UNBELIEF NATURAL -- A REVIEW OF FAMOUS SKULLS -- CONFLICTING EVIDENCE -- SCIENTIFIC STRICTURES ON "RE- CONSTRUCTIONS" -- THE EVOLUTION POSITION UNTENABLE -- EVOLUTIONISTS' FEAR OF THE ONIY ALTERNATIVE, CREATION -- THE BIBLE AN IMPREGNABLE ROCK

"There is a predisposition in the minds of most men to disbelieve the scriptures: consequently there is a ready response to any hostile attack that may be made. If the attack is clever and specious, and especially if it is under respectable auspices, it is readily accepted as conclusive by many who have no acquaintance with the subject itself, and who have neither the ability nor the inclination to detect the fallacies that may exist in the argument."

These words, written over fifty years ago, are confirmed by our own daily experience. Men are ever ready to adopt opinions or principles which are in accord with their prejudices or their passions. In spite of the very flimsy evidence by which such opinions are sustained, they ask no questions, and conduct no investigation. But-with what scorn and ridicule will they reject a belief in the Bible, because they think its acceptance will interfere with their pleasure, and set a limit on their freedom of action, by claiming their moral obligation to God!

Yes, men show an amazing aptitude for believing the things they want to believe; and in nothing is this fact more apparent than in the enthusiastic reception given to the theory of Evolution. This theory has been hailed with delight by certain classes of men because it provides them with an excuse for rejecting the Bible, which makes such unwelcome claims to their allegiance. An acknowledgment of those claims would involve irksome responsibilities to the Bible's author. This is not a modern rebelliousness by any means. As far back as secular history will take us we meet this desire to find an explanation of the universe which could leave out God; thus Professor H. F. Osborn writes:

"In truth, from the period of the earlier stages of Greek thought, man has been eager to discover some natural cause for evolution, and to abandon the idea of a supernatural intervention in the order of nature."

And so we find mankind's general attitude through the ages summed up in the book of Job:

"Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways" (Job 21:14).

Today men are saying this with greater insistence and increasing boldness because they feel reinforced in their rebellion by a welcome excuse -- that of a "jelly origin" and an "animal ancestry." Gone now is any accountability to a higher power. There is no higher power than man. He is lord over creation. His life is his own to make or mar as he will:

"Our lips are our own: who is lord over us?" (Ps. 12:4).

Men do not refuse to accept the Bible because it lacks evidence of its own veracity, but rather in spite of such evidence. The Bible's claim to divine authorship has never been successfully contradicted, and we believe it never will be. The prophecies of the Bible span the centuries and embrace the destinies of empires. Daily they risk falsification on account of their detailed delineation of world events. Its prophecies have been accurately defined as "History in advance," and such they are: for never yet has history shown their forecasts to be untrust worthy: NEVER ONCE!

On the contrary, every passing year serves to strengthen and confirm Bible prophecies by the passing of prophetic forecasts into the realm of accomplished historic facts. A list of fulfilments could now be compiled, whose astonishing proportions and cumulative effect could convince all, except the wilfully blind, that the Bible is what it claims to be-the inspired and infallible word of the living God.

Consider also that comparatively new science, Archaeology, which has filled our great national museums with baked clay cylinders and stone records of ancient history --all of which, when they have any bearing on Bible matters, have FULLY CONFIRMED THE SCRIPTURAL RECORDS -- records which, for many centuries, had been bearing a lone and uncorroborated testimony to such events as the Flood, the fall of Jericho, and the conquest of Canaan by Israel. But of recent years STONE AFTER STONE HAS ADDED ITS TESTIMONY TO THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS; and never once have these stony records invalidated the scriptures in any matter-prophetic, historic, or scientific. We repeat to emphasize this most important point: Never once!

RECONSTRUCTED APE-MAN

Unfortunately, the majority of the public have no relish for these things. They may prove their point indisputably, but they prove a little too much: and so-the public turn away.

With what lively interest, however, will they gaze at a glass-case exhibit in a natural history museum! With what naive simplicity and childlike faith will they listen to the words of a lecturer-listen as he describes to them the "reconstructed ape-man " which holds their credulous and deferential attention! Yes, awestruck and reverential quietness seems a fitting tribute to an august "Missing Link."

Do these people ever pause to examine critically the evidence which justifies a "reconstruction" of this simian monstrosity, with its unshapely repulsive features and beetling brow? Not they! The ape-man is spared the humiliating attacks of interested scepticism to which God's precious word is subjected. For it is with predisposed readiness that people accept the glib assurances of quasi-scientists, that this reconstruction is sanctioned by all the recognised standards of applied anthropology.

Having critically examined the evidence, we have no hesitation in branding it AN IMPUDENT IMPOSTURE AND FRAUD, the mature product of reckless speculation, unworthy of honourable men. The detection and exposure of this make-believe would be both speedy and complete if men were only half as critical of such hairy "links" as they are of the Bible; but they are willingly uncritical. The reason for this lack of scrutiny, as we have already mentioned, is that evolution is in harmony with men's rebellious inclinations. They love to have it so. An animal ancestry absolves them from all moral restraint.

Bold words, are they not, for a layman ignorant of all biological and scientific nicety? Yet, dear reader, a boldness born, first of all, of a conviction of the Bible's truth; but strengthened and confirmed by the published evidence of scientists and the fatal admissions and questionable practices of the evolutionists-a distinction not without a difference, as we hope to show later.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON REASON

Trial by jury is a prominent feature of our national jurisprudence. Property, reputation, and even men's lives are committed into their hands to be dispensed according to their studied findings. Sometimes, in the course of their duties, they have to listen to professional and scientific witnesses of considerable ability. Having done this, they retire to deliberate among themselves; and later return to the court to give their verdict, which always commands respect.

Now a jury is composed of twelve quite ordinary men of intelligence and honesty. They are not required to be possessed of technical knowledge or scholastic attainments in order for British law to acknowledge their competence to judge rightly. It is upon this principle that we, as an unlearned layman, claim the ability and right to judge. We have heard the learned evidence pro and con; we have tried evolution in the court of common reason, and our humble but confident verdict is -- NOT PROVEN.

Now, in order to give you some of the reasons for our verdict, we will return to the glass-enclosed exhibit in the Natural History Museum in London, or its counterpart in New York, U.S.A. Here we have one of the few strong points in the evolutionists' defences. We prefer the enemy's "strong points," for when they fall his defences collapse. When Goliath falls, the Philistines flee.

The "reconstruction" was not the outcome of the discovery of a well preserved skeleton. The following, perhaps, will help you to see why WHOLE SKELETONS ARE OF NO USE. In 1913, an expedition of the Geological Institute of the University of Berlin discovered a complete skeleton in Oldway gully, in what was then German East Africa. The skeleton was old -- very old -- but we never heard much about it, did we? Maybe Professor Graebner can help us to understand why. He is reported to have said:

"Unquestionably ancient as these remains are-the bones are completely fossilized-they contain lamentably few 'primitive characteristics' and hence have not been exploited in the interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of a skull, a tooth, a thigh bone, offer much more inviting fields to the evolutionist, since they permit his imagination to range without the restraint of fact. The Oldway fossil, which is in every essential respect a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for those who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors."

There we have the reason why evolutionists are strangely shy of whole skeletons, and never herald their discovery. They leave no room for imagination, and give absolutely no support to their theory.

	JAVA-MAN Restoration-bust of the so-called "Ape Man of Java." Restored from a skull-cap found at Trinil, Java.

One tooth found in September, 1891;
Piece of skull found in October, 1891.

One year later, and 45 feet away from the original "finds,"

One thigh bone found in August, 1892;
One tooth found in August, 1892.

A year or two later the world's leading zoologists met at Leyden for an international congress. These fragmentary remains were then considered by them, with the following interesting results:

Ten concluded that they were the remains of an ape;
Seven concluded that they were the remains of a man;
Seven concluded that they were a missing link:
One concluded that the remains did not even belong to the same animal.

Here then you have the family tree of Pithecanthropus erectus --for such is the scientific designation of the Java Man. You also have the grave, but contradictory, findings of his learned examiners. So much then for "strong point" number one: consider it well, and draw your own conclusions as to its value as evidence, after considering finally what Professor Wasmann had to say about these "finds":

"It is nothing short of an outrage upon truth to represent scanty remains, the origin of which is so uncertain as that of Pithecanthropus (Java-Man), as absolute proof of the descent of man from beasts, in order thus to deceive the general public." ("Evolution Criticised," Bishop, page 34.)

		PILTDOWN MAN Restoration-bust of the so-called "Dawn Man" of Piltdown, Sussex.

Two small pieces of a skull;
One piece of jawbone;
One canine tooth;
One small bone.

Professors Smith-Woodward and Mr. Charles Dawson "reconstructed " these fragments, and produced to their own satisfaction an ape-like head. So far all was well; but here we are reminded of Solomon's words:

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him" (Prov. 18:17).

SIR ARTHUR KEITH'S CONFESSION

The "neighbour" in this case was none other than the famous Sir Arthur Keith, celebrated as a professor in anatomy, and curator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, London. He is himself an evolutionist -- and not, we believe, a very moderate one. But this "reconstruction" of the professors was even more than he could stand. He accordingly wrote:

"I soon saw that the parts of the reconstructed Piltdown skull had been opposed in a manner which was in open defiance of all that was known of skulls, ancient or modern, human or anthropoid."

"OPEN DEFIANCE": Yes, and remember this is not the language of a hostile critic, but the indignant exposure of a candid friend. Then Sir Arthur Keith continues:

"Articulating the bones in a manner which has been accepted by anatomists in all times, I found the brain chamber, instead of measuring 1070 c.c., as in Dr. Smith Woodward's recommendation, measured 1500 c.c. A large brain chamber even for a modern man."

Here it is only fair to state that Sir Arthur Keith later modified his 1500 c.c. estimate by over 100 c.c. This is interesting for two things. It is a good example of scientific honesty to admit an error. But also it is instructive in showing scientific fallibility. When Sir Arthur Keith came to his original conclusion and found himself so much at variance with his professional colleagues, would he not check and re-check his calculations before committing himself to a public denunciation of Professors? We feel that he certainly would do so, and yet as he admitted in a letter we received from him: "It was a temporary misinterpretation."

However, the argument drawn from the preceding quotation is by no means disturbed; because although Sir Arthur Keith does not now believe that the Piltdown man had an extra large brain chamber, his revised estimate still leaves the skull in the essentially human category. For as he later wrote us:

"You may take it as certain that Piltdown man... had a brain quite as big as that of many living women and men."

This recent written testimony is corroborated, if corroboration is necessary, by a quotation from Sir Arthur Keith, given by Mr. Bishop on page 25 of "Evolution Criticised." It is as follows:

"We can say with certainty that the forehead of Eanthropus (Piltdown) was well formed. It was high, prominent, and of a width equal to that of a modern human skull."

This testimony is particularly interesting in view of the bust of Piltdown, where a "high" and "well formed" forehead is certainly not in evidence. Just look and see.

		NEANDERTHAL MAN Restoration-bust of a man of the Neanderthal type which scientists claim, were once wide-spread over Europe.

"It has fallen to the lot of this Neanderthal man to be described variously as an idiot, a Mongolian cossack, an early German, an early Dutchman, an early Frieslander, a connexion of the Australian blacks, a paleolithic man, and a still more primitive ape-man. The remains of his skeleton clearly are of the nature to admit of many interpretations, and EACH STUDENT CAN MAKE OF THEM WHATEVER HE WISHES." (Vide: "Evolution Criticised," page 263.)

THE PEKIN "FIND"

Leaving this third "link" we pass on to the fourth. In a published lecture delivered originally for the Royal Anthropological Institute, Dr. Elliott-Smith tells us of the discovery on December 2nd, 1929, near Pekin, China, of:

"A brain case of an adult skull . . . This brain case is more complete than the remains of Pithecanthropus (Java skull) or Eanthropus (Piltdown skull)."

MORE COMPLETE? -- Just let us pause here. Just remember that the Piltdown Skull was so fragmentary and its reconstruction so SPECULATIVE that Professor M'Curdy spoke of a "humiliating exposure." You will remember also that the Java Skull was similarly the subject of an IRRECONCILABLE DIVERGENCE OF OPINION at the Leyden congress.

		PEKIN MAN Restoration of a woman of the Pekin race; restored from the broken skulls found at Chou-Kou-Tien, near Pekin

"The length (of the Pekin skull) is 8 millemetres greater than the Javan fossil."

Yes, a whole 8 MILLEMETRES, which in good English measure is approximately--one-third of an inch!

Now in this book, "Early Man," from pages 29-30 of which these quotations are taken, there are some fine photographic reproductions of WHOLE HUMAN SKULLS: Roman, Anglo-Saxon, etc. But there are none of the Java, Piltdown, Neanderthal, or Pekin skulls. Instead, we have drawings "TAKEN FROM PHOTOGRAPHS."

Looking at these "drawings," and knowing the size of the "finds," and what the scientists have said about them, we know what value to place on them. These drawings are the outlines of the skull tops of Java, Piltdown, and Pekin-men, superimposed on one another to show wherein they vary in shape. Writing of the drawings, Dr. Elliott Smith says:

"These drawings are simply tracings made from photographs . . . and CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ACCURATE. BUT AT PRESENT THEY ARE THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE." ("Early Man," page 30.)

And this is the best they can do with their "Pekin-man."

This fourth --and, for us, last -- "link" is the latest one about which any stir has been made, and this is the substance of their advertised "find" -- at present "THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE!"

"Strong points," forsooth! Woe to the modern nation whose "strong points" in war are of such an unsubstantial and visionary nature! Somehow these "links" will not stand handling. Somehowthey seem to disintegrate and run through our fingers, like the grains in a chain of sand, which one might attempt to pick up for closer inspection; or again, like a long interred Egyptian mummy, which a touch turns to dust. In fact, these "links" are really too silly for serious refutation. It is like erecting straw men, and then blowing them over. We could well afford to ignore them altogether were it not for the disproportionate harm they have done and are still doing.

A FANTASTIC THEORY

These four missing links, then, are, to the best of our knowledge, THE MOST CONCLUSIVE KNOWN. Their value as evidence we will confidently leave to your sober judgment. Of the remainder of the "links," we can only say of them that their value is more doubtful and their origin more open to question than even the four which we have reviewed; in which case -- if you have carefully followed the argument -- you will agree that their value as evidence must be poor indeed.

These then are the lengths -- or should we say the depths? -- to which men will go in their determination to give credence to this fantastic theory, not even stopping short of forgery. For are not these busts of ape-men forgeries? Yet there they stand in our musuems with not the least intimation of their questionable foundations: simply products of the imagination with no basis in fact worthy of the name. In addition there is often the more life-like full-sized form of a bow-legged hairy ape-man; but like the busts -- although even more so-they are forgeries.

Writing on this subject, Mr. G. K. Chesterton penned the following:

"People talk of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon. Popular histories publish portraits of him, like the portraits of Charles I and George IV. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded to show that the very hairs of his head were numbered. No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh bone: or a few teeth or a fragment of a cranium."

 

The subtle suggestiveness of these methods is difficult to assess, especially upon children. The method is clever -- this pictorial and objective method -- devilishly clever; and it does its work well. In The Science of Life is a coloured picture of a Neanderthal man with the following comment:

		A neanderthal man comes out of his lair as a cave-bear approaches. (By permission of the Science of Life, pub.by Amalgamated Press. Artist, L.R. Brightwell)

"A Neanderthal man comes out of his lair as a cave bear approaches. We know that this extinct species of man was low browed, chinless, with bowed-legs and heavy forward projecting neck."

Then -- 0 the wicked subtlety of the words, insinuating, as they do, that everything else is based on fact -- the writer continues:

"The colour and quantity of his hair is of course hypothetical."

This makes it look as though the writer is so scrupulously honest that he is exceedingly careful not to mislead a reader into thinking that the colour of the hair is known. It is not known and he frankly and commendably says so. Thus is created a feeling of confidence in this imaginative writer; and his dupes swallow the rest of the monkey-man -- hook, line and sinker -- all except the colour of the hair! The evidence for this imaginative piece of reconstruction or rather the lack of it -- we have already placed before you. Such methods would be dishonest at any time and on any subject; but when they are used to alienate children's hearts and minds from the great and mighty God who made them; when they are used to rob Him of His rightful place in the hearts and lives of men and women, they become unspeakably graver in their consequences.

The same remarks apply to the so-called GENEALOGICAL TREES OF DESCENT, purporting to show our origin from animal ancestry. One appeared quite recently in The Listener and is reproduced on page 51; a tree super-imposed upon a geological background, some of the branches terminating in gruesome skulls. This was printed and circulated with all the self-assurance of genuine conclusions, instead of IMAGINATION AND FABRICATION.

Are these the methods of candid scientific inquiry? or are they rather the methods of double-minded men who are determined to deny the miraculous creation of which the Bible treats -- for CREATION IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE to their reckless speculation. There is no middle ground. IF EVOLUTION COLLAPSES, as collapse it must, then CREATION HOLDS THE FIELD. Aye, and there is the rub! It may help you to see this point more clearly if we quote Dr. Watson, who said he accepted evolution

"not because it had been observed to occur, or was supported by logically coherent arguments, but because the ONLY ALTERNATIVE, SPECIAL CREATION, was clearly incredible." ("Evolution or Creation," page 13, Sir A. Fleming.)

Thus Dr. Watson and those for whom he speaks would shut God out of His own domain, and bolt the door in His face.

To what well merited ridicule should we, as Christians, expose ourselves if we argued in the manner of this scientific gentleman, Dr. Watson. If, for instance, we were to declare:

"We realise that the Bible is obviously and hopelessly discredited: we cannot produce any scrap of evidence to demonstrate its reliability, but much can be produced with contrary effect. In fact, we cannot sustain our belief with any 'logically coherent arguments.' But in spite of this, we will continue our childish belief in Adam's creation by God, because the only alternative is to believe that we evolved in the manner demonstrated by the biologist."

Surely, if we reasoned thus, we should deserve the scorn of the biologist, just as he now richly deserves ours.

How long, we wonder, would Christianity have lasted or indeed would it ever have begun -- if the main cause for its amazing spread (the resurrection of Christ) had rested on such nebulous foundations as those upon which evolution clings in precarious instability? Under such conditions, Christianity would at the most have been but an EPHEMERAL LAUGHING STOCK, and would have long since ceased to engage the serious attention of men. But it was because the original disciples of Christ were able to sustain their testimony by "LOGICALLY COHERENT ARGUMENTS" that Christianity grew and prospered; and eventually -- in a corrupted form it is true -- supplanted Paganism as the state religion of the Roman Empire. This by the way.

Today, in spite of the evolutionists' failure to produce any reasonable evidence in support of their hypothesis, their doctrine has spread like a deadly stream of penetrating poison. It has insinuated itself into the encyclopaedias of children; it is being insidiously disseminated in the schools; indeed, it is rapidly becoming bad taste to question its truth, or oppose its claims. It would be laughable for its sheer audacity -- after so many glaring exposures -- were it not so serious a matter. And that it is serious there can be no mistake. Maybe, unrealised by you, your child is being slowly poisoned at school by it.

CAMP FOLLOWERS

Not that there is any truth in it to be afraid of. That is the ridiculous, tantalising thing about it; for as Dr. Morton truly said:

"When we carefully distinguish the pious opinions of the great leaders of scientific investigation from their definite and their very moderate affirmations, we realise that all need to fear the destructive influence of that rigidly limited evolution (variation within its type) which is alone proven (as in the case of mongrel dogs) upon Christian Biblical theology has passed away. This does not, of course, apply to the contention of the 'camp followers'."

That is it, the "camp followers"! Those whom Sir Henry Drummond describes when he says:

"The moment any great half-truth in nature is unearthed, these unqualified practitioners leap to a generalization. . . . Hence, long after its foundations are undermined, a brilliant generalization will retain its hold on the popular mind and . . . THE MISCHIEF IS DONE." ("Ascent of Man," page 42.)

Dr. Morton further describes these "camp followers" as:

"THE WRITERS OF SCHOOL BOOKS AND THEOLOGIANS -- who still imagine Darwinism to be the dominant biological theory and the doctrine of Descent to be accepted by all intelligent men. THESE ARE LIVING IN A PAST GENERATION OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING WHICH MAKES THEM DANGEROUS." ("Bankruptcy of Evolution," page 183.)

Look at any child's school "Biology" when you have an opportunity and see whether the writer does not scorn Creation, if he deigns to mention it at all. More often than not it is entirely ignored and organic evolution taken for granted.

Take, for instance, H. G. Wells' so called " Short History of the World." Its opening chapters are written in the most approved rationalist style. With sublime self-assurance the most fantastic and far-fetched assertions are made about the origin and progress of life -- written, if you please, as "early history"! It really leaves one gasping at this writer's outrageous audacity. How dare he call it history! Hans Andersen's fairy stories are sober reading compared. And all this utter nonsense is assimilated by the unsuspecting reader. Even the more sober method of inculcating evolution is terribly wrong; for as Professor G. F. Wright declared:

"The doctrine of evolution, as is now becoming current in popular literature, is ONE-TENTH BAD SCIENCE AND NINE TENTHS BAD PHILOSOPHY." ("Bankruptcy of Evolution," page 103.)

And so this insidious poison is doing its nefarious work; like a corroding acid, it is silently but effectively destroying morality, as Sir Ambrose Fleming wrote in "Evolution or Creation?":

"A notable result of evolution and Darwinian anthropology has been to diffuse a subtle poison stifling or destroying the spiritual life of man." (Page 109.)

And then he draws attention to the danger of listening to these evolution lies when they come from prominent scientists:

"The man in the street... is apt to take as settled truth things he learns from eminent scientific men. . . . The daily papers . . . always supply him with full accounts of any utterances on the subject of his evolutionary or animal origin. Whole columns will be given even to reports of sermons which assure him he was derived from a tangle of apes millions of years ago: or to an account of the discovery of a few skulls of anthropoid type declared to be an adequate basis for assurance that his evolutionary origin is indisputable." (Page 108.)

THE BIBLE AN IMPREGNABLE ROCK

Reader, has your faith in the Bible been shaken as a result of this biological bombast? Have doubts been sown in your mind by this pretentious imposture? Then we exhort you to take fresh courage. The grand old book which has enjoyed your allegiance in the past is still the impregnable rock you always believed it to be. From its only rival, evolution, you have nothing to fear, as you have seen by the testimony already adduced. Evolution is just an imposing facade of learning with nothing behind it -- A FACADE, JUST THAT, AND NOTHING MORE.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1

Further corroboration of the worthlessness of these famous skulls as evidence of evolution is provided by a bulletin of The British Museum (Natural History) entitled "The Solution of the Piltdown Problem," issued in 1953. The following extracts are of interest:

"Since the report, some forty years ago, of the discovery of several cranial fragments, a portion of a mandible and a canine tooth at Piltdown in Sussex, the problem of the "Piltdown skull" has been the subject of continuous controversy. Some authorities have accepted all the remains as those of an extinct type of hominid. But it is probably true to say that most anthropologists have remained sceptical or frankly puzzled by the contradictions which they present. . . . It is a fact that the remarkably flat wear of the molar teeth in the mandibular fragment is quite unlike that normally found in apes at a corresponding stage of dental attrition (though similar to the type of wear characteristic of the hominid dentition), while the mode of wear of the large canine tooth is also different from that which occurs in apes. But there is another possible explanation of the apparent contradictions shown by the Piltdown remains: that the mandible and canine tooth are actually those of a modern ape (chimpanzee or orang) which have been deliberately faked to simulate fossil specimens. It was not till one of us (J.S.W.) in the course of personal discussions put forward this proposition fairly and squarely as the only possible solution of the Piltdown puzzle, pointed out that the organic content of the mandible had never been examined, and moreover demonstrated experimentally that artificial abrasion of the teeth of a chimpanzee combined with appropriate staining produced an appearance astonishingly similar to the Piltdown molars and canine, that we decided on a critical re-study of all the Piltdown material with this specific possibility directly in view. The results of our investigations have now DEMONSTRATED QUITE CLEARLY THAT THE MANDIBLE AND CANINE ARE INDEED DELIBERATE FAKES."

Photos of four reconstructed "Heads" from Natural History Museum, copyright photographs and reproduced by courtesy of "The Listener."