All language subtitles for Smile.For.The.Dead.An.Examination.Of.Spirit.Photography.2025.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

In 1862, an engraver in Boston,

an amateur photographer, William H.

Mummler, took a self-portrait
in the studios of Helen F.

Stuart.

But what made this self-portrait
so remarkable for the time is that

it showed something else besides
the jolly bearded photographer himself.

It a spirit, an extra, someone that
the photographer would later claim was

the ghost of his deceased cousin.

This would set off a wild storm of
involvement, as this was the first

documented photograph of a ghost.

When news spread that Mummler
could take photographs of a ghost, people

would line up outside of Stuart's studio.

Mummler would take people's photographs,
and sure enough, their deceased loved one

would be standing right next to them.

This turned into a booming business
for Mummler, Stuart and the receptionist

at the time, Hannah Green.

As a photographer myself, what's
so remarkable to me about Mummler

and the spirit photography images
that he created was just how he did them.

We look at them now and we're
like, Oh, they're just a double exposure.

We have ideas about how they were
made, and they even had ideas back then

about how they were made,
but they couldn't prove it.

No one was able to prove just how
Mummler was making these images.

He would have the leading photographers
of the day come to a studio and watch him

throughout the entire process.

They would watch him do every single
step, and they couldn't figure it out.

There was one person who actually
backed up from the camera to make sure

that Mumler wasn't touching anything.

It's so wild to me that
these photographers couldn't

figure out what a novice
photographer like Mummler was doing.

And yet, he somehow is able to capture
one of the first spirit photographs ever.

And that, to me, is the great mystery here.

And that's what is driving me
to figure out what he was doing.

I want to look at these processes.

I want to look at what people are
saying, how he could have done

these images, and I want to try them out.

To do this right, I want to try
and find people who can help me.

Experts in their fields, from
photography to paranormal research.

What do they have to
say about these images?

Was it even Mummler, who
was the genius behind them?

Who were the women he
worked with to create these?

As well as this sound,
what if some of these images

were actual spirit photographs?

What if these images were photographs
of people's deceased relatives?

That's something that I don't
think people will consider enough

when investigating spirit photography.

Was he able to capture real ghosts?

That's really what brought
me to make this film, is finding

out how Mummler made these images.

To make a ghost image, the
easiest thing to do is just take a picture

of someone sitting there, have
somebody walk in dressed in white,

and walk right out again.

In a 30-second exposure, two
or three seconds of that person

standing there and then walking
out, you're going to have a great ghost.

But it's not what Mumbler did.

Again, what we were doing was to
produce what could have been done

in a room full of skeptics.

And that's very different
than just making a ghost.

Making a ghost image is very easy.

Who was he is a question that
has haunted me for a long time,

trying to find out who is this man?

Was he Was he a fake?

Was he real?

Did he really believe what he was doing?

Mumler had one of the most...

One of the reasons I say that
he's such a child of the 19th century

is because he was also an inventor.

He had a really curious mind.

For someone who left school when
he was 14 years old, he was applying

for all kinds of different patents.

He was a really, really clever man.

So something like photography
would certainly capture his interest.

Well, as I've always been far more
interested in the woman who was

around him, I think of him as being
a little bit, perhaps, of an opportunist.

I get a bit frustrated
at the fact that he's

continually credited with this
development in the history of photography,

because I really think that this
woman who was in his proximity

and is always mentioned in footnotes
whenever anybody's talking about Mummler,

she continues to be in the background,
and maybe that's what she wanted.

But for me, it's a bit
frustrating to not see her always

mentioned when his name comes up.

In terms of spirit photography, he
was probably not the first, but he's

the first documented spirit photographer.

He occupied a really interesting space

because of his trial, because he

was eventually arrested of for trickery.

His trial really dominated

the headlines in both the United States

and Europe while it was going.

It really represented the modern
spiritualist movement on trial.

It represented religion on trial.

It represented all the fears of
Americans and the culture clashes

that were taking place and gave voice to

a lot of anger, a lot of fears,

a lot of frustration, a lot of hope.

It was an interesting time.

He was a very small figure who
found himself on a very large stage.

My initial gut check of Mummler's
work, I would say they're faked

because they're too good.

They are very, very detailed,
and they also fall into the idea

of what we think a spirit should be.

We don't really know
if that's the case or not.

Without obviously talking to him or being

around during that time period, I would

say they're just too good to be true.

When we're talking about
spirit photography or anomalies

in photos that we can't explain,
there's a couple of different types.

Sometimes you see an apparition
or what looks to be a human.

Sometimes you see light
anomalies, other times it's shadows.

So there's various different shapes
and forms and all sorts of good stuff

that can show up in a photo.

Not all of it is supernatural, of course.

Some things are misidentified, and
of course, we don't always know the

environment in which the photos are being
taken, so they can be hard to decipher.

On the other hand, when people
want to see spirits, it's pretty easy

for them to accept what they see.

The more you see, the
less it feels like a spirit.

So the trick is to have something
that gives us just enough

to hang on to, but not too much.

So photography in general is really hard,
I think, to determine if there's a spirit

in it or not, because number one,
we don't really know what a spirit is.

We don't know what's making up the
phenomena that people are experiencing

that can't be explained at this moment.

So our ideas of what things
should look like or what things

should be are biased to begin with.

But I think the majority of the time I
meet people who are showing me photos

and the things that they're
getting are just misidentification.

Maybe they're not looking
at it the same way I or one

of my colleagues will look at it.

So one of the most common
things we see is some light anomaly

that appears to have some mass to it.

And what it normally is, is a
spider stuck on a spider their web,

and for whatever reason, the camera
or the video is reflecting the light

in a really weird way where it looks odd.

I don't blame them for
thinking, Hey, this is odd.

Is this something?

But again, that's where investigators
can come in and say, Okay,

well, we've seen this a
million times. This is what it is.

The story goes, and when I
first researched Mumler, I helped

to spread this story that he was
alone in the studio with Mrs. Stuart,

and it was Mrs. Stuart's gallery.

She was ostensibly the photographer.

I collect Mrs. Stuart's images,
so I'm a huge fan of Mrs. Stuart.

But I've come to find that there was
actually a man working in that studio.

It was a friend of Mummler's, so Mummler
would be going to visit him, I believe.

This man was teaching
him about photography.

One day, the Mr. Plumber had to leave the

studio, and Mummler, as he says, deciding

to while away an hour, decided to take
a self-portrait and see what happened.

He stood next to a chair, which This
is an odd choice because this is a time

when exposures are super long.

Usually, you sit in a chair that has
two things holding your head in place,

and it was really uncomfortable.

But for some reason,
he was able to stand still.

He's even holding that black cloth.

He's holding that next to him.

It's a very handsome picture.

He looks very proud of himself.

When he developed the picture,
there was the image of a young girl

sitting in the chair.

He would claim that this was his cousin.

He recognized her as his cousin.

What is important was that
there was a woman in that picture,

and she hadn't been there in real life.

To me, it all comes down
to this first photograph.

This, to is the keystone
of the whole thing.

Who exactly was with Mummler
when he took this photograph?

That's the thing.

If we're able to figure out
who was in the room with him,

I think we'll have a good idea of
how this narrative takes place here.

Was it Stuart, the owner of the studio?

Was it Green, the receptionist who
would later become Mummler's wife?

Or was it this man, Mr. Plumber?

It's almost like a weird game of clue.

Stuart, Green, Plumber in the
studio with Mummler with the Ghost.

I think if we're able to nail that
down, we'll be able to have a better

understanding of what happened here.

If you look at the
photograph, it's unusual to me.

For one thing, as Chris
has said, he is standing up.

I've had one of these photographs
taken of me, and you have to be still

for something like 30 seconds.

For him to be standing is unusual,
and I think that's something to call out.

I also think it's unusual
how the photo is framed.

Normally, when you're taking a portrait
like that, I don't think you would have

the chair be empty and in picture.

Usually, if you're taking that
self-portrait, you're going to be

center frame, and you would be sitting.

I think he intended for
the spirit to be in that chair.

It's just framed up too perfectly for me.

We can deduce from that
that this was intentional.

It wasn't just him wiling away
an hour just for a self-portrait.

There was an intent behind this because
of how the photograph was framed,

at least to me, in my opinion.

Even though I think Mumbler's photos
are probably explainable, it doesn't

mean that all photos are explainable.

It doesn't mean all video is
explainable because I've seen

some really weird
stuff. I've experienced it.

And there was one show I worked
on where the director of photography

changed the sensors on his camera.

And he was not into ghosts at all.

It was purely for cinematic reasons.

And when he did that, we caught
five different anomalies on his camera.

And Our other cameras never caught those.

Those are the cameras that
had the standard sensors on them.

It does beg the question, are we
not looking at things the right way?

Are we not taking into consideration
all the things we need to think about

when we're talking about trying to
capture this type of activity on camera.

This is what he said, that he
would just show it to people as a lark,

and then people got sick of it,
and then he decided to let it go.

But one day, Dr. Garner came in to see him.

Dr. Garner was a big spirit.

He was really big in the spiritual
movement, and Mumler knew this.

Mumler very mysteriously showed
him this photograph and said,

It's my cousin, and Dr. Dr. Garner
was, of course, entranced by this.

What is this?

He made Mumler sign
something to this effect.

I think he even took the foot, asked
Mummler if he could have the picture.

Mummler signed it and
said, This is my cousin.

He dated it and thought, Oh, I'll just
let the fool have his toy, is what he said.

Dr. Garner then took it to
the papers, the newspapers,

which Mummler did not count on.

That's how things started to really
take off, where people showed up at

the studio demanding spirit photographs.

The important thing to note about
this first photo and why I think everything

boils down to this first photo is just
how different the ghost looks compared

to the ghosts that come later on.

If you look at the body of this ghost,
you can see shadowing, you can see detail

in the dress that she's wearing.

The ghosts that come later on in
Mummler's work, they're almost blob-like.

They don't have any detail.

There's not really any shadowing.

It's just like this
spectral entity of a body.

In this first one, there's definition.

Later on, the most important thing becomes
the face, because you want the sitter

to recognize the deceased loved ones.

The face becomes the
most important thing later on.

Now, this one almost looks
like a typical double exposure.

I think that speaks to the process

develops between now and then.

Later on, he's under the
scrutiny of people watching him.

I think he has to be quick, and he
has to do something where he can't

get that definition in the body.

Whereas now, he's either alone,
which I don't think he's alone,

or someone is in the room with him,
whether it's Stuart, Green, or Plumber.

And so he has time to get
that definition in the body.

We can learn a lot from
this first photograph.

What I think is interesting about
Mumler in his day, and what we see today,

is that during times of extreme stress

and sorrow, and chaos in the world, in

Mummler's time, we're talking Civil War.

In our time, we just got
out of a pandemic, and

a lot of people lost people.

When you see things like that,
there's an interest in the supernatural.

And whenever there's an
interest, you're going to have people

who want to take advantage of that.

Grief is, it's It's a natural
human emotion to the loss of an

important object or person in your life.

Human beings experience grief at the
loss of anything that's important to them.

The problem in our culture is that we
deny death, we act as if people don't

die, and therefore, grief is very hard
for Americans because if you don't

believe people die, then you don't
know how to respond when they do die.

People are afraid of grief.

That's one of the reasons I
work in hospitals to teach ministers

about how to do grief ministry
because they don't know, because

our culture doesn't acknowledge
grief and teach us how to grieve.

But also the pictures of people who
are dead, there are stages of grief.

I mean, you go in and out.

But one of the things, the second
stage, first is a psychic numbness.

You cannot believe that the person is gone.

It's just shock.

Then after that is a yearning,
longing for the person.

I think that's more the stage
that you're talking about, like

looking for the person, that yearning,
longing, thinking you've seen them.

There are cultures earlier than ours
where they had morning rings and anything

that reminds them strongly of the person
that they've lost, including photographs

of that person that are done.

What does that say about just

the need to visualize what is felt?

So the bereaved feel the
lingering presence of the deceased,

and it's helpful to have a place to focus

that grief and to visualize what is felt.

I think it can be really therapeutic.

And I'm glad that you're considering
that aspect of it, because I think it's

so often overlooked in favor of this...

Every year around Halloween, somebody gets

in touch with me about this, and it seems

to be the extent of people's interest
in it is, how could people fall for this?

It's like, well, because they wanted it.

It wasn't They wanted something
that proved the existence

of what they felt, I think.

But lots of times in grief
groups, I've had people talk to me

about bereavement support groups.

I've had people talking to about,
I felt like she was in the room

with me talking to me.

That's part of the whole process of we

lose the person in person, the physical

reality, but we keep them alive.

And the memories.

And early on in the grief process, there
is a sense that they're still with you

and then later on and talk to you.

Hearing people talk to you, maybe
in the middle of the night, wake up and

be sure that you've heard their voice.

That's all a normal part of grief.

When you're talking about spirit
photography and the photographs, say,

of a person, a son that you've lost
who's behind you in the picture, most

often you would see that as
your son, because number one,

you want to believe it's your son,
and you do believe he's still with you.

And so you would see that image, find
a way to make that image into your son.

Mummler claims that he was alone
during this whole thing, although later

he credits his wife, Hannah, with with
helping him develop spirit photography,

and he says, including the first time.

That might insinuate that she was there.

I think Hannah, his wife,
certainly played a huge part

in whatever it was that he was doing.

Mrs. Stuart knew how
to profit from it, certainly.

I believe Hannah is the one
who gave him the language for it.

Hannah and her mother gave the language
since they were already spiritualists.

So who is Helen F.

Stuart, and who is Hannah Francis Green?

Well, we may never know who these
women are, but I think that it's one woman,

and I think it's Hannah Francis Green.

And I think that for a short period of
time, she was using the name Helen F.

Stuart as an alias.

I think that there might be
several reasons why she would

create this persona. She was
potentially trying to a negative

relationship or maybe had been abandoned

and was just trying to recreate herself
and find a way to support herself and her

two children at a time when
that would have been exceedingly

difficult, I imagine.

So I think it was easier for her
as a single woman at that time,

for whatever reason, whether
she was fleeing the relationship

or had been abandoned with the
kids, it would be easier for her to build

herself as a professional photographer,
build this business first as a producer

of hair jewelry, She's first listed
as a producer of hair jewelry,

and then as a photographer,
the first to be listed

in Boston Directories as a woman
working as a photographer, which is really

among about almost 70 photographers.

So that's really worth noting.

It would have been easier
for her to do so as a missus.

So I built a timeline because
I kept hearing these women

noted in always as a footnote,

they were never central to the story.

And then the more I tried to map out
what their roles might have been, it just

became increasingly clear that they
were in all likelihood the same woman.

Doing away with the possibility of
magic, which I think is certainly possible.

And I always want to leave open
that possibility that we just don't know.

But I think if we are going to assume some

calculated effort here, I think that it

was likely Hannah Francis
Green, Helen F. Stuart's idea.

She was already working
in hair photography.

There are reports of her having had
mesmeric abilities from a very young

age, like Hannah Francis Green.

And then she had already been
establishing herself in the production

of hair jewelry, which is already
connected to bereavement.

It's already part of this industry.

And then photography, which would
often be incorporated into this hair

photography, this hair jewelry, rather.

Plus, by the time this first
photograph had been created,

she'd already photographed a
lot of people in the community,

and she'd likely kept all of the negatives
so that people could come back to her

on the case of somebody's passing
and get a reprint to have it worked

into the locket, which
she always advertised

on the back of her carte de visite.

Most photographers would say reprints
available upon request, but she would

note that she produced hair jewelry.

And of course, Stuart was an established
photographer, and that's downplayed

in these stories, too.

But I have right in front of me right
now about 20 of her carte de visite that

I was able to find on eBay and whatnot.

And I've seen many more in Boston Holdings.

So she was really prolific.

So she would have had a ton of negatives.

And all accounts say that they
were her studios that he was working

at at the time of the discovery.

And then she just disappears.

She just disappears.

And we have spirit photographs
that are attributed to Stuart that are of

a higher quality than his that can be
positively dated and attributed before

any of his can be. Different
examples of her backstab.

And as you can see, it always says hair
jewelry made to order, which is notable.

I haven't encountered that
on any other carte de visite.

But she always made sure that
people knew that they could order it.

So here's an example of
vignetting, which is not unusual at all.

It's a way of isolating the face from
a group photo or from a three-quarter

length portrait, if you wanted
to, say, put their face in a locket.

Something like this, often
after somebody had passed.

But as you can see, she was a
pretty accomplished photographer.

Anyway, All that to say that I feel that
it's very unlikely that it was a mistake,

and there are a lot of reasons to assume

that she would have recognized that there

would be an interest in this product.

And again, she was
already a noted Ms. Marek...

She wasn't a mesmeric physician at
this point, but she already was known

to have mediumistic abilities as
Hannah Francis Green, not as Stuart.

Stuart was known as a photographer
and the one who ran the studios.

But of course, they were
likely the same person.

We just It's got some incredible news.

The Eastman Kodak
Museum just emailed me back.

I've been in talks with them to
view their Mummler collection

in person, and also film it for the film.

They normally do not allow
filming of these pieces, and even

viewing them is a rarity.

But we were just given permission
to both view the pieces and film it.

This will be the first time
that I will see a Mummler piece

in person, and I I'm through
the moon. Through the moon?

I'm through the moon, through the roof.

I'm over the moon and
through the roof. That's it.

That's where I'm at.

It's going to be incredible. I can't wait.

It's going to be amazing.

Smaller than I thought. Yeah.

I've just seen the scans in there.

They're absolutely huge.

See how the and it doesn't
look like a hand at all.

That's gorgeous.

I just got overtaken.

That's just how I've been doing
this research since, I guess,

2015, so seeing one in person
is just really remarkable for me.

It's Boston Mass.

It was before he went to New York.

So this is an earlier one.

It's incredible.

The hands are what's so strange.

They definitely look like
they've been drawn on.

It almost looks like you have them
up against the body, and there's

a laring effect with the hands over top.

It's like they've been adding on.

We can almost see where it starts on it.

Even the neck of the person,

it just goes into this form.

The form doesn't have any detail
at all, except where the hands meet.

There's no shadowing on the
spirit form, except for in the face,

which would explain using Hannah's images
that she would choose to use for jewelry.

You can almost see right around
the neck where it just goes into

this amorphous blob of a body.

On these old ones, too.

Yeah, you can immediately tell
the difference here in the style.

It's interesting that they would
have different spirit photographers

in their personal album.

And these are what
Mummler did later in life.

Mail-in spirit photography.

Yeah, so I think when we're looking at
modern day spirit photography or people

who just happen to capture
things on film versus Mummler,

if we're thinking or making the case that
Mummler was faking things on purpose,

then the parallel I see with that
is that it certainly happens today

with people faking things to make
money, people faking things for power,

for fame, for likes, for clicks.

It's really no different, I don't think.

It's interesting about Mummler and Money.

He charged $10 a picture at a time
when most people were charging anywhere

between $0.50 and $0.50. So
yeah, he made a lot of money.

Certainly when he was in Boston,

he had people lining up outside his door.

At first, that changed.

His fortunes fell.

He ended up moving to New York
after trying a few different things

in Boston that he couldn't
seem to get off the ground.

So he moved to New York.

He picked up spirit photography again.

In the months, let's see, I think he
started photographing in New York

around December 1868, and his
trial was arrested in March, April.

I think he was arrested in April, 1869.

He had photographed probably 500
people was the guess during that time?

So, yeah, he did really well.

Then they thought that
with the publicity from the trial

that he would really make a lot of money.

But in fact, he struggled after that.

Again, fortunes up and down.

That's the story of Mummler.

One of the most challenging
things in the paranormal field is that

this phenomena isn't proven yet.

And because it's not proven, you're
always going to have people that will

say whatever they want to make a buck.

Or to be famous or for
power, whatever it is.

They will always try to prey on
others who will believe what they say.

Okay.

If spirit photography were fake, if
there was some a charlatan that was

impressing images on photographs so that
people would get a picture of their lost

loved one and believe that they were
with them, I don't see how that hurts them.

Because that's a part of grief is the
experience of feeling like they're with

you and you see them from time to time.

So I don't see how that would
hurt them at all, depending on

where they are in the grief process.

But early on, if that's comforting
to them, I I think it's important

to have that comfort.

It's like the medicine men, the
people that sold patent medicines.

There's a great story of a man
who would set up a table and

he'd put a candlestick, a Bible, and
a length of rope, and he'd go back

and he'd rearrange it, and then
go back and rearrange it again.

By the time he rearrange it
three or four times, he had

an entire crowd of people around.

Once he had the crowd of people,
he put the table away and started

his pitch selling medicine.

I had nothing to do with what he was doing.

Maybe the act of putting a hand on a
camera was just to have people think that

he had some mesmer effect on the camera.

But there's nothing to be
gained by touching the camera.

Are these images of
ghosts on Mummler's prints?

They're ghost-like on Mummler's prints.

They may be spirits, but they're

conjured spirits by the photographer.

Mummler was using the process of the
day, which was the wet collodium negative.

It's a process by which you have
to pour collodium onto a glass plate.

It has to be dipped into a silver solution

while the coating is wet.

It has to be taken and then
developed before it dries.

So that's the negative making process.

And then once he had the negative,
he would make an albumin print.

The albumin process is a
paper that's coated with egg white

that bears a chloride.

It was purchased that way.

He didn't have to make that part, but
he would have to float the paper on silver

nitrate just before he would use it.

And then it was printed in the sun.

It was essentially a sun printing process.

And so when When you're asking,
how did he make the images?

There are many ways to make ghost images.

But I think what you really mean
to ask is, how could he have made

these images with people watching?

The way he made the photographs
was that he made the ghost image So

a separate negative, a ghost
image, before the sitter came in

to have the life portrait made.

We have a cabinet card
This is an 1870s cabinet card.

And what we're going to do is we're
borrowing the head from this image,

and we've made a copy of it.

But in monotone, we don't want
the brown color for refotographing.

And all we need is the head.

Now we're going to decide.

I think we want her facing down.

So we're going to decide on a body.

They would photograph the photograph and

then make a negative and make a print.

The hands never look right, so
I'm trying to follow that tradition.

It's like AI hands.

Let me see if that will work.

I'm going to have the photographer

like this, looking down, and most

of this we're going to have to get
rid of chemically on the negative.

We're going to actually eat it away on
the negative to leave room for the person.

So we're only going to have this much.

He says confidently.

Yeah, that'll work. There you go.

That's what we're going to shoot.

This is where the ghost is now.

It's like looking at the final picture.

That's the layer.

Oh, my goodness.

You got to see that.

That's where it gets so surreal.

Here we go.

Plate holder in the camera.

Cap on, dark slide out.

Then we're going to
expose for about 10 seconds.

1,001, 1,002, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

And then we develop the plate.

1,002, 1,03, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

12, 13.

Well, there she is.

What he would do is
make the ghost negative.

Then he would take the life image.

The life image was made with, again,
the collodian process, but typically

the collodian process yields a
negative that has a creamy coffee

with cream color highlight.

What we have here is
a contact printing frame.

It's a wooden frame, and And the
first thing that would go in is the glass.

Then we'd put a negative into the frame,
and the negative goes image side up, so

the side that the collodian was poured.

Then the paper would sensitive side down.

So it's essentially sensitive
side to sensitive side.

Then the back cover goes on.

And these are called
split back printing frames.

And the reason they're called split
back is that the lower end holds the paper

and the negative in contact while you
tilt this back and inspect the printing.

You would take the paper and
you would inspect the image.

If it's not enough, you close it up and
then you put it back in the sun again.

Now, if I show it to you this
way with the albumin paper

in contact with the negative,
you can see that it has a picture.

However, in most cases, and
even on this one, there are tack holes

all over this one because what they did
was to put tracing paper over this side.

The reason they did that is if you
slow down the sun's rays going through

this paper, it makes more contrast, so
you can get a stronger image that way.

That's what would have happened in
Mummler's era, because he definitely

wouldn't want to have people see that.

That would be bad.

I'll show you what he would have done.

And there are different
ways we could approach this.

The first thing we could do is just
hand this around to the audience.

And so the audience is
inspecting us, make sure that it's...

You could take the glass off.

There's nothing secretive in there.

There's no bunny on the side.

That would go around, and
then they would take the negative.

Now, the negative just
has you on that negative.

There's no ghost.

So let me hand this to you.

And now that would go around the audience.

While the plate is passed amongst the
audience, the photographer, Mummler,

would take the plate with the ghost
image and just by palming in his hand.

There's a reason why he only
does these as small images.

Palming the plate, all he has to do
is go like that, bring the other plate

in place, lay it on top like so.

You can tilt it up as long as it's against
As long as it's against something dark,

you don't see the ghost image.

Here it is in the printing frame with
the ghost negative, which you can't see

because it's against the dark background.

But if I put white paper behind,
you can see it very easily.

Of course, that would be the worst thing
that could possibly happen in front of an

audience, especially an angry audience.

The photographic paper would go in place.

So the sensitive side down
towards the image side and the back

of the printing frame would go on.

It's a pressure printing frame.

Now, before he prints, he must put
a diffusion paper on the facing side.

So I'm going to turn this around you can't
see the front of this because I have it

at an angle or you can't see it.

I'm going to put the diffusion
paper on top, and then he would

put this in the sun to print.

After a certain amount of time,
he would bring this back, take

the diffusion paper off, open the back,

and then peel back the image

and show the actual photograph with
the head and the ghost at the same time.

If it's fine to print, then he
would take it out completely.

So go like this, take out the entire
print to show, which is something

we're going to do next. We're
actually going to do the printing.

Show the entire print.

Again, you can't see the ghost in
the printing frame, but you would

see the ghost in the sprint,
which would be pretty amazing.

Take this and put it in the on.

So you take the object, and then

as you grab the object, and you look it

where you grabbed it, then you
bring out the object that you dropped.

It's called the drop.

It's a simple thing.

It's dropping what you have.

And if you're good at it, you can
open your hand so that it doesn't

look like you're holding something.

So you go in, you drop it.

You know it's in here
because that's squeezed.

It can't be in there because
look, the hand's open.

Then gone, and there it is.

So here we have the printing frame.

The printing frame has the
diffusion paper on in the face.

There's the back.

We're going to open up
half of the printing frame.

I'm going to tilt it this way so
people can't see the negative.

And then as I pull back
the printing paper, you'll see

the live subject and the ghost
on the same print, which is baffling

to anyone who's seen this demonstration
because they saw the negative.

They saw the printing frame was empty,
and yet there is something done in front

of them that actually works.

Mark did such a fantastic job of
really capturing the essence and beauty

of what Mummler was doing.

To me, these are just wonderful and
truly works of art that he created here.

Is this the final piece of the puzzle?

Is this the answer to
what I've been searching

for for the last seven, eight years?

I don't know.

For me, though, there's a
few things that I want to call out.

The first thing is, if you look at
the face here, the face doesn't have

as much detail as some of Mumbler's work.

I think that, to me, is the biggest call.

It looks more spectral.

It has more of the look of the
body than it does the actual faces

that Mummler was able to do.

If you remember, the thing that was
so remarkable about Mummler's piece

is that the detail in the face
versus the detail in the body.

I think there might be a step missing.

I will say that I think
the body looks great.

I think Mark is right on track with saying
that the body was cut out or drawn on.

I think there's some real validity there.

To me, the body looks more similar to
Mummler's than the actual face does.

The one thing that doesn't really
fit for me, though, is that it wasn't

just people off the street
looking at how he was doing it.

The leading photographers of the day
were in his studio watching his every move.

They were investigating every piece
of equipment, every step he was doing.

While I do think there was a
sleight of hand, I don't think that

these photographers would let Mumler
keep the negative away from them.

I think they would need to
hold the negative in their hands.

I think there's something missing here.

I think there's a step missing
that we don't know what it is yet.

I think there definitely could
have been a sleight of hand.

As I mentioned, Hannah
Green, Stuart, would have had

a ton of plates to choose from.

Most people who came into the studio, she

might be able to find, if not an actual

photograph of somebody from their family.

It was so blurry.

It could have been I forget the
name of the author now, but there was

some article that was written where they
talk about the poor mothers coming in and

recognizing some foggy doubling.

If the bereaved wanted

to see somebody, they were going

to complete that illusion.

It didn't have to be an amazing end result

because ultimately,

it's what they wanted to see.

So Yeah, I do think there
could be a sleight of hand.

I imagine that these sessions
would be emotional, and so there'd be

a lot of occasion for distraction.

And certainly, if Hannah Green was
in the room trying to amp things up, and

it was a seance, a therapeutic session

that ultimately is what they

wanted and needed, so who cares?

Who cares if they weren't taking advantage.

They they were producing
something that was much

wanted and needed and sought out.

It's an interesting thought

who was in on it because that assumes,

again that it was fake.

I'm not saying it's not.

It's super suspect.

But I don't really know if I'm comfortable
making that assumption since we can't...

Here we are over 100 years later and
we're still trying to prove it, 150 years,

and no one could during his lifetime.

Well, if you're going to do this in
front of people who are watching,

I can see no other way,
period. There is no other way.

If you're doing this as a product
for people coming to your studio

who are longing to see their
long lost husband or wife, child,

then he doesn't need this light of
hand. It's done in the dark room.

Also, they would be the
ones providing the picture.

So I can't imagine a person
coming in with an existing picture,

handing it to the photographer.

And then two days later, he gives them
a spirit photograph that has the same

picture and not have them know that
that's from the picture they handed him.

Now, if it's just an amorphous ectoplasm

cloud, that's a different story.

But if it's actually from a photograph,
they knew, they had to know

that it was from that photograph.

Of course, people are
gullible when they're in grief.

As I said about grief, what
we in our society do is avoid it.

So whether you're talking about spirit
photography in my mind, or whether you're

talking about the idea that someone comes
to the foot of your bed and stands and

talks to you during a certain part of
the grieving process, that's normal.

At some point, it gets
to be not normal grief.

But that's down the road because
we try to rush grief in our society.

Okay, we give you a week off or
maybe two weeks for bereavement.

Grief takes a year at least.

So I think any way that spirit photography

or the sense, any way that you can

feel closer to the one that you've lost.

And one of the things that I do for
anniversaries of, say, mother's death

is I cook something that was
something I love that she cooked.

So you're just talking spirit photography
is just another way to feel close

to the person that you've lost.

I think it makes great
sense. It makes sense.

At the end of the day, I don't
think there is a clear answer

to how Mumler made these images.

But at the same time, I don't
think this was an exercise in futility

for the very reason that I hope this film

shed a lot of light on the role

that his wife played in the
creation of these spirit photographs.

She seems to have been this
keystone of this whole operation to me.

The more that I look into
her, the more it seems just

what a heavy hand she had in this.

While history books have always
We just talked about Mummler, and

like Felicity said, his wife was always
in the footnotes, I think she needs to be

right there with him because you
don't have spirit photography without her.

You just don't.

Now, whether that's Hannah or Mrs. Stuart,
or they weren't the same, I'm not sure.

I'm leaning that they are the same person,
but I don't think that takes away from

the impact that had on what Mummler did.

So I don't know. There's
still a mystery here.

There's still a mystery.

There's still something to find
on how he made these images.

I'm sorry, on how they
made these images together.

But at the end of the day, I'm
really happy because this was

such an important journey for me.

I really stepped out of my comfort zone
and went on this journey and traveled up

the Coast of the United States, up
into Canada Hannah, to follow Mumbler,

to literally chase ghosts.

It was an incredible
experience for me, and I wouldn't

take that away for anything.

While I don't have a definitive answer,
I'm just glad that we could shed a light

onto the impact that his wife, Hannah or

Mrs. Stuart, had with spirit photography.

I also think that's beautiful
that they were able to create

something so wonderfully
magical that it endures today.

I mean, that's wonderful.

That's what I love, and that's what
keeps drawing me to these images

is the mystery, yes, but
also just the magic of them.

I hope I've been able to share
some of that magic with you all.

So thank you.

Film Junior tonight as

I step down for a walk.

In the right light, I can
turn back the clock.

These streets are filled with
ghosts, hard to crack a smile.

I miss you the most, stay with me a while.

Trees like memories bend in
sway, they echo with your name.

You've gone away, and yet you remain.

These streets are filled with
ghosts, hard to crack a smile for you.

I miss you the most, stay with me a while.

I miss you the most, stay with me a while.

You bring a light even now.

Twinkling stop.