NEW LANDS
BY
CHARLES FORT
Introduction by
BOOTH TARKINGTON
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
"Personally" (as we are more wont to say in our youth than in any other
ages) I find that a book with an Introduction always worries me a little. I
want to read the book itself, not the Introduction, but for some reason I
have a feeling that it is my unpleasant duty to read the Introduction.
Usually I decide to read the book firs and the Introduction afterward; but
then my reading is tainted throughout by my sense of guilt; for I have
learned by experience that I never do read the Introduction afterward. So,
in time, I have reached the conclusion that an Introduction ought to inform
the reader's mere first glance that he needn't feel guilty if he doesn't
read it afterward. Adopting this view, the author of the present
Introduction finds himself perfectly equipped for his task. Readers might be
made much more uncomfortable if the Introduction of "New Lands" were what
such a book might conventionally expect: a professionally scientific writer
-- preferably an outraged practising astronomer.
A few years ago I had one of those pleasant illnesses that permit the
patient to read in bed for several days without self-reproach; and I sent
down to a bookstore for whatever might be available upon criminals, crimes
and criminology. Among the books brought me in response to this morbid
yearning was one with the title, "The Book of the Damned."
I opened it, not at the first page, looking for Cartouche Jonathan Wild,
Pranzini, Lacenaire, and read the following passage:
"The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest--
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
`Fitness' then, is only another name for `survival.'"
[1/2]
Finding no Guiteau or Troppmann here, I let the pages slide under my fingers
and stopped at this:
"My own pseudo-conclusion:
That we've been damned by giants sound asleep, or by great scientific
principles and abstractions that cannot realize themselves: that little
harlots have visited their caprices upon us; that clowns, with buckets of
water from which they pretend to cast thousands of good-sized fishes have
anathemized us for laughing disrespectfully, because, as with all clowns,
underlying buffoonery is the desire to be taken seriously; that pale
ignorances, presiding over microscopes by which they cannot distinguish
flesh from nostoc or fishes' spawn, have visited upon us their wan
solemnities. We've been damned by corpses and skeletons and mummies, which
twitch and totter with pseudo-life derived from conveniences."
With some astonishment, I continued to dip into the book, sounding it here
and there, but did not bring up even so well-damned a sample of the bottom
as Benedict Arnold. Instead I got these:
"An object from which nets were suspended--
Deflated balloon with its network hanging from it--
A super-dragnet?
That something was trawling overhead?
The birds of Baton Rouge.
I think that we're fished for. It may be we're highly esteemed by super-
epicures somewhere."
..."Melanicus."
That upon the wings of a super-bat, he broods over this earth and over other
worlds, perhaps deriving something from them: hovers on wings or wing-like
appendages, or planes that are hundreds of miles from tip to tip -- a super-
evil thing that is exploiting us. By Evil I mean that which makes us
useful."
..."British India Company's steamer Patna, while on a [2/3] voyage up the
Persian Gulf. In May, 1880, on a dark night about 11:30 P.M. there suddenly
appeared on each side of the ship an enormous luminous wheel, whirling
about, the spokes of which seemed to brush the ship along...and although the
wheels must have been some 500 or 600 yards in diameter, the spokes could be
distinctly see all the way round."
..."I shall have to accept that, floating in the sky of this earth, there
are often fields of ice as extensive as those on the Arctic Ocean -- volumes
of water in which there are many fishes and frogs -- tracts of land covered
with caterpillars --"
..."Black rains -- red rains -- the fall of a thousand tons of butter.
Jet black snow -- pink snow -- blue hailstones -- hailstones flavored like
oranges.
Punk and silk and charcoal."
..."A race of tiny beings
They crucified cockroaches.
Exquisite beings --"
But here I turned back to the beginning and read this vigorous and
astounding book straight through, and then re-read it for the pleasure it
gave me in the way of its writing and in the substance of what it told. Doré
should have illustrated it, I thought, or Blake. Here indeed was a "brush
dipped in earthquake and eclipse"; though the wildest mundane earthquakes
are but earthquakes in teapots compared to what goes on in the visions
conjured up before us by Mr. Charles Fort. For he deals in nightmare, not on
the planetary, but on the constellational scale, and the imagination of one
who staggers along after him is frequently left gasping and flaccid.
Now he has followed "The Book of the Damned" with "New Lands" pointing
incidentally to Mars as "the San Salvador of the Sky," and renewing his
passion for the dismayingly significant "damned --" tokens and strange hints
excluded by the historically mercurial acceptances of "Dogmatic Science." Of
his attack on [3/4] the astronomers it can at least be said that the
literature of indignation is enriched by it.
To the "university-trained mind" here is wildness almost as wild as Roger
Bacon's once appeared to be; though of course even the layest of lay
brothers must not assume that all wild science will in time become accepted
law, as some of Roger's did. Retort to Mr. Fort must be left to the outraged
astronomer. If indeed any astronomer could feel himself so little outraged
as to offer a retort. Lay brethren are outside the quarrel and must content
themselves with gratitude to a man who writes two such books as "New Lands"
and "The Book of the Damned"; gratitude for passages and pictures -- moving
pictures -- of such cyclonic activity and dimensions that a whole new area
of a reader's imagination stirs in amazement and is brought to life.
BOOTH TARKINGTON.
CHAPTER ONE
LANDS in the sky --
That they are nearby --
That they do not move.
I take for a principle that all being is the infinitely serial, and that
whatever has been will, with differences of particulars, be again --
The last quarter of the fifteenth century -- land to the west!
This first quarter of the twentieth century -- we shall have revelations.
There will be data. There will be many. Behind this book, unpublished
collectively, or held as constituting its reserve forces, there are other
hundreds of data, but independently I take for a principle that all
existence is a flux and a re-flux, by which periods of expansion follow
periods of contraction; that few men can even think widely when times are
narrow times, but that human constrictions cannot repress extensions of
thoughts and lives and enterprise and dominion when times are wider times --
so then that the pageantry of foreign coasts that was revealed behind blank
horizons after the year 1492, can not be, in the course of development, the
only astounding denial of seeming vacancy -- that the spirit, or the
animation, and the stimulations and the needs of the fifteenth century are
all appearing again, and that requital may appear again --
Aftermath of war, as in the year 1492: demands for readjustments; crowded
and restless populations, revolts against limitations, intolerable
restrictions against emigrations. The young man is no longer urged, or is no
longer much inclined, to go westward. He will, or must, go somewhere. If
directions alone no longer invite him, he may hear invitation in dimensions.
There are [7/8] many persons, who have not investigated for themselves, who
think that both poles of this earth have been discovered. There are too many
women traveling luxuriously in "Darkest Africa."(1) Eskimos of Disco,
Greenland, are publishing a newspaper. There must be outlet, or there will
be explosion --
Outlet and invitation and opportunity --
San Salvadors of the Sky -- a Plymouth Rock that hangs in the heavens of
Servia -- a foreign coast from which storms have brought materials to the
city of Birmingham, England.
Or the mentally freezing, or dying, will tighten their prohibitions, and the
chill of their censorships will contract, to extinction, our lives, which,
without sin, represent matter deprived of motion. Their ideal is Death, or
approximate death, warmed over occasionally only enough to fringe with
uniform, decorous icicles -- from which there will be no escape, if, for the
living and sinful and adventurous there be not San Salvadors somewhere else,
a Plymouth Rock of reversed significance, coasts of sky-continents.
But every consciousness that we have of needs, and all hosts, departments,
and sub-divisions of data that indicate the possible requital of needs are
opposed -- not by the orthodoxy of the common Puritans, but by the Puritans
of Science, and their austere, disheartening, dried or frozen orthodoxy.
Islands of space -- see Sci. Amer., vol. this and p. that -- accounts from
the Repts. of the Brit. Assoc. for the Ad. of Sci. -- Nature, etc. -- except
for an occasional lapse, our sources of data will not be sneered at. As to
our interpretations, I consider them, myself, more as suggestions and
gropings and stimuli. Islands of space and the rivers and oceans of an
extra-geography --
Stay and let salvation damn you -- or straddle an auroral beam and paddle it
from Rigel to Betelgeuse. If there be no accepting that there are such
rivers and oceans beyond this earth, stay and travel upon steamships with
schedules that can be depended upon, food so well cooked and well served,
comfort looked after so carefully -- or some day board the thing that was
seen over the city of Marseilles, Aug. 19, 1887, and ride on that, bearing
down upon the moon, giving up for lost, escaping collision by the swirl of a
current that was never heard of before.(2)
There are, or there are not, nearby cities of foreign existences. [8/9] They
have, or they have not, been seen, by reflection, in the skies of Sweden and
Alaska. As one will. Whether acceptable, or too preposterous to be thought
of, our data are of rabbles of living things that have been seen in the sky;
also of processions of military beings -- monsters that live in the sky and
die in the sky, and spatter this earth with their red life-fluids -- ships
from other worlds that have been seen by millions of inhabitants of this
earth, exploring, night after night, in the sky of France, England, New
England, and Canada -- signals from the moon, which, according to notable
indications, may not be so far from this earth as New York is from London --
definitely reported and, in some instances, multitudinously witnessed,
events that have been disregarded by our opposition --
A scientific priestcraft --
"Thou shalt not!" is crystallized in its frozen textbooks.
I have data upon data upon data of new lands that are not far away. I hold
out expectations and the materials of new hopes and new despairs and new
triumphs and new tragedies. I hold out my hands and point to the sky --
there is a hierarchy that utters me manacles, I think -- there is a dominant
force that pronounces prisons that have dogmas for walls for such thoughts.
It binds its formulas around all attempting extensions.
But sounds have ben heard in the sky. They have been heard, and it is not
possible to destroy the records of them. They have been heard. In their
repetitions and regularities of series and intervals, we shall recognize
perhaps interpretable language. Columns of clouds, different-colored by
sunset, have vibrated to the artillery of other worlds like the strings of a
cosmic harp, and I conceive of no buzzing of insects that can forever divert
attention from such dramatic reverberations. Language has shone upon the
dark parts of the moon: luminous exclamations that have fluttered in the
lunar crater Copernicus; the eloquence of the starlike light in Aristarchus;
hymns that have been chanted in lights and shades upon Linné; the wilder,
luminous music in Plato --
But not a sound that has been heard in the sky, not a thing that has fallen
from the sky, not a thing that "should not be," but that has nevertheless
been seen in the sky can we, with [9/10] any sense of freedom, investigate,
until first we find out about the incubus that in the past has suffocated
even speculation. I shall find out for myself: anybody who cares to may find
out with me. A ship from a foreign world does, or does not, sail in the sky
of this earth. It is in accordance with observations by hundreds of
thousands of witnesses that this event has taken place, and, if the time be
when aeronautics upon this earth is of small development, that is an
important circumstance to consider -- but there is suffocation upon the
whole occurrence and every one of its circumstances. Nobody can give good
attention to the data, if diverting his mind is consciousness, altogether
respectful, of the scientists who say that there are no other physical
worlds except planets, millions of miles away, distances that conceivable
vessels could not traverse. I should like to let loose, in an opening
bombardment, the data of the little black stones of Birmingham, which, time
to time, in a period of eleven years, fell obviously from a fixed point in
the sky, but such a release now, would be wasted. It will have to be
prepared for. Now each one would say to himself that there are no such fixed
points in the sky. Why not? Because astronomers say that there are not.
But there is something else that is implied. Implied is the general
supposition that the science of astronomy represents all that is most
accurate, most exacting, painstaking, semi-religious in human thought, and
is therefore authoritative.
Anybody who has not been through what I've been through, in investigating
this subject, would ask what are the bases and what is the consistency of
the science of astronomy. The miserable, though at times amusing, confusions
of thought that I find in this field of supposed research word my inquiry
differently -- what of dignity, or even of decency, is in it?
Phantom dogmas, with their tails clutching at vacancies, are coiled around
our data.
Serpents of pseudo-thought are stifling history.
They are squeezing "Thou shalt not!" upon Development.
New Lands -- and the horrors and lights, explosions and music of them;
rabbles of hellhounds and the march of military angels. But they are
Promised Lands, and first must we traverse a des- [10/11] ert. There is
ahead of us a waste of parallaxes and spectrograms and triangulations. It
may be weary going through a waste of astronomic determinations, but that
depends --
If out of a dreary, academic zenith shower betrayals of frailty, folly, and
falsification, they will be manna to our malices --
Or sterile demonstrations be warmed by our cheerful cynicisms into delicious
little lies--blossoms and fruits of unexpected oases --
Rocks to strike with our suspicions -- and the gush of exposures foaming
with new implications.
Tyrants, dragons, giants -- and, if all be dispatched with the skill and the
might and the triumph over awful odds of the hero who himself tells his
story --
I hear three yells from some hitherto undiscovered, grotesque critter at the
very entrance of the desert. [11]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Travelling, sic.
2. Marius Codde and A. Payan. "Échancrure observée sur le disque solaire."
Astronomie, 6 (1887): 426-8.
CHAPTER TWO
"PREDICTION Confirmed!"(1)
"Another Verification!"(2)
"A Third Verification of Prediction!"(3)
Three times, in spite of its long-established sobriety, the Journal of the
Franklin Institute, vols. 106 and 107, reels with an astronomer's
exhilarations. He might exult and indulge himself, and that would be no
affair of ours, and, in fact, we'd like to see everybody happy, perhaps, but
it is out of these three chanticleerities by Prof. Pliny Chase that we
materialize our opinion that, so far as methods and strategies are
concerned, no particular differences can be noted between astrologers and
astronomers, and that both represent engulfment in Dark Ages. Lord Bacon
pointed out that astrologers had squirmed into prestige and emolument by
shooting at marks, disregarding their misses, and recording their hits with
unseemly advertisement.(4) When, in August 1878, Prof. Swift and Prof.
Watson said that, during an eclipse of the sun, they had seen two luminous
bodies that might be planets between Mercury and the Sun, Prof. Chase
announced that, five years before, he had made a prediction, and that it had
been confirmed by the positions of these bodies. Three times, in capital
letters, he screamed, or announced, according to one's sensitiveness, or
prejudices, that the "new planets" were in the exact positions of his
calculations. Prof. Chase wrote that, before his time, there had been two
great instances of astronomic calculation confirmed: the discovery of
Neptune and the discovery of "the asteroidal belt," a claim that is
disingenuously worded. If by mathematical principles, or by any other
definite principles, there has ever been one great, or little, instance of
astronomic discovery by means of calculations, confusion must destroy us, in
the introductory position that we take, [12/13] or expose our
irresponsibility, and vitiate all that follows: that our data are oppressed
by a tyranny of false announcements; that there never has been an astronomic
discovery other than the observational or the accidental.(5)
In The Story of the Heavens, Sir Robert Ball's opinion of the discovery of
Neptune is that it is a triumph unparalled in the annals of science.(6) He
lavishes -- the great astronomer Leverrier, buried for months in profound
meditations -- the dramatic moment -- Leverrier rises from his calculations
and points to the sky -- "Lo!" there a new planet is found.(7)
My desire is not so much to agonize over the single fraudulencies or
delusions, as to typify the means by which the science of Astronomy has
established and maintained itself:
According to Leverrier, there was a planet external to Uranus; according to
Hansen, there were two; according to Airy, "doubtful if there were one."
One planet was found -- so calculated Leverrier, in his profound
meditations. Suppose two had been found -- confirmation of the brilliant
computations by Hansen. None -- the opinion of the great astronomer, Sir
George Airy.
Leverrier calculated that the hypothetical planet was at a distance from the
sun, within the limits of 35 and 37.9 times this earth's distance from the
sun. The new planet was found in a position said to be 30 times this earth's
distance from the sun. The discrepancy was so great that, in the United
States, astronomers refused to accept that Neptune had been discovered by
means of calculation: see such publications as the American Journal of
Science, of the period.(8) Upon August 29, 1849, Dr. Babinet read, to the
French Academy a paper in which he showed that, by observations of three
years, the revolution of Neptune would have to be placed at 165 years.(9)
Between the limits of 207 and 233 years was the period that Leverrier had
calculated. Simultaneously, in England, Adams had calculated. Upon Sept. 2,
1846, after he had, for at least a month, been charting the stars in the
region toward which Adams had pointed, Prof. Challis wrote to Sir George
Airy that this work would occupy his time for three more months. This
indicates the extent of the region toward which Adams had pointed. [13/14]
The discovery of the asteroids, or in Prof. Chases's not very careful
language, the discovery of the "asteroidal belt as deduced from Bode's Law":
We learn that Baron Von Zach had formed a society of twenty-four astronomers
to search, in accordance with Bode's Law, for "a planet" -- and not "a
group," not "an asteroidal belt" -- between Jupiter and Mars. The
astronomers had organized, dividing the zodiac into twenty-four zones,
assigning each zone to an astronomer. They searched. They found not one
asteroid. Seven or eight hundred are now known.
Philosophical Magazine, 12-62:(10)
That Piazzi, the discoverer of the first asteroid, had not been searching
for a hypothetic body, as deduced from Bode's Law, but, upon an
investigation of his own, had been charting stars in the constellation
Taurus, night of Jan. 1, 1801. He noticed a light that he thought had moved,
and, with his mind a blank, so far as asteroids and brilliant deductions
were concerned, announced that he had discovered a comet.
As an instance of the crafty way in which some astronomers now tell the
story, see Sir Robert Ball's The Story of the Heavens, p. 230:(11)
The organization of astronomers of Lilienthal, but never a hint that Piazzi
was not one of them -- "the search for a small planet was soon rewarded by a
success that has rendered the evening of the first day of the nineteenth
century memorable in astronomy." Ball tells of Piazzi's charting of the
stars, and makes it appear that Piazzi had charted stars as a means of
finding asteroids deductively, rewarded soon by success, whereas Piazzi had
never heard of such a search, and did not know an asteroid when he saw one.
"This laborious and accomplished astronomer had organized an ingenious
system of exploring the heavens, which was eminently calculated to
discriminate a planet among the starry host...at length he was rewarded by a
success which amply compensated him for all his toil."
Prof. Chase -- these two great instances not of mere discovery, but of
discovery by means of calculation according to him -- now the subject of his
supposition that he, too, could calculate triumphantly -- the verification
depended upon the accuracy of [14/15] Prof. Swift and Prof. Watson in
recording the positions of the bodies that they had announced --(12)
Sidereal Messenger, 6-84:(13)
Prof. Colbert, Superintendent of the Dearborn Observatory, leader of the
party of which Prof. Swift was a member, says that the observations by Swift
and Watson agreed, because Swift had made his observations agree with
Watson's. The accusation is not that Swift had falsely announced a discovery
of two unknown bodies, but that his precise determining of positions had
occurred after Watson's determinations had been published. The accusation is
not that Swift had falsely announced a discovery of two unknown bodies, but
that his precise determining of positions had occurred after Watson's
determinations had been published.
Popular Astronomy, 7-13:(14)
Prof. Asaph Hall writes that, several days after the eclipse, Prof. Watson
told him that he had seen "a" luminous body near the sun and that his
declaration that he had seen two unknown bodies was not made until after
Swift had been heard from.
Perched upon two delusions, Prof. Chase crowed his false raptures. The
unknown bodies, whether they had ever been in the orbit of his calculations
or not, were never seen again.
So it is our expression that hosts of astronomers calculate, and
calculation-mad, calculate and calculate and calculate, and that when one of
them does point within 600,000,000 miles (by conventional measurements) of
something that is found, he is the Leverrier of the text books; that the
others are the Prof. Chases not of the text books.
As to most of us, the symbols of the infinitesimal calculus humble
independent thinking into the conviction that used to be enforced by drops
of blood from a statue. In the farrago and conflicts of daily lives, it is
relief to feel such a rapport with finality, in a religious sense, or in a
mathematical sense. So then, if the seeming of exactness in Astronomy be
either infamously, or carelessly and laughingly, brought about by the
connivances of which Swift and Watson were accused, and if the prestige of
Astronomy be founded upon nothing but huge capital letters and exclamation
points, or upon the disproportionality of balancing one Leverrier against
hundreds of Chases, it may not be better that we should know this, if then
to those of us who, in the religious sense, have nothing to depend upon,
comes deprivation of even this last, lingering seeming of foundation,
[15/16] or seeming existence of exactness and realness, somewhere --
Except -- that, if there be nearby lands in the sky and beings from foreign
worlds that visit this earth, that is a great subject, and the trash that is
clogging an epoch must be cleared away.
We have had a little sermon upon the insecurity of human triumphs, and,
having brought it to a climax, now seems to be the time to stop; but there
is still an involved "triumph" and I'd not like to have inefficiency, as
well as probably everything else, charged against us --
The Discovery of Uranus.
We mention this stimulus to the text-book writers' ecstasies, because out of
phenomena of the planet Uranus, the "Neptune-triumph" developed. For Richard
Proctor's reasons for arguing that this discovery was not accidental, see
Old and New Astronomy, p.646.(15) Philosophical Transactions, 71-492 -- a
paper by Herschel -- an "account of a Comet discovered on March 13,
1781."(16) A year went by, and not an astronomer in the world knew a planet
when he saw one: then Lexell did find out that the supposed comet was a
planet.(17)
Statues from which used to drip the life-blood of a parasitic cult --
Structures of parabolas from which bleed equations --
As we go along we shall develop the acceptance that astronomers might as
well try to squeeze blood from images as to try to seduce symbols into
conclusions, because applicable mathematics has no more to do with planetary
inter-actions than have statues of saints. If this denial of calculi have
place in gravitational astronomy be accepted, the astronomers lose their
supposed god; they become an unfocussed priesthood; the stamina of their
arrogance wilts. We begin with the next to the simplest problem in celestial
mechanics: that is the formulation of the inter-actions of the sun and the
moon and this earth. In the highest mathematics, final, sacred mathematics,
can this next to the simplest problem in so-called mathematical astronomy be
solved?
It cannot be solved.
Every now and then, somebody announces that he has solved the Problem of the
Three Bodies, but it is always an incomplete, [16/17] or impressionistic
demonstration, compounded of abstractions, and ignoring the conditions of
bodies in space. Over and over we shall find vacancy under supposed
achievements; elaborate structures that are pretensions without foundation.
Here we learn that astronomers can not formulate the inter-actions of three
bodies in space, but calculate anyway, and publish what they call the
formula of a planet that is inter-acting with a thousand other bodies. They
explain. It will be one of our most lasting impressions of astronomers: they
explain and explain and explain. The astronomers explain that, though in
finer terms, the mutual effects of three planets can not be determined, so
dominant is the power of the sun that all other effects are negligible.
Before the discovery of Uranus, there was no way by which the miracles of
the astro-magicians could be tested. They said that their formulas worked
out, and external inquiry was panic-stricken at the mention of a formula.
But Uranus was discovered, and the magicians were called upon to calculate
his path. They did calculate, and, if Uranus had moved in a regular path, I
do not mean to say that astronomers or college boys have no mathematics by
which to determine anything so simple.
They computed the orbit of Uranus.
He went somewhere else.
They explained. They computed some more. They went on explaining and
computing, year in and year out, and the planet Uranus kept on going
somewhere else. Then they conceived of a powerful perturbing force beyond
Uranus -- so then that at the distance of Uranus the sun is not so dominant
-- in which case the effects of Saturn upon Uranus and Uranus upon Saturn
are not so negligible -- on through complexes of inter-actions that
infinitely intensify by cumulativeness into a black outlook for the whole
brilliant system. The palæo-astronomers calculated, and for more than fifty
years pointed variously at the sky. Finally two of them, of course agreeing
upon the general background of Uranus, pointed within distances that are
conventionally supposed to have been about six hundred millions of miles of
Neptune, and now it is religiously, if not insolently, said that the
discovery of Neptune was not accidental -- [17/18]
That the test of that which is not accidental is ability to do it again --
That it is within the power of anybody, who does not know a hyperbola from a
cosine, to find out whether the astronomers are led by a cloud of rubbish by
day and a pillar of bosh by night --
If, by the magic of his mathematics, any astronomer could have pointed to
the position of Neptune, let him point to the planet past Neptune. According
to the same reasoning by which a planet past Uranus was supposed to be, a
Trans-Neptunian planet may be supposed to be. Neptune shows perturbations
similar to those of Uranus.
According to Prof. Todd there is such a planet, and it revolves around the
sun once in 375 years.(18) There are two according to Prof. Forbes: one
revolving once in 1,000 years, and the other once in 5,000 years. See
Macpherson's A Century's Progress in Astronomy.(19) It exists according to
Dr. Eric Doolittle, and revolves once in 283 years, (Sci. Amer., 122-
641).(20) According to Mr. Hind it revolves once in 1,600 years, (Smithson.
Miscell. Cols., 20-20).(21)
So then we have found out some things, and, relatively to the oppressions
that we felt from our opposition, they are reassuring. But also they are
depressing. Because, if, in this existence of ours, there is no prestige
higher than that of astronomic science, and, if that seeming of substantial
renown has been achieved by a composition of bubbles, what of anything like
soundness must there be to all lesser reputes and achievements?
Let three bodies inter-act. There is no calculus by which their inter-
actions can be formulated. But there are a thousand inter-acting bodies in
this solar system -- or supposed solar system -- and we find that the higher
prestige in our existence is built upon the tangled assertions that there
are magicians who can compute in a thousand quantities, though they cannot
compute in three.
Then all other so-called human triumphs, or moderate successes, products of
anybody's reasoning processes and labors -- and what are they, if higher
than them all, more academic, austere, rigorous, exact are the methods and
the processes of the astro- [18/19] nomers? What can be thought of our whole
existence, its nature and its destiny?
That our existence, a thing within one solar system, or supposed solar
system, is a stricken thing that is mewling through space, shocking able-
minded, healthy systems with the sores on its sun, its ghastly moons, its
civilizations that are all broken out with sciences; a celestial leper,
holding out doddering expanses into which charitable systems drop golden
comets? If it be the leprous thing that our findings seem to indicate, there
is no encouragement for us to go on. We cannot discover: we can only betray
new symptoms. If I be part of such a stricken thing, I know of nothing but
sickness and sores and rags to reason with: my data will be pustules; my
interpretations will be inflammations -- [19]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Pliny Earle Chase. "Prediction confirmed." Journal of the Franklin
Institute, 106 (October 1878): 286.
2. Pliny Earle Chase. "Another verification of prediction." Journal of the
Franklin Institute, 106 (November 1878): 353.
3. Pliny Earle Chase. "A third verification of prediction." Journal of the
Franklin Institute, 107 (March 1879): 210.
4. Francis Bacon. Peter Urbach, and, John Gibson, trans. & eds. Novum
Organum. Chicago: Open Court, 1994, 57-8; c.v. Book 1, Aphorism 46. "The
same reasoning can be seen in every superstition, whether in astrology,
dreams, omens, nemesis and the like, in which men find such vanities
pleasing, and take note of events where they are fulfilled, but where they
are not (even if this happens much more often), they disregard them and pass
them by."
5. For further reference: Pliny Earle Chase. "Cosmical and molecular
harmonies," and, "Recent confirmation of an astronomical prediction,"
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 13 (1873): 237-52, 470-7.
And: Pliny Earle Chase. "Astronomical forecasts," Journal of the Franklin
Institute, 106 (November 1878): 314-20, at 314. Also: "Discovery of the
planet Vulcan," and, "The planet Vulcan," Journal of the Franklin Institute,
106 (September 1878; October 1878): 204, 281.
6. Unparalleled, sic.
7. Robert Ball. The Story of the Heavens. Rev. ed. New York: Cassell and
Co., 1905, 322-33. Leverrier had to rise from his calculations at least
twice, for his first announcement failed to prompt the discovery of a trans-
Uranian planet. Lowell states: "Leverrier's first memoir on the subject was
presented to the French Academy on November 10, 1845, that giving the place
of the disturbing planet on June 1, 1846. There is no evidence that the
slightest search in consequence was made by anybody, with the possible
exception of the Naval Observatory at Washington. On August 31 he presented
his third paper, giving an orbit, mass, and more precise place for the
unknown. Still no search followed." And, it remained for Leverrier to write
to Galle at Berlin and prompt him to look for the planet before it was
discovered. Percival Lowell. The Evolution of Worlds. New York: Macmillan
Co., 1909, 122.
8. "Supposed new planet." American Journal of Science, s.2, 2 (1846): 281.
"LeVerrier's planet." American Journal of Science, s.2, 2 (1846): 439.
"LeVerrier's planet." American Journal of Science, s.2 v.3 (1847): 128-32.
"The new planet Neptune." American Journal of Science, s.2, 3 (1847): 441-3.
Sears C. Walker, "The planet Neptune and its relations to the perturbations
of Uranus." American Journal of Science, s.2, 4 (1847): 132-5. "Neptune, its
supposed ring and satellite." American Journal of Science, s.2, 4 (1847):
287. "Satellite of the planet Neptune." s.2, 5 (1848): 135-6. Sears C.
Walker. "Planet Neptune." American Journal of Science, s.2, 5 (1848): 153.
E. Loomis. "Historical notice of the discovery of the planet Neptune."
American Journal of Science, s.2, 5 (1848): 187-205. "Satellite of Neptune."
American Journal of Science, s.2, 5 (1848): 282. E. Loomis. "The relations
of Neptune to Uranus." American Journal of Science, s.2, 5 (1848): 435-7.
Enoch F. Burr. "Results of analytical researches in the Neptunian theory of
Uranus." American Journal of Science, s.2, 6 (1848): 236-44. Sears C.
Walker. "Neptune." American Journal of Science, s.2, 6 (1848): 277-
8."LeVerrier's remarks on the planet Neptune." American Journal of Science,
s.2, 7 (1849): 118-22. "LeVerrier's further vindication of his predicted
theory of Neptune." American Journal of Science, s.2, 7 (1849): 442-7.
9. As Neptune's orbit and mass differed so greatly from Leverrier's
hypothetical planet, Babinet proposed the existence of a Trans-Neptunian
planet, (which he named "Hyperion"), at a distance of 47 or 48 astronomical
units and a revolution double that of Neptune. Jacques Babinet.
"Speculations on the next planet beyond Neptune." American Journal of
Science, s.2, 6 (1848): 438-9.
10. Von Zach. "Reflections on the new primary planet supposed to exist
between Mars and Jupiter, and now in all probability discovered."
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 12 (1802): 62-80, at 68-9.
11. Robert Ball. The Story of the Heavens. Rev ed. New York: Cassell and
Co., 1905, 230-1. Correct quote: "The search for the small planet was soon
rewarded by a success which has rendered the evening of the first day in the
nineteenth century memorable in astronomy."
12. Charles Augustus Young claimed that Swift's objects were not the same as
Watson's; because, Swift estimated his two objects were from 7' to 12'
apart, and Watson's objects were estimated to be 4 apart. "The Swift-Watson
Intra-Mercurial observations." Sidereal Messenger, 6 (March 1887): 117.
13. E. Colbert. "The Swift-Watson Intra-Mercurial planet." Sidereal
Messenger, 6, 84-5.
14. Asaph Hall. "Plus probans quam necesse est." Popular Astronomy, 7
(January 1899): 13-4. Hall states that, in Colorado, Watson said he thought
he had found a Vulcan, and, on Hall's return to Washington, Watson was
claiming to have discovered two Vulcans. No mention is made of Swift's
observation in this article.
15. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892, 646.
16. Wilhelm Herschel. "Account of a comet." Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London, 71 (1781): 492-3.
17. Percival Lowell. The Evolution of Worlds. New York: Macmillan Co., 1909,
115.
18. "A planet outside Neptune." Knowledge, 1 (November 18, 1881): 52. David
Peck Todd. "Preliminary account of a speculative and practical search for a
Trans-Neptunian planet." American Journal of Science, s. 3, 20 (no. 117;
September 1880): 225-34, at 225.
19. Hector MacPherson. A Century's Progress in Astronomy. London: William
Blackwood and Sons, 1906, 122. Chambers indicates that Flammarion's claim
that a trans-Neptunian planet exists was "worked out with considerable
ingenuity and care, but with materials borrowed, without acknowledgement,
from others," and states: "Forbes seems to have been the originator of the
theory." George Frederick Chambers. A Handbook of Descriptive and Practical
Astronomy. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889,
20. "The Trans-Neptunian planet." Scientific American, n.s. 122 (June 12,
1920): 641.
21. "151st Meeting. December 7, 1878." Bulletin of the Philosophical Society
of Washington," 3 (1878-80): 20-1. Reprint, Miscellaneous Collections of the
Smithsonian Institute, 20 (1881): 20-1. "Letter of Lieutenant Maury to Hon.
William A. Graham, Secretary of the Navy." Astronomical Journal, 2, 53. Hind
also gave its distance from the sun as "137" astronomical units. John
Russell Hind. "Letter from Mr. Hind to the Editor." Astronomical Journal, 2,
78. Other calculations made indicated that it might be a planet "49.94"
astronomical units from the sun with an orbit lasting 351 years; but, the
failure to find this planet by searchers in America and Europe led to the
belief that it might be a variable star. "A missing star." Nature, 18
(Octber 31, 1878): 698. However, an examination of James Ferguson's
observations by Asaph Hall and C.H.F. Peters yielded the explanation of this
alleged planet to be "a well-known fixed star." No explanation of Ferguson's
measure of the star's movement is given; but, Rodgers states: "For some
unknown reason, Mr. Ferguson in his reductions changed all his correct
observations to correspond with his erroneous ones." C.H.F. Peters.
"Investigation of the evidence of a supposed trans-Neptunian planet in the
Washington observations of 1850." And, "Letter from Admiral John Rodgers,
Superintendent of Naval Observatory at Washington." Astronomische
Nachrichten, n.2240 c.113-6.
CHAPTER THREE
SOUTHERN plantations and the woolly heads of negroes pounding the ground --
cries in northern regions and round white faces turned to the sky -- fiery
globes in the sky -- a study in black, white, and golden formations in one
general glow. Upon the night of November 13-14, 1833, occurred the most
sensational celestial spectacle of the nineteenth century: for six hours
fiery meteors gushed from the heavens, and were visible along the whole
Atlantic coast of the United States.
One supposes that astronomers do not pound the ground with their heads, and
presumably they do not screech, but they have feelings just the same. They
itched. Here was something to formulate. When he hears of something new and
unquestionable in the sky, an astronomer is diseased with ill-suppressed
equations. Symbols persecute him for expression. His is the frenzy of
someone who would stop automobiles, railroad trains, bicycles, all things,
to measure them; run, with a yardstick, after sparrows, flies, all persons
passing his door. This is supposed to be scientific, but it can be
monomaniac. Very likely the distress and the necessity of Prof. Olmstead
were keenest. He was the first to formulate. He "demonstrated" that these
meteors, known as the Leonids, revolved around the sun once in six
months.(1)
They didn't.
Then Prof. Newton "demonstrated" that the "real" period was thirty-three and
a quarter years.(2) But this was done empirically, and that is not divine,
nor even aristocratic, and the thing would have to be done rationally, or
mathematically, by someone, because, if there be not mathematical treatment,
in gravitational terms, of such phenomena, astronomers are in reduced
circumstances. It was Dr. Adams, who, emboldened with his experience in not
having to point anywhere near Neptune, but nevertheless being acclaimed by
all patriotic Englishmen as the real discoverer of Neptune, mathematically
"confirmed" Prof. [20/21] Newton's "findings." Dr. Adams predicted that the
Leonids would return in November, 1866, and in November, 1899, occupying
several years, upon each occasion, in passing a point in this earth's orbit.
There were meteors upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1866. They were plentiful.
They often are in the middle of November. They no more resembled the
spectacle of 1833 than an ordinary shower resembles a cloudburst. But the
"demonstration" required that there should be an equal display, or,
according to some aspects, a greater display, upon the corresponding night
of the next year. There was a display, the next year; but it was in the sky
of the United States, and was not seen in England. Another occurrence
nothing like that of 1833 was reported from the United States.
By conventional theory, this earth was in a vast, wide stream of meteors,
the earth revolving so as to expose successive parts to bombardment. So
keenly did Richard Proctor visualize the earth so immersed and so bombarded,
that, when nothing was seen in England, he explained. He spend most of his
life explaining. In the Student, 2-254, he wrote: "Had the morning of Nov.
14, 1867 been clear in England, we should have seen the commencement of the
display, but not its more brilliant part."(3)
We have had some experience with the "triumphs" of astronomers: we have some
suspicions as to their greatly advertised accuracy. We shall find out for
ourselves whether the morning of Nov. 14, 1867 was clear enough in England
or not. We suspect that it was a charming morning, in England --
Monthly Notices, R.A.S.' 28-32:(4)
Report by E.J. Lowe, Highfield House, night of Nov. 13-14, 1867:
"Clear at 1.10 A.M.; high, thin cumuli, at 2 A.M., but sky not covered until
3.10 A.M., and the moon's place visible until 3.55 A.M.; sky not overcast
until 5.50 A.M."
The determination of the orbital period of thirty-three years and a quarter,
but with appearances of a period of thirty-three years, was arrived at by
Prof. Newton by searching old records, finding that, in an intersection-
period of thirty-three years, there [21/22] had been extraordinary meteoric
displays, from the year 902 A.D. to the year 1833 A.D.(5) He reminds me of
an investigator who searched old records for appearances of Halley's comet,
and found something that he identified as Halley's comet, exactly on time,
every seventy-five years back to times of the Roman Empire. See the
Edinburgh Review, vol. 66.(6) It seems that he did not know that orthodoxy
does not attribute exactly a seventy-five year period to Halley's comet. He
got what he went looking for, anyway. I have no disposition for us to enjoy
ourselves at Prof. Newton's expense, because, surely enough, his method, if
regarded as only experimental, or tentative, is legitimate enough, though
one does suspect him of very loose behavior in his picking and choosing. But
Dr. Adams announced that, upon mathematical grounds, he had arrived at the
same conclusion.
The test:
The next return of the Leonids was predicted for November, 1899.
Memoirs of the British Astronomical Association, 9-6:(7)
"No meteoric event ever before aroused such widespread interest, or so
grievously disappointed anticipation."
There were no Leonids in November, 1899.
It was explained. They would be seen next year.
There were no Leonids in November, 1900.
It was explained. They would be seen next year.
No Leonids.(8)
Vaunt and inflation and parade of the symbols of the infinitesimal calculus;
the pomp of vectors, and the hush that surrounds quaternions: but when an
axis of co-ordinates loses its rectitude, in the service of a questionable
selection, disciplined symbols become a rabble. The Most High of Mathematics
-- and one of his supposed prophets points to the sky. Nowhere near where he
points, something is found. He points to a date -- nothing happens.
Prof. Serviss, in Astronomy in a Nutshell, explains.(9) He explains that the
Leonids did not appear when they should have appeared, because Jupiter and
Saturn had altered their orbits.
Back in the times of the Crusades, and nothing was disturb- [22/23] ing the
Leonids -- and if you're stronger for dates than I am, think of some more
dates, and nothing was altering the orbit of the Leonids -- discovery of
America, and the Spanish Armada, in 1588, which, by some freak, I always
remember, and no effects by Jupiter and Saturn -- French revolution and on
to the year 1866, and still nothing the matter with the Leonids -- but, once
removed from "discovery" and "identification," and that's the end of their
period, diverted by Jupiter and Saturn, old things that had been up in the
sky at least as long as they had been. If we're going to accept the calculi
at all, the calculus of probabilities must have a hearing. My own opinion,
based upon reading many accounts of November meteors, is that decidedly the
display of 1833 did not repeat in 1866: that a false priest sinned and that
an equally false highpriest gave him sanction.
The tragedy goes comically on. I feel that, to all good Neo-astronomers, I
can recommend the following serenity from an astronomer who was unperturbed
by what happened to his science, in November, 1899, and some more Novembers
--
Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 252:(10)
That the meteoric display of 1899 had failed to appear -- "as had been
predicted by Dr. Downing and Dr. Johnstone Stoney."
One starts to enjoy this disguisement, thinking of virtually all the
astronomers of the world who had predicted the return of the Leonids, and
the find, by Bryant, of two who had not, and his recording only the opinion
of these two, coloring so as to look like another triumph -- but we may
thank our sorely stimulated suspiciousness for still richer enjoyment --
That even these two said no such saving thing --
Nature, Nov. 9, 1899:(11)
Dr. Downing and Dr. Stoney, instead of predicting failure of the Leonids to
appear, advise watch for them several hours later than had been calculated.
I conceive of the astronomers' fictitious paradise as malarchitectural with
corrupted equations, and paved with rotten symbols. Seemingly pure, white
fountains of formal vanities -- boasts that are gushing from decomposed
triumphs. We shall find their furnishings shabby with tarnished comets. We
turn expectantly to the subject of comets; or we turn cynically to [23/24]
the subject. We turn maliciously to the subject of comets. Nevertheless,
threading the insecurities of our various feelings, is a motif that is the
steady essence of Neo-astronomy:
That, in celestial phenomena, as well as in all other fields of research,
the irregular, or the unformulable, or the uncapturable, is present in at
least equal representation with the uniform: that, given any clear,
definite, seemingly unvarying thing in the heavens, co-existently is
something of wantonness or irresponsibility, bizarre and incredible,
according to the standards of purists -- that the science of Astronomy
concerns itself with only one aspect of existence, because of course there
can be no science of the obverse phenomena -- which is good excuse for so
enormously disregarding, if we must have the idea that there are real
sciences, but which shows the hopelessness of positively attempting.
The story of the Comets, as not told in Mr. Chambers' book of that title, is
almost unparalleled in the annals of humiliation. When a comet is predicted
to return, that means faith in the Law of Gravitation. It is Newtonism that
comets, as well as planets, obey the Law of Gravitation, and move in one of
the conic sections. When a comet does not return when it "should," there is
no refuge for an astronomer to say that planets perturbed it, because one
will ask why he did not include such factors in his calculations, if these
phenomena be subject to mathematical treatment.(12) In his book, Mr.
Chambers avoids, or indicates that he never heard of, a great deal that will
receive cordiality from us, but he does publish a list of predicted comets
that did not return. Writing, in 1909, he mentions others for which he had
hopes:(13)
Brooks' First Periodic Comet (1886, IV) -- "We must see what the years 1909
and 1910 bring forth." This is pretty indefinite anticipation -- however,
nothing was brought forth, according to Monthly Notices, R.A.S., 1909 and
1910: the Brooks' comet that is recorded is Brooks', 1889. Giacobini's
Second Periodical Comet (1900, III) -- not seen in 1907 -- "so we shall have
no chance of knowing anything more about it until 1914." No more known about
it in 1914. Borelly's Comet (1905, II) -- "Its [24/25] expected return in
1911, or 1912, will be awaited with interest." This is pretty indefinite
awaiting: it is now said that this comet did return upon Sept. 19, 1911.
Denning's Second Periodic Comet (1894, I) -- expected, in 1909, but not seen
up to Mr. Chambers' time of writing -- no mention in Monthly Notices.
Swift's Comet, of Nov. 20, 1894 -- "must be regarded as lost, unless it
should be found in December, 1912." No mention of it in Monthly Notices.
Three comets were predicted to return in 1913 -- not one of them returned,
(Monthly Notices, 74-326).(14)
Once upon a time, armed with some of the best and latest cynicisms, I was
hunting for prey in the Magazine of Science, and came upon an account of a
comet that was expected in the year 1848. I supposed that the thing had been
positively predicted, and very likely failed to appear, and, for such common
game, had no interest. But I came upon the spoor of disgrace, in the word
"triumph" -- "If it does come, it will afford another astronomical triumph"
(Mag. of Sci., 1848-107).(15) The astronomers had predicted the return of
the great comet in the year 1848.(16) In Monthly Notices, April, 1847, Mr.
Hind says that the result of his calculations had satisfied him that the
identification had been complete, and that, in all probability, "the comet
must be very near."(17) Accepting Prof. Mädler's determinations, he
predicted that the comet would return to position nearest the sun, about the
end of February, 1848.(18)
No comet.
The astronomers explained. I don't know what the mind of an astronomers
looks like, but I think of a fizzle with excuses revolving around it. A
writer in the American Journal of Science, 2-9-442, explains
excellently.(19) It seems that, when the comet failed to return, Mr. Barber,
at Etwell, again went over the calculations. He found that, between the
years 1556 and 1592, the familiar attractions of Jupiter and Saturn had
diminished the comet's period by 263 days, but that something else had
wrought an effect that he set down positively at 751 days, with a resulting
retardation of 488 days. This is magic that would petrify, with chagrin, the
arteries of the hemorrhagicalest [25/26] statue that ever convinced the
faithful -- reaching back through three centuries of inter-actions, which,
without divine insight, are unimaginable when occurring in three seconds --
But there was no comet.
The astronomers explained. They went on calculating, and ten years later
were still calculating. See Recreative Science, 1860-139.(20) It would be
heroic were it not mania. What was the matter with Mr. Barber, at Etwell,
and the intellectual tentacles that he had thrust through centuries is not
made clear in the most contemporaneous accounts; but, in the year 1857, Mr.
Hind published a pamphlet and explained. It seems that researches by Littrow
had given new verification to a path that had been computed for the comet,
and that nothing had been the matter with Mr. Barber, of Etwell, except his
insufficiency of data, which had been corrected. Mr. Hind predicted. He
pointed to the future, but he pointed like someone closing a thumb and
spreading four fingers. Mr. Hind said that, according to Halley's
calculations, the comet would arrive in the summer of 1865. However, an
acceleration of five years had been discovered, so that the time should be
set down for the middle of August, 1860. However, according to Mr. Hind's
calculated orbit, the comet might return in the summer of 1864. However,
allowing for acceleration, "the comet is found to be due early in August,
1858."(21)
Then Bomme calculated. He predicted that the comet would return upon August
2, 1858.
There was no comet.
The astronomers went on calculating. They predicted that the comet would
return on Aug. 22, 1860.(22)
No comet.(23)
But I think that a touch of mercy is a luxury that we can afford; anyway,
we'll have to be merciful or monotonous. For variety we shall switch from a
comet that did not appear to one that did appear. Upon the night of June 30,
1861, a magnificent humiliator appeared in the heavens. One of the most
brilliant luminosities of modern times appeared as suddenly as if it were
dropped through the shell of our solar system -- if it be a solar system.
There were letters in the newspapers: correspondents [26/27] wanted to know
why this extraordinary object had not been seen coming, by astronomers. Mr.
Hind explained. He wrote that the comet was a small object and consequently
had not been seen coming by astronomers. No one could deny the magnificence
of the comet; nevertheless Mr. Hind declared that it was very small, looking
so large because it was near this earth. This is not the later explanation:
nowadays it is said that the comet had been in southern skies, where it had
been observed. All contemporaneous astronomers agreed that the comet had
come down from the north, and not one of them thought of explaining that it
had been invisible because it had been in the south. A luminosity, with a
mist around it, altogether the apparent size of the moon, had burst into
view. In Recreative Science, 3-143, Webb says that nothing like it had been
seen since the year 1680.(24) Nevertheless the orthodox pronouncement was
that the object was small and would fade away as quickly as it had appeared.
See the Athenaeum, July 6, 1861 -- "So small an object will very soon get
beyond our view." (Hind)(25)
Popular Science Review, 1-513:(26)
That, in April, 1862, the thing was still visible.
Something else that was seen under circumstances that cannot be considered
triumphant -- upon Nov. 28, 1872, Prof. Klinkerfues, of Göttingen, looking
for Biela's comet, saw meteors in the path of the expected comet. He
telegraphed to Pogson, of Madras, to look near the star Theta Centauri, and
he would see the comet. I'd not say that this was in the field of magic, but
it does seem consummate. A dramatic telegram like this electrifies the
faithful -- an astronomer in the north telling an astronomer in the south
where to look, so definitely naming one special little star in skies
invisible in the north. Pogson looked where he was told to look and
announced that he saw what he was told to see. But at meetings of the R. A.
S., Jan. 10 and March 14, 1873, Captain Tupman pointed out that, even if
Biela's comet had appeared, it would have been nowhere near this star.
Among our later emotions will be indignation against all astronomers who say
that they know whether stars are approaching or receding. When we arrive at
that subject it will be the [27/28] preciseness of the astronomers that will
perhaps inflame us beyond endurance. We note here the far smaller difficulty
of determining whether a relatively nearby comet is coming or going. Upon
Nov. 6, 1892, Edwin Holmes discovered a comet. In the Jour. B. A. A., 3-182,
Holmes writes that different astronomers had calculated its distance from
twenty million miles to two hundred million miles and had determined its
diameter to be all the way from twenty-seven thousand miles to three hundred
thousand miles.(27) Prof. Young said that the comet was approaching; Prof.
Parkhurst wrote merely that the impression was that the comet was
approaching the earth; but Prof. Berberich, (Eng. Mec., 56-316) announced
that, upon Nov. 6, Holmes' comet had been 36,000,000 miles from this earth,
and 6,000,000 miles away upon the 16th, and that the approach was so rapid
that, upon the 21st the comet would touch this earth.(28)
The comet, which had been receding, kept on receding. [28]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Olmsted reasoned that the period of the Leonid meteors must be a year or
a fraction of a year, if the Leonids intersected with the earth's orbit each
November; and, he calculated that their period could not be a third of a
year or less. He believed their period to be either a year or half a year
and favoured the latter period: "...I feel authorized finally to conclude,
That the meteors of Nov. 13th, consisted of portions of the extreme parts of
a nebulous body, which revolves around the sun in an orbit interior to that
of the earth, but little inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, having its
path near to the earth's path, and having a periodic time of 182 days,
nearly." Denison Olmsted. "Observations on the meteors of November 13th,
1833." American Journal of Science, s. 1, 25 (1834): 363-411, and, 26
(1834): 132-74, at 166 & 172. Denison Olmsted. Letters of Astronomy
Addressed to a Lady. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1849, 359-64.
2. "The period favoured by H.A. Newton was 354 days; another suggestion was
375 days, and another 33 years. He noticed the advance of the date of the
shower between 902 and 1833, at a rate of one day in seventy years, meant a
progression of the node of the orbit. Adams undertook to calculate what the
amount would be on all five suppositions that had been made about the
period. After a laborious work, he found that none gave one day in seventy
years except the 33-year period, which did so exactly. H.A. Newton predicted
a return of the shower on the night of November 13th-14th, 1866." George
Forbes. History of Astronomy. London: Watts & Co., 1909, 124. Newton had
earlier stated the meteor showers observed in 585, 902, 1582, 1698, 1799,
and 1833 "appeared" to be the same "November shower." Hubert Anson Newton.
"Evidence of the cosmical origin of shooting stars derived from the dates of
early star showers." American Journal of Science, s. 2, 36 (July 1863): 145-
9, at 147. However, when the 33-year period was favored, the meteors
observed on October 25, 585, and on November 7, 1582, were not mentioned in
his later chronology, as the dates were incompatible with this period.
Hubert Anson Newton. "The original accounts of the displays in former times
of the November Star-Shower." American Journal of Science, s. 2, 37 (May
1864): 377-89, and, 38 (July 1864): 53-61.
3. Richard Anthony Proctor. "The November shooting-stars." Student and
Intellectual Observer, 2 (1869): 254-66. Correct quote: "...had the morning
of November 14th, 1867, been clear...."
4. E.J. Lowe. "14th November, Meteor epoch 1867." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 28 (December 1867): 32. Lowe only reported one
"colourless meteor" at 1:27 A.M.; however, he also reported on these viewing
conditions, (not quoted).
5. H.A. Newton obtained his period of 33-years by mathematical methods; for,
he divided the difference in years between 1833 and 902 (or 931) by 28
periods, which equals 33. His explanation of the differences between
extraordinary displays found in historical records, which were 29 or 34
years apart (such as were observed in 902 and 931, or in 1799 and 1833), was
that some were seen at the beginning of a cycle and others at the close of a
cycle; and, hence, the time in a cycle with extraordinary meteor displays
might last "at least 2.25 years," and unusual numbers of meteors might be
seen "through a period of five or six years, at least." Hubert Anson Newton.
"The original accounts of the displays in former times of the November Star-
Shower." American Journal of Science, s. 2, 37 (May 1864): 377-89, and, 38
(July 1864): 53-61.
6. "The approaching comet." Edinburgh Review, 61 (April 1835): 82-128, at
90-3.
7. "Report of the Section, 1899. (Section for the observation of meteors.)"
Memoirs of the British Astronomical Association, 9, 1-26, at 6. Correct
quote: "...such an intense and widespread interest...."
8. "No great storm occurred at the predicted return in 1899. The reason for
the failure was the planet Jupiter. On its way toward the Sun, the swarm
passed by Jupiter in 1898, and the gravitational pull of the planet
deflected the particles away from the Earth by 1,250,000 miles (2 million
km.). The displays of 1932 and 1933 were not particularly exciting either,
and many people felt that the Leonids were past their best. However, in 1966
the greatest meteor display in recorded history was seen by observers in the
mid-western United States." The non-appearance of the Leonids in 1899 was
explained, by the gravitational deflection of Jupiter, (which had not done
much perturbing "back to AD 902"); and, associating these meteor-showers
with Comet P/Tempel-Tuttle 1886 I, more predictions are made for 1997, 1998,
and 1999, with November 17, 1998, said to be the "best date." Patrick Moore,
ed. The International Encyclopedia of Astronomy. New York: Orion Books,
1987, 228-9.
9. Garett Putnam Serviss. Astronomy in a Nutshell. New York: G.P. Putnams,
1912, 213.
10. Walter William Bryant. A History of Astronomy. London: Methuen & Co.,
1907, 255. Correct quote: "The Leonid display predicted in 1899 also failed,
as had been predicted by Dr. Johnstone Stoney, of Dublin, and Dr. Downing,
of the Nautical Almanac Office, would be the result of perturbations by
Jupiter and Saturn."
11. G. Johnstone Stoney, and, A.M.W. Downing. "Next week's Leonid shower."
Nature, 61 (November 9, 1899): 28-9.
12. "Halley was the first astronomer to prove that comets were periodic. As
predicted, `his' comet did return in December 1758 and by popular acclaim
was named after him. Out of the twenty-four comets in his 1705 table only
one was truly periodic. Scientists had to wait until 1822 before the
reappearance of Comet Encke (a comet that orbits the Sun every 3.3 years)
added the second periodic comet to the list." David W. Hughes. "Halley's
interest in comets." Norman J.W. Thrower, ed. Standing on the Shoulders of
Giants: A Longer View of Newton and Halley. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1990, 368.
13. George Frederick Chambers. Story of the Comets. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1909; 81, 83, 84, 94. Brooks' First Periodic Comet (1886 IV or D/1886 K1),
Denning's Second Periodic Comet (1894 I or D/1894 F1), and Swift's Comet of
November 20, 1894, (D/1895 Q1), have not been reported by astronomers, since
they last observed in 1886, 1894, and 1895, and are considered lost.
Giacobini's Second Periodical Comet, (1900 III, or Giacobini-Zinner 21P),
was most recently observed in 1992 and is expected again in 1998. Borrelly's
Comet, (1905 II or 19P; not Borelly's), was last observed in 1994 and is
expected again in 2001. "Rediscovery of Brooks's Periodical Comet (1889 V.),
1910d." Nature, 84 (October 6, 1910): 438-9. "Discovery of Borrelly's Comet
(1905 II., 1911e)." Nature, 87 (September 28, 1911): 427.
14. T.E.R.P. "Comets in 1913." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 74 (February 1914): 325-30, at 326. The three comets expected were
Holmes' Comet (1892 III), Finlay's Comet (1886 IV), and Kopff's Comet (1906
IV).
15. Magazine of Science, 1848, 107.
16. The astronomers making this prediction were Halley, Dunthorne, and
Pingrè. George W.F. Chambers. "The expected great comet." Recreative
Science, 1 (1860): 139-40.
17. J.R. Hind. "On the expected reappearance of the celebrated comet of 1264
and 1556." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 7 (April
1847): 260-5. Correct quote: "...its return to perihelion must be very near
at hand."
18. "Sweeping ephemeris for the expected comet...." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 8: 16. John Russell Hind. "Expected comet of
1264 and 1556." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 8 (March
1848): 155.
19. "Expected return of the comet of 1556." American Journal of Science,
s.2, 9 (1850): 442.
20. George W.F. Chambers. "The expected great comet." Recreative Science, 1
(1860): 139-40.
21. John Russell Hind. The Comet of 1556. London: John W. Parker and Son,
1857, 22. No mention is made of "the middle" of August, 1860.
22. George W.F. Chambers. "The expected great comet." Recreative Science, 1
(1860): 139-40.
23. "...it never appeared." George Forbes. History of Astronomy. London:
Watts & Co., 1909, 120.
24. Mary Ward. "The Great Comet of June and July, 1861." Recreative Science,
3, 141-50, at 142-3. The comet was seen by a few observers on the night of
June 29, 1861; and, Webb stated that the last such comet was seen in 1680.
25. "The comet." Athenaeum, 1861 (n.1758; July 6): 19.
26. "New comets and planets." Popular Science Review, o.s., 1 (1862): 513.
27. "Comet Holmes." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 3, 181-
3.
28. "Holme's Comet." English Mechanic, 56 (November 25, 1892): 316, c.v.
letter "34311" by T.A. Pickering.
CHAPTER FOUR
NEVERTHELESS I sometimes doubt that astronomers represent especial
incompetence. They remind me too much of uplifters and grocers,
philanthropists, expert accountants, makers of treaties, characters in
international conferences, psychic researchers, biologists. The astronomers
seem to me about as capitalists seem to socialists, and about as socialists
seem to capitalists, or about as Presbyterians seem to Baptists; as
Democrats seem to Republicans, or as artists of one school seem to artists
of another school. If the basic fallacies, or the absence of base, in every
specialization of thought can be seen by the units of its opposition, why
then we see that all supposed foundations in our whole existence are myths,
and that all discussion and supposed progress are the conflicts of phantoms
and the overthrow of old delusions by new delusions. Nevertheless I am
searching for some wider expression that will rationalize all of us --
conceiving that what we call irrationality is our view of parts and
functions out of relation to an underlying whole; an underlying something
that is working out its development in terms of planets and acids and bugs,
rivers and labor unions and cyclones, politicians and islands and
astronomers. Perhaps we conceive of an underlying nexus in which all things,
in our existence, are different manifestations -- torn by its hurricanes and
quaked by the struggles of Labor against Capital -- and then, for the sake
of balance, requiring relaxations. It has its rougher hoaxes, and some of
the apes and some of the priests, and philosophers and wart hogs are nothing
short of horse play; but the astronomers are the ironies of its less
peasant-like
moments -- or the deliciousness of pretending to know whether a far-away
star is approaching or receding, and at the same time exactly predicting
when a nearby comet, which is receding, will complete its approach. This is
cosmic playfulness; such pleasantries enable Existence to bear its
catastrophes. Shattered comets and sickened nations and [29/30] the
hydrogenic anguishes of the sun -- and there must be astronomers for the
sake of relaxations.
It will be important to us that the astronomers shall not be less
unfortunate in their pronouncements upon motions of the stars than they have
turned out to be in other respects. Especially disagreeable to us is the
doctrine that stars are variable because dark companies revolve around them;
also we prefer to find that nothing fit for matured minds has been
determined as to stars with light companions that encircle, or revolve with
them. If silence be the only true philosophy, and if every positive
assertion be a myth, we should easily find requital for our negative
preferences.
Prof. Otto Struve was one of the highest of the astronomic authorities, and
the faithful attribute triumphs to him. Upon March 19, 1873, Prof. Struve
announced that he had discovered a companion to the star Procyon. That was
an interesting observation, but the mere observation was not the triumph.
Some time before, Prof. Auwers, as credulous, if not jocular, as Newton and
Leverrier and Adams, had computed the orbit of a hypothetic companion of
Procyon's. Upon a chart of the stars, he had drawn a circle around Procyon.
This orbit was calculated in gravitational terms, and a general theme of
ours is that all such calculations are only ideal, and relate no more to
stars and planets or anything else than do the spotless theories of
uplifters to events that occur as spots in the one wide daub of existence.
Specifically we wish to discredit this "triumph" of Struve's and Auwers',
but in general we continue our expression that all uses of the calculus of
celestial mechanics are false applications, and that this subject is for
æsthetic enjoyment only, and has no place in the science of astronomy, if
anybody can think that there is such a science. So, after great labor, or
after considerable enjoyment, Auwers drew a circle around Procyon, and
announced that that was the orbit of a companion-star. Exactly at the point
in this circle where it "should" be, upon March 19, 1873, Struve saw a point
of light which, it may be accepted, sooner or later someone would see.
According to Agnes Clerke (System of the Stars, p.173) over and over Struve
watched the point of light, and convinced himself that it moved as it
"should" move, [30/31] exactly in the calculated orbit.(1) In Reminiscences
of an Astronomer, p. 138, Prof. Newcomb tells the story.(2) According to
him, an American astronomer then did more than confirm Struve's
observations: he not only saw but exactly measured the supposed companion.
A defect was found between the lenses of Struve's telescope: it was found
that this telescope showed a similar "companion," about 10" from every large
star. It was found that the more than "confirmatory" determinations by the
American astronomer had been upon "a long well known star." (Newcomb)(3)
Every astronomic triumph is a bright light accompanied by an imbecility,
which may for a while make it variable with diminishments and then go
unnoticed. Priestcrafts are not merely tyrannies: they're necessities. There
must be more reassuring ways of telling this story. The good priest J.E.
Gore (Studies in Astronomy, p. 104) tells it safely -- not a thing except
that, in the year 1873, a companion of Procyon's was, by Struve, "strongly
suspected."(4) Positive assurances of the sciences -- they are islands of
seeming stability in a cosmic jelly. We shall eclipse the story of Algol
with some modern disclosures. In all minds not convinced that earnest and
devoted falsifiers are holding back Development, the story, if remembered at
all, will soon renew its fictitious lustre. We are centers of tremors in a
quaking black jelly. A bright and shining delusion looks like beaconed
security.
Sir Robert Ball, in the Story of the Heavens, says that the period in which
Algol blinks his magnitudes is 2 days, 20 hours, 48 minutes and 55
seconds.(5) He gives the details of Prof. Vogel's calculations upon a speck
of light and an invisibility. It is god-like command that out of the
variations of light shall come the diameters of faint appearances and the
distance and velocity of the unseeable -- that the diameter of the point of
light is 1,054,000 miles, and that the diameter of the imperceptibility is
825,000 miles, and that their centers are 3,220,000 miles apart: orbital
velocity of Algol, 26 miles a second, and the orbital velocity of the
companion, 55 miles a second -- should be stated 26.3 miles and 55.4 miles a
second (Proctor, Old and New Astronomy, p. 773).(6) [31/32]
We come to a classic imposition like this, and at first we feel helpless. We
are told that this thing is so. It is as if we were modes of motion and must
go on, but are obstructed by an absolute bar of ultimate steel, shining, in
our way, with an infinite polish.
But all appearances are illusions.
No one with a microscope doubts this; no one who has gone specially from
ordinary beliefs into minuter examination of any subject doubts this, as to
his own specific experience -- so then, broadly, that all appearances are
illusions, and that, by this recognition, we shall dissipate resistances,
monsters, dragons, oppressors that we shall meet in our pilgrimage. This
bar-like calculation is itself a mode of motion. The static cannot
absolutely resist the dynamic, because in the act of resisting it becomes
itself proportionately the dynamic. We learn that modifications rusted into
the steel of our opposition. The period of Algol, which Vogel carried out to
a minute's 55th second, was, after all, so incompetently determined that the
whole impression was nullified --
Astronomical Journal, 11-113:(7)
That, according to Chandler, Algol and his companion do not revolve around
each other merely, but revolve together around some second imperceptibility
-- regularly.
Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, Oct., 1910:(8)
That M. Mora has shown that in Algol's variations there were irregularities
that neither Vogel nor Chandler had accounted for.
The Companion of Sirius looms up to our recognition that the story must be
nonsense, or worse than nonsense -- or that two light comedies will now
disappear behind something darker. The story of the Companion of Sirius is
that Prof. Auwers, having observed, or in his mania for a pencil and
something to scribble upon, having supposed he had observed, motions of the
star Sirius, had deduced the existence of a companion, and had inevitably
calculated its orbit. Early in the year 1862, Alvan Clark Jr. turned his new
telescope upon Sirius, and there, precisely where, according to Auwers'
calculations, it should be, saw the companion. The story is told by Proctor,
writing thirty years later: the finding of the companion, in the "precise
position of the calculations"; [32/33] Proctor's statement that, in the
thirty years following, the companion had "conformed fairly well with the
calculated orbit."(9)
According to the Annual Record of Science and Industry, 1876-18, the
companion, in half the time mentioned by Proctor, had not moved in the
calculated orbit.(10) In the Astronomical Register, 15-186, there are two
diagrams by Flammarion: one is the orbit of the companion, as computed by
Auwers; the other is the orbit, according to a mean of many
observations.(11) They do not conform fairly well. They do not conform at
all.
I am now temporarily accepting that Flammarion and the other observing
astronomers are right, and that the writers like Proctor, who do not say
that they made observations of their own, are wrong, though I have data for
thinking that there is no such companion-star. When Clark turned his
telescope upon Sirius, the companion was found exactly where Auwers said it
would be found. According to Flammarion and the other astronomers, had he
looked earlier or later it would not have been in this position. Then, in
the name of the one calculus that astronomers seem never to have heard of,
by what circumstances could that star have been precisely where it should
be, when looked for, Jan. 31, 1862, if upon all other occasions, it would
not be where it should be?
Astronomical Register, 1-94:(12)
A representation of Sirius -- but with six small stars around him -- an
account, by Dr. Dawes, of observations, by Goldschmidt, upon the "companion"
and five other small stars near Sirius. Dr. Dawes' accusation, or opinion,
is that it scarcely seems possible that some of these other stars were not
seen by Clark. If Alvan Clark saw six stars, at various distances from
Sirius, and picked out the one that was at the required distance, as if that
were the only one, he dignifies our serials with a touch of something other
than comedy. For Goldschmidt's own announcement, see Monthly Notices, R. A.
S., 23-181, 243.(13) [33]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Agnes Mary Clerke. System of the Stars. 2d ed. 1905, 173.
2. Simon Newcomb. Reminiscences of an Astronomer. New York: Houghton,
Mifflin and Co., 1903, 138-40. Newcomb does not identify his "Professor
Blank" as an American.
3. Ibid, 140.
4. John Ellard Gore. Studies in Astronomy. London: Chati and Windus, 1904,
104.
5. Robert Ball. The Story of the Heavens. New York: Cassell and Co., 1901.
Rev. eds., 1901 and 1905, 485. The period was given, by Ball, as: 2 days, 22
hours, 48 minutes and 55 seconds; but, the period given by Fort is the
correct figure, as stated by most astronomers, (or 2.867 days). The extreme
accuracy claimed by H.C. Vogel failed to take into consideration further
variations, beyond the simple hypothesis of an eclipsing binary system.
There was a difference of 6 seconds in the period between its measurements
by Goodricke in 1782 and by Argelander in 1855; and, these variations
occurred with some regularity over a 680 day period, which suggested the
existence of a third star (Algol C). These variations were not enough to be
explained by eclipses, thus a stream of matter is believed to be flowing
from Algol B (a darker subgiant star) to Algol A (the brighter dwarf star);
and, further variations over 32-year and 180-year periods have suggested the
existence of Algol D and Algol E (neither of which has been detected),
magnetic cycles (such as occur in sunspot cycles), apsidal motion produced
by Algol C, or variations in the transfer of mass from Algol B to Algol A.
R.W. Argyle states: "The real nature of the Algol system is still far from
clear. Even after 200 years of continuous observation it stil continues to
evoke considerable interest from astronomers." Patrick Moore, ed. The
International Encyclopedia of Astronomy. New York: Orion Books, 1987, 21-2.
Moulton adds to this mystery of the Algol system: "Sometimes the minima as
determined photographically do not occur at the times found by visual
observations." Forest Ray Moulton. An Introduction to Astronomy. Rev. ed.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1920, 518.
6. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892, 773. Proctor gives the diameter of Algol as 1,061,000 English
miles, the diameter of its satellite as 830,300 English miles, and the
distance apart of their centers as 3,230,000 English miles.
7. S.C. Chandler. "Contributions to the knowledge of the variable stars."
Astronomical Journal, 11, 113-6.
8. Enzo Mora. "Irrégularités dans le mouvement du Satellite d'Algol."
Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 24 (October 1910): 444-5.
Mora states that the irregularities are not accounted for by the hypotheses
of Chandler and Tisserand, but this would also imply disagreement with
Vogel's hypothesis.
9. The existence of a companion of Sirius, (or Sirius B), was first raised
by Bessel, who noted deviations in the movement of Sirius. Friedrich George
Wilhelm Struve. Études D'Astronomie Stellaire. St. Petersburg, Russia:
L'Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1847. Reprint. New York: Arno Press,
1981; 47, "Notes": 26-7, 51-7. The companion was the first white dwarf star
observed; but, if it is no more than twenty astronomical units from Sirius
A, the stars would appear adjacent to each other, (for a similar adjacent
pair, see Krueger 60). Johannes Adrianus Friedrich De Rijk (Bruno Ernst),
and, Tjomme Edzart De Vries. D.R. Walsh, trans. Atlas of the Universe.
London: Nelson, 1961; 45 (pl. 36), 197.
10. "The companion of Sirius." Annual Record of Science and Industry, 1876,
18-9. In 1876, the companion's observed position by Hall and Holden, at
Washington, did not agree with Auwer's theory.
11. Astronomical Register. 15, 186. Source not located. "The companion of
Sirius." Nature, 13 (March 30, 1876): 428. Auwer's orbit and Clark's
companion, in 1862, were notable: "...the agreement being pretty close
throughout. But there can be no doubt that the calculation has given the
angle too great since that year."
12. "The companions of Sirius." Astronomical Register, 1, 94.
13. "Companions of Sirius." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 23 (March 1863): 181. Goldschmidt. "On the companions of Sirius."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 23 (June 1863): 243-4.
CHAPTER FIVE
SMUGNESS and falseness and sequences of re-adjusting fatalities -- and yet
so great is the hypnotic power of astronomic science that it can outlive its
"mortal" blows by the simple process of forgetting them, and, in general,
simply by denying that it can make mistakes. Upon page 245, Old and New
Astronomy, Richard Proctor says -- "The ideas of astronomers on these
questions of distance have not changed, and in the present position of
astronomy, based (in such respects) on absolute demonstration, they cannot
change."(1)
Sounds that have roared in the sky, and their vibrations have shaken down
villages -- if these be the voices of Development, commanding that opinions
shall change, we shall learn what will become of the Proctors and their
"absolute demonstrations." Lights that have appeared in the sky -- that they
are gleams upon the armament of Marching Organization. "There can only be
one explanation of meteors" -- I think it is that they are shining
spearpoints of slayers of dogmas. I point to the sky over a little town in
Perthshire, Scotland -- there may be a new San Salvador -- it may be a new
Plymouth Rock. I point to the crater Aristarchus, of the moon -- there, for
more than a century, a lighthouse may have been signalling. Whether out of
profound meditations, or farrago and bewilderment, I point, directly, or
miscellaneously, and, if only a few of the multitude of data be accepted,
unformulable perturbations rack an absolute sureness, and the coils of our
little horizons relax their constrictions.
I indicate that, in these pages, which are banners in a cosmic procession, I
do feel a sense of responsibility, but how to maintain any great seriousness
I do not know, because still is our subject astronomical "triumphs."
Once upon a time there was a young man, aged eighteen, whose name was
Jeremiah Horrox. He was no astronomer. He was interested in astronomic
subjects, but it may be that we shall agree [34/35] that a young man of
eighteen, who had not been heard of by one astronomer of his time, was an
outsider. There was a transit of Venus in December, 1639, but not a grown-up
astronomer in the world expected it, because the not always great and
infallible Kepler had predicted the next transit of Venus for the year 1761.
According to Kepler, Venus would pass below the sun in December, 1639. But
there was another calculation: it was by the great, but sometimes not so
great, Lansberg: that, in December, 1639, Venus would pass over the upper
part of the sun. Jeremiah Horrox was an outsider. He was able to reason
that, if Venus could not pass below the sun, and also over the upper part of
the sun, she might take a middle course. Venus did pass over the middle part
of the sun's disc; and Horrox reported the occurrence, having watched it.(2)
I suppose this was one of the most agreeable humiliations in the annals of
busted inflations. One thinks sympathetically of the joy that went out from
seventeenth-century Philistines. The story is told to this day by the
Proctors and Balls and Newcombs: the way they tell this story of the boy who
was able to conclude that something could not occupy two extremes might be
intermediate, and thereby see something that no professional observer of the
time saw, is a triumph of absorption:
That the transit of Venus, in December, 1639, was observed by Jeremiah
Horrox, "the great astronomer."(3)
We shall make some discoveries as we go along, and some of them will be
worse thought of than others, but there is a discovery here that may be of
interest: the secret of immortality -- that there is a mortal resistance to
everything; but that the thing that can keep on incorporating, or
assimilating within itself, its own mortal resistances, will live forever.
By its absorptions, the science of astronomy perpetuates its inflations, but
there have been instances of indigestion. See the New York Herald, Sept. 16,
1909.(4) Here Flammarion, who probably no longer asserts any such thing,
claims Dr. Cook's "discovery of the north pole" as an "astronomical
conquest." Also there are other ways. One suspects that the treatment that
Dr. Lescarbault received from Flammarion illustrates other ways.
In the year 1859, it seems that Dr. Lescarbault was some- [35/36] thing of
an astronomer. It seems that as far back as that he may have known a planet
when he saw one, because, in an interview, he convinced Leverrier that he
did know a planet when he saw one. He had at least heard of the planet
Venus, because in the year 1882 he published a paper upon indications that
Venus has an atmosphere.(5) Largely because of an observation, or an
announcement, of his, occurred the climax of Leverrier's fiascos: prediction
of an intra-Mercurial planet that did not appear when it "should" appear. My
suspicion is that astronomers pardonably, but frailly, had it in for
Lescarbault, and that in the year 1891 came an occurrence that one of them
made an opportunity. Early in the year 1891, Dr. Lescarbault announced that,
upon the night of Jan. 11, 1891, he had seen a new star.(6) At the next
meeting of the French Academy, Flammarion rose, spoke briefly, and sat down
without over-doing. He said that Lescarbault had "discovered" Saturn.(7)
If a navigator of at least thirty years' experience should announced that he
had discovered an island, and if that island should turn out to be Bermuda,
he would pair with Lescarbault -- as Flammarion made Lescarbault appear.
Even though I am a writer upon astronomical subjects, myself, I think that
even I should know Saturn, if I should see him, at least in such a period as
the year 1891, when the rings were visible. It is perhaps an incredible
mistake. However, it will be agreeable to some of us to find that
astronomers have committed just such almost incredible mistakes --
In Cosmos, n.s., 42-467, is a list of astronomers who reported "unknown"
dark bodies that they had seen crossing the disc of the sun:(8)
La Concha ..... Montevideo ..... Nov. 5, 1789;
Keyser ........ Amsterdam ...... Nov. 9, 1802;
Fisher ........ Lisbon ......... May 5, 1832;
Houzeau ....... Brussels ....... May 8, 1845.
According to the Nautical Almanac, the planet Mercury did cross the disc of
the sun upon these dates.(9)
It is either that the Flammarions do so punish those who see [36/37] the new
and the undesired, or that astronomers do "discover" Saturn, and do not know
Mercury when they see him -- and that Buckle overlooked something when he
wrote that only the science of history attracts inferior minds often not fit
even for clergymen.(10)
Whatever we think of Flammarion, we admire his deftness. But we shall have
an English instance of the ways in which Astronomy maintains itself and
controls those who say they see that which the "should" not see, which does
seem beefy. One turns the not very attractive-looking pages of the English
Mechanic, 1893, casually, perhaps, at any rate in no expectations of
sensations -- glaring at one, a sketch of such a botanico-pathologic
monstrosity as a musk melon with rows of bunions on it (English Mechanic,
Oct. 20, 1893).(11) The reader is told, by Andrew Barclay, F.R.A.S.,
Kilmarnock, Scotland, that this enormity is the planet Jupiter, according to
the speculum of his Gregorian telescope.
In the next issue of the English Mechanic, Capt. Noble, F.R.A.S., writes,
gently enough, that, if he had such a telescope, he would dispose of the
optical parts for whatever they would bring, and make a chimney cowl of the
tube.(12)
English Mechanic, 1893-2-309 -- the planet Mars, by Andrew Barclay -- a dark
sphere, surrounded by a thick ring of lighter material; attached to it,
another sphere, of half its diameter -- a sketch as gross and repellent to a
conventionalist as the museum-freak, in whose body the head of a dangling
twin is embedded, its dwarfed body lopping out from his side.(13) There is a
description by Mr. Barclay, according to whom the main body is red and the
proturberance blue.
Captain Noble -- "Preposterous...last straw that breaks the camel's
back!"(14)
Mr. Barclay comes back with some new observations upon Jupiter's lumps, and
then in the rest of the volume is not heard from again.(15) One reads on,
interested in quieter matters, and gradually forgets the controversy --
English Mechanic, August 23, 1897:(16)
A gallery of monstrosities: Andrew Barclay, signing himself "F.R.A.S.,"
exhibiting: [37/38]
The planet Jupiter, six times encircled with lumps; afflicted Mars, with his
partly embedded twin reduced in size, but still a distress to all properly
trained observers; the planet Saturn, shaped like a mushroom with a ring
around it.
Captain Noble -- "Mr. Barclay is not a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical
Society, and, were the game worth the candle, might be restrained by
injunction from so describing himself!"(17) And upon page 362, of this
volume of the English Mechanic, Captain Noble calls the whole matter "a
pseudo F. R. A. S.'s crazy hallucinations."(18)
Lists of the Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society, from June, 1875, to
June, 1896:
"Barclay, Andrew, Kilmarnock, Scotland; elected Feb. 8, 1856."
I cannot find the list for 1897 in the libraries. List for 1898 -- Andrew
Barclay's name omitted.(19) Thou shalt not see lumps on Jupiter.
Every one of Barclay's observations has something to support it. All
conventional representations of Jupiter show encirclements by strings of
rotundities that we are told are cloud-forms, but, in the Jour. B.A.A., Dec.
1910, is published a paper by Dr. Downing, entitled: "Is Jupiter Humpy?"
suggesting that various phenomena upon Jupiter agree with the idea that
there are protuberances upon the planet.(20) A common appearance, said to be
an illusion, is Saturn as an oblong, if not mushroom-shaped; see any good
index for observations upon the "square-shouldered aspect" of Saturn. In
L'Astronomie, 1889-135, is a sketch of Mars, according to Fontana, in the
year 1636 -- a sphere enclosed in a ring; in the center of the sphere a
great protruding body, said, by Fontana, to have looked like a vast, black
cone.(21)
But, whether this or that should amuse or enrage us, should be accepted or
rejected, is not to me the crux; but Andrew Barclay's own opening words are:
That, through a conventional telescope, conventional appearances are seen,
and that a telescope is tested by the conventionality of its disclosures;
but that there may be new optical principles, or applications, that may be,
to the eye and the present telescope, what once the conventional telescope
was to the eye -- in times [38/39] when scientists refused to look at the
preposterous, enraging, impossible moons of Jupiter.
In the English Mechanic, 33-327, is a letter from the astronomer, A. Stanley
Williams.(22) He had written previously upon double stars, their colors an
magnitudes. Another astronomer, Herbert Sadler, had pointed out some errors.
Mr. Williams acknowledges the errors, saying that some were his own, and
that some were from Smyth's Cycle of Celestial Objects.(23) In the English
Mechanic, 33-377, Sadler says that, earnestly, he would advise Williams not
to use the new edition of Smyth's Cycle, because, with the exception of vol.
40, Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, "a more disgracefully
inaccurate" catalogue of double stars had never been published.(24) "If,"
says one astronomer to the other astronomer, "you have a copy of this
miserable publication, sell it for waste paper. It is crammed with the most
stupid errors."
A new character appears. He is George F. Chambers, F.R.A.S., author of a
long list of astronomical works, and a tract entitled, Where Are You Going,
Sunday?(25) He, too, is earnest. In this early correspondence, nothing
ulterior is apparent, and we suppose that it is in the cause of Truth that
he is so earnest. Says one astronomer that the other astronomer is
"evidently one of those self-sufficient young men, who are nothing, if not
abusive." But can Mr. Sadler have so soon forgotten what was done to him, on
a former occasion, after he had slandered Admiral Smyth? Chambers challenges
Sadler to publish a list of, say, fifty "stupid errors" in the book. He
quotes the opinion of the Astronomer Royal: that the book was a work of
"sterling merit." "Airy vs. Sadler," he says: "which is it to be?"(26)
We began not very promisingly. Few excitements seemed to lurk in such a
subject as double stars, their colors and magnitudes; but slander and abuse
are livelier, and now enters curiosity: we'd like to know what was done to
Herbert Sadler.
Late in the year 1876, Herbert Sadler was elected Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society.(27) In Monthly Notices, R.A.S., Jan., 1879, appears
his first paper that was read to the Society: Notes on the late Admiral
Smyth's Cycle of Celestial Objects, [39/40] volume second, known as the
Bedford Catalogue.(28) With no especial vehemence, at least according to our
own standards of repression, Sadler expresses himself upon some
"extraordinary mistakes" in this work.
At the meeting of the Society, May 9, 1879, there was an attack upon Sadler,
and it was led by Chambers, or conducted by Chambers, who cried out that
Sadler had slandered a great astronomer and demanded that Sadler should
resign. In the report of this meeting, published in the Observatory, there
is not a trace of anybody's endeavors to find out whether there were errors
in this book or not: Chambers ignored everything but his accusation of
slander, and demanded again that Sadler should resign.(29) In Monthly
Notices, 39-389, the Council of the Society published regrets that it had
permitted publication of Sadler's paper, "which was entirely unsupported by
the citation of instances upon which his judgment was founded."(30)
We find that it was Mr. Chambers who had revised and published the new
edition of Smyth's Cycle.
In the English Mechanic, Chambers challenged Sadler to publish, say, fifty
"stupid errors."(31) See page 451, vol. 33, English Mechanic -- Sadler lists
just fifty "stupid errors."(32) He says that he could have listed, not 50,
but 250, not trivial, but of the "grossest kind." He says that in one set of
167 observations, 117 were wrong.
The English Mechanic drops out of this comedy with the obvious title, but
developments go on. Evidently withdrawing its "regrets," the Council
permitted publication of a criticism of Chambers' edition of Smyth's Cycle,
in Monthly Notices, 40-497, and the language in this criticism, by S.W.
Burnham, was no less interpretable as slanderous than was Sadler's: that
Smyth's data were "either roughly approximate or grossly incorrect, and so
constantly recurring that it was impossible to explain that they were
ordinary errors of observation."(33) Burnham lists 30 pages of errors.
Following is a paper by E.B. Knobel, who published 17 pages of instances in
which, in his opinion, Mr. Burnham had been too severe.(34) Knowing of no
objection by Burnham to this reduction, we have left 13 pages of stupid
errors in one standard astronomical [40/41] work, which may fairly be
considered as representative of astronomical work in general, inasmuch as it
was, in the opinion of the Astronomer Royal, a book of "sterling merit."
I think that now we have accomplished something. After this we should all
get along more familiarly and agreeably together. Thirteen pages of errors
in one standard astronomical work are reassuring; there is a likeable
fallibility here that should make for better relations. If the astronomers
were what they think they are, we might as well make squeaks of disapproval
against Alpine summits. As to astronomers who calculate positions of planets
-- of whom he was one -- Newcomb, in Reminiscences of an Astronomer, says --
"The men who have done it are therefore, in intellect, the select few of the
human race, -- an aristocracy above all others in the scale of being."(35)
We could never get along comfortably with such awful selectness as that. We
are grateful to Mr. Sadler, in the cause of more comfortable relations. [41]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892, 245.
2. Horrox was a young curate, who obtained his first telescope in May of
1638; and, he would have been about twenty years old, in 1639, (not
eighteen). "He possessed some tables for calculating the places of the
planets; but his observations did not agree at all with them. He had,
however, before discovering the faults of Lansberg's tables, calculated from
them the future positions of the planets. This work, with corrections
deduced from his own observations, led him to predict a transit of Venus,
visible in England, for the year 1639." "Jeremiah Horrox." Nature, 8 (June
12 and 19, 1873): 117-8, 137-8. George Forbes. The Transit of Venus. New
York: Macmillan and Co., 1874, 8-9. Robert Grant. History of Physical
Astronomy from the Earliest Ages to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century.
London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852, 419-23. Harry Woolf. The Transits of Venus.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959, 10-13.
3. Horrox and his friend, William Crabtree, observed the transit of Venus on
November 24, 1639, (O.S.). Horrox died in January of 1641; and, though some
of his papers were lost during the Civil Wars, by a relative, and in the
London fire of 1666, another twenty years would pass before any of his
astronomical researches were published.
4. "Astronomical feat, says M. Flammarion." New York Herald, September 16,
1909, 4, c.4-6.
5. Edm. Lescarbault. "Observation du passage de Venus, faite à Châteaudun."
Comptes Rendus, 95 (1882): 1208-9.
6. Edm. Lescarbault. "Observation d'une étoile d'un éclat comparable à celui
de Régulus et située dans la même constellation." Comptes Rendus, 112
(1891): 152-3.
7. "M. Flammarion fait observer que l'astre signalé le 11 janvier par M.
Lescarbault dans la constellation du Lion, comme une étoile nouvelle, n'est
autre que Saturne." Comptes Rendus, 112 (1891): 260. W.F. Denning.
Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings. London: Taylor and Francis, 1891,
350.
8. "L'histoire de Vulcain." Cosmos: Les Mondes, s.4 [n.s.], 42 (April 22,
1905): 466-7. Corrections: "Kayser," not Keyser; and, "Fischer," not Fisher.
Leverrier used these observations as an example for determining the orbit of
an unknown planet, which was reported by these observers, who were unaware
that they watched Mercury in transit. The same method was used to determine
several orbital periods for Vulcan. The writer in Cosmos mistook these
reported "unknowns" as those used by Leverrier to calculate the possible
orbits of Vulcan, whereas both Leverrier and Fort recognized these objects
as having been Mercury. U.J.J. Le Verrier. "Examen des observations qu'on a
présentées, à diverses époques, comme pouvant appartenir aux passages d'une
planète intra-mercurielle devant le disque du Soleil." Comptes Rendus, 83
(1876): 583-9, 621-4, 647-50, 719-23; at 719-20.
9. "Transit of Mercury over the Sun's disk, Nov. 5, 1789." Nautical Almanac
and Astronomical Ephemeris, 1789, 2d ed., n.p. "Transit of Mercury over the
Sun." Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris, 1832, xiii. "A transit of
Mercury, May 8, 1845, partly visible at Greenwich." Nautical Almanac and
Astronomical Ephemeris, 1845, 542.
10. Henry Thomas Buckle, (1821-1862), was author of History of Civilization
in England.
11. Andrew Barclay. "The unrevealed wonders of the heavens -- Jupiter, Mars,
Saturn, and the Sun." English Mechanic, 58 (October 20, 1893): 198-200.
12. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 58 (October 27, 1893): 221-5,
at 222.
13. Andrew Barclay. "The unrevealed wonders of the heavens: Jupiter, Mars,
Saturn, and the Sun." English Mechanic, 58 (November 24, 1893): 308-9. For
illustrations of such human monsters with atrophic, parasitical bodies,
(identified by the term "heteradelphe" by Isidore Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire),
one from A. Paré's Des Monstres et Prodiges (1573) and another from Nicolas-
FranÇois Regnault (ca. 1775): Jean-Louis Fischer. Monstres: Histoire du
Corps et de ses Défauts. Paris: Syros-Alternatives, 1991, 95-6. There are
also photographs of "Laloo" and "Piramal": George M. Gould, and, Walter L.
Pyle. Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine. New York: Julian Press,
(copyright 1896), 1964, 193. Robert Bogdan. Freak Show. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1988, 95-7, (Becker Collection, Syracuse University).
14. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 58 (December 8, 1893): 353.
15. Barclay did make further contributions in this volume, though in
letters, not articles. Andrew Barclay. "The unrevealed wonders of the
heavens -- Jupiter." English Mechanic, 58 (December 15, 1893): 372. Andrew
Barclay. "The unrevealed wonders of the heavens -- Jupiter, Mars, Saturn,
and the Sun -- Rigel and Sirius." English Mechanic, 58 (January 5, 1894):
440. Andrew Barclay. "The unrevealed wonders of the heavens -- Visibility of
Venus and the Moon." English Mechanic, 58 (February 9, 1894): 554.
16. Andrew Barclay. "Unrevealed wonders of the heavens...." English
Mechanic, 65 (April 23, 1897): 218-20.
17. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 65 (May 21, 1897): 314-5, at
314.
18. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 65 (June 4, 1897): 362-3, at
362.
19. The reason for Barclay's not being listed as a member of the Royal
Astronomical Society was due to his death.
20. A.M.W. Downing. "Is Jupiter humpy?" Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 21 (December 1910): 150-2.
21. "Le plus ancien dessin de la planète Mars." Astronomie, 8 (1889): 135-8.
These first drawings of the planet Mars were made in 1636 and 1638 by
Francesco Fontana. "Unfortunately, Fontana's telescope must have been a very
poor instrument, for the Martian features which appear in his drawings --
the darkish circle and the dark central spot which he called `a very black
pill' -- obviouly originated inside his telescope. His drawing of Venus also
displayed a `black pill' in the center." Willy Ley, and, Wernher von Braun.
The Exploration of Mars. New York: The Viking Press, 1956, 14-5.
22. A. Stanley Williams. "Double stars, colours, and magnitudes." English
Mechanic, 33 (June 10, 1881): 327-8.
23. William Henry Smyth. A Cycle of Celestial Objects. 1st ed. in 2 vols.
London: John W. Parker, 1844. 2nd ed. in 2 vols. George Frederick Chambers,
ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
24. Herbert Sadler. "Double stars, colors, and magnitudes." English
Mechanic, 33 (June 24, 1881): 377. J.F.W. Herschel. "Seventh catalogue of
double stars...." Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 40, 1-16.
Correct quote: "If Mr. Williams possesses a copy of this miserable
production, I should certainly advise him to sell it for what it will fetch
for waste-paper, for the book is crammed with the most stupid errors...."
25. George Frederick Chambers. Where Are You Going Sunday? 1864.
26. G.F. Chambers. "Mr. Herbert Sadler." English Mechanic, 33 (July 1,
1881): 403. Correct quotes: "...self-sufficient young men who are nothing at
all if they are not abusive...," and, "Airy v. Sadler -- which is it to be?"
27. G.F Chambers. "The Sadler-Smyth scandal." Observatory, 3 (1879): 23-4.
Sadler was elected as a Fellow in June of 1876.
28. Herbert Sadler. "Notes on the late Admiral Smyth's `Cycle of Celestial
Objects,' Volume the Second, commonly known as the `Bedford Catalogue.'"
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 39 (January 1879): 183-
95. Correct quote: "...extraordinary discrepancies...."
29. "Meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society. Friday, 1879, May 9."
Observatory, 3 (1879): 33-46, at 33-41. Also: G.F. Chambers. "The Sadler-
Smyth scandal." Observatory, 3 (1879): 23-4.
30. "Extract from the Minutes of the Council, May 9, 1879." Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, 39 (May 9, 1879): 389-90. Correct quote:
"...is entirely unsupported by the citation of the instances on which...."
31. G.F. Chambers. "Mr. Herbert Sadler." English Mechanic, 33 (July 1,
1881): 403.
32. Herbert Sadler. "Mr. Chambers's edition of Smyth's Cycle." English
Mechanic, 33 (July 15, 1881): 450-2.
33. S.W. Burnham. "An examination of the double-star measures of the Bedford
Catalogue." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 40 (1880):
497-532. The quote should end as follows: "...either roughly approximate or
grossly incorrect." Burnham does state that many observations of stellar
companions rested upon a single observer in the Bedford Catalogue, without
any further supporting evidence of their existence, before they had been
found lost by subsequent astronomers: "It appeared much easier to explain
the alleged disappearances by assuming errors on the part of the observer,
than by assuming the sudden extinction of suns and the possible attendant
worlds."
34. E.B. Knobel. "Notes on a paper entitled `An examination of the double-
star measures of the Bedford Catalogue,' by S.W. Burnham, Esq." Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 40 (1880): 532-57. There are
eighteen pages of corrections, (not seventeen), provided by Knobel.
35. Simon Newcomb. Reminiscences of an Astronomer. New York: Houghton,
Mifflin and Co., 1903, 64. Correct quote: "The men who have done it are
therefore in intellect the select few of the human race, -- an aristocracy
ranking above all others in the scale of being."
CHAPTER SIX
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 56-184:(1)
That, upon April 25, 1892, Archdeacon Nouri climbed Mt. Ararat. It was his
hope that he should find something of archæologic compensation for his
clambering. He found Noah's Ark.
About the same time, Dr. Holden, Director of the Lick Observatory, was
watching one of the polished and mysterious-looking instruments that, in the
new ikonology, have replaced the images of the saints. Dr. Holden was
awaiting the appointed moment of the explosion of a large quantity of
dynamite in San Francisco Bay. The moment came. The polished little "saint"
revealed to the faithful scientist. He wrote an account of the record, and
sent copies to the San Francisco newspapers. Then he learned the dynamite
had not been fired off. He sent a second messenger after the first
messenger, and, because messengers sometimes have velocities proportional to
urgencies -- "the Observatory escaped ridicule by a narrow margin." See the
Observatory, 20-467.(2) This revelation came from Prof. Colton, who, though
probably faithful to all the "saints," did not like Dr. Holden.
The system that Archdeacon Nouri represented lost its power because its
claims exceeded all conceivableness, and because, in other respects, of its
inertness to the obvious. The system that Dr. Holden represented is not
different: there is the same seeing of whatever may be desirable, and the
same profound meditations upon the remote, with the same inattention to
fairly acceptable starting-points. The astronomers like to tell audiences of
just what gases are burning in an unimaginably remote star, but have never
reasonably made acceptable, for instance, that this earth is round, to start
with. Of course I do not mean to say that this, or anything else, can be
positively proved, but it is depressing to [42/43] hear it said, so
authoritatively, that the round shadow of this earth upon the moon proves
that the earth is round, whereas records of angular shadows are common, and
whereas, if this earth were a cube, its straight sides would cast a rounded
shadow upon the convex moon. That the first part of a receding vessel to
disappear should be the lower part may be only such an illusion of
perspective as that by which railroad tracks seem to dip toward each other
in the distance. Meteors sometimes appear over one part of the horizon and
then seem to curve down behind the opposite part of the horizon, whereas
they describe no such curve, because to a string of observers each observer
is at the center of the seeming curve.
Once upon a time -- about the year 1870 -- occurred an unusual sporting
event. John Hampden, who was noted for his piety and his bad language, whose
avowed purpose was to support the principles of this earth's earliest
geodesist, offered to bet five hundred pounds that he could prove the
flatness of this earth. Somewhere in England is the Bedford Canal, and along
a part of it is a straight, unimpeded view, six miles in length. Orthodox
doctrine -- or the doctrine of the newer orthodoxy, because John Hampden
considered that he was orthodox -- is that the earth's curvature is
expressible in the formula of 8 inches for the first mile and then the
square of the distance times 8 inches. For two miles, then, the square of 2,
or 4, times 8 inches. An object six miles away should be depressed 288
inches, or, allowing for refraction, according to Proctor (Old and New
Astronomy) 216 inches.(3) Hampden said that an object six miles away, upon
this part of the Bedford Canal, was not depressed as it "should" be. Dr.
Alfred Russell Wallace took up the bet. Mr. Walsh, Editor of the Field, was
the stakeholder. A procession went to the Bedford Canal. Objects were looked
at through telescopes, or looked for, and the decision was that Hampden had
lost. There was rejoicing in the fold of the chosen, though Hampden, in one
of his furious bombardments of verses from the Bible, charged conspiracy and
malfeasance and confiscation, and what else I don't know, piously and
intemperately declaring that he had been defrauded.(4)
In the English Mechanic, 80-40, some one writes to find out [43/44] about
the "Bedford Canal Experiment."(5) We learn that the experiment had been
made again. The correspondent writes that, if there were basis to the rumors
that he had heard, there must be something wrong with the established
doctrine. Upon page 138, Lady Blount answers -- that, upon May 11, 1904, she
had gone to the Bedford Canal, accompanied by Mr. E. Clifton, a well-known
photographer, who was himself uninfluenced by her motives, which were the
familiar ones of attempting to restore the old gentleman who first took up
the study of geodesy.(6) However, she seethes with neither piety nor
profanity. She says that, with his telescopic camera, Mr. Clifton had
photographed a sheet, six miles away, though by conventional theory the
sheet should have been invisible. In a later number of the English Mechanic,
a reproduction of this photograph is published.(7) According to this
evidence this earth is flat, or is a sphere enormously greater than is
generally supposed. But at the 1901 meeting of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, Mr. H. Yule Oldham read a paper upon his
investigations at the Bedford Canal.(8) He, too, showed photographs. In his
photographs, everything that should have been invisible was invisible.
I accept that anybody who is convinced that still are there relics upon Mt.
Ararat, has only to climb Mt. Ararat, and he must find something that can be
said to be part of Noah's Ark, petrified perhaps. If someone else should be
convinced that a mistake has been made, and that the mountain is really
Pike's Peak, he has only to climb Pike`s Peak and prove that the most
virtuous of all lands was once the Holy Land. The meaning that I read in the
whole subject is that, in this Dark Age that we're living in, not even such
rudimentary matters as the shape of this earth have ever been investigated
except now and then to support somebody's theory, because astronomers have
instinctively preferred the remote and the not so easily understandable and
the safe from external inquiry. In Earth Features and Their Meaning, Prof.
Hobbs says that this earth is top-shaped, quite as the sloping extremities
of Africa and South America suggest.(9) According to Prof. Hobbs,
observations upon the pendulum suggest this earth is shaped like a top.(10)
Some years ago, Dr. Gregory read a paper at a meeting of the Royal
Geographical So- [44/45] ciety, giving data to support the theory of a top-
shaped earth.(11) In the records of the Society, one may read a report of
the discussion that followed. There was no ridiculing. The President of the
Society closed the discussion with virtual endorsement, recalling that it
was Christopher Columbus who first said that this earth is top-shaped. For
other expressions of this revolt against ancient dogmas, see Bull. Soc.
Astro. de France, 17-315; 18-143; Pop. Sci. News, 31-234; Eng. Mec., 77-159;
and, Sci. Amer., 100-441.(12)
As to the supposed motions of this earth, axial and orbital, circumstances
are the same, despite the popular supposition that the existence of these
motions has been established by syntheses of data and by unanswerable logic.
All scientists, philosophers, religionists, are today looking back,
wondering what could have been the matter with their predecessors to permit
them to believe what they did believe. Granted that there will be posterity,
we shall be predecessors. Then what is it that is conventionally taught
today that will in the future seem as imbecilic as to all present
orthodoxies seem the vaporings of preceding systems?
Well, for instance, that it is this earth that moves, though the sun seems
to, by the same illusion by which passengers on a boat, the shore seems to
move, though it is the boat that is moving.
Apply this reasoning to the moon. The moon seems to move around the earth --
but to passengers on a boat, the shore seems to move, whereas it is the boat
that is moving -- therefore the moon does not move.
As to the motions of the planets and stars that co-ordinate with the idea of
a moving earth -- they co-ordinate equally well with the idea of a
stationary earth.
In the system that was conceived by Copernicus I find nothing that can be
said to resemble foundation: nothing but the appeal of greater simplicity.
An earth that rotates and revolves is simpler to conceive of than is a
stationary earth with a rigid composition of stars, swinging around it,
stars kept apart by some unknown substance, or inter-repulsion. But all
those who think that simplification is a standard to judge by are referred
to Herbert Spencer's compilations of data indicating that advancing
knowledge complicates, making, then, complexity, and [45/46] not simplicity,
the standard by which to judge the more advanced. My own acceptance is that
there are fluxes one way and then the other way: that the Ptolemaic system
was complex and was simplified; that, out of what was once a clarification,
new complications have arisen, and that again will come flux toward
simplification or clarification -- that the simplification by Copernicus has
now developed into an incubus of unintelligibilities revolving around a
farrago of inconsistencies, to which the complexities of Ptolemy are clear
geometry: miracles, incredibilities, puerilities; tottering deductions
depending upon flimsy agreements; brutalized observations that are slaves to
infatuated principles --
And one clear call that is heard above the rumble of readjusting collapses -
- the call for a Neo-astronomy -- it may not be our Neo-astronomy.
Prof. Young, for instance, in his Manual of Astronomy, says that there are
no common, obvious proofs that the earth moves around the sun, but that
there are three abstrusities, all of modern determination.(13) Then, if
Copernicus founded the present system, he founded upon nothing. He had
nothing to base upon. He either never heard of, or could detect one of these
abstrusities. All his logic represented in his reasoning upon this earth's
rotundity: that this earth is round, because of a general tendency to
sphericity, manifesting, for instance, in fruits and in drops of water --
showing that he must have been unaware not only of abstrusities, but of
icicles and bananas and oysters. It is not that I am snobbishly deriding the
humble and more than questionable ancestry of modern astronomy. I am
pointing out that a doctrine came into existence with nothing for a
foundation: not a datum, not one observation to found upon; no astronomical
principles, no mechanical principles to justify it. Our inquiry will be as
to how, in the annals of false architecture, it could ever be said that --
except miraculously, of course -- a foundation was subsequently slipped
under this baseless structure, dug under, rammed under, or God knows how
devised and fashioned. [46]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. E.L. Garbett. "Noah's Ark found at last." English Mechanic, 56 (October
14, 1892): 184.
2. "The late Director of the Lick Observatory is apparently not to be
allowed...." Observatory, 20 (1897): 466-7.
3. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892; 72-3, 76.
4. For more upon the Bedford Canal experiment: Richard Anthony Proctor.
Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903,
278-80. Alfred Russel Wallace. My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions.
London: Chapman & Hall, 1908, 361-72.
5. "Kappa." "The flat Earth -- Another Bedford Canal experiment." English
Mechanic, 80 (August 19, 1904): 40.
6. "The flat earth: Another Bedford Canal experiment." English Mechanic, 80
(September 16, 1904): 137-8.
7. E.A.M. Blount. "The Bedford Canal level experiment." English Mechanic, 80
(October 28, 1904): 277.
8. H. Yule Oldham. "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the
Earth's surface." Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1901, 725-6.
9. William Herbert Hobbs. Earth Features and Their Meaning. New York:
Macmillan, 1912, 12-9.
10. Hobbs said it was tetrahedral but compared it to a "peg top." Ibid, 18.
11. J.W. Gregory. "The plan of the earth and its causes." Geographical
Journal, 13 (March 1899): 225-51, and diagram following p. 336.
12. "Lune." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 17 (1903): 315.
J. Fernique. "La forme tétraédrique de la Lune." Bulletin de la Société
Astronomique de France, 18 (1904): 143-4. M.S. Follen. "Do recent
discoveries show that the earth is pear-shaped, as pictured in some
newspapers?" Popular Science News, 31 (October 1897): 234. Sterling Heilig.
"Is the Earth a pyramid, and not a sphere?" English Mechanic, 77 (April 3,
1903): 159-60. J.F. Springer. "Is the Earth's shape changing?" Scientific
American, n.s., 100 (June 12, 1909): 441-2. A pear-shaped earth with its
ends located in the Pacific Ocean and in the Sahara Desert was promoted by
Sollas and Jeans, after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the
eruption of Vesuvius. Garrett P. Serviss. "Is the earth shaped like a
monster pear?" New York Times, June 17, 1906, s. 3 p. 3. A caricature of the
exaggerated distortion of the shape of the earth, caused by its diurnal
rotation, according to Newton and Cassini, compares their differing results.
Isaac Newton. Florian Cajori, rev. Andrew Motte, trans. Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1934, v. 2, 664.
13. Charles Augustus Young. Manual of Astronomy. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1902,
136-7. Young only cites the aberration of light and the annual parallax of
the fixed stars.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE three abstrusities:
The aberration of light, the annual parallax of the stars; and, the regular,
annual shift of the lines of the stellar spectra.
By the aberration of light is meant a displacement of all stars, during a
year's observation, by which stars near the pole of the ecliptic describe
circles, stars are nearer the ecliptic describe ellipses, and the stars of
the ecliptic, only little straight lines. It is supposed that light has
velocity, and that these forms represent the ratio between the velocity of
light and the supposed velocity of this earth in its orbit. In the year
1725, Bradley conceived of the present orthodox explanation of the
aberration-forms of the stars: that they reflect or represent the path that
this earth traverses around the sun, as it would look from the stars,
appearing virtually circular from stars in the pole of the ecliptic, for
instance.(1) In Bradley's day there were no definite delusions as to the
traversing by this earth of another path in space, as part of a whole moving
system, so Bradley felt simple and satisfied. About a century later by some
of the most amusing reasoning that one could be entertained with,
astronomers decided that the whole supposed solar system is moving, at a
rate of about 13 miles per second from the region of Sirius to a point near
Vega, all this occurring in northern skies, because southern astronomers had
not very much to say at that time. Now, then, if at one time in the year,
and in one part of its orbit, the earth is moving in the direction in which
the whole solar system is moving, there we have this earth traversing a
distance that is the sum of its own motion and the general motion; then when
the earth rounds about and retraces, there we have its own velocity minus
the general velocity. The first abstrusity, then, is knocked flat on its
technicalities, because the aberration-forms, then, do not reflect the
annual motion of this earth: if, in conventional terms, though the path of
this earth is circular or elliptic relatively to the sun, [47/48] when
compounding with solar motion it is not so formed relatively to stars; and
there will have to be another explanation for the aberration-forms.(2)
The second supposed proof that this earth moves around the sun is in the
parallax of the stars. In conventional terms, it is said that opposite
points in this earth's orbit are 185,000,000 miles apart. It is said that
stars, so differently viewed, are minutely displaced against their
backgrounds. Again solar-motion -- if, in conventional terms, this earth has
been traveling, as part of the solar system, from Sirius, toward Vega, in
2,000 years this earth has traveled 819,936,000,000 miles. This distance is
4,500 times the distance that is the base line for orbital parallax. Then
displacement of the stars by solar-motion parallax in 2,000 years, should be
4,500 times the displacement by orbital parallax, in one year.(3) Give to
orbital parallax as minute a quantity as is consistent with the claims made
for it, and 4,500 times that would dent the Great Dipper and nick the Sickle
of Leo, and perhaps make the Dragon look like a dragon. But not a star in
the heavens has changed more than doubtfully since the stars were catalogued
by Hipparchus, 2,000 years ago. If, then, there be minute displacements of
stars that are attributed to orbital parallax, they will have to be
explained in some other way, if evidently the sun does not move from Sirius
toward Vega, and if then, quite as reasonably, this earth may not move.
Prof. Young's third "proof" is spectroscopic.
To what degree can spectroscopy in astronomy be relied upon?
Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 206:(4)
That, according to Bélopolsky, Venus rotates in about 24 hours, as
determined by the spectroscope; that, according to Dr. Slipher, Venus
rotates in about 225 days, as determined by the spectroscope.
According to observations too numerous to make it necessary to cite any, the
seeming motion of the stars, occulted by the moon, show that the moon has
atmosphere. According to the spectroscope, there is no atmosphere upon the
moon, (Pubs. Astro. Soc. Pacific, vol. 6, no. 37).(5)
The ring of light around Venus, during the transits of 1874 and 1882,
indicated that Venus has atmosphere.(6) Most astronomers [48/49] say that
Venus has an atmosphere of extreme density, obscuring the features of the
planet. According to spectrum analysis, by Sir William Huggins, Venus has no
atmosphere, (Eng. Mec., 4-22).(7)
In the English Mechanic, 89-439, are published results of spectroscopic
examinations of Mars, by Director Campbell, of the Lick Observatory: that
there is no oxygen, and that there is no water vapor on Mars.(8) In Monthly
Notices, R.A.S., 27-178, are published results of spectroscopic examinations
of Mars by Huggins: abundance of oxygen; same vapors as the vapors of this
earth.(9) These are the amusements of our Pilgrim's Progress, which has new
San Salvadors for its goals, or new Plymouth Rocks for its expectations --
but the experiences of pilgrims have variety --
In 1895, at the Allegheny Observatory, Prof. Keeler undertook to determine
the rotation-period of Saturn's rings, by spectroscopy. It is gravitational
gospel that particles upon the outside of the rings move at a rate of 10.69
miles a second; particles upon the inner edge, 13.01 miles a second. Prof.
Keeler's determinations were what Sir Robert Ball calls "brilliant
confirmation of the mathematical deduction."(10) Prof. Keeler announced that
according to the spectroscope, the outside particles of the rings of Saturn
move at the rate of 10.1 miles a second, and that the inner particles move
at a rate of 12.4 miles a second -- "as they ought to," says Prof. Young, in
his gospel, Elements of Astronomy.(11)
One reads of a miracle like this, the carrying out into decimals of
different speeds of different particles in parts of a point of light, the
parts of which cannot be seen at all without a telescope, whereby they seem
to constitute a solid motionless structure, and one admires, or one
worships, according to one's inexperience --
Or there comes upon one a sense of imposture and imposition that is not very
bearable. Imposition or imposture or captivation -- and it's as if we've
been trapped and have been put into a revolving cage, some of the bars
revolving at unthinkable speed, and other bars of it going around still
faster, even though not conceivable. Disbelieve as we will, deride and
accuse, and think of all the other false demonstrations that we have
encountered, [49/50] as we will -- there's a buzz of the bars that encircle
us. The concoction that has caged us is one of the most brilliant harlots in
modern prostitution: we're imprisoned at the pleasure of a favorite in the
harem of the God of Gravitation. That's some relief: language always is --
but how are we to "determine" that the rings of Saturn do not move as they
"ought" to, and thereby add more to the discrediting of spectroscopy in
astronomy?
A gleam on a planet that's like shine on a sword to deliver us --
The White Spot of Saturn --
A bright and shining deliverer.
There's a gleam that will shatter concoctions and stop velocities. There's a
shining thing on the planet Saturn, and the blow that it shines is
lightning. Thus far has gone a revolution of 10.1 miles a second, but it
stops by magic against magic; no farther buzzes a revolution of 12.4 miles a
second -- that the rings of Saturn may not move as, to flatter one little
god they "ought" to, because, by the handiwork of Universality, they may be
motionless.
Often has a white spot been seen upon the rings of Saturn: by Schmidt, Bond,
Seechi, Schroeter, Harding, Schwabe, De Vico -- a host of astronomers.
It is stationary.
In the English Mechanic, 49-195, Thomas Gwyn Elger publishes a sketch of it
as he saw it upon the nights of April 18 and 20, 1889.(12) It occupied a
position partly upon one ring and partly upon the other, showing no
distortion. Let Prof. Keeler straddle two concentric merry-go-rounds,
whirling at different velocities: there will be distortion. See vol. 49,
English Mechanic, for observation after observation by astronomers upon this
appearance, when seen for several months in the year 1889, the observers
agreeing that, no matter what are the demands of theory, this fixed spot did
indicate that the rings of Saturn do not move.(13)
The White Spot on Saturn has blasted minor magic. He has little, black
retainers who now function in the cause of completeness -- the little, black
spots of Saturn --
Nature, 53-109:(14)
That, in July and August, 1895, Prof. A. Mascari, of the Catania [50/51]
Observatory, had seen dark spots upon the crepe ring of Saturn. The writer
in Nature says that such duration is not easy to explain, if the rings of
Saturn be formations of moving particles, because different parts of the
discolored areas would have different velocities, so that soon would they
distort and diffuse.
Certainly enough, relatively to my purpose, which is find out for myself,
and to find out with anybody else who may be equally impressed with a
necessity, a brilliant, criminal thing has been slain by a gleam of higher
intensity. Certainly enough, then, with the execution of one of its foremost
exponents, the whole subject of spectroscopy in astronomy has been cast into
rout and disgrace, of course only to ourselves, and not in view of
manufacturers of spectroscopes, for instance; but a phantom thing dies a
phantom death, and must be slain over and over again.
I should say that just what is called the spectrum of a star is not commonly
understood. It is one of the great uncertainties in science. The spectrum of
a star is a ghost in the first place, but this ghost has to be further
attenuated by a secondary process, and the whole appearance trembles so with
the twinkling of a star that the stories told by spectra are gasps of
palsied phantoms. So it is that, in one of the greatest indefinitenesses in
science, an astronomer reads in a bewilderment that can be made to
correspond with any desideratum. So it is our acceptance that when any
faint, tremulous story told by a spectrum becomes standardized, the
conventional astronomer is told, by the spectroscope, what he should be
told, but that when anything new appears, for which there is no convention,
the bewilderment of the astronomers is made apparent, and the worthlessness
of spectroscopy in astronomy is shown to all except those who do not want to
be shown. Upon the first of February, 1892, Dr. Thomas D. Anderson, of
Edinburgh, discovered a new star that became known as Nova Aurigae.(15) Here
was something as to which there was no dogmatic "determination." Each
astronomer had to see, not what he should, but what he could. We shall see
that the astronomers might as well have gone, for information, to some of
Mrs. Piper's "controls" as to think of depending upon their own ghosts.
In Monthly Notices, Feb., 1893, it is said that probably for seven weeks, up
to the time of calculation, one part of this new [51/52] star had been
receding at a rate of 230 miles a second, and another part approaching at a
rate of 320 miles a second, giving to these components a distance apart of
550 miles x 60 x 60 x 24 x 49, whatever that may be.(16)
But there was another séance. This time Dr. Vogel was the medium. The ghosts
told Dr. Vogel that the new star had three parts: one approaching this earth
at a rate of about 420 miles a second, another approaching at a rate of 22
miles a second, a third part receding at a rate of 300 miles a second. See
Jour. B.A.A., 2-258.(17)
After that, the controls became hysterical. They flickered that they were
six parts of this new star, according to Dr. Lowells' Evolution of Worlds,
p. 9.(18) The faithful will be sorry to read that Lowell revolted. He says:
"There is not room for so many on the stage of the cosmic drama." For other
reasons for repudiating spectroscopy, or spiritualism, in astronomy, read
what else Lowell says upon this subject.
Nova Aurigae became fainter. Accordingly, Prof. Klinkerfues "found" that two
bodies had passed, and had inflamed each other, and that the light of their
mutual disturbances would soon disappear (Jour. B.A.A., 2-365).(19)
Nova Aurigae became brighter. Accordingly, Dr. Campbell "determined" that it
was approaching this earth at a rate of 128 miles a second (Jour. B.A.A., 2-
504).(20)
Then Dr. Espin went into a trance. It was revealed to him that the object
was a nebula (Eng. Mec., 56-61).(21) Communication from Dr. and Mrs.
Huggins, to the Royal Society -- not a nebula, but a star (Eng. Mec., 57-
397).(22) See Nature, 47-352, 425 -- that, according to M. Eugen Gothard the
spectrum of N.A. agreed "perfectly" with the spectrum of a nebula: that,
according to Dr. Huggins, no contrast could be more striking than the
difference between the spectrum of N.A., and the spectrum of a nebula.(23)
For an account of the revelations at Stonyhurst Observatory, see Mems.
R.A.S., 51-129 -- that there never had been a composition of bodies moving
at the rates that were so definitely announced, because N.A. was a single
star.(24) [52/53]
Though I have read some of the communications from "Rector" and "Dr.
Phinuit" to Mrs. Piper, I cannot think that they ever mouthed sillier babble
than was flickered by the star-ghosts to the astronomers in the year 1892.
We noted Prof. Klinkerfues' "finding" that two stars had passed each other
and that the illumination from their mutual perturbations would soon
subside. There was no such disappearance. For observations upon N.A., ten
years later, see Monthly Notices, 62-65.(25) For Prof. Barnard's
observations twenty years later, see Sci. Amer. Sup., 76-154.(26)
The spectroscope is useful in a laboratory. Spoons are useful in a kitchen.
If any other pilgrim should come across a group of engineers trying to dig a
canal with spoons, his experience and his temptation to linger would be like
ours as to the astronomers and their attempted application of the
spectroscope. I don't know what of remotest acceptability may survive in the
third supposed proof that this earth moves around the sun, though we have
not found it necessary to go into the technicalities of the supposed proof.
I think we have killed the phantom thing, but I hope we have not quite
succeeded, because we are moved more by the æsthetics of slaughter than by
plain murderousness: we shall find unity in disposing of the third "proof"
by the means by which the two others were disposed of --
Regular Annual Shift of Spectral Lines versus Solar Motion --
That, if this earth moves around the sun, the shift might be found by
scientific Mrs. Pipers so to indicate --
But that if part of the time this earth, as a part of one traveling system,
moves at a rate of 19 plus 13 miles a second and then part of the time at a
rate of 19 minus 13 miles a second, compounding with great complexities at
transverse times, that is the end of the regular annual shift that is
supposed to apply to orbital motion.(27)
We need not have admitted in the first place that the three abstrusities are
resistances: however, we have a liking for revelations ourselves. Aberration
and Parallax and Spectral Lines do not indicate that this earth moves
relatively to the stars: quite as convincing they indicate that the stars in
one composition gyrate relatively to a central and stationary earth, all of
them [53/54] in one concavity around this earth, some of them showing
faintest of parallax, if this earth be not quite central to the revolving
whole.
Something that I did not mention before, though I referred to Lowell's
statements, is that astronomers now admit, or state, that the shift of
spectral lines, which they say indicates that this earth moves around the
sun, also indicates any one of three other circumstances, or sets of
circumstances. Some persons will ask why I didn't say so at first and quit
the meaningless subject. May be it was a weakness of mine -- something of a
sporting instinct, I fear me, I have at times. I lingered, perhaps slightly
intoxicated, with the deliciousness of Prof. Keeler and his decimals -- like
someone at a race track, determining that a horse is running at a rate of
2653 feet and 4 inches a minute, by a method that means no more than it
means that the horse is brown, is making clattering sounds, or has a
refreshing odor. For a study of a state of mind like that of many clergymen
who try to believe in Moses, and in Darwin, too, see the works of Prof.
Young, for instance.(28) This astronomer teaches the conventional
spectroscopic doctrine, and also mentions the other circumstances that make
the doctrine meaningless. Such inconsistencies are phenomena of all
transitions from the old to the new.
Three giants have appeared against us. Their hearts are bubbles. Their bones
wilt. They are weak Karyatides that uphold the phantom structure of Paleo-
astronomy. By what miracle, we asked, could foundation be built subsequently
under a baseless thing. But three ghosts can fit in anywhere.
Sometimes astronomers cite the Foucault pendulum-experiment as "proof" of
the motions of this earth. The circumstances of this demonstration are not
easily made clear: consequently one of normal suspiciousness is likely to
let it impose upon him. But my practical and commonplace treatment is to
disregard what the experiment and its complexities are, and to enquire
whether it works out or not. It does not. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-12-402;
Eng. Mec., 93-293, 306; Astro. Reg., 2-265.(29) Also we are told that
experiments upon falling bodies have proved this earth's rotation. I get so
tired of demonstrating that there never has [54/55] been any Evolution
mentally, except as to ourselves, that, if I could, I'd be glad to say that
these experiments work out beautifully. Maybe they do. See Proctor's Old and
New Astronomy, p. 229.(30) [55]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Bradley's measurements of Draconis (Gamma Draconis) began in December of
1725 and continued to the following December. As the seventy observations of
this star did not differ from that expected by his hypothesis by more than
2", (except once by 3"), Bradley believed that the parallax, which he had
originally been seeking, amounted to less than this amount. "A letter from
the Reverend Mr. James Bradley...." Philosphical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, 35 (no. 406; December 1728): 637-61. Harlow Shapley, and
Helen E. Howarth. A Source Book in Astronomy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1929, 103-8.
2. In 1783, Wilhelm Herschel, (without any knowledge of the parallaxes of
the stars, which he had failed to detect), decided that the solar system was
travelling in the direction of the constellation Hercules. Macpherson
states: "Modern astronomers, with more perfect data on which to work, have
found that our Sun is moving towards the neighbouring constellation Lyra,
carrying with it all the planets and comets, at the velocity of eleven miles
per second." Hector Macpherson, Jr. Through the Depths of Space. London:
William Blackwood and Sons, 1908, 90. Moulton indicates several changes in
the "solar apex," (or the apparent direction in which the solar system is
moving relative to the other stars): according to Lewis Boss, the apex is at
R.A. 270.5 and declination +34.3; H.C. Wilson found the declination to be
+27; F.W. Dyson and W.G. Thackeray found declinations ranging from +16
according to bright stars up to +43 according to stars with magnitudes of 8
and 9. Also, the declination of solar motion varies according to different
spectral classes of stars; but, Moulton accepts the latest (1928) results by
W.W. Campbell and J.H. Moore: "Evidently the motion of the sun with respect
to the local star-cloud is approximately in the direction defined by right
ascension 270 and declination +30, and its speed with respect to these stars
is about 20 kilometers per second." While the solar system is thus said to
be moving away from other stars in two different directions at the same
time, only the circle, ellipses, and flat lines of the ideal "aberration"
forms are usually shown in the astronomical texts. Moulton does admit to "a
small aberration due to the earth's rotation, which, for a point on the
earth equator, amounts at its maximum of 0.31"." Yet, he takes no notice of
the relative motion of the earth within a moving solar system, as Fort does.
Forest Ray Moulton. Astronomy. New York: Macmillan Company, 1931; 133, 496-
7. Chambers also ignores the motion of the solar system: "We have hitherto
considered aberration as a matter affecting the stars, but it affects also
planets and comets. As, however, those bodies are themselves in motion, a
complication is imported into the matter when aberration has to be worked
out in nice detail for any astronomical purpose requiring strict accuracy."
George Frederick Chambers. Astronomy for General Readers. New York:
Whittaker & Co., 1908, 52.
3. Fort is correct in accounting for the distance over which the solar
system would move each year is more than four times its orbital parallax;
but, in terms of the effect upon the measure of parallax, this is an
exaggerated simplification. For the nearest bright star, Sirius, the change
in the parallax, as envisioned by Fort would amount to less than half a
degree of change in its celestial position over a 2,000 year period;
however, what should be considered is the proper motion of the star, as the
stars may also move in different directions and at different rates of speed
relative to the motions of our solar system. Even so, the proper motion of
Sirius would still only produce a change in position that is less than a
degree, over a 2,000 year period, which was noticed by Halley when he
compared his measures of star positions with those of Hipparchus and
Ptolemy; and, the motions of other constellation stars, which are at far
greater distances, would scarcely be perceptible. Edmond Halley.
"Considerations on the change of the latitudes of some of the principal fixt
stars." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 30 (no.
355; Jan., Feb., March and April, 1718): 1-3.
4. Walter William Bryant. A History of Astronomy. London: Methuen & Co.,
1907, 204-6. Bélopolsky made his observation in 1900, and Slipher made his
observation in 1903. According to Slipher, using a spectroscope, in 1903,
Venus could not have a rotational period as short as twenty-four hours. V.M.
Slipher. "A spectrographic investigation on the rotation velocity of Venus."
Bulletin of the Lowell Observatory, no. 3, 9-18. "Rotational velocity of
Venus." Nature, 68 (October 29, 1903): 631.
5. W.W. Campbell. "The spectrum of Mars." Publications of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific, 6 (no. 37; 1894): 228-36.
6. The ring of light seen about Venus is not only seen at the times of its
transits. Mäedler, in 1849, and C.S. Lyman, in 1866, observed the ring of
light extending about Venus during its inferior conjunction. The ring was
noted by David Rittenhouse during the transit of Venus in 1769; but,
according to Newcomb, this observation was not seriously entertained, until
it was again seen during the transit in 1874. Simon Newcomb. Popular
Astronomy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 301-3. The ring of light was
seen by Hirst, at Madras, in 1761, according to Talmage. "Transit of Venus."
London Times, December 9, 1882, p. 4 c. 4. "The transit of Venus." Nature,
27 (December 14, 1882): 154-9, at 155.
7. William Huggins. "On the results of spectrum analysis applied to heavenly
bodies." English Mechanic, 4 (September 28; October 5, 19, and 26, 1866):
10, 22-3, 53, 73-4, at 23.
8. "Scientific news." English Mechanic, 89 (June 11, 1909): 439-40.
9. William Huggins. "On the spectrum of Mars, with some remarks on the
colour of that planet,". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
27 (March 1867): 178-81.
10. Robert Ball. The Story of the Heavens. Rev. ed. New York: Cassell and
Co., 1905, 287-91. Correction to quote: "deductions," not deduction.
11. Charles Augustus Young. "361. Structure of the rings." The Elements of
Astronomy. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1897. Rev. ed., 256-7. 1918, Rev. ed.,
256-7.
12. Thomas Gwyn Elger. "Bright spot on rings of Saturn." English Mechanic,
49 (May 3, 1889): 195.
13. F. Terby. "Saturn." English Mechanic, 49 (April 19, 1889): 153.
"Saturn," and, "The white spot on Saturn's Rings." English Mechanic, 49
(April 26, 1889): 176. G.T. Davis. "Saturn." English Mechanic, 49 (May 18,
1889): 218. G. Parry Jenkins. "The white spot on Saturn's rings." English
Mechanic, 49 (May 18, 1889): 218. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic,
49 (May 17, 1889): 236-7, at 237. S. Maitland Baird Gemmill. "Venus -- 34
Bootis -- Coronae -- U Orionis -- The white spot on Saturn's ring." English
Mechanic, 49 (May 17, 1889): 237-8. Edwin Holmes. "Astronomical." English
Mechanic, 49 (May 17, 1889): 238. "White spot on Saturn's ring." English
Mechanic, 49 (May 31, 1889): 281. F. Terby. "Saturn. English Mechanic, 49
(June 7, 1889): 301-2. Edwin Holmes. "Astronomical." English Mechanic, 49
(June 7, 1889): 302. W.R. Waugh. "Saturn's luminous spot." English Mechanic,
49 (June 14, 1889): 325. "White spot on Saturn's ring." English Mechanic, 49
(June 21, 1889): 349.
14. "Saturn's rings." Nature, 53 (December 5, 1895): 109-10.
15. Thomas D. Anderson. "The new star in Auriga." Nature, 45 (February 18,
1892): 365. Anderson sent a postcard to Ralph Copeland on February 1, 1892,
to advise him of the nova; but, he had probably seen the nova on January 24
and "for two or three days," though it was not until the 31st that he
satisfied himself that "it was a strange body," using Klein's Star Atlas and
a small pocket telescope.
16. W.S. "Nova Aurigae." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
53 (February 1893): 269-72, at 272.
17. "Nova Aurigae." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 2, 258-
9.
18. Percival Lowell. The Evolution of Worlds. New York: Macmillan Co., 1909,
9-10. Lowell states other causes of shifts in the spectral lines include:
great pressure (as claimed by Humphreys and Mohler), anomalous refraction
(as claimed by Julius), and changes of density (as claimed by Michelson).
19. "The new star in Auriga." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 2, 364-5. Klinkerfues "found" nothing; he simply speculated
upon the cause of the observed phenomenon; and, Huggins suggested this
speculation was a "reasonable explanation."
20. Henry Corder. "Reappearance of Nova Aurigae." Journal of the British
Astronomical Association, 2, 504.
21. Henry Corder. "Reappearance of Nova Aurigae." English Mechanic, 56
(September 9, 1892): 61.
22. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 57 (June 23, 1893): 396-7, at
397.
23. "Spectra of planetary nebulae and Nova Aurigae." Nature, 47 (February 9,
1893): 352. Gothard's view was: "...the spectrum of the new star perfectly
agrees with that of the planetary nebulæ." "Nova Aurigae." Nature, 47 (March
2, 1893): 425. Huggin's comparison was made with the "nebula of Orion," now
known as the Andromeda galaxy. William Huggins. "Note on the spectrum of
Nova Aurigae." Astronomische Nachrichten, no. 3153, 143-4.
24. W. Sidgleaves. "Spectrum of Nova Aurigae." Memoirs of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 51, 29-35.
25. E.E. Barnard. "Further observations of Nova Aurigae in 1901." Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 62 (November 1901): 65.
26. E.E. Barnard. "The present appearance of some temporary stars."
Scientific American Supplement, 76 (September 6, 1913): 153-5. E.E. Barnard.
"The temporary stars. On the present appearance of some of these bodies."
Astronomische Nachrichten, n.4655 (May 20, 1913): 401-8.
27. This would be true only if the solar apex was on the ecliptic.
28. Charles Augustus Young. The Elements of Astronomy. 1890. Rev. ed.
Boston: Ginn & Company, 1897. 1918. Manual of Astronomy. Boston: Ginn & Co.,
1902. Sun. Rev. ed. 1897.
29. C.S. Lyman. "Observations on the pendulum experiment." American Journal
of Science, s.2, 12 (1851): 398-416, at 402. E.F. Fullford. "Foucault's
pendulum," under "Queries." English Mechanic, 93 (April 28, 1911): 293. H.P.
Hollis. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 93 (May 5, 1911): 306.
Also, not cited by Fort: Joseph Wood. "Oviform motion -- Foucault pendulum."
English Mechanic, 93 (May 12, 1911): 335-6. "The Foucault pendulum
experiment." Astronomical Register, 2, 265. Fort noted afterwards, in Note
SF-V-353: "NL. Foucault not as should be. Pop. Astro. 12-72." "Visible proof
of the Earth's rotation." Popular Astronomy, 12 (1904): 71-3.
30. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892, 229-32.
CHAPTER EIGHT
IT is supposed that astronomic subjects and principles and methods can not
be understood by the layman. I think this, myself. We shall take up some of
the principles of astronomy, with the idea of expressing that of course they
cannot be understood by the unhypnotized any more than the stories of Noah's
Ark and Jonah and the Whale be understood, but that our understanding, if we
have any, will have some material for its exercises, just the same. The
velocity of light is one of these principles. A great deal in the astronomic
system depends on the supposed velocity: determinations of distance, and the
amount of aberration depend. It will be our expression that these are ratios
of impositions to mummeries, with such clownish products that formulas turn
into antics, and we shall have scruples against taking up the subject at
all, because we have much hard work to do, and we have qualms against
stopping so often to amuse ourselves. But, then, sometimes in a more
sentimental mood, I think that the pretty story of the velocity of light,
and its "determination," will some day be of legitimate service; be rhymed
some day, and told to children, in future kindergartens, replacing the story
of Little Bo-peep, with the tale of a planet that lost its satellites and
sometimes didn't know where to find them, but that good magicians came along
and formulated the indeterminable.
It was found by Roemer, a seventeenth-century astronomer, that, at times,
the moons of Jupiter did not disappear behind him, and did not emerge from
behind him, when they "should." He found that as distance between this earth
and Jupiter increased, the delays increased. He concluded that these delays
represented times consumed by the light of the moons in traveling greater
distances. He found, or supposed he found, that when this earth is farthest
from Jupiter, light from a satellite is seen 22 minutes later than [56/57]
when nearest Jupiter. Given measurement of the distance between opposite
points in the earth's supposed orbit, and times consumed in traveling this
distance -- there you have the velocity of light.(1)
I still say that it is a pretty story and should be rhymed; but we shall
find that astronomers might as well try to formulate the gambols of the
sheep of Little Bo-peep, as to try to formulate anything depending upon the
satellites of Jupiter.
In the Annals of Philosophy, 23-29, Col. Beaufoy write that, upon Dec. 7,
1823, he looked for the emergence of Jupiter's third satellite, at the time
set down in the National Almanac: for two hours he looked, and did not see
the satellite emerge.(2) In Monthly Notices, 44-8, an astronomer writes
that, upon the night of Oct. 15, 1883, one of the satellites of Jupiter was
forty-six minutes late.(3) A paper was read at the meeting of the British
Astronomical Association, Feb. 8, 1907, upon a satellite that was twenty
minutes late. In Telescopic Work, p. 191, W.F. Denning writes that, upon the
night of Sept. 12, 1889, he and two other astronomers could not see
satellite IV at all.(4) See the Observatory, 9-237 -- satellite IV
disappeared 15 minutes before calculated time; about a minute later it re-
appeared; disappeared again; reappeared nine minutes later.(5) For Todd's
observations, see the Observatory, 2-227 -- six times, between June 9 and
July 2, 1878, a satellite was visible when, according to prediction, it
should have been invisible.(6) For some more instances of extreme vagaries
of these satellites, see Monthly Notices, 43-427, and Jour. B.A.A., 14-27:
observations by Noble, Turner, White, Holmes, Freeman, Goodacre, Ellis, and
Molesworth.(7) In periodical astronomical publications, there is no more
easily findable material for heresy than such observations. We shall have
other instances. They abound in English Mechanic, for instance. But, in
spite of a host of such observations, Prof. Young (The Sun, p. 35) says that
the time occupied by light coming from these satellites is doubtful by "only
a fraction of a second."(8) It is of course another instance of the
astronomers who know very little of astronomy.
It would be undignified, if the astronomers had taken the sheep of Little
Bo-peep for their determinations. They took [57/58] the satellites of
Jupiter. They said that the velocity of light is about 190,000 miles a
second.
So did the physicists.
Our own notion is that there is no velocity of light: that one sees a thing,
or doesn't; that if the satellites of Jupiter behave differently according
to proximity to this earth, that may be because this earth affects them, so
affecting them, because the planets may not, as we may find, be at a
thousandth part of the "demonstrated" distances. The notion of velocity of
light finds support, we are told in the text books, in the velocity of
sound. If it does, it doesn't find support in gravitational effects,
because, according to the same text books, gravitational effects have no
velocity.
The physicists agreed with the astronomers. A beam of light is sent through,
and is reflected back through, a revolving shutter -- but it's complex, and
we're simple: we shall find that there is no need to go into the details of
this mechanism. It is not that a machine is supposed to register a velocity
of 186,000 miles a second, or we'd have to be technical: it is that the eye
is supposed to perceive --
And there is not a physicist in the world who can perceive when a parlor
magician palms off playing-cards. Hearing, or feeling, or if one could smell
light, some kind of a claim might be made -- but the well-known limitations
of seeing; common knowledge of little boys that a brand waved about in the
dark cannot be followed by the eyes. The limit of the perceptible is said to
be ten changes a second.
I think of the astronomers as occupying a little vortex of their own in the
cosmic swoon in which wave all things, at least in this one supposed solar
system. Call it swoon, or call it hypnosis -- but that it is never absolute,
and that all of us sometimes have awareness of our condition, and moments of
wondering what it's all about and why we do and think the things that
sometimes we wake up and find ourselves doing and thinking. Upon page 281,
Old and New Astronomy, Richard Proctor wakens momentarily, and says: "The
agreement between these results seems close enough, but those who know the
actual difficulty of precise time-observations of the phenomena of Jupiter's
satellites, to say [58/59] nothing of the present condition of the theory of
their motions, can place very little reliance on the velocity of light
deduced from such observations."(9) Upon pages 603-607, Proctor reviews some
observations other than those that I have listed -- satellites that have
disappeared, come back, disappeared, returned again so bewilderingly that he
wrote what we have quoted -- observations by Gorton, Wray, Gambart, Secchi,
Main, Grover, Smyth-Maclean-Pearson, Hodgson, Carlisle, Siminton.(10) And
that is the last of his awareness: Proctor then swoons back into his
hypnosis. He then takes up the determination of the velocity of light by the
physicists, as if they can be relied upon, accepting every word, writing his
gospel, glorying in this miracle of science.(11) I call it a tainted
agreement between the physicists and astronomers. I prefer mild language. If
by a method by which nothing can be found out, the astronomers determined
that the velocity of light is about 190,000 miles a second, and if the
physicists by another method found about the same result, what kind of
harmony can that be other than the reekings of two consistent stenches?
Proctor wrote that very little reliance could be placed upon anything
depending upon Jupiter's satellites. It never occurred to him to wonder by
what miracle the physicists agreed with these unreliable calculations. It is
the situation that repeats in the annals of astronomy -- a baseless thing
that is supposed to have a foundation slipped under it, wedged in, or God
knows how introduced or foisted. I prefer not to bother much with asking how
the physicists could determine anything of a higher number of changes than
ten per second. If it be accepted that the physicists are right, the
question is -- by what miracle were the astronomers right, if they had "very
little" to rely upon?
Determinations of planetary distances and determinations of the velocity of
light have squirmed together: they represent either an agreeable picture of
co-operation, or a study in mutual support by writhing infamies. With most
emphasis I have taken the position that the vagaries of the Jovian
satellites are so great that extremely little reliance can be placed upon
them, but now it seems to me that the emphasis should be upon the admission
that, in addition to these factors of indeterminateness, it was, [59/60] up
to Proctor's day, not known how anything like accuracy when the satellites
should appear and disappear. In that case one wonders as to the state of the
theory in Roemer's day. It was in the mind of Roemer that the two
"determinations" we are now considering first most notably satisfied
affinity: mutual support by velocity of light and distances in this supposed
solar system. Upon his Third Law, which, as we shall see later, he
constructed upon at least three absences of anything to build upon, Kepler
had, upon observations of Mars, deduced 13,000,000 miles as this earth's
distance from the sun.(12) By the same method, which is the now discredited
method of simultaneous observations, Roemer determined this distance to be
82,000,000 miles.(13) I am not concerned with this great discrepancy so much
as with the astronomers' reasons for starting off distances in millions
instead of hundreds or thousands of miles.(14)
In Kepler's day the strongest objection urged against the Copernican system
was that, if this earth moves around the sun, the stars should show annual
displacements -- and it is only under modern "refinements" that the stars do
so minutely vary, perhaps. The answer to this objection was that the stars
are vastly farther away than was commonly supposed. Entailed by this answer
was the necessity of enlarging upon common suppositions generally. Kepler
determined or guessed, just as one pleases, and then Roemer outdid him.
Roemer was followed by Huygens, with continued outdoing: 100,000,000
according to Huygens. Huygens took for his basis his belief that this earth
is intermediate in size to Mars and Venus.(15) Astronomers, to-day, say that
this earth is not so intermediate. We see that, in the secondary phase of
development, the early astronomers, with no means of knowing whether the sun
is a thousand or a million miles away, guessed or determined such distances
as 82,000,000 miles and 100,000,000 miles, to account for the changelessness
of the stars. If the mean of the extremes is about the distance of present
dogmas, we'd like to know by what miracle a true distance so averages two
products of wild methods. Our expression is that these developments had
their origin in conspiracy and prostitution, if one has a fancy for such
accusations; or, if everybody else has been so agreeable, we think more
amiably, ourselves, that [60/61] it was all a matter of comfortably
adjusting and being obliging all around. Our expression is that ever since
the astronomers have seen and have calculated as they should see and should
calculate. For instance, when this earth's distance from the sun was
supposed to be 95,000,000 miles, all astronomers taking positions of Mars
calculated a distance of 95,000,000 miles; but then, when the distance was
cut down to about 92,000,000 miles, all astronomers, taking positions of
Mars, calculated about a distance of 92,000,000 miles. It may sound like a
cynicism of mine, but in saying this I am quoting Richard Proctor, in one of
his lucid suspicions (Old and New Astronomy, p. 280).(16)
With nothing but monotony, and with nothing that looks like relief for us,
the data of conspiracy, or of co-operation, continue. Upon worthless
observations upon the transits of Venus, 1761 and 1769, this earth's orbit
was found by Encke to be about 190,000,000 miles across (distance of the sun
about 95,000,000 miles). Altogether progress had been made toward the wild
calculations of Huygens than toward the undomesticated calculations of
Roemer. So, to agree with this change, if not progress, Delambre, taking
worthless observations upon the satellites of Jupiter, cut down Roemer's
worthless determinations, and announced that light crosses the plane of this
earth's orbit in 16 minutes and 32 seconds -- as it ought to, Prof. Young
would say.(17) It was then that the agreeably tainted physicists started
spinning and squinting, calculating "independently," we are told, that
Delambre was right. Everything settled -- everybody comfortable -- see
Chambers' Handbook of Astronomy, published at this time -- that the sun's
distance had been ascertained, "with great accuracy," to be 95,298,260 miles
--(18)
But then occurred something that is badly, but protectively, explained, in
most astronomical works. Foucault interfered with the deliciousness of those
95,298,260 miles. One may read many books that mention this subject, and one
will always read that Foucault, the physicist, by an "independent" method,
or by an "absolutely independent" method, disagreed somewhat. The
"disagreement" is paraded so that one has the impression of painstaking,
independent scientists not utterly slavishly supporting one another, but at
the same time keeping well over the 90,000,000 [61/62] mark, and so
essentially agreeing, after all. But we find that there was no independence
in Foucault's "experiments." We come across the same old disgusting
connivance, or the same amiable complaisance, perhaps. See Clerke's History
of Astronomy, p. 230.(19) We learn that astronomers, to explain oscillations
of the sun, had decided that the sun must be, not 95,298,260 miles away, but
about 91,000,000.(20) To oblige them, perhaps, or innocently, never having
heard of them, perhaps, though for ten years they had been announcing that a
new determination was needed, Foucault "found" that the velocity of light is
less than had been necessary to suppose, when the sun was supposed to be
about 95,000,000 miles away, and he "found" the velocity to be exactly what
it should be, supposing the sun to be 91,000,000 miles away. Then it was
that the astronomers announced, not that they had cut down the distance of
the sun because of observations upon solar oscillations, but because they
had been very much impressed by the "independent" observations upon the
velocity of light, by Foucault, the physicist.(21) This squirm occurred at
the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, February, 1864. There would
have to be more squirms. If, then, the distance across this earth's orbit
was "found" to be less than Delambre had supposed, somebody would have to
find that light comes from the satellites of Jupiter a little slower than
Delambre had "proved." Whereupon Glasenapp "found" that the time is 16
minutes and 40 seconds, which is what he should, or "ought to," find.(22)
Whereupon, there would have to be re-adjustment of Encke's calculations of
distance of sun, upon worthless observations upon transits of Venus. And
whereupon again, Newcomb went over the very same observations by which Encke
had compelled agreement with the dogmas of his day, and Newcomb calculated,
as was required, that the distance agreed with Foucault's reduction.
Whether, in the first place, Encke ever did calculate, as he said he did, or
not, his determination was mere agreement with Laplace's in the seventh book
of Méchanique Céleste.(23) Of course he said that he had calculated
independently, because his method was by triangulation, and Laplace's was
the gravitational.(24) [62/63]
That the word "worthless" does apply to observations upon transits of Venus:
In Old and New Astronomy, Proctor says that the observations upon the
transits of 1761 and 1769 were "altogether unsatisfactory."(25) One supposes
that anything that is altogether unsatisfactory can't be worth much. In the
next transit, of 1874, various nations co-operated. The observations were so
disappointing that the Russian, Italian, and Austrian governments refused to
participate in the expeditions of 1882. In Reminiscences of an Astronomer,
p. 181, Newcomb says that the United States Commission, of which he was
Secretary, had, up to 1902 never published its observations, and probably
never would, because by that time all other members were either dead or upon
the retired list.(26)
Method of Mars -- more monotony -- because of criticisms of the taking of
parallax by simultaneous observations, Dr. David Gill went to the Island of
Ascension, during the opposition of Mars of 1877, to determine alone, by the
diurnal method, the distance of this earth from the sun, from positions of
Mars. For particulars of Gill's method, see, for instance, Poor's Solar
System, p. 86.(27) Here Prof. Poor says that, of course, the orbital motion
of Mars had to be allowed for, in Gill's calculations. If so, then of course
this earth's orbital motion had to be allowed for. If Dr. Gill knew the
space traversed by this earth in its orbit, and the curvature of its path,
he knew the size and shape of the orbit, and consequently the distance from
the sun. Then he took for the basis of his allowance that this earth is
about 93,000,000 miles from the sun, and calculated that this earth is about
93,000,000 miles from the sun. For this classic deduction from the known to
the same known, he received a gold medal.
In our earlier surveys, we were concerned with the false claim that there
can be application of celestial mechanics to celestial phenomena; but, as to
later subjects, the method is different. The method of all these
calculations is triangulation.
One simple question:
To what degree can triangulation be relied upon? [63/64]
To great degree in measuring the height of a building, or in little
distances of a surveyor's problems. It is clear enough that astronomers did
not invent the telescope. They adopted the spectroscope from another
science. Their primary mathematical principle of triangulation they have
taken from the surveyors, to whom it is serviceable. The triangle is another
emblem of the sterility of the science of astronomy. Upon the coat of arms
of this great mule of the sciences, I would draw a prism within a triangle.
[64]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Olaus Römer's experiment, based upon observations of the eclipses of the
first satellite of Jupiter, was to determine whether light was
instantaneously transmitted to a distance or required a period of time to be
transmitted over a distance, owing to a finite velocity. His findings were
that, over the distance traversed by the earth (in its own orbit) during one
revolution of Jupiter's first satellite, "no perceptible difference" was
observed, but, that, over the distance traversed by the earth during forty
revolutions, there was a measurable difference: "...this amounted to 22
minutes for the entire distance HE, which is double that from here to the
Sun." Römer claimed light had a finite velocity: the velocity of light was
greater than the earth's diameter in one second, and it took eleven minutes
for light to travel the distance from the Sun to the Earth. Thus, the
velocity of light was only vaguely determined as in excess of 3,000 leagues
per second, but its upper measure depended upon the measure of the solar
parallax. Harlow Shapley, and, Helen E. Howarth. A Source Book in Astronomy.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1929, 70-1. This period of eleven minutes
was later diminished. Duncan gives the measurement of light, by Römer, as
taking "600 seconds to travel the distance from the Sun to the Earth, a
figure that has been changed by subsequent investigations to 499 seconds."
John Charles Duncan. Astronomy: A Text Book. New York: Harper & Brothers,
1926, 92-3. For a later article upon whether or not light has a finite
velocity: Henry C. Maine. "Variability of Algol and the present theory of
light." English Mechanic, 104 (November 3, 1916): 289-90.
2. Beaufoy. "Astronomical observations, 1823." Annals of Philosophy, n.s., 7
(wh.vol. 23): 29. Probably the Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris,
not the "National almanac."
3. Wentworth Erck. "The disappearance of the satellites of Jupiter." Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 44 (1883): 8-9.
4. William Frederick Denning. Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings. 1st
ed. London: Taylor and Francis, 1891, 191. The other observers were Stanley
Williams and G.T. Davis.
5. "Eclipse of Jupiter's fourth satellite." Observatory, 9 (1886): 237.
6. C. Todd. "Observations of Jupiter at Adelaide." Observatory, 2 (1878-9):
226-7. The four times, (not six), between June 9 and July 21 were: June 9
(satellite 3), June 19 (satellite 2), July 2 (satellite 1), and July 21
(satellite 3).
7. A.C. Raynard. "Note with respect to the limb of the planet Jupiter."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 43 (1883): 427-31. Edwin
Holmes. "An occultation phenomenon." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 14, 25-7. Noble saw the fourth satellite slowly disappear and
flash into view several times on April 4, 1883. On September 14, 1879, J.
Turner and E.J. White, using different telescopes at the Melbourne
Observatory, observed 64 Aquarii projected onto the limb of Jupiter, when it
should have been occulted; and, though a star and not one of Jupiter's
moons, it exhibited the same phenomenon. On October 3, 1903, Holmes observed
the projection of the third satellite; on Februry 25, 1893, Freeman observed
the projection of the third satellite; on March 22, 1895, Goodacre observed
the projection of the first satellite; on February 23, 1896, Henry Ellis
observed the projection of the first satellite; and, on April 12, 1898,
Molesworth observed the projection of the second satellite onto Jupiter's
limb.
8. Charles Augustus Young. Sun. Rev. ed., 1897, 35. Correct quote:
"...though still doubtful by fractions of a second."
9. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. Longmans, Green, and Co.,
1892, 281. Correct quote: "...very little reliance on estimates of the
velocity of light...." The peculiarities of the Jovian moons, including the
law of their motions which "exists nowhere else in the solar system," are
explained by Newcomb. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. London: Macmillan
and Co., 1878, 1st ed., 337-8; 1883, 2nd ed., 347-8. For Laplace's two laws
and equations, relative to this "very singular case" of the motions of the
first three of the Jovian satellites: Simon Pierre de Laplace. Nathaniel
Bowditch, trans. Celestial Mechanics. Reprint, 4 vols. Bronx, New York:
Chelsea Publishing Co., 1966, 1, 656-74. These observed phenomena contrast
with the theory of the Jovian satellites explained by Airy, who stated, in
part: "Hence we have this remarkable fact: the regression of the line of
conjunction of the second and third satellites is exactly as rapid as the
regression of the line of conjunction of the first and second satellites. So
accurate is this law, that in the thousands of revolutions of the satellites
which have taken place since they were discovered, not the smallest
deviation from it (except what depends upon the elliptic form of the orbit
of the third satellite) has ever been discovered." George Biddell Airy.
Gravitation: An Elementary Explanation of the Principal Perturbations in the
Solar System. 2nd ed., 1884, 100-1. Reprint. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Neo Press,
1969.
10. Ibid, 603-7. Gorton observed the second satellite disappear and reappear
several times before an occultation in 1863. On the same occasion, Wray saw
the satellite projected onto Jupiter for twenty seconds. Gambart stated that
the first satellite disappeared and reappeared several times before a
transit on October 19, 1823. Secchi and Main had several times observed
Jupiter's edge to "alternately approach and recede from a satellite several
times during five minutes." Grover once observed the second satellite stop
for a full minute in its path before an occultation. William Henry Smyth at
Bedford, Thomas Maclear at Biggleswade, and Pearson at South Kilworth had
separately observed the second satellite approach or disappear past the edge
of Jupiter, reappear for four minutes, then again disappear, on June 26,
1828. Hodgson observed the first satellite projected onto Jupiter's limb for
nearly a minute. Carlisle observed the second satellite for about three-
quarters of a minute after last contact (past the limb) in occultation. And,
T.D. Siminton observed the fourth satellite emerge from Jupiter's shadow
after glimpses for a minute or two and then again disappear, in March of
1883.
11. Ibid, 281-6.
12. Kepler wrote: "...we humans know that the sun is 229 of its own
semidiameters distant from us when its diameter subtends 30', and 222
semidiameters when it subtends 31'." Johannes Kepler. William Halsted
Donahue, ed. and trans. Johannes Kepler, New Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992, 413. In Harmonice Mundi, Kepler gives his measure of
the astronomical unit as 3469 terrestrial semi-diameters, (as compared to
the ancient measure of 1200). Alexandre Koyré. R.E.W. Maddison, trans. The
Astronomical Revolution. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1973,
358-9. The solar parallax, according to Kepler and based on Brahé's
observations, was not greater than 1', (thus it would not be less than
13,000,000 miles). Richard Anthony Proctor. The Sun: Ruler, Fire, Light, and
Life of the Planetary System. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1872, 24.
13. The combined effort by Richer, in Cayenne, and by Cassini, Picard, and
Römer, in France, did not provide a solar parallax, as "the instrumental
means of the observers were insufficient." Cassini determined that, if the
solar parallax of Mars were 25", (which would have been detected by their
instruments), then the earth's solar parallax would have been 10"; and,
Cassini thought that the measure was not more than 9.5". Flamsted, from one
observing station, obtained a measure of 10"; and, Lacaille, at the Cape of
Good Hope, with several Astronomers in Europe, also obtained a solar
parallax of 10", (which would give a distance of about 81,700,000 miles).
Richard Anthony Proctor. The Sun: Ruler, Fire, Light, and Life of the
Planetary System. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1872, 24-5.
14. Aristarchus had attempted to measure when the moon was half-illumined
and obtained a solar parallax of three degrees, which would have meant a
distance of nineteen to twenty times that of the moon; and another method
described by Ptolemy, based upon the shadows of the earth during partial
lunar eclipses, produced a solar parallax of 3' 11", which would be a
distance of 1210 radii of the earth. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 2nd
ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 171-2. Copernicus recalculated
Ptolemy's method with different data and obtained a measure of 1142 radii of
the earth; but, according to his own theory, Copernicus determined the
distance between the earth and sun to vary between 1105 and 1179 radii of
the earth, (which is about 200 times less than the modern measures). Angus
Armitage. Copernicus: The Founder of Modern Astronomy. London: George Allen
& Unwin Ltd., 1938, 128-9.
15. "Recent researches on the distance of the sun." English Mechanic, 38
(September 28, 1883): 79-80, at 79. A.E. Bell. Christian Huygens and the
Development of Science in the Seventeenth Century. London: Edward Arnold &
Co., 1947. Reprint, 1950, 198. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 2nd ed.
London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 172.
16. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green,
and Co., 1892, 280.
17. According to Delambre, in 1819, the time spent in light travelling
across the distance of the sun to the earth was 493.2 seconds; and according
to Glasenapp, in 1874, the estimated time was 500.84 seconds. On this
"light-equation," Clerke states: "...this, from the extreme care employed,
can hardly, at the outside, be more than a couple of seconds astray." Agnes
Mary Clerke. A Popular History of Astronomy. New York: Macmillan & Co.,
1886, 274. Todd explains the difficulty in reconciling these two measures:
"It is quite impossible to judge with certainty just how these two widely
discordant values should be combined." However, this does not prevent Todd
from providing a new value: "I combine the two values giving weight unity to
the first, and weight two the second. The adopted value k is, therefore,
498s.3, which combined with the constant of light-velocity just deduced
gives the mean radius of the orbit of the earth equal to 149,450,000
kilometers = 92,866,000 miles." David Peck Todd. "Solar parallax from the
velocity of light." American Journal of Science, s. 3, 19 (no. 109; January
1880): 59-64, at 62. As Römer only "inferred" a measurement of "about 600
seconds," Moulton states: "Later observations showed that the actual time-
interval for the mean distance from the sun to the earth is 498.58 seconds."
Forest Ray Moulton. Astronomy. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931, 277.
18. George Frederick Chambers. Handbook of Astronomy. As to "great
accuracy," Proctor notes: "The table in Ferguson's Astronomy, complacently
quoted in Chambers's Handbook, at p. 248, is incorrect, owing to the
enormous estimate of the Earth's mean diameter on which the table is based.
Oddly enough, Mr. Chambers has combined the correct estimate for the
parallax at present adopted, with Ferguson's incorrect values. It would
almost appear as though the figures had been simply quoted without being
tested in any way, were not such an idea incredible." Richard Anthony
Proctor. The Sun: Ruler, Fire, Light, and Life of the Planetary System.
London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1872, 40.
19. Agnes Mary Clerke. Popular History of Astronomy. 4th ed. , 230.
20. 95-1/4 million, (not 95,298,260).
21. With the announcement of Encke's measure, the velocity of light was
determined by astronomers to be "no less than 192,000 miles in a single
second." Fizeau measured the velocity as 194,600 miles per second, which was
in accord with Encke's parallax; but, Foucault measured the velocity as
"only 185,300 miles per second," (which was in accord with Winnecke's and
Newcomb's amended measures of the solar parallax, determined by observations
of Mars). "By the year 1864 it had become abundantly clear that the accepted
estimate of the Sun's distance was too great." Richard Anthony Proctor. The
Sun: Ruler, Fire, Light, and Life of the Planetary System. London: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1872, 55-60.
22. Agnes Mary Clerke. A Popular History of Astronomy. New York: Macmillan &
Co., 1886, 274.
23. In Traité de Mecanique Celeste, the solar parallax obtained by Laplace
was 8".56, using Burg's measure of the lunar parallactic inequality of
122".4. Pierre Simon de Laplace. Traité de Mecanique Celeste. Paris, [1798]-
1823, (book 7, #24). Laplace provided further calculations of the solar
parallax, in 1820, of 8".65 and, in his fifth edition of Système du Monde,
of 8".61. Pierre Simon de Laplace. Nathaniel Bowditch, trans. Celestial
Mechanics. Reprint, 4 vols. Bronx, New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1966,
3, 656-8.
24. On this point, Clerke writes: "It is singular how often errors conspire
to lead conviction astray." Agnes Mary Clerke. A Popular History of
Astronomy. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1886, 273.
25. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. Longmans, Green, and
Co., 1892, 275. Proctor also reviews the results of the transits of 1761 and
1769 by different observers, which were later modified by Encke into the
long-standing value of a parallax of 8".5776 or a distance of 95,274,000
miles. The original results of the solar parallax varied greatly: in 1761,
Planmann obtained 8".2; Rumkowski obtained 8".35; Short obtained a value
between 8".47 and 8".52; Audefredy obtained 9".2; Pingré obtained 10"; and,
in 1769, William Smith obtained 7".5; Hornby obtained 8".78; Lalande
obtained 8".8; Lexell obtained between 8".65 and 8".86, adopting 8".8 as his
result; and, Pingré obtained three results, 8".43, 8.88", and 9".2. The
varied results in 1769, ranging from 7".5 to 9".2, correspond to distances
from 87,890,780 to 108,984,560 miles; yet, Encke's value of 8".5776 was
deemed to be correct with no more than one percent error. Proctor wrote: "It
is somewhat surprising, considering the evidence which was afforded by the
discrepancies between the observations made in 1761 and 1769, that this
result should have been regarded with such confidence, since it needed but a
brief examination of the basis on which Encke's result was founded to see
that no faith whatever could be placed in three at least out of the five
numerals in the expression 8".5776. Delambre regarded 8".6, very justly, as
the most probable value of the solar parallax half a century ago." And
Laplace is quoted, regarding Encke's result: "It is remarkable that an
astronomer, without leaving his observatory, by merely comparing his
observations with analysis, has thus been enabled to determine the distance
of the Earth from the Sun -- an element the knowledge of which has been the
fruit of long and troublesome voyages in both hemispheres." Richard Anthony
Proctor. The Sun: Ruler, Fire, Light, and Life of the Planetary System.
London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1872, 2d ed.; 46-8, 50. Newcomb dismisses
Encke's measure as an error, "received without question for more than thirty
years," until Hansen discovered a conflicting measure from his observations
of the lunar parallactic inequality. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 2nd
ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883; 182, 553.
26. Simon Newcomb. Reminiscences of an Astronomer. New York: Houghton,
Mifflin and Co., 1903 , 178-81.
27. Charles Lane Poor. The Solar System. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908,
85-9. London: John Murray, 1908, 85-9.
CHAPTER NINE
ACCORDING to Prof. Newcomb, for instance, the distance of the sun is about
380 times the distance of the moon -- as determined by triangulation.(1) But
upon page 22, Popular Astronomy, Newcomb tells of another demonstration,
with strikingly different results -- as determined by triangulation.(2)
A split god.
The god Triangulation is not one undivided deity.
The other method with strikingly different results is the method of
Aristarchus. It cuts down the distance of the sun, from 380 to 20 times the
distance of the moon. When an observer upon this earth sees the moon half-
illuminated, the angle at the moon, between observer and sun, is a right
angle; a third line between observer and sun completes a triangle. According
to Aristarchus, the tilt of the third line includes an angle of 86 degrees,
making the sun-earth line 20 times longer than the moon-earth line.
"In principle," says Newcomb, "the method is quite correct, and very
ingenious, but it can not be applied in practice." He says that Aristarchus
measured wrong; that the angle between the moon-earth line and the earth-sun
line is almost 90 degrees and not 86 degrees. Then he says that the method
can not be applied because no one can determine this angle that he said is
of almost 90 degrees. He says a something that is so incongruous with the
inflations of astronomers that they'd sizzle if their hypnotized readers
could read and think at the same time. Newcomb says that the method of
Aristarchus can not be applied because no astronomer can determine when the
moon is half-illumined.(3)
We have had some experience.
Does anybody who has been through what we've been through suppose that there
is a Prof. Keeler in the world who would not [65/66] declare that
trigonometrically and spectroscopically and micrometrically he had
determined the exact moment and exasperating, or delightful, decimal of a
moment of semi-illumination of the moon, were it not that, according to at
least as good a mathematician as he, determination based upon that
demonstration does show that the sun is only 20 times as far away as the
moon?(4) But suppose we agree that this simple thing can not be done.
Then instantly we think of some of the extravagant claims with which
astronomers have stuffed supine credulities. Crawling in their unsightly
confusion that sickens for simplification, is this offense to harmony:
That astronomers can tell under which Crusade, or its decimalated moment, a
shine left a star, but cannot tell when a shine reaches a line on the moon -
-
Glory and triumph and selectness and inflation -- or that we shall have
renown as evangelists, spreading the homely and wholesome doctrine of
humility. Hollis, in Chats on Astronomy, tells us that the diameter of this
earth, at the equator, is 41,851,160 feet.(5) But blessed be the meek, we
tell him. In the Observatory, 19-118, is published the determination, by the
astronomer Brenner, of the time of rotation of Venus, as to which other
astronomers differ by hundreds of days.(6) According to Brenner, the time is
23 hours, 57 minutes, and 7.5459 seconds. I do note that this especial
refinement is a little too ethereal for the Editor of the Observatory: he
hopes Brenner will pardon him, but is it necessary to carry out the finding
to the fourth decimal place of a second? However, I do not mean to say that
all astronomers are as refined as Brenner, for instance. In the Jour.
B.A.A., 1-382, Edwin Holmes, perhaps coarsely, expresses some views.(7) He
says that such "exactness" as Captain Noble's in writing that the diameter
of Neptune is 38,133 miles and that of Uranus is 33,836 miles is bringing
science into contempt, because very little is known of these planets; that
according to Neison, these diameters are 27,000 miles and 28,500 miles.
Macpherson, in A Century's Progress in Science, quotes Prof. Serviss: that
the average parallax of a star, which is an ordinary astronomic quantity, is
"about equal to the apparent distance between two pins, place one inch
apart, and viewed from a distance of one hundred and [66/67] eighty
miles."(8) Stick pins in a cushion, in New York -- go to Saratoga and look
at them -- be overwhelmed with the more than human powers of the
scientifically anointed -- or ask them when shines half the moon.
The moon's surface is irregular. I do not say that anybody with brains
enough to know when he had half a shoe polished should know when the sun had
half the moon shined.(9) I do say that if this simple thing can not be
known, the crowings of astronomers as to enormously more difficult
determination are mere barnyard disturbances.
Triangulation that, according to his little priests, straddles orbits and on
his apex wears a star -- that he's a false Colossus; shrinking, at the touch
of data, back from the stars, deflating below the sun and moon; stubbing
down below the clouds of this earth, so that the different stories that he
told to Aristarchus and to Newcomb are the conflicting vainglories of an
earth-tied squatter --
The blow that crumples a god:
That, by triangulation, there is not an astronomer in the world who can tell
the distance of a thing only five miles away.
Humboldt, Cosmos, 5-138:(10)
Height of Mauna Loa: 18,410 feet, according to Cook; 16,611, according to
Marchand; 13,761, according to Wilkes -- according to triangulation.
In the Scientific American, 119-31, a mountain climber calls the Editor to
account for having written that Mt. Everest is 29,002 feet high.(11) He says
that, in his experience, there is always an error of at least ten per cent,
in calculating the height of a mountain, so that all that can be said is
that Mt. Everest is between 26,100 and 31,900 feet high. In the Scientific
American, 102-183, and 319, Miss Annie Peck cites two measurements of a
mountain in India: they differ by 4000 feet.(12)
The most effective way of treating this subject is to find a list of
measurements of a mountain's height before the mountain was climbed, and
compare with the barometric determination, when the mountain was climbed.
For a list of 8 measurements, by triangulation, of the height of Mt. St.
Elias, see the Alpine Journal, 22-150: they vary from 12,672 to 19,500
feet.(13) D'Abruzzi [67/68] climbed Mt. St. Elias, Aug. 1, 1897. See a paper
in the Alpine Journal, 19-125.(14) D'Abruzzi barometric determination --
18,092 feet.
Suppose that, in measuring, by triangulation, the distance of anything five
miles away, the error is, say, ten per cent. But, as to anything ten miles
away, there is no knowing what the error would be. By triangulation, the
moon has been "found" to be 240,000 miles away. It may be 240 miles or
240,000,000 miles away.(15) [68]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Henry Park Hollis states "about 390" times this distance. Chats on
Astronomy. London: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1909 & 1910 eds., 155.
2. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 1st ed. London: Macmillan and Co.,
1878, 22-3. 2d London ed.: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 22-3. The angle is
measured as 87 by Newcomb.
3. "During the seventeenth century the eclipse method for determining the
distance and parallax of the Sun fell from favor owing to its inherent
inaccuracy. For a brief period, the lunar dichotomy method was revived and
applied with the help of the telescope. Determining the exact moment of
dichotomy was not, however, made easier by the telescope; if anything, it
became more difficult. Furthermore, like the eclipse method, the lunar
dichotomy method is inherently inaccurate, for a small error in measurement
results in a much larger error in the final result. Albert Van Helden. "The
dimensions of the solar system." Norman J.W. Thrower, ed. Standing on the
Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of Newton and Halley. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1990, 145-6.
4. Hollis says "nineteen" times, (page 155).
5. Henry Park Hollis. Chats on Astronomy. London: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1909,
1910, (both) 199. This measure is said to be "certainly true within a few
hundred feet."
6. "The rotation of Venus." Observatory, 19 (1896): 116-8. Leo Brenner. "Die
schatten auf der Venus." Astronomische Nachrichten, no. 3314, 25-8. Contrary
to Brenner's determination of a rapid rotational period of Venus in 1895 by
means of observations of its surface markings, V. Cerulli had determined in
the same year a rotation period of 224.7 days from the linear markings he
observed on Venus, (similar to those observed on Mars by Schiaparelli and
Lowell), in the same year. V. Cerulli. "Le ombre di Venere." Astronomische
Nachrichten, no. 3310, 365-8. According to Lowell: "Mercury and Venus rotate
once on their axes in a revolution around the sun." "Mittheilungen vom
Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona." Astronomische Nachrichten, no.
3384, 423-4. Jean Domenique Cassini had previously claimed a rotational
period of 23 hours and 21 minutes, based upon a bright spot and several
dusky spots that he had traced upon the planet in April of 1667. In 1726 and
1727, Bianchini was able to draw a map of the three oceans and two spots on
Venus; but, as stated by Webb, he "gave a wrong rotation of 24d 8h."
Watching the cusps, Schröter also obtained a rotation period of 23 hours 21
minutes, between 1788 and 1793; and, in 1842, De Vico refined this measure
to 23 hours 21 minutes 22 seconds, after rediscovering and observing a
series of markings, or spots, which had first been discovered by Bianchini,
(which Webb says were "found, save in the omission of one one small spot,
remarkably exact"), which were measured 11,800 times by his assistant
Palomba. Lloyd A. Brown. Jean Domenique Cassini and His World Map of 1696.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1941, 34. T.W. Webb.
Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green &
Co., 1881, 54-6. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan
and Co., 1883, 299-300. The period of rotation is actually 243 days, and the
rotation is retrograde, (which is in reverse direction to what had been
reported by all these astronomers).
7. Edwin Holmes. "Accuracy or inaccuracy." Journal of the British
Astronomical Association, 1, 382-5. Correct quote: "...extreme accuracy."
The modern measures given for the diameters of Uranus and Neptune are 31,567
miles (50,800 kilometers) and 30,200 miles (48,600 kilometers),
respectively. Halley also displayed such traits in A Synopsis of the
Astronomy of Comets: "Times of perihelion passage are quoted to the nearest
minutes when they are at most accurate to the nearest 120 minutes. Halley
happily quotes perihelion distances to an accuracy of about 1 part in 50,000
-- when he is working at best only to an accuracy of 1 in 700! It is obvious
that Halley enjoyed using six-figure logarithms and did not like losing
figures when quoting his results, even when these figures were far from
significant. David W. Hughes. "Halley's interest in comets." Norman J.W.
Thrower, ed. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of Newton
and Halley. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990, 362.
8. Hector MacPherson, Jr. A Century's Progress in Astronomy. London: William
Blackwood and Sons, 1906, 158-9. Correct quote: "...between the heads of two
pins, placed an inch apart, and viewed from a distance of a hundred and
eighty miles." Hector MacPherson, Jun. Through the Depths of Space. London:
William Blackwood and Sons, 1908, 88.
9. "But this method is incapable of giving reliable results, owing to the
impossibility of finding the exact instant when the Moon is dichotomized.
The Moon's surface is rough, and covered with mountains, and the tops of
these catch the light before the lower parts, while throwing a shadow on the
portions behind them." C.W.C. Barlow, and, G.H. Bryan. Elementary
Mathematical Astronomy. 2d ed. London: W.B. Clive, 1892, 205.
10. Alexander von Humboldt. Cosmos. New York: Harper, 1855, v. 5, 238.
Humboldt later notes: "Mouna Loa, ascertained by the exact measurement of
the American exploring expedition under Captain Wilkes to be 13,758 feet in
height...," (v. 5 p. 366).
11. M. Hall McAllister. "The Mount Everest Joke." Scientific American, n.s.,
119 (July 13, 1918): 31.
12. Annie S. Peck. "Miss Peck replies to Mrs. Workman." Scientific American,
n.s., 102 (February 26, 1910): 183. William Hunter Workman. "The effect of
refraction on the triangulation of mountain summits." Scientific American,
n.s., 102 (April 16, 1910): 319. The article by Fanny Bullock Workman, which
prompted these articles, was: "Miss Peck and Mrs. Workman." Scientific
American, n.s., 102 (February 12, 1910): 143.
13. Alpine Journal, 22 (March 1904): 150. The eight measures are given as
part of a book review; and, there are four additional other elevations of
Mount St. Elias provided in the book. These measures (in feet) were all
apparently obtained by the triangulation method, as follows: La Perouse
(1786), 12,672; Malaspina (1791), 17,851; Russian chart (1847), 17,854;
Tebenkof (1847), 16,938; Coast Survey (1868), 19,500; Admiralty chart
(1872), 14,970; C. & G. and Nat. Geog. Surv. (1890), 16,350; C. & G. and
Nat. Geog. Surv. (1891), 18,100; Coast Survey (1892), 18,010; International
Boundary Commission (1895), 17,978; Duc D'Abruzzi (1897), 18,060; and, Coast
Survey chart (1900), 18,024. James White. Altitudes in the Dominion of
Canada. Ottawa: Dawson, 1901, 233.
14. Filippo de Filippi. "The expedition of H.R.H. The Prince Louis of Savoy,
Duke of the Abruzzi, to Mount St. Elias (Alaska)." Alpine Journal, 19, 116-
28, at 125. D'Abruzzi reached the summit of St. Elias on July 31st.
15. For nine measures of the parallax of 61 Cygni from the earth, starting
with Bessel in 1838 and ending with Davis in 1897, which vary from 5.8 to
12.1 light-years: "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 65 (June 18,
1897): 410-11, at 410.
CHAPTER TEN
PSEUDO heart of a phantom thing -- it is Keplerism, pulsating with Sir Isaac
Newton's regularizations.
If triangulation can not be depended upon accurately to measure distance
greater than a mile or two between objects and observers, the aspects of
Keplerism that depend upon triangulation should be of no more concern to us
than two pins in a cushion 180 miles away: nevertheless so affected by
something like seasickness are we by the wobbling deductions of the
conventionalists that we shall have direct treatment, or independent
expressions, whenever we can have, or seem to have, them. Kepler saw a
planetary system, and he felt that, if that system could be formulated in
terms of proportionality, by discovering one of the relations
quantitatively, all of its measurements could be deduced. I take from
Newcomb, in Popular Astronomy, that, in Kepler's view, there was a system in
the arrangement and motions of the four little traitors that sneak around
Jupiter; that Kepler, with no suspicions of these little betrayers, reasoned
that this central body and its accompaniments were a representation, upon a
small scale, of the solar system, as a whole.(1) Kepler found that the cubes
of mean distances of neighboring satellites of Jupiter, divided by the
squares of their times, gave the same quotients. He reasoned that the same
relations subsisted among planets, if the solar system be only an
enlargement of the Jovian system.
Observatory, December, 1920: "The discordances between theory and
observation (as to the motions of Jupiter's satellites) are of such
magnitude that continued observations of the precise moments of eclipses are
very much to be desired."(2) In the Report of the Jupiter Section of the
British Astronomical Society, (Mems. B.A.A., 8-83), is a comparison between
observed times and calculated times of these satellites.(3) 65 observations,
in the [69/70] year 1899, are listed. In one instance prediction and
observation agree. Many differences of 3 or 4 minutes are noted, and there
are differences of 5 or 6 minutes.(4)
Kepler formulated his law of proportionality between times and distances of
Jupiter's satellites without knowing what the times are. It should be noted
that the observations in the year 1899 took into consideration fluctuations
that were discovered by Roemer, long after Kepler's time.
Just for the sake of having something that looks like opposition, let us try
to think that Kepler was miraculously right anyway. Then, if something that
may resemble Kepler's Third Law does subsist in the Jovian satellites that
were known to Kepler, by what resemblance to logicality can that
proportionality extend to the whole solar system, if a solar system can be
supposed?
In the year 1892, a fifth satellite of Jupiter was discovered. Maybe it
would conform to Kepler's law, if anybody could find out accurately in what
time the faint speck does revolve. The sixth and seventh satellites of
Jupiter revolve so eccentrically that, in line of sight, their orbits
intersect. Their distances are subject to very great variations; but,
inasmuch as it might be said that their mean distances do conform to
Kepler's Third Law, or would, if anybody could find out what their mean
distances are, we go on to the others. The eighth and ninth conform to
nothing that can be asserted. If one of them goes around in one orbit at one
time, the next time around it goes in some other orbit and in some other
plane. Inasmuch then as Kepler's Third Law, deduced from the system of
Jupiter's satellites, can not be thought to extend even within that minor
system, one's thoughts stray into wondering what two pins in a cushion in
Louisville, Ky., look like from somewhere up in the Bronx, rather than to
dwell any more upon extension of any such pseudo-proportionality to the
supposed solar system, as a whole.(5)
It seems that in many of Kepler's demonstrations was this failure to have
grounds for a starting-point, before extending his reasoning. He taught the
doctrine of the music of the spheres, and assigned bass voices to Saturn and
Jupiter, then tenor to Mars, contralto to the female planet, and soprano, or
falsetto, [70/71] rather, to little Mercury. And that is all very well and
consistently worked out in detail, and it does seem reasonable that, if
ponderous, if not lumpy, Jupiter does sing bass, the other planets join in,
according to sex and huskiness -- however, one does feel dissatisfied.
We have dealt with Newcomb's account. But other conventionalists say that
Kepler worked out his Third Law by triangulation upon Venus and Mercury,
when at greatest elongation, "finding" that the relation between Mercury and
Venus is the same as the relation between Venus and this earth. If,
according to conventionalists, there was no "proof" that this earth moves,
in Kepler's time, Kepler started by assuming that this earth moves between
Venus and Mars; he assumed that the distance of Venus from the sun, at
greatest elongation, represents mean distance; he assumed that observations
upon Mercury indicated Mercury's orbit, an orbit that to this day defies
analysis.(6) However, for the sake of seeming to have opposition, we shall
try to think that Kepler's data did give him material for the formulation of
his law. His data were chiefly the observations of Tycho Brahé. But, by the
very same data, Tycho had demonstrated that this earth does not move between
Venus and Mars; that this earth is stationary. That stoutest of
conventionalists, but at the same time seeming colleague of ours, Richard
Proctor, says that Tycho Brahé's system was consistent with all data. I have
never heard of an astronomer who denies this. Then the heart of modern
astronomy is not Keplerism, but is one diversion of data that beat for such
a monstrosity as something like Siamese Twins, serving both Keplerism and
the Tychonic system. I fear that some of our attempts to find opposition are
not very successful.
So far, this mediæval doctrine, restricting to times and distances, though
for all I know the planets sing proportionately as well as move
proportionately, has data to interpret or to misinterpret. But, when it
comes to extending Kepler's Third Law to the exterior planets, I have never
read of any means that Kepler had of determining their proportional
distances. He simply said that Mars and Jupiter and Saturn were at distances
that proportionalized with their times. He argued, reasonably enough,
[71/72] perhaps, that the slower-moving planets are the remoter, but that
has nothing to do with proportional remoteness.
This is the pseudo heart of phantom astronomy.
To it Sir Isaac Newton gave a seeming of coherence.
I suspect that it was not by chance that the story of an apple should so
importantly appear in two mythologies. The story of Newton and the apple was
first told by Voltaire.(7) One has suspicions of Voltaire's meanings.
Suppose Newton did see an apple fall to the ground, and was so inspired, or
victimized, into conceiving in terms of universal attraction. But had he
tried to take a bone away from a dog, he would have had another impression,
and would have been quite as well justified in explaining in terms of
universal repulsion. If, as to all inter-acting things, electric, biologic,
psychologic, economic, sociologic, magnetic, chemic, as well as canine,
repulsion is as much of a determinant as is attraction, the Law of
Gravitation, which is an attempt to explain in terms of attraction only, is
as false as would be dogmas upon all other subjects if couched in terms of
attraction only.(8) So it is that the law of gravitation has been a rule of
chagrin and fiasco. So, perhaps accepting, or passionately believing in
every symbol of it, a Dr. Adams calculates that the Leonids will appear in
November, 1899 -- but chagrin and fiasco -- the Leonids do not appear. The
planet Neptune was not discovered mathematically, because, though it was in
the year 1846, somewhere near the position of the formula, in the year 1836
or 1856, it would have been nowhere near the orbit calculated by Leverrier
and Adams. Some time ago, against the clamor that a Trans-Uranian planet had
been discovered mathematically, it was our suggestion that, if this be not a
myth, let the astronomer now discover the Trans-Neptunian planet
mathematically. That there is no such mathematics, in the face of any number
of learned treatises, is far more strikingly betrayed by those shining
little misfortunes, the satellites of Jupiter. Satellite after satellite of
Jupiter was discovered, but by accident or by observation, and not once by
calculation: never were the perturbations of the earlier known satellites
made the material for deducing the positions of other satellites.(9)
Astronomers have pointed to the sky, and there has been nothing; one of them
pointed in four directions at once, and four times [72/73] over, there was
nothing; and many times when they have not pointed at all, there has been
something.(10)
Apples fall to the ground, and dogs growl, if their bones are taken away:
also flowers bloom in the spring, and a trodden worm turns.
Nevertheless strong is the delusion that there is gravitational astronomy,
and the great power of the Law of Gravitation, in popular respectfulness, is
that it is mathematically expressed. According to my view, one might as well
say that it is fetishly expressed. Descartes was as great a mathematician as
Newton: veritably enough it may be said that he invented, or discovered,
analytic geometry; only patriotically do Englishmen say that Newton
invented, or discovered, the infinitesimal calculus.(11) Descartes, too,
formulated a law of the planets and not by a symbol was he less bewildering
and convincing to the faithful, but his law was not in terms of gravitation,
but in terms of vorticose motion.(12) In the year 1732, the French Academy
awarded a prize to John Bernouli, for his magnificent mathematical
demonstration, which was as unintelligible as anybody's. Bernouli, too,
formulated, or said he formulated, planetary inter-actions, as
mathematically as any of his hypnotized admirers could have desired: it,
too, was not gravitational.(13)
The fault that I find with a great deal of mathematics in astronomy is the
fault that I should find in architecture, if a temple, or a skyscraper, were
supposed to prove something. Pure mathematics is architecture: it has no
more place in astronomy than has the Parthenon. It is the arbitrary: it will
not spoil a line nor dent a surface for a datum. There is a faint uniformity
in every chaos: in discolorations on an old wall, anybody can see
recognizable appearances; in such a mixture a mathematician will see squares
and circles and triangles. If he would merely elaborate triangles and not
apply his diagrams to theories upon the old wall itself, his constructions
would be as harmless as poetry. In our metaphysics, unity can not, of
course, be the related. A mathematical expression of unity can not, except
approximately, apply to a planet, which is not final, but is part of
something.
Sir Isaac Newton lived long ago. Every thought in his mind [73/74] was a
reflection of his era. To appraise his mind at all comprehensively, consider
his works in general. For some other instances of his love of numbers, see,
in his book upon the Prophecies of Daniel, his determinations upon the
eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth animal.(14) If that demonstration be not
very acceptable nowadays, some of his other works may now be archaic. For
all I know Jupiter may sing bass, either smoothly or lumpily, and for all I
know there may be some formulable ratio between an eleventh horn of a fourth
animal and some other quantity: I complain against the dogmas that have
solidified out of the vaporings of such minds, but I suppose I am not very
substantial, myself. Upon general principles, I say that we take no ships of
the time of Newton for models for the ships of today, and build and
transport in ways that are magnificently, or perhaps disastrously,
different, but that, at any rate, are not the same; and that the principles
of biology and chemistry and all the other sciences, except astronomy, are
not what they were in Newton's time, whether every one of them is a delusion
or not. My complaint is that the still mediæval science of astronomy holds
back alone in a general appearance of advancement, even though there
probably never has been real advancement.
There is something else to be said upon Keplerism and Newtonism. It is a
squirm. I fear me that our experiences have sophisticated us. We have noted
the division in Keplerism, by which, like everything else that we have
examined, it is as truly interpretable one way as it is another way.
The squirm:
To lose all sense of decency and value of data, but to be agreeable; but to
be like everybody else, and intend to turn our agreeableness to profit;
To agree with the astronomers that Kepler's three laws are, not absolutely
true, of course, but are approximations, and that the planets do move, as in
Keplerian doctrine they are said to move -- but then to require only one
demonstration that this earth is one of the planets;
To admire Newton's Principia from the beginning to the end of it, having,
like almost all other admirers, never even seen a copy of it; to accept
every theorem in it, without having the [74/75] slightest notion what any
one of them means; to accept that moving bodies do obey the laws of motion,
and must move in one of the conic sections -- but then to require only one
demonstration that this earth is a moving body.
Kepler's three laws are probably supposed to demonstrate that this earth
moves around the sun. This is a mistake. There is something wrong with
everything that is popular. As was said, by us, before, accept that this
earth is stationary, and Kepler's doctrines apply equally well to a sun
around which proportionately interspaced planets move in ellipses, the whole
system moving around a central and stationary earth. All observations upon
the motions of heavenly bodies are in accord with this interpretation of
Kepler's laws. Then as to nothing but a quandary, which means that this
earth is stationary, or which means that this earth is not stationary, just
as one pleases, Sir Isaac Newton selected, or pleased himself and others.
Without one datum, without one little indication more convincing one way
than the other, he preferred to think that this earth is one of the moving
planets. To this degree had he the "profundity" that we read about. He wrote
no books upon the first and second horns of his dilemma: he simply
disregarded the dilemma.
To anybody who may be controversially inclined, I offer simplification. He
may feel at a disadvantage against batteries of integrals and bombardments
of quaternions, transcendental functions, conics, and all the other stores
of an astronomer's munitions --
Admire them. Accept that they do apply to the bodies that move around the
sun. Require one demonstration that this earth is one of those bodies. For
treatment of any such "demonstration," see our disquisition, or our
ratiocinations upon the Three Abstrusities, or our intolerably painful
attempts to write seriously upon the Three Abstrusities.
We began with three screams from an exhilarated mathematician. We have had
some doubtful adventures, trying hard to pretend that monsters, or little
difficulties, did really oppose us. We have reached, not the heart of the
system, but the crotch of quandary. [75]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 1st ed. London: Macmillan and Co.,
1878, 79-80. 2d London ed. Macmillan and Co., 1883, 80. Newcomb states that
Kepler's third law is "not yet complete" and that "it is known from
observation that the planets do not move in exact accordance with Kepler's
laws." Newcomb also provides two laws, such as exist "nowhere else in the
solar system," concerning the three inner satellites of Jupiter: "1. That
the mean motion of the first satellite added to twice the mean motion of the
third is exactly equal to three times the mean motion of the second. 1. That
if to the mean longitude of the first satellite we add twice the mean
longitude of the third, and subtract three times the mean longitude of the
second, the difference is always 180." Ibid: 1st ed., 337-8; 2nd ed., 347-8.
2. "Eclipses of Jupiter's satellites." Observatory, 43 (December 1920): 431-
2. Fort has added the phrase in parantheses. Correct quote: "...are much to
be desired." According to Forbes, Horrocks discovered errors in Jupiter's
calculated place, (as given by Kepler), and Cassini worked out "a lunar
theory for Jupiter" in 1665. George Forbes. History of Astronomy. London:
Watts & Co., 1909; 50, 114. The theory of the Jovian satellites was further
refined by Laplace, Damoiseau, Leverrier, and John Couch Adams. The motions
of the satellites had been exactingly examined with consideration towards
the influence of Jupiter's shape, their mutual perturbative interactions
(amongst the four satellites), and Saturn, on a scale that was to measure
the inequality of the motion of each, to a ten-thousandth of a second, over
the next 500 years; but, these measures were determined in 1885, after the
revision of Laplace's Mecanique Celeste in 1882, and before the discovery of
any additional satellites. John Couch Adams. The Scientific Papers of John
Couch Adams. 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1900, v. 2; 136-91, 224-6.
3. "Report of the Jupiter Section. Part 4. Satellite Observations." Memoirs
of the British Astronomical Association, 8, 83-7.
4. Sixty-six phenomena were predicted by the Nautical Almanac and compared
with observations in this report; the only observation in which the
prediction was confirmed was upon May 30, 1899; and, the difference in time
of the phenomenon as predicted and as observed upon September 12, 1899,
amounted to eleven minutes.
5. If Saturn's moons were considered as models, the existence of the co-
orbital satellites Janus and Epimetheus would add another possibility, as
they exchange places in each other's orbits every four years. The third law
of Kepler was also rejected in the case of the Saturnian system. Newcomb,
(who cautioned: "The masses of many of the planets are still very
uncertain"), noted: "The most noteworthy deviation is in the case of Saturn,
of which Leverrier has found the mass to be 1/3529.6, a result entirely
incompatible with the observations of the satellites." Simon Newcomb.
Popular Astronomy. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 549. The modern
value of Saturn's mass is 1/3498.5 of the solar mass. Jeffrey K. Wagner.
Introduction to the Solar System. Toronto: Saunders College Publishing,
1991; 319-21, A.9.
6. The principal reasoning for placing Earth between Venus and Mars, (apart
from following the Copernican model of the solar system), was the period of
the revolution of these planets. In the introduction of Astronomia Nova,
Kepler asks: "Unless we are to be forced to admit the absurd conclusion that
the sun is moved by the earth, we must allow the sun to be fixed and the
earth to move. What shall I say of the motion's periodic time of 365 days,
intermediate in quantity between the periodic time of Mars of 687 days and
that of Venus of 225 days? Does not the nature of things cry out with a
great voice that the circuit in which these 365 days are used up also
occupies a place intermediate between those of Mars and Venus about the sun,
and thus itself also encircles the sun, and not of the sun about the earth?"
Johannes Kepler. William Halsted Donahue, trans. Johannes Kepler, New
Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 53.
7. "And thus in our days Sir Isaak Newton walking in his gardens had the
first thought of his system of gravitation, upon seeing an apple falling
from a tree." Voltaire. Ulla Kölving, ed. The English Essays of 1727. Vol.
3B of The Complete Works of Voltaire. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1996,
372-3. Voltaire. W.H. Barber, and, Ulla Kölving, eds. Eléments de la
Philosophie de Newton. Vol. 15 of The Complete Works of Voltaire. Oxford:
University of Oxford, 1992; 34, 418-9.
8. "If it is not an occult quality then, so Leibniz maintained, `the
attraction of bodies, properly so-called, is a miraculous thing.' According
to Leibniz, such attraction at a distance was unacceptable, being
`inexplicable, unintelligible, precarious, groundless and unexampled.' Like
so many of his contemporaries, Leibniz was much happier explaining the
motion of the planets in terms of vortices in a Cartesian aether, and had
such a theory been worked out in detail with the success of Newton's, there
can be little doubt as to which would have prevailed." A significant
difference between Newton's theory of gravitation and that of Einstein is
that Newton's identifies gravitational forces as "attractions," whereas
Einstein's is "indifferent as between attraction and repulsion." John D.
North. The Measure of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965; 25, 67.
9. Barnard discovered Amalthea, (satellite 5), in 1892, by visual
observation; Perrine discovered Himalia and Elara, (satellites 6 and 7), in
1904; Melotte discovered Pasiphae, (satellite 8) in 1908; and, Nicholson
discovered Sinope, (satellite 9), in 1914. Four more satellites, (Lysithea,
Carme, Ananke, and Leda), were discovered from 1938 to 1974; and, three more
satellites, (Metis, Adrastea, and Thebe), were discovered by the Voyageur 1
and 2 spacecraft in 1979. After Barnard's Amalthea, the next eight
satellites were all discovered from examinations of photographic plates.
Amalthea and the Galilean satellites, (or "regular satellites"), follow
spin-orbit coupling and are mutually perturbed by "the puzzling Laplace
resonance." The orbits of the remaining satellites are "located at relative
distances from Jupiter similar to those of the terrestrial planets from the
sun," but these "irregular satellites" are characterized differently. "With
the exception of Himalia, and perhaps Elara (J7), the outer satellites are
difficult objects to observe photoelectrically because of their faintness
and their poorly defined ephemerides." D. Morrison and, J.A. Burns. "The
Jovian satellites." Tom Gehrels, ed. Jupiter. Tucson, Arizona: University of
Arizona Press, 1976; 993-5, 1026. Jeffrey K. Wagner. Introduction to the
Solar System. Toronto: Saunders College Publishing, 1991; 290-2, A.16.
10. William H. Pickering was one of the astronomers with a tendency to point
to many hypothetical planets, some of which he identified as "O," "P," "S,"
"T," and "U." William H. Pickering. "The next planet beyond Neptune."
Popular Astronomy, 36 (1928): 143-65, 218-21. William H. Pickering. "The
three outer planets beyond Neptune." Popular Astronomy, 36 (1928): 417-24.
William H. Pickering. "Planet O." Popular Astronomy, 37 (1929): 135-8.
William H. Pickering. "Planet P. Comet 1930 III, Wilk, number 590." Popular
Astronomy, 39 (1931): 321-3. William H. Pickering. "Planet P, its orbit,
position, and magnitude. Planets S and T." Popular Astronomy, 39 (1931):
385-98. William H. Pickering. "Planet U, and the orbits of Saturn and
Jupiter." Popular Astronomy, 40 (1932): 69-88. William H. Pickering. "First
report on the search for Planet P." Popular Astronomy, 40 (1932): 351-4.
11. Florian Cajori. A History of Mathematics. New York: Macmillan and Co.,
1894; 185-6, 200, 220-36. Newton's invention of infinitesimal calculus was
disputed by those who sought to give credit to Fermat, (by Lagrange and
Laplace), and to Leibniz, (who first published its notation and rules, but
who did little to explain them); and, Cajori states its invention "was not
so much an individual discovery as the grand result of a succession of
discoveries by different minds."
12. Oliver Lodge. Pioneers of Science. London: Macmillan and Co., 1893, 151-
5.
13. "Even as late as 1730 the Paris Academy of Sciences awarded a prize to
an essay on the planetary motions by John Bernoulli, written on Descartes'
principles, giving second place to a Newtonian essay." Peter Doig. A Concise
History of Astronomy. London: Chapman & Hall, 1950, 88. John D. North. The
Measure of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, 25. Jean Bernoulli
(I), (not Bernouli), was also identified as John Bernoulli; and, the date of
this award, according to Newcomb, was 1732. Simon Newcomb. Popular
Astronomy. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 80-1.
14. Isaac Newton. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the
Apocalypse of St. John. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733; ch. 7, 74-89,
"Of the eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth Beast," and, ch. 8, 90-114, "Of the
power of the eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth Beast." Newton attempted, by
mathematical reckoning, to recognize the true nature of the prophecy and to
show that the horns of the fourth beast represented the Roman Empire and the
Roman Catholic Church, as Antichrist. Like other anti-papists, Newton chose
to ignore many commentators who had identified the horns as successive
kings, either Ptolemies or Seleucids and most specifically Antiochus
Epiphanes, who had persecuted the Jews during the Maccabean era. Louis
Trenchard More. Isaac Newton: A Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1934, 625-9. John J. Collins. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of
Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993; 112-23, 274-324.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
WE have seen that some of the most brilliant inspirations of god-like
intellects, or some of the most pestilential emanations from infected minds,
have been attempts to account for the virtual changelessness of the stars.
Above all other data of astronomy, that virtual changelessness of positions
stands out as a crucial circumstance in my own mind. To account for
constellations that have not changed in 2,000 years, astronomers say that
they conceive of inconceivable distances. We shall have expressions of our
own upon the virtual changeless positions of the stars; but there will be
difficulties for us if the astronomers ever have found that some stars move
around or with other stars. I shall take up the story of Prof. Struve and
the "Companion of Procyon," with more detail, for the sake of some more
light upon refinement, exactness, accuracy in astronomy, and for the sake of
belittling, or for the sake of sneering, or anything else that anybody may
choose to call it.
Prof. Struve's announcement of his discovery of the "Companion of Procyon"
is published in the Monthly Notices, 33-430 -- that, upon the 19th of March,
1873, Struve had discovered the companion of Procyon, having compared it
micrometrically, having tested his observations with three determinations of
position-angle, three measures of distance, and three additional
determinations of position-angle, finding all in "excellent agreement."(1)
No optical illusion could be possible, it is said, because another
astronomer, Lindemann, had seen the object. Technically, Struve publishes a
table of his observations: sidereal times, distances, position-angles; from
March 19 to April 2, 1873, after which his observations had to be
discontinued until the following year. In Monthly Notices, 34-355, are
published the resumed observations.(2) Struve says that Auwers would not
accept the discovery, unless, in the year that had elapsed, the "companion"
had shown increase in position, consistent with theory. Struve writes --
"This [76/77] increase has really shown itself in the most remarkable
manner." Therefore, he considers it "decisively established" that the object
of his observations was the object of Auwers' calculations.(3) He says that
Ceraski, of Moscow, had seen the "companion," "without being warned of the
place where it was to be looked for."
However -- see back some chapters.(4)
It may be said that, nevertheless, other stars have companions that do move
as they should move. Later we shall consider this subject, thinking that it
may be that lights have been seen to change position near some stars, but
that never has a star revolved around another star, as to fit palæo-
astronomic theory it should. I take for a basis of analogy that never has
one sat in a park and watched a tree revolve around one, but that given the
affliction, or the endowment, of an astronomer, illusion of such a
revolution one may have. We sit in a park. We notice a tree. Wherever we get
the notion, we do have the notion that the tree has moved. Then, farther
along, we notice another tree, and, as an indication of our vivid
imagination or something else, we think it is the same tree, farther along.
After that we pick out tree after tree, farther along, and, convinced that
it is the same tree, of course conclude that the thing is revolving around
us. Exactness and refinement develop: we compute the elements of its orbit.
We close our eyes and predict where the tree will be when next we look; and
there, by the same process of selection and identification, it is where it
"should" be. And if we have something of almost everybody's mania for speed,
we make that dam thing spin around with such velocity that we, too, reel in
a chaos of very much unsettled botanic conventions.(5) There is nothing far-
fetched in this analogy, except the factor of velocity. Goldschmidt did
announce that there were a half a dozen faint points of light around Sirius,
and it was Dawes' suspicion that Clark had arbitrarily picked out one of
them. It is our expression that all around Sirius, at various distances from
Sirius, faint points of light were seen, and that at first, even for the
first sixteen years, astronomers were not thoroughly hypnotized, and would
not pick out the especial point of light that they should have picked out,
so that there was nothing like agreement between [77/78] the calculated and
the observed orbit. Besides the irreconcilable observations noted by
Flammarion, see the Intel. Obs., 1-482, for others.(6) Then came
standardized seeing. So, in the Observatory, 20-73, is published a set of
observations, in the year 1896, upon the "Companion of Sirius," placing it
exactly where it should be.(7) Nevertheless, under this set of observations
is published another set, so different that the Editor asks -- "Does this
mean that there are two companions?"
Dark Companions require a little more eliminative treatment. So the variable
nebulæ, then -- and do dark nebulæ revolve around light nebulæ? For
instances of variable nebulæ, see Mems. R.A.S., 49-214; Comptes Rendus, 59-
637; Monthly Notices, 38-104.(8) It may be said that they are not of the
Algol-type. Neither is Algol, we have shown.(9)
According to the compulsions of data, our idea is that the stars that seem
to be fixed in position are fixed in position, so now "proper motion" is as
irreconcilable to us as relative motions.
As to "proper motion," the situation is this:
The stars that were catalogued 2,000 years ago have virtually not changed,
or, if there be refinement in modern astronomy, have changed no more than a
little more nearly exact charting would account for; but, in astronomic
theory, the stars are said to be thought of as flying apart at unthinkable
velocity; so then evidence of changed positions of stars is welcome to
astronomers.(10) As to well-known constellations, it can not be said that
there has been change; so, with several exceptions, "proper motion" is
attributed to stars that are not well-known.
The result is an amusing trap. Great proper motion is said to indicate
relative nearness to this earth. Of the twenty-five stars of supposed
greatest proper motion, all but two are faintest of stars; so these twenty-
three are said to be nearest this earth. But when astronomers take the
relative parallax of a star, by reference to a fainter star, they agree that
the fainter star, because fainter, is farther away. So one time faintness
associates with nearness, and then conveniences change, and faintness
associates with farness, and the whole subject so associates with humourous-
[78/79] ness, that if we're going to be serious at all in these expressions
of ours we had better pass on.
* * *
Observatory, March, 1914:(11)
A group of three stars that disappeared.
If three stars disappeared at once, they were acted upon by something that
affected all in common. Try to think of some one force that would not tear
the seeable into visible rags, that could blot out three stars, if they were
trillions of miles apart. If they were close together that ends the
explanation that only because stars are trillions of miles apart have they,
for at least 2,000 years, seemed to hold the same relative positions.
In Agnes Clerke's System of the Stars are cited many instances of stars that
seem to be so closely related that it seems impossible to think that they
are trillions, or billions, or millions of miles apart: such formations as
"seven aligned stars appearing to be strung on a silvery filament."(12)
There are loops of stars in a cluster in Auriga; lines and arches in
Opiuchus; zig-zag figures in Sagittarius.(13) As to stars that not only seem
close together but that are colored alike, Miss Clerke expresses her feeling
that they are close together -- "If these colors be inherent, it is
difficult to believe that the stars distinguished by them are simply thrown
together by perspective."(14) As to figures in Sagittarius, Fison (Recent
Advances in Astronomy) cites an instance of 30 small stars in the form of a
forked twig, with dark rifts parallel.(15) According to Fison, probability
is overwhelmingly against the three uncommon stars in the belt of Orion
falling into a straight line, by chance distribution, considering also that
below this line is another of five faint stars parallel. There are dark
lanes or rifts in the Milky Way that are like branches from main lines or
rifts, and the rifts sometimes have well-defined edges. In many regions
where there are dark rifts there are lines of stars that are roughly
parallel --
That it is not distances apart that have held the stars from changing
relatively to one another, because there are hosts of indications that some
stars are close together, and are, or have been, affected, in common, by
local formative forces. [79/80]
* * *
For a detailed comparison, by J.E. Gore, of stars of today with stars
catalogued by Al-Sufi about 1,000 years ago, see the Observatory, vol.
23.(16) The stars have not changed in position, but it does seem that there
have been many changes in magnitude.
Other changes -- Pubs. Astro. Soc. Pacific, No. 185 (1920) -- discovery of
the seventeenth new star in one nebula (Andromeda).(17) For lists of stars
that have disappeared, see Monthly Notices, 8-16, 10-18, 11-47; Sidereal
Messenger, 6-320; Jour. B.A.A., 14-255.(18) Nebulae that have disappeared --
see Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-33-436; Clerke's System of the Stars, p. 293;
Nature, 30-20.(19)
In the Sidereal Messenger, 5-269, Prof. Colbert writes that, upon August 20,
1886, an astronomer, in Chicago, saw, for about half an hour, a small comet-
like projection from the star Zeta, in Cassiopeia.(20)
So, then, changes have been seen at the distance of the stars.
When the new star in Perseus appeared, in February, 1901, it was a point of
light. Something went out from it, giving it in six months a diameter equal
to half the apparent diameter of the moon. The appearances looked
structural. To say loosely that they were light-effects, something like a
halo, perhaps, is to ignore their complexity and duration and differences.
According to Newcomb, who is occasionally quotable in our favor, these
radiations were not merely light-rays, because they did not go out uniformly
from the star, but moved out variously and knotted and curved.
It was visible motion, at the distance of Nova Persei.
In Monthly Notices, 58-334, Dr. Espin writes that, upon the night of Jan.
16, 1898, he saw something that looked like a cloud in Perseus.(21) It could
have been nothing in the atmosphere of this earth, nor anything far from the
constellation, because he saw it again in Perseus, upon Jan. 24. He writes
that, upon Feb. 17, Mr. Heath and Dr. Halm saw it, like a cloud, dimming and
discoloring stars shining through it. At the meeting the British
Astronomical Association, Feb. 23, 1898 (Jour. B.A.A., 8-216) Dr. Espin
described this appearance and answered questions.(22) "It was not a nebula,
and was it like one." [80/81] "Whatever it was it had the peculiar property
of dimming and blotting out stars."
This thing moved into Perseus and then moved away.
Clerke, System of the Stars, p.295 -- a nebula that changed position
abruptly, between the years 1833 and 1835, and then changed no more.(23)
According to Sir John Herschel, a star was central in this nebula, when
observed in 1827, and in 1833, but, in August, 1835, the star was upon the
eastern side of the nebula.
That it is not distance from this earth that has kept changes of positions
of the stars from being seen, for 2,000 years, because occasional, abrupt
changes of position have been seen at the distance of the stars.
* * *
That, whether there be a shell-like, revolving composition, holding the
stars in position, and in which the stars are openings, admitting light from
an existence external to the shell, or not, all stars are at about the same
distance from this earth, as they would be if this earth were stationary and
central to such a shell, revolving around it --
According to the aberration-forms of the stars.
All stars, at the pole of the ecliptic, describe circles annually; stars
lower down describe ellipses that reduce more and more the farther down they
are, until at the ecliptic they describe straight lines yearly.
Suppose all the stars to be openings, fixed in position relatively to one
another, in some inter-spacing substance. Conceive if a gyration to the
whole aggregation, and relatively to a central and stationary earth: then,
as seen from this earth, all would describe circles, near the axis, ellipses
lower down, and straight lines at the limit of transformation. If all were
at the same distance from this earth, or if all were points in one gyrating
concave formation, equi-distant to all points from the central earth, all
would have the same amplitude. All aberration- forms of the stars, whether
of brilliant or faint stars, whether circles or ellipses or straight lines,
have the same amplitude: about 41 seconds of arc.(24)
* * *
If all stars are points of light admitted from externality, held [81/82]
fixed and apart in one shell-like composition that is opaque in some parts
and translucent in some parts and perforated generally --
The Gegenschein --
That we have indication that there is such a shell around our existence.
The Gegenschein is a round patch of light in the sky. It seems to be
reflected sunlight, at night, because it keeps position about opposite the
sun's.
The crux:
Reflected sunlight -- but reflecting from what?
That the sky is a matrix, in which the stars are openings, and that, upon
the inner, concave surface of this celestial shell, the sun casts its light,
even if the earth is between, no more blotted out in the middle by the
intervening earth than often to considerable degree is its light blotted out
upon the moon during an eclipse of the moon, occupying no time in traveling
the distance of the stars and back to this earth, because the stars are
near, or because there is no velocity of light.
Suppose the Gegenschein could be a reflection of sunlight from anything at a
distance less than the distance of the stars. It would have parallax against
its background of stars.
Observatory, 17-47:(25)
"The Gegenschein has no parallax."
* * *
At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, Jan. 11, 1878, was read a
paper by W.F. Denning.(26) It was, by its implications, one of the most
exciting documents in history. The subject was: "Suspected repetitions in
meteor-showers." Mr. Denning listed twenty-two radiants that lasted from
three to four months each.
In the year 1799, Humboldt noticed that the paths of meteors, when parts of
one display, led back to one point of common origin, or one point from which
all the meteors radiated.(27) This is the radiant-point, or the radiant.
When a radiant occurs under a constellation, the meteors are named
relatively. In the extraordinary meteoric display of November 13-14, 1833,
there was a circumstance that was as extraordinary as the display it-
[82/83] self: that, though this earth is supposed to rotate upon its axis,
giving to the stars the appearance of revolving nightly, and supposed to
revolve around the sun, so affecting the seeming motions of the stars, these
meteors of November, 1833, began under the constellation Leo, and six hours
later, though Leo had changed position in the sky, had changed with, and
seemed still coming from, Leo.
There was no parallax along the great base line from Canada to Florida.
Then these meteors did come from Leo, or parallax, or absence of parallax,
is meaningless.
The circumstance of precise position maintained under a moving constellation
upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1833, becomes insignificant relatively to
Denning's data of such synchronization with a duration of months. When a
radiant-point remains under Leo or Lyra, night after night, month after
month, it is either that something is shifting it, without parallax, in
exact coincidence with a doubly shifting constellation, which is so
unthinkable that Denning says, "I can not explain," or that the
constellation is the radiant-point, in which case maintenance of precise
position under it is unthinkable if it be far away --
That the stars are near.
Think of a ship, slowly sailing past a seacoast town, firing with smokeless
powder, say. Shells from it burst before quite reaching the town, and all
explosion-points are in line between the city and the ship, or are traceable
to one such radiant. The bombardment continues. The ship moves slowly. Still
all points of exploding shells are traceable to one point between the ship
and the town. The bombardment goes on and goes on and goes on, and the ship
is far from its first position. The point of exploding shells is still
between the ship and the town. Wise men in the town say that the shells are
not coming from the ship. They say this because formerly they had said that
shells could not come from a ship. They reason: therefore shells are not
coming from this ship. They are asked how, then, the point of explosion
could so shift exactly in line with the moving ship. If there be a W.F.
Denning among them, he will say, "I can not explain." But the other wise men
will be like [83/84] Prof. Moulton, for instance. In his books, Prof.
Moulton writes a great deal upon the subject of meteors, but he does not
mention the meteors that, for months at a time, appear between observers and
a shifting constellation.(28)
There are other considerations. The shells are heard to explode. So then
they explode near the town. But there is something the matter with that
smokeless powder aboard ship: very feeble projectile-force, because also
must the shells be exploding near the ship, or the radiant-point would not
have the same background, as seen from different parts of the town. Then, in
this town, inhabitants, provided they be not wise men, will conclude that,
if the explosion-point is near the town, and is also near the ship, the ship
is near the town --
Leo and Lyra and Andromeda -- argosies that sail the sky and that bombard
this earth -- and that they are not far away.
And some of us there may be who, instead of trying to speculate upon an
unthinkable remoteness, will suffer a sensitiveness to proximity instead;
enter a new revolt against a black encompassment that glitters with a light
beyond, and wonder what exists in a brilliant environment not far away --
and a new anguish for hyperæsthesia upon this earth: a suffocating
consciousness of the pressure of the stars.
The Sickle of Leo, from which come the Leonids, gleams like a great
question-mark in the sky.
The answer --
But God knows what the answer to anything is.
Perhaps it is that the stars are very close indeed. [84]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Otto Struve. "Observations of Procyon as a double star." Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33 (May 1873): 430-3.
2. Otto Struve. "Continued observations of the companion of Procyon."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 34 (May 1874): 335-9, at
337-8. Correct quote: "...shown itself above in the most remarkable manner."
3. Auwers. "On the variable proper motion of Procyon," by Auwers. Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 34 (November 1873): 25-6.
4. To part 1, chapter 4.
5. Damn, sic.
6. "The companion of Sirius." Intellectual Observer, 1 (1862): 482. "Mr.
Lassell is astonished at the discrepancy in the measurements of distance,
which at Cambridge, U.S., appeared 10".37 on the 20th of February; at Paris,
20th March, 7".4; at Malta, 11th April, 4".92."
7. "The companion to Sirius." Observatory, 20 (1897): 73. The first set of
three observations by Cogshall, Lowell, and See at the Lowell Observatory
differed from the predicted location; but, the second set of observations by
Aitken and Schaeberle at the Lick Observatory agreed with the predicted
location.
8. J.L.E. Dreyer. "A new general catalogue of nebulae and clusters of stars,
being the catalogue of the late Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart., revised,
corrected, and enlaged." Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 49
(1887-1889): 1-237, at 214 (c.v. NGC 1333). Chacornac. "Nébuleuse variable
de Taureau." Comptes Rendus, 56 (1863): 637-9. Winnecke. "On the evidence of
periodic variability of the Nebula H.II.278, 1860.0, a=2h 23m 25s, =-1
43'.0." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 38 (1878): 104-6.
For a review of this subject: Agnes M. Clerke. The System of the Stars.
London: Adam & Charles Black, 1905, ch. 21, "The nature and changes of
nebulæ," 272-81. At one time, the "Andromeda Nebula" (M31) was considered
"variable" by Boulliard, as an explanation for the failure of Hipparchus,
Tycho Brahé, and Bayer to take note of this celestial object, which is
visible to the naked eye. Ibid, (Clerke), 257-8.
9. See back to Part 1, Chapter 4.
10. While seeking to determine the precession of the equinoxes, Halley
detected minor changes in the latitudes amounting to about 20' for Aldebaran
(Palilicium), about 33' for Arcturus, and about 22' for Sirius, from those
in Ptolemy's Almagest. Halley dismissed the possibility that changes in
these measurements were errors made by Hipparchus, Timocharis, and Ptolemy,
some "1800 years" before; for, he noted that the latitude of Sirius had
increased 4.5', though it should have only changed 2.5' since Tycho Brahé
had charted it: "One half of this difference may perhaps be excused, if
refraction were not allowed in this case by Tycho; yet two minutes, in such
a star as Sirius, is somewhat too much for him to be mistaken." Also, an
occultation of Aldebaran by the moon at Athens, in 509 A.D., would not have
seemed possible if its latitude had not changed beyond that expected as a
result of precession. Yet, in the various editions of the Almagest, there
are many instances of differences in latitudes; for examples: of "- 23" and
"- 20-1/3" in the case of Alpha Piscis Austrinus, and, of "- 44-1/6" and "-
41-1/6" in the case of Alpha Centauri, (both being first magnitude stars).
Ptolemy also makes note of variations in the latitudes of the stars between
the time of his measures and those of Hipparchus and Timocharis, which he
attributes to a precession of 1 in 100 years, (though errors abound in the
observations and computations). Angus Armitage. Edmond Halley. London:
Nelson, 1966, 188-91. Edmond Halley. "Considerations on the change of the
latitudes of some of the principal fixt stars." Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, 30 (no. 355; Jan., Feb., March and April,
1718): 1-3. Claudius Ptolemy. G.J. Toomer, trans. Ptolemy's Almagest.
London: Duckworth, 1984; 329-38, 347, 362, 378, 387, 395.
11. I have not found any such report in the March 1914 issue of Observatory.
12. Agnes Mary Clerke. System of the stars. 2d ed. 1905, (relatedness of
stars). Quote: "...seven aligned stars appearing to be strung on a silvery
filament."
13. In Auriga, Ophiuchus (sic), and Sagittarius, Clerke refers to M37, NGC
7789, and NGC 6451, respectively, (2nd ed., 228-9).
14. Agnes Mary Clerke. System of the stars.
15. Alfred Henry Fison. Recent Advances in Astronomy. London: Blackie & Son,
1900, 67-68.
16. John Ellard Gore. "Changes in the stellar heavens." Observatory, 23
(1900): 370-4, 398-402, 449-54.
17. Milton Humason. "A seventeenth nova in the Andromeda Nebula."
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 32 (no. 185; 1920):
63. The first nova of these seventeen in Andromeda was observed in 1885.
18. "Mr. Cooper states that a star in Bessel's Zone 185, Weisse xx. 122, is
not to be found in the heavens." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 8 (November 1847): 16. "The star Lalande 9167, of the 7.8
magnitude, is missing." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
10 (November 1849): 18. "Mr. Boreham remarks...." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 11 (December 1850): 47. "Flamsteed's stars
`Observed but not existing.'" Sidereal Messenger, 6, 319-320. This article
claims the missing twenty-two stars can be accounted for. "The missing star,
DM. +192773." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 14, 259-60.
Zaccheus Daniel. "The Missing Star DM. +192773." Astronomical Journal, 24
(February 1, 1904): 26. F. Kustner. "The Missing Star DM. +192733."
Astronomical Journal, 24 (March 22, 1904): 54.
19. "Letter from the eminent astronomer, J.R. Hind, of London...." American
Journal of Science, s. 2, 33 (1863): 436-7. Mary Agnes Clerke. System of the
Stars. 2d ed., 1905, 293. "Missing nebulae." Nature, 30 (June 26, 1884):
201.
20. "A blazing star." Sidereal Messenger, 5, 269-70.
21. T.E. Espin. "A remarkable object in Perseus." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 58 (March 1898): 334-5.
22. "Report of the meeting of the Association, held on February 23, 1898."
Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 8, 213-8, at 216-7. Correct
quotes: "...not a nebula, nor was it...," and, "...dimming or blotting out
stars."
23. Mary Agnes Clerke. System of the Stars. 2nd ed, 1905, 280.
24. In the early attempts to determine a (heliocentric) parallax to the
stars, by Robert Hooke (for Vega), Flamsteed (for Draconis, Gamma Draconis),
and Olaus Römer (for Vega and Sirius), what was being measured was the
"aberration" of the light. Oliver Lodge. Pioneers of Science. London:
Macmillan and Co., 1893: 246-52, 308. If the identical "constant of
aberration" of all stars, (allegedly produced by this earth's movement at
some 19 miles per second in orbit around the sun), had instead been
identified as a measured heliocentric parallax to the stars, it might have
been considered by the followers of Copernicus that a shell of stars did
exist at a distance of about 10,000 astronomical units. Tycho Brahé placed
the region of the stars at distance of 14,000 semi-diameters (radii) of the
Earth; and, if the Earth were stationary in a Tychonic system, there would
be no aberration of light nor any parallax based upon heliocentric
measurements. J.L.E. Dreyer. History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to
Kepler. Cambridge: University Press, 1906, 363-5. John Charles Duncan.
Astronomy: A Text Book. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1926; 88-92, 299-302.
The discrepancy between the parallax measure, sought by James Bradley, and
what he observed was the displacement of Draconis (Gamma Draconis) 90 from
its expected direction; thus, Bradley was to discover the larger measure of
"aberration," whereas another century would pass before the earliest
determinations of lesser measures of (heliocentric) parallax would be
obtained by Bessel, Henderson and Meadows. Agnes Mary Clerke. The System of
the Stars. London: Adam & Charles Black, 2nd ed., 1905: 284, 287.
25. "The Gegenschein, or zodiacal counterglow." Observatory, 17 (1894): 46-
8. There is no such quote in the article. Fort notes, in SF-V-361: "Astro.
Gegenschein, no parallax in latitude. E. Mec., 106, 273." Gavin J. Burns.
"The Gegenschein: Its position with reference to the Earth." English
Mechanic, 106 (January 11, 1918): 273. "Positions of Gegenschein determined
by various observers in the years 1891 to 1894." Annals of the Harvard
College Observatory, 33, 15-24. Fort also notes, in SF-V-338: "Astro.
Gegenschein. Pop. Astro., Feb. 1919." E.E. Barnard. "The Gegenschein and its
possible origin." Popular Astronomy, 27 (February 1919): 109-12. Barnard
writes: "As I have previously said, my observations do not seem to show any
decided parallax to the object. If its distance was less than half that of
the Moon, its displacement would be detected in the observations.... Still
the query if it may not be an atmospheric phenomenon -- some sort of
abnormal reflection -- is yet a legitimate one, though the absence of
parallax is fatal to it."
26. W.F. Denning. "Suspected repetition, o second outbursts from radiant
points; and on the long duration of meteor showers." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 38 (January 11, 1878): 111-4. G.L. Tupman.
"Remarks on Mr. Denning's paper." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 38 (January 11, 1878): 115-6. W.F. Denning. "Repetition in radiant-
points of shooting stars." Observatory, 1 (1877-8): 366-8.
27. "...it would seem that the first shower which was carefully observed and
described by a competent scientific writer was that of November 13, 1799,
seen by Humboldt, then travelling in South America. Fine displays took place
in 1831 and 1832, in both cases on November 13. But the grandest display of
all, and one which has not yet been surpassed, was that of November 13,
1833, which served to bring home to scientific men the periodicity of the
phenomenon." George Frederick Chambers. Astronomy for General Readers. New
York: Whittaker & Co., 1908, 152.
28. Forest Ray Moulton. An Introduction to Astronomy. Rev. ed. New York:
Macmillan Co., 1920, 341-3.
CHAPTER TWELVE
WE try to have independent expressions. Accept that it is not distance that
has held the stars in unchanging position, if occasional, abrupt change of
position has been seen at the distance of the stars, and it is implied that
the not enormously distant stars are all about equally far away from this
earth, or some would be greatly particularized, and that this earth does not
move in an orbit, or stars would be seasonally particularized, but would not
be, if the stars, in one composition revolve; also if this earth be
relatively close to all stars, if many changes of magnitude and of
appearance and disappearance have been seen at the distance of the stars,
and, if, in the revolutions of the stars, they do not swirl in displacements
as bewildering as a blizzard of luminous snowflakes, and if no state of
inter-repulsion can be thought of, especially as many stars merge into
others, this composition is a substantial, concave formation, or shell-like
enclosure in which stars are points. So many of the expressions in the
preceding chapter imply others, or all others. However, we have tried to
have independent expressions. Of course we realize that the supposed
difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is a false demarcation;
nevertheless we feel that deductions piled upon other deductions are only
architecture, and a great deal in this book expresses the notion that
architecture should be kept in its own place. Our general expression is not
that there should be no architecture and no mathematics in astronomy, or
neo-astronomy; not that there should be no poetry in biology; no chemistry
in physiology -- but that "pure" architecture or "pure" mathematics,
biology, chemistry, has its own field, even though each in inextricably
bound up with all the other aspects of being. So of course the very thing
that we object to in its extreme manifestations is essential to us in some
degree, and the deductive is findable somewhere in every one of [85/86] our
inductions, and we are not insensible to what we think is the gracefulness
of some of the converging lines of our own constructions. We are not
revolting against aspects, but against emphases and intrusions.
The first part of our work is what we consider neo-astronomic; and now to
show that we have no rabidity against the mathematical except when over-
emphasized, or misapplied, our language is that all expressions so far
developed are to us about 50% acceptability. A far greater attempted
independence is coming, a second part of this work, considering phenomena so
different that, if we term the first part of our explorations "neo-
astronomic," even some other term, by which to designate the field of the
second part will have to be thought of, and the word "extra-geographic"
seems best for it. If in these two fields, our at least temporary
conclusions be the same, we shall be impressed, in spite of all our
cynicisms as to "agreements."
Neo-astronomy:
This supposed solar system -- an egg-like organism that is shelled away from
external light and life -- this central and stationary earth its nucleus --
around it a revolving shell, in which the stars are pores, or functioning
channels, through some of which spray irradiating fountains said to be
"meteoric," but perhaps electric -- in which the nebulae are translucent
patches, and in which the many dark parts are areas of opaque, structural
substance -- and that the stars are not trillions nor even millions of miles
away -- with proportional reductions of all internal distances, so that the
planets are not millions, nor even hundreds of thousands of miles away.
We conceive of the variability of the stars and the nebulae in terms of the
incidence of external light upon a revolving shell and fluctuating passage
through light-admitting points and parts. We conceive of all things being
rhythmic, so, if stars be pores in a substance, that matrix must be subject
to some changes, which may be of different periodicities in different
regions. There may be local vortices in the most rigid substance, and so
stars, or pores, might revolve around one another, but our tendency is to
think that if light companions there be to some stars, they are reflections
of light, passing through channels, upon sur- [86/87] rounding substance,
flickering from one position to another in the small undulations of this
environment. So there may be other displacements, differences of magnitude,
new openings and closings in a substance that is not absolutely rigid. So
"proper motion" might be accounted for, but my own preference is to think,
as to such stars as 1830 Groombridge and Barnard's "run-away" star," that
they are planets -- also that some of the comets, especially the tailless
comets, some of which have been seen to obscure stars, so that evidently
they are not wisps of highly attenuated matter, are planets, all of them not
conventionally recognized as planets, because of eccentricity and remoteness
from the ecliptic, two departures, however, that many of the minor planets
make to great degree.(1) If some of these bodies be planets, the
irregularities of some of them are consistent with the irregularities of
Jupiter's satellites.
I suggest that a combination of the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic doctrines is
in good accord with all the phenomena that we have considered, and with all
planetary motions that we have had no occasion to pay much attention to --
that the sun, carrying Mercury and Venus with him, revolves at a distance of
a few thousand miles, or a few tens of thousands of miles, in a rising and
falling spiral around this virtually, but not absolutely, stationary earth,
which, according to modern investigations is more top-shaped than spherical;
moon, a few thousand miles away, revolving around this nucleus; and the
exterior planets not only revolving around this whole central arrangement,
but approaching and receding, in loops, also, quite as they seem to the
remotest of them preposterously near, according to conventional
"determinations."(2)
So all the phenomena of the skies may be explained. But all were explained
in another way by Copernicus, in another way by Ptolemy, and in still
another way by Tycho Brahé. One supposes that there are other ways. If there
be a distant object, and, if one school of wise men can by their reasoning
processes excellently demonstrate that it is a tree, another school
positively determine that it is a house, and other investigators of the
highest authoritativeness variously find and prove that it is a cloud or a
buffalo or a geranium, why then, their reason- [87/88] ing processes may be
admired but not trusted. Right at the heart of our opposition, and right at
the heart of our own expressions, is the fatality that there is no
reasoning, no logic, no explanation resembling the illusions in the
vainglories of common suppositions. There is only the process of correlating
to, or organizing or systematizing around, something that is arbitrarily
taken for a base, or a dominant doctrine, or a major premise -- the process
of assimilating with something else, making agreement with something else,
or interpreting in terms of something else, which supposed base is never
itself final, but was originally an assimilation with still something else.
I typify the result of all examination of all principles or laws or dominant
thoughts, scientific, philosophic, or theologic, in what we find in
examining the pronouncement that motion follows the least resistance:
That motion follows least resistance.
How do we identify least resistance?
If motion follows it.
Then motion goes where motion goes.
If nothing can be positively distinguished from anything else there can be
no positive logic, which is attempted positive distinguishment. Consider the
popular "base" that Capital is tyranny, and almost utmost wickedness, and
that Labor is pure and idealistic. But one's labor is one's capital, and
capital that is not working is in no sense implicated in this conflict.
Nevertheless we now give up our early suspicion that our whole existence is
a leper of the skies, quaking and cringing through space, having the
isolation that astronomers suppose, because other celestial forms of being
fly from infection --
That, if shelled away from external light and life, it is so surrounded and
so protected in the same cause and functioning as that of similarly
encompassed forms subsidiary to it -- that our existence is super-embryonic.
Darkness of night and of lives and of thoughts -- super-uterine entombment.
Blackness of the unborn, quasi-illumined periodically by the little sun,
which is not light, but less dark.
Then we think of an organism that needs no base, and needs nothing of
finality, nor of special guidance to any local part to [88/89] it, because
all parts partake of the pre-determined development of the whole.
Consequently our spleens subside, and our frequently unmannerly derisions
are hushed by recognitions -- that all organizations of thought must be
baseless in themselves, and of course be not final, or they could not
change, and must bear within themselves those elements that will, in time,
destroy them -- that seeming solidities that pass away, in phantom
successions, are functionaries relatively to their periods, and express the
passage from phase to phase of all things embryonic.
So it is one who searches for fundamentals comes to bifurcations; never to a
base; only to a quandary. In our own field, let there be any acceptable
finding. It indicates that the earth moves around the sun. Just as truly it
indicates that the sun moves around the earth. What is it the determines
which will be accepted, hypnotically blinding the faithful to the other
aspect? Our own expression is upon Development as serial reactions to
successive Dominants. Let the dominant spirit of an era require that this
earth be remote and isolated; Keplerism will support it: let the dominant
change to a spirit of expansion, which would be impossible under such
remoteness and isolation; Keplerism will support, or will not especially
oppose, the new dominant. This is the essential process of embryonic growth,
by which the same protoplasmic substance responds differently in different
phases.
But I do not think that all data are so plastic. There are some that will
not assimilate with a prevailing doctrine. They can have no effect upon an
arbitrary system of thought, or a system sub-consciously induced, in its
time of dominance: they will simply be disregarded.
We have reached our catalogue of the sights and the sounds to which all that
we have so far considered is merely introductory. For them there are either
no conventional explanations or poor insufficiencies half-heartedly offered.
Our data are glimpses of an epoch that is approaching with far-away
explosions. It is vibrating on its edges with the tread of distant space-
armies. Already it has pictured in the sky visions that signify new
excitements, even now lapping over into the affairs of a self-disgusted,
played-out hermitage. [89/90]
We assemble the data, Unhappily, we shall be unable to resist the temptation
to reason and theorize. May Super-embryology have mercy upon our own
syllogisms. We consider that we are entitled to at least 13 pages of gross
and stupid errors. After that we shall have to explain.(3) [90]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Runaway stars" are defined, by Moulton, as stars with a speed of 72
miles per second, which would thus exceed he escape velocity required to
pass out of the galaxy. Forest Ray Moulton. An Introduction to Astronomy.
Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1920, 498-500. Barnard's runaway star was
estimated to measure 93,000 miles in diameter, which is similar in size to
Jupiter, though it is said to have a mass which is 11 per cent of the
Suns's. Duncan. Astronomy. 311, 316.
2. The system, which Fort describes as his own, closely resembles that of
St. Robert Francis Bellarmine.
3. See part 1, chapter 5.
PART TWO
CHAPTER ONE
JUNE, 1801 -- a mirage of an unknown city. It was seen, for more than an
hour, at Youghal, Co. Cork, Ireland -- a representation of mansions,
surrounded by shrubbery and white palings -- forests behind. In October,
1796, a mirage of a walled town had been seen distinctly for half an hour at
Youghal. Upon March 9, 1797, had been seen a mirage of a walled town.(1)
Feb. 7, 1802 -- an unknown body that was seen, by Fritsch, of Magdeburg, to
cross the sun (Observatory, 3-136).(2)
Oct. 10, 1802 -- an unknown dark body was seen, by Fritsch, rapidly crossing
the sun (Comptes Rendus, 83-587).(3)
Between 10 and 11 o'clock, morning of Oct. 8, 1803, a stone fell from the
sky, at the town of Apt, France. About eight hours later, "some persons
believed that they felt an earthquake," (Rept. B.A., 1854-53).(4)
Upon August 11, 1805, an explosive sound was heard at East Haddam,
Connecticut. There are records of six prior sounds, as if of explosions,
that were heard at East Haddam, beginning with the year 1791, but,
unrecorded, the sounds had attracted attention for a century, and had been
called the "Moodus" sounds, by the Indians. For the best account of the
"Moodus" sounds, see the Amer. Jour. Sci., 39-339.(5) Here a writer tries to
show the phenomena were subterranean, but says that there was no
satisfactory explanation.
Upon the 2nd of April, 1808, over the town of Pignerol, Piedmont, Italy, a
loud sound was heard: in many places in Piedmont an earthquake was felt. In
the Rept. B.A., 1854-68, it is said that aërial phenomena did occur; that,
during the explosion, luminous objects had been seen in the sky over
Pignerol, and that in several of the communes in the Alps aërial sounds, as
if of innumerable stones colliding, had been heard, and that quakes had been
felt.(6) From April 2 to April 8, forty shocks [93/94] were recorded at
Pignerol; sounds like cannonading were heard at Barga. Upon the 18th of
April, two detonations were heard at La Tour, and a luminous object was seen
in the sky. The supposition, or almost absolute belief of most persons is
that from the 2nd to the 18th of April this earth moved far in its orbit and
was rotating so that, if one should explain that probably meteors had
exploded here, it could not very well be thought that more meteors were
continuing to pick out this one point upon a doubly moving planet. But
something was specially related to this one local sky. Upon the 19th of
April, a stone fell from the sky near Borgo San Donnino, about 40 miles east
of Piedmont (Rept. B.A., 1860).(7) Sounds like cannonading were heard almost
every day in this small region. Upon the 13th of May, a red cloud such as
marks the place of a meteoric explosion was seen in the sky. Throughout the
rest of the year, phenomena that are now listed as "earthquakes" occurred in
Piedmont. The last occurrence of which I have record was upon Jan. 22, 1810.
Feb. 9, 1812 -- two explosive sounds at East Haddam (Amer. Jour. Sci., 39-
339).
July 5, 1812 -- one explosive sound at East Haddam (Amer. Jour. Sci., 39-
339).(8)
Oct. 28, 1812 -- "phantom soldiers" at Havarah Park, near Ripley, England
(Edinburgh Annual Register, 1812-II-124).(9) When such appearances are
explained by meteorologists, they are said to be displays of the aurora
borealis. Psychic research explains variously. The physicists say that they
are mirages of troops marching somewhere at a distance.
Night of July 31, 1813 -- flashes of light in the sky of Tottenham, near
London (Year Book of Facts, 1853-272).(10) The sky was clear. The flashes
were attributed to a storm at Hastings, 65 miles away. We note not only that
the planet Mars was in opposition at this time (July 30), but in one of the
nearest of its oppositions in the 19th century.
Dec. 28, 1813 -- an explosive sound at East Haddam.(11)
Feb. 2, 1816 -- a quake at Lisbon. There was something in the sky.
Extraordinary sounds were heard, but were attributed to "flocks of birds."
But six hours later something was seen in the sky: it is said to have been a
meteor (Rept. B.A.,, 1854-106).(12) [94/95]
Since the year 1788, many earthquakes, or concussions that were listed as
earthquakes, had occurred at the town of Comrie, Perthshire, Scotland.
Seventeen instances were recorded on the year 1795. Almost all records of
the phenomena of Comrie start with the year 1788, but, in Macara's Guide to
Creiff, it is said that the disturbances were recorded as far back as the
year 1597.(13) They were slight shocks, and until the occurrence upon August
13, 1816, conventional explanations, excluding all thought of relations with
anything in the sky, seemed adequate enough. But, in an account in the
London Times, Aug. 21, 1816, it is said that, at the time of the quake of
Aug. 13, a luminous object, or a "small meteor," had been seen at Dunkeld,
near Comrie; and, according to David Milne, (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-110),
a resident of Comrie had reported "a large luminous body, bent like a
crescent, which stretched itself over the heavens."(14)
There was another quake in Scotland (Inverness) June 30, 1817. It is said
that hot rain fell from the sky (Rept. B.A., 1854-112).(15)
Jan. 6, 1818 -- an unknown body that crossed the sun, according to Loft, of
Ipswich; observed about three hours and a half (Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst., 5-
117).(16)
Five unknown bodies that were seen, upon June 26, 1819, crossing the sun,
according to Gruithuisen (An. Sci. Disc., 1860-411).(17) Also, upon this
day, Pastorff saw something that he thought was a comet, which was then
somewhere near the sun, but which, according to Olbers, could not have been
the comet, (Webb, Celestial Objects, p.40).(18)
Upon Aug. 28, 1819, there was a violent quake at Irkutsk, Siberia. There had
been two shocks upon Aug. 22, 1813 (Rept. B.A., 1854-101).(19) Upon April 6,
1805, or March 25, according to the Russian calendar, two stones had fallen
from the sky at Irkutsk (Rept. B.A., 1860-12).(20) One of these stones is
now in the South Kensington Museum, London.(21) Another violent shock at
Irkutsk, April 7, 1820 (Rept. B.A., 1854-128).(22)
Unknown bodies in the sky, in the year 1820, Feb. 12 and April 27 (Comptes
Rendus, 83-314).(23)
Things that marched in the sky -- see Arago's uvres, 11-576, or Annales de
Chimie, 30-417 -- objects that were seen by many [95/96] persons, in the
streets of Embrun, during the eclipse of Sept. 7, 1820, moving in straight
lines, turning and retracing in the same straight lines, all of them
separated by uniform spaces.(24)
Early in the year 1821 -- and a light shone out on the moon -- a bright
point of light in the lunar crater Aristarchus, which was in the dark at the
time. It was seen, upon the 4th and the 7th of February, by Capt. Kater (An.
Reg., 1821-689); and upon the 5th by Dr. Olbers (Mems. R.A.S., 1-159).(25)
It was a light like a star, and was seen again, May 4th and 6th, by the Rev.
M. Ward and by Francis Bailey (Mems. R.A.S., 1-159).(26) At Cape Town,
nights of Nov. 28th and 29th, 1821, again a star-like light was seen upon
the moon (Phil. Trans., 112-237).(27)
Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst., 20-417:(28)
That, early in the morning of March 20, 1822, detonations were heard at
Melida, an island in the Adriatic. All day, at intervals, the sounds were
heard. They were like cannonading, and it was supposed that they came from a
vessel, or from Turkish artillery, practicing in some frontier village. For
thirty days the detonation continued, sometimes thirty or forty, sometimes
several hundred, a day.
Upon April 13, 1822, it seems, according to description, that clearly enough
was there an explosion in the sky of Comrie, and a concussion of the ground
-- "two loud reports, one apparently over our heads, and the other, which
followed immediately, under our feet" (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-119).(29)
July 15, 1822 -- a fall of perhaps unknown seeds from perhaps an unknown
world -- a great quantity of little round seeds that fell from the sky at
Marienwerder, Germany. They were unknown to the inhabitants, who tried to
cook them, but found that boiling seemed to have no effect upon them.
Wherever they came from, they were brought down by a storm, and two days
later, more of them fell, in a storm, in Silesia. It is said that these
corpuscles were identified by some scientists as seeds of Galium spurium,
but that other scientists disagreed. Later more of them fell at Posen,
Mecklenburg. See Bull. des Sci. (math., astro., etc.) 1-1-298.(30)
Aug. 19, 1822 -- a tremendous detonation at Melida -- others continuing
several days.(31) [96/97]
Oct. 23, 1822 -- two unknown dark bodies crossing the sun; observed by
Pastorff (An. Sci. Disc., 1860-411).(32)
An unknown, shining thing -- it was seen, by Webb, May 22, 1823; near the
planet Venus (Nature, 14-195).(33)
More unknowns, in the year 1823 -- see Comptes Rendus, 49-811 and Webb's
Celestial Objects, p. 43.(34)
Feb., 1824 -- the sounds of Melida.(35)
Upon Feb. 11, 1824, a slight shock was felt at Irkutsk, Siberia, (Rept.
B.A., 1854-124).(36) Upon Feb. 18, or, according to other accounts, upon May
14, a stone that weighed five pounds, fell from the sky at Irkutsk (Rept.
B.A., 1860-70).(37) Three severe shocks at Irkutsk, March 8, 1824 (Rept.
B.A., 1854-124).(38)
Sept., 1824 -- the sounds of Melida.(39)
At five o'clock, morning of Oct. 20, 1824, a light was seen upon the dark
part of the moon, by Gruithuisen. It disappeared. Six minutes later it
appeared again, disappeared again, and then flashed intermittently, from
5:30 A.M., until sunrise ended the observations, (Sci. Amer. Sup., 7-
2712).(40) And, upon Jan. 22, 1825, again shone out the star-like light of
Aristarchus, reported by the Rev. J.B. Emmett, (Annals of Philosophy, 28-
338).(41)
The last sounds of Melida of which I have record, were heard in March, 1825.
If these detonations did come from the sky, there was something that, for at
least three years, was situated over, or was in some other way specially
related to, this one small part of this earth's surface, subversively to all
supposed principles of astronomy and geodesy. It is said that, to find out
whether the sounds did come from the sky, or not, the Prêteur of Melida went
into underground caverns to listen. It is said that there the sounds could
not be heard.(42) [97]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. David Purdie Thomson. Introduction to Meteorology. London: Wm. Blackwood
& Sons, 1849, 258.
2. E. Ledger. "Observations or supposed observations of the transits of
intra-Mercurial planets or other bodies across the Sun's disk." Observatory,
3 (1879-80): 135-8, at 136. Fritsch stated that he had seen "spots having
rapid motions of the own" on March 20, 1800, and on February 7, 1802.
3. U.J.J. Le Verrier. "Examen des observations qu'on a présentées, à
diverses époques, comme pouvant appartenir aux passages d'une planète intra-
mercurielle devant le disque du Soleil." Comptes Rendus, 83 (1876): 583-9,
at 587-8.
4. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 53. The quake was felt at Gordes, Vaucluse dept., France.
Correct quote: "...believed they felt...."
5. "Earthquake in Connecticut, &c." American Journal of Science, s.1, 39
(1840): 335-42, at 338-9.
6. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 68-86. The red cloud was observed over the country lying
along the river Pelice, on May 16, 1808, (not May 13).
7. R.P. Greg. "A catalogue of meteorites and fireballs." Annual Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1860, 48-120, at 63.
Borgo San Donnino is now identified as Fidenza, Italy.
8. "Earthquake in Connecticut, &c." American Journal of Science, s.1, 39
(1840): 335-42, at 338-9.
9. "Leeds. Extraordinary phenomena." Edinburgh Annual Register, 1812, pt.II,
124-7.
10. "Sheet lightning." Timb's Year-Book of Facts in Science and Art, 1853,
309.
11. "Earthquake in Connecticut, &c." American Journal of Science, s.1, 39
(1840): 335-42, at 338-9.
12. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 106. The "meteor" was observed immediately after the first
shock of the earthquake, (not "six hours later," when another series of less
intense shocks were felt).
13. Duncan Macara. Macara's Guide to Creiff, Comrie, St. Filans, and Upper
Strathearn.... Edinburgh: D. Macara, (189-?).
14. "Earthquake in Scotland." London Times, August 21, 1816, p.3 c.2-3.
Dunkeld is about 35 kilometers from Comrie. David Milne. "Notices of
earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and especially in Scotland, with
inferences suggested by these notices as to the causes of such shocks."
Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 31 (1841): 92-122, 259-309, at 117.
15. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 112. "Meteorological retrospect for the last half of the
year 1817." Philosophical Magazine, 51 (January to June, 1818): 189-99, at
193.
16. "Supposed transit of a comet." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Institute
of Great Britain, 5 (1818): 117-8. The object was observed by Lofft for more
than three-and-a-half hours. For Lofft's original report: Capel Lofft. "On
the appearance of an opaque body traversing the sun's disc." Monthly
Magazine, o.s., 45 (March 1, 1818): 102-3.
17. "New planets." Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860, 409-11, at 411.
Three, not five, "solar spots" were observed "...viz., one near the middle
of the sun, and two small one without nebulosity near the western limb."
18. Thomas William Webb. Celestial Objects. 4th ed. 1881. 6th ed., 1917. 4th
ed., 40.
19. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 101, 125.
20. R.P. Greg. "A catalogue of meteorites and fireballs, from A.D. 2 to A.D.
1860." Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1860, 48-120, at 62.
21. Lazarus A. Fletcher. Introduction to the Study of Meteorites.... 1904.
10th ed., London: British Museum Trustees, 1908, 98, (notes).
22. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 128. The date of the shock was May 7, 1820, (not April 7).
23. Le Verrier. "Examen des observations qu'on a présentées, à diverses
époques, comme pouvant appartenir aux passages d'une planète intra-
mercurielle devant le disque du Soleil." Comptes Rendus, 83 (1876): 583-9,
621-4, 647-50, 719-23; at 589, 621.
24. [Dominique] FranÇois [Jean] Arago. Oeuvres Complètes de FranÇois Arago.
Paris, 1857, v.11, 575-8. "M. Dick imagine que le phénomène observé par M.
Hansteen...." Annales de Chimie, s.2, 30 (1825): 416-21.
25. "Volcanic appearance in the Moon." Annual Register, 1821, 687-8. The
light was also seen by Kater on February 6. For the original report: Henry
Kater. "Notice respecting a volcanic appearance in the Moon." Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 111 (1821): 130-2, pl. X.
William Olbers. "On the comet discovered in the constellation Pegasus in
1821: and on the luminous appearance on the dark side of the Moon on
February 5, 1821." Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1, 156-8.
26. The observation was made on May 5, 1821, when the clouded skies
prevented Ward from viewing it. Michael Ward. "On a luminous appearance seen
on the dark part of the Moon in May 1821." Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 1, 159-61.
27. Fearon Fallows. "Communication of a curious appearance lately observed
upon the Moon." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
112 (1822): 237-8.
28. "Remarkable phenomena observed in the Island of Melida, Province of
Ragusa." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Institute of Great Britain, 20, 417-
8. Fort wrote "thirty days" as the duration, though the article he cites
states "eight or nine months." "Détonations extraordinaire dans l'île
Méléda." Annales de Chimie et de Physique, s. 2, 30 (1825): 432-5.
29. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 31 (1841): 92-
122, 259-309, at 119.
30. The seeds fell at Posen and the country around Mecklenburg). Kreis.
"Effet remarquable d'un orage." Bulletin (Universal) des Sciences,
Mathematiques, Astronomique, Physiques et Chimiques, 1 (1824): 298-9.
31. "Détonations extraordinaire dans l'île Méléda." Annales de Chimie et de
Physique, s. 2, 30 (1825): 432-5. The date of the phenomenon was August 10,
1822, (not August 19).
32. "New planets." Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860, 409-11, at 411.
33. Thomas William Webb. "The satellite of Venus." Nature, 14 (June 29,
1876): 194-5, at 195.
34. "Lettre de M. Herrick à M. Le Verrier." Comptes Rendus, 49 (1859): 810-
2. Thomas William Webb. Celestial Objects. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green
and Co., 1881, 43. 6th ed., 1917. Pastroff observed two spots on the sun on
July 24 and 25, 1823; and, Biela observed a sharply defined circular spot on
the sun on October 23, 1823.
35. "Détonations extraordinaire dans l'île Méléda." Annales de Chimie et de
Physique, s. 2, 30 (1825): 432-5.
36. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 158.
37. R.P. Greg. "A catalogue of meteorites and fireballs." Annual Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1860, 48-120, at 70.
38. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 158.
39. "Détonations extraordinaire dans l'île Méléda." Annales de Chimie et de
Physique, s. 2, 30 (1825): 432-5.
40. Camille Flammarion. "Is the Moon inhabited?" Scientific American
Supplement, 7 (March 29, 1879): 2696, 2711-2, at 2712.
41. J.B. Emmett. "Telescopic observations on the Moon." Annals of
Philosophy, n.s., 12 (wh.vol.28): 337-42, at 338.
42. "Détonations extraordinaire dans l'île Méléda." Annales de Chimie et de
Physique, s. 2, 30 (1825): 432-5.
CHAPTER TWO
AND our own underground investigations -- and whether there is something in
the sky or not. We are in a hole in time. Cavern of Conventional Science --
walls that are dogmas, from which drips ancient wisdom in a patter of slimy
opinions -- but we have heard a storm of data outside --
Of beings that march in the sky, and of a beacon on the moon -- another dark
body crosses the sun. Somewhere near Melida there is cannonading, and
another stone falls from the sky at Irkutsk, Siberia; and unknown grain
falls from an unknown world, and there are flashes in the sky when the
planet Mars is near.
In a farrago of lights and sounds and forms, I feel the presence of possible
classifications that may thread a pattern of attempt to find out something.
My attention is attracted by a streak of events that is beaded with little
star-like points of light. First we shall find out what we can, as to the
moon.
In one of the numbers of the Observatory, an eminent authority, in some
fields of research, is quoted as to the probable distance of the moon.
According to his determinations, the moon is 37 miles away. He explains most
reasonably: he is Mr. G.B. Shaw. But by conventional doctrine, the moon is
240,000 miles away. My own idea is that somewhere between determinations by
a Shaw and determinations by a Newcomb, we could find many acceptances.(1)
I prefer questionable determinations, myself, or at any rate examinations
that end up with questions or considerable latitude. It may be that as to
the volcanoes of the moon we can find material for at least a seemingly
intelligent question, if no statements are possible as to the size and the
distance of the moon. The larger volcanoes of this earth are about three
miles in diameter, though the craters of Haleakla, Hawaii, and Aso San,
Japan, are seven [98/99] miles across. But the larger volcanoes of the
relatively little moon are said to be sixty miles across, though several are
said to be twice that size.(2) And I start off with just about the
impression of disproportionality that I should have, if someone should tell
me of a pygmy with ears five feet long.
Is there any somewhat good reason for thinking that the volcanic craters of
the little moon are larger than, or particularly different in any way from,
the craters of this earth?
If not, we have a direct unit of measurement, according to which the moon is
not 2160, but about 100, miles in diameter.
How far away does one suppose to be an object with something like that
diameter, and of the seeming size of the moon?
The astronomers explain. They argue that gravitation must be less powerful
upon the moon than upon this earth, and that therefore larger volcanic
formations could have been cast up on the moon. We explain. We argue that
volcanic force must be less powerful upon the moon than upon this earth, and
that therefore larger volcanic formations could not have been cast up on the
moon.
The disproportionality that has impressed me has offended more conventional
æsthetics than mine. Prof. See, for instance, has tried to explain that the
lunar formations are not craters but are effects of bombardment by vast
meteors, which spared this earth, for some reason not made clear.(3) Viscid
moon -- meteor pops in -- up splash walls and a central cone. If Prof. See
will jump in swimming some day, and then go back some weeks later to see how
big a splash he made, he will have other ideas upon such supposed
persistences. The moon would have to have been virtually liquid to fit his
theory, because there are no partly embedded, vast, round meteors protruding
anywhere.
There have been lights like signals upon the moon. There are two
conventional explanations: reflected sunlight and volcanic action. Of
course, ultra-conventionalists do not admit that in our own times there has
been even volcanic action upon the moon. Our instances will be of light upon
the dark part of the moon, and there are good reasons for thinking that our
data do not relate to volcanic action. In volcanic eruptions upon this earth
the glow is so accompanied by great volumes of smoke that a clear, [99/100]
definite point of light would seem not to be the appearance from a distance.
For Webb's account of a brilliant display of minute dots and streaks of
light, in the Mare Crisium, July 4, 1832, see Astro. Reg., 20-165.(4) I have
records of half a dozen similar illuminations here, in about 120 years, all
of them when the Mare Crisium was in darkness. There can be no commonplace
explanation for such spectacles, or they would have occurred oftener;
nevertheless the Mare Crisium is a wide, open region, and at times there may
have been uncommon percolations of sunlight, and I shall list no more of
these interesting events that seem to me to have been like carnivals upon
the moon.
Dec. 22, 1835 -- the star-like light in Aristarchus -- reported by Francis
Bailey -- see Proctor's Myths and Marvels, p. 329.(5)
Feb. 13, 1826 -- in the western crater of Messier -- according to
Gruithuisen (Sci. Amer. Sup., 7-2629) -- two straight lines of light;
between them a dark band that was covered with luminous points.(6)
Upon the nights of March 18 and 19, 1847, large luminous spots were seen
upon the dark part of the moon, and a general glow upon the upper limb, by
the Rev. T. Rankin and Prof. Chevalier (Rept. B.A., 1847-18).(7) The whole
shaded part of the disc seemed to be a mixture of lights and shades. Upon
the night of the 19th, there was a similar appearance upon this earth, an
aurora, according to the London newspapers. It looks as if both the moon and
this earth were affected by the same illumination, said to have been
auroral. I offer this occurrence as indication that the moon is nearby, if
moon and earth could be so affected in common.
But by signalling, I mean something like the appearance that was seen, by
Hodgson, upon the dark part of the moon, night of Dec. 11, 1847 -- a bright
light that flashed intermittently. Upon the next night it was seen again,
(Monthly Notices R.A.S., 8-55).(8)
* * *
The oppositions of Mars occur once in about two years and two months. In
conventional terms, the eccentricity of the orbit of Mars is greater than
the eccentricity of the orbit of this earth, [100/101] and the part of its
orbit that is traversed by this earth in August is nearest the orbit of
Mars. When this earth is between Mars and the sun, Mars is said to be in
opposition, and this is the position of nearest approach: when opposition
occurs in August, that is the most favorable opposition. After that, every
two years and about two months, the oppositions are less favorable, until
the least favorable of all, in February, after which favorablness increases
up to the climacteric opposition in August again. This is a cycle of
changing proximities within a period of about fifteen years.
In October, 1862, Lockyer saw a spot like a long train of clouds on Mars,
and several days later Secchi saw a spot on Mars. And if that were
signalling, it is a very meagre material upon which to suppose anything. And
May 8-22, 1873 -- white spots on Mars. But, upon June 17, 1873, two months
after nearest approach, but still in the period of opposition of Mars, there
was either an extraordinary occurrence, or the extraordinariness is in our
interpretation. See Rept B.A., 1874-272.(9) A luminous object came to this
earth, and was seen and heard upon the night of June 17, 1873, to explode in
the sky of Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia. In the words of various writers,
termed according to their knowledge, the object was seen seemingly coming
from Mars, or from "the red star in the south," where Mars was at the time.
Our data were collected by Dr. Galle. The towns of Rybnik and Ratibor, Upper
Silesia, are 15 miles apart.(10) Without parallax, this luminous thing was
seen from these points "to emerge and separate itself from the disk of the
planet Mars." It so happens that we have a definite observation from one of
these towns. At Rybnik, Dr. Sage was looking at Mars, at the time. He saw
the luminous object "apparently issue from the planet." There is another
circumstance, and for its reception our credulity, or our enlightenment, has
been prepared. If this thing did come from Mars, it came from the planet to
the point where it exploded in about 5 seconds: from the point of the
explosion, the sound travelled in several minutes. We have a description
from Dr. Sage that indicates that a bolt of some kind, perhaps electric, did
shoot from Mars, and that the planet quaked with the shock -- "Dr. Sage was
looking attentively at the planet Mars, when he thus [101/102] saw the
meteor apparently issue from it, and the planet appear as if it was breaking
up and dividing into two parts."
Some of the greatest surprises in commonplace experience are discoveries of
the nearness of that which was supposed to be the inaccessibly remote.
* * *
It seems that the moon is close to this earth, because of the phenomenon of
"earthshine." The same appearance has been seen upon the planet Venus. If
upon the moon, it is light reflecting from this earth and back to this
earth, what is it upon Venus? It is "some unexplained optical illusion,"
says Newcomb, (Popular Astronomy, p. 296.(11) For a list of more than twenty
observations upon this illumination of Venus, see Rept. B.A., 1873-404.(12)
It is our expression that the phenomenon is "unexplained" because it does
indicate that Venus is millions of miles closer to this earth than Venus
"should" be.
Unknown objects have been seen near Venus. There were more than thirty such
observations in the eighteenth century, not relating to so many different
periods, however. Our own earliest datum is Webb's observation, of May 22,
1823. I know of only one astronomer who has supposed that these observations
could relate to a Venusian satellite, pronouncedly visible sometimes, and
then for many years being invisible: something else will have to be thought
of. If these observations and others that we shall have, be accepted, they
relate to unknown bulks that have, from outer space, gone to Venus, and have
been in temporary suspension near the planet, even though the shade of Sir
Isaac Newton would curdle at the suggestion. If, acceptably, from outer
space, something could go to the planet Venus, one is not especially
startled with the idea that something could sail out from the planet Venus -
- visit this earth, conceivably.
In the Rept. B.A., 1852-8, 35, it is said that, early in the morning of
Sept. 11, 1852, several persons at Four Oaks, Staffordshire, had seen, in
the eastern sky, a luminous object.(13) It was first seen at 4.15 A.M. It
appeared and disappeared several times, until 4.45 A.M., when it became
finally invisible. Then, at almost the same place in the sky, Venus was
seen, having risen above the eastern horizon. These persons sent the records
of their [102/103] observations to Lord Wrottesley, an astronomer whose
observatory was at Wolverhampton. There is published a letter from Lord
Wrottesley, who says that at first he had thought that the suppositiously
unknown object was Venus, with perhaps an extraordinary halo, but that he
had received from one of the observers a diagram giving such a position
relatively to the moon that he hesitated so to identify. It was in the
period of nearest approach to this earth by Venus, and, since inferior
conjunction, (July 20, 1852) Venus had been a "morning star." If this thing
in the sky were not Venus, the circumstances are that an object came close
to this earth, perhaps, and for a while was stationary, as if waiting for
the planet Venus to appear above the eastern horizon, then disappearing,
whether to sail to Venus or not. We think that perhaps this thing did come
close to this earth, because it was, it seems, seen only in the local sky of
Four Oaks. However, if, according to many of our data, professional
astronomers have missed extraordinary appearances at reasonable hours, we
can't conclude much from what was not reported by them, after 4 o'clock in
the morning. I do not know whether this is the origin of the convention or
not, but this is the first note I have upon the now standardized explanation
that, when a luminous object is seen in the sky at the time of the nearest
approach by Venus, it is Venus, attracting attention by her great
brilliance, exciting persons, unversed in astronomic matters, into thinking
that a strange object had visited this earth. When reports are definite as
to motions of a seemingly sailing or exploring, luminous thing, astronomers
say that it was a fire-balloon.
In the Rept. B.A., 1856-54, it is said that, according to "Mrs. Ayling and
friends," in a letter to Lord Wrottesley, a bright object had been seen in
the sky of Petworth, Sussex, night of August 11, 1855.(14) According to the
description, it rose from behind hills, in the distance, at half past eleven
o'clock. It was a red body, or it was a red-appearing construction, because
from it were projections like spokes of a wheel; or, they were "stationary"
rays, in the words of the description. "Like a red moon, it rose slowly, and
diminished slowly, remaining visible one hour and a half."(15) Upon August
11, 1855, Venus was two weeks from primary greatest brilliance, inferior
conjunction occurring upon Sept. 30. The [103/104] thing could not have been
Venus, ascending in the sky, at this time of night. An astonishing thing,
like a red moon, perhaps with spokes like a wheel's, might, if reported from
nowhere else, be considered something that came from outer space so close to
this earth that it was visible only in a local sky, except that it might
have been visible in other places, and even half past eleven at night may be
an unheard-of hour for astronomers, who specialize upon sunspots for a
reason that is clearing up to us. Of course an ordinary fire-balloon could
be extraordinarily described.
June 8, 1868 -- I have not the exact time, but one does suspect that it was
early in the evening -- an object that was reported from Radcliffe
Observatory, Oxford. It looked like a comet, but inasmuch as it was reported
only from Radcliffe, it may have been in the local sky of Oxford. It seemed
to sail in the sky: it moved and changed its course. At first it was
stationary; then it moved westward, then southward, then turning north,
visible four minutes. See Eng. Mec., 7-351.(16) According to a correspondent
to the Birmingham Gazette, May 28, 1868, there had been an extraordinary
illumination upon Venus, some nights before: a red spot, visible for a few
seconds, night of May 27.(17) In the issue of the Gazette, of June 1st,
someone else writes that he saw this light appearing and disappearing upon
Venus.(18) Upon March 15, Browning had seen something that looked like a
little shaft of light from Venus (Eng. Mec., 40-130); and upon April 6, Webb
had seen a similar appearance (Celestial Objects, p. 57).(19)
At the time of the appearance at Oxford, Venus was in the period of nearest
approach (inferior conjunction July 16, 1868).
I think, myself, that there was one approximately great, wise astronomer. He
was Tycho Brahé. For many years, he would not describe what he saw in the
sky, because he considered it beneath his dignity to write a book.(20) The
undignified, or more or less literary, or sometimes altogether literary,
astronomers, who do write books, uncompromisingly say that when a luminous
object is said to have moved to greater degree than could be considered
illusory, in a local sky of this earth, it is a fire-balloon. It is not
possible to find in the writings of astronomers who so explain, mention of
the object that was seen by Coggia, night of August 1, 1871. It seems that
this thing was not far away, and 104/105] did appear only in a local sky of
this earth, and if it did come from outer space, how it could have "boarded"
this earth, if this earth moves at a rate of 19 miles a second, or 1 mile a
second, is so hard to explain that why Proctor and Hind, with their
passionate itch for explaining, never took the matter up, I don't know. Upon
Aug. 1, 1871, an unknown luminous object was seen in the sky of Marseilles,
by Coggia (Comptes Rendus, 73-398).(21) According to description, it was a
magnificent red object. It appeared at 10.43 P.M., and moved eastward,
slowly, until 10.52.30. It stopped -- moved northward, and again, at
10.59.30, was stationary. It turned eastward again, and, at 11.03.20,
disappeared, or fell behind the horizon. Upon this night Venus was within
three weeks of primary greatest brilliance, inferior conjunction occurring
upon Sept. 25, 1871. [105]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "The mention of cloudy eclipses reminds me of a clipping...."
Observatory, 24 (June 1901): 254-5. George Bernard Shaw. "Science and common
sense." English Mechanic, 71 (April 13, 1900): 183-4. George Bernard Shaw.
"The conflict between science and common sense." Humane Review, 1 (April
1900): 3-15, at 12-3. (George) Bernard Shaw. "Science and common sense."
Current Literature, 29 (August 1900): 196-8. The extract of Shaw's essay
about astronomy, including the moon's distance from the earth, was recounted
by the editor of the Observatory from a brief extract in the English
Mechanic; although much of Shaw's essay was reproduced in Current
Literature, the subject of astronomy was excluded; thus, Shaw's diatribe
against scientists, including astronomers, can best be appreciated in the
original essay in the Humane Review. However, Fort may not have seen this,
as he only notes, in SF-V-359: "Astro. G.B. Shaw + moon's distance
Observatory 24-255 June 1901."
2. For several comparisons between lunar craters and terrestrial volcanoes:
Hermann J. Klein. "On some volcanic formations in the Moon." Observatory, 5
(1882): 253-8. J.F. Tennant. "Volcanoes." Observatory, 13 (1890): 390-1.
S.A. Saunder. "A comparison of the features of the Earth and the Moon."
Observatory, 28 (1905): 130-9.
3. W.L. Webb. Brief Biography and Popular Account of the Unparalleled
Discoveries of T.J.J. See. Lynn, Massachusetts: Thos. P. Nichols & Son,
1913, 181-3, c.v. "The origin of the lunar craters and maria."
4. A. Stanley Williams. "The Mare Crisium." Astronomical Register, 20
(1882): 165-6.
5. Richard Anthony Proctor. Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. New York:
Longmans, Green, & Co., 1903, 329-30.
6. Camille Flammarion. "Is the Moon inhabited?" Scientific American
Supplement, 7 (March 29, 1879): 2696, 2711-2, at 2696.
7. T. Rankin. "On a singular appearance of the shaded part of the Moon...."
And: T. Rankin. "Meteorological observations at Huggate." Annual Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1847, Trans., 18.
The correct name is Chevallier, not Chevalier.
8. "Self-luminous spot in the Moon." Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 8 (January 1848): 55.
9. James Glaisher et al. "Report on observations of luminous meteors during
the year 1873-74." Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1874, 269-359, at 270-7. Correct quote: "Dr. Sage,
who noted this appearance of the meteor at Rybnik, was looking...,"
"...issue from it[.]" The observation was said to have lasted: 15.5 seconds,
not 5 seconds, according to Dr. Galle; according to school students: 15.7
seconds, (though one said no more than 10 seconds); and, 9 seconds,
according to one of Galle's assistants.
10. Ratibor is now identified as Racibórz, Poland; and, it is about 15 miles
from Rybnik, Poland.
11. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 1st ed. London: Macmillan and Co.,
1878, 295-6. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 303-4.
12. A. Schafarik. "On the visibility of the dark side of Venus." Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1873, 404-
8.
13. Baden Powell. "Report on observations of luminous meteors, 1852-53."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1853, 1-36, at 8-9, 35-6.
14. Baden Powell. "Report on observations of luminous meteors, 1855-56."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1856, 53-62, at 54-55. The location was at Tillington, near Petworth.
15. Fort apparently misread his notes regarding the description, for the
comparison made was with Mars and not with the Moon.
16. "Remarkable meteor." English Mechanic, 7 (July 10, 1868): 351. The
observation was made at 9:50 P.M.
17. "The Evening Star." Birmingham Daily Gazette, May 28, 1868, p.8 c.5.
18. "The Planet Venus." Birmingham Daily Gazette, June 1, 1868, p.6 c.6.
19. "Is there a snow cap on Venus?" English Mechanic, 40 (October 10, 1884):
129-130. Thomas William Webb. Celestial Objects. 4th ed. 1881. 6th ed.,
1917. 4th ed., 57. The observer on April 6 was With, not Webb.
20. J.L.E. Dreyer. Tycho Brahe. Adam and Charles Black, 1890, 43. Reprint.
New York: Dover Publications, 1963, 43.
21. Coggia. "Observation d'un bolide, faite à Observatoire de Marseille le
1er août." Comptes Rendus, 73 (1871): 397-8.
CHAPTER THREE
ONE repeating mystery -- the mystery of the local sky.
How, if this earth be a moving earth, could anything sail to, fall to, or in
any other way reach this earth, without being smashed into fine particles by
the impact?
This earth is supposed to rip space at a rate of about 19 miles a second.
Concepts smash when one tries to visualize such an accomplishment.
Now, three times over, we shall have other aspects of this one mystery of
the local sky. First we shall take up data upon seeming relation between a
region of this earth that is subject to earthquakes, or so-called
earthquakes, and appearances in the sky of this especial region, and the
repeating falls of objects and substances from the local sky and nowhere
else at the times.
We have records of quakes that occurred at Irkutsk, Siberia, and of stones
that fell from the sky to Irkutsk. Upon March 8, 1829, a severe quake,
preceded by clattering sounds, was felt at Irkutsk. There was something in
the sky. Dr. Erman, the geologist, was in Irkutsk, at the time. In the
Report of the British Association, 1854-20, it is said that, in Dr. Erman's
opinion, the sounds that preceded the quake were in the sky.(1)
The situation at Comrie, Perthshire, is similar. A stone fell, May 17, 1830,
in the "earthquake region" around Comrie. It fell at Perth, 22 miles from
Comrie. See Fletcher's List, p. 100.(2) Upon Feb. 15, 1837, a black powder
fell upon the Comrie region (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-293).(3) Oct. 12,
1839 -- a quake at Comrie. According to the Rev. M. Walker, of Comrie, the
sky, at the time, was "peculiarly strange and alarming, and appeared as if
hung with sackcloth."(4) In Mallet's Catalog (Rept. B.A., 1854-290), it is
said that, throughout the month of October, shocks were felt at Comrie,
sometimes slight and sometimes severe -- "like distant thunder or reports of
artillery" -- "the noise sometimes [106/107] seemed to be high in the air,
and was often heard without any sensible shock."(5) Upon the 23rd of
October, occurred the most violent quake in the whole series of phenomena at
Comrie. See the Edin. New Phil. Jour., vol. 32.(6) All data in this
publication were collected by David Milne. According to the Rev. M. Maxton,
of Foulis Manse, ten miles from Comrie, rattling sounds were heard in the
sky, preceding the shock that was felt. In vol. 33, page 373, of the
Journal, someone who lived seven miles from Comrie is quoted: "In every
case, I am inclined to say that the sound proceeded not from underground.
The sound seemed high in the air."(7) Someone who lived at Gowrie, forty
miles from Comrie, is quoted: "The most general opinion seems to be that the
noise accompanying the concussion proceeded from above." See vol. 34, p.87:
another impression of explosion overhead and concussion underneath: "The
noises heard first seemed to be in the air, and the rumbling sound in the
earth."(8) Milne's own conclusion -- "It is plain that there are, connected
with the earthquake shocks, sounds both in the earth and in the air, which
are distinct and separate." If, upon the 23rd of October, 1839, there was a
tremendous shock, not of subterranean origin, but from a great explosion in
the sky of Comrie, and if this be accepted, there will be concussions
somewhere else. The "faults" of dogmas will open; there will be seismic
phenomena in science. I have a feeling of a conventional survey of this
Scottish sky: vista of a fair, blue, vacant expanse -- our suspicions daub
the impression with black alarms -- but also do we project detonating
stimulations into the fair and blue, but unoccupied and meaningless. One can
not pass this single occurrence by, considering it only in itself: it is one
of a long series of quakes of the earth at Comrie and phenomena in the sky
at Comrie. We have stronger evidence than the mere supposition of many
persons, in and near Comrie, that, upon Oct. 23, 1839, something had
occurred in the sky, because sounds seemed to come from the sky. Milne says
that clothes, bleaching on the grass, were entirely covered with black
particles which presumably had fallen from the sky. The shocks were felt in
November: in November, according to Milne, a powder like soot fell from the
sky, upon Comrie and surrounding regions. In his report to the British
Association, 1840, Milne, reviewing [107/108] the phenomena from the year
1788, says: "Occasionally there was a fall of fine, black powder."(9)
Jan. 8, 1840 -- sounds like cannonading, at Comrie, and a crackling sound in
the air, according to some of the residents. Whether they were sounds of
quakes of concussions that followed explosions, 247 occurrences, between
Oct. 3, 1839, and Feb. 14, 1841, are listed in the Edin. New Phil. Jour.,
32-107.(10) It looks like a bombardment, and like most persistent
bombardment -- from somewhere -- and the frequent fall from the sky of the
débris of explosions. Feb. 18, 1841 -- a shock and a fall of discolored rain
at Comrie (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 35-148).(11) See Roper's List of
Earthquakes -- year after year, and the continuance of this seeming
bombardment in one small part of the sky of this earth, though I can find
records only of dates and no details.(12) However, I think I have found
record of a fall from the sky of débris of an explosion, more substantial
than finely powdered soot, at Crieff, which is several miles from Comrie. In
the Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-28-275, Prof. Shepard tells a circumstantial story
of an object that looked like a lump of slag, or cinders, reported to have
fallen at Crieff.(13) Scientists had refused to accept the story, upon the
grounds that the substance was not of "true meteoric material." Prof.
Shepard went to Crieff and investigated. He gave his opinion that possibly
the object did fall from the sky. The story he tells is that, upon the night
of April 23, 1855, a young woman, in the home of Sir William Murray,
Achterlyre House, Crieff, saw, or thought she saw, a luminous object
falling, and picked it up, dropping it, because it was hot, or because she
thought it was hot.(14)
For a description, in a letter, presumably from Sir William Murray, or some
member of his family, see Year Book of Facts, 1856-273.(15) It is said that
about 12 fragments of scorious matter, hot and emitting a sulphurous odor,
had fallen.
In Ponton's Earthquakes, p. 118, it is said that, upon the 8th of October,
1857, there had been, in Illinois, an earthquake, preceded by "a luminous
appearance, described by some as a meteor and by others as vivid flashes of
lightning."(16) Though felt in Illinois, the center of the disturbance was
at St. Louis, Mo. One notes the misleading and the obscuring of such word-
[108/109] ing: in all contemporaneous accounts there is no such
indefiniteness as one description by "some" and another notion by "others."
Something exploded terrifically in the sky, at St. Louis, and shook the
ground "severely" or "violently," at 4.20 A.M., Oct. 8, 1857. According to
Timbs' Year Book of Facts, 1858-271, "a blinding meteoric ball from the
heavens" was seen.(17) "A large and brilliant meteor shot across the
heavens" (St. Louis Intelligencer, Oct. 8). Of course the supposed
earthquake was concussion from an explosion in the sky, but our own interest
is in a series that is similar to others that we have recorded. According to
the New York Times, Oct 12, a slight shock was said to have been felt four
hours before the great concussion, and another three days before.(18) But
see Milne's Catalog of Destructive Earthquakes -- not a mention of anything
that would lead one away from safe and standardized suppositions.(19) See
Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 3-68 -- here the "meteor" is mentioned, but there is
no mention of the preceding concussions.(20) Time after time, in a period of
about three days, concussions were felt in and around St. Louis. One of
these concussions, with its "sound like thunder or the roar of artillery"
(New York Times, Oct. 8), was from an explosion in the sky. If the others
were of the same origin -- how could detonating meteors so repeat in one
small local sky, and nowhere else, if this earth be a moving body? If it be
said that only by coincidence did a meteor explode over a region where there
had been other quakes, here is the question:
How many times can we accept that explanation as to similar series?
* * *
In the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 19-144, a
correspondent writes that, in Herefordshire, Sept. 24, 1854, upon a day that
was "perfectly still, sky cloudless," he had heard sounds like the
discharges of heavy artillery, at intervals of about two minutes, continuing
several hours.(21) Again the "mystery of the local sky" -- if these sounds
did come from the sky. We have no data for thinking that they did.
In the London Times, Nov. 9, 1858, a correspondent writes that, in
Cardiganshire, Wales, he had, in the autumn of 1855, often heard sounds like
the discharges of heavy artillery, two or [109/110] three reports rapidly,
and then an interval of perhaps 20 minutes, also with long intervals,
sometimes of days and sometimes of weeks, continuing throughout the winter
of 1855-56.(22) Upon the 3rd of November, 1858, he had heard the sounds
again, repeatedly, and louder than they had been three years before. In the
Times, Nov. 12, someone else says that, at Dolgelly, he, too, had heard the
"mysterious phenomenon," on the 3rd of November.(23) Someone else -- that,
upon Oct. 13, he had heard the sounds at Swansea.(24) "The reports, as if of
heavy artillery, came from the west, succeeding each other at apparently
regular intervals, during the greater part of the afternoon of that day. My
impression was that sounds might have proceeded from practicing at Milford,
but I ascertained, the following day, that there had been no firing of any
kind there." Correspondent to the Times, November 20 -- that, with little
doubt, the sounds were from artillery practice at Milford.(25) He does not
mention the investigation as to the sounds of Oct. 13, but says that there
had been cannon-firing, upon Nov. 3rd, at Milford. Times, Dec. 1 -- that
most of the sounds could be accounted for as sounds of blasting in
quarries.(26) Daily News, Nov. 16 -- that similar sounds had been heard, in
1848, in New Zealand, and were results of volcanic action.(27) Standard,
Nov. 16 -- that the "mysterious noise" must have been from Devonport, where
a sunken rock had been blown up.(28) So, with at least variety these sounds
were explained. But we learn that the series began before October 13. Upon
the evening of Sept. 28, in the Dartmoor District, at Crediton, a rumbling
sound was heard. It was not supposed to be an earthquake, because no
vibration of the ground was felt. It was thought that there had been an
explosion of gunpowder. But there had been no such terrestrial explosion.
About an hour later another explosive sound was heard. It was like all the
other sounds, and in one place was thought to be distant cannonading --
terrestrial cannonading. See Quar. Jour. Geolog. Soc. of London, vol.
15.(29)
Somewhere near Barisal, Bengal, were occurring just such sounds as the
sounds of Cardiganshire, which were like the sounds of Melida. In the Proc.
Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, Nov. 1870, are published letters upon the Barisal
Guns.(30) One writer says that the sounds were probably booming of the surf.
Someone else [110/111] points out that the sounds, usually described as
"explosive," were heard too far inland to be traced to such origin. A clear,
calm day, in December, 1871 -- in Nature, 53-197, Mr. G.B. Scott writes
that, in Bengal, he had heard "a dull, muffled boom as if of distant cannon"
-- single detonations, and then two or three in quicker succession.(31)
In the London Times, Jan. 20, 1860, several correspondents write as to a
sound "resembling the discharge of a gun high in the air" that was heard
near Reading, Berkshire, England, Jan. 17, 1860.(32) See the Times, Jan.
24th.(33) To say that a meteor had exploded would, at present, well enough
account for this phenomenon.(34)
Sounds like those that were heard in Herefordshire, Sept. 24, 1854, were
heard later. In the English Mechanic, 100-279, it is said that, upon Nov. 9,
1862, the Rev. T. Webb, the astronomer, of Hardwicke, fifteen miles west of
Hereford, heard sounds that he attributed to gunfire at Milford Haven, about
85 miles from Hardwicke.(35) Upon Aug. 1, 1865, Mr. Webb saw flashes upon
the horizon, at Hardwicke, and attributed them to gunfire at Tenby, upon
occasion of a visit by Prince Arthur. Tenby, too, is about 85 miles from
Hardwicke. There were other phenomena in a region centering around Hereford
and Worcester. Upon Oct. 6, 1863, there was a disturbance that is now listed
as an earthquake; but in the London newspapers so many reports upon this
occurrence state that a great explosion had been thought to occur, and that
the quake was supposed to be an earthquake of subterranean origin only after
no terrestrial explosion could be heard of, that the phenomenon is of
questionable origin. There was a similar concussion in about the same
region, Oct. 30, 1868. Again the shock was widely attributed to a great
explosion, perhaps in London, and again was supposed to have been an
earthquake when no terrestrial explosion could be heard of.
* * *
Arcana of Science, 1829-196:(36)
That, near Mhow, India, Feb. 27, 1827, fell a stone "perfectly similar" to
the stone that fell near Allahabad, in 1802, and a stone that fell near
Mooradabad, in 1808. These towns are in the Northwestern Provinces of India.
[111/112]
I have looked at specimens of these stones, and in my view they are similar.
They are of brownish rock, streaked and spotted with a darker brown. A stone
that fell at Chandakopur, in the same general region, June 6, 1838, is like
them. All are as much alike as "erratics" that, because they are alike,
geologists ascribe to the same derivation, stationary relatively to the
places in which they are found.
It seems acceptable that, upon July 15 and 17, 1822, and then upon a later
date, unknown seeds fell from the sky to this earth.(37) If these seeds did
come from some other world, there is another mystery as well as that of
repetition in a local sky of this earth. How could a volume of seeds remain
in one aggregation; how could the seeds be otherwise than scattered from
Norway to Patagonia, if they met in space this earth, and if this earth be
rushing through space at a rate of 19 miles a second? It may be that the
seeds of 1822 fell again. According to Kaemtz (Meteorology, p. 465)
yellowish brown corpuscles, some round, a few cylindrical, were found upon
the ground, June, 1830, near Griesau, Silesia.(38) Kaemtz says that they
were tubercules from roots of a well-known Silesian plant -- stalk of the
plant dries up; heavy rain raises these tubercules to the ground -- persons
of a low order of mentality think that the things had fallen from the sky.
Upon the night of March 24-25, 1852, a great quantity of seeds did fall from
the sky, in Prussia, in Heinsberg, Erkelenz, and Juliers, according to M.
Schwann, of the University of Liége, in a communication to the Belgian
Academy of Science (La Belgique Horticole, 2-319).(39)
In Comptes Rendus, 5-549, is Dr. Wartmann's account of water that fell from
the sky, at Geneva.(40) At nine o'clock, morning of Aug. 9, 1837, there were
clouds upon the horizon, but the zenith was clear. It is not remarkable that
a little rain should fall now and then from a clear sky: we shall see
wherein this account is remarkable. Large drops of warm water fell in such
abundance that people were driven to shelter. The fall continued several
minutes and then stopped. But then, several times during an hour, more of
this warm water fell from the sky. Year Book of Facts, 1839-262 -- that upon
May 31, 1838, lukewarm water in large drops fell from the sky, at
Geneva.(41) Comptes Rendus, [112/113] 15-290 -- no wind and not a cloud in
the sky -- at 10 o'clock, morning of May 11, 1842, warm water fell from the
sky at Geneva, for about six minutes; five hours later, still no wind and no
clouds, again fell warm water, in large drops; falling intermittently for
several minutes.(42)
In Comptes Rendus, 85-681, is noted a succession of falls of stones in
Russia: June 12, 1863, at Buschof, Courland; Aug. 8, 1863, at Pillitsfer,
Livonia; April 12, 1864, at Nerft, Courland.(43) Also -- see Fletcher's List
-- a stone that fell at Dolgovdi, Volhynia, Russia, June 26, 1864.(44) I
have looked at specimens of all four of these stones, and have found them
all very much alike, but not of uncommon meteoric material: all gray stones,
but Pillitsfer is darker than the others, and in a polished specimen of
Nerft, brownish specks are visible.
In the Birmingham Daily Post, June 14, 1858, Dr. C. Mansfield Ingleby, a
meteorologist, writes: "During the storm on Saturday (12th) morning,
Birmingham was visited by a shower of aerolites. Many hundreds of thousands
must have fallen, some of the streets being strewn with them."(45) Someone
else writes than many pounds of the stones had been gathered from awnings,
and that they had damaged greenhouses, in the suburbs.(46) In the Post, of
the 15th, someone else writes that, according to his microscopic
examinations, the supposed aerolites were only bits of the Rowley ragstone,
with which Birmingham was paved, which had been washed loose by the
rain.(47) It is not often that sentiment is brought into meteorology, but in
the Report of the British Association, 1864-37, Dr. Phipson explains the
occurrence meteorologically, and with an unconscious tenderness.(48) He says
that the stones did fall from the sky, but that they had been carried in a
whirlwind from Rowley, some miles from Birmingham. So we are to
sentimentalize over the stones in Rowley that had been torn, by unfeeling
paviers, from their companions of geologic ages, and exiled to the pavements
of Birmingham, and then some of these little bereft companions, rising in a
whirlwind and travelling, unerringly, if not miraculously, to rejoin the
exiles. More dark companions. It is said that they were little black stones.
They fell again from the sky, two years later. In La Science Pour Tous, June
19, 1860, it is said that, according to the Wolver- [113/114] hampton
Advertiser, a great number of little black stones had fallen, in a violent
storm, at Wolverhampton.(49) According to all records findable by me no such
stones have ever fallen anywhere in Great Britain, except at Birmingham and
Wolverhampton, which is 13 miles from Birmingham.
Eight years after the second occurrence, they fell again. English Mechanic,
July 31, 1868 -- that stones "similar to, if not identical with the well-
known Rowley ragstones" had fallen in Birmingham, having probably been
carried from Rowley, in a whirlwind.(50)
We were pleased with Dr. Phipson's story, but to tell of more of the little
dark companions rising in a whirlwind and going unerringly from Rowley to
rejoin exiles in Birmingham is overdoing. That's not sentiment: that's
mawkishness.
In the Birmingham Daily Post, May 30, 1868, is published a letter from
Thomas Plant, a writer and lecturer upon meteorological subjects. Mr. Plant
says, I think, that for one hour, morning of May 29, 1868, stones fell, in
Birmingham, from the sky. His words may be interpretable in some other way,
but it does not matter: the repeating falls are indication enough of what
we're trying to find out -- "From nine to ten, meteoric stones fell in
immense quantities in various parts of town." "They resembled, in shape,
broken pieces of Rowley ragstone...in every respect they were like the
stones that fell in 1858."(51) In the Post, June 1, Mr. Plant says that the
stones of 1858 did fall from the sky, and were not fragments washed out of
the pavement by rain, because many pounds of them had been gathered from a
platform that was 20 feet above the ground.
It may be that for days before and after May 29, 1868, occasional stones
fell from some unknown region stationary above Birmingham. In the Post, June
2, a correspondent writes that, upon the first of June, his niece, while
walking in a field, was struck by a stone that injured her hand severely. He
thinks that the stone had been thrown by some unknown person. In the Post,
June 4, someone else writes that his wife, while walking down a lane, upon
May 24th, had been cut on the head by a stone. He attributes this injury to
stone-throwing by boys, but does not say that anyone had been seen to throw
the stone. [114/115]
Symons' Met. Mag., 4-137:(52)
That, according to the Birmingham Gazette, a great number of small, black
stones had been found in the streets of Wolverhampton, May 25, 1869, after a
severe storm. It is said that the stones were precisely like those that had
fallen in Birmingham, the year before, and resembled Rowley ragstone
outwardly, but had a different appearance when broken. [115]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 201-2.
2. Lazarus Fletcher. Introduction to the Study of Meteorites. 1914, 11th ed.
London: British Museum Trustees, 100.
3. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 31 (1841): 92-
122, 259-309, at 293. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in
Great Britain, and especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by
these notices as to the causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical
Journal, 35 (1843): 137-59, at 145-8. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake
shocks felt in Great Britain, and especially in Scotland, with inferences
suggested by these notices as to the causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New
Philosophical Journal, 36 (1846): 72-86, 362-76. The black powder was found
at the farm of Miggar and upon Loch Erne on February 8, and it was presumed
to have fallen during the previous night, (not upon February 15).
4. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 32 (1842): 106-
27, 362-78, at 111. Correct quote: "...alarming. The heavens, more
especially towards the N. and N.W., appeared as if hung with sackcloth."
5. Robert Mallet. "Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1854, 1-326, at 290-1. Correct quotes: "...distant thunder, reports of
artillery. The noise sometimes seemed to be in the air, and was often heard
without any sensible shock at the time."
6. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 32 (1842): 106-
27, 362-78, at 119-27, 362-78. The phenomenon at Foulis Manse is found on
pages 368-9.
7. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 33 (1843): 372-
88, at 373, 387. Correct quote: "...the sound proceeded from the atmosphere,
and not from under ground. The sound seemed to be high in the air."
8. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34 (1844): 85-
106, at 87. Correct quote: "At the time of the shock I was sitting. A noise
preceded it as of a rushing wind.... The rushing noise seemed to be in the
air.... But besides these, and following them, there was a rumbling noise as
if of carts on a pavement, but more hollow in the sound; and this latter
sound was in the earth...."
9. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1840.
10. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks." Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 32 (1842): 106-
27, 362-78, at 107-9. There weree 187 shocks recorded from October 3, 1839,
to February 14, 1841; but, there are 256 shocks in total on the table ending
on December 7, 1841. There are "247 shocks recorded in it, for the two years
following 3d October 1839...."
11. David Milne. "Notices of earthquake shocks felt in Great Britain, and
especially in Scotland, with inferences suggested by these notices as to the
causes of such shocks," Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 35 (1843): 137-
59, at 144-9. Milne notes that rain "charged with dust" fell at Vernet, on
February 17, and at Genoa, on February 18, 1841; and, further, he writes,
"by a remarkable coincidence," an earthquake shock was felt at Genoa.
Discolored rains fell in Scotland, on October 23, 1839, and in November,
1839. Black powder, or "scum," discolored Loch Erne a few days before
October 23, 1839, and at both Loch Voil and Loch Erne on February 23 and May
2, 1841. For further information upon the shocks, (March 18, 1841), and
colored rain, March 17 to 19, 1841), at Genoa: Canobbio. "Description et
analyse d'une eau de pluie rouge tombée à Gênes en Fevrier 1841." Comptes
Rendus, 13 (1841): 215-9.
12. William Roper. A List of Remarkable Earthquakes in Great Britain and
Ireland During the Christian Era. Lancaster: T. Bell, 1892.
13. Charles Upham Shepard. "On a shooting meteor...." American Journal of
Science, s.2, 28 (1859): 270-6, at 275-6. It is not said that Shepard went
to Crieff but only that, while visiting Sheffield, he was able to inspect
one of the specimens of this material.
14. "Ochtertyre House" is the correct spelling, (not Achterlyre).
15. "Aerolite in Scotland." Timb's Year-Book of Facts in Science and Art,
1856, 273-4.
16. Mungo Ponton. Earthquakes and Volcanoes. 1872, 73. Rev. ed., 1885, 118.
The correct date is October 9th, 1857, not the 8th.
17. "Earthquake in the United States." Timb's Year-Book of Facts in Science
and Art, 1858, 271.
18. "Earthquake at St. Louis." New York Times, October 12, 1857, p.5 c.4.
19. David Milne. "Catalogue of destructive earthquakes." Annual Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1911 (Appendix 1):
649-740, at 713. The entry consist only of: "1857 Oct. 8 U.S.A. (Illinois),
Centralia I P," (wherein "I" represents the scale of its intensity, and P
indicates Perrey's catalogs as the source of information).
20. F.A. Sampson. "The New Madrid and other earthquakes of Missouri."
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 3 (July 1913): 57-71, at
68-9.
21. A.T. Fryer. "Psychological aspects of the Welsh Revival." Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research, 19 (1905-7): 80-161, at 144. Correct
quote: "...perfectly still, the sky cloudless...."
22. "Mysterious phenomenon." London Times, November 9, 1858, p.10 c.1. The
correspondent heard the sounds again on November 5, 1858, (not on the 3rd).
23. H.S. Stevenson. "To the editor of the Times." London Times, November 12,
1858, p.8 c.6.
24. London Times, November, 1858.
25. W. Thomas. "To the editor of the Times." London Times, November 20,
1858, p.12 c.3.
26. "To the editor of the Times." London Times, December 1, 1858, p.9 c.6.
27. James Rumsey Forster. "Mysterious phenomenon." London Daily News,
November 16, 1858, p.3 c.2.
28. W.W.H. "The mysterious sounds in Cardiganshire," London Standard,
November 16, 1858, p. 4 c. 5.
29. G. Wareing Ormerod. "Notice of the occurrence of an earthquake along the
northern edge of the granite of the Dartmoor District on the 28th of
September, 1858." Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 15
(November 3, 1858): 188-91. Also, on the evening of September 30, "a noise
was heard, which a person who had resided in a country subject to
earthquakes immediately recognized as arising from the cause," at Trusham,
near Chudleigh.
30. "From Fleetwood H. Pellow, Esq., on the Barisal Guns," and, "From H.J.
Rainey, Esq., Zamindar Khulná, Jessore, on the same subject." Proceedings of
the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1870 (November): 289-91.
31. G.B. Scott. "Barisal guns." Nature, 53 (January 2, 1896): 197. Correct
quote: "...the dull muffled boom as of distant cannon."
32. "Meteorological phenomena." London Times, January 20, 1860, p.10 c.5.
33. Robert Taylor. "Meteorological phenomenon." London Times, January 24,
1860, p.11 c.6.
34. All four correspondents reporting the aerial sounds stated the the sky
was cloudless and say nothing of any meteoric explosion; however, C.A Johns
reported, at 10 A.M. on the same day, "a broad illuminated pillar of mist,"
which resembled a rainbow, "except that no prismatic colours were visible"
("Meteorological phenomena." London Times, January 20, 1860, p.10 c.5).
35. Arthur Mee. "Objects in front of Sun -- Distant gunfire -- Delevan's
comet -- Non-Achromatic refractor." English Mechanic, 100 (October 23,
1914): 279. The location was Hardwick, (not Hardwicke).
36. "Meteoric stone." Arcana of Science, 1829, 196-7. Mhow is located in
Madhya Pradesh; Allahabad and Moradabad are located in Uttar Pradesh; and,
they are to the North of the center of India, (east and south of Delhi).
37. In 1822, seeds fell on July 15 (at Marienwerder, Germany), on July 17
(in Silesia), and later (at Posen and the country around Mecklenburg). See
part 2, ch. 1. Kreis. "Effet remarquable d'un orage." Bulletin (Universal)
des Sciences, Mathematiques, Astronomique, Physiques et Chimiques, 1 (1824):
298-9 .
38. L.F. Kaemetz. A Complete Course of Meteorology. 1844, 466-7, s.v.
"Shower of corn."
39. Ch. Morren. "Les pluies de graines et les fleurs du ciel." La Belgique
Horticole, 2 (1852): 319-25.
40. "Extrait d'une lettre de M. Wartman à M. Arago, sur une pluie qui est
tombée à Genève par un temps parfaitement serein." Comptes Rendus, 5 (1837):
549. This phenomenon was observed in the evening, not in the morning.
41. "Rain without clouds." Timb's Year-Book of Facts in Science and Art,
1839, 262. "Rain without clouds. Railway Magazine and Annals of Science,
n.s., 5, n.31 (September 1838): 249. The rain occurred at 7:02 P.M., for six
minutes, "though the sky was perfectly clear in the zenith, and no clouds in
the immediate neighbourhood of it."
42. Wartmann. "Observations de pluie par un temps serein." Comptes Rendus,
15 (1842): 290-1. For two further examples: "Pluie sans nuages." Anneé
Scientifique et Industrielle, 31 (1887): 56-7. At Argentan, on April 26,
1887, a similar fall was observed for five or six minutes. P. Besson and F.
Golliard. "Pluie sans nuages." Astronomie, 9 (1890): 274. A similar fall was
observed at Moulins, on March 25, 1890.
43. "M. Daubrée, en présentant à l'Académie les trois échantillons de
météorites...." Comptes Rendus, 85 (October 8, 1877): 681. The fall at
Buschhof occurred on June 2, 1863, (not June 12).
44. Lazarus Fletcher. Introduction to the Study of Meteorites. 1914, 11th
ed. London: British Museum Trustees, 103. This is the Dolgovoli meteorite,
(not Dolgovdi).
45. "The aerolites." Birmingham Daily Post, June 14, 1858, p. 1 c. 6.
Correct quote: "...strewed with them."
46. "Terrific thunderstorm in Birmingham. Great damage to property. Singular
phenomenon." Birmingham Daily Post, June 14, 1858, p.1 c.6.
47. "The aerolites." Birmingham Daily Post, June 15, 1858, p.1 c.6.
48. T.L. Phipson. "On the black stones which fell from the atmosphere at
Birmingham in 1858." Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1864, Trans., 37. Phipson attributes their transport
to a waterspout, (not a whirlwind).
49. "Phénomène météorologique." La Science Pour Tous, 5 (July 19, 1860):
264. "A shower of stones." Wolverhampton Advertiser and Spirit of the Times,
June 23, 1860, p. 582 c. 2. This storm occurred on the evening of June 20,
1860.
50. "Fall of meteoric stones." English Mechanic, 7 (July 3, 1860): 321.
These later stones fell during a thunderstrom on April 29, 1868.
51. A marginal note in Fort's copy is: "Aug 30, 1860."
52. "A meteoric stone shower at Wolverhampton?" Symons' Meteorological
Magazine, 4, 137-8. "A meteoric stone shower at Wolverhampton." Birmingham
Daily Gazette, May 27, 1869, p.6 c.6. For the identification of the stones,
which fell on May 29, 1868, as similar to those which fell on June 12, 1858:
Thomas L. Plant. "The shower of meteoric stones." Birmingham Daily Gazette,
June 1, 1868, p.6 c.6.
CHAPTER FOUR
UPON page 287, Popular Astronomy, Newcomb says that it is beyond all "moral
probability" that unknown worlds should exist in such numbers as have been
reported, and should be seen crossing the solar disc only by amateur
observers and not by skilled astronomers.(1)
Most of our instances are reports by some of the best-known astronomers.
Newcomb says that for fifty years prior to his time of writing (edition of
1878) the sun had been studied by such men as Schwabe, Carrington, Secchi,
and Spörer, and that they had never seen unknown bodies cross the sun --
Aug. 30, 1863 -- an unknown body was seen by Spörer to cross the sun (Webb,
Celestial Objects, p. 45).(2)
Sept. 1, 1859 -- two star-like objects that were seen by Carrington to cross
the sun (Monthly Notices, 20-13, 15, 88).(3)
Things that have crossed the sun, July 31, 1826, and May 26, 1828 -- see
Comptes Rendus, 83-623, and Webb's Celestial Objects, p. 40.(4) From Sept. 6
to Nov. 1, 1831, an unknown luminous object was seen every cloudless night,
at Geneva, by Dr. Wartmann and his assistants (Comptes Rendus, 2-307).(5) It
was reported from nowhere else. What all the other astronomers were doing,
Sept.-Oct., 1831, is one of the mysteries that we shall not solve. An
unknown, luminous object that was seen, from May 11 to May 14, 1835, by
Cacciatore, the Sicilian astronomer (Amer. Jour. Sci., 31-158).(6) Two
unknowns that according to Pastorff, crossed the sun, Nov. 1, 1836, and Feb.
16, 1837 (An. Sci. Disc., 1860-410) -- De Vico's unknown, July 12, 1837,
(Observatory, 2-424) -- observation by De Cuppis, Oct. 2, 1839 (C.R.,, 83-
314) -- by Scott and Wray, last of June, 1847; by Schmidt, Oct. 11, 1847
(C.R., 83-623) -- two dark bodies that were seen, Feb. 5, 1849, by Brown, of
Deal (Rec. Sci., 1-138) -- object watched by [116/117] Sidebotham, half an
hour, March 12, 1849, crossing the sun, (C.R., 83-622) -- Schmidt's unknown,
Oct. 14, 1849 (Observatory, 3-137) -- and an object that was watched, four
nights in October, 1850, by James Ferguson, of the Washington
Observatory.(7) Mr. Hind believed this object to be a Trans-Neptunian
planet, and calculated for it a period of 1,600 years. Mr. Hind was a great
astronomer, and he miscalculated magnificently: this floating island of
space was not seen again (Smithson. Miscell. Cols., 20-20).(8)
About May 30, 1853 -- a black point that was seen against the sun, by
Jaennicke (Cosmos, 20-64).(9)
A procession -- in the Rept. B.A., 1855-94, R.P. Greg says that, upon May
22, 1854, a friend of his saw, near Mercury, an object equal in size to the
planet itself, and behind it an elongated object, and behind that something
else, smaller and round.(10)
June 11, 1855 -- a dark body of such size that it was seen, without
telescopes, by Ritter and Schmidt, crossing the sun (Observatory, 3-
137).(11) Sept. 12, 1857 -- Ohrt's unknown world; seemed to be about the
size of Mercury (C.R., 83-623) -- Aug. 1, 1858 -- unknown world reported by
Wilson, of Manchester (Astro. Reg., 9-287).(12)
I am not listing all the unknowns of a period; perhaps the object reported
by John H. Tice, of St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 15, 1859, should not be included;
Mr. Tice was said not to be trustworthy -- but who has any way of
knowing?(13) However, I am listing enough of these observations to make me
feel like a translated European of some centuries ago, relatively to a wider
existence -- lands that may be the San Salvadors, Greenlands, Madagascars,
Cubas, Australias of extra-geography, all of them said to have crossed the
sun, whereas the sun may have moved behind some of them --
Jan. 29, 1860 -- unknown object, of planetary size, reported from London, by
Russell and three other observers (Nature, 15-505).(14) Summer of 1860 --
see Sci. Amer., 35-340, for an account, by Richard Covington, of an object,
that without a telescope, he saw crossing the sun.(15) An unknown world,
reported by Loomis, of Manchester, March 20, 1862 (Monthly Notices, 22-232)
-- a newspaper account of an object that was seen crossing the sun,
[117/118] Feb. 12, 1864, [b]y Samuel Beswick, of New York (Astro. Reg., 2-
161) -- unknown that was seen March 8, 1865, at Constantinople (L'Ann. Sci.,
1865-16) -- unknown "cometic objects" that were seen, November 4, 9, and 18,
1865 (Monthly Notices, 26-242).(16)
Most of these unknowns were seen in the daytime. Several reflections arise.
How can there be stationary regions over Irkutsk, Comrie, and Birmingham,
and never obscure the stars -- or never be seen to obscure the stars? A
heresy that seems too radical for me is that they may be beyond nearby
stars. A more reasonable idea is that if nightwatchmen and policemen and
other persons who do stay awake nights, should be given telescopes,
something might be found out. Something else that one thinks of is that, if
so many unknowns have been seen crossing the sun, or crossed by the sun,
others not so revealed must exist in great numbers, and that instead of
being virtually blank, space must be archipelagoic.
Something that was seen at night; observer not an astronomer --
Nov. 6, 1866 -- an account, in the London Times, Jan. 2, 1867, by Senor De
Fonblanque, of the British Consulate, at Carthegena, U.S. Colombia, of a
luminous object that moved in the sky.(17) "It was of the magnitude, color,
and brilliance of a ship's red light, as seen at a distance of 200 yards."
The object was visible three minutes, and then disappeared behind buildings.
De Fonblanque went to an open space to look for it, but did not see it
again. [118]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. 1st ed. London: Macmillan and Co.,
1878, 287. 2d London ed. Macmillan and Co., 1883, 295.
2. Thomas William Webb. Celestial Objects. 4th ed. 1881. 6th ed., 1917. 4th
ed., 45.
3. R.C. Carrington. "Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on
September 1, 1859." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 20
(November 1859): 13-5. R. Hodgson. "On a curious appearance seen in the
Sun." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 20 (November 1859):
15-6. C. Piazzi Smyth. "Suggestions connected with the Carrington-and-
Hodgson solar phenomenon of 1st Sept. 1859." Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 20 (January 1860): 88-91.
4. Urban Jean Joseph LeVerrier. "Examen des observations qu'on a présentées,
à diverses époques, comme pouvant appartenir aux passages d'une planète
intra-mercurielle (suite). Discussion et conclusions." Comptes Rendus, 83
(1876): 583-9, 621-4, 647-50, 719-23, at 621. Thomas William Webb. Celestial
Objects. 4th ed. 1881. 6th ed., 1917.
5. "Lettre de M. Wartmann, de Genève, à M. Arago, sur un astre ayant
l'aspect d'une étoile et qui cependant était doué d'un mouvement propre."
Comptes Rendus, 2 (1836): 307-11. Wartmann mentions only one assistant, ("un
excellent chercheur de Cauchoix.")
6. "Supposed new planet." American Journal of Science, s. 1, 31 (1837): 158-
9. Cacciatore noted what he first believed was an eighth magnitude star on
May 11, 1835; but, with his next observation, on May 14, 1835, its position
had changed relative to another star, and he thought the object either a
comet or planet beyond Uranus. Clouded skies prevented further observations
until June 2, 1835; but, by then, the object had been lost. "Cacciatore's
supposed planet of 1835." Nature, 18 (July 4, 1878): 261.
7. "New planets." Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1860, 409-11. "Search for
Vulcan." Observatory, 2 (1878-79): 424. "Extrait d'une lettre du P. Ferrari
à M. Mouchez, relativement à la planète intra-mercurielle." Comptes Rendus,
88 (March 3, 1879): 413. Urban Jean Joseph LeVerrier. "Examen des
observations qu'on a présentées, à diverses époques, comme pouvant
appartenir aux passages d'une planète intra-mercurielle (suite). Discussion
et conclusions." Comptes Rendus, 83 (1876): 583-9, 621-4, 647-50, 719-23; at
622. E.J. Lowe. "Meteors, or falling stars." Recreative Science, 1 (1860):
130-8, at 138. E. Ledger. "Observations or supposed observations of the
transits of intra-Mercurial planets or other bodies across the Sun's disk."
Observatory, 3 (1879-80): 135-8, at 137.
8. "151st Meeting. December 7, 1878." Bulletin of the Philosophical Society
of Washington, 3 (1878-80): 20-1. Included within: Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 20 (1881): 20-1. C.H.F. Peters. "Investigation of the evidence
of a supposed trans-Neptunian planet in the Washington observations of
1850." And, "Letter from Admiral John Rodgers, Superintendent of Naval
Observatory at Washington." Astronomische Nachrichten, n.2240 c.113-6.
Ferguson's alleged planet was discussed earlier in Part 1, ch.2.
9. "Point noir et rond sur le soleil." Cosmos: Revue Encyclopedic, 20
(January 17, 1862): 64. The date of Jaennicke's observation was on August
30, 1853, not in May.
10. Baden Powell "Report on observations of luminous meteors, 1854-55."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1855, 79-100, at 94.
11. E. Ledger. "Observations or supposed observations of the transits of
intra-Mercurial planets or other bodies across the Sun's disk." Observatory,
3 (1879-80): 135-8, at 137.
12. Urban Jean Joseph LeVerrier. "Examen des observations qu'on a
présentées, à diverses époques, comme pouvant appartenir aux passages d'une
planète intra-mercurielle (suite). Discussion et conclusions." Comptes
Rendus, 83 (1876): 583-9, 621-4, 647-50, 719-23; at 623. For Ohrt's original
report: "Vermischte nachrichten." Astronomische Nachrichten, no. 1269, 333-
4. William F. Denning. "The total eclipse in December next." Astronomical
Register, 9, 286-7, at 287.
13. Tice provides a detailed summary of how the planet that he claimed to
have seen transit the sun, on September 15, 1859, was calculated to have an
orbital period of 23.02 days, (at a time when Leverrier was alterring
Vulcan's orbital period from 42.2 days to 28.00774 days); and, Tice claimed
its size to be "at least equal to that of Uranus," and to have observed it
with his family in June of 1876. John H. Tice. "The supposed planet Vulcan."
Scientific American, n.s., 35 (December 16, 1876): 389. "The inter-Mercurial
planet." Scientific American, n.s. 35 (October 21, 1876): 257. However,
Proctor points out that, to make Lescarbault's observation on March 26,
1859, conform with his system of weather prediction and his alleged
observation on September 15, 1859, Tice failed to note "a certain number of
revolutions, plus one half, were required, unless Vulcan were to be seen
through the sun," (or, when Vulcan was in superior conjunction with the sun,
rather than inferior conjunction). "From the day when he made this mistake
`Professor' Tice, as he was called, began to lose ground even with the
exceedingly ignorant persons who, until then, had put faith in him." Richard
Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.,
1892, 425.
14. F.A.R. Russell. "An Intra-Mercurial planet." Nature, 14 (October 5,
1876): 505.
15. Richard Covington. "The supposed planet Vulcan." Scientific American,
n.s., 35 (November 25, 1876): 340-1.
16. John R. Hind. "Note on a dark, circular spot upon the Sun's disk, with
rapid motion, as observed by W. Lummis, Esq., of Manchester, 1862, March
20." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22 (April 1862):
232. The name of the observer was W. Lummis, (not Loomis). "Lescarbault's
planet(?)." Astronomical Register, 2, 161. "La planète intramercurielle."
Année Scientifique et Industrielle, 10 (1865): 16-7. This observation was
made by Coumbary. C.G. Talmage. "On a probable observation of Biela's
comet." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 26 (April 1866):
241-2. James Buckingham. "Supposed observation of Biela's comet." Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 26 (May 1866): 271-2.
17. A. De G. De Fonblanque. "Meteor." London Times, January 2, 1867, p.11
c.5. The city is now Cartagena, Columbia. Correct quote: "...magnitude,
colour, and brilliancy of a ship's red light...."
CHAPTER FIVE
IF we could stop to sing, instead of everlastingly noting vol. this and p.
that, we could have the material of sagas -- of the bathers in the sun,
which may be neither intolerably hot nor too uncomfortably cold; and of the
hermit who floats across the moon; of heroes and the hairy monsters of the
sky. I should stand in public places and sing our data -- sagas of parades
and explorations and massacres in the sky -- having a busy band of
accompanists, who set off fireworks, and send up balloons, and fire off
explosives at regular intervals -- extra-geographic songs of boiling lakes
and floating islands -- extra-sociologic metres that express the tramp of
space-armies upon interplanetary paths covered with little black pebbles --
biologic epics of the clouds of mammoths and horses and antelopes that once
upon a time fell from the sky upon the northern coast of Siberia --
Song that interprets the perpendicular white streaks in the repeating
mirages at Youghal -- the rhythmic walruses of space that hang on by their
tusks to the edges of space-islands, sometimes making stars variable as they
swing in cosmic undulations -- so a round space-island with its border of
gleaming tusks, and we frighten children with the song of an ogre's head,
with wide-open mouth all around it -- fairy lands of the little moon, and
the tiny civilizations in rocky cups that are sometimes drained to their
slums by the wide-mouthed ogres. The Maelstrom of Everlasting Catastrophe
that overhangs Genoa, Italy -- and twines its currents around a living
island. The ground underneath quakes with the struggle -- then the fall of
blood -- and the fall of blood -- three days the fall of blood from the
broken red brooks of a living island whose mutilations are scenery --
But after all, it may be better that we go back to Rept. B.A. -- see the
vol. for 1849, p. 46 -- a stream of black objects, crossing the sun,
watched, at Naples, May 11, 1845, by Capocci and other astronomers -- things
that may have been seeds.(1) [119/120]
A great number of red points in the sky of Urrugne, July 9, 1853 (An. Soc.
Met. de France, 1853-227).(2) Astro. Reg., 5-179 -- C.L. Prince, of
Uckfield, writes that, upon June 11, 1867, he saw objects crossing the field
of his telescope.(3) They were seeds, in his opinion.
Birmingham Daily Post, May 31, 1867:
Mr. Bird, the astronomer, writes that, about 11 A.M., May 30, he saw unknown
forms in the sky. In his telescope, which was focused upon them and upon the
planet Venus, they appeared to be twice the size of Venus. They were far
away, according to focus; also, it may be accepted that they were far away
because an occasional cloud passed between them and this earth. They did not
move like objects carried in the wind: all did not move in the same
direction, and they moved at different speeds.
"All of them seemed to have hairy appendages, and in many cases a distinct
tail followed the object and was highly luminous."
Flashes that have been seen in the sky -- and they're from a living island
that wags his luminous peninsula. Hair-like substances that have fallen to
this earth -- a meadow has been shorn from a monster's mane. My animation is
the notion that it is better to think in tentative hysteria of pairs of vast
things, travelling like a North and South America through the sky, perhaps
one biting the other with its Gulf of Mexico, than to go on thinking that
all things that so move in the sky are seeds, whereas all things that swim
in the sea are not sardines.
In the Post, June 3, 1867, Mr. W.H. Wood writes that the objects were
probably seeds. Post, June 5 -- Mr. Bird says that the objects were not
seeds. "My intention was simply to describe what was seen, and the
appearance was certainly that of meteors." He saves himself, in the annals
of extra-geography -- "whether they were meteors of the ordinary
acceptation, is another matter."
And the planet Venus, and her veil that is dotted with blue-fringed cupids -
- in the Astronomical Register, 7-138, a correspondent writes, from
Northampton, that, upon May 2, 1869, he was looking at Venus, and saw a host
of shining objects, not uniform in size.(4) He thinks that it is unlikely
that so early in the spring could these objects be seeds. He watched them
about an hour and twenty minutes -- "many of the larger ones were fringed
[120/121] on one side; the fringe appearing somewhat bluish." Or that it is
better even to sentimentalize than to go on stupidly thinking that all such
things in the sky are seeds, whereas all things in the sea are not the
economically adjusting little forms without which critics of underground
traffic in New York probably could not express themselves -- the planet
Venus -- she approaches this lordly earth -- the blue-fringed ecstasies that
suffuse her skies.
With the phenomena of Aug. 7, 1869, I suspect that the "phantom soldiers"
that have been seen in the sky, may have been reflections from, or mirages
of, things or beings that march, in military formations, in space. In
Popular Astronomy, 3-159, Prof. Swift writes that, at Mattoon, Ill., during
the eclipse of the sun, Aug. 7, 1869, he had seen, crossing the moon,
objects that he thought were seeds.(5) If they were seeds, also there
happened to be seeds in the sky of Ottumwa, Iowa: here, crossing the visible
part of the sun, twenty minutes before totality of the eclipse, Prof. Himes
and Prof. Zentmayer saw objects that marched, or that moved, in straight,
parallel lines (Les Mondes, 21-241).(6) In the Jour. Frank. Inst., 3-58-214,
it is said that some of these objects moved in one direction across the
moon, and that others moved in another direction across another part of the
moon, each division moving in parallel lines.(7) If these things were seeds,
also there happened to be seeds in the sky, at Shelleyville, Kentucky. Here
were seen, by Prof. Winlock, Alvan Clark Jr., and George W. Dean, things
that moved across the moon, during the eclipse, in parallel, straight lines
(Pop. Astro., 2-332).(8)
Whatever these things may have been, I offer another datum indicating that
the moon is nearby: that these objects probably were not, by coincidence,
things in three widely separated skies, parallelness giving them identity in
two of the observations; and, if seen, without parallax, from places so far
apart, against the moon, were close to the moon; that observation of such
detail would be unlikely if they were near a satellite 240,000 miles away --
unless, of course, they were mountain-sized.
It may be that out from two floating islands of space, two processions had
marched across the moon. Observatory, 3-137 -- that at St. Paul's Junction,
Iowa, four persons had seen, without telescopes, a shining object close to
the sun and moon, apparently; [121/122] that, with a telescope, another
person had seen another large object, crescentically illumined, farther from
the sun and moon in eclipse.(9) See Nature, 18-663, and Astro. Reg., 7-
227.(10)
I have many data upon the fall of organic matter from the sky. Because of my
familiarity with many records, it seems no more incredible that up in the
seemingly unoccupied sky there should be hosts of living things than that
seemingly blank of the ocean should swarm with life. I have many notes upon
a phosphorescence, or electric condition of things that fall from the sky,
for instance the highly luminous stones of Dhurmsulla, which were intensely
cold --
Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-28-270:(11)
It is said that, according to investigations by Prof. Shepard, a luminous
substance was seen falling slowly, by Sparkman R. Scriven, a young man of
seventeen, at his home, in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 16, 1857. It is said that
the young man saw a fiery, red ball, the size and shape of an orange, strike
a fence, breaking, and disappearing. Where this object had struck the fence,
was found "a small bristling mass of black fibers." According to Prof.
Shepard, it was "a confused aggregate of short clippings of the finest black
hair, varying in length from one tenth to one third of an inch." Prof.
Shepard says that this substance was not organic. It seems to me that he
said this only because of the coercions of his era. My reason for so
thinking is that he wrote that when he analyzed these hairs they burned
away, leaving grayish skeletons, and that they were "composed in part of
carbon." and burned with an odor "most nearly bituminous."
For full details of the following circumstances, see Comptes Rendus, 13-215,
and Rept. B.A., 1854-302:(12)
Feb. 17, 1841 -- the fall, at Genoa, Italy, of a red substance from the sky
-- another fall upon the 18th -- a slight quake, at 5 P.M., Feb. 18th --
another quake, six hours later -- fall of more of the red substance, upon
the 19th. Some of this substance was collected and analyzed by M. Canobbia,
of Genoa. He says it was oily and red. [122]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Baden Powell. "A catalogue of observation of luminous meteors."Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1849, 1-
53, at 46.
2. "Communications." Annuaire de la Société Météorologique de France, 1
(1853): 227-9.
3. C.L. Prince. "Meteor-like bodies near the sun." Astronomical Register, 5,
179.
4. D.T.K. "Bright objects passing the Sun," Astronomical Register, 7, 138-9.
5. Lewis Swift. "Meteors seen during a solar eclipse." Popular Astronomy, 3
(November 1895): 159.
6. Henry Morton. "Apparence d'une pluie météorique." Cosmos: Les Mondes, 21,
241-3. The objects were observed twenty-five minutes before totality, not
twenty, according to this article.
7. Henry Morton. "Solar eclipse - August 7, 1869." Journal of the Franklin
Institute, s. 3, 58 (whole series, v. 88): 200-16, at 213-4. The second
group of objects moved from the edge of a ground glass's field of view to
the solar crescent on the opposite side of the moon.
8. G.D. "Meteors observed during a total eclipse of the Sun," Popular
Astronomy, 2 (March 1895): 332-3. The observation was made at Shelbyville,
Kentucky, (not Shelleyville).
9. E. Ledger. "Observations or supposed observations of the transits of
intra-Mercurial planets or other bodies across the Sun's disk." Observatory,
3 (1879-80): 135-8, at 137.
10. J.R. Hind. "Stellar objects seen during the eclipse of 1869." Nature, 18
(October 24, 1878): 663-4. The telescopic observation was made by Mr.
Vincent, one of the observing party led by W.S. Gilman. "Was it the Intra-
Mercurial planet?" Astronomical Register, 7, 227-8.
11. Charles Upham Shepard. "On a shooting meteor...." American Journal of
Science, s.2, 28 (1859): 270-6, at 275-6. Correct quote: "...resembling the
bituminous."
12. Canobbio. "Description et analyse d'une eau de pluie rouge tombée à
Gênes en fèvrier 1841." Comptes Rendus, 13 (1841): 215-9. Robert Mallet.
"Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena." Annual Report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1854, 1-326, at 302.
CHAPTER SIX
IN a pamphlet entitled Wonderful Phenomena by Curtis Eli, is the report of
an occurrence, or of an alleged occurrence, that was investigated by Mr.
Addison A. Sawin, a spiritualist.(1) He interpreted in the only way that I
know of, and that is the psychochemic process of combining new data with
preconceptions with which they seem to have affinity. It is said that, at
Warwick, Canada West (Ontario), Oct. 3, 1843, somebody named Charles Cooper
heard a rumbling sound in the sky, and saw a cloud, under which were three
human forms, "perfectly white," sailing through the air above him, little
higher than the tree-tops. It is said that the beings were angels. They were
male angels. That is orthodox. The angels wafted through the air, but
without motions of their own, and an interesting observation is that they
seemed to have belts around their bodies -- as if they had been let down
from a vessel above, though this poor notion is not suggested in the
pamphlet. They "moaned." Cooper called to some men who were laboring in
another field, and they saw the cloud, but did not see the forms of living
beings under it. It is said that a boy had seen the beings in the air, "side
by side, making a loud and mournful noise." Another person, who lived six
miles away, is quoted: "He saw the clouds and the persons, and heard the
sounds." Mr. Sawin quotes others, who had seen "a very remarkable cloud,"
and had heard the sounds, but had not seen the angels. He ends up: "Yours,
in the glorious hope of the resurrection of the soul." The gloriousness of
it is an inverse function of the dolefulness of it: Sunday Schools will not
take kindly to the doctrine -- be good and you will moan forever. One
supposes that the glorious hope colored the whole investigation.
Some day I shall publish data that lead me to suspect that many appearances
upon this earth that were once upon a time interpreted by theologians and
demonologists, but are now supposed to be the subject-matter of psychic
research, were beings and objects that [123/124] visited this earth, not
from a spiritual existence, but from outer space. That extra-geographic
conditions may be spiritual, or of highly attenuated matter, is not my
present notion, though that, too, may be some day accepted. Of course all
these data suffer, in one way, about as much distortion as they would in
other ways, if they had been reported by astronomers or meteorologists. As
to all the material in this chapter, I take the position that perhaps there
were appearances in the sky, and perhaps they were revelations of, or
mirages from, unknown regions and conditions of outer space, and spectacles
of relatively nearby inhabited lands, and of space-travellers, but that all
reports upon them were products of the assimilating of the unknown with
figures and figments of the nearest familiar similarities. Another position
of mine that will be found well-taken is that, no matter what my own
interpretations or acceptances may be, they will compare favorably, so far
as rationality is concerned, with orthodox explanations. There have been
many assertions that "phantom soldiers" have been seen in the sky. For the
orthodox explanation of the physicists, see David Brewster's Letters on
Natural Magic, p. 125: a review of the phenomenon of June 23, 1744; that,
according to 27 witnesses, some of whom gave sworn testimony before a
magistrate, whether that should be mentioned or not, troops of aërial
soldiers had been seen, in Scotland, on and over a mountain, remaining
visible two hours and then disappearing because of darkness.(2) In James
Clarke's Survey of the Lakes (fol. 1789) is an account in the words of one
of the witnesses.(3) See Notes and Queries, 1-7-304. Brewster says that the
scene must have been a mirage of British troops, who, in anticipation of the
rebellion of 1745, were secretly manoeuvring upon the other side of the
mountain.(4) With a talent for clear-seeing, for which we are notable,
except when it comes to some of our own explanations, we almost instantly
recognize that, to keep a secret from persons living upon one side of a
mountain, it is a very sensible idea to go and manoeuvre upon the other side
of the mountain; but then how to keep the secret, in a thickly populated
country like Scotland, from persons living upon that other side of the
mountain -- however there never has been an explanation that did not itself
have to be explained.
Or the "phantom soldiers" that were seen at Ujest, Silesia, in [124/125]
1785 -- see Parish's Hallucination and Illusions, p. 309.(5) Parish finds
that at the time of this spectacle, there were soldiers, of this earth,
marching near Ujest; so he explains that the "phantom soldiers" were mirages
of them. They were marching in the funeral procession of General von Cosel.
But some time later they were seen again, at Ujest -- and the General had
been dead and buried several days, and his funeral procession disbanded --
and if a refraction can survive independently of its primary, so may a
shadow, and anybody may take a walk where he went a week before, and see
some of his shadows still wandering around without him. The great neglect of
these explainers is in not accounting for an astonishing preference for, or
specialization in, marching soldiers, by mirages. But if often there be, in
the sky, things or beings that move in parallel lines, and, if their
betrayals be not mirages, but their shadows cast down upon the haze of this
earth, or Brocken spectres, such frequency, or seeming specialization, might
be accounted for.
Sept. 27, 1846 -- a city in the sky of Liverpool (Rept. B.A., 1847-39).(6)
The apparition is said to have been a mirage of the city of Edinburgh. This
"identification" seems to have been the product of suggestion: at the time a
panorama of Edinburgh was upon exhibition in Liverpool.
Summer of 1847 -- see Flammarion's The Atmosphere, p. 160 -- story told by
M. Grellois: that he was travelling between Ghelma and Bône, when he saw to
the east of Bône, upon a gently sloping hill, "a vast and beautiful city,
adorned with monuments, domes, and steeples."(7) There was no resemblance to
any city known to M. Grellois.
In the Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 21-180, is an account of a spectacle
that, according to 20 witnesses, was seen for two hours in the sky of Vienne
dans le Dauphiné, May 3, 1848.(8) A city -- and an army, in the sky. One
supposes that a Brewster would say that nearby was a terrestrial city, with
troops manoeuvering near it. But also vast lions were seen in the sky -- and
that is enough to discourage any Brewster. Four months later, according to
the London Times, Sept. 13, 1848, a still more discouraging -- or perhaps
stimulating -- spectacle was, or was not, seen in Scotland.(9) Afternoon of
Sept. 9, 1848 -- Quigley's Point, Lough Foyle, [125/126] Scotland -- the sky
turned dark. It seemed to open. The opening looked reddish, and in the
reddish area, appeared a regiment of soldiers. Then came appearances that
looked like war vessels under full sail, then "a man and a woman and a swan
and a peahen." The "opening" closed, and that was the last of this shocking
or ridiculous mixture that nobody but myself would record as being worth
thinking about.
"Phantom soldiers" that were seen in the sky, near Banmouth, Dec. 14, 1850
(Rept. B.A., 1852-30).(10)
"Phantom soldiers" that were seen at Buderich, Jan. 22, 1854 (Notes and
Queries, 1-9-267).(11)
"Phantom soldiers" that were seen by Lord Roberts of Kandahar (Forty-One
Years in India, 30th ed., 218), at Mohan, Feb. 25, 1858.(12) It is either
that Lord Roberts saw indistinctly, and described in terms of the familiar
to him, or that we are set back in our own notions. According to him, the
figures wore Hindoo costumes.
Extra-geography -- its vistas and opening and fields -- and the Thoreaus
that are upon this earth, but undeveloped, because they cannot find their
ponds. A lonely thing and its pond, afloat in space -- they crossed the
moon. In Cosmos, n.s., 11-200, it is said that, night of July 7, 1857, two
persons of Chambon had seen forms crossing the moon -- something like a
human being followed by a pond.(13)
"Phantom soldiers" that were seen, about the year 1860, at Paderborn,
Westphalia (Crowe, The Night-Side of Nature, p. 416).(14) [126]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Eli Curtis. Wonderful Phenomena. New York: Eli Curtis, 1850. Warwick,
Canada West, is now identified as Warwick, Ontario, Canada. Correct quote:
"...side by side when he saw them, making a loud, mournful noise...."
2. David Brewster. Letters on Natural Magic. 1833. 1st ed., 126-7. Twenty-
six witnesses testified, not twenty-seven.
3. James Clarke. A Survey of the Lakes of Cumberland, Westmorland, and
Lancashire. London: 1789. 2d ed., Book Second, "Road to Keswick," ch.1,
"Strange Phenomenon": 55-6.
4. W.S.G. "The spectre horsemen of Southerfell." Notes and Queries, s.1 v.7
(March 26, 1853): 304.
5. Edmund Parish. Hallucinations and Illusions. 1914. New ed., 309.
6. David Purdie Thomson. "On an extraordinary mirage witnessed at
Birkenhead...." Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement
of Science, 1847, Trans., 39.
7. Nicholas Camille Flammarion. Atmosphere. New York, 1873. 153-4.
8. "L'étoile du soir, les aéroplanes et les dirigeables." Bulletin de la
Société Astronomique de France, 27, (1913): 179-80.
9. "Extraordinary phenomenon." London Times, September 13, 1848. No date is
given other than Saturday morning last, about 2 o'clock," (not in the
afternoon); and, Lough Foyle is located between Londonderry and Coleraine,
in Ireland, (not Scotland). The latter appearances, (not quoted), were of a
man in a frock coat in conversation with a woman and finally of a swan and a
peahen moving across and disappearing.
10. M'Farland. "On the Fata Morgana of Ireland." Annual Report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1852, Trans., 29-30. The
location was Bannmouth, (not Banmouth); and, the date that the phenomenon
was observed was December 14, 1850, (not December 30).
11. J. Macray. "Fata Morgana." Notes and Queries, s.1, 9 (March 25, 1854):
267. The location is Büderich, Westphalia, Germany. The phenomenon was
observed by "fifty eye-witnesses," and: "Individuals are not wanting who
affirm that similar phenomena were observed in former times in this region."
12. Roberts, Lord of Kandahar. Forty-one Years in India. 30th ed. London:
Macmillan and Co., 1898, 218-9. Fort gives the date which marks Roberts'
march to Mohan, but the encounter with the phantoms occurred later.
13. "Le 7 juillet, vers neuf heures du soir, écrit M. Legrip...." Cosmos:
Revue Encyclopedic, s.1, 11 (August 21, 1857): 200-1.
14. Catherine (Stevens) Crowe. The Night Side of Nature. 1850; 1866, (New
ed.); 1901 (New ed.). New ed., 416. Some years since, (1901), troops marched
here in October of 1836, then thought vision was "second-sight."
CHAPTER SEVEN
WE attempt to co-ordinate various streaks of data, all of which signify to
us that, external to this earth, and in relation with, or relatable to, this
earth are lands and lives and a generality of conditions that make of the
whole, supposed solar system one globule of circumstances like terrestrial
circumstances. Our expressions are in physical terms, though in outer space
there may be phenomena known as psychic phenomena, because of the solid
substances and objects that have fallen from the sky to this earth, similar
to, but sometimes not identified with, known objects and substances upon
this earth. Opposing us is the more or less well-established conventional
doctrine that has spun like a cocoon around mind upon this earth, shutting
off research, and stifling even speculation, shelling away all data of
relations and relatability with external existences, a doctrine that, in its
various explanations and disregards and denials, is unified in one
expression of Exclusionism.
An unknown vegetable substance falls from the sky. The datum is buried: it
may sprout some day.
The earth quakes. A luminous object is seen in the sky. Substance falls from
the unknown. But the event is cataloged with subterranean earthquakes.
All conventional explanation and all conventional disregards and denials
have Exclusionism in common. The unity is so marked, all writings in the
past are so definitely in agreement, that I now think of a general era that
is, by Exclusionism, as distinctly characterized as ever was the
Carboniferous Era.
A pregnant woman stands near Niagara Falls. There are sounds, and they are
vast circumstances; but the cells of an unborn being respond, or vibrate,
only as they do to disturbances in their own little environment. Horizons
pour into a gulf, and thunder rolls upward: embryonic consciousness is no
more than [127/128] to slight perturbations of maternal indigestion. It is
Exclusionism.
Stones fall from the sky. To the same part of this earth, they fall again.
They fall again. They fall from the same region that, relatively to this
part of the earth's surface, is stationary. But to say this leads to the
suspicion that it is this earth that is stationary. To think that is to beat
against the walls of uterine dogmas -- into a partly hairy and somewhat
reptilian mass of social undevelopment comes exclusionist explanation
suitable for such immaturity.
It does not matter which of our subjects we take up, our experience is
unvarying: the standardized explanation will be Exclusionism. As to many
appearances in the sky, the way of excluding foreign forces is to say that
they are auroras, which are supposed to be mundane phenomena. School
children are taught that auroras are electric manifestations encircling the
poles of this earth. Respectful urchins are shown an ikon by which an
electrified sphere does have the polar encirclements that it should have.
But I have taken a disrespectful, or advanced, course through the Monthly
Weather Review, and have read hundreds of times of auroras that were not
such polar crownings: of auroras in Venezuela, Sandwich Islands, Cuba,
India; of an aurora in Pennsylvania, for instance, and not a sign of it
north of Pennsylvania. There are lights in the sky for which "auroral" is as
good a name as any that can be thought of, but there are others for which
some other names will have to be thought of. There have been lights like
luminous surfs beating upon the coasts of this earth's atmosphere, and
lights like vast reflections from distant fires; steady pencils of light and
pulsating clouds and quick flashes and seeming objects with definite
outlines, all in one poverty of nomenclature, for which science is, in some
respects, not notable, called "auroral." Nobody knows what an aurora is. It
does not matter. This is standardization, and the essence of this
standardization is Exclusionism.
I see one resolute, unified, unscrupulous exclusion from science of the
indications of nearby lands in the sky. It may not be unscrupulousness: it
may be hypnosis. I see that all seeming [128/129] hypnotics, or
somnambulists of the past, who have most plausibly so explained, or so
denied, have prospered and have had renown. According to my impressions, if
a Brewster, or a Swift, or a Newcomb ever had written that there may be
nearby lands and living beings in the sky, he would not have prospered, and
his renown would be still subject to delayal.(1) If an organism flourishes,
it is said to be in harmony with environment, or with higher forces. I now
conceive of successful and flourishing Exclusionism as an organization that
has been in harmony with higher forces. Suppose we accept that all general
delusions function sociologically. Then, if Exclusionism be general
delusion; if we shall accept that conceivably the isolation of this earth
has been a necessary factor in the development of the whole geo-system, we
see that exclusionistic science has faithfully, though falsely, functioned.
It would be world-wide crime to spread world-wide too soon the idea that
there are other existences nearby and that they have been seen and that
sounds from them have been heard: the peoples of this earth must organize
themselves before conceiving of, and trying to establish, foreign relations.
A premature science of such subjects would be like a United States taking
part in a Franco-Prussian War, when such foreign relations should be still
far in the future of a nation that has still to concentrate upon its own
internal development.
So in the development of all things -- or that a stickleback may build a
nest, and so may vaguely and not usefully and not explicably at all, in
terms of Darwinian evolution, foreshadow a character of coming forms of
life; but that a fish should try to climb a tree and to sing to its mate
before even the pterodactyl had flapped around with wings daubed with clay
would be an unnoticed little clown in cosmic drama. But I do conceive that
when the Carboniferous Era is dominant, and when not a discordant thing will
be permitted to flourish, though it may adumbrate, restrictions will not
last forever, and that the rich and bountiful curse upon rooted things will
some day be lifted. [129]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Sic, delay.
CHAPTER EIGHT
PATCHED by a blue inundation that had never been seen before -- this earth,
early in the 60's of the 19th century. Then faintly, from far away, this new
appearance is seen to be enveloped with volumes of gray. Flashes like
lightning, and faintest of rumbling sounds -- then cloud-like envelopments
roll away, and a blue formation shines in the sun. Meteorologists upon the
moon take notes.
But year after year there are appearances, as seen from the moon, that are
so characterized that they may not be meteorologic phenomena upon this
earth: changing compositions wrought with elements of blue and of gray; it
is like conflict between Synthesis and Dissolution: straight lines that fade
into scrawls, but that re-form into seeming moving symbols: circles and
squares and triangles abound.
Having had no mean experience with interpretations as products of desires,
given that upon the moon communication with this earth should be desired, it
seems likely to me that the struggles of hosts of Americans, early in the
60's of the 19th century, were given thought by some lunarians to be
manoeuvres directed to them, or attempts to attract their attention.
However, having had many impressions upon the resistance that new delusions
encounter, so that, at least upon this earth, some benightments have had to
wait centuries before finally imposing themselves generally, I'd think of
considerable time elapsing before the coming of a general conviction upon
the moon that, by means of living symbols, and the firing of explosives,
terrestrians were trying to communicate.
Beacon-like lights that have been seen upon the moon. The lights have been
desultory. The latest of which I have record was back in the year 1847. But
now, if beginning in the early 60's, though not coinciding with the
beginning of unusual and tremendous manifestations upon this earth, we have
data as if of greatly stimulated attempts to communicate from the moon --
[130/131] why one assimilates one's impressions of such great increase with
this or with that, all according to what one's dominant thoughts may be, and
calls the product a logical conclusion. Upon the night of May 15, 1864,
Herbert Ingall, of Camberwell, saw a little to the west of the lunar crater
Picard, in the Mare Crisium, a remarkably bright spot (Astro. Reg., 2-
264).(1)
Oct. 24, 1864 -- period of nearest approach by Mars -- red lights upon
opposite parts of Mars (C.R., 85-538).(2) Upon Oct. 16, Ingall had again
seen the light west of Picard.(3) Jan. 1, 1865 -- a small speck of light, in
darkness, under the east foot of the lunar Alps, shining like a small star,
watched half an hour by Charles Grover (Astro. Reg., 3-255).(4) Jan. 3, 1865
-- again the red lights of Mars (C.R., 85-538).(5) A thread of data appears,
as an offshoot from a main streak, but it can not sustain itself. Lights on
the moon and lights on Mars, but I have nothing more that seems to signify
both signals and responses between these two worlds.
April 10, 1865 -- west of Picard, according to Ingall -- "a most minute
point of light, glittering like a star" (Astro. Reg., 3-189).(6)
Sept. 5, 1865 -- a conspicuous bright spot west of Picard (Astro. Reg., 3-
252).(7) It was seen again by Ingall. He saw it again upon the 7th, but upon
the 8th it had gone, and there was a cloud-like effect where the light had
been.
Nov. 24, 1865 -- a speck of light that was seen by the Rev. W.O. Williams,
shining like a small star in the lunar crater Carlini (Intel. Obs., 11-
58).(8)
June 10, 1866 -- the star-like light in Aristarchus; reported by Tempel
(Denning, Telescopic Work, p. 121).(9)
Astronomically and seleno-meteorologically, nothing that I know of has ever
been done with these data. I think well of taking up the subject
theologically. We are approaching accounts of a different kind of changes
upon the moon. There will be data seeming so to indicate not only
persistence but devotedness upon the moon that I incline to think not only
of devotedness but of devotions. Upon the 16th of October, 1866, the
astronomer Schmidt, of the land of Socrates, announced that the isolated
object, in the eastern part of the Mare Serenitatis, known as Linné, had
changed. Linné stands out in a blank area like the Pyramid [131/132] of
Cheops in its desert. If changes did occur upon Linné, the conspicuous
position seems to indicate selection. Before October, 1866, Linné was well-
known as a dark object. Something was whitening an object that had been
black.
A hitherto unpublished episode in the history of theologies:
The new prophet who had appeared upon the moon --
Faint perceptions of moving formations, often almost rigorously geometric,
upon one part of this earth, and perhaps faintest of signal-like sounds that
reached the moon -- the new prophet -- and that he preached the old lunar
doctrine that there is no god but the Earth-god, but exhorted his hearers to
forsake their altars upon which had burned unheeded lights, and to build a
temple upon which might be recited a litany of lights and shades.
We are only now realizing how the Earth-god looks to the beings of the moon
-- who know that this earth is dominant; who see it frilled with the loops
of the major planets; its Elizabethan ruff wrought by the complications of
the asteroids; the busy little sun that brushes off the dark.
God of the moon, when mists make it expressionless -- a vast, bland, silvery
Buddha.
God of the moon, when seeing it clear -- when the disguise is off -- when,
at night, from pointed white peaks drip the fluctuating red lights of a
volcano, this earth is the appalling god of carnivorousness.
Sometimes the great roundish earth, with the heavens behind it broken by
refraction, looks like something thrust into a shell from external existence
-- clouds of tornadoes as if in its grasp -- and it looks like the fist of
God, clutching rags of ultimate fire and confusion.
That a new prophet had appeared upon the moon, and had excited new hope of
evoking response from the bland and shining Stupidity that has so often been
mistaken for God, or from the Appalling that is so identified with Divinity
-- from the clutched and menacing fist that has so often been worshipped.
There is no intelligence except era-intelligence. Suppose the whole geo-
system be a super-embryonic thing. Then, by the law of the embryo, its parts
cannot organize until comes scheduled time. So there are local congeries of
development of a chick in [132/133] an egg, but these local centers can not
more than faintly sketch out relations with one another, until comes the
time when they may definitely integrate. Suppose that far back in the 19th
century there were attempts to communicate from the moon; but suppose that
they were premature: then we suppose the fate of the protoplasmic threads
that feel out too soon from one part of an egg to another. In October, 1866,
Schmidt, of Athens, saw and reported in terms of the concepts of his era,
and described in conventional selenographic language. See Rept. B.A.,
1867.(10)
Upon December 14, 16, 25, 27, 1866, Linné was seen as a white spot.(11) But
there was something that had the seeming more of a design, or of a pattern,
an elaboration upon the mere turning to white of something that had been
black -- a fine, black spot upon Linné; by Schmidt and Buckingham, in
December, 1866 (The Student, 1-261).(12) The most important consideration of
all is reviewed by Schmidt in the Rept. B.A., 1867-22 -- that sunlight and
changes of sunlight had nothing to do with the changing appearances of
Linné.(13) Jan. 14, 1867 -- the white covering, or, at least, seeming of
covering, of Linné, had seemingly disappeared -- Knott's impression of Linné
as a dark spot, but "definition" was poor. Jan. 16 -- Knott's very strong
impression, which, however, he says may have been an illusion, of a small
central dark spot upon Linné. Dawes' observation, of March 15, 1867 -- "an
excessively minute black dot in the middle of Linné."
A geometric figure that was white-bordered and centered with black, formed
and dissolved and formed again.
I have an impression of spectacles that were common in the United States,
during the War: hosts of persons arranging themselves in living patterns:
flags, crosses, and in one instance, in which thousands were engaged, in the
representation of an enormous Liberty Bell. Astronomers have thought of
trying to communicate with Mars or the moon by means of great geometric
constructions placed conspicuously, but there is nothing so attractive to
attention as change, and a formation that could appear and disappear would
enchance the geometric with the dynamic. That the units of the changing
compositions that covered Linné were the lunarians themselves -- that Linné
was terraced -- hosts of the inhabitants of the moon standing upon ridges of
their Cheops of [133/134] the Serene Sea, some of them dressed in white and
standing in a border, and some of them dressed in black, centering upon the
apex, or the dark material of the apex left clear for the contrast, all of
them unified in a hope of conveying an impression of the geometric, as the
product of design, and distinguishable from the topographic, to the shining
god that makes the stars of their heaven marginal.
It is a period of great activity -- or of conflicting ideas and purposes --
upon the moon: new and experimental demonstrations, but also, of course, the
persistence of the old. In the Astronomical Register, 5-114, Thomas G. Elger
writes that upon the 9th of April, 1867, he was surprised to see, upon the
dark part of the moon, a light like a star of the 7th magnitude, at 7.30
P.M.(14) It became fainter, and looked almost extinguished at 9 o'clock. Mr.
Elger had seen lights upon the moon before, but never before a light so
clear -- "too bright to be overlooked by the most careless observer." May 7,
1867 -- the beacon-like light of Aristarchus -- observed by Tempel, of
Marseilles, when Aristarchus was upon the dark side of the moon (Astro.
Reg., 5-220).(15) Upon the night of June 10, 1867, Dawes saw three distinct,
roundish, black spots near Sulpicius Gallus, which is near Linné; when
looked for upon the 13th, they had disappeared (The Student, 1-261).(16)
August 6, 1867 --
And this earth in the sky of the moon -- smooth and bland and featureless
earth -- or one of the scenes that make it divine and appalling -- jaws of
this earth, as seem to be the rims of more or less parallel mountain ranges,
still shining in sunlight, but surrounded by darkness --
And, upon the moon, the assembling of the Chiaroscuroans, or the lunar
communicationists who seek to be intelligible to this earth by means of
lights and shades, patterned upon Linné by their own forms and costumes. The
Great Pyramid of Linné, at night upon the moon -- it stands out in bold
triangularity pointing to this earth. It slowly suffuses white -- the upward
drift of white-clad forms, upon the slopes of the Pyramid. The jaws of this
earth seem to munch, in variable light. There is no other response.
Devotions are the food of the gods.
Upon August 6, 1867, Buckingham saw upon Linné, which [134/135] was in
darkness, "a rising oval spot" (Rept. B.A., 1867-7). In October, 1867, Linné
was seen as a convex white spot (Rept. B.A., 1867-8).(17)
* * *
Also it may be that the moon is not inhabited, and is not habitable. There
are many astronomers who say that the moon has virtually no atmosphere,
because when a star is passed over by the moon, the star is not refracted,
according to them. See Clerke's History of Astronomy, p. 264 -- that, basing
his calculations upon the fact that a star is never refracted out of place
when occulted by the moon, Prof. Comstock, of Washburn Observatory, had
determined that this earth's atmosphere is 5,000 times as dense as the
moon's.(18)
I did think that in this secondary survey of ours we had pretty well shaken
off our old opposition, the astronomers; however, with something of the
kindliness that one feels for renewed meeting with the familiar, here we are
at home with the same old kind of demonstrations: the basing of laborious
calculations upon something that is not so --
See index of the Monthly Notices, R.A.S. -- many instances of stars that
have been refracted out of place when occulted by the moon.(19) See the
Observatory, 24-210, 313, 315, 345, 414; English Mechanic, 23-197, 279; 26-
229; 52 -- index, under "atmosphere;" 81-60; 84-161; 85-108.(20)
In the year 1821, Gruithuisen announced that he had discovered a city of the
moon. He described its main thoroughfare and branching streets. In 1826, he
announced that there had been considerable building, and that he had seen
new streets. This formation, which is north of the crater Schroeter, has
often been examined by disagreeing astronomers: for a sketch of it, in which
a central line and radiating lines are shown, see the English Mechanic, 18-
638.(21) There is one especial object upon the moon that has been described
and photographed and sketched so often that I shall not go into the subject.
For many records of observations, see the English Mechanic and
L'Astronomie.(22) It is an object shaped like a sword, near the crater Birt.
Anyone with an impression of the transept of a cathedral, may see the
architectural here. Or it may be a mound similar to the mounds of [135/136]
North America that have so logically been attributed to the Mound Builders.
In a letter, published in the Astronomical Register, 20-167, Mr. Birmingham
calls attention to a formation that suggests the architectural upon the moon
-- "a group of three hills in a slightly acute-angled triangle, and
connected by three lower embankments."(23) There is a geometric object, or
marking, shaped like an "X," in the crater Eratosthenes (Sci. Amer. Sup.,
59-24, 469); striking symbolic-looking thing or sign, or attempt by means of
something obviously not topographic, to attract attention upon this earth,
in the crater Plinius (Eng. Mec., 35-34); reticulations, like those of a
city's squares, in Plato (Eng. Mec., 64-253; and there is a structural-
looking composition of angular lines in Gassendi (Eng. Mec., 101-466).(24)
Upon the floor of Littrow are six or seven spots arranged in the form of the
Greek letter Gamma (Eng. Mec., 101-47).(25) This arrangement may be of
recent origin, having been discovered Jan. 31, 1915. The Greek letter makes
difficulty only for those who do not want to think easily upon this subject.
For a representation of something that looked like a curved wall upon the
moon, see L'Astronomie, 1888-110.(26) As to appearances like viaducts, see
L'Astronomie, 1885-213.(27) The lunar craters are not in all instances the
simple cirques that they are commonly supposed to be. I have many different
impressions of some of them: I remember one sketch that looked like an owl
with a napkin tucked under his beak. However, it may be that the general
style of architecture upon the moon is Byzantine, very likely, or not so
likely, domed with glass, giving the dome-effect that has so often been
commented upon.
So then the little nearby moon -- it is populated by Lilliputians. However,
our experience with agreeing ideas having been what it has been, we suspect
that the lunarians are giants. Having reasonably determined that the moon is
one hundred miles in diameter, we suppose it is considerably more or less.
* * *
A group of astronomers had been observing extraordinary lights in the lunar
crater Plato. The lights had definite arrangement. They were so
individualized that Birt and Elger, and the other selenographers, who had
combined to study them, had charted and [136/137] numbered them. They were
fixed in position, but rose and fell in intensity.
It does seem to me that we have data of one school of communicationists
after another coming into control of efforts upon the moon. At first our
data related to single lights. They were extraordinary, and they seem to me
to have been signals, but there seemed to be nothing of the organization
that now does seem to be creeping into the fragmentary material that is the
best that we can find. The grouped lights in Plato were so distinctive, so
clear and even brilliant, that if such lights had ever shone before, it
seems that they must have been seen by the Schroeters, Gruithuisens, Beers
and Mädlers, who had studied and charted the features of the moon. For
several of Gledhill's observations, from which I derive my impressions of
these lights, see Rept. B.A., 1871-80 -- "I can only liken them to the small
discs of stars, seen in the transit-instrument;" "just like small stars in
the transit instrument, upon a windy night!"(28)
In August and September, 1869, occurred a notable illumination of the spots
in Group I. It was accompanied by a single light upon a distant spot.
February and March, 1870 -- illumination of another group.
April 17, 1870 -- another illumination in Plato, but back to the first
group.
As to his observations of May 10-12, 1870, Birt gives his opinion that the
lights of Plato were not effects of sunlight.(29)
Upon the 13th of May, 1870, there was an "extraordinary display," according
to Birt: 27 lights were seen by Pratt, and 28 by Elger, but only 4 by
Gledhill, in Brighton. Atmospheric conditions may have made this difference,
or the lights may have run up and down a scale from 4 to 28. As to
independence of sunlight, Pratt says (Rept. B.A., 1871-88), at to this
display, that only the fixed, charted points so shone, and that other parts
of the crater were not illuminated, as they would have been to an incidence
common throughout.(30) In Pratt's opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of
the other observers, these lights were volcanic.(31) It seems to me that
this opinion arose from a feeling that there should be something of an
opinion: the idea that the lights might have been signals was not expressed
by any of these astronomers [137/138] that I know of. I note that, though
many observers were, at this time, concentrating upon this one crater, there
are no records findable by me of such disturbance of detail as might be
supposed to accompany volcanic action. The clear little lights seem to me to
have been anything but volcanic.
The play of these lights of Plato -- their modulations and their
combinations -- like luminous music -- or a composition of signals in a code
that even in this late day may be deciphered. It was like orchestration --
and that something like a baton gave direction to Light 22, upon August 12,
1870, to shine a leading part -- "remarkable increase of brightness." No. 22
subsided, and the leading part shone out in No. 14. It, too, subsided, and
No. 16 brightened.
Perhaps there were definite messages in a Morse-like code. There is a chance
for the electricity in somebody's imagination to start crackling. Up to
April, 1871, the selenographers had recorded 1,600 observations upon the
fluctuations of the lights of Plato, and had drawn 37 graphs of individual
lights. All graphs and other records were deposited by W.R. Birt in the
Library of the Royal Astronomical Society, where presumably they are to this
day. A Champollion may some day decipher hieroglyphics that may have been
flashed from one world to another. [138]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Herbert Ingall. "Bright spot on the Moon." Astronomical Register, 2, 264.
2. Ch. Lamey. "Observations tendant à faire admettre l'existence d'un anneau
d'astéroïdes, autour de la planète Mars." Comptes Rendus, 85 (September 10,
1877): 538-9.
3. Herbert Ignall. "Bright spot on the Moon." Astronomical Register, 2, 264.
4. Charles Gower. "Jupiter's satellites: Bright spots on the Moon."
Astronomical Register, 3, 253.
5. Ch. Lamey. "Observations tendant à faire admettre l'existence d'un anneau
d'astéroïdes, autour de la planète Mars." Comptes Rendus, 85 (September 10,
1877): 538-9. Lamey thought that these red lights seen on each side of Mars
might indicate the existence of a ring of asteroids in orbit about Mars,
similar to the rings found around Saturn; and, Hall's discovery of the
Martian satellites prompted his recollection of these past observations and
his request that observers look for such a ring of asteroids.
6. Herbert Ignall. "The Mare Crisium." Astronomical Register, 3, 189-90.
7. Herbert Ignall. "Mare Crisium." Astronomical Register, 3, 252. There is
no mention of observations on September 8, which is the date of Ignall's
letter.
8. Thomas William Webb. "Light spots in the lunar night. -- The crater
Linne. -- Occultations." Intellectual Observer, 11 (1867): 51-60, at 58.
9. William Frederick Denning. Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings.
London: Taylor and Francis, 1891, 120-1.
10. "Report of the Lunar Committee for mapping the surface of the Moon."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1867, 1-24, at 6-7.
11. "Report of the Lunar Committee for mapping the surface of the Moon."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1867, 1-24, at 7. Schmidt also observed Linné as a light-spot on December
15, 1866.
12. W.R. Birt. "Has the surface of the Moon attained its final condition?"
Student and Intellectual Observer, 1 (1868): 261-8, at 261, 266-7.
13. "Report of the Lunar Committee for mapping the surface of the Moon...."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1867, 1-24, at 22.
14. Thomas Gwyn Elger. "Bright spot on the Moon." Astronomical Register, 5,
114. Correct quote: "...it was so conspicuous that it not possibly have been
overlooked...."
15. "The crater Linné." Astronomical Register, 5, 218-20, at 220.
16. W.R. Birt. "Has the surface of the Moon attained its final condition?"
Student and Intellectual Observer, 1 (1868): 261-8, at 261.
17. "Report of the Lunar Committee for mapping the surface of the Moon."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1867, 1-24, at 7-8. Buckingham noted the "white spot to be convex," on
October 18, 1867. Correct quote: "...an oval spot rise gradually out of the
dark part of the moon...."
18. Agnes Mary Clerke. Popular History of Astronomy. 264.
19. Baden-Powell. "On optical phenomena in occultations." Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society, 17 (March 1857): 143-6. This first article
relates primarily to projections of Jupiter upon the moon on January 2,
1857, as seen by several observers. Baden-Powell. "Note to the paper on
optical phenomena in the preceding number." Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 17 (April 1857): 176. G.B. Airy. "On the apparent
projection of stars upon the Moon's disk in occultations." Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, 19 (April 1859): 208-11. W.H.M. Christie.
"Note on a phenomenon seen in the occultation of a star at the Moon's bright
limb." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 39 (January 1879):
198. George Davidson. "The apparent projection of stars upon the bright limb
of the Moon at occultation, and similar phenomena." Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 50 (May 1890): 385-8. For a more detailed
account of the last article: George Davidson. "The apparent projection of
stars...." Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, s. 3, 1
(December 1, 1900): 63-102.
20. The following articles include the beginnings of series of articles as
well as an example of an earlier observation of the phenomenon involving
Antares: "Occultation of Antares." Observatory, 3 (1879-1880): 84-6.
"Meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society. Friday, 1901 April 12."
Observatory, 24 (1901); 181-7, at 185-6. "Anomalous occultations."
Observatory, 24 (1901): 210. "Anomalous occultations." Observatory, 24
(1901): 313-6. Agnes Mary Clerke. "Anomalous occultations." Observatory, 24
(1901): 345-6. Herman S. Davis. "Anomalous occultations." Observatory, 24
(1901): 417-8. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 23 (May 5, 1876):
197. F.W.M. "Projection of star upon the Moon's disc." English Mechanic, 23
(May 26, 1876): 279. "Evidences of a lunar atmosphere." English Mechanic, 26
(November 16, 1877): 229. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 52
(October 3, 1890): 120-1. A. Cowper Ranyard. "The height of the Moon's
atmosphere." English Mechanic, 52 (January 16, 1891): 440-1. H.P. Hollis.
"Anomalous occultations." English Mechanic, 81 (February 24, 1905): 60.
"Occultation of Aldebaran, Sept 10." English Mechanic, 84 (September 21,
1906): 161.
21. C. Gaudibert. "Curious lunar mountains." English Mechanic, 18 (March 13,
1874): 638.
22. "Une épée dans la lune." Astronomie, 9 (1890): 75.
23. W.J.B. Richards. "Lunar work for July, 1882." Astronomical Register, 20
(1882): 167.
24. William H. Pickering. "Changes upon the Moon's surface." Scientific
American Supplement, 59 (April 8, 1905): 24468-70, at 24469-70. W.H.
Pickering. "Changes upon the Moon's surface." Nature, 71 (January 5, 1905):
226-30, at 229. Thomas Gwyn Elger. "Plinius." English Mechanic, 35 (March
17, 1882): 34. Thomas Gwyn Elger. "Plato and Brenner's Rill." English
Mechanic, 64 (October 30, 1896): 252-3. William Porthouse. "Gassendi."
English Mechanic, 101 (June 25, 1915): 464, 466.
25. "Close double stars -- The `Monthly Notes' -- Lunar observations."
English Mechanic, 101 (February 12, 1915): 46-7. The Greek letter" gamma"
would only consist of two perpendicular lines.
26. C. Gaudibert. "Observations lunaire." Astronomie, 7 (1888): 110-1.
27. Perrotin. "Les canaux de Mars." Astronomie, 7 (1888): 213-5. The
"viaducts," described in this article, are upon Mars and not upon the Moon.
28. T.W. Webb, and, Edward Crossley. "Report of the committee for discussing
observations of lunar objects suspected of change." Annual Report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1871, 60-97, at 79-80.
Correct quotes: "..small round disks of bright stars seen...," and, "...the
transit-instrument on a windy night."
29. "Selenographical." English Mechanic, 14 (November 10, 1871): 194-5, c.v.
"W.R. Birt."
30. "Report of the committee for discussing observations of lunar
objects...." Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1871, 60-97, at 88.
31. "Report of the committee for discussing observations of lunar
objects...." Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1871, 60-97, at 89.
CHAPTER NINE
OUR data indicate that the planets are circulating adjacencies. Almost do we
now conceive of a difficulty of the future as being not how to reach the
planets, but how to dodge them. Especially do we warn aviators away from
that rhinoceros of the skies, Mercury. I have a note somewhere upon one of
the wickedest-looking horns in existence, sticking out far from Mercury. I
think it was Mr. Whitmell who made this observation.(1) I'd like to hear
Andrew Barclay's opinion on that. I'd like to hear Capt. Noble's.
If sometimes does the planet Mars almost graze this earth, as is not told by
the great telescopes, which are only millionaire's memorials, or, at least,
which reveal but little more than did the little spy glasses used by Burnham
and Williams and Beer and Mädler -- but if periodically the planet Mars
comes very close to this earth, and, if Mars, an island with perhaps no more
surface-area than has England, but likely enough inhabited, like England --
June 19, 1875 -- opposition of Mars.
Flashes that were seen in the sky upon the 25th of June, 1875, by Charles
Gape, of Scole, Norfolk (Eng. Mec., 21-488).(2) The Editor of Symons' Met.
Mag. (see vol. 10-116), was interested, and sent Mr. Gape some questions,
receiving answers that nothing had appeared in the local newspapers upon the
subject, and that nothing could be learned of a display of fireworks, at the
time.(3) To Mr. Gape the appearances seemed to be meteoric.
The year 1877 -- climacteric opposition of Mars.
There were some discoveries.
We have at times wondered how astronomers spend their nights. Of course,
according to many of his writings upon the subject, Richard Proctor had an
excellent knowledge of whist.(4) But in the year 1877, two astronomers
looked up at the sky, and one of them discovered the moons of Mars, and the
other called atten- [139/140] tion to lines on Mars -- and, if for
centuries, the moons of Mars could so remain unknown to all inhabitants of
this earth except, as it were, Dean Swift -- why, it is no wonder that we so
respectfully heed some of the Dean's other intuitions, and think that there
may be Lilliputians, or Brobdingnagians, and other forms not conventionally
supposed to be. As to our own fields of data, I have a striking number of
notes upon signal-like appearances upon the moon, in the year 1877, but have
notes upon only one occurrence that, in our interests, may relate to Mars.
The occurrence is like that of July 31, 1813 and June 19, 1875.
Sept. 5, 1877 -- opposition of Mars.
Sept. 7, 1877 -- lights appeared in the sky of Bloomington, Indiana. They
were supposed to be meteoric. They appeared and disappeared, at intervals of
three or four seconds; darkness for several minutes; then a final flash of
light. See Sci. Amer., 37-193.(5)
* * *
That all luminous objects that are seen in the sky when the planet Venus is
nearest may not be Venus; may not be fire-balloons:
In the Dundee Advertiser, Dec. 22, 1882, it is said that, between 10 and 11
A.M., Dec. 21, at Broughty Ferry, Scotland, a correspondent had seen an
unknown luminous body near and a little above the sun.(6) In the Advertiser,
Dec. 25, is published a letter from someone who says that this object had
been seen at Dundee, also; that quite certainly it was the planet Venus and
"no other."(7) In Knowledge, 2-489, this story is told by a writer who says
that undoubtedly the object was Venus.(8) But in Knowledge, 3-13, the
astronomer J.E. Gore writes that the object could not have been Venus, which
upon this date was 1 h. 33 m., R. A., west of the sun.(9) The observation is
reviewed in L'Astronomie, 1883-109.(10) Here it is said that the position of
Mercury accorded better. Reasonably this object could not have been Mercury:
several objections are comprehended in the statement that superior
conjunction of Mercury had occurred upon December 16.(11)
Upon Feb. 3, 1884, M. Staevert, of the Brussels Observatory, saw, upon the
disc of Venus, an extremely brilliant point (Ciel et Terre, 5-127).(12) Nine
days later, Niesten saw just such a point [140/141] of light as this, but at
a distance from the planet. If no one had ever heard that such things can
not be, one might think that these two observations were upon something that
had been seen leaving Venus and had then been seen farther along. Upon the
3rd of July, 1884, a luminous object was seen moving slowly in the sky of
Norwood, N.Y. It had features that suggest the structural: a globe the size
of the moon, surrounded by a ring; two dark lines crossing the nucleus
(Science Monthly, 2-136).(13) Upon the 26th of July, 1884, a luminous globe,
size of the moon, was seen at Cologne; it seemed to be moving upward from
this earth, then was stationary "some minutes," and then continued upward
until it disappeared (Nature, 30-360).(14)
And in the English Mechanic, 40-130, it is not said that a luminous vessel
that had sailed out from Venus, in February, visiting this earth, where it
was seen in several places, was seen upon its return to the planet, but it
is said that an observer in Rochester, N.Y., had, upon August 17, seen a
brilliant point upon Venus.(15) [141]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Transit of Mercury." English Mechanic, 100 (November 20, 1914): 364.
Whitmell writes: "Just after first external contact, and visible for some
time after (when the planet was fully on the sun), there appeared a little
black horn of length equal to the planet's diameter. This horn was
projecting from the side of the planet towards the sun's centre, and
therefore had nothing to do with the `black drop,' which I did not see. The
horn was a very curious feature, and was seen by my wife as well as by
myself. It was, of course, an optical illusion. I shall be grateful for an
explanation of it."
2. Charles Gape. "A singular phenomenon." English Mechanic, 21 (July 23,
1875): 488.
3. Charles Gape. "A singular phenomenon." Symons' Meteorological Magazine,
10 (August 1875): 116.
4. "Five of Clubs," (Richard Anthony Proctor). Home Whist: An Easy Guide to
Correct Play. London, 1883. Richard Anthony Proctor. How to Play Whist.
London: Longmans & Co., 1885.
5. Daniel Kirkwood. "Stationary meteors." Scientific American, n.s., 37
(September 29, 1877): 193.
6. "Strange phenomenon." Dundee Advertiser, December 22, 1882, p. 5 c. 5.
7. "The peculiar phenomenon in the heavens." Dundee Advertiser, December 25,
1882, p.7 c.4.
8. "Science and art gossip." Knowledge, 2 (December 29, 1882): 489. The
story is repeated in Knowledge, but no mention is made of Venus.
9. John Ellard Gore. "Bright star near the sun." Knowledge, 3 (January 5,
1883): 13. Gore states: "The object could not have been the planet Venus,
which was situated about 23 west of the sun on the day in question."
10. "Vénus visible près du Soleil." Astronomie, 2 (1883): 108-9.
11. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1882. 2nd ed.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Navigation, 1880, 483. On December 21, 1882,
several people in Broughty Ferry, Scotland, reported a "strange phenomenon,"
according to the Dundee Advertiser. Their correspondent wrote: "Yesterday
forenoon, between ten and eleven o'clock, the attention of several persons
in Broughty Ferry was directed for a time to a somewhat unusual sight in the
heavens. The sun at the same time was shining brightly, being about due
south, when a star was seen in close proximity to it. The star was a little
above the sun's path, and the peculiar phenomenon was seen by various
persons, who had their attention directed to it. Being daytime, the star did
not have the brilliant luminous radiance stars exhibit at night, but was of
a milky white appearance, and seemed, when seen through a glass, to be of a
crescent shape. Being on a light blue ground, and lying between two white
clouds, it was seen to great advantage". Fort's doubts were prompted by
alternative explanations given by the astronomers reporting on this event.
The Advertiser article of December 22nd was repeated in Knowledge, without
an attempt at identification; but, John Ellard Gore wrote a letter,
disputing Venus as a possible explanation, offering two stars in Sagittarius
as possible explanations, (though Kaus Australis never would have risen
above the horizon on that date in this location), but suggesting a flaring
up of "Kepler's celebrated 'Nova,' of 1604." The French publication
Astronomie further complicated the issue by disputing Venus and suggesting
that Mercury was a better (closer) candidate for an explanation. However,
Mercury would have been south (below) the sun and too close for observation.
The explanations offered by the astronomers ignored Mars, which would have
been close to the sun and to the west of it; but, the identification of
Venus was made by another correspondent in the Dundee Advertiser, (December
25, 1882). This latter correspondent wrote: "The description which he gives
of it makes it quite certain that it was the planet Venus, and no other. It
is at present a little to the west of the sun, and above it," and, "....At
present it is of a crescent shape...." A daytime sighting of Venus appears
to be the most likely explanation.
12. J.C.Houzeau. "Le satellite problématique de Vénus." Ciel et Terre, 5,
121-9, at 127-8. The observer was Stuyvaert, not Staevert.
13. Illustrated science monthly, 2, 136.
14. W.M. Flinders Petrie. "Fireballs." Nature, 30 (August 14, 1884): 360.
The observation was made at Brühl, near Cologne.
15. "Is there a snow cap on Venus?" English Mechanic, 40 (October 10, 1884):
129-30.
CHAPTER TEN
EXPLOSIONS over the town of Barisal, Bengal, if they were aërial explosions,
were continuing. As to some of these detonations that were heard in May,
1874, a writer in Nature, 53-197, says that they did seem to come from
overhead.(1) For a report upon the Barisal Guns, heard between April 28,
1888, and March 1, 1889, see Proc. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, 1899-199.(2)
Phenomena at Comrie were continuing. The latest date in Roper's List of
Earthquakes is April 8, 1886, but this list goes on only a few years
later.(3) See Knowledge, n. s., 6-145 -- shock and a rumbling sound at
Comrie, July 12, 1894 -- a repetition upon the corresponding date, the next
year.(4) In the English Mechanic, 74-155, David Packer says that, upon Sept.
17, 1901, ribbon-like flashes of lightning, which were not ordinary
lightning, were seen in the sky (I think of Birmingham) one hour before a
shock in Scotland.(5) According to other accounts, this shock was in Comrie
and surrounding regions (London Times, Sept. 19, 1901).(6)
Smithson. Miscell. Cols., 37-Appendix, p. 71:(7)
According to L. Tennyson, Quartermaster's Clerk, at Fort Klamath, Oregon, at
daylight, Jan. 8, 1867, the garrison was startled from sleep by what he
supposed to be an earthquake and a sound like thunder. Then came darkness,
and the sky was covered with black smoke or clouds. Then ashes, of a
brownish color, fell -- "as fast as I ever saw it snow." Half an hour later
there was another shock, described as "frightful." No one was injured, but
the sutler's store was thrown a distance of ninety feet, and the vibrations
lasted several minutes. Mr. Tennyson thought that somewhere near Fort
Klamath, a volcano had broken loose, because, in the direction of the
Klamath Marsh, a dark column of smoke was seen. I can find record of no such
volcanic eruption. In a list of quakes, in Oregon, from 1846, to 1916,
[142/143] published in the Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., Sept., 1919, not one is
attributed to volcanic eruptions.(8) Mr. W.D. Smith, compiler of the list,
says, as to the occurrence at Fort Klamath -- "If there was an eruption,
where was it?" He asks whether possibly it could have been Lassen Peak. But
Lassen Peak is in California, and the explosion upon Jan. 8, 1867, was so
close to Fort Klamath that almost immediately ashes fell from the sky.
The following is of the type of phenomena that might be considered evidence
of signalling from some unknown world nearby:
La Nature, 17-126 -- that, upon June 17, 1881, sounds like cannonading were
heard at Gabes, Tunis, and that quaking of the earth was felt, at intervals
of 32 seconds, lasting about 6 minutes.(9)
July 30, 1883 -- a somewhat startling experience -- steamship Resolute alone
in the Arctic Ocean -- six reports like gunfire -- Nature, 53-295.(10)
In Nature, 30-19, a correspondent writes that, upon the 3rd of January,
1869, a policeman in Harlton, Cambridgeshire, heard six or seven reports, as
if of heavy guns far away.(11) There is no findable record of an earthquake
in England upon this date. In the London Times, Jan. 12, 15, 16, 1869,
several correspondents write that upon the 9th of January a loud report had
been heard and a shock felt at places near Colchester, Essex, about 30 miles
from Harlton.(12) One of the correspondents writes that he had heard the
sound but had felt no shock. In the London Standard, Jan. 12, the Rev. J.F.
Bateman, of South Lopham, Norfolk, writes as to the occurrence upon the 9th
-- "An extraordinary vibration (described variously by my parishioners as
being `like a gunpowder explosion,' `a big thunder clap,' and `a little
earthquake' was noticed here this morning about 11.20."(13) In the Morning
Post, Jan. 14, it is said that at places about twenty miles from Colchester
it was thought that an explosion had occurred, upon the 9th, but, inasmuch
as no explosion had been heard of, the disturbance was attributed to an
earthquake.(14) Night of Jan. 13 -- an explosion in the sky, at Brighton
(Rept. B.A., 1869-307.(15) In the Standard, Jan. 22, a correspondent writes
from Swaffham, Norfolk, that, about 8 P.M., Jan. 15, something of an unknown
nature had frightened flocks of sheep, which had [143/144] burst from their
bounds in various places.(16) All these occurrences were in adjoining
counties in southeastern England. Something was seen in the sky upon the
13th, and, according to the Chudleigh Weekly Express, Jan. 13, 1869,
something was seen in the sky, night of the 10th, at Weston-super-Mare, near
Bristol, in southwestern England.(17) It was seen between 9 and 10 o'clock,
and is said to have been an extraordinary meteor. Five hours later were felt
three shocks said to have been earthquakes.
Upon the night of March 17, 1871, there was a series of events in France,
and a series in England. A "meteor" was seen at Tours, at 8 P.M. -- at
10.45, a "meteor" that left a luminous cloud over Saintes (Charante-
Inferieure) -- another at Paris, 11.15, leaving a mark in the sky, of
fifteen minutes' duration -- another at Tours, at 11.45 P.M. See Les Mondes,
24-190, and Comptes Rendus, 72-789.(18) There were "earthquakes" this night
affecting virtually all England north of the Mersey and the Trent, and also
southern parts of Scotland. As has often been the case, the phenomena were
thought to have been explosions and were then said to have been earthquakes
when no terrestrial explosions could be heard of (Symons' Met. Mag., 6-
39).(19) There were six shocks near Manchester, between 6 and 7 P.M., and
others about 11 P.M.; and in Lancashire about 11 P.M., and continuing in
places as far apart as Liverpool and Newcastle, until 11.30 o'clock. The
shocks felt about 11 o'clock correspond, in time, with the luminous
phenomena in the sky of France, but our way of expressing that these so-
called earthquakes in England may have been concussions from repeating
explosions in the sky, is to record that, according to correspondence in the
London Times, there were, upon the 20th, aërial phenomena in the region of
Lancashire that had been affected upon the 17th -- "sounds that seemed to
come from a number of guns at a distance" and "pale flashes of lightning in
the sky."(20)
Whether these series of phenomena be relatable to Mars or Martians or not,
we note that in 1871 opposition of Mars was upon March 19; and, in 1869,
upon Feb. 13; and in 1867 two days after the explosions at Fort Klamath. In
our records in this book, similar coincidences can be found up to the year
1879. [144/145] I have other such records not here published, and others
that will be here investigated.
There is a triangular region in England, three points of which appear so
often in our data that the region should be specially known to us, and I
know it myself as the London Triangle. It is pointed in the north by
Worcester and Hereford, in the south by Reading, Berkshire, and in the east
by Colchester, Essex. The line between Colchester and Reading runs through
London.
Upon Feb. 18, 1884, at West Mersea, near Colchester, a loud report was heard
(Nature, 53-4).(21) Upon the 22nd of April, 1884, centering around
Colchester, occurred the severest earthquake in England in the 19th century.
For several columns of description, see the London Times, April 23.(22)
There is a long list of town in which there was great damage: in 24 parishes
near Colchester, 1250 buildings were damaged. One of the places that
suffered most was West Mersea (Daily Chronicle, April 28).(23)
There was something in the sky. According to George P. Yeats (Observations
on the Earthquake of Dec. 17, 1896, p. 6), there was a red appearance in the
sky over Colchester, at the time of the shock of April 22, 1884.(24)
The next day, according to a writer in Knowledge, 5-336, a stone fell from
the sky, breaking glass in his greenhouse, in Essex.(25) It was a quartz
stone, and unlike anything usually known as meteoric.
The indications, according to my reading of the data, and my impressions of
such repeating occurrences as those at Fort Klamath, are that perhaps an
explosion occurred in the sky, near Colchester, upon Feb. 18, 1884; that a
great explosion did occur over Colchester, upon the 22nd of April, and that
a great volume of débris spread over England, in a northwesterly direction,
passing over Worcestershire and Shropshire, and continuing on toward
Liverpool, nucleating moisture and falling in blackest of rain. From the
Stonyhurst Observatory, near Liverpool, was reported, occurring at 11 A.M.,
April 26, "the most extraordinary darkness remembered"; forty minutes later
fell rain "as black as ink," and then black snow and black hail (Nature, 30-
6).(26) Black hail fell at Chaigley, several miles from Liverpool
(Stonyhurst Mag- [145/146] azine, 1-267).(27) Five hours later, black
substance fell at Crowle, near Worcester (Nature, 30-32).(28) Upon the 28th,
at Church Stretton and Much Wenlock, Shropshire, fell torrents of liquid
like ink and water in equal proportions (The Field, May 3, 1884).(29) In the
Jour. Roy. Met. Soc., 11-7, it is said that, upon the 28th, half a mile from
Lilleshall, Shropshire, an unknown pink substance was brought down by a
storm.(30) Upon the 3rd of May, black substance fell again at Crowle
(Nature, 30-32).(31)
In Nature, 30-216, a correspondent writes that, upon June 22, 1884, at
Fletching, Sussex, southwest of Colchester, there was intense darkness, and
that rain then brought down flakes of soot in such abundance that it seemed
to be "snowing black."(32) This was several months after the shock at
Colchester, but my datum for thinking that another explosion, or disturbance
of some kind, had occurred in the same local sky, is that, as reported by
the inmates of one house, a slight shock was felt, upon the 24th of June, at
Colchester, showing that the phenomena were continuing. See Roper's List of
Earthquakes.(33)
Was not the loud report heard upon Feb. 18 probably an explosion in the sky,
inasmuch as the sound was great and the quake little? Were not succeeding
phenomena sounds and concussions and the fall of débris from explosions in
the sky, acceptably upon April 22, and perhaps continuing until the 24th of
June? Then what are the circumstances by which one small part of this
earth's surface could continue in relation with something somewhere else in
space?
Comrie, Irkutsk, and Birmingham. [146]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. G.B. Scott. "Barisal guns." Nature, 53 (January 2, 1896): 197.
2. "Report on Barisal Guns made at a meeting of the Sub-Committee held on
the 17th July 1889, to consider the observations recorded during the year
1888." Proceedings of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1899 (August):
199-209. The last observation gathered in this report was for March 11,
1889, (not March 1).
3. William Roper. A list of remarkable earthquakes in Great Britain and
Ireland during the Christian era. Lancaster: T. Bell, 1892.
4. Charles Davison. "The earthquakes of Comrie in Perthshire." Knowledge,
n.s., 6 (April 1909): 143-6, at 145.
5. David E. Packer. "Earthquakes and meteors." English Mechanic, 74
(September 27, 1901): 155-6.
6. "Earthquake in Scotland." London Times, September 19, 1901, p. 6 c. 2.
7. Edward S. Holden. "Catalogue of earthquakes on Pacific Coast, 1769 to
1897." Miscellaneous Collections of the Smithsonian Institute, 37, (art. 5;
no. 1087; II), 71-2. There is no quote of "frightful," though it is an apt
descripton.
8. Warren DuPré Smith. "Earthquakes in Oregon." Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 9 (September 1919): 59-71, at 65-6, 69.
9. "Tremblements de terre." Nature (Paris), 1881 v. 2 (July 23): 126.
10. "Barisal guns and similar sounds." Nature, 53 (January 30, 1896): 295-6,
c.v. Hy. Harries.
11. "The earthquake." Nature, 30 (May 1, 1884): 17-9, at 19, c.v. O. Fisher.
12. "Supposed earthquake." London Times, January 12, 1869, p.5 c.6. William
H. Sewell. "Supposed earthquake." London Times, January 15, 1869, p.3 c.6.
"Supposed earthquake." London Times, January 16, 1869, p.5 c.6.
13. "Curious circumstance." London Standard, January 12, 1869, p. 3 c. 2.
14. "An earthquake in West Suffolk." London Morning Post, January 14, 1869,
p. 2 c. 6.
15. James Glaisher et al. "Report on observations of luminous meteors, 1868-
69." Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1869, 216-308, at 307. The meteor was reported seen at 1:20 A.M.
16. M.A. "What was it?" London Standard, January 22, 1869, p.5 c.2.
17. "A remarkable phenomena." Chudleigh Weekly Express (Chudleigh), January
13, 1869, p.2 c.4.
18. "Météore ou bolide lumineux du 17 mars." Cosmos: Les Mondes, 24, 190.
The meteor, said to be seen over Saints at 10:40 P.M., (not at 10:45), was
the same slow-moving meteor seen over Chantelleraut at 10:55 P.M.; and, its
horizontal trail persisted for about an hour. A. Briffault. "Sur un bolide
observée à Tours, le 17 mars 1871." Comptes Rendus, 72 (1871): 788-9. The
meteor seen at 8 P.M. and that seen at 11:45 P.M., which crossed the sky in
a minute and left a trail lasting 25 minutes, followed the same direction.
19. "Earthquake on March 17th." Symons' Meteorological Magazine, 6 (April
1871): 37-40.
20. Also, a meteor was seen over Chicester, about 10:30 P.M., on the night
of the 17th, which left a trail visible for three to four minutes. "A
meteor." London Times, March 21, 1871, p.10 c.6.
21. "Curious aerial or subterranean sounds." Nature, 53 (November 7, 1895):
4, c.v. R. Meldola.
22. "Earthquake in England." London Times, April 23, 1884, p.7 c.3-6.
23. "The earthquake in Essex." London Daily Chronicle, April 28, 1884, p.2
c.2. Further descriptions can be found in: "Severe earthquake." London Daily
Chronicle, April 23, 1884, p.5 c.6-7. And, "It does not appear that the
earthquake...." London Daily Chronicle, April 24, 1884, p.4 c.6-7.
24. G.P. Yeats. Observations upon the Earthquake of December 17, 1896. 6-7.
25. J.T. Norgate. "A strange incident." Knowledge, 5 (May 9, 1884): 336.
26. S.J. Perry. "Extraordinary darkness at midday." Nature, 30 (May 1,
1884): 6. Correct quotes: "...almost as black as ink," and, "The
darkness...is deserving of record as being the most intense that is
remembered by any of the inhabitants."
27. Stonyhurst Magazine, v.1 p.267.
28. "The remarkable sunsets." Nature, 30 (May 8, 1884): 32, c.v. J.L.L.
Bozward.
29. R.J. Buddicombe. "Black rain." Field, 63 (May 3, 1884): 597, c.2.
30. The pink substance was found upon clothes hung out to dry after washing,
on August 28, 1884, turned to a blue color when washed again in soft water
and disappeared upon drying after a third washing. Charles Clement Walker.
"On the injury by lightning to the monument to the First Duke of Sutherland,
at Lilleshall, Shropshire, April 28th, 1884." Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society of London, 11 (1885): 7-11, at 9, 11.
31. "The remarkable sunsets." Nature, 30 (May 8, 1884): 32, c.v. J.L.L.
Bozward. A "considerable film of dust," (not identified as a black
substance), fell at Crowle.
32. W.J. Treutler. "Black rain." Nature, 30 (July 3, 1884): 216.
33. William Roper. A List of Remarkable Earthquakes in Great Britain and
Ireland During the Christian Era. Lancaster: T. Bell, 1892.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
UPON the night if the 13th of July, 1875, at midnight, two officers of the
H.M.S. Coronation, in the Gulf of Siam, saw a luminous projection from the
moon's upper limb (Nature, 12-495).(1) Upon the 14th it was gone, but a
smaller projection was seen from another part of the moon's limb. This was
in the period of the opposition of Mars.
Upon the night of Feb. 20, 1877, M. Trouvelot, of the Observatory of Meudon,
saw, in the lunar crater Eudoxus, which, like almost all other centers of
seeming signalling, is in the northwestern quadrant of the moon, a fine line
of light (L'Astronomie, 1885-212).(2) It was like a luminous cable drawn
across the crater.
March 21, 1877 -- a brilliant illumination, and not by the light of the sun,
according to C. Barrett, in the lunar crater Proclus (Eng. Mec., 25-89).(3)
May 15 and 29, 1877 -- the bright spot west of Picard, (Eng. Mec., 25-
335).(4)
The changes upon Linné were first seen by Schmidt, in 1866, near the time of
opposition of Mars. In May, 1877, Dr. Klein announced that a new object had
appeared upon the moon. It was close to the center of the visible disc of
the moon, and was in a region that had been most carefully studied by the
selenographers. In the Observatory, 2-238, is Neison's report from his own
memoranda.(5) In the years 1874 and 1875, he had studied this part of the
moon, but had not seen this newly reported object in the crater Hyginus, or
the object Hyginus N, according to the selenographers' terminology. In the
Astronomical Register, 17-204, Neison lists, with details, 20 minute
examinations of this region, from July, 1870, to August, 1875, in which this
conspicuous object was not recorded.(6)
June 14, 1877 -- a light on the dark part of the moon, resembling a
reflection from a moving mirror, reported by Prof. Henry Har- [147/148]
rison (Sidereal Messenger, 3-150).(7) June 15 -- the bright spot west of
Picard, according to Birt (Jour. B.A.A., 19-376).(8) Upon the 16th, Prof.
Harrison thought that again he saw the moving light of the 14th, but shining
faintly. In the English Mechanic, 25-432, Frank Dennett writes, as to an
observation of June 17, 1877 -- "I fancied I could detect a minute point of
light shining out of the darkness that filled Bessel."(9)
These are data of extraordinary activity upon the moon preceding the
climacteric opposition of Mars, early in September, 1877.
Now we have an account of an occurrence during an eclipse of the moon:
On the night of the eclipse (Aug. 27, 1877) a ball of fire, of the apparent
size of the moon, was seen, at ten minutes to eleven, dropping apparently
from cloud to cloud, and the light flashing across the road (Astro. Reg.,
1878-75).(10)
Astro. Reg., 17-251:(11)
Nov. 13, 1877 -- Hyginus N standing out with such a prominence as to be seen
at the first glance;
Nov. 14, 1877 -- not a trace of Hyginus N, though seeing was excellent:
Oct. 3, 1878 -- the most conspicuous of all appearances of Hyginus N;
Oct. 4, 1878 -- not a trace of Hyginus N.
Upon the night of Nov. 1, 1879, again in the period of opposition of Mars
(opposition November 12) again the bright spot west of Picard (Jour. B.A.A.,
19-376).(12) But I have several records of observations upon this appearance
not in times of opposition of Mars. Whether there be any relation with
anything else or not, at five o'clock, morning of Nov. 1, 1879, a "vivid
flash" was seen and a shock was felt at West Cumberland (Nature, 21-19).(13)
In the autumn of the year 1883, began extraordinary atmospheric effects in
the sky of this earth. For Prof. John Haywood's description of similar
appearances upon the moon, Nov. 4, 1883, and March 29, 1884, see the
Sidereal Messenger, 3-121.(14) They were misty light-effects upon the dark
part of the moon, not like "earthshine." Our expression is that so close is
the moon to this earth that it, too, may be affected by phenomena in the
atmosphere of this earth. [148/149]
Something like another luminous cable, or like a shining wall, that was seen
in Aristarchus, by Trouvelot, Jan. 23, 1880, (L'Astro., 1885-215); a speck
of light in Marius, Jan. 13, 1881, by A.S. Williams (Eng. Mec., 32-494);
unexplained light in Eudoxus, by Trouvelot, May 4, 1881 (L'Astro., 1885-
213); an illumination in Kepler, by Morales, Feb. 5, 1884 (L'Astro., 9-
149).(15)
In Knowledge, 7-224, William Gray writes that, upon Feb. 19, 1885, he saw,
in Hercules, a dull, deep, reddish appearance.(16) In Astronomie, 1885-227,
Lorenzo Kropp, an astronomer of Paysandu, Uruguay, writes that, upon Feb.
21, 1885, he had seen, in Cassini, a formation not far from Hercules, both
of them in the northwestern quadrant of the moon, a reddish smoke or
mist.(17) He had heard that several other persons had seen, not a misty
appearance, but a star-like light here, and upon the 22nd he had seen a
definite light, himself, shining like the planet Saturn.
May 11, 1885 -- two lights upon the moon (L'Astro., 9-73).(18)
May 11, 1886 -- two lights upon the moon (L'Astro., 6-312).(19) [149]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. A.J. Loftus. "Lunar phenomena." Nature, 12 (October 7, 1875): 495. The
second observation of July 4, 1875, at 8 P.M. was also made at Chumphon Bay,
Thailand; and, on July 15, the moon presented its normal appearance upon
rising.
2. E.-L. Trouvelot. "Murs énigmatiques." Astronomie, 4 (1885): 212-6.
3. C. Barrett. "Reflection in the Moon." English Mechanic, 25 (April 6,
1877): 89.
4. F. Dennett. "Notes on our satellite." English Mechanic, 25 (June 15,
1877): 335.
5. E. Neison. "Lunar observations." Observatory, 1 (1877-78): 238-42. No
mention is made here of Hyginus N.
6. E. Neison. "Hyginus N." Astronomical Register, 17 (1879): 199-208, 223-
33, 251-9; and, 18 (1880): 199-206; at 17, 204-5. The article is not
continued as indicated therein.
7. "By kindness of Prof. John Heywood...." Sidereal Messenger, 3, 150.
8. "The white spot west of Picard." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 19, 375-80, at 376. The observation was made by W. Noble.
9. F. Dennett. "Notes on our satellite." English Mechanic, 25 (July 13,
1877): 432-3.
10. "Meteors." Astronomical Register, 16 (1878): 75. The observation was
made at Florence, on August 23,, not August 27.
11. E. Neison. "Hyginus N." Astronomical Register, 17 (1879): 199-208, 223-
33, 251-9; and, 18 (1880): 199-206; at 17: 208, 229.
12. "The white spot west of Picard." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 19, 375-80, at 376.
13. "Notes." Nature, 21 (November 6, 1879): 18-20, at 19. The shock and
flash were observed at 5:30 A.M., not 5 A.M.
14. John Haywood. "An auroral glow on the moon." Sidereal Messenger, 3, 121.
15. E.-L. Trouvelot. "Murs énigmatiques." Astronomie, 4 (1885): 212-6, at
215. A. Stanley Williams. "Lunar crater Marius." English Mechanic, 32
(January 28, 1881): 494-5. "Société Astronomique de France. Séance du 5 mars
1890." Astronomie, 9 (1890): 148-50, at 149.
16. William Gray, Jr. "A curious lunar phenomenon." Knowledge, 7 (March 13,
1885): 224.
17. Lorenzo Kropp. "Observations curieuses sur la Lune." Astronomie, 4
(1885): 227.
18. "L'observation de la Lune." Astronomie, 9 (1890): 73.
19. A. Fauchier. "Pics lumineux sur la lune." Astronomie, 6 (1887): 312-3.
CHAPTER TWELVE
THAT through lenses rimmed with horizons, inhabitants of this earth have
seen revelations of other worlds -- that atmospheric strata of different
densities are lenses -- but that the faults of the wide glasses in the
observatories are so intensified in atmospheric revelations that all our
data are distortions. Our acceptance is that every mirage has a primary;
that in human mind all poetry is based upon observation, and that imagery in
the sky is similarly uncreative. If a mirage can not be traced to the known
upon this earth, one supposes that it is either a derivation from the
unknown upon this earth, or from the unknown somewhere else. We shall have
data of a series of mirages in Sweden, or upon the shores of the Baltic,
from Oct., 1881, to Dec., 1888. I take most of the data from Nature,
Knowledge, Cosmos, and L'Astronomie, published in this period.(1) I have no
data of such appearances in this region either before or after this period:
the suggestion in my own mind is that they were not mirages from terrestrial
primaries, or they would not be so confined to one period, but were shadows
or mirages from something that was in temporary suspension over the Baltic
and Sweden, all details distorted and reported in terms of familiar
terrestrial appearances.
Oct. 10, 1881 -- that at Rugenwalde, Pomerania, the mirage of a village had
been seen: snow-covered roofs from which hung icicles; human forms
distinctly visible. It was believed that the mirage was a representation of
the town of Nexo, on the island of Bornholm. Rugenwalde is on the Baltic,
and Nexo is about 100 miles northwest, in the Baltic.(2)
The first definite account of the mirages of Sweden, findable by me, is
published in Nature, June 29, 1882, where it is said that preceding
instances had attracted attention -- that, in May, 1882, over Lake Orsa,
Sweden, representations of steamships had been seen, and then "islands
covered with vegetation."(3) Night of [150/151] May 19, 1883 -- beams of
light at Lake Ludyika, Sweden -- they looked like a representation of a lake
in moonshine, with shores covered with trees, showing faint outlines of
farms (Monthly Weather Review, May, 1883).(4) May 28, 1883 -- at Finsbo,
Sweden -- changing scenes, at short intervals: mountains, lakes, and
farms.(5)
Oct. 16, 1884 -- Lindsberg -- a large town, with four-storied houses, a
castle and a lake.(6) May 22, 1885 -- Gothland -- a town surrounded by high
mountains, a large vessel in front of the town.(7) June 15, 1885 -- near
Oxelosund -- two wooded islands, a construction upon one of them, and two
warships.(8) It is said that at the time two Swedish warships were at sea,
but were at considerable distance north of Oxelosund. Sept. 12, 1885 --
Valla -- a representation that is said to have been a "remarkable mirage"
but that is described as if the appearances were cloud-forms -- several
monitors, one changing into a spouting whale, and the other into a crocodile
-- then forests -- dancers -- a wooded island with buildings and a park.(9)
Sept. 29, 1885 -- again at Valla -- between 8 and 9 o'clock, P.M.; a lurid
glare upon the northwestern horizon; a cloud bank -- animals, groups of
dancers, a forest, and then a park with paths.(10)
July 15, 1888 -- Hudikwall -- a tempestuous sea, and a vessel upon it; a
small boat leaving the vessel.(11) Upon Oct. 8, 1888, at Merexull, on the
Baltic, but in Russia, was seen a mirage of a city that lasted an hour. It
is said that some buildings were recognized, and that the representation was
identified with St. Petersburg, which is about 200 miles from the
Baltic.(12)
* * *
That a large, substantial mass, presumably of land, can be in at least
temporary suspension over a point upon this earth's surface, and not fall,
and be, in ordinary circumstances, invisible --
In L'Astronomie, 1887-426, MM. Codde and Payan, both of them astronomers,
well-known for their conventional observations and writings, publish
accounts of an unknown body that appeared upon the sun's limb, for twenty or
thirty seconds, after the eclipse of August 19, 1887.(13) They saw a round
body, apparent diameter about one tenth of the apparent diameter of the sun,
according to the sketch that is published. In L'Astronomie, these two
observers write separately, and, in the city of Marseilles, their [151/152]
observations were made at a distance apart. But the unknown body was seen by
both upon the same part of the sun's limb. So it is supposed that it could
not have been a balloon, nor a circular cloud, nor anything else very near
this earth. But many astronomers in other parts of Europe were watching this
eclipse, and it seems acceptable that others, besides two in Marseilles,
continued to look, immediately after the eclipse; but from nowhere else came
a report upon this object, so that all indications are that it was far from
the sun and near Marseilles, but farther than clouds or balloons in this
local sky. I can draw no diagram that can satisfy all these circumstances,
except by supposing the sun to be only a few thousand miles away.
* * *
If little black stones fall four times, in eleven years, to one part of this
earth's surface, and fall nowhere else, we are, in conceiving of a fixed
origin somewhere above a stationary earth, at least conceiving in terms of
data, and, whether we are fanatics or not, we are not of the type of other
upholders of stationariness of this earth, who care more for Moses than they
do for data. I'd not like to have it thought that we are not great admirers
of Moses, sometimes.
The rock that hung in the sky of Servia --
Upon October 13, 1872, a stone fell from the sky, to this earth, near the
town of Soko-Banja, Servia. If it were not a peculiar stone, there is no
force to this datum. It is said that it was unknown stone. A name was
invented for it. The stone was called banjite, after the town near which it
fell.
Seventeen years later (Dec. 1, 1889) another rock of banjite fell in Servia,
near Jelica.
For Meunier's account of these stones, see L'Astronomie, 1890-272, and
Comptes Rendus, 92-331.(14) Also, see La Nature, 1881-1-192.(15) According
to Meunier these stones did fall from the sky; indigenous to this earth
there are no such stones; nowhere else have such stones fallen from the sky;
they are identical in material; they fell seventeen years apart.(16)
* * *
At times when we think favorably of this work of ours, we see in it a
pointing-out of an evil of modern specialization. A seis- [152/153] mologist
studies earthquakes, and an astronomer studies meteors; neither studies both
earthquakes and meteors, and consequently each, ignorant of the data
collected by the other, sees no relation between the two phenomena. The
treatment of the event in Servia, Dec. 1, 1889, is an instance of
conventional scientific attempts to understand something by separately, or
specially, focussing upon different aspects, and not combining into an
inclusive concept. Meunier writes only upon the stones that fell from the
sky, and does not mention an earthquake at the time. Milne, in his Catalogue
of Destructive Earthquakes, lists the occurrence as an earthquake, and does
not mention stones that fell from the sky.(17) All combinations greatly
affect the character of components: in our combination of two aspects, we
see that the phenomenon was not an earthquake, as earthquakes are commonly
understood, though it may have been meteoric; but was not meteoric, in
ordinary terms of meteors, because of the unlikelihood that meteors,
identical in material, should, seventeen years apart, fall upon the same
part of this earth's surface, and nowhere else.
This occurrence was of course an explosion in the sky, and its vibrations
were communicated to the earth below, with all the effects of any other kind
of earthquake. Back in our earliest confusion of the data of a century's
first quarter, we had awareness of this combination and its conventional
misinterpretation: that many concussions that have been communicated from
explosions in the sky have been cataloged in lists of subterranean
earthquakes. We are farther along now, in our data of the 19th century, and
now we come across awareness, in other minds, of this distinguishment. At
8.20 A.M., Nov. 20, 1887, was heard and felt something that was reported
from many places in the region that is known to us as the London Triangle,
as an earthquake, though in some towns it was thought to be a great
explosion, perhaps in London, had occurred. It was reported from Reading,
and from places where the concussion was greatest. There were several
accounts of slight alarm among sheep, which are sensitive to meteors and
earthquakes. But, in Symons' Met. Mag., Mr. H.G. Fordham wrote that the
occurrence was not an earthquake, that a meteor had exploded.(18) He had
very little to base [153/154] this opinion upon: out of scores of
descriptions, he had record of only two assertions that something had been
seen in the sky. Nevertheless, because the sound was so much greater than
the concussion, Mr. Fordham came to his conclusion.
In Symons' Met. Mag., 23-154, Dr. R.H. Wake writes that, upon the evening of
Nov. 3, 1888, in a region about four miles wide and ten or fifteen miles
long, in the Thames Valley (near Reading) flocks of sheep had rushed from
their folds in a common alarm.(19) About a year later, in the Chiltern
Hills, which extend in a northeasterly direction from the Thames Valley,
near Reading, there was another such occurrence. In the London Standard,
Nov. 7, 1889, the Rev. J. Ross Barker, of Chesham, a town about 25 miles
northeast of Reading, writes that, upon Oct. 25, 1889, many flocks of sheep,
in a region of 30 square miles, had, by common impulse, broken from their
folds.(20) Mr. Barker asks whether anyone knew of a meteor or of an
earthquake at the time.(21) In vol. 24, Symons' Met. Mag., Mr. Symons
accepts that all three of these occurrences were effects of meteoric
explosions in the sky.(22) The phenomena are insignificant relatively to
some that we have considered: the significance is in this definite
recognition in orthodoxy, itself, that some supposed earthquakes, or effects
of supposed earthquakes, are reactions to explosions in the sky. [154]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Mirages?" Cosmos: Les Mondes, s. 4, "N.S." 11 (October 27, 1888): 336-8.
"Remarkable mirages are frequently observed in the central and central parts
of Sweden...." Knowledge, 2 (September 1, 1882): 223. "Notes." Nature, 32
(July 23, 1885): 278-80, at 279. A mirage of palaces and gigantic trees was
observed on Lake Wettern, Sweden, on July 10, 1885. "Notes." Nature, 34
(June 3, 1886): 107-10, at 108. The Oviks Mountains were reflected on clouds
at Östersund, Sweden, on April 28, 1886.
2. "Mirage curieux." Cosmos: Les Mondes, 56 (December 1, 1881): 494.
3. "Notes." Nature, 26 (June 29, 1882): 207-10, at 209-10. Correct quote:
"...islands in the lake, covered with more or less with vegetation...."
4. "The following report is taken from Nature." Monthly Weather Review, 11
(May 1883): 121. The source of this article was: "Notes." Nature, 28 (June
7, 1883): 133-135, at 134. The mirage was observed at Ludvika, Sweden, (not
Lake Ludyika).
5. "Notes." Nature, 28 (June 14, 1883): 155-8, at 158.
6. "Notes." Nature, 31 (November 13, 1884): 40-2, at 42. The mirage was
observed at Lindesberg, Sweden, (not Lindsberg).
7. "Notes." Nature, 32 (June 4, 1885): 109-12, at 112. The mirage, which
included a three-masted ship, was observed at Visby, on Gothland, Sweden.
8. "Notes." Nature, 32 (July 9, 1885): 230-1, at 231.
"Le mirage." Cosmos: Les Mondes, s. 4, "N.S." 1 (July 20, 1885): 677.
9. "Notes." Nature, 32 (October 1, 1885): 540-2, at 541.
10. "Notes." Nature, 32 (October 8, 1885): 551-3, at 552.
11. "Notes." Nature, 38 (July 26, 1888): 301-4, at 304.
"Mirages?..." Astronomie, 7 (1888): 392-3. The location was Hudikswall, (not
Hudikwall).
12. "Curieux mirage." Astronomie, 7 (1888): 432. Mereküla, Estonia,
(Merexull), is about 180 kilometers west of St. Petersburg; and, St.
Petersburg is located on the Baltic coast, (not 200 miles inland from it).
13. Marius Codde and A. Payan. "Échancrure observée sur le disque solaire."
Astronomie, 6 (1887): 426-8.
14. Stanislas Meunier. "Uranolithe tombée à Jelica (Serbie)." Astronomie, 9
(1890) 272-3. Stanislas Meunier. "Examen lithologique et géologique de la
météorite tombée le 13 octobre 1872 aux environs de Soko-Banja, en Serbie."
Comptes Rendus, 92 (1881): 331-2.
15. Stanislas Meunier. "La météorite de Soko Banja." Nature (Paris), 1881, 1
(February 19): 192.
16. [Name these meteorites.]
17. J. Milne. "Catalogue of destructive earthquakes." Annual report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1911 (Appendix 1): 649-
740, at 735.
18. "The meteorite of the 20th of November, 1887." Symons' Meteorological
Magazine, 23, 153.
19. Richard H. Wake. "A puzzle." Symons' Meteorological Magazine, 23, 154.
20. J. Ross-Barker. "A stampede of sheep." London Standard, November 7,
1889, p. 2 c. 7.
21. "An unusually bright meteor" was reported seen at Circester, about 7:30
P.M., travelling "exactly towards the Chiltern Hills." "The stampede of
sheep." London Standard, November 8, 1889, p. 3 c. 4.
22. "The doubly observed meteor of Nov. 4th, 1889. The sheep stampede of
November 3rd, 1888." Symons' Meteorological Magazine, 24, (December 1889):
161-3.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
EXPLODING monasteries that shoot out clouds of monks into cyclonic
formations with stormy nuns similarly dispossessed -- or collapsing
monasteries -- sometimes slowly crumbling confines of the cloistered -- by
which we typify all things: that all developments pass through a process of
walling-away within shells that will break. Once upon a time there was a
shell around the United States. The shell broke. Some other things were
smashed.
The doctrines of great distances among heavenly bodies, and of a moving
earth are the strongest elements of Exclusionism: the mere idea of
separations by millions of miles discourages thoughts of communication with
other worlds; and only to think that this earth shoots through space at a
velocity of 19 miles a second puts an end to speculation upon how to leave
it and how to return. But, if these two conventions be features of a
walling-away like that of a chick within its shell, or that the United
States within its boundaries, and if some day all such confinements of the
embryonic break, our own prophecy, in the vague terms of all successful
prophecies, is that a matured view of astronomic phenomena will be from a
litter of broken demonstrations.
Our expression now is upon the function of Isolation in Development.
Specially it is not ours, because I think we learned it from the biologists,
but we are applying it generally. If the general expression be accepted, we
conceive that functionally have the astronomers taught that planets are
millions of miles away, and that this earth moves at such terrific velocity
that it is encysted with speed. Whether isolations function or not, that
exclusions that break down are typical of all developments is signified by
data upon all growing things, beginning with the aristocratic seeds, which,
however, liberalize to intercourse with mean materials or die. All animal-
organisms are at first walled away. [155/156] In human circumstances
conditions are the same. The development of every science has been a series
of temporary exclusions, and the story of every industry tells of inventions
that were resisted, but that were finally admitted. At the beginning of the
nineteenth century, Hegel published his demonstration that there could be
only seven planets: too late to recall his work, he learned that Ceres had
been discovered. It is our expression that the mental state of Hegel partook
of a general spirit of his time, and that it was necessary, or that it
functioned, because early astronomers could scarcely have systematized their
doctrine had they been bewildered by seven or eight hundred planetary
bodies; and that, besides the functions of the astronomers, according to our
expressions, there was also their usefulness in breaking down the walls of
the older, and outlived, orthodoxy. We conceive that it is well that a great
deal of experience should be withheld from children, and that, any way, in
their early years, they are sexually isolated, for instance, and our idea is
that our data have been held back by no outspoken conspiracy, but by an
inhibition similar to that by which a great deal of biology, for instance,
is not taught to children. But, if we think of something of this kind,
equally acceptable is it that even in the face of orthodox principles, these
data have been preserved in orthodox publications, and that, in the face of
supposed principles of Darwinism, as applied generally they have survived,
though not in harmony with their environment.
Tons of paper have been consumed by calculations upon the remoteness of
stars and planets. But I can find nothing that has been calculated, or said,
that is sounder than Mr. Shaw's determination that the moon is 37 miles
away.(1) It is that the Vogels and the Struves and the Newcombs have been
functionally hypnotized and have usefully spread the embryonic delusion that
there is a vast, untraversible expanse of space around this earth, or that
they have had some basis that it has been my misfortune to be unable to
find, or that there is no pleasant and unaccusatory way of explaining them.
April 10, 1874 -- a luminous object that exploded in the sky of Kuttenburg,
Bohemia. It is said that the glare was like sunlight, and that the
"terrifying flash" was followed by a detonation that [156/157] rumbled about
a minute. April 9, 1876 -- an explosion that is said to have been violent,
near the town of Rosenau, Hungary. See Rept. B.A., 1877-147.(2)
These two objects which appeared in virtually the same local sky of this
earth -- point of explosion 250 miles apart -- came from virtually the same
point in the sky: constellation of Cassiopeia; different by two degrees in
right ascension, and with no difference in declination. About the same time
in the evening: one at 8.9 P.M., and the other at 8.20 P.M. Same night in
the year, according to extra-terrestrial calendars: the year 1876 was a leap
year.
If they had been ordinary meteors, by coincidence two ordinary meteors of
the same stream might, exactly two years apart, come from almost the same
point in the heavens and strike almost the same point over this earth. But
they were two of the most extraordinary occurrences in the records of
explosions in the sky. Coincidences multiply, or these objects did come from
the not far-distant constellation of Cassiopeia, and their striking so
closely together indicates that this earth is stationary; and something of
the purposeful may be thought of. Serially related to these events, or
representing some more coincidence, there had been, upon June 9, 1866, a
tremendous explosion in the sky of Knysahinya, Hungary, and about a thousand
stones had fallen from the sky (Report B. A., 1867-430).(3) Rosenau and
Knyahinya are about 75 miles apart. Of course one can very much extend our
own circumscribed little notions, and think of firing projectiles from
beyond the stars, just as one can think of unknown lands as being not in the
immediate sky of Servia or Birmingham or Comrie, but as being beyond the
nearby stars, reducing everything more than we have reduced -- but the
firing of stones to this earth seems crude to me. Of course, objects, or
fragments of objects made of steel, like the manufactured steel of this
earth, have fallen to this earth, and are now in collections of
"meteorites." There is a story in a book that is not very accessible to us,
because it can't be found along with C.R., or Eng. Mec., or L'Astro., of
tablets of stone that were once upon a time fired to this earth. It may be
that inhabitants of this earth have been receiving instructions ever since,
engravings arriving very badly damaged, however. [157/158]
I have data upon repeating appearances, said to have been "auroral," in a
local sky. If they were auroral, repetitions at regular intervals and so
localized are challengers to the most resolute of explainers. If they were
of extra-mundane origin, they indicate that this earth is stationary. The
regularity is suggestive of signalling. For instance -- a light in the sky
of Lyons, N.Y., Dec. 9, 1891, Jan. 5, Feb. 2, Feb. 29, March 27, April 23,
1892. In the Scientific American, May 7, 1892, Dr. M. A. Veeder writes that,
from December 9, 1891, to April 23, 1892, there had been a bright light that
he calls "auroral" in the sky of Lyons, every 27th night.(4) He associates
the lights with the sun's synodic period, and says that upon each of the
days preceding a nocturnal display, there had been a disturbance in the sun.
How a disturbance in the sun could, at night, sun somewhere near the
antipodes of Lyons, New York, so localize its effects, one can't clear up.
In Nature, 46-29, Dr. Veeder associates the phenomena with the synodic
period of the sun, but he says that this period is of 27 days, 6 hours, and
47 minutes, noting that this period is inconsistent with the phenomena at
Lyons, making more than a day's difference in the time of his records.(5)
This precise determination is more of the "exact science" that is driving
some of us away from refinements into hoping for caves. Different parts of
the sun move at different rates: I have read of sun spots that moved
diagonally across the sun.
In Nature, 15-451, a correspondent writes that, at 8:55 P.M., he saw a large
red star in Serpens, where he had never seen such an appearance before --
Gunnersbury, March 17, 1877.(6) Ten minutes later, the object increased and
decreased several times, flashing like the revolving light of a lighthouse,
then disappearing. This correspondent writes that, about 10 P.M., he saw a
great meteor. He suggests no relation between the two appearances, but there
may have been relation, and there may be indication of something that was
stationary at least one hour over Gunnersbury, because the object said to
have been a "meteor" was first seen at Gunnersbury. In the Observatory, 1-
20, Capt. Tupman writes that, at 9.57 o'clock, a great meteor was first seen
at Frome, Tetbury, and Gunnersbury.(7) The red object might not have been in
[158/159] the local sky of Gunnersbury; might have been in the constellation
Serpens, unseen in all the rest of the world.
There is a great field of records of "meteors" that, with no parallax, or
with little parallax, or with little parallax that may be accounted for by
supposing that observations were not quite simultaneous, have been seen to
come as if from a star or from a planet, and that may have come from such
points, indicating that they are not far away. For instance, Rept. B. A.,
1879-77 -- the great meteor of Sept. 5, 1868.(8) It was seen, at Zurich,
Switzerland, to come from a point near Jupiter; at Tremont, France, origin
was so close to Jupiter that this object and the planet were seen in the
same telescopic field; at Bergamo, Italy, it was seen five or six degrees
from Jupiter. Zurich is about 140 miles from Bergamo, and Tremont is farther
from Zurich and Bergamo than that.
So there are data that indicate that objects have come to this earth from
planets or from stars, enforcing our idea that the remotest planet is not so
far from this earth as the moon is said, conventionally, to be; and that the
stars, all equi-distant from this earth might be reached by travelling from
this earth. One notices that I always conclude that, if phenomena repeatedly
occur in one local sky of this earth, their origin is traceable to a fixed
place over a stationary earth. The fixed place over this earth is indicated,
but that fixed place -- island of space, foreign coast, whatever it may be -
- may be conceived of as accompanying this earth in its rotations and
revolutions around the sun. Accepting that nothing much is known of
gravitation; that gravitational astronomy is a myth; that attraction may
extend but a few miles around this earth, if I can think of something
hanging unsupported in space, I always think of an island, say, over
Birmingham, or Irkutsk, or Comrie, as soon flying off by the centrifugal
force of a rotating earth, or as being soon left behind in a rush around the
sun. Nevertheless there is good room for discussion here. But when it comes
to other orders of data, I find one convergence toward the explanation that
this earth is stationary. But the subject is supposed to be sacred. One must
not think that this earth is stationary. One must not investigate. [159/160]
To think upon this subject, except as one is told to think, is, or seems to
be considered, impious.
But how can one account for an earth that moves?
By thinking that something started it and that nothing ever stopped it.
Earth that doesn't move?
That nothing ever started it.
Some more sacrilege. [160]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. George Bernard Shaw. "The conflict between science and common sense."
Humane Review, 1 (April 1900): 3-15, at 12-3. See back to Part 2, chapter 2.
2. James Glaisher et al. "Report on observations of luminous meteors during
the year 1876-77." Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1877, 98-193, at 146-8. The report identifies the
site of the explosion, near Rosenau, as Eperies and Iglö, Hungary. Rosenau
is now identified as Roznava, Slovakia; and, Iglö is now identified as
Spisska Nova Ves, Slovakia.
3. Glaisher et al. "Report on observations of luminous meteors, 1866-67."
Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
1867, 288-430, at 430. "Knyahinya," Hungary, (not Knysahinya).
4. Major Albert Veeder, (M.D.). "The aurora." Scientific American, n.s., 66
(May 7, 1892): 293.
5. M.A. Veeder. "Aurora." Nature, 46 (May 12, 1892): 29. There were twenty-
eight days between January 5 and February 2, and, there were twenty-six days
between March 27 and April 23, 1892. Veeder gives the synodic revolution of
the sun as "twenty-seven days, six hours, and forty minutes," (not "47
minutes").
6. W.M. "Strange star. -- Meteor." Nature, 15 (March 22, 1877): 451.
7. G.L. Tupman. "The meteor of March 17." Observatory, 1 (1877-78): 19-20.
The article also states: "From Tetbury red matter was seen falling after the
body of the meteor was extinguished."
8. James Glaisher et al. "Report on observations of luminous meteors during
the year 1878-79." Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1879, 76-131, at 77-9. Zurich, Switzerland, is about
130 miles from Bergamo, Italy; and, Trémont (Saone et Loire), France, is
about 420 miles west of Zurich.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
IF a grasshopper could hop on a cannon ball, passing overhead, I could
conceive, perhaps, how something, from outer space, could flit to a moving
earth, explore a while, and then hop off.
But suppose we have to accept that there have been instances of just such
enterprise and agility, relatively to the planet Venus. Irrespective of our
notion that it may be that sometimes a vessel sails to this earth from Venus
and returns, there are striking data indicating that, whether conceivable or
not, luminous objects have appeared from somewhere, or presumably from outer
space, and have been seen temporarily suspended over the planet Venus. This
is in accord with our indications that there are regions in the sky
suspended over and near this earth. It looks bad for our inference that this
earth is stationary, but it is the supposed rotary motion of this earth more
than the supposed orbital motion that seems to us would dislodge such
neighboring bodies; and all astronomers, except those who say that Venus
rotates in about 24 hours, say that Venus rotates in about 224 days, a
velocity that would generate little centrifugal force.(1)
I have a note upon a determined luminosity that was bent upon Saturn, as its
objective. In the English Mechanic, 63-496, a correspondent writes that,
upon July 13, 1896, he saw, through his telescope, from 10 until after
11.15, P.M., after which the planet was too near the horizon for good
seeing, a luminous object moving near Saturn.(2) He saw it pass several
small stars. "It was certainly going toward Saturn at a good rate." There
may be swifts in the sky that can board planets. If they can swoop on and
off an earth moving at a rate of 19 miles a second, disregarding rotation,
because entrance at a pole may be thought of, why, then, for all I know
smaller things do ride on cannon balls. Of course if our data that indicate
that the supposed solar system, or the geo-system, is to an enormous degree
smaller than is con- [161/162] ventionally taught be accepted, the orbital
velocity of Venus is far cut down.
About the last of August, 1873 -- Brussels; eight o'clock in the evening --
rising above the horizon, into a clear sky, was seen a star-like object. It
mounted higher and higher, until, about ten minutes later, it disappeared
(La Nature, 1873-239).(3) It seems that this conspicuous object did appear
in a local sky, and was therefore not far from this earth. If it were not a
fire-balloon, one supposes that it did come from outer space, and then
returned.
Perhaps a similar thing that visited the moon, and was then seen sailing
away -- in the Astronomical Register, 23-205, Prof. Schafarik, of Prague,
writes that upon April 24, 1874, he saw "an object of so peculiar a nature
that I do not know what to make of it."(4) He saw a dazzling white object
slowly traversing the disc of the moon. He had not seen it approaching the
moon. He watched it after it left the moon. Sept. 22, 1881 -- South Africa -
- an object that was seen near the moon by Col. Markwick -- like a comet but
moving very rapidly (Jour. Liverpool Astro. Soc., 7-117).(5)
Our chief interest is in objects, like ships, that have "boarded" this
moving earth with the agility of a Columbus who could dodge a San Salvador
and throw out an anchor to an American coast screeching past him at a rate
of 19 miles a second, or in objects that have come as close as atmospheric
conditions, or unknown conditions, would permit to the bottom of a kind of
stationary sea. We now graduate Capt. Noble to the extra-geographic fold. In
Knowledge, 4-173, Capt. Noble writes that, at 10.35 o'clock, night of August
28, 1883, he saw in the sky something "like a new and most glorious
comet."(6) First he saw something like the tail of a comet, or it was like a
search light, according to Capt. Noble's sketch of it in Knowledge. Then
Capt. Noble saw the nucleus from which this light came. It was a brilliant
object. Upon page 207, W.K. Bradgate writes that, at 12.40 A.M., August 29,
at Liverpool, he saw an object like the planet Jupiter, a ray of light
emanating from it.(7) Upon the nights of Sept. 11 and 13, Prof. Swift saw,
at Rochester, New York, an unknown object like a comet, perhaps in the local
sky of Rochester, inasmuch as it was reported from nowhere else
(Observatory, 6-345).(8) In [162/163] Knowledge, 4-219, Mrs. Harbin writes
that, upon the night of Sept. 21, at Yeovil, she saw the same brilliant
searchlight-like light that had been seen by Capt. Noble, but that it had
disappeared before she could turn her telescope upon it.(9) And several
months later (Nov., 1883) a similar object was seen obviously not far away,
but in the local sky of Porto Rico and then of Ohio (Amer. Met. Jour., 1-
110, and Scientific American, 50-40, 97).(10) It may be better not to say at
this time that we have data for thinking that a vessel carrying something
like a searchlight, visited this earth, and explored for several months over
regions as far apart as England and Puerto Rico. Just at present it is
enough to record that something that was presumably not a fire-balloon
appeared in the sky of England, close to this earth, if seen nowhere else,
and in two hours traversed the distance of about 200 miles between Sussex
and Liverpool.
Aug. 22, 1885 -- Saigon, Cochin-China -- according to Lieut. Réveillère, of
the vessel Guiberteau -- object like a magnificent red star, but larger than
the planet Venus -- it moved no faster than a cloud in a moderate wind;
observed 7 or 8 minutes, then disappearing behind clouds (C.R., 101-
680).(11)
In this book it is my frustrated desire to subordinate the theme of this
earth's stationariness. My subject is New Lands -- things, objects, beings
that are, or may be, the data of coming expansions --
But the stationariness of this earth can not be subordinated. It is crucial.
Again -- there is no use discussing possible explorations beyond this earth,
if this earth moves at a rate of 19 miles a second, or 19 miles a minute.
As to voyagers who may come to or near this earth from other planets -- how
could they leave and return to swiftly moving planets? According to our
principles of Extra-geography, the planets move part of the time with the
revolving stars, the remotest planets remaining in, under, or near one
constellation years at a time. Anything that could reach, and then travel
from, a swiftly revolving constellation in the ecliptic could arrive at a
stellar polar region, where, relatively to a central, stationary body, there
is no motion. [163]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Cassini gave the rotation as twenty-three hours, by observing a bright
spot on her surface. Schröter made it 23h. 21m. 19s. This value was
supported by others. In 1890 Schiaparelli announced that Venus rotates, like
our moon, once in one of her revolutions, and always directs the same face
to the sun. This property has also been ascribed to Mercury; but in neither
case has the evidence been generally accepted." George Forbes. History of
Astronomy. London: Watts & Co., 1909, 109-10.
2. "Saturn -- Comet?" English Mechanic, 63 (July 17, 1896): 496.
3. "Le météore de Bruxelles." Nature (Paris), 1873, 2 (September 13): 239.
The meteor was observed for about two minutes, (not ten), at Brussels and
Sainte-Gudule.
4. Schafarik. "Telescopic meteors." Astronomical Register, 23 (1885): 205-
11, at 207-8. Correct quote: "...so peculiar a character that I did not
know...."
5. E.E. Markwick. "On comets of the last century." Journal of the Liverpool
Astronomical Society, 7, 106-7. The object was observed on September 27,
1881, not on September 22.
6. William Noble. "A curious phenomenon." Knowledge, 4 (September 14, 1883):
173. Correct quote: "...the apparition of a new and most glorious comet...."
7. W.K. Bradgate. "A curious phenomenon." Knowledge, 4 (September 28, 1883):
207.
8. "Swift's new comet." Observatory, 6 (1883): 345.
9. Mrs. Harbin. "Curious phenomenon." Knowledge, 4 (October 5, 1883): 219.
10. Jacob Rice. [Letter.] American Meteorological Journal, 1 (July 1884):
110. "A remarkable phenomenon seen in Porto Rico." Scientific American,
n.s., 50 (January 19, 1884): 40. "A remarkable phenomenon seen at Sulphur
Springs, Ohio." Scientific American, n.s., 50 (February 16, 1884): 97.
11. Réveillère. "Sur un météore observé à Saigon, dans la soirée du 22
août." Comptes Rendus, 101 (October 5, 1885): 680. Réveillère was with the
lieutenant of the Guiberteau, (he was not the lieutenant), when they
observed this object. Saigon is also identified as Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
IT may be that we now add to our sins the horse that swam in the sky. For
all I know, we contribute to a wider biology. In the New York Times, July 8,
1878, is published a dispatch from Parkersburg, West Virginia: that, about
July 1, 1878, three or four farmers had seen, in a cloudless sky, apparently
half a mile high, "an opaque substance."(1) It looked like a white horse,
"swimming in the clear atmosphere." It is said to have been a mirage of a
horse in some distant field. If so, it is interesting not only because it
was opaque, but because of a selection or preference: the field itself was
not miraged.
Black bodies and the dark rabbles of the sky -- and that rioting thing, from
floating anarchies, have often spotted the sun. Then, by all that is
compensatory, in the balances of existence, there are disciplined forces in
space. In the Scientific American, 44-291, it is said that, according to
newspapers of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, figures had been seen in the
sky in the latter part of September, and the first week in October, 1881,
reports that "exhibited a mediæval condition of intelligence scarcely less
than marvellous."(2) The writer suggests that, though probably something was
seen in the sky, it was only an aurora. Our own intelligence and that of
astronomers and meteorologists and everybody else with whom we have had
experience had better not be discussed, but the accusation of mediævalism is
something that we're sensitive about, and we hasten to the Monthly Weather
Review, and if that doesn't give us a modern touch, I mistake the sound of
it. Monthly Weather Review, Sept. and Oct., 1881 -- an auroral display in
Maryland and New York, upon the 23rd of September; all other auroras far
north of the three states in which it was said phenomena were seen.(3)
October -- no auroras until the 18th; that one in the north. There was a
mirage upon Sept. 23, but at Indianola; two instances in October, but late
in the month, and in northern states. [164/165]
It is said, in the Scientific American, that according to the Warrentown
(Va.) Solid South, a number of persons had seen white-robed figures in the
sky, at night.(4) The story in the Richmond Dispatch is that many persons
had seen, or had thought they had seen, an alarming sight in the sky, at
night: a vast number of armed, uniformed soldiers drilling.(5) Then a
dispatch from Wilmington, Delaware -- platoons of angels marching and
countermarching in the sky, their white robes and helmets gleaming. Similar
accounts came from Laurel and Talbot. Several persons said they had seen, in
the sky, the figure of President Garfield, who had died not long before. Our
general acceptance is that all reports upon such phenomena are colored in
terms of appearances and subjects uppermost in minds.
L'Astronomie, 1888-392:(6)
That, about the first of August, 1888, near Warasdin, Hungary, several
divisions of infantry, led by a chief, who waved a flaming sword, had been
seen in the sky, three consecutive days, marching several hours a day.(7)
The writer in L'Astronomie says that in vain does one try to explain that
this appearance was a mirage of terrestrial soldiers marching at a distance
from Warasdin, because widespread publicity and investigation had disclosed
no such soldiers. Even if there had been terrestrial soldiers near Warasdin
repeating mirages localized would call for explanation.
But that there may be space-armies, from which reflections or shadows or
Brocken spectres are sometimes cast -- a procession that crossed the sun:
forms that moved, or that marched, sometimes four abreast; observation by M.
Bruguière, at Marseilles, April 15 and 16, 1883 (L'Astro., 5-70).(8) An army
that was watched, forty minutes, by M. Jacquot, Aug. 30, 1886 (L'Astro.,
1886-71) -- things or beings that seemed to march and to counter-march: all
that moved in the same direction, moved in parallel lines.(9) In L'Année
Scientifique, 29-8, there is an account of observations by M. Trouvelot,
Aug. 29, 1871.(10) He saw objects, some round, some triangular, and some of
complex forms. Then occurred something that at least suggests that these
things were not moving in the wind, nor sustained in space by the orbital
forces of meteors; that each was depending upon its own powers of flight,
and that [165/166] an accident occurred to one of them. All of them, though
most of the time moving with great rapidity, occasionally stopped, but then
one of them fell toward the earth, and the indications are that it was a
heavy body, and had not been sustained by the wind, which would scarcely
suddenly desert one of its flotsam and continue to sustain all the others.
The thing fell, oscillating from side to side like a disc falling through
water.
New York Sun, March 16, 1890 -- that, at 4 o'clock, in the afternoon of
March 12th, in the sky of Ashland, Ohio, was seen a representation of a
large, unknown city.(11) By some persons it was supposed to be a mirage of
the town of Mansfield, thirty miles away; other observers thought that they
recognized Sandusky, sixty miles away. "The more superstitious declared that
it was a vision of the New Jerusalem."
May have been a revelation of heaven, and for all I know heaven may resemble
Sandusky, and those of us who have no desire to go to Sandusky may ponder
that point, but our own expression is that things have been pictured in the
sky, and have not been traced to terrestrial origins, but have been
interpreted always in local terms. Probably a living thing in the sky --
seen by farmers -- a horse. Other things, or far-refracted images, or
shadows -- and they were supposed to be vast lions or soldiers or angels,
all according to preconceived ideas. Representations that have been seen in
India -- Hindoo costumes described upon them. Suppose that, in the afternoon
of January 17, 1892, there was a battle in the sky of Montana -- we know
just about in what terms the description would be published. Brooklyn Eagle,
Jan. 18, 1892 -- mirage in the sky of Lewiston, Montana -- Indians and
hunters alternately charging and retreating.(12) The Indians were in
superior numbers and captured the hunters. Then details -- hunters tied to
stakes; the piling of faggots; etc. "So far as could be ascertained last
night, the Indians on the reservations are peaceable." I think that we're
peaceable enough, but, unless the astronomers can put us on reservations,
where we'll work out expressions in beads and wampum instead of data, we'll
have to carry on a conflict with the vacant minds to which appear mirages of
their own emptiness in the sometimes swarming skies.
Altogether there are many data indicating that vessels and liv- [166/167]
ing things of space do come close to this earth, but there is absence of
data of beings that have ever landed upon this earth, unless someone will
take up the idea that Kaspar Hauser, for instance, came to this earth from
some other physical world. Whether spacarians have ever dredged down here or
not, or "sniped" down here, pouncing, assailing, either wantonly, or in the
interests of their sciences, there are data of seeming seizures and attacks
from somewhere, and I have strong objections against lugging in the fourth
dimension, because then I am no better off, wondering what the fifth and
sixth are like.
In La Nature, 1888-2-66, M. Adrian Arcelin writes that, while excavating
near de Solutré, in August, 1878, upon a day, described as superbe, sky
clear to a degree said to have been parfaitement, several dozen sheets of
wrapping paper upon the ground suddenly rose.(13) Nearby were a dozen men,
and not one of them had felt a trace of wind. A strong force had seized upon
these conspicuous objects, touching nothing else. According to M. Arcelin,
the dust on the ground under and around was not disturbed. The sheets of
paper continued upward, and disappeared in the sky.
A powerful force that swooped upon a fishing vessel, raising it so far that
when it fell back it sank -- see London Times, Sept. 24, 1875.(14) A quarter
of a mile away were other vessels, from which set out rescuers to the
sailors who had been thrown into the sea. There was no wind: the rescuers
could not use sails, but had to row their boats.
Upon Oct. 2, 1875, a man was trundling a cart from Schaffhausen, near
Beringen, Germany. His right arm was perforated from front to back, as if by
a musket ball (Pop. Sci., 15-566).(15) This man had two companions. He had
heard a whirring sound, but his companions had heard nothing. At one side of
the road there were laborers in a field, but they were not within gunshot
distance. Whatever the missile may have been, it was unfindable.
La Nature, 1879-1-166, quotes the Courrier des Ardennes as to an occurrence
in the Commune Signy-le-Pettit, Easter Sunday, 1879 -- a conspicuous,
isolated house -- suddenly its slate roof shot into the air, and then fell
to the ground.(16) There had not been [167/168] a trace of wind. The writer
of the account says that the force, which he calls a trouble inoui had so
singled out this house that nothing in its surroundings beyond a distance of
thirty feet had been disturbed.
Scientific American, July 10, 1880 -- that, according to the Plaindealer, of
East Kent, Ontario, two citizens of East Kent were in a field, and heard a
loud report.(17) They saw stones shooting upward from a field. They examined
the spot, which was about 16 feet in diameter, finding nothing to suggest an
explanation of the occurrence. It is said that there had been neither a
whirlwind nor anything else by which to explain.
It may be that witnesses have seen human beings dragged from their own
existence either into the objectionable fourth dimension, perhaps then
sifting into the fifth, or up to the sky by some exploring thing. I have
data, but they are from the records of psychic research. For instance, a man
had been seen walking along a road -- sudden disappearance. Explanation --
that he was not a living human being, but an apparition that had
disappeared. I have not been able to develop such data, finding, for
instance, that someone in the neighborhood had been reported missing; but it
may be that we can find material in our own field.
Upon December 10, 1881, Walter Powell and two companions ascended from Bath
in the Government balloon Saladin (Valentine and Tomlinson, Travels in
Space, p. 227).(18) The balloon descended at Bridport, coast of the English
Channel. Two of the aëronauts got out, but the balloon, with Powell in it,
shot upward. There was a report that the balloon had been seen to fall in
the English Channel, near Bridport, but according to Capt. Temple, one of
Powell's companions, probably something thrown from the balloon had been
seen to fall.
A balloon is lost near or over the sea. If it should fall into the sea it
would probably float and for considerable time be a conspicuous object;
nevertheless the disappearance of a balloon last seen over the English
Channel, can not, without other circumstances, be considered very
mysterious. Now one expects to learn of reports from many places of supposed
balloons that had been seen. But the extraordinary circumstance is that
reports [168/169] came in upon a luminous object that was seen in the sky at
the time that this balloon disappeared. In the London Times, it is said that
a luminous object had been seen, evening of the 13th, moving in various
directions in the sky near Cherbourg. It is said that upon the night of the
16th three customhouse guards, at Laredo, Spain, had seen something like a
balloon in the sky, and had climbed a mountain in order to see it better,
but that it had shot out sparks and had disappeared -- and had been reported
from Bilbao, Spain, the next day. In the Morning Post, it is said that this
luminous display was the chief feature; that it was this sparkling that had
made the object visible. In the Standard, Dec. 16, is an account of
something that was seen in the sky, five o'clock, morning of Dec. 15, by
Capt. Mc. Bain, of the steamship Countess of Aberdeen, off the coast of
Scotland, 25 miles from Montrose.(19) Through glasses, the object seemed to
be a light attached to something thought to be the car of a balloon,
increasing and decreasing in size -- a large light -- "as large as the light
at Girdleness." It moved in a direction opposite to that of the wind, though
possibly with wind of an upper stratum. It was visible half an hour, and
when it finally disappeared, was moving toward Bervie, a town on the
Scottish coast about 12 miles north of Montrose. In the Morning Post it is
said that the explanation is simple: that someone in Monfreith, 8 miles from
Dundee, had, late in the evening of the 15th, sent up a fire-balloon, "which
had been carried along the coast by a gentle breeze, and, after burning all
night, extinguished and collapsed off Montrose, early on Thursday morning
(16th)." This story of a balloon that wafted to Montrose, and that was
evidently traced until it collapsed near Montrose does not so simply explain
an object that was seen 25 miles from Montrose. In the Standard, Dec. 19, it
is said that two bright lights were seen over Dartmouth Harbor, upon the
11th.(20)
Walter Powell was Member of Parliament for Malmesbury, and had many friends,
some of whom started immediately to search. His relatives offered a reward.
A steamboat searched the Channel, and did not give up until the 13th;
fishing vessels kept on searching. A "sweeping expedition" was organized,
and the [169/170] coast guard was doubled, searching the shore for wreckage,
but not a fragment of the balloon, nor from the balloon, except a
thermometer in a bag, was found.
In L'Astronomie, 1886-312, Prof. Paroisse of the College Bar-sur-Aube,
quotes two witnesses of a curieux phénomène that occurred in a garden of the
College, May, 22, 1886 -- cloudless sky; wind tres faible.(21) Within a
small circle in the garden were some baskets and ashes and a window frame
that weighed sixty kilogrammes. These things suddenly rose from the ground.
At a height of about forty feet, they remained suspended several minutes,
then falling back to the place from which they had risen. Not a thing
outside this small circle had been touched by the seizure. The witness said
that they felt no disturbance in the air.
Scientific American, 56-65 -- that in June, 1886, according to the London
Times, "a well-known official" was entering Pall Mall, when he felt a
violent blow on the shoulder and heard a hissing sound.(22) There was no one
in sight except a distant policeman. At home, he found that the nap of his
coat looked as if a hot wire had been pressed against the cloth, in a long,
straight line. No missile was found, but it was thought that something of a
meteoritic nature had struck him.
Charleston News and Courier, Nov. 25, 1886 -- that, at Edina, Mo., Nov. 23,
a man and his three sons were pulling corn on a farm.(23) Nothing is said of
meteorologic conditions, and, for all I know, they may have been pulling
corn in a violent thunderstorm. Something that is said to have been
lightning flashed from the sky. The man was injured slightly, one son
killed, the other seriously injured -- the third had disappeared. "What has
become of him is not known, but it is supposed that he was blinded or crazed
by the shock, and wandered away."
Brooklyn Eagle, March 17, 1891 -- that, at Wilkesbarre, Pa., March 16th, two
men were "lifted bodily and carried considerable distance in a
whirlwind."(24) It was a powerful force, but nothing else was affected by
it. Upon the same day, there was an occurrence in Brooklyn. In the New York
Times, March 17, 1891, it is said that two men, Smith Morehouse, of Orange
Co., N.Y., and William Owen, of Sussex Co., N.J., were walking in Van-
[170/171] derbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, about 2 o'clock, afternoon of the 16th,
when a terrific explosion occurred close to the head of Morehouse, injuring
him and stunning Owen, the flash momentarily blinding both.(25) Morehouse's
face was covered with marks like powder-marks, and his tongue was pierced.
With no one else to accuse, the police arrested Owen, but held him upon the
technical charge of intoxication. Morehouse was taken to a hospital, where a
splinter of metal, considered either brass or copper, but not a fragment of
a cartridge, was removed from his tongue. No other material could be found,
though an object of considerable size had exploded. Morehouse's hat had been
perforated in six places by unfindable substances. According to witnesses
there had been no one within a hundred feet of the men. One witness has seen
the flash before the explosion, but could not say whether it had been from
something falling or not. In the Brooklyn Eagle, March 17, 1891, it is said
that neither of the men had a weapon of any kind, and that there had been no
disagreement between them. According to a witness, they had been under
observation at the time of the explosion, her attention having been
attracted by their rustic appearance.
There is an interesting merging here of the findable and the unfindable. I
suppose that no one will suppose that someone threw a bomb at these men. But
enough substance was found to exclude the notion of "lightning from a clear
sky." Something of a meteoritic nature seems excluded. [171]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "What a West Virginia farmer saw." New York Times, July 8, 1878, p.2 c.5.
The distance given to the object was said to be a half mile away (distant,
not above), from the observers.
2. "Visions in the clouds." Scientific American, n.s., 45 (November 5,
1881): 291. Correct quote: "...exhibit a mediæval condition of popular
intelligence in the rural districts scarcely less marvelous."
3. "Atmospheric electricity," and, "Optical phenomena." Monthly Weather
Review, 9 (September, 1881): 24-6. "Atmospheric electricity," and, "Optical
phenomena." Monthly Weather Review, 9 (October 1881): 21-2.
4. The Solid South was published in Warrenton, Virginia, (not Warrentown).
5. "A phenomenon." Richmond Daily Dispatch, October 7, 1881, p. 4 c. 2.
6. "Mirages?" Astronomie, 7 (1888): 392-3.
7. The phenomenon was observed at Vidorec, Hungary.
8. "Passage d'un essaim de corpuscles devant le Soleil." Astronomie, 5
(1886): 70-1.
9. "Passage d'un essaim de corpuscles devant le Soleil." Astronomie, 5
(1886): 70-1. Jacquot, at Havre, observed round black bodies cross the sun's
disc on July 15 and 16, 1886; but, there is no mention of August 30, of 40
minutes duration, nor of parallel lines.
10. "Passage d'un essaim de corpuscles noirs devant le Soleil." Année
Scientifique et Industrielle, 29 (1885): 8-10.
11. "Mirage in Ohio." New York Sun, March 16, 1890, p. 19 c. 6. Correct
quote: "...superstitious declare that...." "A city in mid-air." Philadelphia
Times, March 14, 1890, p. 2 c. 1.
12. "Saw the fight in the air." Brooklyn Eagle, January 18, 1892, p.4 c.7.
13. Gaston Tissandier. "Etude sur les trombes." Nature (Paris), 1888 v.2,
65-7, at 66-7. Adrien Arcelin, (not Adrian), and ten labourers, (not a
dozen), made the observation in August of 1873, (not 1878).
14. "Gust of wind." London Times, September 24, 1875, p.7 c.2.
15. "Bodily injuries from falling meteors." Popular Science Monthly, 15
(August 1879): 566-7.
16. "Trombe d'air instantée." Nature (Paris), 1879 v.1 (May 10): 366. Sic,
trouble inouï.
17. "Curious phenomenon." Scientific American, n.s., 43 (July 10, 1880): 24.
18. E. Seton Valentine, and, F.L. Tomlinson. Travels in Space. London: Hurst
and Blackett, 1902, 227-8.
19. "The missing balloon." London Standard, December 16, 1881, p. 3 c. 1-2.
The correct name was McBain, (not Mc. Bain). Correct quote: "...the light at
the Girdleness."
20. "The missing balloon." London Standard, December 19, 1881, p. 5, c. 7.
21. G. Paroisse. "Singulière petite trombe." Astronomie, 5 (1886): 312-3.
Paroisse interviewed Comte, in whose garden the phenomenon was obseved by
Comte; the "window frame" was a cold frame of iron and glass used in the
care of young plants; and, the objects remained suspended about two minutes
before falling back to the earth.
22. "Struck by a meteor." Scientific American, n.s., 55 (July 31, 1886): 65.
For the original article: "Remarkable accident." London Times, June 17,
1886, p.10 c.2.
23. "A fatal lightning stroke." Charleston News and Courier, November 25,
1886, p.3 c.2.
24. "Caught in a whirlwind." Brooklyn Eagle, March 17, 1891, p.6 c.5.
Correct quote: "...carried some distance and thrown against the trees."
25. "Hurt most mysteriously." New York Times, March 17, 1891, p. 1 c. 5.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
OUT from a round, red planet, a little white shaft -- a fairy's arrow shot
into an apple. June 10, 1892 -- a light like a little searchlight,
projecting from the limb of Mars. Upon July 11 and 13, it was seen again, by
Campbell and Hussey (Nature, 50-500).(1)
Aug. 3, 1892 -- climacteric opposition of Mars.(2)
Upon August 12, 1892, flashes were seen by many persons, in the sky of
England. See Eng. Mec., vol. 56.(3) At Manchester, so like signals they
were, or so unlike anything commonly known as "auroral" were they, that
Albert Buss mistook them for flashes from a lighthouse. They were seen at
Dewsbury; described by a correspondent to the English Mechanic, who wrote:
"I have never seen such an appearance of an aurora." "Rapid flashes"
reported from Loughborough.
* * *
A shining triangle in a dark circle.
In L'Astronomie, 1888-75, Dr. Klein publishes an account of de Speissen's
observation of Nov. 23, 1887 -- a luminous triangle on the floor of
Plato.(4) Dr. Klein says it was an effect of sunlight.
In this period, there were in cities of the United States, some of the most
astonishing effects at night, in the history of this earth. If Rigel should
run for the Presidency of Orion, and if the stars in the great nebula should
start to march, there would be a spectacle like those that Grover Cleveland
called forth in the United States, in this period.
So then -- at least conceivably -- something similar upon the moon. Flakes
of light moving toward Plato, this night of Nov. 23, 1887, from all the
other craters of the moon; a blizzard of shining points gathering into
light-drifts in Plato; then the denizens of Aristarchus and of Kepler, and
dwellers from the lunar Alps, each raising his torch, marching upon a
triangular path, [172/173] making the triangle shine in the dark --
conceivably. Other formations have been seen in Plato, but, according to my
records, this symbol that shone in the dark had never been seen before, and
has not been seen since.
About two years later -- a demonstration of a more exclusive kind --
assemblage of all the undertakers of the moon. They stood in a circular
formation, surrounded by virgins in their nightgowns -- and in nightgowns as
nightgowns should be. An appearance in Plinius, Sept. 13, 1889, was reported
by Prof. Thury, of Geneva -- a black spot with an "intensely white" border.
March 30, 1889 -- a black spot that was seen for the first time, by
Gaudibert, near the center of Copernicus (L'Astro., 1890-235).(5) May 11,
1889 -- an object as black as ink upon a rampart of Gassendi (L'Astro.,
1889-275).(6) It had never been reported before; at the time of the next
lunation, it was not seen again. March 30, 1889 -- a new black spot in
Plinius (L'Astro., 1890-187).(7)
The star-like object in Aristarchus -- it is a long time since latest
preceding appearance, (May 7, 1867).(8) Then it can not be attributed to
commonplace lunar circumstances. The light was seen Nov. 7, 1891, by M.
d'Adjuda, of the Observatory of Lisbon -- "a very distinct, luminous point"
(L'Astro., 11-33).(9)
Upon April 1, 1893, a shaft of light was seen projecting from the moon, by
M. de Moraes, in the Azores. A similar appearance was seen, Sept. 25, 1893,
at Paris, by Mr. Gaboreau (L'Astro., 13-34).(10)
* * *
Another association like that of 1884 -- in the English Mechanic, 55-310, a
correspondent writes that, upon May 6, 1892, he saw a shining point (not
polar) upon Venus.(11) Upon the 13th of August, 1892, the same object --
conceivably -- was seen at a short distance from Venus -- an unknown,
luminous object, like a star of the 7th magnitude that was seen close to
Venus, by Prof. Barnard (Ast. Nach., no. 4106).(12)
Upon August 24, 1895, in the period of primary maximum brilliance of Venus,
a luminous object, it is said, was seen in the sky, in day time, by someone
in Donegal, Ireland.(13) Upon this day, according to the Scientific
American, 73-374, a boy, Robert [173/174] Alcorn, saw a large luminous
object falling from the sky.(14) It exploded near him. The boy's experience
was like Smith Morehouse's. He put his hands over his face: there was a
second explosion, shattering his fingers. According to Prof. George M.
Minchin, no substance of the object that had exploded could be found.
Whether there be relation or not, something was seen in the sky of England a
week later. In the London Times, Sept. 4, 1895, Dr. J.A.H. Murray writes
that, at Oxford, a few minutes before 8 P.M., August 31, 1895, he saw in the
sky a luminous object, considerably larger than Venus at greater brilliance,
emerge from behind tree tops, and sail slowly eastward.(15) It moved as if
driven in a strong wind, and disappeared behind other trees. "The fact that
it so perceptibly grew fainter as it receded seems to imply that it was not
at a great elevation, and so favors a terrestrial origin, though I am unable
to conceive how anything artificial could have presented the same
appearance." In the Times, of the 6th, someone who had read Dr. Murray's
letter says that, about the same time, same evening, he, in London, had seen
the same object moving eastward so slowly that he had thought it might be a
fire-balloon from a neighboring park.(16) Another correspondent, who had not
read Dr. Murray's letter, his own dated Sept. 3, writes from a place not
stated that about 8.20 P.M., Aug. 31, he had seen a star-like object, moving
eastward, remaining in sight four or five minutes. Then someone who, about 8
P.M., same evening, while driving to the Scarborough station, had seen "a
large shooting star," astonishing him, because of its leisurely rate, so
different from the velocity of the ordinary "shooting star." There are two
other accounts of objects that were seen in the sky, at Bath and at
Ramsgate, but not about this time, and I have looked them up in local
newspapers, finding that they were probably meteors.
In the Oxford Times, Sept. 7, Dr. Murray's letter to the London Times is
reprinted, with this comment -- "We would suggest to the learned doctor that
the supposed meteor was one of the fire-balloons let off with the allotments
show."(17)
Let it be that when allotments are shown, balloons are always sent up, and
that this Editor did not merely have a notion to this effect. Our data are
concerned with an object that was [174/175] seen, at about the same time, at
Oxford, about 50 miles south east of Oxford, and about 170 miles northeast
of Oxford, with a fourth observation that we can not place.
And, in broader terms, our data are concerned with a general expression that
objects like ships have been seen to sail close to this earth at times when
the planet Venus is nearest this earth. Sept. 18, 1895 -- inferior
conjunction of Venus.(18)
Still in the same period, there were, in London, two occurrences perhaps
like that at Donegal. London Morning Post, Nov. 16, 1895 -- that, at noon,
Nov. 15, an "alarming explosion" occurred somewhere near Fenchurch Street,
London.(19) No damage was done; no trace could be found of anything that had
exploded. An hour later, near the Mansion House, which is not far from
Fenchurch Street, occurred a still more violent explosion. The streets
filled with persons who had run from buildings, and there was investigation,
but not a trace could be found of anything that had exploded. It is said
that somebody saw "something falling." However, the deadly explainers,
usually astronomers, but this time policemen, haunt or arrest us. In the
Daily News, though it is not said that a trace of anything that had exploded
had been found, it is said that the explanation by the police was that
somebody had mischievously placed in the streets fog-signals, which had been
exploded by passing vehicles.(20)
Observations by Müller, of Nymegen, Holland -- an unknown luminous object
that, about three weeks later, was seen near Venus (Monthly Notices, R.A.S.,
52-276).(21)
Upon the 28th of April, 1897, Venus was in inferior conjunction.(22) In
Popular Astronomy, 5-55, it is said that many persons had written to the
Editor, telling of "airships" that had been seen, about this time.(23) The
Editor writes that some of the observations were probably upon the planet
Venus, but that others probably related to toy balloons, "which were
provided with various colored lights."
The first group of our data, I take from dispatches to the New York Sun,
April 2, 11, 16, 18.(24) First of April -- "the mysterious light" in the sky
of Kansas City -- something like a powerful searchlight. "It is directed
toward the earth, and is travelling east at the rate of sixty miles an
hour." A week later, something [175/176] was seen in Chicago. "Chicago's
alleged airship is believed to be a myth, in spite of the fact that a great
many persons say that they have seen the mysterious night-wanderer. A crowd
gazed at strange lights, from the top of a downtown skyscraper, and Evanston
students declare they saw the swaying red and green lights." April 16 --
reported from Benton, Texas, but this time as a dark object that passed
across the moon. Reports from other towns in Texas: Fort Worth, Dallas,
Marshall, Ennis, and Beaumont -- "It was shaped like a Mexican cigar, large
in the middle and small at both ends, with great wings, resembling those of
an enormous butterfly. It was brilliantly illuminated by the rays of two
great searchlights, and was sailing in a southeasterly direction with the
velocity of the wind, presenting a magnificent appearance."
New York Herald, April 11 -- that, at Chicago, night of April 9-10, "until
two o'clock in the morning, thousands of amazed spectators declared that the
lights seen in the northwest were those of an airship, or some floating
object, miles above the earth....Some declare they saw two cigar-shaped
objects and great wings."(25) It is said that a white light, a red light,
and a green light had been seen.
There does seem to be an association between this object and the planet
Venus, which upon this night was less than three weeks from nearest approach
to this earth. Nevertheless this object could not have been Venus, which had
set hours earlier. Prof. Hough, of the Northwestern University, is quoted --
that the people had mistaken the star Alpha Orionis for an airship. Prof.
Hough explains that astronomic effects may have given a changing red and
green appearance to this star.(26) Alpha Orionis as a northern star is some
more astronomy by the astronomers who teach astronomy daytimes and then
relax when night comes. That atmospheric conditions could pick out this one
star and not affect other brilliant stars in Orion is more astronomy. At any
rate the standardized explanation that the thing was Venus disappears.
There were other explainers -- someone who said that he knew of an airship
(terrestrial one) that had sailed from San Francisco and had reached
Chicago.
Herald, April 12 -- said that the object had been photographed [176/177] in
Chicago: "a cigar-shaped, silken bag," with a framework -- other
explanations and identifications, not one of them applying to this object,
if be accepted that it was seen in places as far apart as Illinois and
Texas.(27) It is said that, upon March 29th, the thing had been seen in
Omaha, as a bright light sailing to the northwest, and that, for a few
moments, upon the following night, it had been seen in Denver. It is said
that, upon the night of the 9th, despatches had bombarded the newspaper
offices of Chicago, from many places in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa,
and Wisconsin.
"Prof. George Hough maintains that the object seen is Alpha Orionis."
April 14 -- story, veritable observation, yarn, hoax -- despatch from
Carlensville, Illinois--that upon the afternoon of the 10th, the airship had
alighted upon a farm, but had sailed away when approached -- "cigar-shaped,
with wings, and a canopy on top."(28)
April 15 -- shower of telegrams -- developments of jokers and explainers --
thing identified as an airship invented by someone in Dodge City, Kansas;
identified as an airship invented by someone in Brule, Wisconsin -- stories
of letters found on farms, purporting to have been dropped by the unknown
aëronauts (terrestrial ones) -- jokers in various towns, sending up balloons
with lights attached -- one laborious joker who rigged up something that
looked like an airship and put it in a vacant lot and told that it had
fallen there -- yarn or observation, upon a "queer-looking boat" that had
been seen to rise from the water in Lake Erie -- continued reports upon a
moving object in the sky, and its red and green lights.
Against such an alliance as this, between the jokers and the astronomers, I
see small chance for our data. The chance is in the future. If, in April,
1897, extra-mundane voyagers did visit this earth, likely enough they will
visit again, and then the alliance against the data may be guarded against.
New York Herald, April 20 -- that, upon the 19th, about 9 P.M., at
Sistersville, W.Va., a luminous object had approached the town from the
northwest, flashing brilliant red, white, and green lights.(29) "An
examination with strong glasses left an impression of a huge [177/178] cone-
shaped arrangement 180 feet long, with large fins on either side."
My own general impression:
Night of October 12, 1492 -- if I have that right. Some night in October,
1492, and savages upon an island-beach are gazing out at lights that they
have never seen before. The indications are that voyagers from some other
world are nearby. But the wise men explain. One of the most nearly sure
expressions in this book is upon how they explain. They explain in terms of
the familiar. For instance, after all that is spiritual in a fish passes
away, the rest of him begins to shine nights. So there are three big, old,
dead things out in the water -- [178]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. W.J.S. Lockyer. "Bright projections on Mars' terminator." Nature, 50
(September 20, 1894): 499-501.
2. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1892. 2nd ed.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Equipment, 1891, 487.
3. H. Thomson. "Aurora Borealis." English Mechanic, 56 (August 26, 1892):
12. W.H. Wood. "The August meteors -- Approximate paths and orbit of two
fireballs -- The aurora -- Entity or phantom (?) example." English Mechanic,
56 (August 26, 1892): 12. E. Reginald Blakeley. "Fireball of August 9th --
Peculiar auroral phenomenon." English Mechanic, 56 (August 26, 1892): 15-6.
Correct quote: "I have never heard of such an appearance of aurora...."
Albert Alfred Buss. "Auroral Borealis." English Mechanic, 56 (September 2,
1892): 37.
4. "Lueur observée dans le cirque lunaire de Platon." Astronomie, 7 (1888):
75-6.
5. C.-M. Gaudibert. "Nouveau cratère dans Copernic." Astronomie, 9 (1890):
235.
6. "Nouvelles de la Lune." Astronomie, 8 (1889): 275-6.
7. "Un nouveau crater dans l'arène de Plinius." Astronomie, 9 (1890): 187.
The spot was observed on January 28, 1890, not on March 30, 1889.
8. Flammarion observed what he identified as "earth light" reflect upon the
dark side of the Moon, on May 6 and 7, 1867; but, in the region of
Aristarchus, "the light was more intense than it generally appears." Camille
Flammarion. "Is the Moon inhabited?" Scientific American Supplement, 7
(March 29, and, April 5, 1879): 2696, 2711-2.
9. "Societe Astronomique de France. Séance du 2 decembre 1891." Astronomie,
11 (1892): 32-6, at 33.
10. "La Lune bossue." Astronomie, 13 (1894): 34. The observation in the
Azores was made by de Moraès Pereira, (not de Moraes).
11. P.H. Kempthorne. "Venus." English Mechanic, 55 (May 27, 1892): 310. For
the phenomenon in 1884: "Is there a snow cap on Venus?" English Mechanic, 40
(October 10, 1884): 129-30.
12. E.E. Barnard. "An unexplained observation." Astronomische Nachrichten,
n.4106, c.25-6.
13. Venus was at "greatest brilliancy" on August 13, 1895. The American
Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1895. Washington, D.C., 489.
14. George M. Minchin. "A fire ball." Scientific American, n.s., 73
(December 14, 1895): 374. George M. Minchin. "Personal injury from a fire
ball." Nature, 53 (November 7, 1885): 5-6. Only Robert Alcorn saw the
explosion and object, though others heard the explosion, at Culdaff; but, at
Redcastle, about eight miles away, a bright object, thought to be a
fireball, was seen on the same day.
15. "Remarkable meteoric (?) appearance." London Times, September 4, 1895,
p.3 c.5. Correct quote: "...it had not a very great elevation, and so far
favours a terrestrial origin, though I am quite unable to conceive how
anything artificial could present the same appearance."
16. "Remarkable meteoric appearance."London Times, September 6, 1895, p.8
c.6.
17. "Remarkable meteoric(?) appearance." Oxford Times, September 7, 1895,
p.5 c.8.
18. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1895. 1st ed.
Washington, D.C., 1894, 489.
19. "Alarming explosion in the city." London Morning Post, November 16,
1895, p.2 c.5.
20. "Explosions in the city." London Daily News, November 16, 1895, p.3 c.1.
21. W.E.P. "The comets of 1896." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 57 (February 1897): 273-6, at 276. The observers were G.J. Van Dyk
and du Celliée Muller, but the object was seen nowhere else.
22. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1897.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Equipment, 1894, 490.
23. "Air ships." Popular Astronomy, 5 (May 1897): 54-5. Correct quote: "It
is evident that these little `whale backs' are provided with various colored
lights...."
24. "Mysterious light in the sky." New York Sun, April 2, 1897, p.1 c.4.
"Airship was a balloon."New York Sun, April 11, 1897, p.1 c.5. Correct
quote: "...say they have seen...." "Easy to see an airship." New York Sun,
April 16, 1897, p.9 c.3. The date of the report was April 15; and, the
location may have been in Denton, Texas, not Benton. "Searchlights on the
airship." New York Sun, April 18, 1897, p.3 c.4. Correct quote: "...a
magnificent spectacle."
25. "That airship now at Chicago." New York Herald, April 11, 1897, 2d ed.,
sec.1, p.9 c.3.
26. Alpha Orionis is better known as Betelgeuse.
27. "Snap shots of the air ship." New York Herald, April 12, 1897, p.5 c.1-
2. Correct quote: "Prof. George Hough, of Dearborn Observatory, Northwestern
University, Evanston, and Sherbourne W. Burnham, maintain that the object
seen is Alpha Orionis."
28. "Air ship seen by daylight." New York Herald, April 14, 1897, p.8 c.6.
The alleged airship encounter occurred at Carlinville, Illinois, (not at
Carlensville), on the afternoon of April 11, 1897, (not on April 10).
29. "Hovered over an Ohio town." New York Herald, April 20, 1897, p.7 c.3.
Correct quote: "...left the impression...."
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THERE have been published several observations upon a signal-like regularity
of the Barisal Guns, which, because unaccompanied by phenomena that could be
considered seismic, may have been detonations in the sky, and which,
because, according to some hearers, they seemed to come from the sky, may
have come from some region stationary in the local sky of Barisal. In
Nature, 61-127, appears a report by Henry S. Schurr, who investigated the
sounds in the years 1890-91:(1)
"These Guns are always heard in triplets, ie. three guns are always heard,
one after the other, at regular intervals, and, though several guns may be
heard the number is always three or a multiple of three. Then the interval
between the three is always constant, ie. the interval between the first and
the second is the same as the interval between the second and the third, and
this interval is usually three seconds, though I have heard it up to ten
seconds. The interval, however, between the triplets varies, and varies
largely, from a few seconds up to hours and days. Sometimes only one series
of triplets is heard in a day; at others the triplets follow with great
regularity, and I have counted as many as forty-five of them, one after the
other, without pause."
In vols. 16 and 17, Ciel et Terre, M. Van den Broeck published a series of
papers upon the mysterious sounds that had been heard in Belgium.(2)
July, 1892 -- heard near Brée, by Dr. Raemaekers, of Antwerp -- detonations
at regular intervals of about 12 seconds, repeated about 20 times.
Aug. 5, 1892 -- near Dunkirk, by Prof. Gérard, of Brussels -- four reports
like sounds of cannons.
Aug. 17, 1893 -- between Ostend and Ramsgate, by Prof. Gérard -- a series of
distinct explosions -- state of the sky giving no reason to think that they
were meteorological manifestations. [179/180]
Sept. 5, 1893 -- at Middelkirke -- loud sounds of remarkable intensity.
Sept. 8, 1893 -- English Channel near Dover -- by Prof. Gérard -- an
explosive sound.
In Ciel et Terre, 16-485, M. Van den Broeck records an experience of his
own.(3) Upon June 25, 1894, at Louvain, he had heard detonations like
discharges of artillery: he tabulates the intervals in a series of sounds.
If there is signalling from some unknown region over Belgium, and not far
from the surface of this earth, or from extra-mundane vessels, and if there
were something of the code-like, resembling the Morse alphabet, perhaps, in
this series of sounds, there can be small hope of interpreting such limited
material, but there may be suggestion to someone to record all sounds and
their intervals and modulations, if, with greater duration, such phenomena
should ever occur again. The intervals were four minutes and twenty-three
minutes; then three minutes, four, three quarters, three and three quarters,
three quarters.
Sept. 16, 1895 -- a triplet of detonations, heard by M. de Schryvere, of
Brussels.
There were attempts to explain. Some of M. Van den Broeck's correspondents
thought that there had been firing from forts on the coast of England, and
somebody thought that the phenomena should be attributed to gravitational
effects of the moon. Upon Sept. 13, 1895, four shocks were felt and sounds
heard at Southampton: a series of three and then another, (Nature, 52-552);
but I have no other notes upon sounds that were heard in England at this
time, except the two explosions that were explained by the police of
London.(4) However, M. Van den Broeck says that Mr. Harmer, of Alderburgh,
Suffolk, had, about the first of November, heard booming sounds that had
been attributed to cannonading at Harwich. Mr. Harmer had heard other sounds
that had been attributed to cannonading somewhere else. He could not offer a
definite opinion upon the first sounds, but had investigated the others,
learning that the attribution was a mistake.(5)
It was M. de Schryvere's opinion that the triplet of detonations that he had
heard was from vessels in the North Sea.(6) But now, [180/181] according to
developments, the sounds of Belgium cannot very well be attributed to
terrestrial cannonading in or near Belgium: in Ciel et Terre, 16-614, are
quoted two artillery officers who had heard the sounds, but could not so
trace them: one of these officers had heard a series of detonations with
intervals of about two minutes.(7) A variety of explanations was attempted,
but in conventional terms, and if these localized, repeating sounds did come
from the sky, there's nothing to it but a new variety of attempted
explanations, and in most unconventional terms. There are recorded definite
impressions that the sounds were in the sky: Prof. Peleseneer's positivement
aérien.(8) In Ciel et Terre, 17-14, M. Van den Broeck announced that General
Hennequin, of Brussels, had co-operated with him, and had sent enquiries to
army officers and other persons, receiving thirty replies.(9) Some of these
correspondents had heard detonations at regular intervals. It is said that
the sounds were like cannonading, but not in one instance were the sounds
traced to terrestrial gunfire.
January 24, 1896 -- a triplet of triplets -- between 2.30 and 3.30, P.M. --
by M. Overloop, of Middelkirke, Belgium -- three series of detonations, each
of three sounds.(10)
The sounds went on, but, after this occurrence, there seems to me to be
little inducement to continue upon this subject. This is indication that
from somewhere there has been signalling: from extra-mundane vessels to one
another, or from some unknown region to this earth, as nearly final as we
can hope to find. There are persons who will see nothing but a
susceptibility to the mysticism of numbers in a feeling that there is
significance in threes of threes. But, if there be attempt in some other
world to attract attention upon this earth, it would have to be addressed to
some state of mind that would feel significances. Let our three threes be as
mystic as the eleven horns on Daniel's fourth animal; if throughout nature
like human nature there be only superstition as to such serialization, that
superstition, for want of something more nearly intelligent, would be a
susceptibility to which to appeal, and from which response might be
expected. I think that a sense of mystic significance in the number three
may be universal, because upon this earth it is general, appearing in
[181/182] theologies, in the balanced composition of all the arts, in
logical demonstrations, and in the indefinite feelings that are supposed to
be superstitious.
The sounds went on, as if there were experiments, or attempts to communicate
by means of other regularizations and repetitions. Feb. 18, 1896 -- a series
of more than 20 detonations, at intervals of 2 or 3 minutes, heard at
Ostend, by M. Pulzeys, an engineer of Brussels.(11) Four or five sounds were
heard at Ostend by someone else: repeated upon the 21st of February.(12)
Heard by M. Overloop, at Ostend, April 6: detonations at 11.57.30 A.M., and
at 12.1.32 P.M. Heard the next day, by M. Overloop, at Blankenberghe, at
2.35 and 2.51 P.M.(13)
The last occurrence recorded by M. Van den Broeck was upon the English
Channel.(14) May 23, 1896: detonations at 3.20 and 3.40 P.M., I have no more
data, as to this period, myself, but I have notes upon similar sounds, by no
means so widely reported and commented upon, in France and Belgium about 15
years later. One notices that the old earthquake-explanation as to these
sounds has not appeared.
But there were other phenomena in England, in this period, and to
considerable degree they were conventionally explained. They were not of the
type of the Belgian phenomena, and, because manifestations were seen and
felt, as well as heard, they were explained in terms of meteors and
earthquakes. But in this double explanation, we meet a divided opposition,
and no longer are we held back by the uncompromising attempt by exclusionist
science to attribute all disturbances of this earth's surface to
subterranean origin. The admission by Symons and Fordham that we have
recorded, as to occurrences of 1887-89, has survived.
The earliest of accounts that I have read of the quakes in the general
region of Worcester and Hereford (London Triangle) that associated with
appearances in the sky, was published by two church wardens in the years
1661, as to occurrences of October, 1661, and is entitled, A True and
Perfect Relation of the Terrible Earthquake.(15) It is said that monstrous
flaming things were seen in the sky, and that phenomena below were
interesting. We are told, "truly and perfectly," that Mrs. Margaret Petmore
fell in labor and brought forth three male offspring all of whom [183/184]
had teeth and spoke at birth. Inasmuch as it is not recorded what the
infants said, and whether in plain English or not, it is not so much an
extraordinary birth such as, in one way or another, occurs from time to
time, that affronts our conventional notions, as it is the idea that there
could be relation between the abnormal in obstetrics and the unusual in
terrestrics. The conventional scientist has just this reluctance towards
considering shocks of this earth and phenomena in the sky at the same time.
If he could accept with us that there often has been relation, the seeming
discord would turn into commonplace, but with us he would never again want
to hear of extraordinary detonating meteors exploding only by coincidence
over a part of this earth where an earthquake was occurring, or of
concussions of this earth, time after time, in one small region, from
meteors that, only by coincidence, happened to explode in one little local
sky, time after time. Give up the idea that this earth moves, however, and
coincidences many times repeated do not have to be lugged in.
Our subject now is the supposed earthquake centering around Worcester and
Hereford, Dec. 17, 1896; but there may have been related events, leading up
to this climax, signifying long duration of something in the sky that
occasionally manifested relatively to this corner of the London Triangle.
Mrs. Margaret Petmore was too sensational a person for our liking, at least
in our colder and more nearly scientific moments, so we shall not date so
far back as the time of her performance; but the so-called earthquakes of
Oct. 6, 1863, and of Oct. 30, 1868, were in this region, and we had data for
thinking that they were said to be earthquakes only because they could not
be traced to terrestrial explosions.
At 5.45 P.M., Nov. 2, 1893, a loud sound was heard at a place ten miles
northeast of Worcester, and no shock was felt (Nature, 49-245); however at
Worcester and in various parts of the west of England and in Wales a shock
was felt.(16)
According to James G. Wood, writing in Symons' Met. Mag., 29-8, at 9.30
P.M., January 25, 1894, at Llanthomas and Clifford, towns less than 20 miles
west of Hereford, a brilliant light was seen in the sky, an explosion was
heard, and a quake was felt.(17) Half an hour later, something else
occurred: according to Denning (Nature, 49-325), it was in several places,
near Hereford and Wor- [183/184] cester, supposed to be an earthquake.(18)
But, at Stokesay Vicarage, Shropshire (Symons' Met. Mag., 29-8), was seen
the same kind of an appearance as that which had been seen at Llanthomas and
Clifford, half an hour before: an illumination so brilliant that for half a
minute everything was almost as visible as by daylight.(19)
In English Mechanic, 74-155, David Packer calls attention to "a strange
meteoric light" that was seen in the sky, at Worcester, during the quake of
Dec. 17, 1896, I should say that this was the severest shock felt in the
British Isles, in the 19th century, with the exception of the shock of April
22, 1884, in the eastern point of the London Triangle.(20) There was
something in the sky. In Nature, 55-179, J. Lloyd Bozward writes that, at
Worcester, a great light was seen in the sky, at the time of the shock, and
that, in another town, "a great blaze" had been seen in the sky.(21) In
Symons' Met. Mag., 31-180, are recorded many observations upon lights that
were seen in the sky.(22) In an appendix to his book, The Hereford
Earthquake of 1896, Dr. Charles Davison says that at the time of the quake
(5.30 A.M.) there was a luminous object in the sky, and that it "traversed a
large part of the disturbed area."(23) He says that it was a meteor, and an
extraordinary meteor that lighted up the ground so that one could have
picked up a pin. With the data so far considered, almost anyone would think
that of course an object had exploded in the sky, shaking the earth
underneath. Dr. Davison does not say this. He says that the meteor only
happened to appear over a part of this earth where an earthquake was
occurring "by a strange coincidence."
Suppose that, with ordinary common sense, he had not lugged in his "strange
coincidence," and had written that of course the shock was concussion from
an explosion in the sky --
Shocks that had been felt before midnight, Dec. 17, and at 1.30 or 1.45, 2,
3, 3.30, 4, 5, and 5.20, and then others at 5.40 or 5.45 and at 6.15 o'clock
-- and were they, too, concussions, but fainter and from remoter explosions
in the sky -- and why not, if of course the great shock at 5.30 o'clock was
from a great explosion in the sky -- and by what multiplication of
strangeness of co- [184/185] incidence could detonating meteors, or
explosions of any other kind, so localize in the one little sky of
Worcester, if this earth be a moving earth -- and how could their origin be
otherwise than a fixed region nearby?
In some minds it may be questionable that the earth could be so affected as
it was at 5.30 A.M., Dec. 17, 1896, by an explosion in the sky.(24) Upon
Feb. 10, 1896, a tremendous explosion occurred in the sky of Madrid:
throughout the city windows were smashed; a wall in the building occupied by
the American Legation was thrown down. The people of Madrid rushed to the
streets, and there was a panic in which many were injured. For five hours
and a half, a luminous cloud of débris hung over Madrid, and stones fell
from the sky.
Suppose, just at present, we disregard all the Worcester-Hereford phenomena
except those of Dec. 17, 1896. Draw a diagram, illustrating a stream of
meteors pursuing this earth, now supposed to be rotating and revolving, for
more than 400,000 miles in its orbit, and curving around gracefully and
unerringly after the rotating earth, so as to explode precisely in this
little local sky and nowhere else. But we can't think very reasonably even
of a flock of birds flying after and so precisely pecking one spot on an
apple thrown in the air by somebody. Another diagram -- stationary earth --
bombardment of any kind one chooses to think of -- same point hit every time
-- thinkable.
The phenomena associate with an opposition of Mars. Dec. 10, 1896 --
opposition of Mars.(25)
But we have gone on rather elaborately with perhaps an insufficiency to base
upon. We cannot say, directly, that all the phenomena of the night Dec. 16-
17, 1896, were shocks from explosions in the sky: only during the greatest
of the concussions was something seen, or was something near enough to be
seen.
We apply the idea of diagrams to another series of occurrences in this
period. Now draw a diagram relatively to the sky of Florida, and see just
what the explanation of coincidence demands or exacts. But then consider the
diagram as one of the earth that does not move and of something that is
fixed over a point upon its surface. Things can be thought of as coming down
[185/186] from somewhere else to one special sky of this earth, as logically
as precariously placed objects on one special window sill sometimes come
down to a special neighbor.
In the Monthly Weather Review, 23-57, is a report, by the Director of the
Florida Weather Service, upon "mysterious sounds" and luminous effects in
the sky of Florida.(26) According to investigation, these phenomena did
occur in the sky of Florida, about noon, Feb. 7, 1895, again at 5 o'clock in
the morning of the 8th, and again between 6 and 10 o'clock, night of the
8th. The Editor of the Review thinks that three meteors may have exploded so
in succession in the sky of Florida, and nowhere else, "by coincidence."
[186]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Henry S. Schurr. "Barisal guns." Nature, 61 (December 7, 1899): 127-8, at
128. Correct quotes: "...I have timed up to ten seconds...," and, "...one
after the other, without a pause."
2. E. Van Den Broeck. "Un phénomène mystérieux de la physique du globe."
Ciel et Terre, 16: 447-74, 479-501, 516-30, 535-46, 601-16; and, 17: 4-15,
37-43, 99-109, 148-57, 183-91, 208-19, 348-53, 399-407; at 16, 608-13; and,
at 17, 210. The observer, near Brée, was D. Raeymaekers, (not Raemaekers),
of Anvers.
3. E. Van Den Broeck. "Un phénomène mystérieux de la physique du globe."
Ciel et terre, 16, 447-474, 479-501, 516-530, 535-546, 601-616; and, 17, 4-
15, 37-43, 99-109, 148-157, 183-191, 208-219, 348-353, 399-407; at 16: 484-
5, 538. The first intervals were four minutes, then twenty (not twenty-
three), then three, then four, etc.
4. "Notes." Nature, 52 (October 3, 1895): 551-3, at 552.
5. Ibid, at 17, 213-4.
6. Ibid, 16, 538.
7. E. Van Den Broeck. "Un phénomène mystérieux de la physique du globe."
Ciel et terre, 16, 447-474, 479-501, 516-530, 535-546, 601-616; and, 17, 4-
15, 37-43, 99-109, 148-157, 183-191, 208-219, 348-353, 399-407; at 16, 614.
8. Ibid, 16, 540. The statement is by Prof. Pelseneer, not Peleseneer.
9. E. Van Den Broeck. "Un phénomène mystérieux de la physique du globe."
Ciel et terre, 16, 447-474, 479-501, 516-530, 535-546, 601-616; and, 17, 4-
15, 37-43, 99-109, 148-157, 183-191, 208-219, 348-353, 399-407; at 17, 14.
10. Ibid, 17, 99.
11. Ibid, 17, 218. The name of the engineer was Putzeys, not Pulzeys.
12. Ibid, 17, 217. The sounds were heard at Ostend on February 20, 1896, and
repeated on the next day.
13. Ibid, 17, 185-6.
14. Ibid, 17, 217-8.
15. True and perfect relation of the terrible earthquake.
16. "Notes." Nature, 49 (November 9, 1893): 33-8, at 34-5.
17. James G. Wood. "The meteoric phenomena of January 25th." Symons'
Meteorological Magazine, 29, 8-11, at 8-9.
18. "The large fireball of January 25." Nature, 49 (February 1, 1894): 324-
5.
19. James G. Wood. "The meteoric phenomena of January 25th." Symons'
Meteorological Magazine, 29, 8-11, at 9.
20. David E. Packer. "Earthquakes and meteors." English Mechanic, 74
(September 27, 1901): 155-6.
21. "The earthquake of December 17." Nature, 55 (December 24, 1896): 178-9.
The "great blaze of light low in the northern horizon, continuing for two or
three seconds," was observed by Russell Dirrell, of North Piddle.
22. "The earthquake of December 17th, 1896." Symons' Meteorological
Magazine, 31 (January 1897): 177-85, at 183.
23. Charles Davison. Hereford Earthquake of December 17, 1896.
24. Nicholas Camille Flammarion. Astronomy for amateurs. 212-213. At 9:30
A.M., a meteor fell in front of the National Museum.
25. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1896. 2nd ed.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Equipment, 1895, 491.
26. "The noise made by a meteor." Monthly Weather Review, 23 (February
1895): 57-8. The editor does not speculate upon the localization in Florida,
even as coincidence. "It is perfectly possible that three meteors occurred:
(1) at 11.30 a.m. of the 7th, (2) at 5.30 a.m. of the 8th, and (3) between 6
and 10 p.m. of the 8th."
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
CHAR me the trunk of a redwood tree. Give me pages of white chalk cliffs to
write upon. Magnify me thousands of times, and replace my trifling
immodesties with a titanic megalomania -- then I might write largely enough
for our subjects. Because of accessibility and abundance of data, our
accounts deal very much with the relatively insignificant phenomena of Great
Britain. But our subject, if not so restricted, would be the violences that
have screamed from the heavens, lapping up villages with tongues of fire.
If, because of appearances in the sky, it be accepted that some of the so-
called earthquakes of Italy and South America represented relations with
regions beyond this earth, then is accepted that some of this earth's
greatest catastrophes have been relation with the unknown and the external.
We have data that seem to be indications of signalling, but not unless we
can think that foreign giants have hurled explosive mountains at this earth
can we see such indications in all the data.
Our data do seem to fall into two orders of phenomena: sounds of Melida,
Barisal, and Belgium, and nothing falling from the sky, and nothing seen in
the sky, and excellently supported observations for accepting a signal-like
intent in intervals and groupings of sounds, at least in Barisal and
Belgium; and the unregularized phenomena of Worcester-Hereford, Colchester,
Comrie, and Birmingham, in which appearances are seen in the sky, or in
which substances fall from the sky, and in which effects upon this earth,
not noted at all in Belgium and Bengal, are great, and sometimes tremendous.
It seems that extra-geography divides into the extra-sociologic and the
extra-physical; and in the second type of phenomena, we suppose the data are
of physical relations between this earth and other worlds. We think of a
difference of potential. There were tremendous detonations in the sky at the
times of the falls of the little black stones of Birmingham and
Wolverhampton, and the electric manifestations, according to de- [187/188]
scriptions in the newspapers, were extraordinary, and great volumes of water
fell. Consequently the events were supposed to be thunderstorms. I suppose,
myself, that they were electric storms, but electric storms that represented
difference in potential between this earth and some region that was fixed,
at least eleven years, over Birmingham and Wolverhampton, bringing down
stones and volumes of water from some other world, or bringing down stones,
and dislodging intervening volumes of water, such as we have many data for
thinking exist in outer space, sometimes in bodies of warm or hot water, and
sometimes as great masses, or fields, of ice.
Let two objects be generically similar, but specifically different and a
relation that may be known as a difference of potential, though that term is
usually confined to electric relations, generates between them. Quite as the
Gulf Stream -- though there are no reasons to suppose that there is such a
Gulf Stream as one reads of -- represents a relation between bodies of water
heated differently, given any two worlds, alike in general constitution, but
differing, say, electrically, and given proximity, we conceive of relations
between them other than gravitational.
But this cloistered earth, and its monkish science -- shrinking from,
denying, or disregarding, all data of external relations, except some one
controlling force that was once upon a time known as Jehovah, but that has
been re-named Gravitation --
That the electric exchanges that were recognized by the ancients, but that
were anthropomorphically explained by them, have poured from the sky and
have gushed to the sky, afferently and efferently, between this earth and
the nearby planets, or between this mainland and its San Salvadors, and have
been recognized by the moderns, or the neo-ancients, but have been
meteorologically and seismologically misconstrued by them.
When a village spouts to the sky, it is said to have been caught up in a
cyclone: when unknown substances fall from the sky, not much of anything is
said upon the subject.
Lost tribes and nations that have disappeared from the face of this earth --
that the skies have reeked with terrestrial civilizations, spreading out in
celestial stagnations, where their remains to this day may be. The Mayans --
and what became [188/189] of them? Bones of the Mayans, picked white as
frost by space-scavengers, spread upon existence like the pseudo-breath of
Death, crystallized on a sky-pane. Three times gaps wide and dark the
history of Egypt -- and that these abysses were gulfed by disappearances --
that some of the eliminations from this earth may have been upward
translations in functional suctions.(1) We conceive of Supervision upon this
earth's development, but for it the names Jehovah and Allah seem old-
fashioned -- that the equivalence of wrath, but like the storms of cells
that, in an embryonic thing, invade and destroy cartilage-cells, when they
have outlived their usefulness, have devastated this earth's undesirables.
Likely enough, or not quite likely enough, one of these earlier Egypts was
populated by sphinxes, if one can suppose that some of the statuary still
extant in Egypt were portraitures. This is good, though also not so good,
orthodox Evolutionary doctrine -- that between types occur transitionals --
That Elimination and Redistribution swept an earlier Egypt with suctions --
because it is written, in symbols of embryonic law, that life upon this
earth must form onward -- and the crouching sphinx on the sands of Egypt,
blinking the mysticism of her morphologic mixtures, would perhaps detain
forever the less interesting type that was advancing --
That often has Clarification destroyed transitionals, that they shall not
hold back development.
One conceives of their remains, to this day, wafting still in the currents
of the sky: floating avenues of frozen sphinxes, solemnly dipping in cosmic
undulations, down which circulate processions of Egyptian mummies.
An astronomer upon this earth notes that things in parallel lines have
crossed the sun.
We offer this contribution as comparing favorably with the works of any
other historian. We think that some of the details may need revision, but
that what they typify is somewhere nearly acceptable.
Latitudes and longitudes of bones, not in the sky, but upon the surface of
this earth, Baron Toll and other explorers have, upon the surface of this
earth, kicked their way through networks [189/190] of ribs and protrusions
of skulls and stacks of vertebrae, as numerous as if from dead land they
sprouted there.(2) Anybody who has read of these tracts of bones upon the
northern coast of Siberia, and of some of the outlying islands that are
virtually composed of bones cemented with icy sand, will agree with me that
there have been cataclysms of which conventionality and standardization tell
us nothing. Once upon a time, some unknown force translated, from somewhere,
a million animals to Colorado, where their remains now form great bone-
quarries. Very largely do we express a reaction against dogmatism, and
sometimes we are not dogmatic, ourselves. We don't know very positively
whether at times the animal life of some other world has been swept away
from that world or not, eventually pouring from the sky of Siberia and of
Colorado, in some of the shockingest floods of mammoths from which spattered
cats and rabbits, in cosmic scenery, or not. All that we can say is that
when we turn to conventionality it is to blankness or suppression. Every now
and then, to this day, occurs an alleged fall of blood from the sky, and I
have notes upon at least one instance in which the microscopically examined
substance was identified as blood. But now we conceive of intenser times,
when every now and then a red cataract hung in the heavens like the bridal
veil of the goddess of murder. But the science of today is a soporific like
the idealism of Europe before the War broke out. Science and idealism --
wings of a vampire that lulls consciousness that might otherwise foresee
catastrophe. Showers of frogs and showers of fishes that occur to this day -
- that they are the dwindled representatives to this day of the cataclysms
of intenser times when the skies of this earth darkened by afferent clouds
of dinosaurs. We conceive of intenser times, but we conceive of all times as
being rhythmic times. We are too busy to take up alarmism, but, if Rome, for
instance, never was destroyed by terrestrial barbarians, if we can not very
well think of Apaches seizing Chicago, extra-mundane vandals may often have
swooped down upon this earth, and they may swoop again; and it may be a
comfort to us, some day, to mention in our last gasp that we told about
this.
History, geology, palæontology, astronomy, meteorology -- that [190/191]
nothing short of cataclysmic thinking can break down these united walls of
Exclusionism.
Unknown monsters sometimes appear in the ocean. When, upon the closed system
of normal preoccupations, a story of a sea serpent appears, it is
inhospitably treated. To us of the wider cordialities, it has
recommendations for kinder reception. I think that we shall be noted in
recognitions of good works for our bizarre charities. Far back in the
topography of the nineteenth century, Richard Proctor was almost submerged
in an ocean of smugness, but now and then he was a little island emerging
from the gently alternating doubts and satisfactions of his era, and by
means of several papers upon the "sea serpent" he so protruded and gave
variety to a dreary uniformity. Proctor reviewed some of the stories of "sea
serpents."(3) He accepted some of them. This will be news to some
conventionalists. But the mystery that he could not solve is their
conceivable origin. To be sure this earth may not be round, or top-shaped,
and may tower away somewhere, perhaps with the great Antarctic plateau at
its foothills, to a gigantic existence commensurate throughout with sea
monsters that sometimes reach regions unknown to us. Judging by our
experience in other fields of research, we suspect that this earth never has
been traversed except in conventional trade-routes and standard
explorations. One supposes that enormous forms of life that have appeared
upon the surface of the ocean, did not come from conditions of great
pressure below the surface. If there is no habitat of their own, in unknown
seas of this earth, the monsters fell from the sky, surviving for a while.
In his day, Charles Lyell never said a more preposterous thing than this --
however, we have no idea that mere preposterousness is a criterion.
Then at times the things have fallen upon land, presumably. To scientific
minds in their present anæmia of malnutrition, we offer new nourishment.
There are materials for a science of neo-palæontology -- as it were -- at
least a new view of animal-remains upon this earth. Remains of monsters,
supposed to have lived geologic ages ago, are sometimes found, not in
ancient deposits, but upon, or near, the surface of the ground, sometimes
barely covered. I have notes upon a great pile of bones, supposed to be the
remains of a whale, out in open view in a western desert. [191/192]
In the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, is the mummified
body of a monster called a trachodon, found in Converse County, Wyoming.(4)
It was not found upon the surface of the ground, which is bad for our
attempts to stimulate palæontology. But the striking datum to me is that the
only other huge mummy that I know of is another trachodon, now in the Museum
of Frankfort.(5) If only extraordinarily would geologic processes mummify
remains of a huge animal, doubly extraordinarily would two animals of the
same species be so exclusively affected. One at least gives some
consideration to the idea that these trachodons are not products of geologic
circumstances, but were affected, in common, by other circumstances. By
inspiration, or progressive deterioration, one then conceives of the things
as having wafted and dried in space, finally falling to this earth. Our
swooping vandals are relieved with showering mummies. Life is turning out to
be interesting.
Organic substances like life-fluids of living things have rained from the
sky. However, it is enough for our general purposes to make acceptable
simply that unknown substances have, in large quantities, fallen from the
sky. That is neo-ism enough, it seems to me. I consider, myself, all such
data relatively to this earth's stationariness or possible motions. In Ciel
et Terre, 22-198, it is said that, about 2 P.M., June 8, 1901, a glue-like
substance fell at Sart.(6) The story is told by an investigator, M. Michael,
a meteorologist. He says that he saw this substance falling from the sky,
but does not give an estimate of duration: he says that he arrived during
the last five minutes of the shower. Editors and extra-geographers can't
help trying to explain. The Editor of Ciel et Terre writes that, three days
before, there had been, at Antwerp, a great fire, in which, among other
substances, a large quantity of sugar had been burned. He asks whether there
could be any connection. Antwerp is about 80 miles from Sart.
Sept. 2, 1905 -- the tragedy of the space-pig:
In the English Mechanic, 86-100, Col. Markwick writes that, according to the
Cambrian Natural Observer, something was seen in the sky, at Llangollen,
Wales, Sept. 2, 1905.(7) It is described as an intensely black object, about
two miles above the earth's [192/193] surface, moving at the rate of about
twenty miles an hour. Col. Markwick writes: "Could it have been a balloon?"
We give Col. Markwick good rating as an extra-geographer, but of the early
or differentiating type, a transitional, if not a sphinx: so he was not
quite developed enough to publish the details of this object. In the
Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905-35 -- the journal of the Astronomical
Society of Wales -- it is said that, according to accounts in the
newspapers, an object had appeared in the sky, at Llangollen, Wales, Sept.
2, 1905.(8) At the schoolhouse, in Vroncysylite -- I think that's it: with
all my credulity, some of these Welsh names look incredible to me, in my
notes -- the thing in the sky had been examined through powerful field
glasses. We are told that it had short wings, and flew, or moved, in a way
described as "casually inclining sideways." It seemed to have four legs and
looked to be about ten feet long. According to several witnesses it looked
like a huge, winged pig, with webbed feet. "Much speculation was rife as to
what the mysterious object could be."
Five days later, according to a member of the Astronomical Society of Wales
-- see Cambrian Observer, 1905-30 -- a purple-red substance fell from the
sky, at Llanelly, Wales.(9)
I don't know that my own attitude toward these data is understood, and I
don't know that it matters in the least; also from time to time my own
attitude changes: but very largely my feeling is that not much can be, or
should be, concluded from our meagre accounts, but that so often are these
occurrences, in our fields, reported, that several times every year there
will be occurrences that one would like to have investigated by someone who
believes that we have written nothing but bosh, and by someone who believes
in our data almost religiously. It may be that, early in February, 1892, a
luminous thing travelled back and forth, exploring for ten hours in the sky
of Sweden. The story is copied from a newspaper, and ridiculed, in the
English Mechanic, 55-34.(10) Upon March 7, 1893, a luminous object shaped
like an elongated pear was seen in the sky of Val-de-la-Haye, by M. Raimond
Coulon (L'Astro., 1893-169).(11) M. Coulon's suggestion is that the light
may have been a signal suspended from a balloon. The signal-idea is
interesting. [193/194]
In the summer of 1897, several weeks after Prof. Andrée and his two
companions had sailed in a balloon, from Amsterdam Island, Spitzbergen, it
was reported that a balloon had been seen in British Columbia.(12) There was
wide publicity: the report was investigated. It may be that had a
terrestrial balloon escaped from somewhere in the United States or Canada,
or if there had been a balloon-ascension at this time, the circumstances
would have been reported: it may well be that the object was not Andrée's
balloon. President Bell, of the National Geographic Society, heard of this
object, and heard that details had been sent to the Swedish Foreign Office,
and cabled to the American Minister, at Stockholm, for information. He
publishes his account in the National Geographic Magazine, 9-102.(13) He was
referred to the Swedish Consul, at San Francisco. In reply to inquiry, the
Consul telegraphed the following data, which had been collected by the
President of the Geographical Society of the Pacific:
"Statement of a balloon passing over the Horse-Fly Hydraulic Mining Camp, in
Caribou, British Columbia, 52, 20', and Longitude 120, 30' --
"From letters of J.B. Robson, Manager of the Caribou Mining Co., and of Mrs.
Wm. Sullivan, the blacksmith's wife, there, and a statement of Mr. John J.
Newsome, San Francisco, then at camp. About 2 or 3 o'clock, in the
afternoon, between fourth and seventh of August last, weather calm and
cloudless, Mrs. Sullivan, while looking over the Hydraulic Bank, noticed a
round, grayish-looking object in the sky, to the right of the sun. As she
watched, it grew larger and was descending. She saw the larger mass of the
balloon above, and a smaller mass apparently suspended from the larger. It
continued to descend, until she plainly recognized it as a balloon and a
large basket hanging thereto. It finally commenced to swing violently back
and forth, and move very fast toward the eastward and northward. Mrs.
Sullivan called her daughter, aged 18, and about this time Mrs. Robson and
her daughter were observing it."(14)
If someone saw a strange fish in the ocean, we'd like to know -- what was it
like? Stripes on him -- spots -- what? It would be unsatisfactory to be told
over and over only that a dark body had crossed some waves. In Cosmos, n.s.
39-356, a satisfactory [194/195] correspondent writes that, at Lille,
France, Sept. 4, 1898, he saw a red object in the sky.(15) It was like the
planet Mars, but was in the position of no known planet. He looked through
his telescope, and saw a rectangular object, with a violet-colored band on
one side of it, and the rest of it striped with black and red. He watched it
ten minutes, during which time it was stationary; then, like the object that
was seen at the time of the Powell-mystery, it cast out sparks and
disappeared.
In the English Mechanic, 75-417, Col. Markwick writes that, upon May 10,
1902, a friend of his had seen in the sky, in South Devon, a great number of
highly colored objects like little suns or toy balloons.(16) "Altogether
beats me," says Col. Markwick.
Upon March 2, 1899, a luminous object in the sky, from 10 A.M., until 4
P.M., was reported from El Paso, Texas. Mentioned in the Observatory, 22-247
-- supposed to have been Venus, even though Venus was then two months past
secondary maximum brilliance.(17) That seems reasonable enough, in itself,
but there are other data for thinking that an unknown, luminous body was at
this time in the especial sky of the southernmost states. In the U. S.
Weather Bureau Report (Ariz. Sec., March, 1899) it is said, at Prescott,
Arizona, Dr. Warren E. Day had seen a luminous object, upon the 8th of
March, "that travelled with the moon" all day, until 2 P.M.(18) It is said
that, the day before, this object had been seen close to the moon, by Mr. G.
O. Scott, at Tonto, Arizona. Dr. Day and Mr. Scott were voluntary observers
for the Weather Review. This association with the moon and this localization
of observation are puzzling.
La Nature (Sup.) Nov. 11, 1899 -- that at Luzarches, France, upon the 28th
of October, 1899, M. A. Garrie had seen, at 4.50 P.M., a round, luminous
object rising above the horizon.(19) About the size of the moon.(20) He
watched it for 15 minutes, as it moved away, diminishing to a point. It may
be that something from external regions was for several weeks in the
especial sky of France. In La Nature (Sup.) Dec. 16, 1899, someone writes
that he had seen, Nov. 15, 1899, 7 P.M., at Dourite (Dordogne) an object
like an enormous star, at times white, then red, and sometimes blue, but
moving like a kite.(21) It was in the south. He had never seen it before.
Someone, in the issue of December 30th, says [195/196] that, without doubt
it was the star Formalhaut, and asks for precise position.(22) Issue of Jan.
20, 1900 -- the first correspondent says that the object was in the
southwest, about 35 degrees above the horizon, but moving so that the
precise position could not be stated.(23) The kite-like motion may have been
merely seeming motion -- object may have been Formalhaut, though 35 degrees
above the horizon seems to me to be too high for Formalhaut -- but, then,
like the astronomers, I'm likely at times to expose what I don't know about
astronomy. Formalhaut is not an enormous star. Seventeen are larger.(24)
May 1, 1908, between 8 and 9 P.M., at Vittel, France -- an object, with a
nebulosity around it, diameter equal to the moon's, according to a
correspondent to Cosmos, n.s., 58-535.(25) At 9 o'clock a black band
appeared upon the object, and moved obliquely across it, then disappearing.
The Editor thinks that the object was the planet Venus, under extraordinary
meteorologic conditions.
Dark obj., by Prof. Brooks, July 21, 1896 (Eng. Mec., 64-12); dark object,
by Gathmann, Aug. 22, 1896 (Sci. Amer. Sup., 67-363); two luminous objects,
by Prof. Swift, evidently in a local sky of California, because unseen
elsewhere in California, Sept. 20, and one of them again, Sept. 21, 1896
(Astro. Jour., 17-8, 103); "Waldemath's second moon," Feb. 5, 1898 (Eng.
Mec., 67-545); unknown obj., March 30, 1908 (Observatory, 31-215); dark
obj., Nov. 10, 1908 (Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 23-74).(26) [196]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Until some fresh light shall be thrown upon this point by the progress
of discovery, the uncertainty attaching to the Egyptian chronology must
continue, and for the early period must be an uncertainty, not of centuries,
but of millennia." George Rawlinson. History of Ancient Egypt. London:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1881, v. 2, 11. "There are two great intermediate
Periods separating the Old Kingdom (Dyns. IV-VI) from the Middle (Dyns. XI,
XII), and the Middle from the New (Dyns. XVIII-XX), after which follow four
centuries of foreign encroachment before the Renaissance of the rulers of
Sais (Dyn. XXVI) sets in. For the three troubled ages just mentioned the
monuments are sparse and singularly uninformative, and it is only when fresh
families of strong monarchs climbed into power that narratives of events
become at all frequent." Alan Gardiner. Egypt of the Pharoahs: An
Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, (1961), 1964, 55.
2. P. Kropotkin. "Baron Toll on New Siberia and the circumpolar Tertiary
flora." Geographical Journal, 16 (July 1900): 95-8.
3. "But it is well to notice that, although in numbers of cases objects
taken for sea monsters have turned out to be inanimate masses, none of these
interpretations of so-called sea-serpent stories can in the slightest degree
negative the evidence obtained in such cases as that of the Daedalus,
Government frigate, in which Captain McQuhae and his officers saw a sea
creature unlike any known to science, travelling along against the wind and
sea, at the rate of twelve knots an hour, with the waves curling against its
breast, and at a distance of less than 200 yards; so that, as Captain
McQuhae puts it, a friend's countenance would have been recognizable at the
distance. In several other cases the evidence has been equally decisive."
Richard Anthony Proctor. Miscellaneous Essays. New York: J. Fitzgerald,
(October) 1884. Humboldt Library of Popular Science Literature, no. 61, 39-
40, c.v. "Strange sea creatures." "Strange sea monsters." New York Times,
February 5, 1877, p. 5 c. 6.
4. Natural history or American Museum Journal, (January 1911).
5. Another mummified trachodon was found in Kansas. "A dinosaur mummy."
Field, 117 (February 11, 1911): 281.
6. "Pluie énigmatique." Ciel et Terre, 22, 198.
7. E.E. Markwick. "Signs in the sky. -- V." English Mechanic, 86 (September
6, 1907): 100. Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905, 30, 32-4.
8. Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905, 35.
9. Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905, 30.
10. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 55 (March 4, 1892): 33-8, at
34. The observation was made at Hochlanda.
11. Raimond Coulon. "Nébulosité temporaire." Astronomie, 12 (1893): 196-8.
12. "Andree's balloon in Canada." New York Times, January 14, 1898, p. 7 c.
2. Andrée's balloon was launched on July 11 and landed on July 14, 1897,
without coming anywhere close to Canada; however, this did not prevent
numerous reports of balloons being seen in Canada, including one alleged
balloon sighting, at Winnipeg, on July 1, (before Andrée's balloon had
departed from Spitsbergen). Vilhjalmur Stefasson. Unsolved Mysteries of the
Arctic. New York: Macmillan Co., 1942, 206-19.
13. J.H. "An interesting rumor concerning Andree." National Geographic
Magazine, 9 (1898): 102-3.
14. Correct quotes: "Statement of a balloon passing over the Horse-Fly
ydraulic Mining Camp in Caribou, British Columbia, in latitude fifty-two
degrees twenty minutes and longitude one hundred and twenty-one degrees
thirty minutes --
"From letters of J.B. Hobson, manager of the Caribou Hydraulic Mining
Company, and of Mrs. Wm. Sullivan, the blacksmith's wife there, and
statement of Mr. John J. Newsom, San Francisco, then at the camp. About two
or three o'clock in afternoon, between fourth and seventh of August last,
weather calm and cloudless, Mrs. Sullivan, while looking over the Hydraulic
Bank, noticed a round, gray-looking object in the sky, to the right of the
sun. As she watched, it grew larger and was descending. She saw the larger
mass of the balloon above and the small mass apparently suspended to the
larger. It continued to descend until she plainly recognized it as a balloon
and a large basket hanging thereto. It finally commenced to swing violently
back and forth and move very fast toward the eastward and northward. She
then called her daughter, eighteen years old, and after pointing the balloon
out to her they both watched it rise rapidly until it disappeared in an
easterly direction.... Mrs. Hobson had about time stated noticed Mrs.
Sullivan looking into the sky at something, and that she called her
daughter, who went to her side, looked in the direction indicated, and both
watched some object for several minutes, turning their faces from southerly
to easterly direction."
15. Cosmos; Les Mondes, s.4, "n.s." 39 (September 17, 1898): 356.
16. E.E. Markwick. "Curious phenomenon." English Mechanic, 75 (June 27,
1902): 417-8.
17. "A remarkable daylight appearance of Venus." Observatory, 22 (1899):
247.
18. "Clearness of the atmosphere in Arizona." Monthly Weather Review, 27
(March 1899): 110. Correct quote: "...traveling along with the moon...."
19. "M. A. Garrie, à Luzarches, nous fait connaitre un phénomène...." Nature
(Paris), 1899, 2 (Supplement; November 11, 1899): 94. The observation began
at 4:30 P.M., (not 4:50).
20. Typographical error.
21. "Communications." Nature (Paris), 1900 v. 1 (Supplement; December 16,
1899): 10.
22. "Communications." Nature (Paris), 1900 v. 1 (Supplement; December 30,
1899): 18.
23. "Communications." Nature (Paris), 1900 v. 1 (Supplement; January 20,
1900): 30.
24. Fort undoubtedly means "brighter," not "larger," since all stars appear
as points under telescopic magnification. As Mira is a variable star,
(sometimes brighter or dimmer than Formalhaut), it is correct to say at
least seventeen stars are brighter than Formalhaut.
25. V. Moitessier. "Un phénomène meteorologique." Cosmos: Les Mondes, s.4,
"n.s." 58 (May 16, 1908): 535.
26. "Transit of a meteor across the Moon." English Mechanic, 64 (August 21,
1896): 12. John Ellard Gore. "Some astronomical curiosities." Scientific
American Supplement, 67 (June 5, 1909): 362-3, at 363. "Guthman," not
Gathmann. "Note from Dr. L. Swift." Astronomical Journal, 17, 8. W.J.
Hussey. "Search for comet or comets reported by Swift, Sept. 20."
Astronomical Journal, 17, 103. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 66
(February 11, 1898): 596-602, at 596-7. "Scientific news." English Mechanic,
67 (July 29, 1898): 545. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 67 (July
29, 1898): 546-7. F.W. Longbottom. "Comet or -- ?" Observatory, 31 (1908):
215-6. "M.A. Jamain, à Libourne (Gironde), a observé, le 10 novembre
1908...." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 23 (1909): 74.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
COLD HARBOR, Hanover Co., Virginia -- two men in a field -- "an apparently
clear sky." In the Monthly Weather Review, 28-29, it is said that upon Aug.
7, 1900, two men were struck by lightning.(1) The Editor says that the
weather map gave no indication of a thunderstorm, nor of rain, in this
region at the time.
In July, 1904, a man was killed on the summit of Mt. Gorgionio, near the
Mojave desert. It is said that he was killed by lightning. Two days later,
upon the summit of Mt. Whitney, 180 miles away, another man was killed "by
lightning" (Ciel et Terre, 29-120).(2)
It is said, in Ciel et Terre, 17-42, that in the year 1893, nineteen
soldiers were marching near Bourges, France, when they were struck by an
unknown force.(3) It is said that in known terms there is no explanation.
Some of the men were killed, and the others struck insensible. At the
inquest it was testified that there had been no storm, and that nothing had
been heard.
If there occur upon the surface of this earth pounces from blankness and
seizures by nothings, and "sniping" with bullets of unfindable substance, we
nevertheless hesitate to bring witchcraft and demonology into our fields.
Our general subject now is the existence of a great deal that may be nearby,
or temporarily nearby, ordinarily invisible, but occasionally revealed by
special circumstances. A background of stars is not to be compared, in our
data, with the sun for a background, as a means of revelations. We accept
that there are sunspots, but we gather from general experience and special
instances that the word "sunspot" is another of the standardizing terms like
"auroral" and "meteoric" and "earthquakes." See Webb's Celestial Objects for
some observations upon large definite obscurations called "sunspots" but
which were as evanescent against the sun as would be islands and jungles of
space, if intervening only a few moments between this [197/198] earth and
the swiftly moving sun.(4) According to Webb, astronomers have looked at
great obscurations upon the sun, have turned away, and then looked again,
finding no trace of the phenomena. Eclipses are special circumstances, and
rather often have large, unknown bulks been revealed by different light-
effects during eclipses. For instance, upon Jan. 22, 1898, Lieut. Blackett,
R.N., assisting Sir Norman Lockyer, at Viziadrug, India, during the total
eclipse of the sun, saw an unknown body between Venus and Mars (Jour. Leeds
Astro. Soc., 1906-23).(5) We have had other instances, and I have notes upon
still more. The photographic plate is a special condition, or sensitiveness.
In Knowledge, 16-234, a correspondent writes that, in August, 1893, in
Switzerland, moon-lighted night, he had exposed a photographic plate for one
hour.(6) Upon the photograph, when developed, were seen irregular, bright
markings, but there had been no lightning to this correspondent's
perceptions.
The details of the sheep-panic of Nov. 3, 1888, are extraordinary. The
region affected was much greater than was supposed by the writer whom we
quoted in an earlier chapter. It is said in another account in Symons'
Meteorological Magazine, that, in a tract of land twenty-five miles long and
eight miles wide, thousands of sheep had, by simultaneous impulse, burst
from their bounds; and had been found the next morning, widely scattered,
some of them still panting with terror under hedges, and many crowded into
corners of fields.(7) See London Times, Nov. 20, 1888.(8) An idea of the
great number of flocks affected is given by one correspondent who says that
malicious mischief was out of the question, because a thousand men could not
have frightened and released all these sheep. Someone else tries to explain
that, given an alarm in one flock, it might spread to the others. But all
the sheep so burst from their folds at about eight o'clock in the evening,
and one supposes that many folds were far from contiguous, and one thinks of
such contagion requiring considerable time to spread over 200 square miles.
Something of an alarming nature and of pronounced degree occurred somewhere
near, Reading, Berkshire, upon this evening. Also there seems to be
something of special localization: the next year another panic occurred in
Berkshire not far from Reading.(9) [198/199]
I have a datum that looks very much like the revelation of a ghost-moon,
though I think of it myself in physical terms of light-effects. In Country
Queries and Notes, 1-138, 417, it is said that, in the sky of Gosport,
Hampshire, night of Sept. 14, 1908, was seen a light that came as if from an
unseen moon.(10) It may be that I can record that there was a moon-like
object in the sky of the Midlands and the south of England, this night, and
that, though to human eyesight, this world, island of space, whatever it may
have been, was invisible, it was, nevertheless, revealed. Upon this evening
of Sept. 14, 1908, David Packer, then in Northfield, Worcestershire, saw a
luminous appearance that he supposed was auroral, and photographed it. When
the photograph was developed, it was seen that the "auroral" light came from
a large, moon-like object. A reproduction of the photograph is published in
the English Mechanic, 88-211.(11) It shows an object as bright and as well-
defined as the conventionally accepted moon, but only to the camera had it
revealed itself, and Mr. Packer had caught upon film a space-island that had
been invisible to his eyes. It seems so, anyway.
In Country Queries and Notes, 1-328, it is said that, upon Aug. 2, 1908, at
Ballyconneely, Connemara coast of Ireland, was seen a phantom city of
different-sized houses, in different styles of architecture; visible three
hours.(12) It is said that no doubt the appearance was a mirage of some city
far away -- far away, but upon this earth, of course. This apparition is not
of the type that we consider so especially of our own data. The so-called
mirages that so especially interest are interesting to us not in themselves,
but in that they belong to the one order of phenomena or evidence that
unifies so many fields of our data: that is, repetitions in a local sky,
signifying the fixed position of something relatively to a small part of
this earth's surface. We can not think that mirages, terrestrial or extra-
terrestrial, could so repeat. But if in the local sky of this earth there be
a fixed region, perhaps not a city, but something of rugged and featureful
outlines, with projections that might look architectural, reflections from
it, shadows, or Brocken spectres repeating always in one special sky are
thinkable except by the Chinese-minded who regard all our data as "foreign
devils." The writer in Country [199/200] Queries and Notes says --
"Circumstantial accounts have been published of the city of Bristol being
distinctly recognized in a mirage seen occasionally in North America." If we
shall accept that anywhere in North America repeated representations of the
same city or city-like scene have appeared in the same local sky, I prefer,
myself, a foreign devil of thought, and its significance, whether hellish or
not, that this earth is stationary, to such a domestic vagrant of a thought
as the idea that mirage could so pick out the city of Bristol, or any other
city, over and over, and also invariably pick out for its screen the same
local sky, thousands of miles, or five miles away.
In the English Mechanic, Sept. 10, 1897, a correspondent to the Weekly Times
and Echo is quoted.(13) He had just returned from the Yukon. Early in June,
1897, he had seen a city pictured in the sky of Alaska. "Not one of us could
form the remotest idea in what part of the world this settlement could be.
Some guessed Toronto, others Montreal, and one of us even suggested Pekin.
But whether this city exists in some unknown world on the other side of the
North Pole, or not, it is a fact that this wonderful mirage occurs from time
to time yearly, and we were not the only ones who witnessed the spectacle.
Therefore it is evident that it must be the reflection of some place built
by the hand of man." According to this correspondent, the "mirage" did not
look like one of the cities named, but like "some immense city of the past."
In the New York Tribune, Feb. 17, 1901, it is said that Indians of Alaska
had told of an occasional appearance, as if of a city, suspended in the sky,
and that a prospector named Willoughby, having heard the stories, had
investigated, in the year 1887, and had seen the spectacle.(14) It is said
that, having several times attempted to photograph the scene, Willoughby did
finally at least show an alleged photograph of an aërial city. In Alaska, p.
140, Miner Bruce say that Willoughby, one of the early pioneers in Alaska,
after whom Willoughby Island is named, had told him of the phenomenon, and
that, early in 1889, he had accompanied Willoughby to the place over which
the mirage was said to repeat.(15) It seems that he saw nothing himself, but
he quotes a member of the Duc d'Abruzzi's expedition to Mt. St. [200/201]
Elias, summer of 1897, Mr. C.W. Thornton, of Seattle, who saw the spectacle,
and wrote -- "It required no effort of the imagination to liken it to a
city, but was so distinct that it required, instead, faith to believe that
it was not in reality a city." Bruce publishes a reproduction of
Willoughby's photograph, and says that the city was identified as Bristol,
England. So definite, or so un-mirage-like, is this reproduction, trees and
many buildings shown in detail, that one supposes that the original was a
photograph of a good-sized terrestrial city, perhaps Bristol, England.
In Chapter 10, of his book, Wonders of Alaska, Alexander Badlam tries to
explain. He publishes a reproduction of Willoughby's photograph: it is the
same as Bruce's, except that all buildings are transposed, or are negative
in positions.(16) Badlam does not like to accuse Willoughby of fraud: his
idea is that some unknown humorist had sold Willoughby a dry plate,
picturing part of the city of Bristol. My own idea is that something of this
kind did occur, and that this photograph, greatly involved in accounts of
repeating mirages, had nothing to do with mirages. Badlam then tells of
another photograph. He tells that two men, near the Muir Glacier, had, by
means of a pan of quicksilver, seen a reflection of an unknown city
somewhere, and that their idea was that it was at the bottom of the sea near
the glacier, reflecting in the sky, and reflecting back to and from the
quicksilver. That's complicated. A photographer named Taber then announced
that he had photographed this scene, as reflected in a pan of
quicksilver.(17) Badlam publishes a reproduction of Taber's photograph, or
alleged photograph. This time, for anybody who prefers to think that there
is, somewhere in the sky of Alaska, a great, unknown city, we have a most
agreeable photograph: exotic-looking city; a structure like a coliseum, and
another prominent building like a mosque, and many indefinite, mirage-like
buildings. I'd like to think this photograph genuine, myself, but I do
conceive that Taber could have taken it photographing a panorama that he had
painted. Badlam's explanation is that mirages of glaciers are common, in
Alaska, and that they look architectural. Some years ago, I read five or six
hundred pounds of literature upon the Arctic, and I should say that far-
projected mirages are not common in the Arctic: mere [201/202] looming is
common. Badlam publishes a photograph of a mirage of Muir Glacier. The
looming points of ice do look Gothic, but they are obviously only loomings,
extending only short distances from primaries, with no detachments from
primaries, and not reflecting in the sky.
For the first identification of the Willoughby photograph as a photograph of
part of the city of Bristol, see the New York Times, Oct. 20, 1889.(18) That
this photograph was somebody's hoax seem to be acceptable. But it is not
similar to the frequently reported scene in the sky of Alaska, according to
descriptions. In the New York Times, Oct. 31, 1889, is an account, by Mr.
L.B. French, of Chicago, of the spectral representation, as he saw it, near
Mt. Fairweather.(19) "We could see plainly houses, well-defined streets, and
trees. Here and there rose tall spires over huge buildings, which appeared
to be ancient mosques or cathedrals....It did not look like a modern city --
more like an ancient European City."(20)
Jour. Roy. Met. Soc., 27-158:(21)
That, every year, between June 21 and July 10, a "phantom city" appears in
the sky, over a glacier in Alaska; that features of it had been recognized
as buildings in the city of Bristol, England, so that the "mirage" was
supposed to be a mirage of Bristol. It is said that for generations these
repeating representations had been known to the Alaskan Indians, and that,
in May, 1901, a scientific expedition from San Francisco would investigate.
It is said that, except for slight changes, from year to year, the scene was
always the same.
La Nature, 1901-1-303:(22)
That a number of scientists had set out from Victoria, B.C., to Mt.
Fairweather, Alaska, to study the repeating mirage of a city in the sky,
which had been reported by the Duc d'Abruzzi, who had seen it and sketched
it. [202]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Lightning from a cloudless sky." Monthly Weather Review, 28 (July 1900):
292-3.
2. E.L. "Phénomènes électriques sur les sommets des montagnes." Ciel et
Terre, 29, 120-3. The location was San Gorgonio, not San Gorgionio.
3. E. Van Den Broeck. "Un phénomène mystérieux de la physique du globe."
Ciel et terre, 16, 447-474, 479-501, 516-530, 535-546, 601-616; 17, 4-15,
37-43, 99-109, 148-157, 183-191, 208-219, 348-353, 399-407; at 17, 41-2. The
phenomenon occurred in 1892, not in 1893.
4. Thomas William Webb. Celestial Objects. 4th ed. 1881., 27, 39-45. 6th
ed., 1917. "Herschel I. lost a group while merely turning away his eye for a
moment...."
5. Ivo Gregg. "Planet of romance." Journal of the Leeds Astronomical
Society, n. 14 (1906): 16-28, at 23. Lockyer notes stars, which had become
visible to Lt. Blackett's group of observers before totality, disappeared
during totality; and, he writes: "Secondly, while these notes were being
made all the observers saw, but two only located on the chart, a bright
body, midway between the planet Mars and Venus, where no star down to the
third magnitude occurs on the chart, and this though many first magnitude
stars in the sun's neighbourhood were not seen generally. Do Tewfic's comet
of 1882, Watson's planet of 1878, the present observation, and others that
might be named, represent meteoritic collisions near the sun?" Norman
Lockyer. Recent and Coming Eclipses. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan and Co.,
1900; 23-4, 187-8, 195.
6. Robert R. Levingston and A.C. Ranyard. "Lightning photographs or
photographic defects." Knowledge, 16 (December 1, 1893): 234-5.
7. Richard H. Wake. "A puzzle." Symons' Meteorological Magazine, 23, 154.
8. "Extraordinary phenomenon." London Times, November 20, 1888, p.13 c.5.
9. J. Ross-Barker. "A stampede of sheep." London Standard, November 7, 1889,
p. 2 c. 7.
10. Science gossip, (also as, Country Queries and Notes: (v.1 pp.138, 417,
328).
11. D.E. Packer. "Aurora and meteor display of September 14." English
Mechanic, 88 (October 2, 1908): 211.
12. Science gossip, (also as, Country Queries and Notes: (v.1 p.328).
13. "Curious mirage in British Columbia -- What city can it be?" English
Mechanic, 66 (September 10, 1897): 81. For the original article: "Yukon
goldfields." London Weekly Times and Echo, September 5, 1897, p.9 c.1-2.
Correct quote: "...this settlement could be in. Some guessed at
Toronto...the North Pole or not remains to be proved. Nevertheless, it is a
fact...by the hands of men."
14. "Arctic mystery." New York Tribune, February 17, 1901, Supp. p.1 c.1.
15. Miner Wait Bruce. Alaska. Seattle, 1895, 86-9. 2nd ed. New York: G.P.
Putnam's Sons, 1899, 140-4. Correct quote: "...so distinct and plain that it
required instead faith to believe...."
16. Alexander Badlam. Wonders of Alaska. Ch. 10, "Phantom cities and
mirages," 127-37.
17. Isaiah West Taber, (1830-1912), was a professional photographer from San
Francisco.
18. "Identity of the Silent City." New York Times, October 20, 1889, p.13
c.4.
19. "Silent City." New York Times, October 31, 1889, p.2 c.1. Correct quote:
"...plainly see houses...."
20. Ten years later, on July 3, two schooners observed the "minarets and
airy cupolas" of an inverted, aerial city for upwards of half an hour;
however, the mirage was recognized as Coney Island by the excursion
passengers. "A remarkable mirage." New York Times, July 4, 1899, p. 1 c. 4.
21. "Extraordinary mirage." Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, 27 (1901): 158-9.
22. "Phénomène de mirage du mont Fairweather (Alaska)." Nature (Paris),
1901, 1, 303.
CHAPTER TWENTY
NIGHT of Dec. 7, 1900 -- for seventy minutes a fountain of light played upon
the planet Mars.
Prof. Pickering -- "absolutely inexplicable" (Sci. Amer., 84-179).(1)
It may have been a geyser of messages. It may be translated some day. If it
were expressed in imagery befitting the salutation by a planet to its
dominant, it may be known some day as the most heroic oration in the
literature of the geo-system. See Lowell's account in Popular Astronomy, 10-
187.(2) Here are published several of the values in a possible code of long
flashes and short flashes. Lowell takes a supposed normality for unity, and
records variations of two thirds, one and one third, and one and a half. If
there be, at Flagstaff, Arizona, records of all the long flashes and short
flashes that were seen, for seventy minutes, upon this night of Dec. 7,
1900, it is either that the greetings of an island of space have been
hopelessly addressed to a continental stolidity, or there will have to be
the descent, upon Flagstaff, Arizona, by all the amateur Champollions of
this earth, to concentrate in one deafening buzz of attempted translation.
It was at this time that Tesla announced that he had received, upon his
wireless apparatus, vibrations that he
attributed to the Martians. They were series of triplets.
* * *
It is our expression that, during eclipses and oppositions and other notable
celestial events, lunarians try to communicate with this earth, having a
notion that at such times the astronomers of this earth may be more nearly
alert.
An eclipse of the moon, March 10-11, 1895 -- not a cloud; no mist --
electric flashes like lightning, reported from a ship upon the Atlantic
(Eng. Mec., 61-100).(3)
During the eclipse of the sun, July 29, 1897, a strange image [203/204] was
taken on a sensitive plate, by Mr. L.E. Martindale, of St. Mary's, Ohio. It
looks like a record of knotted lightning. See Photography, May 26, 1898.(4)
In the Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 17-205, 315, 447, it is said that upon
the first and the third of March, 1903, a light like a little star, flashing
intermittently, was seen by M. Rey, in Marseilles, and by Maurice Gheury, in
London, in the lunar crater Aristarchus.(5) March 28, 1903 -- opposition of
Mars.
* * *
In Cosmos, n.s. 49-259, M. Desmoulins writes, from Argenteuil, that upon
August 9, 1903, at 11 P.M., moving from north to south, he saw a luminous
object.(6) The planet Venus was at primary greatest brilliance upon August
13, 1903. In three respects it was like other objects that have been
observed upon this earth at times of the nearest approach of Venus: it was a
red object; it appeared only in a local sky, and it appeared in the time of
the visibility of Venus. With M. Desmoulins were four persons, one of whom
had field glasses. The object was watched twenty minutes, during which time
it travelled a distance estimated at five or six kilometres. It looked like
a light suspended from a balloon, but, through glasses, no outline of a
balloon could be seen, and there were no reflections of light as if from the
opaque body of a balloon. It was a red body, with greatest luminosity in its
nucleus. The Editor of Cosmos writes that, according to other
correspondents, this object had been seen, at 11 P.M., July 19th and 26th,
at Chatou. Argenteuil and Chatou are 4 or 5 miles apart, and both are about
5 miles from Paris. All three of these dates were Sundays, and even though
nothing like a balloon had been seen through glasses, one naturally supposes
that somebody near Paris had been amusing himself sending up fire-balloons,
Sunday evenings. The one great resistance to all that is known as progress
is what one "naturally supposes."
In the English Mechanic, 81-220, Arthur Mee writes that several persons, in
the neighborhood of Cardiff, had, upon the night of March 29, 1905, seen in
the sky, "an appearance like a vertical beam of light, which was not due
(they say) to a search light, or any such cause."(7) There were other
observations, and they remind us of the observations of Noble and Bradgate,
Aug. 28-29, 1883: [204/205] then upon an object that cast a light like a
searchlight; this time an association between a light like a searchlight,
and a luminosity of definite form. In the Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905-
32, are several accounts of a more definite-looking appearance that was
seen, this night, in the sky of Wales -- "like a long cluster of stars,
obscured by a thin film or mist."(8) It was seen at the time of the
visibility of Venus, then an "evening star" -- about 10 P.M. It grew
brighter, and for about half an hour looked like an incandescent light. It
was a conspicuous and definite object, according to another description --
"like an iron bar, heated to an orange-colored glow, and suspended
vertically."
Three nights later, something appeared in the sky of Cherbourg, France --
L'Astre Cherbourg -- the thing that appeared, night after night, in the sky
of the city of Cherbourg, at a time when the planet Venus was nearest
(inferior conjunction April 26, 1905).
Flammarion, in the Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 19-243, says that this
object was Venus.(9) He therefore denies that it had moved in various
directions, saying that the supposed observations to this effect were
illusions. In L'Illustration, April 22, 1905, he tells the story in his own
way, and says some things that we are not disposed to agree with, but he
also says that the ignorance of some persons is inénarrable.(10) In Cosmos,
n.s., 42-420, months after the occurrence, it is said that many
correspondents had written to inquire as to L'Astre Cherbourg.(11) The
Editor gives his opinion that the object was either Jupiter or Venus.
Throughout our Venus-visitor expression, the most important point is
appearance in a local sky. That unifies this expression with other
expressions, all of them converging into our general extra-geographic
acceptances. The Editor of Cosmos says that this object, which was reported
from Cherbourg, was reported from other towns as well. He probably means to
say that it was seen simultaneously in different towns. For all guardians of
this earth's isolation, this is a convenient thing to say: the conclusion
then is that the planet Venus, exceptionally bright, was attracting unusual
attention generally, and that there was nothing in the especial sky of
Cherbourg. But we have learned that standardizing disguisements often
obscure our data in later accounts, and we have formed the habit of going to
contemporane- [205/206] ous sources. We shall find that the newspapers of
the time reported a luminous object that appeared, night after night, only
over the city of Cherbourg, as the name by which it was known indicates. It
was a reddish object. The Editor of Cosmos explains that atmospheric
conditions could give this coloration to Venus. I suppose this could be so
occasionally: not night after night, I should say. We shall find that this
object, or a similar object, was reported from other places, but not
simultaneously with its appearance over Cherbourg.
In the Journal des Debats, the first news is in the issue of April 4,
1905.(12) It is said that a luminous body was appearing, every evening,
between 8 and 10 o'clock, over the city of Cherbourg.
These were about the hours of the visibility of Venus. In this period, Venus
set at 9:30 P.M., and Jupiter at 8 P.M. It is enough to make any
conventionalist feel most reasonable, though he'd feel that way anyway, in
thinking that of course then this object was Venus. In my own earlier
speculations upon this subject, this one datum stood out so that had it not
been for other data, I'd have abandoned the subject. But then I read of
other occurrences: time after time has something been seen in the local sky
of this earth, sometimes so definitely seen to move, not like Venus, but in
various directions, that one has to think that it was not Venus, though
appearing at the time of visibility of Venus. Between these appearances and
visibility of Venus there does seem to be relation.
In the Journal, it is said that L'Astre Cherbourg had an apparent diameter
of 15 centimetres, and a less definite margin of 75 centimetres -- seemed to
be about a yard wide -- meaningless of course. In the Bull. Soc. Astro. de
France, it is said that, according to reports, its form was oval.(13) In the
Journal des Debats, we are told that, at first the thing was supposed to be
a captive balloon but that this idea was given up because it appeared and
disappeared.
Journal des Debats, April 12:(14)
That every evening the luminous object was continuing to appear above
Cherbourg; that many explanations had been thought of: by some persons that
it was the planet Jupiter, and by others [206/207] that it was a comet but
that no one knew what it was. The comet-explanation is of course ruled out.
The writer in the Journal expresses regret that neither the Meteorological
Bureau nor the Observatory of Paris had sent anybody to investigate, but
says that the préfet maritime, of Cherbourg had commissioned a naval officer
to investigate. In Le Temps, of the 12th, is published an interview with
Flammarion, who complains some more against general inénarrable-ness, and
says that of course the object was Venus. The writer in Le Temps says that
soon would the matter be settled, because the commander of a war ship had
undertaken to decide what the luminous body was.(15)
Le Figaro, April 13:(16)
The report of Commander de Kerillis, of the Chasseloup-Laubut -- that the
position of L'Astre Cherbourg was not the position of Venus, and that the
disc did not look like the crescentic disc of Venus, but that observations
had been made from a vessel, under unfavorable conditions, and that the
commander and his colleagues did not offer a final opinion.
I think that there was inénarrable-ness all around. Given visibility, I
can't think what the unfavorable conditions could have been. Given, however,
observations upon something that all astronomers in the world would say
could not be, one does think of the dislike of a naval officer, who, though
he probably knew right ascension from declination, was himself no
astronomer, to commit himself. In Le Temps, and other newspapers published
in Paris, it is said that, according to the naval officers, the object might
have been a comet, but that they would not positively commit themselves to
this opinion, either.
I think that somebody should be brave; so, though not positively, of course,
I incline, myself, to relate these appearances over Cherbourg with the
observations in Wales, upon March 29th; also I suggest that there is another
report that may relate. In Le Temps, April 12, it is said that, at midnight,
April 9-10, a luminous body, like L'Astre Cherbourg, was seen in the sky of
Tunis.(17) Though it was visible several minutes, it is said that this
object was probably a meteor.
Every night, from the first to the eleventh of April, a luminous body
appeared in the sky of Cherbourg. Then it was seen no [207/208] longer. It
may have been seen sailing away, upon its final departure from the sky of
Cherbourg. In Le Figaro, April 15, it is said that, upon the night of the
eleventh of April, the guards of La Blanche Lighthouse had seen something
like a lighted balloon in the sky.(18) Supposing it was a balloon, they had
started to signal to it, but it had disappeared. It is said that the
lighthouse had been out of communication with the mainland, and that the
guards had not heard of L'Astre Cherbourg.
* * *
In the London Times, Nov. 23, 1905, a correspondent writes that, at East
Liss, Hants., which is about 40 miles from Reading, he and his gamekeeper
had, about 3.30 P.M., Nov. 17th, heard a loud, distant rumbling.(19)
According to this hearer, the rumbling seemed to be a composition of
triplets of sound. We shall accept that three sounds were heard, but we have
no other assertion that each sound was itself so sub-serialized. This
correspondent's gamekeeper said he had heard similar sounds at 11.30 A.M.,
and at 1.30 P.M. It is said that the sounds were not like gunfire, and that
the direction from which they seemed to come, and the time in the afternoon,
precluded the explanation of artillery-practice at Aldershot or Portsmouth.
Aldershot is about 15 miles from East Liss, and Portsmouth about 20.
Times, Nov. 24 -- that the "quake" had been distinctly felt in Reading,
about 3.30 P.M., Nov. 17th.(20) Times, Nov. 25 -- heard at Reading, at
11.30, 1.30, and 3.30 o'clock, Nov. 17th.(21)
Reading Standard, Nov. 25:(22)
That consternation had been caused in Reading, upon the 17th, by sounds and
vibrations of the earth, about 11.30 A.M., 1.30 P.M., and 3.30 P.M. It is
said that nothing had been seen, but that the sounds closely resembled those
that had been heard during the meteoric shower of 1866.
Mr. H.G. Fordham appears again. In the Times, Dec. 1, he writes that the
phenomena pointed clearly to an explosion in the sky, and not to an
earthquake of subterranean origin.(23) "The noise and shock experienced are
no doubt attributable to the explosion (or to more than one explosion) of a
meteorite, or bolide, high up in the atmosphere, and setting up a wave (or
waves) of sound and aërial shock. It is probable, indeed, that a good many
[208/209] phenomena having this source are wrongly ascribed to slight and
local earthshock."
Mr. Fordham wrote this, but he wrote no more, and I think that somewhere
else something else was written, and that, in the year 1905, it had to be
obeyed; and that it may be interpreted in these words -- "Thou shalt not."
Mr. Fordham did not inquire into the reasonableness of thinking that, only
by coincidence, meteors so successively exploded, in a period of four hours,
in one local sky of this earth, and nowhere else; and into the inference,
then, as to whether this earth is stationary or not.
We have data of a succession occupying far more than four hours.
In the Times, Mrs. Lane of Petersfield, 20 miles from Portsmouth, writes
that, at 11.30 A.M., and at 3.30 P.M., several days before the 17th, she had
heard detonations, then hearing them again, upon the 17th. Mrs. Lane thinks
that there must have been artillery-practice at Portsmouth. It seems clear
that there was no cannonading anywhere in England, at this time. It seems
clear that there was signalling from some other world.
In the English Mechanic, 82-433, Joseph Clark writes that, a few minutes
past 3 P.M., upon the 18th a triplet of detonations was heard at Somerset --
"as loud as thunder, but not exactly like thunder."(24)
Reading Observer, Nov. 25 -- that, according to a correspondent, the sounds
had been heard again, at Whitechurch (20 miles from Reading) upon the 21st,
at 1.35 P.M., and 3.8 P.M.(25) The sounds had been attributed to artillery-
practice at Aldershot, but the correspondent had written to the artillery
commandant, at Bulford Camp, and had received word that there had been no
heavy firing at the times of his inquiry. The Editor of the Observer says
that he, too, had written to the commandant, and had received the same
answer.
I have searched widely. I have found record of nobody's supposition that he
had traced these detonations to origin upon this earth.(26) [209]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Science notes." Scientific American, n.s., 84 (March 23, 1901): 179.
2. Percival Lowell. "Explanation of the supposed signals from Mars of
December 7, and 8, 1900." Popular Astronomy, 10 (April 1902): 185-94, pl. X
and XI; at 187. The terminator of Mars was watched by Douglass for
projections over a period of eighty minutes, (not seventy minutes).
3. F.E.C. "The total lunar eclipse in the Atlantic." English Mechanic, 61
(March 22, 1895): 100. From the S.S. Cephalonia, a meteor was seen about 6
west of the moon, about ten minutes after the moon was totally eclipsed.
4. Photography (Amateur Photographer and Cinematographer), 27 (May 26,
1898): 355-6.
5. "Lune." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 17 (1903): 205.
"Lune." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 17 (1903): 315.
"Lune; Eclipses de Lune." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 17
(1903): 477.
6. Desmoulins. "Un phénomène à expliquer." Cosmos: Les Mondes, s.4, "n.s."
49 (1903): 259.
7. Arthur Mee. "Jupiter -- Strange light in the sky." English Mechanic, 81
(April 14, 1905): 220.
8. Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905, 32.
9. Nicholas Camille Flamarion. "Le phénomène lumineux de Cherbourg."
Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 19 (1905): 243-5.
10. Nicholas Camille Flammarion. "Le mystére de Cherbourg." Illustration
(Paris), 125 (April 22, 1905): 254.
11. "Le soi-distant phénomène curieux de Cherbourg." Cosmos: Les Mondes,
s.4, "n.s." 42 (April 22, 1905): 420. Two or three weeks, not months, passed
before reported herein. The editor did not explain the red color as
affecting observations of Venus, rather the effect of stars descending
behind mists on the horizon; however, this is not where observations of the
object were confined, as it is shown well above the horizon in the
Illustration's sketch of its location in the sky.
12. "Etrange phénomène." Journal des Debats, April 4, 1905, p.3 c.3.
13. Camille Flammarion. "Le phénomène lumineux de Cherbourg." Bulletin de la
Société Astronomique de France, 19 (1905): 243-5, at 243.
14. "La météore de Cherbourg." Journal des Debats, April 12, 1905, p.2 c.4.
15. Temps (Paris), April 12, 1905.
16. "L'astre de Cherbourg (suite)." Figaro (Paris), April 13, 1905, p. 4 c.
3. Also: "L'astre de Cherbourg." Figaro (Paris), April 11, 1905, p. 4 c. 4.
The name of the ship was the Chasseloup-Laubat, (not "Chasseloup-Laubut").
17. Temps (Paris), April 12, 1905.
18. "Autre astre." Figaro (Paris), April 15, 1905, p.4 c.2.
19. "Possible earthquake shock." London Times, November 23, 1905, p. 14 c.
5. East Liss, Hampshire, is about 30 miles south of Reading.
20. "Possible earthquake shock." London Times, November 24, 1905, p.4.c.2.
21. "Possible earthquake shock." London Times, November 25, 1905, p.8 c.6.
Alan Cheales confirms that the same noise was heard "at the same hours on
November 20;" but, the date is probably meant for November 17.
22. "Earthquakes at Reading." Reading Standard, November 25, 1905, p.3 c.3.
23. "Possible earthquake shock." London Times, December 1, 1905, p.6 c.4.
Fordham notes: "...it occurred twice on the same day, at 11:30 and 3:30, and
it also occurred at the same hours in a similar way one or two days before
and again since." His conclusion, however, is to ascribe the phenomena to
"Some naval manoeuvres the authors of which are unaware of the disturbance
they are causing to the nervous inhabitants of Hants and neighbourhood."
Correct quote: "...that many a good phenomena...."
24. Joseph Clark. "Air quakes." English Mechanic, 82 (December 15, 1905):
433.
25. "The earth tremors." Reading Observer, November 25, 1905, p.5 c.7. Also:
"Earth tremors at Reading." Reading Observer, November 18, 1905, p.8 c.2.
26. Grammatically incorrect: Fort had not found any record to support
anyone's supposition that they had traced these detonations to an origin
upon this earth.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
IN Coconino County, Arizona, is an extraordinary formation. It is known as
Coon Butte and as Crater Mountain. Once upon a time, something gouged this
part of Arizona. The cavity in the ground is about 3,800 feet in diameter,
and it is approximately 600 feet deep, from the rim of the ramparts to the
floor of the interior. Out from this cavity had been hurled blocks of
limestone, some of them a mile or so away, some of these masses weighing
probably 5,000 tons each. And in the formation, and around it, have been
found either extraordinary numbers of meteorites, or fragments of one super-
meteorite. Barringer, in his report to the Academy of Natural Science of
Philadelphia (Proceedings A.N.S.P., Dec., 1905), says that, of the
traffickers in this meteoritic material, he knew of two men who had shipped
away fifteen tons of it.(1) But Barringer's minimum estimate of a body large
enough so to gouge the ground is ten million tons.
It was supposed that a main mass of meteoritic material was buried under the
floor of the formation, but this floor was drilled, and nothing was found to
support this supposition. One drill went down 1020 feet, going through 100
feet of red sandstone, which seems to be the natural, undisturbed sub-
structure. The datum that opposes most strongly the idea that this pit was
gouged by one super-meteorite is that in it and around it at least three
kinds of meteorites have been found: they are irons, masses of iron-shale,
and shale-balls that are so rounded and individualized that they cannot be
thought of as fragments of a greater body, and cannot be very well thought
of as great drops of molten matter cast from a main, incandescent mass,
inasmuch as there is not a trace of igneous rock such as would mark such
contact.
There are data for thinking that these three kinds of objects fell at
different times, presumably from origin of fixed position relatively to this
point in Arizona. With the formation, shales [210/211] were found, buried at
various distances, as if they had fallen at different times, for instance
seven of them in a vertical line, the deepest buried 27 feet down; also
shales outside the formation were found buried. But, quite as if they had
fallen more recently, the hundreds of irons were found upon the surface of
the ground, or partly covered, or wholly covered, but only with superficial
soil.
There is no knowing when this great gouge occurred, but cedars upon the rim
are said to be 700 years old.
In terms of our general expression upon differences of potential, and of
electric relations between nearby worlds, I think of a blast between this
earth and a land somewhere else, and of something that was more than a
cyclone that gouged this pit.
Other meteorites have been found in Arizona: the 85-pound iron that was
found at Weaver, near Wickenburg, 130 miles from Crater Mountain, in 1898,
and the 960-pound mass, now in the National Museum, said to have been found
at Peach Springs, 140 miles from Crater Mountain. These two irons indicate
nothing in particular; but, if we accept that somewhere else in Arizona
there is another deposit of meteorites, also extraordinarily abundant, such
abundance gives something of commonness of nature if not of commonness of
origin to two deposits. There are several large irons known as the Tucson
meteorites, one weighing 632 pounds and another 1514 pounds, now in museums.
They came from a place known as Iron Valley, in the Santa Rita Mountains,
about 30 miles south of Tucson, and about 200 miles from the Crater
Mountain. Iron Valley was so named because of the great number of meteorites
found in it. According to the people of Tucson, this fall occurred about the
year 1660. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-13-290.(2)
Upon June 24, 1905, Barringer found, upon the plain, about a mile and a half
northwest of Crater Mountain, a meteorite of a fourth kind. It was a
meteoritic stone, "as different from all the other specimens as one specimen
could be from another." Barringer thinks that it fell, about the 15th of
January, 1904. Upon a night in the middle of January, 1904, two of his
employees were awakened by a loud hissing sound, and saw a meteor falling
north of the formation. At the same time, two Arizona [211/212] physicians,
north of the formation, saw the meteor falling south of them. For analysis
and description of this object, see Amer. Jour. Sci., 4-21-353.(3)
Barringer, who believes that once upon a time one super-meteorite, of which
only a very small part has ever been found, gouged this hole in the ground,
writes -- "That a small stony meteorite should have fallen on almost exactly
the same spot on this earth's surface as the great Canon Diablo iron
meteorite fell many centuries ago, is certainly a most remarkable
coincidence. I have stated the facts as accurately as possible, and I have
no opinion to offer, as to whether or not these involve anything more than a
coincidence."(4)
Other phenomena in Arizona:
Upon Feb. 24, 1897, a great explosion was heard over the town of Tombstone.
It is said that a fragment of a meteor fell at St. David (Monthly Weather
Review, 1897-56).(5) Yarnell, Arizona, Sept. 12, 1898 -- "a loud, deep,
thundering noise" that was heard between noon and 1 P.M. "The noise
proceeded from the Granite Range, this side of Prescott. From all accounts,
a large meteor struck the earth at this time" (U.S. Weather Bureau Rept.,
Ariz. Section, Sept., 1898).(6)
Upon July 19, 1912, at Holbrook, Arizona, about 50 miles from Crater
Mountain, occurred a loud detonation and one of the most remarkable falls of
stones recorded. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 4-34-437.(7) Some of the stones are
very small. About 14,000 were collected. Only twice, since the year 1800,
have stones in greater numbers fallen from the sky to this earth, according
to conventional records.
About a month later (Aug. 18) there was another concussion at Holbrook. This
was said to be an earthquake (Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 1-209).(8) [212]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Daniel Moreau Barringer. "Coon Mountain and its crater." Proceedings of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 57 (1905): 861-86.
2. John L. LeConte. "Notice of a meteoric iron in the Mexican province of
Sonora." American Journal of Science, s. 2, 13 (1852): 289-90. The Spanish
name for the location is "Cañada de Hierro."
3. J.W. Mallet. "A stony meteorite from Coon Butte, Arizona." American
Journal of Science, s.4, 21 (1906): 347-55.
4. Op. Cit., Barringer, 883-4. Correct quote: "This is as different from all
the other meteorite specimens which we have examined, which have come from
this locality, as one specimen can be from another."
5. "Fall of an aerolite in Arizona." Monthly Weather Rreview, 25 (February
1897): 56-7.
6. "Notes from the September reports of the climate and crop sections."
Monthly Weather Review, 26 (October 1898): 463-4, c.v. "Arizona." Correct
quote: "...a deep thundering noise was heard between noon and 1 p.m.,
September 12, proceeding from the Granite Range, between this station
(Yarnell) and Prescott...from all accounts a large meteor...."
7. Warren M. Foote. "Preliminary note on the shower of meteoric stones...."
American Journal of Science, s.4, 34 (1912): 437-56. Holbrook is said to be
sixty miles away from Crater Mountain, not fifty miles away. The two
meteorite falls referred to herein are those at Pultusk, Poland, on January
30, 1868, with about 100,000 stones, and at Möcs, Hungary, on February 3,
1882, with over 100,000 stones.
8. "An Arizona earthquake." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 2 (September 1912): 209. At O'Leary Peak, Arizona, black smoke was
seen as if coming from a "volcano," which was thought to be the source of
the noise heard over an area ranging 250 miles from east to west and 100
miles north to south. Susan M. Dubois et al. Arizona Earthquakes, 1776-1980,
p.86.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
THE climacteric opposition of Mars, of 1909 -- the last in our records --
the next will be in 1924 --(1)
Aug. 8, 1909 -- see Quar. Jour. Met. Soc., n.s., 35-299 -- flashes in a
clear sky that were seen in Epsom, Surrey, and other places in the southeast
of England.(2) They could not be attributed to lightning in England. The
editor in the Journal finds that there was a storm in France, more than one
hundred miles away,(3) For an account of these flashes, tabulated at Epsom -
- "night fine and starlight" -- Symons' Met. Mag., 44-148.(4) During each
period of five minutes, from 10 to 11.15, P.M., the number of flashes-- 16-
14-20-31-15-26-12-20-30-18-27-22-14-12-10-21-8-5-3-1-0-1-0. With such a
time-basis, I can see no possibility of detecting anything of a code-like
significance. I do see development. There were similar observations at times
in the favorable oppositions of Mars of 1875 and 1877. In 1892, such flashes
were noted more particularly. Now we have them noted and tabulated, but upon
a basis that could be of interest only to meteorologists. If they shall be
seen in 1924, we may have observation, tabulation, and some marvellously
different translations of them. After that there will be some intolerably
similar translations, suspiciously delayed in publication.
Sept. 23, 1909 -- opposition of Mars.
Throughout our data, we have noticed successions of appearances in local
skies of this earth, that indicate that this earth is stationary, but that
also relate to nearest approaches of Mars. Upon the night of Dec. 16-17,
1896, concussion after concussion was felt at Worcester, England; a great
"meteor" was seen at the time of the greatest concussion. Mars was seven
days past opposition.(5) We thought it likely enough that explosion after
explosion had occurred over Worcester, and that something in the sky had
been seen only at the time of the greatest, or the nearest, [213/214]
explosion. We did not think well of the conventional explanation that only
by coincidence had a great meteor exploded over a region where a series of
earthquakes was occurring, and exactly at the moment of the greatest of
these shocks.
In November, 1911, Mars was completing his cycle of changing proximities of
a duration of fifteen years, and was duplicating the relationship of the
year 1896. About 10 o'clock, night of Nov. 16, 1911, a concussion that is
conventionally said to have been an earthquake occurred in Germany and
Switzerland. But plainly there was an explosion in the sky. In the Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 3-189, Count Montessus de Ballore
writes that he had examined 112 reports upon flashes and other luminous
appearances in the sky that had preceded the "earthquake" by a few
seconds.(6) He concludes that a great meteor had only happened to explode
over a region where, a few seconds later, there was going to be an
earthquake. "It therefore seems highly probable that the earthquake
coincided with a fall of meteors or shooting stars."
The duplication of the circumstances of Dec., 1896, continues. If of course
this concussion in Germany and Switzerland was the effect of something that
had exploded in the sky -- of what were the concussions that were felt
later, the effects? De Ballore does not mention anything that occurred
later. But, a few minutes past midnight, and then again, at 3 o'clock,
morning of the 17th, there were other, but slighter, shocks. Only at the
time of the greatest shock was something seen in the sky. Nature, 88-117 --
that this succession of phenomena did occur.(7) We relate the phenomena to
the planet Mars, but also we ask -- how, if most reasonably, all three of
these shocks were concussions from explosions in the sky, if of course one
of them was, meteors could ever so hound one small region upon a moving
earth, or projectiles be fired with such specialization and preciseness?
November 17th, 1911 was seven days before the opposition of Mars. Though the
opposition occurred upon the 24th of November, Mars was at minimum distance
upon the 17th.
No matter how difficult of acceptance our own notions may be, they are
opposed by this barbarism, or puerility, or pill that can't be digested:
[214/215]
Seven days from the opposition of Mars, in 1896, a great meteor exploded
over a region where there had been a succession of earthquakes -- by
coincidence;
Seven days from the next similar opposition of Mars, a great meteor exploded
over a region where there was going to be a succession of earthquakes -- by
coincidence.
* * *
The Advantagerians of the moon -- that is the cult of lunar
communicationists, who try to take advantage of such celestial events as
oppositions and eclipses, thinking that astronomers, or night watchmen, or
policemen of this earth might at such times look up at the sky --
A great luminous object, or a meteor, that was seen at the time of the
eclipse of June 28, 1908 -- "as if to make the date of the eclipse more
memorable," says W.F. Denning (Observatory, 31-288).(8)
Not long before the opposition of Mars, in 1909, the bright spot west of
Picard was seen twice: March 26 and May 23 (Jour. B.A.A., 19-376).(9)
Nov. 16, 1910 -- an eclipse of the moon, and a "meteor" that appeared,
almost at the moment of totality (Eng. Mec., 92-430).(10) It is reported, in
Nature, 85-118, as seen by Madame de Robeck, at Naas, Ireland, "from an
apparent radiant just below the eclipsed moon."(11) The thing may have come
from the moon. Seemingly with the same origin, it was seen far away in
France. In La Nature, Nov. 26, 1910, it is said that, at Besançon, France,
during the eclipse, was seen a meteor like a superb rocket, "qui serait
partie de la lune."(12) There may have been something occurring upon the
moon at the time. In the Jour. B.A.A., 21-100, it is said that Mrs. Albright
had seen a luminous point upon the moon throughout the eclipse.(13)
* * *
Our expression is that there is an association between reported objects,
like extra-mundane visitors, and nearest approaches by the planet Venus to
this earth. Perhaps unfortunately this is our expression, because it makes
for more restriction than we intend. The objects, or the voyagers, have
often been seen during the few hours of visibility of Venus, when the planet
is near- [215/216] est. "Then such an object is Venus," say the astronomers.
If anybody wonders why, if these seeming navigators can come close to this
earth -- as they do approach, if they appear only in a local sky -- they do
not then come all the way to this earth, let him ask a sea captain why said
captain never purposely descends to the bottom of the ocean, though
travelling often not far away. However, I conceive of a great variety of
extra-mundanians, and I am now collecting data for a future expression --
that some kinds of beings from outer space can adapt to our conditions,
which may be like the bottom of a sea, and have been seen, but have been
supposed to be psychic phenomena.
Upon Oct. 31, 1908, the planet Venus was four months past inferior
conjunction, and so had moved far from nearest approach, but there are vague
stories of strange objects that had been seen in the skies of this earth --
localized in New England -- back to the time of nearest approach. In the New
York Sun, Nov. 1, 1908, is published a dispatch, from Boston, dated Oct.
31.(14) It is said that, near Bridgewater, at four o'clock in the morning of
Oct. 31, two men had seen a spectacle in the sky. The men were not
astronomers. They were undertakers. There may be a disposition to think that
these observers were not in their own field of greatest expertness, and to
think that we are not very exacting as to the sources of our data. But we
have to depend upon undertakers, for instance: early in our investigations,
we learned that the prestige of astronomers has been built upon their high
moral character, all of them most excellently going to bed soon after
sunset, so as to get up early and write all day upon astronomical subjects.
But the exemplary in one respect may not lead to much advancement in some
other respect. Our undertakers saw, in the sky, something like a
searchlight. It played down upon this earth, as if directed by an
investigator, and the it flashed upward. "All of the balloons in which
ascensions are made in this State were accounted for today and a search
through southeastern Massachusetts failed to reveal any further traces of
the supposed airship." it is said that "mysterious bright lights," believed
to have come from a balloon, had been reported from many places in New
England. The week before, persons at Ware had said that they had seen an
illuminated balloon passing over the town, early [216/217] in the morning.
During the summer such reports had come from Bristol, Conn., and later from
Pittsfield, Mass., and from White River Junction, Vt. "In all these cases,
however, no balloon could be found, all the known airships being accounted
for at the time." In the New York Sun, Dec. 13, 1909, it is said that,
during the autumn of 1908, reports had come from different places in
Connecticut, upon a mysterious light that moved rapidly in the sky.(15)
Venus moved on, travelling around the sun, which was revolving around this
earth, or travelling any way to suit anybody. In December, 1909, the planet
was again approaching this earth. So close was Venus to this earth, upon the
15th of December, 1909, crowds stood, at noon, in the streets of Rome,
watching it, or her, (New York Sun, Dec. 16).(16) At 3 o'clock, afternoon of
December 24th crowds stood in the streets of New York, watching Venus (New
York Tribune, Dec. 25).(17) One supposes that upon these occasions Venus may
have been within several thousand miles of this earth. At any rate I have
never heard of one fairly good reason for supposing otherwise. If again
something appeared in local skies of this earth, or in the skies of New
England, and sometimes during the few hours of the visibility of Venus, the
object was or was not Venus, all according to the details of various
descriptions, and the credibility of the details. The searchlight, for
instance; more than one light; directions and motions. Venus, at the time,
was several hours after sunset, slowly descending in the southwest: primary
maximum brilliance Jan. 8th, 1910; inferior conjunction Feb. 12th.
There is an amusing befuddlement to clear away first. Upon the night of
September 8, 1909, a luminous object had been seen sailing over New England,
and sounds from it, like sounds from a motor, had been heard. Then Mr.
Wallace Tillinghast, of Worcester, Mass., announced that this light had been
a lamp in his "secret aëroplane," and that upon this night he had travelled,
in said "secret aëroplane," from Boston to New York, and back to Boston. At
this time the longest recorded flight, in an aëroplane, was Farman's, of 111
miles, from Rheims, August, 1909; and, in the United States, according to
records, it was not until May 29, 1910, that Curtiss flew from Albany to New
York City, making one stop in the 150 miles, however.(18) So this unrecorded
[217/218] flight made some stir in the newspapers. Mr. Tillinghast meant his
story humorously of course. I mention it because, if anybody should look the
matter up, he will find the yarn involved in the newspaper accounts. If
nothing else had been seen, Mr. Tillinghast might still tell his story, and
explain why he never did anything with his astonishing "secret aëroplane;"
but something else was seen, and upon one of the nights in which it
appeared, Tillinghast was known to be in his home.
According to the New York Tribune, Dec. 21, 1909, Immigration Inspector Hoe,
of Boston, had reported having seen, at one o'clock in the morning of
December 20, "a bright light passing over the harbor" and had concluded that
he had seen an airship of some kind.(19)
New York Tribune, Dec. 23 -- that a "mysterious airship" had appeared over
the town of Worcester, Mass., "sweeping the heavens with a searchlight of
tremendous power."(20) It had come from the southeast, and travelled
northwest, then hovering over the city, disappearing in the direction of
Marlboro. Two hours later, it returned. "Thousands thronged the streets,
watching the mysterious visitor." Again it hovered, then moving away,
heading first to the south and then to the east.
The next night, something was seen, at 6 o'clock, at Boston. "The
searchlights shot across the sky line." "As it flew away to the north,
queries began to pour into the newspaper offices and the police stations,
regarding the remarkable visitation." It is said that an hour and a half
later, an object that was supposed to be an airship with a powerful
searchlight, appeared in the sky, at Willimantic, Conn., "hovering" over the
town about 15 minutes. In the New York Sun, Dec. 24, are more details.(21)
It is said that, at Willimantic, had been seen a large searchlight,
approaching from the east, and that then dark outlines of something behind
the searchlight had been seen. Also, in the Sun, it is said that whatever it
may have been that was seen at Boston, it was a dark object, with several
red lights and a searchlight, approaching Boston from the west, hovering for
10 minutes, and then moving away westward. From Lynn, Mass., it was
described as "a long black object," moving in the direction of Salem, and
then returning, [218/219] "at a high speed." It is said that the object had
been seen at Marlboro, Mass., nine times since Dec. 14.
New York Tribune, Jan. 1, 1910 -- dispatch from Huntington, West Virginia,
Dec. 31, 1909 -- "Three huge lights of almost uniform dimensions appeared in
the early morning sky, in this neighborhood, today. Joseph Green, a farmer,
declared that they were meteors, which fell on his farm. An extensive search
of his land by others who saw the lights was fruitless, and many persons
believe that an airship had sped over the country."(22)
In the Tribune, Jan. 13, 1910, it is said that, at 9 o'clock, morning of
Jan. 12, an airship had been seen at Chattanooga, Tenn.(23) "Thousands saw
the craft, and heard the `chug' of its engine." Later the object was
reported from Huntsville, Alabama. New York Tribune, Jan. 15 -- dispatch
from Chattanooga, Jan. 14 -- "For the third successive day, a mysterious
white aircraft passed over Chattanooga, about noon today. It came from the
north, and was travelling southeast, disappearing over Missionary Ridge. On
Wednesday, it came south, and then on Thursday, it returned north."(24)
In the middle of December, 1909, someone had won a prize for sailing a
dirigible from St. Cyr to the Eiffel Tower and back.
St. Cyr is several miles from Paris.
Huntsville, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, are 75 miles apart.(25)
An association between the planet Venus and "mysterious visitors" either
illumines or haunts our data. In the New York Tribune, Jan. 29, 1910, it is
said that a luminous object, thought to be Winnecke's comet, had been seen,
Jan. 28, near Venus; reported from the Manila Observatory.(26)
I have another datum that perhaps belongs to this series of events. Every
night, from the 14th to the 23rd of December, 1909, if we accept the account
from Marlboro, a luminous object was seen travelling, or exploring, in the
sky of New England. Certainly enough it was no "secret airship" of this
earth, unless its navigator went to extremes with the notion that the best
way to keep a secret is to announce it with red lights and a searchlight.
However, our acceptance depends upon general data as to the de- [219/220]
velopment or terrestrial aeronautics. But upon the night of December 24th,
the object was not seen in New England, and it may have been travelling or
exploring somewhere else. Night of the 24th--Venus in the southwest in the
early hours of the evening. In the English Mechanic, 104-71, a
correspondent, who signs himself "Rigel," writes that, upon Dec. 24, at 8.30
o'clock in the evening, he saw a luminous object appear above the
northeastern horizon and slowly move southward, until 8.50 o'clock, then
turning around, retracing, and disappearing whence it came, at two minutes
past nine.(27) The correspondent is James Ferguson, Rossbrien, Limerick,
Ireland. He writes frequently upon astronomical and meteorological subjects,
and is still contributing to the somewhat enlightened columns of the English
Mechanic.(28)
* * *
Nov. 19, 1912 -- explosive sounds reported from Sunninghill, Berkshire. No
earthquake was recorded at the Kew Observatory, and, in the opinion of W.F.
Denning (Nature, 9-363, 417), the explosion was in the sky.(29) It was a
terrific explosion, according to the Westminster Gazette (Nov. 19).(30)
There was either one great explosion that rumbled and echoed for five
minutes, or there were repeated detonations, resembling cannonading -- "like
a tremendous discharge of big guns" according to reports from Abingdon,
Lewes, and Epsom. Sunninghill is about ten miles from Reading, and Abingdon
is near Reading, but the sound was heard in London, and down by the English
Channel, and even in the island of Alderney. In the Gazette, Nov. 28, Sir
George Fordham (H.G. Fordham) writes that, in his opinion, it was an
explosion in the sky.(31) He says -- "The phenomena of airshock never have,
I believe, been fully investigated." His admissions and his omissions remain
the same as they have since the occurrences of the year 1889. He does not
mention that, according to Philip T. Kenway, of Hambledon, near Godalming,
about thirty miles southeast of Reading, the sounds were heard again the
next day, from 1.45 P.M. to 2 P.M. Mr. Kenway thinks that there had been
big-gun firing at Portsmouth (West. Gaz., Nov. 21).(32) In the London
Standard, a correspondent, writing from Dorking, says that the phenomena of
the 19th were like concussions from [220/221] cannonading -- "at regular
intervals" -- "at quick intervals, lasting some seconds each time, for five
minutes, by the clock."(33)
It develops that Reading was the center over which the detonations occurred.
In the Westminster Gazette, Nov. 30, it is said that the shocks had been
felt in Reading, upon the 19th, 20th, and 21st.(34) Only from Reading have I
record of phenomena upon the 21st. Mr. H.L. Hawkins, Lecturer in Geology, of
the Reading University, writes that according to his investigations there
had been no gun-firing in England, to which the detonations could be
attributed. He says that Fordham's explanation was in accord with his own
investigations, or that detonations had occurred in the sky. He writes that,
inasmuch as the detonations had occurred upon three successive days, a
shower of meteors, of long duration, would have to be supposed. How he ever
visualized that unerring shower, striking one point over this earth's
surface, and nowhere else, day after day, if this earth be a rotating and
revolving body, I can not see. If he should say that by coincidence this
repetition could occur, then by what coincidence of coincidences could the
same repetitions have occurred in this same local sky, centering around
Reading, seven years before? The indications are that this earth is
stationary, no matter how unreasonable that may sound.
In the Westminster Gazette, Dec. 9, W.F. Denning writes that without doubt
the phenomena were "meteoric explosions."(35) But he alludes to the
"airquake and strange noises" that were heard upon the 19th. He does not
mention the detonations that were heard upon the following days. Not one of
these writers mentions the sounds that were heard in Reading, in November,
1905.
London Standard, Nov. 23, 1912 -- that, according to Lieut. Col. Trewman, of
Reading, the sounds had been heard at Reading, at 9 A.M., upon the 19th;
1.45 P.M., the 20th; 3.30 P.M., the 21st.(36) [221]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. The opposition of Mars was on August 23, 1924. The American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac for the Year 1924. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1922, 681.
2. "Observations of sheet lightning at Epsom, August 8, 1909." Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society of London, 35 (1909): 298-9.
3. Typographical error: ...one hundred miles away. For an account....
4. Spencer C. Russell. "Lightning storm of August 8th, 1909." Symons'
Meteorological Magazine, 44, 147-8. The account of the flashes, as given in
this article, is, as follows: 16-14-20-31-15-26-12-20-30-18-27-22-14-12-10-
21-8-5-3-1-0-1-0-0. Correct quote: "The night was fine and starlight...."
5. The opposition of Mars was on December 10, 1896. The American Ephemeris
and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1896. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Equipment, 1895, 491.
6. Montesses De Ballore. "The so-called luminous phenomena of earthquakes,
and the present state of the problem." Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 3 (December 1913): 187-90, at 190. Correct quote: "...or of
shooting stars."
7. "Notes." Nature, 88, 116-21, at 116-7.
8. W.F. Denning. "Large meteors from Scorpio." Observatory, 31 (1908): 287-
8. The meteor was observed at 11:12 A.M. Correct quote: "...the solar
eclipse more notable...."
9. "The white spot west of Picard." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association, 19, 375-80, at 376-7. The observations were made by R. Hodge
and A. Noël Neate, on May 23, and, by Neate on March 26, 1909.
10. W.H.L. "The total eclipse of the Moon, and a celestial visitor: November
16-17, 1910." English Mechanic, 92 (December 9, 1910): 430-1.
11. "The total eclipse of the Moon, November 16." Nature, 85 (November 24,
1910): 118-9.
12. "L'éclipse totale de Lune." Nature (Paris), 1910, 2 (November 26): 415.
13. "The eclipse of the Moon, 1910, Nov. 16." Journal of the British
Astronomical Association, 21, 99-100.
14. "Is it a mysterious airship?" New York Sun, November 1, 1908, p.1 c.2.
15. "Tells of marvellous flight." New York Sun, December 13, 1909, p.3 c.1.
16. "Venus outshines the sun." New York Sun, December 16, 1909, p.1 c.6.
17. "See Venus's charms." New York Tribune, December 25, 1909, p.1 c.6.
18. In 1909, Henry Farman won the Michelin Cup, which included a $4,000
prize, for breaking airplane duration and distance records, on November 3,
by travelling for 4 hours, 17 minutes, and 35 seconds, over a distance of
144 miles. Earlier in August, Farman had won the Grand Prix de Champagne, at
Rheims, by breaking the world records for distance, (over 111 miles), and
duration, (over 3 hours and 5 minutes). Glenn H. Curtiss won a prize of
$10,000 and was hailed by state and city officials for his achievement of
flying from Albany to Governors Island, at New York City, with two stops: at
Camelot for gasoline, and at 214th Street and Broadway, for oil. "Farman
wins $10,000 by 111-mile flight." New York Times, August 28, 1909, p. 1 c. 5
& p. 2 c. 1-3. "Farman up over four hours." New York Times, November 4,
1909, p. 1 c. 6. "Farman flights win cup and new record." New York Times,
January 1, 1910, p. 4 c. 1. "Curtiss flies, Albany to New York, at the speed
of 54 miles an hour." New York Times, May 30, 1910, p. 1 c. 5-7, and, p. 2.
19. "Tillinghast out again?" New York Tribune, December 21, 1909, p.3 c.4.
20. "Airship stirs city." New York Tribune, December 23, 1909, p.1 c.6.
Correct quote: "...a searchlight of very high power. The news of its
presence spread like wild fire and thousands thronged the streets to watch
the mysterious visitor."
21. "Hundreds see night flier." New York Sun, December 24, 1909, p.1 c.3.
22. "Another mysterious airship." New York Tribune, January 1, 1910, p. 2 c.
4. Correct quote: "...an airship sped over the country."
23. "Airship stirs South." New York Tribune, January 13, 1910, p.1 c.4.
Correct quote: "...heard the `chugging' of the engine."
24. "That Southern airship again." New York Tribune, January 15, 1910, p.1
c.2.
25. Huntsville and Chattanooga are about 80 miles apart by air.
26. "Comet seen at Manila." New York Tribune, January 29, 1910, p.7 c.4.
27. James Ferguson, (Rigel). "Irish notes...." English Mechanic, 104 (August
18, 1916): 71.
28. For an identification of James Ferguson, as "Rigel": James Ferguson.
"Irish notes: Mysterious phenomenon." English Mechanic, 111 (April 2, 1920):
120. His address is given as Rosbrien, Lisnalta, Limerick.
29. "Notes." Nature, 90 (November 28, 1912): 364-8, at 365. "Notes." Nature,
90 (December 12, 1912): 416-20, at 417.
30. "Earthquake or -- ?" Westminster Gazette, November 19, 1912, p.14 c.1.
31. "Air quake." Westminster Gazette, November 28, 1912, p.8 c.4. Fordham
gives two examples of his own investigations as exceptions to his statement,
being the shocks observed in England on November 20, 1887, and in
Switzerland on June 20, 1890. Correct quote: "The phenomena of air-shock
have never, I believe...."
32. "Earthquake or -- ?" Westminster Gazette, November 21, 1912, p.8 c.3.
33. "Was it an earthquake." London Standard, November 22, 1912, p. 9 c. 4.
"Was it an earthquake." London Standard, November 23, 1912, p. 5 c. 4. Also:
"Strange occurrence near Ascot." London Standard, November 20, 1912, p. 7 c.
6.
34. "Air or earthquake." Westminster Gazette, November 30, 1912, p.14 c.4.
35. "Detonating fireballs." Westminster Gazette, December 9, 1912, p.7 c.1.
36. "Was it an earthquake." London Standard, November 23, 1912, p.5 c.4.
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
"UNKNOWN Aircraft Over Dover."
According to the Dover correspondent to the London Times (Jan. 6, 1913)
something had been seen, over Dover, heading from the sea.(1)
In the London Standard, Jan. 24, 1913, it is said that, upon the morning of
Jan. 4, an unknown airship had been seen, over Dover, and that, about the
same time, the lights of an airship had been seen over the Bristol
Channel.(2) These places are several hundred miles apart.
London Times, Jan. 21 -- report by Capt. Lindsay, Chief Constable of
Glamorganshire: that, about five o'clock, in the afternoon of Jan. 17, he
saw an object in the sky of Cardiff, Wales.(3) He says that he called the
attention of a bystander, who agreed with him that it was a large object.
"It was much larger than the Willows airship, and left in its trail a dense
smoke. It disappeared quickly."
The next day, according to the Times, there were other reports: people in
Cardiff, saw something that was lighted or that carried lights, moving
rapidly in the sky.(4) In the Times, of the 28th, it is said that an airship
that carried a brilliant light had been seen in Liverpool.(5) "It is stated
at the Liverpool Aviation School that none of the airmen had been out on
Saturday night." Dispatches from town after town -- a travelling thing in
the sky, carrying a light, and also a searchlight that swept the ground. It
is said that a vessel, of which the outlines had been clearly seen, had
appeared in the sky of Cardiff, Newport, Neath, and other places in Wales.
In the Standard, Jan. 31, is published a list of cities where the object had
been seen. Here a writer tries to conclude that some foreign airship had
made half a dozen visits to England and Wales, or had come once, remaining
three weeks; but he gives up the attempt, thinking that nothing could have
[222/223] reached England and have sailed away half a dozen times without
being seen to cross the coast; thinking that the idea of anything having
made one journey, and remaining three weeks in the air deserved no
consideration.(6)
If the unknown object did carry something like a searchlight, an idea of its
power is given in an account in the Cardiff Evening Express, Jan. 25, 1913 -
- "Last evening brilliant lights were seen, sweeping skyward, and now, this
evening, the lights grow bolder.(7) Streets and houses in the locality of
Totterdown were suddenly illuminated by a brilliant, piercing light, which,
sweeping upward, gave many spectators a fine view of the hills beyond." In
the Express, Feb. 6, is a report upon this light like a searchlight, and the
object that flashed it, by the police of Dulais Valley.(8) Also there is an
account by a police sergeant, of a luminous thing that was for a while
stationary in the sky, and then moved away.(9)
Still does the conventional explanation, or suggestion, survive. It is said
that members of the staff of the Evening Express had gone to the roof of the
newspaper building, but had seen only the planet Venus, which was brilliant
at this time.
Then writes a correspondent, to the Express, that the object could not have
been Venus, because he had seen it travelling at a rate of 20 or 30 miles an
hour, and had heard sounds from it.(10) Someone else writes that not
possibly could the thing be Venus: he had seen it as "a bright red light,
going very fast." Still someone else says that he had seen the seeming
vessel upon the 5th of February, and that it had suddenly disappeared.(11)
There is a hiatus. Between the 5th and the 21st of February, nothing like an
airship was seen in the sky of England and Wales. If we can find that
somewhere else something similar was seen in the sky, in this period, one
supposes that it was the same object, exploring or manoeuvring somewhere
else. It seems however that there were several of these objects, because of
simultaneous observations at places far apart. If we can find that, during
the absence from England and Wales, similar objects were seen somewhere
else, a great deal of what we try to think upon the subject will depend upon
how far from Great Britain they were seen. It seems incredible that the
planet Venus should deceive [223/224] thousands of Britons, up to the 5th of
February, and stop her deceptions abruptly upon that date, and then abruptly
resume deceptions upon the 21st, in places at a distance apart. These
circumstances oppose the idea of collective hallucinations, by which some
writers in the newspapers tried to explain. If they were hallucinations, the
hallucinations renewed collectively, upon the 21st, in towns one hundred
miles apart. One extraordinary association is that all appearances, except
the first, were in hours of visibility of Venus, then an "evening star."
Upon the night of the 21st, a luminous object was reported from towns in
Yorkshire and from towns in Warwickshire, two regions about one hundred
miles apart; about 10 P.M. All former attempts to explain had been
abandoned, and the general supposition was that German airships were
manoeuvring over England. But not a thing had been seen to cross the coast
of England, though guards were patrolling the coasts, especially
commissioned to watch for foreign airships. Sailors in the North Sea, and
people in Holland and Belgium had seen nothing that could be thought a
German airship sailing to or from England. A writer in Flight takes up as
especially mysterious the appearance far inland, in Warwickshire. Then came
reports from Portsmouth, Ipswich, Hornsea, and Hull, but, one notes, no
more, at this time, from Wales. Also in Ipswich, which is more than a
hundred miles from the Yorkshire towns, a luminous object was seen upon the
night of the 21st. Ipswich Evening Star, Feb. 25 -- something that carried a
searchlight that had been seen upon the nights of the 21st and 24th, moving
in various directions, and then "dashing off at lightning speed" -- that, at
Hunstanton, had been seen three bright lights travelling from the eastern
sky, remaining in sight 30 minutes, stationary, or hovering over the town,
and then disappearing in the northwest.(12) Portsmouth Evening News, Feb. 25
-- that soon after 8 P.M., evening of the 24th, had been seen a very bright
light, appearing and disappearing, remaining over Portsmouth about one hour,
and then moving away.(13) Portsmouth and Ipswich are about 120 miles apart.
In the London newspapers, it is said that, upon the evening of the 25th,
crowds stood in the streets of Hull, watching something in the [224/225]
sky, "the lights of which were easily distinguishable." Hull is about 190
miles northeast of Portsmouth.(14) Hull Daily Mail, Feb. 26 -- that a crowd
had watched a light high in the air. It is said that the light had been
stationary for almost half an hour and had then shot away northward.(15) In
the Times, Feb. 28, are published reports upon "the clear outlines of an
airship, which was carrying a dazzling searchlight," from Portland,
Burcleaves, St. Alban's Head, Papplewich, and the Orkneys.(16) The last
account, after a long interval, that I know of, is another report from Capt.
Lindsay: that, about 9 o'clock, evening of April 8th, he and many persons
had seen, over Cardiff, something that carried a brilliant light and
travelled at a rate of sixty or seventy miles an hour.
Upon April 24, 1913, the planet Venus was at inferior conjunction.(17)
In the Times, Feb. 28, it is said that a fire-balloon had been found in
Yorkshire, and it is suggested that someone had been sending up fire-
balloons.(18)
In the Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 1913-178, it is said that the people of
England were as credulous as the people of Cherbourg, and had permitted
themselves to be deceived by the planet Venus.(19)
If German airships were manoeuvring over England, without being seen either
approaching or departing, appearing sometimes far inland in England without
being seen to cross the well-guarded coasts, it was secret manoeuvring,
inasmuch as the accusation was denied in Germany (Times, Feb. 26 and
27).(20) It was then one of the most brilliantly proclaimed of secrets, or
it was concealment under one of the most powerful searchlights ever seen.
Possibly an airship from Germany could appear over such a city as Hull, upon
the east coast of England, without being seen to arrive or to depart, but so
far from Germany is Portsmouth, for instance, that one does feel that
something else will have to be thought of. The appearances over Liverpool
and over towns in Wales might be attributed to German airships by someone
who had not seen a map since he left school. There were more observations
upon sudden appearances and disappearances than I have recorded:
stationariness often occurred. [225/226]
The objects were absent from the sky of Great Britain, from Feb. 5 to Feb.
21.
According to data published by Prof. Chant, in the Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, 7-148, the most extraordinary procession in
our records was seen, in the sky of Canada, upon the night of Feb. 9,
1913.(21) Either groups of meteors, in one straight line, passed over the
city of Toronto, or there was a procession of unknown objects, carrying
lights. According to Prof. Chant, the spectacle was seen from the
Saskatchewan to Bermuda, but if this long route was traversed, data do not
so indicate. The supposed route was diagonally across New York State, from
Buffalo, to a point near New York City, but from New York State are recorded
no observations other than might have been upon ordinary meteors, this
night. A succession of luminous objects passed over Toronto, night of Feb.
9, 1913, occupying from three to five minutes in passing, according to
different estimates. If one will think that they were meteors, at least one
will have to think that no such meteors had ever been seen before. In the
Journal, 7-405, W.F. Denning writes that, though he had been watching the
heavens since the year 1865, he had never seen anything like this.(22) In
most of the observations, the procession is described as a whole -- "like an
express train, lighted at night" -- "the lights were at different points,
one in front, and a rear light, then a succession of lights in the tail."
Almost all of the observations relate to the sky of Toronto and not far from
Toronto. It is questionable that the same spectacle was seen in Bermuda,
this night. The supposed long flight from the Saskatchewan to Bermuda might
indicate something of a meteoric nature, but the meteor-explanation must
take into consideration that these objects were so close to this earth that
sounds from them were heard, and that, without succumbing to gravitation,
they followed the curvature of this earth at a relatively low velocity that
can not compare with the velocity of ordinary meteors.
If now accepted that again, the next day, objects were seen in the sky of
Toronto, but objects unlighted, in the daytime -- I suppose that to some
minds will come the thought that this is extraordinary, and that almost
immediately the whole subject will then be forgotten. Prof. Chant says that,
according to the [226/227] Toronto Daily Star, unknown objects, but dark
objects this time, were seen at Toronto, in the afternoon of the next day --
"not seen clearly enough to determine their nature, but they did not seem to
be clouds or birds or smoke, and it was suggested that they were airships
cruising over the city."(23) Toronto Daily Star, February 10 -- "They passed
from west to east, in three groups, and then returned west in more scattered
formation, about seven or eight in all."(24) [227]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Unknown aircraft over Dover." London Times, January 6, 1913, p.6 c.3.
The observation was made at 5 A.M. on January 4; attention was drawn to the
object first by its noise and then its light; and, the noise was also heard
by a tradesman and police constable.
2. London Standard, January 24, 1913, (could not find here).
3. "Airship over Cardiff." London Times, January 21, 1913, p.10 c.4. The
time of observation was said to be "a quarter to 5." Correct quote: "It was
much larger and moved faster than the Willows airship, and left in its trail
a dense volume of smoke....It disappeared quickly."
4. "Airship at Cardiff." London Times, January 22, 1913, p.10 c.7.
5. "Aircraft over Liverpool." London Times, January 28, 1913, p.13 c.6.
Correct quote: "...none of the airmen there were out on Saturday night."
6. "Mystery airship." London Standard, January 31, 1913, p. 7 c. 4. The list
of cities was: on January 4, at Dover and Chatham; on January 15, at
Yarmouth; on January 18, at Cardiff and the Bristol Channel; and, on January
25, at Liverpool and Aberystwyth.
7. "Phantom airships." Cardiff Evening Express and Evening Mail, January 25,
1913, p.2 c.5. Correct quote: "...lights were to be seen sweeping
skywards...which, sweeping upwards, gave the many spectators fine views...."
8. "Eyes skyward." Cardiff Evening Express and Evening Mail, February 6,
1913, p. 4 c. 4.
9. "The mystery airship" Cardiff Evening Express and Evening Mail, February
6, 1913.
10. "That strange airship." Cardiff Evening Express and Evening Mail,
February 10, 1913.
11. Cardiff Evening Express and Evening Mail.
12. "Air mystery." Ipswich Evening Star, February 25, 1913, p.3 c.1. Correct
quote: "...it dashed off towards the south-west at lightning speed."
13. "Nocturnal visit." Portsmouth Evening News, February 25, 1913, p.8 c.5.
Also: "Lights in the air." Portsmouth Evening News, February 26, 1913, p.6
c.6. "The airship scare." Portsmouth Evening News, February 26, 1913, p.8
c.5.
14. Kingston-Upon-Hull is more than 200 miles from Portsmouth.
15. "An apparition." Hull Daily Mail, February 26, 1913, p.5 c.1.
16. "The airship rumours." London Times, February 28, 1913, p.5 c.3. One
location was Papplewick, (not Papplewich). Correct quote: "...the clear
outline of an airship...."
17. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1913.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911, 668.
18. "The airship rumours." London Times, February 28, 1913, p.5 c.3.
19. "L'étoile du soir, les aéroplanes et les dirigeables." Bulletin de la
Société Astronomique de France, 27 (1913): 179-80.
20. "The reported visits of airships," and, "Bright lights in the air."
London Times, February 26, 1913, p.8 c.5. "Airship rumours." London Times,
February 27, 1913, p.6 c.1.
21. C.A. Chant. "An extraordinary meteoric display." Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, 7 (May and June, 1913) 145-215. C.A. Chant.
"Further information regarding the meteoric display of February 9, 1913."
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 7 (November and
December, 1913): 438-47.
22. W.F. Denning. "Notes on the great meteoric stream of 1913, February 9th.
Seen in Canada and the United States." Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society of Canada, 7 (November and December, 1913): 404-13.
23. C.A. Chant. "An extraordinary meteoric display." Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, 7 (May and June, 1913) 145-215, at 165.
Correct quote: "...suggested at the time that, perhaps, they were
airships...."
24. "Fleet of airships cruised over city." Toronto Daily Star, February 10,
1913, p.5 c.2. Correct quote: "They passed from west to east in three groups
of two each, and then returned west in a more scattered formation, about
seven or eight in all."
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
AUGUST 1914 -- this arena-like earth, with its horizon banking high into a
Coliseum, when seen from not too far above -- faint, rattling sounds of the
opening of boundaries -- tawny formations slinking into the arena -- their
crouchings and seizures and crunchings. Aug. 13, 1914 -- things that were
gathering in the skies. They were seen by G.W. Atkins, of Elstree, Herts,
and were seen again upon the 16th and the 17th (Observatory, 37-358).(1)
Sept. 9, 1914 -- a host in the sky; watched several hours by W.H. Steavenson
(Jour. B.A.A., 25-27).(2) There were round appearances, but some of them
were shaped like dumb bells. They were not seeds, snowflakes, insects, nor
anything else that they "should" have been, according to Mr. Steavenson. He
says that they were large bodies.
Oct. 10, 1914 -- a ship that was seen in the sky -- or "an absolutely black,
spindle-shaped object" crossing the sun. It was seen, at Manchester, by
Albert Buss (Eng. Mec., 100-236).(3) "Its extraordinarily clear-cut outline
was surrounded by a kind of halo, giving the impression of a ship, plowing
her way through the sea, throwing up white-foamed waves with her prow."
Mikkelsen (Lost in the Arctic, p. 345):(4)
"During the last few days (Oct., 1914) we have been much tumbled up and down
in our minds, owing to a remarkable occurrence, somewhat in the nature of
Robinson Crusoe's encounter with the footprints in the sand. Our advanced
load has been attacked -- an empty petroleum cask is found riddled with tiny
holes, such as would be made by a charge of shot! Now a charge of shot is
scarcely likely to materialize out of nowhere; one is accustomed to
associate the phenomenon with the presence of human beings. It is none of
our doing -- then whose doing is it? We hit upon the wildest theories to
account for it, as we sit in the tent turning the mysterious object over and
over. No [228/229] beast of our acquaintance could make all those little
round holes: what animal could even open its jaws so wide? And why should
anybody take the trouble to make a target of our gear? Are there Eskimos
about -- Eskimos with guns? There are no footprints to be seen: it could
scarcely have been an animal -- the whole thing is highly mysterious."
Jan. 31, 1915 -- a symbolic-looking formation upon the moon -- six or seven
lights, in Littrow, arranged like the Greek letter Gamma (Eng. Mec., 101-
47).(5)
Feb. 13, 1915 -- Steep Island, Chusan Archipelago -- a lighthouse-keeper
complained to Capt. W.F. Tyler, R.N., that a British warship had fired a
projectile at the lighthouse. But no vessel had fired a shot, and it is said
that the object must have been a meteor (Nature, 97-17).(6)
In the middle of February, 1915, the planet Venus was about two months and a
half past inferior conjunction.(7) If objects like navigating constructions
were seen in the sky, at this time, there may be an association, but I am
turning against that association, feeling that it is harmful to our wider
expression that extra-mundane vessels have been seen in the sky of this
earth, and that they come from regions at present unknown. New York Tribune,
Feb. 15, 1915 -- that, at 10 P.M., Feb. 14, three aëroplanes had been seen
to cross the St. Lawrence river, near Morristown, N.Y., according to
reports, but that, in the opinion of the Dominion Police, nothing but fire-
balloons had been seen.(8) It is said that two "responsible residents" had
seen two of the objects cross the river, between 8 and 8.30 P.M., and then
return five hours later. In the Canadian Parliament, Sir Wilfred Laurier had
said that, at 9 P.M., he had been called by the Mayor of Brockwell, telling
him that three aëroplanes with "powerful searchlights" had crossed the St.
Lawrence.(9) The story is told in the New York Herald.(10) Here it is said
that, according to the Chief of Police, of Ogdensburg, N.Y., a farmer,
living five miles from Ogdensburg, had reported having seen an aëroplane,
upon the 12th. Then it is said that the mystery had been solved: that, while
celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of peace between the United States
and Canada, some young men in Morristown had sent up paper balloons, which
had ex- [229/230] ploded in the sky, after 9 P.M., night of the 14th. New
York Times -- that the objects had been seen first at Guananoque,
Ontario.(11) Here it is said that the balloon-story is absurd. According to
the Dominion Observatory, the wind was, at the time, blowing from the east,
and the objects had travelled toward the northeast. It is said that one of
the objects had, for several minutes, turned a powerful searchlight upon the
town of Brockwell.(12)
Upon December 11, 1915, Bernard Thomas, of Glenorchy, Tasmania, saw a
"particularly bright spot upon the moon" (Eng. Mec., 103-10).(13) It was on
the north shore of Mare Crisium, and "looked almost like a star." In Dr.
Thomas' opinion, it was sunlight reflected from the rim of a small crater.
The crater Picard is near the north shore of Mare Crisium, and most of the
illuminations near Picard have occurred several months from an opposition of
Mars.
In December, 1915, another new formation upon the moon -- reported from the
Observatory of Paris -- something like a black wall from the center to the
ramparts of Aristillus (Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 30-383).(14)
Jan. 12, 1916 -- a shock in Cincinnati, Ohio. Buildings were shaken. The
quake was from an explosion in the sky. Flashes were seen in the sky. (New
York Herald, Jan. 13, 1916).(15)
Feb. 9, 1916 -- opposition of Mars.(16)
In the English Mechanic, 104-71, James Ferguson writes that someone had
seen, at 11 o'clock, night of July 31, 1916, at Ballinasloe, Ireland, just
such a moving thing, or just such a sailing, exploring thing as is now
familiar in our records.(17) For fifteen minutes it moved in a northwesterly
direction. For three quarters of an hour it was stationary. Then it moved
back to the point where first it had been seen, remaining visible until four
o'clock in the morning. Whatever this object may have been, it left the sky
at about the time that Venus appeared, as a "morning star," in the sky of
Ballinasloe, and resembles the occurrence of Sept. 11, 1852, reported by
Lord Wrottesley. Inferior conjunction of Venus was upon July 3, 1916.(18) We
have noticed that all occurrences that we somewhat reluctantly associate
with nearness of Venus associate more with times of greatest bril- [230/231]
liance, five weeks before and after inferior conjunction, than with dates of
conjunction. Somebody may demonstrate that at these times Venus comes
closest to this earth.
Oct. 10, 1916 -- a reddish shadow that spread over part of the lunar crater
Plato; reported from the Observatory of Florence, Italy (Sci. Amer., 121-
181).(19)
Nov. 25, 1916 -- about twenty-five bright flashes, in rapid succession, in
the sky of Cardiff, Wales, according to Arthur Mee (Eng. Mec., 104-239).(20)
Col. Markwick writes, in the Jour. B.A.A., 27-188, that, at 6:10 P.M., April
5, 1917, he had seen, upon the sun, a solitary spot, different from all
sunspots that he had seen in the experience of forty-three years.(21) Col.
Markwick had written to Mr. Maunder, of the Greenwich Observatory, and had
been told that, in photographs taken of the sun upon this day, one at 11.17
and another at 11.20 o'clock, there was no sign of a sunspot.
July 4, 1917 -- an eclipse of the sun, and an extraordinary luminous object
said to have been a meteor, in France (Bull. Soc. Astro. de France, 31-
299).(22) About 6.20 P.M., this day, there was an explosion over the town of
Colby, Wisconsin, and a stone fell from the sky (Science, Sept. 14,
1917).(23)
Aug. 29, 1917 -- a luminous object that was seen moving upon the moon (Bull.
Soc. Astro. de France, 31-439).(24)
Feb. 21, 1919 -- an intensely black line extending out from the lunar crater
Lexall (Eng. Mec., 109-517).(25)
Upon May 19, 1919, while Harry Hawker was at sea, untraceable messages
meaningless in the languages of this earth, were picked up by wireless,
according to dispatches to the newspapers. They were interpreted as the
letters K U J and V K A J.
In October 1913, occurred something that may not be so very mysterious
because of nearness to the sea. One supposes that if extra-mundane vessels
have sometimes come close to this earth, then sailing away, terrestrial
aëronauts may have occasionally left this earth, or may have been seized and
carried away from this earth. Upon the morning of Oct. 13, 1913, Albert
Jewel started to fly his aëroplane from Hempstead Plains, Long Island, to
Staten Island. The route that he expected to take was over Jamaica Bay,
Brooklyn, Coney Island, and the Narrows. [231/232] New York Times, Oct. 14,
1913 -- "That was the last seen or heard of him...he has been as completely
lost as if he evaporated into air."(26) But as to the disappearance of Capt.
James there are circumstances that do call for especial attention. New York
Times, June 2, 1919 -- that Capt. Mansell R. James was lost somewhere in the
Berkshire Hills, upon his flight from Boston to Atlantic City, or, rather,
upon the part of his route between Lee, Mass., and Mitchel Field, Long
Island.(27) He had left Lee upon May 29th. Over the Berkshires, or in the
Berkshires, he had disappeared. According to later dispatches, searching
parties had "scoured" the Berkshires, without finding a trace of him. Upon
June 4th, army planes arrived and searched systematically. There was general
excitement, in this mystery of Capt. James. Rewards were offered; all
subscribers of the Southern New England Telephone Company were enlisted in a
quest for news of any kind; boys scouts turned out. Up to this date of
writing there had been nothing but a confusion of newspaper dispatches: that
two children had seen a plane, about thirteen miles north of Long Island
Sound; that two men had seen a plane fall into the Hudson River, near
Poughkeepsie; that, in a gully of Mount Riga, near Millerstown, N.Y., had
been found the remains of a plane; that part of a plane had been washed
ashore from Long Island Sound, near Branford.(28) The latest interest in the
subject that I know of was in the summer of 1921. A heavy object was known
to be at the bottom of the Hudson River, near Poughkeepsie, and was thought
to be Capt. James' plane. It was dredged up and found to be a log.
For an extraordinary story of windows, in Newark, N. J., that were
perforated by unfindable bullets, see New York Evening Telegram, Sept. 19,
1919, and the Newark Evening News.(29) The occurrence is a counterpart of
Mikkelsen's experience.
The detonations at Reading were heard seven years apart. Here it is not
quite seven years later. London Times, Sept. 26, 1919 -- that upon Sept. 25,
a shock had been felt at Reading; that inquiries had led to information of
no known explosion near Reading.(30) In the Times, Oct. 14, Mr. H.L. Hawkins
writes that the shock was "quite definitely an earthquake, but its origin
was superficial" and that the shock "was transmitted through the [232/233]
earth more than through the air."(31) In the London Daily Chronicle, Sept.
27, Mr. Hawkins, having considered all suggestions that shock was a
subterranean earthquake, had written: "However, as the whole thing
terminated in a bump and a big bang, without subsequent shaking of the
ground, it points more to an explosion of a natural type up in the air than
to a real earthquake."(32) And, in the London Daily Mail, Mr. Hawkins is
quoted: that if the detonation were local, he would believe that it was an
aërial explosion ("meteoric"); but, if it were widespread, it would be
considered an earthquake.(33) And in the whole series of the Reading
phenomena, this violent detonation was most distinctly local to Reading.(34)
Reading Observer, Sept. 27, 1919 -- "The most probable explanation of the
occurrence is that there was an explosion somewhere near enough to affect
the town... Officials at the Greenwich Observatory were unable to throw any
light on the matter, and said that their instruments showed no signs of
earth-disturbance."(35)
It is said that the sound and shock were violent, and that, in the
residential parts of Reading, the streets were crowded with persons
discussing the occurrence.
There was a similar shock in Michigan, Nov. 27, 1919. In many cities,
persons rushed from their homes, thinking that there had been an earthquake
(New York Times, Nov. 28).(36) But, in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, a
"blinding glare" was seen in the sky. Our acceptance is that this occurrence
is, upon a small scale, of the type of many catastrophes in Italy and South
America, for instance, when just such "blinding glares" have been seen in
the sky, data of which have been suppressed by conventional scientists, or
data of which have not impressed conventional scientists.
English Mechanic, 110-257 -- J.W. Scholes, of Huddersfield, writes that,
upon Dec. 19, 1919, he saw, near the lunar crater Littrow, "a very
conspicuous black-ink mark."(37) Upon page 282, W.J. West, of Gosport,
writes that he had seen the mark upon the 7th of December.(38)
March 22, 1920 -- a light in the sky of this earth, and an illumination upon
the moon (Eng. Mec., 111-142).(39) That so close [233/234] to this earth is
the moon that illuminations known as "auroral" often affect both this earth
and the moon.
July 20 and 21, and Sept. 13, 1920 -- dull rumbling sounds and quakes at
Comrie, Perthshire (London Times, July 23 and Sept. 14, 1920).(40)
According to a dispatch to the Los Angeles Times -- clipping sent to me by
Mr. L.A. Hopkins, of Chicago -- thunder and lightning and heavy rain, at
Portland, Oregon, July 21, 1920: objects falling from the sky; glistening,
white fragments that looked like "bits of polished china."(41) "The
explanation of the local Weather Bureau is that they may have been picked up
by whirlwinds and carried to the district where they were found." The
objection to this standardized explanation is the homogeneousness of the
falling objects. How can one conceive of winds raging over some region
covered with the usual great diversity of loose objects and substances,
having a liking for little white stones, sorting over maybe a million black
ones, green ones, white ones, and red ones, to make the desired selection?
One supposes that a storm brought to this earth fragments of a manufactured
object, made of something like china, from some other world.
In the Literary Digest, Sept. 2, 1921, is published a letter from Carl G.
Gowman, of Detroit, Michigan, upon the fall from the sky, in southwest
China, Nov. 17 (1920?) of a substance that resembled blood.(42) It fell upon
three villages close together, and was said to have fallen somewhere else
forty miles away.(43) The quantity was great: in one of the villages, the
substance "covered the ground completely." Mr. Gowman accepts that this
substance did fall from the sky, because it was found upon roofs as well as
upon the ground. He rejects the conventional red-dust explanation, because
the spots did not dissolve in several subsequent rains. He says that
anything like pollen is out of the question, because at the time nothing was
in bloom.
Nov. 23, 1920 -- a correspondent writes, to the English Mechanic, 112-214,
that he saw a shaft of light projecting from the moon, or a spot so bright
that it appeared to project, from the limb of the moon, in the region of
Funerius.(44)
About Jan. 1, 1921 -- several irregular, black objects that crossed
[234/235] the sun. To the Rev. William Ellison (Eng. Mec., 112-276) they
looked like pieces of burnt paper.(45)
July 25, 1921 -- a loud report, followed by a sharp tremor, and a rumbling
sound, at Comrie (London Times, July 27, 1921).(46)
July 31, 1921 -- a common indication of other lands from which come objects
and substances to this earth -- but our reluctance to bother with anything
so ordinarily marvellous --
Because we have conceived of intenser times and furies of differences of
potential between this earth and other worlds: torrents of dinosaurs, in
broad volumes that were streaked with lesser animals, pouring from the sky,
with a foam of tusks and fangs, enveloped in a bloody vapor that was falsely
dramatized by the sun, with rainbow-mockery. Or, in terms of planetary
emotions, such an outpouring was the serenade of some other world to this
earth. If poetry is imagery, and, if a flow of images be solid poetry, such
a recitation was in three-dimensional hyperbole that was probably seen, or
overheard, and criticized in Mars, and condemned for its extravagance in
Jupiter. Some other world, meeting this earth, ransacking his solid
imagination and uttering her living metaphors: singing a flood of mastodons,
purring her butterflies, bellowing an ardor of buffaloes. Sailing away--
sneaking up close to the planet Venus, murmuring her antelopes, or arching
his periphery and spitting horses at her --
Poor, degenerate times -- nowadays something comes close to this earth and
lisps little commonplaces to her --
July 31, 1921 -- a shower of little frogs that fell upon Anton Wagner's
farm, near Sterling, Conn. New York Evening World, Aug. 1, 1921).(47)
At sunset, Aug. 7, 1921, an unknown luminous object was seen, near the sun,
at Mt. Hamilton, by an astronomer, Prof. Campbell, and by one of those who
may some day go out and set foot upon regions that are supposed not to be:
by an aviator, Capt. Rickenbacker.(48) In the English Mechanic, 114-211,
another character in these fluttering vistas of the opening of the coming
drama of Extra-geography, Col. Markwick, a conventional astronomer and also
a recorder of strange things, lists other observations upon this object, the
earliest upon the 6th, by Dr. Emmert, [235/236] of Detroit.(49) In the
English Mechanic, 114-241, H.P. Hollis, once upon a time deliciously "exact"
and positive, says something, in commenting upon these observations, that
looks like a little weakness in Exclusionism, because the old sureness is
turning slightly shaky -- "that there are more wonderful things in the sky
than we suspect, or that it is easy to be self-deceived."(50)
If is funny to read of an "earthquake," described in technical lingo, and to
have a datum that indicates that it was no earthquake at all, in the usual
seismologic sense, but a concussion from an explosion in the sky. Aug. 7,
1921 -- a severe shock at New Canton, Virginia. See Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer.,
11- 197 -- Prof. Stephen Taber's explanation that the shock probably
originated in the slate belt of Buckingham County, intensity about V on the
R.-F. scale.(51) But then it is said that, according to the "authorities" of
the McCormick Observatory, the concussion was from an explosion in the sky.
The time is coming when nothing funny will be seen in this subject, if some
day be accepted at least parts of the masses of data that I am now holding
back, until I can more fully develop them -- that some of the greatest
catastrophes that have devastated the face of this earth have been
concussions from explosions in the sky, so repeating in a local sky weeks at
a time, months sometimes, or intermittently for centuries, that fixed
origins above the ravaged areas are indicated.
New York Tribune, Sept. 2, 1921:(52)
"J.C.H. Macbeth, London Manager of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company,
Ltd., told several hundred men, at a luncheon of the Rotary Club, of New
York, yesterday, that Signor Marconi believed he had intercepted messages
from Mars, during recent atmospheric experiments with wireless on board his
yacht Electra, in the Mediterranean. Mr. Macbeth said that Signor Marconi
had been unable to conceive of any other explanation of the fact that,
during his experiments he had picked up magnetic wavelengths of 150,000
metres, whereas the maximum length of wave-production in the world today is
14,000 metres. The regularity of the signals, Mr. Macbeth declared, disposed
of any assumption that the waves might have been caused by electrical
disturbance. The signals were unintelligible, con- [236/237] sisting of a
code, the speaker said, and the only signal recognized was one resembling
the letter V in the Marconi code." See datum of May 19, 1919.
But, in the summer of 1921, the planet Mars was far from opposition.(53) The
magnetic vibrations may have come from some other world. They may have had
the origin of the sounds that have been heard at regular intervals --
The San Salvadors of the sky --
And we return to the principle that has been our re-enforcement throughout:
that existence is infinite serialization, and that, except in particulars,
it repeats --
That the dot that spread upon the western horizon of Lisbon, March 4, 1493,
cannot be the only ship that comes back from the unknown, cargoed with news
--(54)
And it may be Sept. this, nineteen hundred and twenty or thirty something,
or Feb. that, nineteen hundred and twenty or thirty something else -- and,
later, see record of it in Eng. Mec., or Sci. Amer., vol. and p. something
or another -- a speck in the sky of this earth -- the return of somebody
from a San Salvador of the sky -- and the denial by the heavens themselves,
which may answer with explosions the vociferations below them, of false
calculations upon their remotenesses. If the heavens do not participate with
snow, the skyscrapers will precipitate torn up papers and shirts and skirts,
too, when the papers give out.
There will be a procession. Somebody will throw little black pebbles to the
crowds. Over his procession will fly blue-fringed cupids. Later he will be
insulted and abused and finally hounded to his death. But, in that
procession, he will lead by the nose an outrageous thing that should not be:
about ten feet long, short-winged, waddling on webbed feet.(55) Insult and
abuse and death -- he will snap his fingers under the nose of the outrageous
thing. It will be worth a great deal to lead that by the nose and
demonstrate that such things had been seen in the sky, though they had been
supposed to be angels. It will be a great moment for somebody. He will come
back to New York, and march up Broadway with his angel.
Some now unheard-of De Soto, of this earth, will see for himself the Father
of Cloudbursts. [237/238]
A Balboa of greatness now known only to himself will stand on a ridge in the
sky between two auroral seas.
Fountains of Everlasting Challenge.
Argosies in parallel lines and rabbles of individual adventurers. Well
enough may it be said that they are seeds in the sky. Of such are the germs
of colonies. [238]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "A curious observation." Observatory, 37 (1914): 358-9.
2. W.H. Steavenson. "Bright objects observed near the Sun." Journal of the
British Astronomical Association, 25, 36-8.
3. Albert Alfred Buss. "Cosmic and terrestrial flotsam and jetsam." English
Mechanic, 100 (October 16, 1914): 256. Correct quote: "...giving one the
impression of a ship ploughing her way...."
4. Ejnar Mikkelsen. Lost in the Arctic. London: William Heinemann, 1913,
345. Fort introduced the date of "(Oct. 1914)" into this quote, but the
entry occurs in a time period between October 16th and November 11th, 1911.
Correct quote: "...Robinson Crusoe's encounter with the footprint in the
sand...scarcely likely to materialise out of nowhere...."
5. "Close double stars -- The `Monthly Notes' -- Lunar observations."
English Mechanic, 101 (February 12, 1915): 46-7.
6. "A daylight meteor." Nature, 97 (March 2, 1916): 17. The Chusan
Archipelago is now known identified as Zhoushan Qundao, China; and, [Steep
Island is identified as "Hou-Chu-Hsia Shan" (Wade-Giles), which is not
listed in the Gazetteer for Pinyin].
7. The previous inferior conjunction of Venus occurred on November 27, 1914.
The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1914. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911, 669.
8. "Canadians see aeros; lights out in Ottawa." New York Tribune, February
15, 1915, p.1 c.5-6. There is no mention herein of "two" responsible
residents.
9. Sir Robert Borden was the prime minister of Canada at this time, (not Sir
Wilfred Laurier, who was the leader of the opposition); and, it was Borden
who received the telephone call from the Mayor of Brockville, (not
Brockwell), and later reported this in the House of Commons.
10. "Ottawa hides in darkness when aeroplanes are reported." New York
Herald, February 15, 1915, s.2 p.9 c.4-5.
11. "Scare in Ottawa over air raid." New York Times, February 15, 1915, p. 1
c. 5. "Ottawa again in dark in fear of air raid." New York Times, February
16, 1915, p. 4 c. 2. The locations are Gananoque, (not Guananoque), and
Brockville, Ontario, (not Brockwell).
12. The remnants of a fire-balloon to which fireworks had been attached were
found on the following morning by one of the police constables in
Brockville.
13. Bernard Thomas. "Southern notes...." English Mechanic, 103 (January 28,
1916): 10-11. Correct quote: "...on the moon...."
14. E. Annequin. "Changements sur la Lune." Bulletin de la Société
Astronomique de France, 30 (1916): 382-4.
15. "Meteor shakes Cincinnati." New York Herald, January 13, 1916, 3rd ed.,
p.5 c.2.
16. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1916.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1914, 670.
17. James Ferguson. "Irish notes...." English Mechanic, 104 (August 18,
1916): 71.
18. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the Year 1916.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1914, 671.
19. "Curious phenomenon in a lunar crater." Scientific American, n.s., 121
(August 23, 1919): 181.
20. Arthur Mee. "Strange lights -- Celestial objects -- Cheap finder."
English Mechanic, 104 (December 8, 1916): 392.
21. E.E. Markwick. "Note on a solar observation." Journal of the British
Astronomical Association, 27, 188-9.
22. "Bolide remarquable pendant la totalité de l'éclipse de Lune du 4-5
Juillet 1917." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 31 (1917):
299-300. This was an eclipse of the moon, not of the sun.
23. Henry L. Ward. "A new meteorite." Science, n.s., 46 (September 14,
1917): 262-3. There is no mention of an explosion in this article.
24. "Lune: Planètes." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 31
(1917): 439.
25. H.H. "Selenographical -- Greenwich Observatory." English Mechanic, 109
(February 21, 1919): 57. The name of the crater is Lexell, (not Lexall).
26. "Fear lost airman was blown to sea." New York Times, October 14, 1913,
p. 1 c. 5-7. Correct quote: "...he has been lost as completely as if he had
evaporated into air."
27. "Seek British ace missing in flight. " New York Times, June 2, 1919, p.1
c.2, p.10 c.4-5.
28. Probably Millerton, New York; not Millerstown.
29. "Big shop windows broken as by shot." Newark Evening News, September 19,
1919, p.1 c.5. "Mysterious holes in more windows." Newark Evening News,
September 20, 1919, p.1 c.2. "Another window pierced as detectives
theorize." Newark Evening News, September 22, 1919, p.10 c.1. "Engine house
is latest window vandals' victim." Newark Evening News, September 23, 1919,
p.5 c.1. No article appears in the 10th edition of the New York Evening
Telegram, September 19, 1919.
30. "Alarm at Reading." London Times, September 26, 1919, p.12 c.2.
31. "Reading's earthquake." London Times, October 14, 1919, p.9 c.2.
32. "Berkshire quakes." London Daily Chronicle, September 27, 1919, p.3 c.4.
33. "Mystery shock." London Daily Mail, September 27, 1919, p.3 c.5.
34. The disturbance effected Reading, Wokingham, Caversham, and Henley;
Maidenhead, Slough Didcot, and Abingdon were not effected.
35. "Reading's earthquake." Reading Observer, September 27, 1919, p.10 c.1-
2. Correct quotes: "The most popular and most probable explanation...,"
"Officials at Greenwich...," and, "...said their instruments...."
36. "Huge meteor falls into Lake Michigan." New York Times, November 28,
1919, p.1. Correct quote: "...blinding flare...."
37. J.W. Scholes. "The small black-ink mark on the Moon." English Mechanic,
110 (December 19, 1919): 257. The observation was made on December 8, 1919;
not on December 19, which is the date of the issue. Correct quote: "...a
very conspicuous and extraordinary black-ink mark...."
38. W.J. West. "The small black-ink mark on the Moon." English Mechanic, 110
(January 2, 1920): 282. William Henry. "Great aurora. March 22, 1920, as
seen in Brooklyn." English Mechanic, 110 (January 2, 1920): 282.
39. W. Goodacre. "Jupiter -- Dark transit of Sat. III. -- Bright spots on
the Moon -- An occultation -- Earthshine on the Moon." English Mechanic, 111
(April 16, 1920): 141-2.
40. "Two earthquake shocks...." London Times, July 23, 1920, p.16 c.4.
"Earthquake shock in Scotland." London Times, September 14, 1920, p.7 c.2.
41. "Small stones fall from air as storm in Portland rages." Los Angeles
Times, July 22, 1920, p.1 c.6-7. Fort describes these fragments as
"glistening, white," but this is not mentioned in the clipping.
42. "Another strange thing from the sky." Literary Digest, 70 (n.10; wh.n.
1637; September 3, 1921): 55. The date given by Fort as "(1920?)" was
guesswork, but the letter from Gowman, a member of the China Inland Mission
in Yunnan province, only gives the date of the fall as Saturday, November
17th, and the Chinese lunar calendar date of the 3rd day of the 10th moon.
The only year from 1860 to 1921 on which November 17th falls upon a Saturday
and the 3rd day of the 10th moon was 1917.
43. The three villages were the upper and lower villages of "Cheh Shae" and
"Ning Ch'ae," (three miles away), all in Yunnan province; and, the rain was
also reported by visitors from Szechewan province, (forty miles away).
44. J.H.J. "Spot on the Moon." English Mechanic, 112 (December 3, 1920):
214, c.v. "Queries."
45. Wm. F.A. Ellison. "The Earth's axis -- A waterway through Britain --
Price of refracting telescopes -- Dark objects against the Moon." English
Mechanic, 112 (January 14, 1921): 276. No date is given to this observation
nor to Ellison's letter, other than "one day lately."
46. "Earthquake shock in Scotland." London Times, July 27, 1921, p.7 c.6.
47. "Shower of little frogs falls on a duck farm." New York Evening World,
August 1, 1921, Final ed., p.2 c.1.
48. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 33, 258.
49. E.E. Markwick. "The mysterious comet." English Mechanic, 114 (November
25, 1921): 211. For several other articles about Campbell's "comet": S.
Fellows. "New star, or comet, or what?" English Mechanic, 114 (August 19,
1921): 49. E.E. Markwick. "Cross-wires in finder. -- The coy comet." English
Mechanic, 114 (September 2, 1921): 76-7. E.E. Markwick. "Campbell's comet."
English Mechanic, 114 (September 9, 1921): 88. T.H. Muras. "Campbell's comet
-- Eyepiece stops." English Mechanic, 114 (September 16, 1921): 99.
"Halley's comet and the recent surprise comet." English Mechanic, 114
(November 18, 1921): 200. "The object seen near the Sun in August last."
English Mechanic, 114 (December 2, 1921): 222.
50. H.P. Hollis. "The possible comet. -- The British Astronomical
Association -- Daylight stellar photography -- Orbital elements of minor
planets -- The planetary display -- Director of the Harvard Observatory."
English Mechanic, 114 (December 16, 1921): 240-1, at 240.
51. "Seismological notes." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
11 (September-December, 1921): 197-200, at 197.
52. "Marconi believes he received wireless message from Mars." New York
Tribune, September 2, 1921, p.3 c.4-5. Correct quote: "J.C.H. MacBeth,
London manager...that Signor Marconi had been unable to conceive of any
other explanation...magnetic wave lengths of 150,000 meters, whereas the
maximum length of wave produced in the world today is 14,000
meters....caused by electrical disturbances. The signals were
unintelligible, consisting apparently of a code...the letter V used in the
Marconi code."
53. Mars was in conjunction with the sun on June 28, 1921. The Nautical
Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris for the Year 1921. London: H.M.
Stationary Office, 1918, 504.
54. Although Columbus anchored the Nina at Rastello (Belem), west of Lisbon,
on March 4, 1493, it was not the only ship with news of the discoveries of
his voyage. The Pinta, which had become separated during a tempest, on
February 14, probably arrived at Bayona, Spain, in late February, (not
having been delayed at the Azores, as had Columbus been); and, Martin Alonzo
Pinzon wrote to the Ferdinand and Isabella announcing the discoveries and
begging their permission to report to them upon the voyage, (unaware as to
whether Columbus had survived the tempest or not). The Spanish sovereigns
refused to meet Pinzon, (who died soon after his return to Palos), but they
welcomed a triumphant Columbus to their court at Barcelona. Washington
Irving. John Harmon McElroy, ed. The Life and Voyages of Christopher
Columbus. Vol. 11 of The Complete Works of Washington Irving. Boston: Twayne
Publishers, 1981, 142-62.
55. Fort recounts the "space pig" seen over Llangollen, Wales, on September
2, 1905, in part 2, chapter 18.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
THAT the Geo-system is an incubating organism, of which this earth is the
nucleus -- but an organism that is so strongly characterized by conditions
and features of its own that likening it to any object internal to it is the
interpreting of a thing in terms of a constituent -- so that we think of an
organism that is incompletely, or absurdly inadequately, expressible in
terms of the egg-like and the larval and other forms of the immature -- a
geo-nucleated system that is dependent upon its externality as, in one way
or another, is every similar, but lesser and included, thing -- stimulated
by flows of force that are now said to be meteoric, though many so-called
"meteoric" streams seem more likely to be electric, that radiate from the
umbilical channels of its constellations -- vitalized by its sun, which is
itself replenished by the comets, which, coming from external reservoirs of
force, impart to the sun their freightages, and, unaffected by gravitation,
return to an external existence, some of them even touching the sun, but
showing no indication of supposed solar attraction.
In a technical sense we give up the doctrine of Evolution. Ours is an
expression upon Super-embryonic Development, in one enclosed system. Ours is
an expression upon Design underlying and manifesting in all things within
this one system, with a Final Designer left out, because we know of no
designing force that is not itself the product of remoter design. In terms
of our own experience we cannot think of an ultimate designer, any more than
we can think of ultimacy in any other respect. But we are discussing a
system that, in our conception, is not a final entity; so then no
metaphysical expression upon it is required.
I point out that this expression of ours is not meant for aid and comfort to
the reactionaries of the type of Col. W.J. Bryan, for instance; it is not
altogether anti-Darwinism: the concept of Development replaces the concept
of Evolution, but we accept the process of Selection, not to anything
loosely known as Environ- [239/240] ment, but relatively to underlying
Schedule and Design, predetermined and supervised, as it were, but by
nothing that we conceive of in anthropomorphic terms.(1)
I define what I mean by dynamic design, in the development of any embryonic
thing: a pre-determined, or not accidental, or not irresponsible, passage
along a schedule of phases to a climax of unification of many parts. Some of
the aspects of this process are the simultaneous varying of parts, with
destiny, and not with independence, for their rule, or with future co-
ordinations and functions for their goal; and their survival while still
incipient, not because they are the fittest relatively to contemporaneous
environment, so not because of usefulness or advantage in the present,
inasmuch as at first they are not only functionless but also discordant with
established relations, but surviving because they are in harmony with the
dynamic plan of a whole being: and the presence of forces of suppression, or
repression, as well as forces of stimulation and protection, so that parts
are held back, or are not permitted to develop before their time.
If we accept that these circumstances of embryonic development are the
circumstances of all wider development, within one enclosed system, the
doctrine of Darwinian Evolution, as applied generally, will, in our minds,
have to be replaced by an expression upon Super-embryonic Development, and
Darwinism, unmodified, will become to us one more of the insufficiencies of
the past. Darwinism concerns itself with the adaptations of the present, and
does heed the part that the past has played, but, in Darwinism, there is no
place for the influence of the future upon the present.
Consider any part of an embryonic thing -- the heart of an embryo -- and at
first it is only a loop. It will survive, and it will be nourished in its
functionless incipiency; also it will not be permitted to become a fully
developed heart before its scheduled time arrives; its circumstances are
dominated by what it will be in the future. The eye of an embryo is a better
instance.
Consider anything of a sociologic nature that has ever grown: that there
never has been an art, science, religion, invention that was not at first
out of accord with established environment, visionary, preposterous in the
light of later standards, useless in its incipiency, and resisted by
established forces so that, seem- [240/241] ingly animating it and
protectively underlying it, there may have been something that in spite of
its unfitness made it survive for future usefulness. Also there are data for
the acceptance of all things, in wider being, are held back as well as
protected and prepared for, and not permitted to develop before comes
scheduled time. Langley's flying machine makes me think of something of the
kind -- that this machine was premature; that it appeared a little before
the era of aviation upon this earth, and that therefore Langley could not
fly. But this machine was capable of flying, because, some years later,
Curtis did fly in it.(2) Then one thinks that the Wright Brothers were
successful, because they did synchronize with a scheduled time. I have heard
that it is questionable that Curtis made no alterations in Langley's
machine.(3) There is no lack of instances. One of the greatest of secrets
that have eventually been found out was for ages blabbed by all the pots and
kettles in the world -- but that the secret of the steam engine could not,
to the lowliest of intellects, or to suppositiously highest of intellects,
more than adumbratively reveal itself until came the time for its co-
ordination with the other phenomena and the requirements of the Industrial
Age. And coal that was stored in abundance near the surface of the ground --
and the needs of dwellers over coal mines, veins of which were often exposed
upon the surface of the ground, for fuel -- but that this secret, too, was
obvious, too, could not be revealed until the coming of the Industrial Age.
Then the building of factories, the inventing of machines, the digging of
coal, and the use of steam, all appearing by simultaneous variation, and co-
ordinating. Shores of North America -- nowadays, with less hero-worship than
formerly, historians tell us that, to English and French fishermen, the
coast of Newfoundland was well-known, long before the year 1492;
nevertheless, to the world in general, it was not, or, according to our
acceptances, could not be, known. About the year 1500, a Portuguese fleet
was driven by storms to the coast of Brazil, and returned to Europe. Then
one thinks that likely enough, before the year 1492, other vessels had been
so swept to the coasts of the western hemisphere, and had returned -- but
that data of westward lands could not emerge from the suppressions of the
era -- but that the data did survive, or were preserved for future
usefulness -- that there are [241/242] "Thou shalt nots" engraved upon
something underlying all things, and then effacing, when phases pass away.
We conceive now of all buildings -- within one enclosed system -- in terms
of embryonic building, and of all histories as local aspects of Super-
embryonic Development. Cells of an embryo build falsely and futilely, in the
sense that what they construct will be only temporary and will be out of
adjustment later. If however there are conditions by which successive stages
must be traversed before the arrival of maturity, ours is an expression upon
the false and the futile, in which case these terms, as derogations, should
not be applied. We see that the cells that build have no basis of their own;
that for their formations there is nothing of reason and necessity of their
own, because they flourish in other formations quite as well. We see that
they need nothing of basis, nor of guidance of their own, because basis and
guidance are of the essence of the whole. All are responses, or correlates,
to a succession of commandments, as it were, or of dominant, directing,
supervising spirits of different eras: that they take on appearances that
are concordant with the general gastrula era, changing when comes the
stimulus to agree with the reptilian era, and again responding harmoniously
when comes the time of the mammalian era. It is in accordance with our
experience that never has human mind, scientific, religious, philosophic,
formulated one basic thought, one finally true law, principle, or major
premise from which guidance could be deduced. If any thought were true and
final it would include the deduced. We conceive that there has been
guidance, just the same, if human beings be conceived of as cellular units
in one developing organism; and that human minds no more need foundations of
their own than need the super-embryonic cells that build so preposterously,
according to standards of later growth, but build as they are guided to
build. In this view, human reason is tropism, or response to stimuli, and
reasoning is the trial-and-error process of the most primitive unicellular
organisms, a susceptibility to underlying mandates, then a groping in
perhaps all possible distortions until adjustment with underlying
requirements is reached. In this view, then, though there are, for instance,
no atoms in the Daltonian sense, if in service of a building science, the
[242/243] false doctrine of the atoms be needed, the mind that responds,
perhaps not to stimulus, but to requirement, which seems to be a negative
stimulus, and so conceives, is in adjustment and reaches the state known as
success. I accept, myself, that there may be Final Truth, and that it may be
attainable, but never in a service that is local or special in any one
science or nation or world.
It is our expression that temporary isolations characterize embryonic growth
and super-embryonic growth quite as distinctly as do expansions and co-
ordinations. Local centers of development in an egg -- and they are isolated
before they sketch out attempting relations. Or in wider being -- hemisphere
isolated from hemisphere, and nation from nation -- then the breaking down
of barriers -- the appearance of Japan out of obscurity -- threads of a
military plasm are cast across an ocean by the United States.
Shafts of light that have pierced the obscurity surrounding planets -- and
something like a star shines in Aristarchus of the moon. Embryonic heavens
that have dreamed -- and that their mirages will be realized some day.
Sounds and an interval; sounds and the same interval; sounds again -- that
there is one integrating organism and that we have heard its pulse. [243]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. William Jennings Bryan.
2. "Langley's folly takes air in flight." New York Times, May 29, 1914, p. 1
c. 4 & p. 2 c. 8. "Flies with Langley's aeroplane and vindicates him." New
York Times, May 31, 1914, s. 3 p. 1. "Langley's ship flies again." New York
Times, June 3, 1914, p. 1 c. 7. The pilot was Glenn Hammond Curtiss, (not
Curtis).
3. When Langley was given credit as having invented a man-carrying airplane
by the Smithsonian Institution, (based in part of the flight of Langley's
aircraft by Glenn Hammond Curtiss in 1914), claims were raised that the
machine flown in 1914 was not Langley's original airplane but had been
extensively modified. On October 7 and December 8, 1903, Langley's airplane
was launched over the Potomac, crashing in both instances; but, the failures
were attributed to the launching mechanism rather than the aircraft itself.
Langley's experiments, sponsored by the government, were abandoned; and,
though successful at Kitty-Hawk on December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers
did not attract much attention with their initial flights. Curtiss repaired
the Langley airplane and equipped it with floats, so that it could take-off
and land from the level surface of a lake, (instead of being launched from
an elevated rail, as had been tried in 1903). The only change to the
original engine was a new carburettor, as no one knew how to operate the
original mechanism. Curtiss was testing the aircraft, on a trial run, to see
if it was balanced and how it worked with the added air-drag upon the floats
and the extra weight from the floats and repaired wings. On this trial, the
airplane flew successfully. Curtiss proceeded to make some modifications
with subsequent flights; and, these latter changes were cited by critics,
including Orville Wright, who denied that the Langley airplane could be
flown without extensive modifications to its wings, engine, and
construction. To support the claims of the Wright patents, "movable
ailerons" were said to be "decisive" and necessary for an airplane to be
able to be flown; and, Orville Wright blamed the 1903 crashes upon the
trusses, (not on the launching mechanism), of Langley's aircraft. It did not
seem to matter that Langley had built and flown self-propelled models, which
were extremely stable and could be flown without a pilot. The success of the
Wright Brothers was in developing "wing warping," which gave "adequate
lateral control even to an unstable aeroplane." The 1914 tests were worse
than useless, according to Bentley, who complained that only a duplicate of
Langley's original craft would have settled the silly dispute of who first
invented a working airplane, though the Wright Brothers were clearly
acknowledged as the first to succeed in their efforts. "Attacks 1914 test of
Langley plane." New York Times, October 21, 1921, p. 17 c. 1-2. "Hold test
proved Langley's claims." New York Times, October 22, 1921, p. 15 c. 6.
"Will try to keep Wright plane here." New York Times, May 3, 1925, s. 1 p.
26 c. 2. Howard Mingos. "Who invented airplane? Congress may say." New York
Times, May 10, 1925, s. 9 p. 4. Edward M. Bentley. "Changes in Langley
plane." New York Times, May 10, 1925, s. 9 p. 16 c. 3. "Who invented the
aeroplane?" Literary Digest, 71 (December 17, 1921): 21-2.
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
FEB. 7, 1922 -- an explosion "of startling intensity" in the sky of the
northwestern point of the London Triangle (Nature, Feb. 23, 1922).(1)
Repeating phenomena in a local sky -- in L'Astronomie, 36-201, it is said
that, at Orsay (Seine-et-Oise) Feb. 15, 1922, a detonation was heard in the
sky, and that 9 hours later a similar sound was heard, and that an
illumination was seen in the sky.(2) It is said that, 10 nights later, at
Verneuil, in the adjoining province, Oise, a great, fiery mass was seen
falling from the sky.
March 12, 1922 -- rocks that had been falling "from the clouds," for three
weeks, at Chico, a town in an "earthquake region" in California (New York
Times, March 12, 1922).(3) Large, smooth rocks that "seemed to come straight
from the clouds."
In the San Francisco Chronicle, in issues dating from the 12th to the 18th
of March -- clippings sent to me by Mr. Maynard Shipley, writer and lecturer
upon scientific subjects, if there be such subjects -- the accounts are of
stones that, for four months, had been falling intermittently from the sky,
almost always upon the roofs of two adjoining warehouses, in Chico, but,
upon one occasion, falling three blocks away: "a downpour of oval-shaped
stones;" "a heavy shower of warm rocks."(4) San Francisco Call, March 16 --
"warm rocks."(5) It is said that crowds gathered, and that upon the 17th of
March a "deluge" of rocks fell upon a crowd, injuring one person.(6) The
police "combed" all surroundings: the only explanation that they could think
of was that somebody was firing stones from a catapult.(7) One person was
suspected by them, but, upon the 14th of March, a rock fell when he was
known not to be in the neighborhood.(8)
The circumstances point to one origin of these stones, stationary in the
sky, above the town of Chico.
Upon the first of January, 1922, the attention of Marshal J. A. [244/245]
Peck, of Chico, had been called to the phenomena. After investigating more
than two months, he said (San Francisco Examiner, March 14): "I could find
no one through my investigations who could explain the matter. At various
times I have heard and seen the stones. I think someone with a machine is to
blame."(9)
Prof. C.K. Studley, vice-president of the Teachers' College, Chico, is
quoted in the Examiner:
"Some of the rocks are so large that they could not be thrown by any
ordinary means. One of the rocks weighs 16 ounces. They are not of meteoric
origin, as seems to have been hinted, because two of them show signs of
cementation, either natural or artificial, and no meteoric factor was ever
connected with a cement factory."
Once upon a time, dogmatists supposed, asserted, angrily declared sometimes,
that all stones that fall from the sky must be of "true meteoric material."
That time is now of the past. See Nature, 105-759 -- a description of two
dissimilar stones, cemented together, seen to fall from the sky, at
Cumberland Falls, Ky., April 9, 1919.(10)
Miriam Allen de Ford (P.O. Box 573, San Francisco, Cal. -- or see the
Readers' Guide) has sent me an account of her own observations. About the
middle of March, 1922, she was in Chico, and investigated. Went to the scene
of the falling rocks; discussed the subject with persons in the crowd.
"While I was discussing it with some bystanders, I looked up at the
cloudless sky, and suddenly saw a rock falling straight down, as if becoming
visible when it came near enough. This rock struck the roof with a thud, and
bounced off on the track beside the warehouse, and I could not find it." "I
learned that the rocks had been falling since July, 1921, though no
publicity arose until November."
There have been other phenomena at Chico. In the New York Times, Sept. 2,
1878, upon the 20th of August, 1878, according to the Chico Record, a great
number of small fishes fell from the sky, at Chico, covering the roof of a
store, and falling in the streets, upon an area of several acres.(11)
Perhaps the most important observation is that they fell from a cloudless
sky. Several occurrences are listed as earthquakes, by Dr. Holden, in
[245/246] his Catalog; but the detonations that were heard in Oroville, a
town near Chico, Jan. 2, 1887, are said, in the Monthly Weather Review,
1887-24, to have been in the sky.(12) Upon the night of March 5-6, 1885,
according to the Chico Chronicle, a large object, of very hard material,
weighing several tons, fell from the sky, near Chico (Monthly Weather
Review, March, 1885).(13) In the year 1893, an iron object, said to be
meteoritic, was found at Oroville (Mems. Nat. Acad. Sci., 13-345).(14)
My own idea is either that there is land over the town of Chico, and not far
away, inasmuch as objects from it fall with a very narrow distribution, or
that far away, and therefore invisible, there may be land from which objects
have been carried in a special current to one very small part of this
earth's surface. If anyone would like to read an account of stones that fell
intermittently for several days, clearly enough as if in a current, or in a
field of special force, of some kind, at Livet, near Clavaux, France,
December, 1842, see the London Times, Jan. 13, 1843.(15) There have been
other such occurrences. Absurdly, when they were noticed at all, they were
supposed to be psychic phenomena. I conceive that there is no more of the
psychic to these occurrences than there is to the arrival of seeds from the
West Indies upon the coast of England.(16) Stones that fell upon a house,
near the Pantheon, Paris, for three weeks, January, 1849 -- see Dr.
Wallace's Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, p. 284.(17) Several times, in
the course of this book, I have tried to be reasonable. I have asked what
such repeating phenomena in one local sky do indicate, if they do not
indicate fixed origins in the sky. And if such occurrences, supported by
many data in other fields, do not indicate the stationariness of this earth,
with new lands not far away -- tell me what it is all about. The falling
stones of Chico -- new lands in the sky -- or what?
Boston Transcript, March 21, 1922 -- clipping sent to me by Mr. J. David
Stern, Editor and Publisher of the Camden (N.J.) Daily Courier --
"Geneva, March 21 -- During a heavy snow-storm in the Alps recently
thousands of exotic insects resembling spiders, caterpillars and huge ants
fell on the slopes and quickly died. Local naturalists are unable to explain
the phenomenon, but one theory is [246/247] that the insects were blown in
on the wind from a warmer climate."(18)
The fall of unknown insects in a snow storm is not the circumstance that I
call most attention to. It is worth noting that I have records of half a
dozen similar occurrences in the Alps, usually about the last of January,
but the striking circumstance is that insects of different species and of
different specific gravities fell together. The conventional explanation is
that a wind, far away, raised a great variety of small objects, and
segregated them according to specific gravity, so that twigs and grasses
fell in one place, dust some other place, pebbles somewhere else, and
insects farther along somewhere. This would be very fine segregation. There
was no very fine segregation in this occurrence. Something of a seasonal, or
migratory, nature, from some other world, localized in the sky, relatively
to the Alps, is suggested.
May 4, 1922 -- discovery, by F. Burnerd, of three long mounds in the lunar
crater Archimedes. See the English Mechanic, 115-194, 218, 268, 278.(19) It
seems likely that these constructions had been recently built.
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, May 18, 1922 (Associated Press) -- particles of
matter falling continuously for several days.(20) "The phenomenon is
supposed here to be of volcanic origin, but all the volcanoes of the West
Indies are reported as quiet."
New York Tribune, July 3, 1922, that, for the fourth time in one month, a
great volume of water, or a "cloudburst," had poured from one local sky,
near Carbondale, Pa.(21)
Oct. 15, 1922 -- a large quantity of white substance that fell upon the
shores of Lake Michigan, near Chicago. It fell upon the clothes of hundreds
of persons, fell upon the campus of Northwestern University, likely enough
fell upon the astronomical observatory of the University. It occurred to one
of these hundreds, or thousands, or persons to collect some of this
substance. He is Mr. L.A. Hopkins, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago. He sent
me a sample. I think that it is spider web, because it is viscous: when
burned it chars with the crinkled effect of burned hair and feathers, and
the odor is similar. But it is strong, tough substance, of a cottony
texture, when rolled up. The interesting circumstance to me is that similar
substance has fallen frequently [247/248] upon this earth, in October, but
that, in terrestrial terms, seasonal migration of aëronautical spiders can
not be thought of, because in the tropics and in Australia, as well as in
the United States and in England, such showers have occurred in October.
Then something seasonal, but seasonal in an extra-mundane sense, is
suggested. See the Scientific Australian, Sept., 1916 -- that, from October
5 to 29, 1915, an enormous fall of similar substance occurred upon a region
of thousands of square miles, in Australia.(22)
Time after time, in data that I have only partly investigated, occur
declarations that, during devastations commonly known as "earthquakes," in
Chile, the sky has flamed, or that "strange illuminations" in the sky have
been seen. In the Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., for instance, some of these
descriptions have been noted, and have been hushed up with the explanation
that they were the reports of unscientific persons.(23)
Latest of the great quakes in Chile -- 1,500 dead "recovered" in one of the
cities of the Province of Atacama. New York Tribune, Nov. 15, 1922 --
"Again, today, severe earthquakes shook the Province of Coquimbo and other
places and strange illuminations were observed over the sea off La Serena
and Copiapo."(24)
Back to Crater Mountain, Arizona, for an impression -- but far more
impressive are similar data as to these places of Atacama and Copiapo, in
Chile. In the year 1845, M. Darlu, of Valparaiso, read, before the French
Academy, a paper, in which he asserted that, in the desert of Atacama, which
begins at Copiapo, meteorites are strewn upon the ground in such numbers
that they are met at every step. If these objects fell all at one time in
this earthquake region, we have another instance conceivably of mere
coincidence between the aërial and the seismic. If they fell at different
times, the indications are of a fixed relationship between this part of
Chile and a center somewhere in the sky of falling objects commonly called
"meteorites" and of cataclysms that devastate this part of Chile with
concussions commonly called "earthquakes." There is a paper upon this
subject in Science, 14-434. Here the extreme abundance asserted by M. Darlu
is questioned: it is said that only thirteen of these objects were known to
science.(25) But, according to descriptions, four of them are stones, or
stone-irons, differing so that, in the opinion of the writer, and not
[248/249] merely so interpreted by me, these four objects fell at different
times. Then the nine others are considered. They are nickel-irons. They,
too, are different, one from another. So then it is said that these thirteen
objects, all from one place, were, with reasonable certainty, the products
of different falls.
Behind concepts that sometimes seem delirious, I offer -- a reasonable
certainty --
That, existing somewhere beyond this earth, perhaps beyond a revolving shell
in which the nearby stars are openings, there are stationary regions, from
which, upon many occasions, have emanated "meteors," sometimes exploding
catastrophically over Atacama, Chile, for instance. Coasts of South America
have reeled, and the heavens have been afire. Reverberations in the sky --
the ocean has responded with islands. Between sky and earth of Chile there
have been flaming intimacies of destruction and slaughter and woe --
Silence that is conspiracy to hide past ignorance; that is imbecility, or
that is the unawareness of the profoundest hypnosis.
Hypnosis --
That the seismologists, too, have functioned in preserving the illusion of
this earth's isolation, and by super-embryonic processes have been
hypnotized into oblivion of a secret that has been proclaimed with
avalanches of fire from the heavens, and that has babbled from brooks of the
blood of crushed populations, and that is monumentalized in ruins.
THE END
[249]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. "Fireball observed in sunshine." Nature, 109 (February 23, 1922): 249.
Also: "Fireball observed in sunshine." Nature, 109 (February 16, 1922): 217.
The phenomenon occurred in Warwickshire, which is actually outside of the
London Triangle as earlier described by Fort.
2. "Bolides." Bulletin de la Société Astronomique de France, 36 (1922): 201.
3. "Rival ghost on Pacific." New York Times, March 12, 1922, s. 1 p. 14 c.
3. The quotes are not from this article.
4. "Ghostly bombers chase crowds as Chico's shower of rocks is renewed." San
Francisco Chronicle, March 12, 1922, p.1 c.2. "Farm girl Antigonish ghost;
Chico sprayed by hot rocks." San Francisco Chronicle, March 16, 1922, p.1
c.2-3. In addition to these previous and following cited articles, Fort may
have received: "Rock storm sends crowds to Chico." San Francisco Chronicle,
March 13, 1922, p.1 c.5 & p.2 c.5. "Negro youths Chico's ghosts, new rock
clue." San Francisco Chronicle, March 14, 1922, p.1 c.5 & p.2 c.3.
5. Vincent Jones. "Rock hurling Chico spooks baffle S.F. psychic." San
Francisco Call, March 13, 1922, p.3 c.3.
6. "Rock hurling ghost at Chico peppers crowd with missiles." San Francisco
Chronicle, March 18, 1922, p.1 c.2.
7. "Warrant out for Chico rock ghost." San Francisco Chronicle, March 17,
1922, p.1 c.2. Sheriff William Alexander had come from Oroville, on March
16, and, that night, was "combing the district surrounding the Charge
warehouse....," (not "combed").
8. "Ghost continues to assail Chico." San Francisco Chronicle, March 15,
1922, p.1 c.4.
9. "Scientists study Chico mystery...." San Francisco Examiner, March 14,
1922, p.9 c.2-3. Correct quote: "...with a cement plant."
10. "An interesting meteorite." Nature, 105 (August 12, 1920): 759.
11. "Singular phenomenon." New York Times, September 2, 1878, p. 5 c. 5. The
Chico Record article is no longer extant but was reproduced in the weekly
edition: "Singular phenomenon." Butte Weekly Record (California), August 24,
1878, p. 3 c. 5.
12. Edward S. Holden. "Catalogue of earthquakes on Pacific Coast, 1769 to
1897." Miscellaneous Collections of the Smithsonian Institute, 37, (art. 5
n. 1087, II): 57 (January 27, 1861), 97 (January 24, 1875), 136 (June 19,
1889), 180 (April 19, 1892), and 189 (April 21, 1892). "Meteors." Monthly
Weather Review, 15 (January 1887): 24.
13. "Meteors." Monthly Weather Review, 13 (March 1885): 77. This appears to
be a spurious newspaper account. The Chico Chronicle, which is cited, is no
longer extant. I have found no other record of this large meteorite being
found, and the report of its fall was dismissed, as a newspaper fraud, by a
rival newspaper in Oroville.
14. Oliver Cummings Farrington. "Catalogue of the meteorites of North
America, to January 1, 1909." Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences,
13 (1915): 345-6, c.v. "Oroville."
15. "Aerolites." London Times, January 13, 1843, p.3 c.3.
16. Maury, with regard to the influence of the Gulf Stream, wrote: "Drift-
wood, trees, and seeds from the West India islands, are often cast up on the
shores of Europe, but rarely on the Atlantic shores of this country."
Matthew Fontaine Maury. John Leighly, ed. The Physical Greography of the Sea
and Its Meteorology. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1963; 52, c.v. sec. 111 ("111").
17. Alfred Russel Wallace. Miracles and Modern Spiritualism. London: 1893
(3rd rev.), 1896, 1901.
18. "Exotic insects pelt down and die on frigid Alps." Boston Transcript,
March 21, 1922, p.12 c.1. Correct quote: "...blown in from a warmer
climate."
19. F. Burnerd. "Archimedes." English Mechanic, 115 (May 12, 1922): 194.
G.P.B. Hallowes. "Archimedes." English Mechanic, 115 (May 26, 1922): 218. A.
Stanley Williams. "Archimedes." English Mechanic, 115 (June 23, 1922): 268.
G.P.B. Hallowes. "Archimedes." English Mechanic, 115 (June 30, 1922): 278-9.
20. "Dust storm in West Indies." New York Times, May 19, 1922, p. 10 c. 1.
Correct quote: "...all of the volcanoes in the West Indies...."
21. "Fourth flood in month sweeps Carbondale, Pa." New York Tribune, July 3,
1922, p. 5 c. 7.
22. W.J. Rainbow. "The gossamer spider." Scientific Australian, 22
(September 1916): 1-3. "A large area of Western Australia" is stated, (not
an area measured in thousands of square miles).
23. Montesses De Ballore. "The so-called luminous phenomena of earthquakes,
and the present state of the problem." Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 3 (December 1913): 187-90, at 188-9.
24. "Chile quake toll increases as one city reports 1,500 dead." New York
Tribune, November 15, 1922, p. 2 c. 2-3. Correct quote: "Again to-day severe
earth tremors shook the Province of Coquimbo and other places and strange
illuminations were observed last night over the sea off La Serena and at
Copiapo."
25. "Supposed showers of meteorites in the desert of Atacama." Science,
n.s., 14 (December 27, 1889): 433-4.