Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [21]
And where did the girls get the cutouts? While gathering material for a book on early nineteenth-century illustration, British author Fred Gettings came upon a drawing that vaguely disturbed him. An avowed believer in spiritualism and spirit photography, Gettings recognized a similarity between photographs in a Doyle book and this drawing from Princess Mary's Gift Book. Published in 1915 in England, this book was a very popular children's book of the day. The drawing illustrated a poem by Alfred Noyes entitled "A Spell for a Fairy," which gives explicit instructions in conjuring up fairies! Evidently Elsie found the instructions too complex and resorted to cutouts. All she did was copy the figures, making minimal changes, then added wings and cut them out. There is not the slightest chance that Elsie just happened to photograph fairies that were in positions so similar to those in a book she could have had about the house.
Except for Doyle, I have deferred until now discussion of the personalities involved in the hoax. Such considerations must be brought in, since somewhere in the personalities of the actors in this drama can be found the ingredients that allowed such a complicated piece of flim-flam to develop.
Mr. H. Snelling, photographic "expert," wrote in a letter to Gardner, "In my opinion, they are... straight untouched pictures." He failed to see "any trace of... work involving card or paper models" and was entirely satisfied. Snelling was a total incompetent in this work, as the evidence proves beyond any doubt. The photos are obvious, easily exposed fakes, and he certainly did not submit them to the kind of scrutiny that any professional would have been expected to use. He was simply overpowered by the involvement of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and ecstatic to be in on such a great moment in history. In fact, throughout the accounts of this affair, he struts about declaring that his opinion is definitive, and he "stakes his reputation" on the validity of the photos. So much for Mr. Snelling's reputation.
Mr. Wright, Elsie's father, must be discussed as well. Although several investigators have thought that he could have been the "genius" behind the plot, I think not. It is my opinion that Mr. Wright was a bystander who was drawn into the mess simply because his daughter was a convincing faker. No adult "genius" was needed to pull off this scheme. Elsie—or any other sixteen-year-old girl with her background—was quite capable of taking a number of photos of cardboard cutouts. It was a simple job; the simpletons who supported and enlarged the hoax are the most reprehensible parties. So Mr. Wright, not needed for the plot, gets good marks for honesy, but perhaps not for child-rearing.
The GSW computer enhancement of "photo number four," showing what is possibly a thread support. The author believes this to be doubtful evidence; no support was necessary for the figure. The print is in negative, and shows the head of the fairy figure on the lower left between the wings of the cutout. Ground Saucer Watch
Illustration for a poem in Princess Mary's Gift Book. Princess Mary's Gift Book
Slightly simplified versions of the fairy drawings from the book. Note their similarity to the fairy figures in the close-up of "photo number one."
The next character to be dissected is Edward L. Gardner, who in 1945 further fleshed out the Case of the Cottingley Fairies with the publication of Fairies—The Cottingley Photos and Their Sequel. The book was gladly published by the Theosophical Publishing House, whose staff was anxious to prove that fairies, a mainstay of their particular brand of nuttiness, existed and flourished. It was Gardner who did most of the work for Doyle, and he polished up the account given him by the girls until it passed muster.
Detail of "photo number one"
Gardner's