es the wish in the eyes of the
child, knows that there are characteristic changes of facial expression,
which are, nevertheless, very difficult of definition.[B]

[Footnote B: "From the productions of the 'thought-readers' we see
how slight and seemingly insignificant the unconscious movements may
be, which serve as signs for a sensitive re-agent. But in this case
no contact is necessary. There would have to be some sort of visible
or audible expression on the part of the questioner. No proof for
this has as yet been advanced."

How any one possessing the power of logical thought could possibly
infer from these words of mine (published in the above-mentioned
article in the "Tag"), that I denied the possibility of the
occurrence of visual signs, is to me incomprehensible. What I did
deny, and still deny, is that up to that time any had been proven to
occur.]

The commission did not even maintain or believe that unintentional signs
within the realm of the senses known to us, were to be excluded.
Professor Nagel and I would never have subscribed to any such
conclusion. The sentence in question, therefore, could only be
interpreted as follows: that signals of the kind that are used
intentionally in the training of horses, could not have occurred even
as unintended signs, for otherwise Mr. Busch would have detected them.
And in order to be observed by him it was immaterial whether they were
given purposely or not. The same signs, therefore, which as a result of
his observations were declared not to be present, could not be assumed
to be involved as unintentional.

For my part I am ready to confess that at this time I did not expect to
find the involuntary signals, if any such were involved, in the form of
movements. I had in mind rather some sort of nasal whisper such as had
been invoked by the Danish psychologist A. Lehmann, in order to explain
certain cases of so-called telepathy. I could not believe that a horse
could perceive movements which escaped the sharp eyes of the
circus-manager. To be sure, extremely slight movements may still be
perceived after objects at rest have become imperceptible. But one would
hardly expect this feat on the part of an animal, who was so deficient
in keenness of vision, as we have been led, by those of presumably
expert knowledge, to believe of the horse,--one would expect it all the
less because Mr. von Osten and Mr. Schillings would mov