Telepathy and the Subliminal Self

by R. Osgood Mason

In another of Mr. Gurney’s cases, of four persons present in a business office where the phantasm of a fifth well-known person appeared, two persons saw the phantasm and two did not.

Abridged from Mr. Gurney’s account the circumstances were as follows:—

The narrator is Mr. R. Mouat, of 60 Huntingdon St., Barnsbury, N., and the incident occurred in his office on Thursday, September 5th, 1867. The persons concerned were the Rev. Mr. H., who had a desk in the same office and who may be considered the agent; Mr. Mouat, himself, and Mr. R., a gentleman from an office upstairs in the same building, the percipients; while a clerk and a porter who were also present saw nothing.

Mr. Mouat goes into his office at 10:45 o’clock on the morning of September 5th, sees his clerk and the porter in conversation, and the Rev. Mr. H. standing at the corner of a table at the back of the clerk. He is about to speak to Mr. H. about his being there so early (more than an hour before his usual time), when the clerk commenced speaking to him about business and especially a telegram concerning which something was amiss. This conversation lasted several minutes and was decidedly animated. During this scene, Mr. R., from an office upstairs, comes in and listens to the excited conversation. He looks at Mr. H. in a comical way, motioning with his head toward the two disputants, as much as to say “they are having it hot;” but to Mr. R.’s disgust Mr. H. does not respond to the joke. Mr. R. and the porter then leave the room. Mr. Mouat turns to Mr. H., who was all the while standing at the corner of the table, notices that he looks downcast, and is without his neck-tie; he says to him, “Well, what is the matter with you, you look so sour?” Mr. H. makes no reply, but looks fixedly at Mr. Mouat. Having finished some papers he was reading Mr. Mouat noticed Mr. H. still standing at the table. The clerk at that moment handed Mr. Mouat a letter saying, “Here, sir, is a letter from Mr. H.”

No sooner was the name pronounced than Mr. H. disappeared in a second.

Mr. Mouat is dumfounded—so much so that the clerk notices it. It is then discovered that the clerk has not seen Mr. H. at all, and declares that he has not been in the office that morning. The letter from Mr. H. was written on the previous day and informs Mr. Mouat that he is ill, and will not be at the office the next day, and asks to have his letters sent to his house.

The next day, Friday, Mr. H. enters the office at his usual hour, twelve o’clock; and on being asked by Mr. Mouat where he was the previous day at 10:45 o’clock, he replied that at that time he had just finished breakfast—was at home with his wife, and did not leave the house all day.

The following Monday Mr. Mouat meets Mr. R. and asks him if he remembers being in his office the previous Thursday morning. R. replies that he does, perfectly. Does he remember who were present and what was going on? “Yes,” said Mr. R., “you were having an animated confab with your clerk about a telegram. Besides yourself and the clerk there were present the porter and Mr. H.”

On being informed that Mr. H. was at home, fourteen miles’ distant, at that time, Mr. R. became indignant that any one should insinuate that he did not know a man was present when he saw him. He insisted on calling the porter to corroborate him; but on being questioned, the porter, like the clerk, declared that he did not see anything of Mr. H. that morning.

Here, in broad daylight, of four persons present and engaged in business, two saw Mr. H. and addressed him either in words or by signs, while two others with equal opportunities did not see him at all.