Return to Articles
Defends Sir William Crookes
"Great Spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds." Prof Albert Einstein
did not say it was possible, I said it happened." Sir William Crookes.
is a real concern among the physical scientists using mechanistic, reductionist
scientific paradigm that Crookes· empirical psychic results and afterlife
evidence will inevitably cause a revolution in science and shake the world out
of its orthodox scientific complacency." Victor
Sir William Crookes, the discoverer of thallium and one of the world's greatest
scientists, is also one of the most controversial and maligned figures in psychic
history. Scientists from all over the world have showered him with honors for
his brilliant scientific investigations. Critics have tried insidiously to destroy
his credibility. Anti-psychic, anti-afterlife, conservative negatively prejudiced
scientists unconscionably and most unfairly tried to dismiss his great psychic
achievements. Yet over the last 125 years his experiments have been successfully
repeated and his impact on the worldwide investigation of psychic phenomena has
been most impressive.
What is the strongest evidence against one of
the world's giants of science and psychic history?
anti-Crookes skeptics state and impute that Crookes committed fraud, made misrepresentations,
was not a competent investigator and worked with Florence Cook, a bogus materialisation
medium, knowing her to be a fraud.
These conclusions come from at least
four major claims:
1. That during a séance in December 1873, Crooks
worked with Florence Cook, Volckmann had physically grabbed a materialized form
which he alleged was Florence Cook.
2. That during a séance in January
1880, Crookes had worked with Florence Cook, Sir G.R. Sitwell had physically grabbed
a materialized form which he alleged was Florence Cook.
3. That Florence Cook
later "confessed" to Anderson about her cheating.
4. That Florence
Cook "confessed" to Bois that she committed fraud during the Crookes
experiments with her.
All these are very serious allegations.
However, contemporaneous circumstances reveal that on examination the alleged
grabbing of Florence Cook on the two occasions does not have credibility and the
"confessions" cannot be accepted as valid evidence and do not have any
credibility at all.
In Defence of Crookes
admissible evidence is that Crookes conducted all experiments with Florence Cook
with utmost scientific scrutiny and integrity. His experiments were witnessed
by highly credible people. His experiments with Home and with Cook were successfully
duplicated many years later and in other countries by other skilled investigators
and that notwithstanding the grave injurious assaults and the plethora of negative
propaganda against Crookes, his credibility to-day remains untarnished.
historical persecution against Sir William Crookes occurred because as one of
the greatest scientists ever in history with very high international reputation,
enormously high credibility, authority, power and influence, he went public with
substantive information that would have destabilized the contemporaneous establishment's
orthodoxy in science and religion. Consistent with the historical adage, one extreme
created by Crookes elicited an opposite extreme, the powerful retaliation of those
who had a great deal to lose - the establishment.
Critical, balanced constructive
criticism is always welcome but many critics, many skeptics over the last nine
decades or so lied, cheated by imputation and unfairly misrepresented the work
of Sir William Crookes by presenting information which has not been tested for
validity. A few later critics then quote from negative interpretations of what
happened as if they were fact.
Anyone can make allegations
anywhere, anyplace can make allegations of fraud and confessions etc. but the
information does not constitute technically admissible evidence until such time
as it is tested for validity and credibility.
It is common knowledge that
skeptics have attempted to negatively manipulate the perception of Crookes by
omitting most relevant critical information which supports him.
go public trying to willfully destroy the established reputation of Sir William
Crookes, an internationally recognized scientist, and to defame him, it becomes
mandatory that anything highly damaging and controversial must be referenced.
is a duty; it is procedural and the decent thing to do - especially when any adverse
information has not been tested for its truth or credibility or both. It is the
greatest act of cowardice by mediocre or inferior minds to defame someone who
cannot take action to protect his good name, character and reputation.
was never proved that the adverse incidents claimed against Crookes actually occurred
and if they occurred, we do not know if the incidents were exaggerated, misinterpreted
or taken out of context. We do not have any independent evidence that the alleged
confessions of fraud ever occurred and if they did, in what context. The damaging
material includes innuendos negative malicious speculations and hearsay - all
untested inadmissible material, much unsubstantiated anti-psychic propaganda.
Since all relevant witnesses are dead
and cannot be cross-examined on their allegations and statements made, CREDIBILITY
will be the most critical criterion by which Crookes' achievements are measured.
· Sir William Crookes' credibility as a world renowned
hands-on empirical scientist who systematically used scientific method is unchallenged.
He is internationally recognized and acknowledged. For many years he was honored
by foreign universities for his exceptional skills in applied science and as a
technically competent investigator of science.
· In any of his own
writings on scientific matters he exhibits a high level of scientific rationale,
technical procedure and tested professional integrity.
· There is
universal agreement that Crookes' credibility, character and honesty in all his
scientific research as scientist and empiricist are beyond question.
Quack critics who are given generous coverage by the materialist media fail to
make a most critical distinction between a "theoretical" scientist and
a "hands-on" scientist.
· The list of honours bestowed
on him (see last paragraph of this article) is most impressive and was unrivalled
by any other scientist of his time.
· The top skeptical scientists
of the time were the ones who actually nominated Crookes to investigate Spiritualism.
Crookes before investigating stated that Spritualism: "lends itself to trickery
and deception." Crookes here exhibits sensitivity, understanding and acceptance
of an a priori - the presumption of trickery and deception in Spiritualism. This
notice would have significantly increased his caution.
· Many critics
ignorant of scientific method mistakenly claim or impute that he was "probably"
or "maybe" or "perhaps" or "could have been" fooled
by mediums. These scientifically uniformed and ignorant attackers are unaware
of the strict technical procedures involved in Crookes' or any professional empiricist's
scientific investigative methodology e.g. the different control of experimental
variables- dependent, independent, extraneous, controlling any negatively intervening
variables e.g. Crookes' use of galvanometer to control just one variable.
No one can validly state that one's cumulative experience operates only some of
the time. You either have the investigative competence, experience, and the exceptional
skills - or you don't.
· The witnesses who substantiated the positive
psychic results were eminent, respected professionals with high integrity and
credibility. One of them, Edward Cox, was a most respected Sergeant-at-Law, an
English barrister of the highest rank and an expert in the admissibility of evidence.
· There is no evidence that Crookes ever compromised with strict
procedure or ever prevented any of the critics attending his psychic experiments.
Crookes' exceptional skills in science and as an empirical investigator were recognized
by the discoverer of the electron and Nobel Prize winner, Sir J.J. Thomson, who
conceded that his own researches were inspired by Crookes. This gives Crookes
the recognition by the top scientists of his day as a scientist AND as an active
investigator whose exceptional skills were inevitably applied to psychic investigations.
Crookes completely demolished his bitter negative critic and anti-psychic skeptic
Dr Carpenter, when Dr Carpenter had to withdraw all the false allegations against
Crookes.. In retrospect, Dr Carpenter's malicious attacks can be seen as professional
jealousy and envy of Crookes internationally recognized, magnificent achievements.
Others duplicated his work
Crookes' materialisation experiments
were not unique and he was not the only one experimenting in this field. There
were others investigating materialisation mediums using ectoplasm in his time
and later in England and Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil.
In France and Germany between 1909 and 1913 a series of carefully conducted experiments
were carried out successfully by Baron von Schrenck-Notzing who independently
confirmed Crookes' psychic findings.
· Nobel Laureate Professor
Charles Richet, a Professor of Physiology at the Sorbonne, confirmed the existence
of ectoplasm and inevitably validated Crookes psychic claims. About materialisation,
this Nobel Laureate and expert empiricist definitively stated, " it is a
· Professor W.J. Crawford from the University of Belfast
conducted long and meticulous studies of ectoplasm and materialisation with the
Goligher Circle and published three books about it all substantiating Crookes'
· Dr Glen Hamilton in Canada also confirmed ectoplasmic materialisations.
Empiricist Gambier Bolton (Ghosts in Solid Form) conducted more than a hundred
test materialisations with Florence Cook and other five other sensitives during
a period of seven years which were all documented in detail consistently confirming
· Eva C, famous French materialisation medium,
duplicated Cook's materialisations in France. Dr Geley and Prof Richet attested
to the genuineness of Eva C's materialisations. During one meeting some 150 people
including scientists, witnessed materialisation (Fodor 1960:131)
Further, Crookes' materialisation claims were successfully repeated later by materialisation
mediums Helen Duncan and Rita Goold. I interviewed three of Rita Goold's sitters,
Gwen Byrne, Pat Jeffries and Michael Roll, who witnessed Rita Goold's materialisations.
All attested that their loved ones were fully materialized and that they held
them in their arms and talked to them.
· Contrary to the negative
malicious rhetoric and imputations by his uninformed critics, Crookes was NEVER
found to be involved in fraud, NEVER found to have used any kinds of tricks, was
NEVER charged with anything fraudulent and NEVER found anything that is not consistent
with international findings about materialisations and ectoplasm.
integrity as a scientist
Crookes' publication The Phenomena of Spiritualism
(some of which appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Science 1871) contains Crookes'
own statements about his work and his defenses against the most unfair dirty attacks
on him. Careful content analysis of his statements shows he was a very captious
scientist, very careful with scientific method, very careful with words, careful
with statements and concepts- a behavior consistent with a professional scientist
who was honest, empirically meticulous and someone who exhibited high integrity
as a scientist.
· Crookes had the lifelong active support of other
contemporaneous giants of science and psychic phenomena/afterlife evidence - Sir
Oliver Lodge, Sir William Barrett et al.
· There was never any university
around the world which ever envisaged that Crookes was in any way not a fit and
a proper person to be awarded the highest honors and honorary degrees.
Skeptics conveniently omit to mention the positive, highly commendable aspects
of Crookes e.g. being the only British scientist in his time to have been given
so much international recognition for his brilliant contribution to mankind.
Procedurally, no university would have bestowed any honor if it had suspected
the recipient was in any way taken in by fraudulent mediums.
sagacity tells us that Crookes' negative critics got it all wrong: scientists
of Crookes' time tried to explain psychic phenomena as, "unconscious cerebration
and muscular action" (from A Reply to the Quarterly Review). No one on earth
to-day supports that.
· Crookes NEVER ever admitted to having done
anything not consistent with scientific procedure and NEVER excluded independent
highly credibile and cautious witnesses from attending his demonstrations.
Twenty five years after his experiments and again toward the end of his life,
Crookes stated that he would NOT retract anything he had stated in relation to
the experiments with Florence Cook.
· There is no evidence that Crookes
and Mrs Crookes ever had matrimonial conflicts about Florence Cook. Both remained
on excellent terms with Florence Cook (afterwards Mrs Corner), her husband and
two daughters for the rest of their lives.
Underneath all the historical
dirty attacks against Crookes is the endeavour by the negatively prejudiced closed
minded skeptics to resist the acceptance of non-physical energy and afterlife
evidence. There is a real concern among the physical scientists using mechanistic,
reductionist scientific paradigm that empirical psychic results and afterlife
evidence will inevitably cause a revolution in science and shake the world out
of its orthodox scientific complacency.
The most common attacks on Crookes.
seldom notice the deception being practiced under their noses".
is usually articulated by the ignorant uninformed negatively minded skeptical
attackers and other cynics who try to score a cheap point and who know absolutely
nothing about scientific method. As abovestated, Crookes was not a theoretician
of science, he was a "hands-on" scientist and an empiricist. Given Crookes'
brilliant achievements he would be classified as a first class professional expert
with vast experience in scientific investigations. Detecting fraud is one of the
key elements in basic scientific method.
"Crookes was taken in by
Dr Henry Slade, the spirit photographer."
More intentional misrepresentations
by the sceptics to unfairly denigrate Crookes. There is no evidence that Sir William
conducted any tests with Dr Henry Slade who was not in any event a spirit photographer.
Crookes spoke of Slade before the British Association for the Advancement of Science
in 1876 and said among other things, "I was asked to investigate when Dr
Slade first came over, and I mentioned my conditions. I have never investigated
except under these conditions" (Fodor 1966:71). For the record, Slade was
investigated in the United States, England and in Europe by a number of top investigators
including Sergeant Cox, Robert Collyer in the USA, by Dr Carter Blake, Professor
Johann Zollner, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, William Weber, Professor of
Physics and Wilhelm Scheibner, Professor of Mathematics at Leipzig- all of whom
confirmed Slade was a genuine psychic.
"Crookes was taken in by
Another of the skeptics egregious misrepresentations.
Showers was allegedly detected in fraud in the summer of 1876 before Crookes
began formally testing her. He was well aware of this but felt that the information
was hearsay and he wanted to test Showers himself. He felt she was still worth
investigating because five or six people whom he trusted had declared they had
seen Rosina and her spirit guide at the same time.
However Showers failed
the dye test (which Cook passed). Crookes met her privately to discuss her alleged
cheating; her mother Mrs Showers went berserk and fraudulently forged letters
over Crookes' name and spread scandals about him. Crookes had no alternative but
to commence legal action to stop the dirty rumours and all allegations made by
Rosina's mother were immediately withdrawn (Inglis1974:275-6).
grabbed Florence Cook in a séance and exposed her as a fraud".
many skeptics grabbed onto this one thinking they now had all the evidence against
Florence Cook and Crookes. Wrong! A close examination of this incident shows:
This incident happened before Crookes had begun to investigate Cook. According
to Brian Inglis, Crookes had seen her once and wrote in her support initially
on the basis that he had experienced materialized hands disappearing in his grasp
while investigating Home. (Inglis 1977;268).
2. Volckmann acted most irresponsibly
at a séance. There was a tacit understanding that he was there to observe
NOT to do anything which could harm the medium by his aggressive transgression.
During ectoplasmic materialisations mediums lose nearly half of their physical
weight. Bolton claims that the measured actual weight loss to the sensitive at
the time of a full materialisation was no less than sixty-five pounds (Bolton
1919:9) Contemporary empiricist George Meek investigated materialisation mediumship
in Brazil. He found that in genuine materialisation both the medium and the sitters
would temporarily lose a great deal of weight (Meek 1987:69).
3. There was
NO evidence during the incident that the materialized person was not Katie King.
Volckann did not ever claim that he ever saw the face of the materialized person
(that of Katie King) or Florence Cook during the scuffle.
4. Barrister Henry
Dumphy, stated inter alia, that Katie King "glided " out
of Volckmann's grip, leaving no trace of corporal existence or surroundings in
the shape of clothing.
6. When the cupboard was opened, Florence Cook was seen
distraught, dressed in black still bound and with the tape around her waist as
it had been at the beginning of the séance, the knots sealed with the signet
ring of the Earl of Caithness and untampered with as at first.
7. Katie was
always seen in white clothing; Florence Cook always dressed in black and although
she was searched no white clothing was ever found.
8. Critically relevant:
Volckmann married rival medium, Mrs Guppy, who was according to Inglis "paranoically
jealous" of Florence Cook's success, immediately after this incident (Inglis
"'Katie' was none other than Miss Cook."
is the core attack by skeptics on Crookes. If the materialized Katie was simply
Florence in a white dress how would we account for the following evidence:
In many of the photographs that were taken, Katie King looking between 30 to 40
years whereas Cook was in her teens.
2. Katie being six inches taller than
3. The absence of a blister on Katie's neck.
4. The absence
of perforations in Katie's ears (Florence always wore earrings).
5. The difference
6. The difference in bodily proportion (Katie more voluptuous.)
7. The fact that Katie and Florence were seen together by eight people beside
Crookes. One of them was Aksakoff, a Russian aristocrat, who reported how in one
séance Katie King invited him to see for himself the medium Florence Cook
'deep in trance
sitting on a chair, with both her hands bound fast behind
her back' (Cit. G. Zorab (1964: 174-5).
8. Katie King being reported to have
appeared in Canada during the famous Dr G Hamilton materialisation seances.
Katie King appearing in Rome in 1974 (Noah's Ark Society website).
King having dye on her hand which did not appear on Florence Cook's hand.
Katie King being observed dematerialising "like a wax doll melting before
a fire": (Fodor 1966:222).
Crookes made points 1 to 8 in public repeatedly
at the time and they were not contradicted by the many quality eye-witnesses.
(See Crookes, Fodor, Medhurst and Bolton)
Florence Cook was detected
in fraud when Sir G.R. Sitwell grabbed "Marie" who really was Florence
Skeptics claim this newspaper report to be strong evidence proving
Cook's fraud and by implication Crookes. However it must be remembered that this
incident happened in 1880, six years after Crookes had ceased to investigate
1. It is also well known that newspapers are in the business of shock,
drama, exaggeration and taking things out of context AND are the least reliable
sources! Further, that the reports in the newspapers were written by the skeptic
Sitwell himself who stood to be a judge in his own cause. Sitwell's account was
rebutted by contemporaneous other writers including the editor of The Spiritualist.
2. As a result of Sitwell's action Florence Cook insisted that someone was
to stay with her in the cabinet and thereafter Mrs Marryat was tied to Florence
Cook in the cabinet throughout her séances in which successful materializations
3. Further, in 1899, Florence Cook was invited to Berlin by the
Sphinx Society to undertake séances under test conditions. The materialisations
from these séances were most successful (Fodor 1966:63).
4. One has
to see the Cook sittings in their respective longitudinal perspective - as long
term credibility is more acceptable than an allegation of a one-off subjectively
reported fraudulent claim.
5. In 1900 a number of sitters testified in writing
that they has seen Florence Cook and 'Marie' at the same time and that "Before
this seance, Florence dressed in the garments provided, was not left a moment
alone. She was most securely bound to her chair, which was fastened to an iron
ring in the floor and each hand was tied to an arm of the chair...everything was
found intact afterwards' Cit. Medhurst and Goldney (1964) pp 84-85.
Bolton in his documented Ghosts in Solid Form (Bolton 1919) provides primary
evidence that he himself repeatedly tested Florence Cook (then Mrs Corner) when
she was in her forties. He states that her materialisations were genuine, proved
and repeatedly witnessed by highly critical sitters in the light, NOT in darkness.
7. Bolton applied the same stringent controls on to Florence Cook as Crookes
did himself: the séances took place in the homes of himself or a friend
which was searched prior to the sitting by an architect; the medium herself was
searched in her clothes and body by a doctor before the sitting; the medium was
dressed totally in black (even underwear); the medium was bound with all knots
sealed; the medium was seated on a self-registering weighing machine to which
an electrical alarm was secretly hidden. (Bolton 1919: 15-68).
Cook confessed to Anderson and M Bois that she and Crookes committed fraud during
These alleged confessions have NOT
been independently substantiated. The alleged confessions have not been
tested for validity. We allegedly have claims by two people, Anderson and M Bois,
who allegedly were Florence Crooks' lovers. I submit the reasonable person uncommitted
to this issue would NOT accept Anderson and Bois' allegations of confessions
- especially, when it is not credible that a person would say these things against
themselves. Indeed Mrs Goldney who apparently was acquainted with Anderson and
witnessed his allegations did not accept them (see below).
as has been discussed above, identical experiments were successfully repeated
by other investigators in the UK and in Berlin many years after Crookes retired.
in security disinformation will tell you that it would be relatively easy to set
up incidents to look genuine, using bribed "witnesses" the effect of
which would be to destroy the credibility of a targeted person who could in Crookes'
context, raise more than reasonable doubt about the validity of traditional reductionist
science. There are allegations that this is being done even to-day.
does not explain why people, even in Crookes' lifetime suspected that his interest
in Katie/Florence strayed beyond the coolly scientific [as claimed by] such respected
commentators as Trevor T.Hall, E.J.Dingwall and K.M. Goldney."
this is one of the dirtiest bits of mud and lies thrown at Crookes. Here the skeptics
are maliciously caught lying and cheating. The skeptics give the impression that
Goldney agreed with the adverse assessment on Crookes. Instead, in Mrs Goldney's
general introduction to Crookes and the Spirit World she states clearly
that Trevor Hall was way out of line and further mentions that Dr Robert Thouless
attacked Trevor Hall for making those defamatory, unsubstantiated statements against
Crookes. In fact, Goldney says the opposite, "Crookes was known to be a very
devoted to his wife throughout his life" and later continues, "No; I
agree with Dr Thouless in rejecting this surmise (against Crookes)." John
Beloff, researcher and writer from the British SPR also offers a number of reasons
for rejecting these accusations (Beloff 1993:53-55).
Of course the skeptics
willfully omit to give references supporting Crookes. The anti-Crookes statements
are either untrue or taken out of context or intentionally misrepresented or all
three, as we have just seen.
Trevor T Hall is not a "respected commentator"
as some skeptics try to mislead. First of all his book The Medium and the Scientist
is published by Prometheus Books, the notorious skeptic press. Prima Facie
this is an indication that he is not perceiving information with equanimity. His
book pushes cowardice to its extreme by willfully giving an unbalanced view which
does NOT have the full support of decent traditional psychic historians - see
Medhurst Crookes and the Spirit World.
Hall's blatant negative bias
against Crookes (Hall 1984) can be clearly seen by the fact that he does not even
mention the specific empirical evidence of Gambier Bolton who states in Ghosts
in Solid Form that he worked with Florence Cook and repeated Crookes' experiments
- which fundamentally contradicts everything Hall says. Nor does Hall rebut Nandor
Fodor's voluminous evidence supporting Crookes- he quotes him once but out of
context. He cites (Hall 1984:99-100) as his "prosecution witness" against
Crookes Mrs K. M. Goldney, the person quoted above as rejecting Hall's surmise.
Nor does Sir E J Dingwell have credibility - he actively assisted Hall with the
writing of the book against Crookes a fact which Hall acknowledges!
absolute certainty, if Crookes were alive to-day he would slaughter his vile and
cowardly attackers with a number of court summonses.
'Mrs Fay, the medium
tricked Crookes." Skeptics' Journal
We are led to believe by the
skeptics, that a professional medium Mrs Fay, (whom Crookes by-passed for systematic
mediumship because she charged money) allegedly stated that she - Mrs Fay - herself
confessed that she concocted with her own and Crookes own' enemies that she cheated,
lied, deceived, misled, misrepresented and acted fraudulently to fool Crookes.
No jury on earth would accept such a confession from a psychic. Why? Because it
would have meant instant death to her credibility, loss of income, loss of prestige
and be perceived as a traitor to the Spiritualists and psychic phenomena generally.
The skeptics' report was taken from other skeptics' inadmissible allegations,
innuendoes and pure gossip.
"The truth is that from an early age,
following the death of his brother Phillip, he [Crookes] was satisfied that contact
with the spirit world was possible."
Crookes was very cautious
in his attitude to acceptance of the afterlife and in any event never allowed
his personal convictions to intrude on his consciousness as an empirical scientist.
However toward the end of his life he became convinced that he had received genuine
communication from his much loved deceased wife and continued to have sittings
with a materialisation medium- (Scatcherd 1924)- something that would be unlikely
had his earlier experiences with materialisation been deliberate frauds.
of the best accounts I have read of Crookes' attitude to survival is that compiled
from primary sources by Dr Medhurst and Mrs K.M. Goldney who make it clear that
Crookes' attitude to survival 'underwent some fluctuations over the years' (Medhurst
1972:227). In the extract from Crookes' Diary New Year's Eve 1870 Crookes (then
aged 38) talks about the death of his brother three years earlier (is 35 really
- 'an early age'!!) and the hope that he will continue to receive spiritual communication
The damaging allegations against Crookes
are untested. We can never have the definitively accurate information as to what
really happened unless the information is subject to cross examination, something
which unfortunately cannot be done retrospectively. Because the allegations are
untested, unsubstantiated, technically, they cannot be taken seriously and are
Notwithstanding the noise made by Crookes' critics
over the last 125 years, his substanstive credibility remains untarnished.
problem is augmented by the fact that in the Victorian age, there was the "presumption
of fraud" in relation to psychic phenomena. There was an assumption by many
in Victorian society that since psychic phenomena do not exist, anyone who claimed
success in demonstrating it must be committing fraud. One can understand the huge
problems which faced Crookes and other psychic empiricists in his time.
whilst the mediocre skeptics and dilettantes can poke fun at genius, defame the
dead, ridicule by imputation, repeat other skeptics' venom against Crookes, those
who accept Crookes' contribution know that one day, when all the world accepts
the existence of non-physical energy, a new era in science will emerge, a new
global perception will welcome psychic phenomena and more importantly, the non-physical
energy will irretrievably remove the cancer of materialism.
of having the courage to make public his investigations of psychic phenomena had
global impact. The increase in the acceptance of "psychic force" and
afterlife evidence is universal; foreign governments including those in China,
Russia and the US sponsor experiments into psychic phenomena. Psychic research
is being conducted at universities by professors, some physical scientists, many
psi scientists and other psi researchers. Grass roots level support for psychic
force around the world is just huge and is dramatically increasing. By all objective
criteria, Crookes' discovery has and is having global impact.
into the afterlife add to the cumulative objective and subjective evidence that
we survive death and that communication between those who passed on and us here
on earth is possible. This I believe is the greatest discovery in human history
and will give mankind the confidence that love will survive and that inevitably
we will be reunited with our loved ones - love being the most powerful force in
Sir William Crookes' extensive honors and recognition
by foreign universities: http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/Biogs/Crookes.html
Sir William Crookes - from Who's Who:
Awards: OM 1910;
Kt 1897; FRS 1863; Hon. LLD Birmingham; Hon. DSc (Oxon, Cambridge, Ireland, Cape
of Good Hope, Sheffield, Durham).
Positions: Proprietor and editor
of Chemical News; President, Royal Society, 1913-1915 (Foreign Secretary, 1908-1912).
Personal Details: Born 17 June 1832; son of late Joseph Crookes; married
1856, Ellen (died 1916), daughter of W. Humphrey of Darlington; four sons one
daughter; died, London, 4 April 1919.
Education: Royal Coll. of Chemistry.
Work Professor of Chemistry, Training Coll., Chester, 1855.
Discoverer of the Selenocyanides; Thallium, a new element, 1861; Repulsion resulting
from Radiation, 1873; the Radiometer, 1875; Illumination of Lines of Molecular
Pressure, 1878; Radiant Matter, 1879, an ultra-gaseous, fourth state, of matter;
Radiant Matter Spectroscopy, 1881; New Elements in Gadolinite, etc, 1886; Genesis
of Elements, 1887; Some Possibilities of Electricity, Wireless Telegraphy, 1892;
Fixation of Atmospheric Nitrogen, 1898; the Spinthariscope, 1903; Eye-Preserving
Glass for Spectacles, 1913.
Awards: Past President, Chemical Society,
Brit. Assoc., Inst. Elect. Eng., Soc. Chem. Industry; Hon. Member, Roy. Phil.
Soc. Glasgow, Roy. Soc. NSW, Pharm. Soc., Chem. Metall. and Mining Soc. of South
Africa, Amer. Chem. Soc., Amer. Philos. Soc., Roy. Soc. Sci. Upsala, Deutsch.
Chem. Gesell. Berlin, Psychol. Soc. Paris, Antonio Alzate Sci. Soc. Mexico, Sci.
Soc. Bucharest, Reg. Accad. Zelanti; Foreign Mem. Accad. Lincei, Rome; Corresp.
Inst. de France (Acad. Sci.), Corresp. Mem. Bataafsch Genoots., Rotterdam, Soc.
Encouragement pour l'Indust. Paris; For. Assoc. National Acad. Sciences, Washington;
Foreign Mem., Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. International Exhibition, 1862,
medal; Acadèmie des Sciences, 1880, gold medal and prize of 3000 frs; Electrical
Exhibitions, Paris, 1881, medal; Society of Arts, 1885, Fergusson Gold Medal;
Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889, medal; Society of Arts, 1899, Albert Gold
Medal; Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, 1912, Elliott Cresson Gold Medal; Soc.
Chem. Industry, 1912, gold medal. Royal medallist, Davy medallist, Copley medallist,
and three times Bakerian Lecturer of the Royal Society.
Methods in Chemical Analysis, 4th edition, 1905; Manufacture of Beetroot-Sugar
in England, 1870; Handbook of Dyeing and Calico-Printing, 1874; Dyeing and Tissue
Printing, 1882; Kerl's Treatise on Metallurgy, 1868, with Ernst Rohrig; Wagner's
Chemical Technology; Auerbach's Anthracen and its Derivatives, 2nd edition, 1890;
Ville's Artificial Manures, 3rd edition, 1909; A Solution of the Sewage Question;
The Profitable Disposal of Sewage; The Wheat Problem, 1899, 3rd edn 1917; Diamonds,
Beloff. J (1993) Parapsychology:
A Concise History Continuum International Publishing Group - Athlone Press
Gambier (1919) Ghosts in Solid Form-An experimental Investigation of Certain
Little-Known Phenomena (Materialisations) (1957 edition Psychic Book Club
Old Bailey London)
Carrington, Hereward (1973) The World of Psychic
Research, A.S. Barnes and Co London ISBN 0-498-01299-9. Library of Congress
Card Number 72-6371.
Originally published in 1946 as The Invisible World.
William (1874) "The Phenomena of Spiritualism" London Quarterly
Journal of Science
Fodor, Nandor (1966) An Encyclopedia of Psychic
Science, The Citadel Press New Jersey (Originally published 1933 London: Arthur
Goldney, K.M. (1972) "General Introduction"
in R.G. Medhurst's Crookes and the Spirit World
Hall, Trevor T
(1985) The Medium and the Scientist Prometheus Books Buffalo, New York.
Brian (1977) Natural and Supernatural- A History of the Paranormal from
Earliest Times to 1914 Hodder and Stoughton London
Medhurst, R. G. and
Goldney, K. M. (1964) "William Crookes and the Physical Phenomena of
Mediumship", PSPR, 54 (1964), p.69.
Crookes and the Spirit World Souvenir Press London
(1987) After we Die What Then? Ariel Press Columbus Ohio
F.R. (1924) Survival Putnam London.
Thouless, Robert H. (1963)
"Crookes and Cook" SPR Journal, 42
"Foreign Comments on Florence Cook's Mediumship" PSPR, 54 (1964)
Victor Zammit (May 2003)<<
Return to Articles