Seeing red

In a comment I appended to my post on M. Lamar Keene's book The Psychic Mafia, I said I would test Keene's claim that in dim red light, dark clothing essentially disappears, allowing a fake medium to manipulate objects and don chiffon garments without detection.

I've now performed my simple test, and I can report that Keene is right.

What I did was to take a very low-wattage bulb (approximately the same power as a night light) and cover it with colored tissue paper, which tinted the light. All other lights were turned off. In the dark I put a black sock over my hand and arm, like a sock puppet. Even though the light was sufficient for me to see my bare hand pretty clearly, the hand with the sock on it vanished against any dark background. It showed up only when seen against a lighter background, such as a white wall.

Objects held in the sock-puppet hand would show up even though the hand itself did not. I manipulated a pair of scissors and saw the shiny blades clearly, even  though the black handles and the black-draped hand holding them were invisible. I was able to manipulate other objects so that the objects themselves were seen but the hand holding them wasn't. And when my darkened arm was draped in white tissue paper, the white paper showed up, but not the arm  that supported it. As a test, I extended both my hands at the same distance from my face. My bare hand remained visible, but the sock puppet hand was imperceptible.

For this technique to work, the room must have dark walls, a dark floor, and a dark ceiling. Light-colored backdrops will reveal the concealed figure in silhouette. Naturally, the medium must have recourse to a cabinet (a screened-off area) which can be used as a changing room. Alternatively, a black-clad accomplice could enter the room once the lights are low.

The bottom line is that dim red illumination offers little protection against fraud in the seance room. It only tricks the sitters into thinking they can see more than they really can.

Comments

[FloridaSuzie]

MP,
Do you remember a few years ago when I told you that I'm related to the (now deceased) author, Mary Roberts Rinehart and collect her books to pass down to my son? She's one of my all time favorite writers. I suggested that you might enjoy one of her books in particular, THE RED LAMP....do you happen to still have it? I was just looking through my copy and am going to re-read it. I'm sure it says why a red lamp is being used. It was written in 1925. THe RED LAMP is fiction:mystery/suspense, but she includes a lot of info about the times, customs, etc. in her writing if you're interested.
Suzie

[John C]

If a medium is authentic and a seance is to be taken seriously, then there should be no need for special lighting and that sort of thing. Ever seen Mindfreak? Some of Cris Angel's feats are pretty spectacular, but there's always a diversion, sometimes a rather obvious one, like when he climbed through a stored window but required two people to hold up cardboard in front of the window during the trick. John Edward on the other hand uses no such gimicks or dimmed lighting. Lighting might add to the atmosphere of a seance, but if contacting spirits is a real phenomenon, then dimmed lighting should not be a requirement.

[Ulysses]

There are many different kinds of mediumship. John Edward's physhic or conciouss mediumship, or even trance mediumship for that matter, do not require dim light, but materialization mediumship usually does.
http://www.SpiritAndScience.org/

[Diana Flanary-Bray]

Way to go, MP! Always, the questioning mind!
That is what I like best about you! Later, Di