hand, and to suggest "foreshortening and movement" is to admit incompetence! Neither even remotely serves as an explanation.
Detail of "photo number two."