JSPR Vol. XXXV, No. 653, July-August 1949, pp. 83-5
THE PIDDINGTONS
Under the heading of “Telepathy by Radio” a note in the Radio Times of 1 July 1949 introduced a series of “radio demonstrations of thought-transference” by two Australians, Mr and Mrs Sydney Piddington. The note described how Mr Piddington, when a prisoner of war in Japanese hands, “began to study telepathy after reading a magazine article on the subject by Dr J.B. Rhine”, and how he and a fellow-prisoner “began the tests with quiet cynicism, but within three months they found that they were achieving some surprising results”. The note concluded by saying that “before leaving Australia, Mr Piddington took part, at the invitation of Melbourne University, in an eight-day series of long-distance extra-sensory perception tests conducted from America by the man whose article first aroused his interest in telepathy”. This note, doubtless based on publicity material provided by the Piddingtons themselves, can scarcely have given any other impression than that the performers were gifted with paranormal faculties.
Four performances have been broadcast at the moment of writing. In each, the method of presentation appears to have been expressly designed to encourage both the listening and the studio audiences to think that genuine psychic powers are or may be involved. Each demonstration is described as a “test” ; the word telepathy is frequently employed ; emphasis is put on the importance of “concentration” by the audience when they are asked to assist one of the performers in the “transmission” of an impression ; the Zener symbols are used in some of the demonstrations and Professor Rhine is mentioned in this connection ; and the studio audience (as agent) and the listeners (as percipients) are invited to take part in “tests” – no doubt an effective method of obtaining “listener-participation.”
The conditions in which the broadcasts have taken place lend themselves to the employment of codes of various kinds, confederates, mechanical aids, and anyone with knowledge of the methods of illusionists can recognise, even without being present in the studio, the manner in which many of the effects could have been achieved. Mr Piddington, it is understood, was an illusionist before he began his broadcast demonstrations of “thought-transference”. His wife was an actress before her marriage and is said to possess a phenomenal memory.
At the end of the broadcasts, there is an announcement by the B.B.C. commentator disclaiming the use of psychic powers. It is, however, coached in very ambiguous language – e.g. “they don’t insist that you accept it as telepathy or clairvoyancy [sic] or any particular form of the supernormal”. The listener, if he has not already switched off or ceased to pay attention, can scarcely fail to be as mystified as ever, a result which it is no doubt intended to achieve. After the first three broadcasts, Mr Denys Parsons, Joint Hon. Secretary of the Society, wrote to the producer of the programme requesting that the possession of paranormal powers be disclaimed in clearer terms, but this has produced no result to date.
The Sunday Pictorial, wishing to arrange a test of Mr and Mrs Piddington’s powers by an independent scientific body, asked whether the Society would be prepared to co-operate. It was agreed to do this, provided that the test was made on the Society’s premises and under conditions of the Society’s choosing. As was expected, the Piddingtons declined to submit to the test proposed by the newspaper (see the issue of 31 July 1949). It is hoped that the Sunday Pictorial’s readers have been enlightened by this refusal.
On 31 July 1949 an article by Mr Piddington appeared in the Sunday Dispatch, in which he describes his wife and himself as “a perfect telepathic pair”. He states that “my wife can read an average of seventy per cent of my thoughts when I am deliberately transmitting – and a disturbingly high percentage of my thoughts when I am not trying”. Mr Piddington does not say in so many words that he and his wife make use of telepathic powers in their broadcasts, but the article cannot fail to give this impression.
Many members of the Society have received inquiries from their friends about these performances. Some of them had heard the disclaiming announcement, but in spite of this persisted in their belief that psychic faculties were employed. Those listeners who attribute the Piddington’s effects to paranormal powers may conclude, erroneously, that such powers have reached an advanced stage of development and can be brought into play at will. The cynics, on the other hand, will be encouraged to cite the technique of the conjurer as sufficient explanation of positive results in E.S.P. experiments. It is lamentable that the B.B.C., which maintains so high a standard in its treatment of other fields of scientific research, should allow psychical research to suffer for the sake of entertainment.
JSPR Vol. XXXV, No. 654, September/October 1949, p. 116
THE PIDDINGTONS1
The following letter was published in The Times of 15 September 1949:
Sir, - Audiences running into millions have been entertained by a series of “thought-transference” performances recently broadcast by the B.B.C. These were presented in such a way as to imply that genuine telepathic powers were employed, and the producer of the programme has publicly stated that he is convinced that this is so.2 We need hardly stress the importance of a thorough and impartial exploration of any human faculty for the existence of which there is a substantial body of evidence. The faculty known as telepathy has for over 70 years been the subject of scientific investigation, and lately of experiment under laboratory conditions. Much interest in this research has been aroused in scientific circles, and several leading scientists accept the faculty as proved. It would be most regrettable if any confusion were created in the public mind between serious researches of this kind and the performances which the B.B.C. has been broadcasting. Many notable “thought-transference” acts have been investigated in the past without producing evidence of the employment of any supernormal faculty or of any phenomena that a competent illusionist could not reproduce under identical conditions. The only feature which appears to distinguish the B.B.C performances form previous “thought-transference” acts was their adaptation to the requirements of broadcasting.
Yours faithfully
C.D. Broad, Gilbert Murray, W.H Slater.
Society for Psychical Research,
31 Tavistock Square, W.C. I.
The B.B.C.’s reply, which appeared in The Times of 20th September, was as follows:
Sir, - It is clear from the Society of Psychical Research’s letter in The Times of September 15, and other letters, that some of the public have been misled as to the nature of the recent broadcasts by the Piddingtons. This may have been due to some extent to the presentation of the programme; more so perhaps to a signed article in the Radio Times in which the producer of the series stated his personal conviction that the performance involved telepathy. From the very beginning these broadcasts were meant by the B.B.C. to be regarded purely as entertainment, and the programme announcement in the Radio Times specifically stated that “Sidney Piddington and his wife Lesley Pope entertain you in their own kind of mystery”. That they should be regarded as a serious contribution to scientific knowledge was never our intention. However, the fact remains that some doubts have arisen, and the B.B.C. regrets very much that an entertainment programme which has given pleasure to millions should have, even by inadvertence, been capable of being misunderstood.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL STANDING
Head of variety,
British Broadcasting Corporation.
Aeolian Hall, New Bond Street, W. 1.
It is clear, not only from correspondence in other organs of the press but also from letters which have been received by the Society, that there still persists a misconception as to the conditions in which the Piddingtons’ performances were given. It may, therefore, be useful to quote from the account written by one who acted as a “judge” at one of these performances, Mr Kingsley Martin, editor of the New Statesman. Mr Kingsley Martin has kindly given permission for the following extracts to be reproduced from the article by him in the issue of the New Statesman for 3 September:
I readily agreed when the
B.B.C. rang up and asked me to be a “judge” at one of the Piddington shows. I
had, and have, no views one way or another about the existence of telepathy; I
only know that there are people whose word I respect who declare in its favour.
I believed that the B.B.C was offering a serious opportunity of investigating a
fascinating problem.
In the studio it was at once clear that
nothing of the sort was being attempted. The programme was treated as pure
entertainment. Every second of the time was precisely mapped out; no
opportunity was given to test or challenge anything. How far from scientific
the conditions were I can, perhaps, best illustrate by saying that my only
fellow judge was Major Daultry, who had introduced the Piddingtons at their first
show. He was an old friend who had been, he told me, with Mr Piddington in a
Japanese P.O.W. camp. He had also been with the Piddingtons when their
performance was televised. It was Major Daultry, and not I, who pointed to the
tunes on the blackboard which the blindfolded Lesley Piddington guessed, and in
the last item of the programme it was he who was with Piddington when the cards
were seen and “transmitted” to Lesley. I emphasise that neither I nor anyone
else except Mr Piddington and Major Daultry had the opportunity of seeing the
cards, and I had no chance of checking whether the ones I took from the pack
were the ones “transmitted”.
Nor was this all. Form the very beginning
the show was devised as entertainment; the atmosphere was “friendly” and informal
to the last degree. It was announced, for instance, that I and some other
unnamed members of the audience would go with Mr Piddington into a sound-proof
studio where we would pick out a portrait of a film-star, a Rhine card and the
name of a tune. The first two choices were announced form the studio to the
outside public and correctly identified by Lesley. The third (which if I
remember rightly, was the tune) was picked, but not announced. How could there
be any code by which Lesley could guess something which had never been even
uttered and which had been picked in a different room? This was a very
impressive test to the outside public. It was less impressive to me because I
did not pick it myself. It was picked by one of the unnamed members of the audience
who came to the studio with me. I ascertained, as we went into the studio, that
at least one, and I think more than one, of these members of the audience had
also been in the prison camp with Piddington. One of them told me so …
For myself I have not the slightest
objection to acting the fool in a piece of excellent foolery. If it had been
understood that the Piddingtons were only entertainers I should have enjoyed
coming on to their platform, just as I should enjoy having a conjurer pull
ribbons out of my mouth or eggs from behind my ears. But I think it’s a bit
thick to use an outsider as a stooge in an entertainment which the listening
public regards as scientific…
Telepathy is an extremely interesting and controversial subject which serious enquiries under controlled conditions have been made and are being made. The B.B.C. might have aided these experiments. In my opinion it will be difficult for the B.B.C. again to persuade thoughtful persons to that is really “investigating” telepathy or any other subject. Who is going to take its claim seriously? If the B.B.C is prepared to fool the public for the public’s amusement then it puts itself in the same category as the music hall. If this is so, well and good, but I do not think that this is the category in which it wishes to be placed.
In such circumstances nothing more than conjuring skill is required to produce the effects achieved. The conditions would not for one moment be accepted for E.S.P. experiments by anyone trained in the methods of psychical research.
The New Statesman for 24 September contained a reply from Mr Piddington. While continuing to refrain from making any direct claim to telepathic powers, he sought to show that adequate opportunity’s were given for the “judge” to satisfy himself as to the adequacy of the conditions. In a comment printed in the same issue, Mr Kingsley Martin effectively showed that in the circumstances of the performance, he “was not any kind of a judge, but just a participant in a jolly good show”.
Finally, we reproduce below a letter which was printed in the Radio Times of 2 September.
On behalf of the Occult
Committee of the Magic Circle, may I be permitted to say that the paragraphs by
Frederick Piffard on the Piddingtons in your issue of August 19 seem to be
gravely misleading in their implications? Mr Piffard is clearly entitled to his
own opinions but, as the producer of the show, his words would carry greater
weight with your readers than those of other persons, however prominent.
The normal methods used by the Piddingtons
in producing their “telepathic” effects are perfectly well known to magicians
and expert psychical researchers, however mysterious and inexplicable they may
seem to untrained observers, and it is noteworthy that the Piddingtons
themselves very properly lay no claims to the possession of any so-called “
supernormal” powers. Their show is a mystery entertainment of excellent
quality, and it is merely naïve to credit them with anything but a keen sense
of showmanship and an appreciation of how to use subtle methods of simulating
telepathy over the radio.
J.A. ESLER,
Hon Sec., Occult Committee, The Magic Circle.
This is by no means the first time that a stage “thought-transference” act has led the public to believe in the performers’ possession of paranormal powers. No doubt it is not the last – though it is to be hoped that the B.B.C. will not again be similarly involved. The discussions which this particular act have aroused have been dealt with at some length, as it may be useful to have them on record should a like situation arise at some future date.
E.O.
1 See pp. 83-5 of the
July-August issue of this Journal.
2 In an article in the Radio Times of 19 August, Mr Piffard’s views are summarised in the following extract from it: “I won’t attempt to prove the genuineness of the Piddigtons telepathy; I will just say it is genuine. Having produced five programmes, knowing every detail and every precaution taken, I can say quite truthfully that there never has been a single instance of fake thought transference by Sidney Piddington or his wife.”
JSPR Vol. XXXV, No. 658, May/June 1950, p. 244-5
MISDIRECTION AND THE MIRACULOUS
The desire for the miraculous is a factor not lightly to be reckoned with in psychical research. It is met with in many branches, and especially in spontaneous cases, where testimony is often bedevilled by it. It is the ally of the illusionist, who with the potent weapon of misdirection forces our senses to accept what our reason would reject.
The skilful stage “thought-transference” performer works against an even more favourable background than other illusionists, owing to the wide acceptance of telepathy.1 The Piddingtons, first in Australia and recently in this country, have exploited this to the full, adapting their technique to the medium of broadcasting as Dunninger did before them in the United States. Naturally enough – for it is their livelihood – they chose to surround their performance with an air of mystery, giving full reign to the listener’s imagination with their slogan, “You are the judge”. This policy has proved to be extremely effective, and they have thrived on the arguments and discussions which it has provoked. Misdirection has been employed on a grand scale. Attention is concentrated on the “telepathic” aspect of the performance, and references to Zener cards, to “tests” etc. help to create the atmosphere of an experiment. Everything, in fact, is done to discourage the audience from considering what scope there is for the tricks of the conjurer. And in view of the public’s unfamiliarity with the methods of the illusionist, and its ignorance of the conditions in which experiments are carried out in parapsychology, it is not surprising that it has been misdirected with a vengeance.
It is clearly to the advantage of a “thought-transference” act that any mystification or argument which it may have aroused should be encouraged. This, no doubt, is why the Piddingtons’ friend and manager Mr Russell Braddon, in a recently published book,1 does not conceal his displeasure with those who, including the Editor of this Journal and others with experience of parapsychology, have made it known that they do not believe that anything other than normal methods are used. No-one would wish too begrudge the Piddingtons their success as vaudeville artistes. Their performances have undoubtedly given entertainment to millions. But those who, clearly without knowledge of conjuring or parapsychology, have attributed their effects to psychic faculties might profitably consider the following points: If two people were able to bring into play at will a faculty enabling them to transfer from one to the other words, symbols, and even whole sentences other than by means of recognised channels of sense, why should they not (a) announce the fact to the world in precise terms, and (b) as human beings unique in history voluntarily submit themselves to scientific investigation?
After reports had appeared in certain organs of the Press giving the impression that the Piddingtons were claiming to produce their results by means of telepathy, the Hon. Secretary of the S.P.R., at the Council’s request, wrote to Mr Piddington asking whether he and his wife were in fact making this claim. In the reply received from Mr Piddington no claim to paranormal powers was made.
As there appears to be some confusion as to the Society’s attitude towards the testing of persons popularly credited with psychic powers, this may be a suitable opportunity for stating the position. The Council are always prepared to charge the appropriate officers of the Society with the investigation, in conditions of their choice, of any person claiming to possess psychic faculties. It is not their practise to issue direct challenges to performers who are popularly supposed to possess such faculties but who make no claims themselves.
E.O.
1 For evidence of this, see Mass-Observation
Bulletin, Vol. I, no.12 (June 1949). Of those to whom the question “Do you
believe in telepathy” was put, 65 per cent replied “Yes”, 8 per cent “No”, 22
per cent “Don’t know”, and 5 per cent “Not interested”. The survey was carried
out before the Piddingtons first B.B.C. broadcast.
1 The Piddingtons, London, Werner Laurie, 1950. 238 pp. Illus. 8s 6d.