diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78289-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78289-h/78289-h.htm | 9593 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78289-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 2967258 bytes |
2 files changed, 9593 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78289-h/78289-h.htm b/78289-h/78289-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f806368 --- /dev/null +++ b/78289-h/78289-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,9593 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> + <head> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title>New lands | Project Gutenberg</title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 10%; } + h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.4em; } + h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } + h3 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } + .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; + text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; + border: thin solid silver; padding: .1em .2em; font-style: normal; + font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; } + p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } + .fss { font-size: 75%; } + .sc { font-variant: small-caps; } + .large { font-size: large; } + .xlarge { font-size: x-large; } + .xxlarge { font-size: xx-large; } + abbr { border-bottom-width: thin; border-bottom-style: dotted; } + abbr.spell { speak-as: spell-out; } + .lg-container-b { text-align: center; } + .x-ebookmaker .lg-container-b { clear: both; } + .linegroup { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } + .x-ebookmaker .linegroup { display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; } + .linegroup .group { margin: 1em auto; } + .linegroup .line { text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em; } + div.linegroup > :first-child { margin-top: 0; } + ul.ul_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 2.78%; margin-top: .5em; + margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: disc; } + ul.ul_2 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 6.94%; margin-top: .5em; + margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: circle; } + div.pbb { page-break-before: always; } + hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; } + .x-ebookmaker hr.pb { display: none; } + .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } + .figcenter { clear: both; max-width: 100%; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; } + .figcenter img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; } + .id001 { width:80%; } + .x-ebookmaker .id001 { margin-left:10%; width:80%; } + .ig001 { width:100%; } + .table0 { margin: auto; margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 2%; width: 96%; } + .colwidth24 { width:24% ; } + .colwidth51 { width:51% ; } + .nf-center { text-align: center; } + .nf-center-c1 { text-align: left; margin: 1em 0; } + .c000 { margin-top: 1em; } + .c001 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 1em; } + .c002 { margin-top: 4em; } + .c003 { margin-top: 4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c004 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c005 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; } + .c006 { margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c007 { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-top: 0.8em; + margin-bottom: 0.8em; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%; width: 30%; } + .c008 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c009 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c010 { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c011 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 95%; } + .c012 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em; } + .c013 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; } + .c014 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; } + div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA; + border:1px solid silver;margin:1em 5% 0 5%;text-align:justify; } + abbr {border:none; text-decoration:none; font-variant:normal; } + </style> + </head> + <body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78289 ***</div> + +<div class='figcenter id001'> +<span class='pageno' id='Page_on'>on</span> +<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' class='ig001'> +</div> +<div class='pbb'> + <hr class='pb c000'> +</div> +<div> + <h1 class='c001'>New Lands</h1> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c1'> +<div class='nf-center c002'> + <div><span class='xxlarge'><b>NEW LANDS</b></span></div> + <div class='c000'><b>BY</b></div> + <div><span class='xxlarge'><b>CHARLES FORT</b></span></div> + <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>Introduction by</b></span></div> + <div><span class='xlarge'><b>BOOTH TARKINGTON</b></span></div> + <div class='c000'>BONI & LIVERIGHT PUBLISHERS: NEW YORK</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c003'>COPYRIGHT, 1923, BY BONI & LIVERIGHT, INC.</p> + +<p class='c004'>PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</p> + +<p class='c004'>VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY</p> + +<p class='c004'>BINGHAMTON AND NEW YORK</p> +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_1'>1</span> + <h2 class='c005'>INTRODUCTION</h2> +</div> +<p class='c006'>“Personally” (as we are more wont to say in our youth than +in our 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 +<i>duty</i> to read the Introduction. Usually I decide to read +the book first 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 even 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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>I opened it, not at the first page, looking for Cartouche Jonathan +Wild, Pranzini, Lacenaire, and read the following passage:</p> + +<p class='c008'>“The fittest survive.</p> + +<p class='c009'>What is meant by the fittest?</p> + +<p class='c009'>Not the strongest; not the cleverest—</p> + +<p class='c009'>Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.</p> + +<p class='c009'>There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing +does survive.</p> + +<p class='c009'>‘Fitness’ then, is only another name for ‘survival.’”</p> + +<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_2'>2</span>Finding no Guiteau or Troppmann here, I let the pages slide +under my fingers and stopped at this:</p> + +<p class='c008'>“My own pseudo-conclusion:</p> + +<p class='c009'>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 or frogs’ 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.”</p> + +<p class='c010'>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:</p> + +<p class='c008'>“An object from which nets were suspended—</p> + +<p class='c009'>Deflated balloon with its network hanging from it—</p> + +<p class='c009'>A super-dragnet?</p> + +<p class='c009'>That something was trawling overhead?</p> + +<p class='c009'>The birds of Baton Rouge.</p> + +<p class='c009'>I think that we’re fished for. It may be we’re highly esteemed +by super-epicures somewhere.”</p> + +<p class='c008'>... “Melanicus.</p> + +<p class='c009'>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.”</p> + +<p class='c008'>... “British India Company’s steamer <i>Patna</i>, while on a +<span class='pageno' id='Page_3'>3</span>voyage up the Persian Gulf. In May, 1880, on a dark night about +11:30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> there suddenly appeared on each side of the ship an +enormous luminous wheel, whirling around, 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 seen all the way round.”</p> + +<p class='c008'>... “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 are many fishes and +frogs—tracts of land covered with caterpillars—”</p> + +<p class='c008'>... “Black rains—red rains—the fall of a thousand tons of +butter.</p> + +<p class='c009'>Jet black snow—pink snow—blue hailstones—hailstones flavored +like oranges.</p> + +<p class='c009'>Punk and silk and charcoal.”</p> + +<div class='lg-container-b c011'> + <div class='linegroup'> + <div class='group'> + <div class='line'>... “A race of tiny beings</div> + <div class='line'>They crucified cockroaches.</div> + <div class='line'>Exquisite beings—”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c010'>But here I turned back to the beginning and read this vigorous +and astonishing 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_4'>4</span>the astronomers it can at least be said that the literature of indignation +is enriched by it.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='sc'>Booth Tarkington.</span></p> +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_5'>5</span> + <h2 class='c005'>PART <abbr title='one'>I</abbr></h2> +</div> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_7'>7</span> + <h3 class='c012'>NEW LANDS <br> CHAPTER ONE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Lands in the sky—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That they are nearby—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That they do not move.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I take for a principle that all being is the infinitely serial, and +that whatever has been will, with differences of particulars, be +again—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The last quarter of the fifteenth century—land to the west!</p> + +<p class='c004'>This first quarter of the twentieth century—we shall have revelations.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +can not 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_8'>8</span>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.” Eskimos +of Disco, Greenland, are publishing a newspaper. There +must be outlet, or there will be explosion—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Outlet and invitation and opportunity—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Islands of space—see <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> this and <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> that—accounts +from the <i>Repts. of the Brit. Assoc. for the Ad. of Sci.</i>—<i>Nature</i> +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 the oceans of an extra-geography—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There are, or there are not, nearby cities of foreign existences. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_9'>9</span>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 the 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>A scientific priestcraft—</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Thou shalt not!” is crystallized in its frozen textbooks.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 to 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>But sounds have been 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_10'>10</span>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 after 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>Phantom dogmas, with their tails clutching at vacancies, are +coiled around our data.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Serpents of pseudo-thought are stifling history.</p> + +<p class='c004'>They are squeezing “Thou shalt not!” upon Development.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 desert. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_11'>11</span>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>If, out of a dreary, academic zenith shower betrayals of frailty, +folly, and falsification, they will be manna to our malices—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Or sterile demonstrations be warmed by our cheerful cynicisms +into delicious little lies—blossoms and fruits of unexpected +oases—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Rocks to strike with our suspicions—and the gush of exposures +foaming with new implications.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>I hear three yells from some hitherto undiscovered, grotesque +critter at the very entrance of the desert.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_12'>12</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWO</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>“Prediction Confirmed!”</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Another Verification!”</p> + +<p class='c004'>“A Third Verification of Prediction!”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Three times, in spite of its long-established sobriety, the +<i>Journal of the Franklin Institute</i>, <abbr title='volumes'>vols.</abbr> 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 the astrologers had squirmed into prestige +and emolument by shooting at marks, disregarding their misses, +and recording their hits with unseemly advertisement. 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_13'>13</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>The Story of the Heavens</i>, Sir Robert Ball’s opinion of +the discovery of Neptune is that it is a triumph unparalleled in +the annals of science. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to Leverrier, there was a planet external to Uranus; +according to Hansen, there were two; according to Airy, “doubtful +if there were one.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Leverrier calculated that the hypothetic 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 <i>American +Journal of Science</i>, of the period. Upon August 29, 1849, Dr. +Babinet read, to the French Academy, a paper in which he showed +that, by the observations of three years, the revolution of Neptune +would have to be placed at 165 years. Between the limits +of 207 and 233 years was the period that Leverrier had calculated. +Simultaneously, in England, Adams had calculated. +Upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_14'>14</span>The discovery of the asteroids, or in Prof. Chase’s not very +careful language, the discovery of the “asteroidal belt as deduced +from Bode’s Law”:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Philosophical Magazine</i>, 12-62:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>As an instance of the crafty way in which some astronomers +now tell the story, see Sir Robert Ball’s <i>Story of the Heavens</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 230:</p> + +<p class='c004'>The organization of the 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_15'>15</span>Prof. Swift and Prof. Watson in recording the positions of the +bodies that they had announced—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Sidereal Messenger</i>, 6-84:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Colbert, Superintendent of 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Popular Astronomy</i>, 7-13:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Perched upon two delusions, Prof. Chase crowed his false +raptures. The unknown bodies, whether they ever had been in +the orbit of his calculations or not, were never seen again.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>rapport</i> 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_16'>16</span>or seeming existence of exactness and realness, somewhere—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The Discovery of Uranus.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 646. <i>Philosophical Transactions</i>, 71-492—a paper +by Herschel—“An account of a comet discovered on March 13, +1781.” A year went by, and not an astronomer in the world knew +a new planet when he saw one: then Lexell did find out that the +supposed comet was a planet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Statues from which used to drip the life-blood of a parasitic +cult—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Structures of parabolas from which bleed equations—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that the 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 of mathematics, final, sacred mathematics, can this +next to the simplest problem in so-called mathematical astronomy +be solved?</p> + +<p class='c004'>It can not be solved.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Every now and then, somebody announces that he has solved +the Problem of the Three Bodies, but it is always an incomplete, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_17'>17</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>They computed the orbit of Uranus.</p> + +<p class='c004'>He went somewhere else.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_18'>18</span>That the test of that which is not accidental is ability to do it +again—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to Prof. Todd there is such a planet, and it revolves +around the sun once in 375 years. 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 <i>A Century’s +Progress in Astronomy</i>. It exists, according to Dr. Eric Doolittle, +and revolves once in 283 years (<i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 122-641). +According to Mr. Hind it revolves once in 1,600 years (<i>Smithson. +Miscell. Cols.</i>, 20-20).</p> + +<p class='c004'>So then we have found out some things, and, relatively to the +oppressions that we felt from our opposition, they are reassuring. +But also are they 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 highest prestige in our existence is built +upon the tangled assertions that there are magicians who can +compute in a thousand quantities, though they can not compute +in three.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 astronomers? +<span class='pageno' id='Page_19'>19</span>What can be thought of our whole existence, its nature +and its destiny?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not discover: we can only +betray new symptoms. If I be a part of such a stricken thing, +I know of nothing but sickness and sores and rags to reason with: +my data will be postules; my interpretations will be inflammations—</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_20'>20</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER THREE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>They didn’t.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then Prof. Newton “demonstrated” that the “real” period +was thirty-three and a quarter years. 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. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_21'>21</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There were meteors upon the night of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 spent most of his life explaining. +In the <i>Student</i>, 2-254, he wrote: “Had the morning of +November 14, 1867 been clear in England, we should have seen +the commencement of the display, but not its more brilliant +part.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 14, 1867 was clear enough in England or not. +We suspect that it was a charming morning, in England—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i> 28-32:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Report by <abbr class='spell'>E. J.</abbr> Lowe, Highfield House, night of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 13-14, +1867:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Clear at 1.10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>; high, thin cumuli, at 2 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, but sky +not covered until 3.10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, and the moon’s place visible until +3.55 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>; sky not overcast until 5.50 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_22'>22</span>had been extraordinary meteoric displays, from the year 902 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A.D.</span></abbr> +to the year 1833 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A.D.</span></abbr> 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 <i>Edinburgh Review</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 66. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The test:</p> + +<p class='c004'>The next return of the Leonids were predicted for November, +1899.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Memoirs of the British Astronomical Association</i>, 9-6:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“No meteoric event ever before aroused such widespread interest, +or so grievously disappointed anticipation.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>There were no Leonids in November, 1899.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It was explained. They would be seen next year.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There were no Leonids in November, 1900.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It was explained. They would be seen next year.</p> + +<p class='c004'>No Leonids.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Serviss, in <i>Astronomy in a Nutshell</i>, explains. He explains +that the Leonids did not appear, when they “should” +have appeared, because Jupiter and Saturn had altered their +orbits.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Back in the times of the Crusades, and nothing was disturbing +<span class='pageno' id='Page_23'>23</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Bryant, <i>A History of Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 252:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That the meteoric display of 1899 had failed to appear—“as +had been predicted by Dr. Downing and Dr. Johnstone Stoney.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>One starts to enjoy this disguisement, thinking of virtually +all the astronomers in the world who had predicted the return +of the Leonids, and the finding, 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That even these two said no such saving thing—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Nature</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 9, 1899:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I conceive of the astronomers’ fictitious paradise as malarchitectural +with corrupted equations, and paved with rotten +symbols. Seeming 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_24'>24</span>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Brook’s First Periodic Comet (1886, <abbr title='four'>IV</abbr>)—“We must see what +the years 1909 and 1910 bring forth.” This is pretty indefinite +anticipation—however, nothing was brought forth, according to +<i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 1909 and 1910: the Brooks’ comet +that is recorded is Brooks’, 1889. Giacobini’s Second Periodic +Comet (1900, <abbr title='three'>III</abbr>)—not seen in 1907—“so we shall not have +a chance of knowing more about it until 1914.” No more +known about it in 1914. Borelly’s Comet (1905, <abbr title='two'>II</abbr>)—“Its +<span class='pageno' id='Page_25'>25</span>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, <abbr title='one'>I</abbr>)—expected, in 1909, but not seen up to Mr. +Chambers’ time of writing—no mention in <i>Monthly Notices</i>. +Swift’s Comet, of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 20, 1894—“must be regarded as lost, +unless it should be found in December, 1912.” No mention of +it in <i>Monthly Notices</i>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Three comets were predicted to return in 1913—not one of +them returned (<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 74-326).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Once upon a time, armed with some of the best and latest +cynicisms, I was hunting for prey in the <i>Magazine of Science</i>, +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” (<i>Mag. of Sci.</i>, 1848-107). The +astronomers had predicted the return of a great comet in the +year 1848. In <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 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.” Accepting Prof. Mädler’s determinations, +he predicted that the comet would return to position +nearest the sun, about the end of February, 1848.</p> + +<p class='c004'>No comet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The astronomers explained. I don’t know what the mind of +an astronomer looks like, but I think of a fizzle with excuses +revolving around it. A writer in the <i>American Journal of Science</i>, +2-9-442, explains excellently. It seems that, when the +comet failed to return, Mr. Barber, of 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_26'>26</span>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>But there was no comet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The astronomers explained. They went on calculating, and +ten years later were still calculating. See <i>Recreative Science</i>, +1860-139. It would be heroic were it not mania. What was +the matter with Mr. Barber, of Etwell, and the intellectual tentacles +that he had thrust through centuries is not made clear +in most of the 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then Bomme calculated. He predicted that the comet would +return upon August 2, 1858.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There was no comet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The astronomers went on calculating. They predicted that +the comet would return upon August 22, 1860.</p> + +<p class='c004'>No comet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 had +dropped through the shell of our solar system—if it be a solar +system. There were letters in the newspapers; correspondents +<span class='pageno' id='Page_27'>27</span>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 <i>Recreative Science</i>, 3-143, Webb +says that nothing like it had been seen since the year 1680. +Nevertheless the orthodox pronouncement was that the object was +small and would fade away as quickly as it had appeared. See +the <i>Athenaeum</i>, July 6, 1861—“So small an object will soon get +beyond our view.” (Hind)</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Popular Science Review</i>, 1-513:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, in April, 1862, the thing was still visible.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Something else that was seen under circumstances that can +not be considered triumphant—upon <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 <i>Theta Centauri</i>, 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 +far 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 <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_28'>28</span>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 +<abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 6, 1892, Edwin Holmes discovered a comet. In the <i>Jour. +<abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 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. 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 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 56-316) +announced that, upon <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The comet, which had been receding, kept on receding.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_29'>29</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FOUR</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_30'>30</span>the hydrogenic anguishes of the sun—and there must be astronomers +for the sake of relaxations.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 somewhat matured minds has been determined +as to stars with light companions that encircle them, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Otto Struve was one of the highest of 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 the point of light which, it may be accepted, sooner +or later someone would see. According to Agnes Clerke (<i>System +of the Stars</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 173) over and over Struve watched the point of +light, and convinced himself that it moved as it “should” move, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_31'>31</span>exactly in the calculated orbit. In <i>Reminiscences of an Astronomer</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 138, Prof. Newcomb tells the story. According to +him, an American astronomer then did more than confirm Struve’s +observations: he not only saw but exactly measured the supposed +companion.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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)</p> + +<p class='c004'>Every astronomic triumph is a bright light accompanied by +an imbecility, which may for a while make it variable with +diminishments and then be unnoticed. Priestcrafts are not +merely tyrannies: they’re necessities. There must be more reassuring +ways of telling this story. The good priest <abbr class='spell'>J. E.</abbr> Gore +(<i>Studies in Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 104) tells it safely—not a thing except +that, in the year 1873, a companion of Procyon’s was, by Struve, +“strongly suspected.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Sir Robert Ball, in the <i>Story of the Heavens</i>, says that the +period in which Algol blinks his magnitudes is 2 days, 20 hours, +48 minutes, and 55 seconds. He gives the details of Prof. Vogel’s +calculations upon a speck of light and an invisibility. It is a +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, <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> +773).</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_32'>32</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>But all appearances are illusions.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not 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 imposition was nullified—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Astronomical Journal</i>, 11-113:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, according to Chandler, Algol and his companion do not +revolve around each other merely, but revolve together around +some second imperceptibility—regularly.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr>, 1910:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Mora has shown that, in Algol’s variations there were +irregularities that neither Vogel nor Chandler had accounted for.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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”; +<span class='pageno' id='Page_33'>33</span>Proctor’s statement that, in the thirty years following, the companion +had “conformed fairly well with the calculated orbit.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to the <i>Annual Record of Science and Industry</i>, +1876-18, the companion, in half the time mentioned by Proctor, +had not moved in the calculated orbit. In the <i>Astronomical Register</i>, +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. They do +not conform fairly well. They do not conform at all.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 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, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 31, 1862, if, +upon all other occasions, it would not be where it should be?</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Astronomical Register</i>, 1-94:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Monthly +Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 23-181, 243.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_34'>34</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FIVE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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, <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, +Richard Proctor says—“The ideas of astronomers in these questions +of distance have not changed, and, in the present position of +astronomy, based (in such respects) on absolute demonstration, +they can not change.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 be only one +explanation of meteors”—I think it is that they are shining spear-points +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 a multitude of data be accepted, unformulable +perturbations rack an absolute sureness, and the coils of our little +horizons relax their constrictions.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_35'>35</span>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 predicated 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that 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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That the transit of Venus, in December, 1639, was observed by +Jeremiah Horrox, “the great astronomer.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Herald</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> +16, 1909. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the year 1859, it seems that Dr. Lescarbault was something +<span class='pageno' id='Page_36'>36</span>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. 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 <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 11, 1891, he had seen a new star. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>If a navigator of at least thirty years’ experience should announce +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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 42-467, is a list of astronomers who reported +“unknown” dark bodies that they had seen crossing the disc of +the sun:</p> + +<table class='table0'> +<colgroup> +<col class='colwidth24'> +<col class='colwidth24'> +<col class='colwidth51'> +</colgroup> + <tr> + <td class='c013'>La Concha</td> + <td class='c013'>Montevideo</td> + <td class='c014'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 5, 1789;</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c013'>Keyser</td> + <td class='c013'>Amsterdam</td> + <td class='c014'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 9, 1802;</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c013'>Fisher</td> + <td class='c013'>Lisbon</td> + <td class='c014'>May 5, 1832;</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c013'>Houzeau</td> + <td class='c013'>Brussels</td> + <td class='c014'>May 8, 1845.</td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p class='c004'>According to the <i>Nautical Almanac</i>, the planet Mercury did +cross the disc of the sun upon these dates.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It is either that the Flammarions do so punish those who see +<span class='pageno' id='Page_37'>37</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that they +see that which they “should” not see, which does seem beefy. +One turns the not very attractive-looking pages of the <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 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 +(<i>English Mechanic</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 20, 1893). The reader is told, by Andrew +Barclay, <abbr class='spell'>F. R. A. S.</abbr>, Kilmarnock, Scotland, that this +enormity is the planet Jupiter, according to the speculum of his +Gregorian telescope.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the next issue of the <i>English Mechanic</i>, Capt. Noble, <abbr class='spell'>F. R. +A. S.</abbr>, writes, gently enough, that, if he had such a telescope, he +would dispose of the optical parts for whatever they would bring, +and would make a chimney cowl of the tube.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>English Mechanic</i>, 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 his dangling twin is embedded, +its dwarfed body lopping out from his side. There is a description +by Mr. Barclay, according to whom the main body is red, +and the protuberance blue.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Capt. Noble—“Preposterous ... last straw that breaks the +camel’s back!”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. One reads on, interested in quieter matters, and +gradually forgets the controversy—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>English Mechanic</i>, August 23, 1897:</p> + +<p class='c004'>A gallery of monstrosities: Andrew Barclay, signing himself +“<abbr class='spell'>F. R. A. S.</abbr>,” exhibiting:</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_38'>38</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Capt. 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!” And +upon page 362, of this volume of the <i>English Mechanic</i>, Capt. +Noble calls the whole matter “a pseudo <abbr class='spell'>F. R. A. S.</abbr>’s crazy +hallucinations.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Lists of the Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society, from +June, 1875 to June, 1896:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Barclay, Andrew, Kilmarnock, Scotland; elected <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 8, 1856.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>I can not find the list for 1897 in the libraries. List for 1898—Andrew +Barclay’s name omitted. Thou shalt not see lumps on +Jupiter.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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. 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 <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_39'>39</span>when scientists refused to look at the preposterous, enraging, impossible +moons of Jupiter.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 33-327, is a letter from the astronomer, +<abbr class='spell'>A.</abbr> Stanley Williams. He had written previously upon +double stars, their colors and 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 <i>Cycle of Celestial Objects</i>. In the +<i>English Mechanic</i>, 33-377, Sadler says that, earnestly, he would +advise Williams not to use the new edition of Smyth’s <i>Cycle</i>, because, +with the exception of <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 40, <i>Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical +Society</i>, “a more disgracefully inaccurate” catalog of +double stars had never been published. “If,” says one astronomer +to the other astronomer, “you have a copy of this miserable +production, sell it for waste paper. It is crammed with the most +stupid errors.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>A new character appears. He is George <abbr class='spell'>F.</abbr> Chambers, <abbr class='spell'>F. R. +A. S.</abbr>, author of a long list of astronomical works, and a tract, +entitled, <i>Where Are You Going, Sunday</i>? 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?”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Late in the year 1876, Herbert Sadler was elected a Fellow +of the Royal Astronomical Society. In <i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, +<abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr>, 1879, appears his first paper that was read to the Society: +<i>Notes on the late Admiral Smyth’s Cycle of Celestial Objects, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_40'>40</span>volume second, known as the Bedford Catalogue</i>. With no especial +vehemence, at least according to our own standards of repression, +Sadler expresses himself upon some “extraordinary mistakes” +in this work.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Observatory</i>, 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. +In <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>We find that it was Mr. Chambers who had revised and published +the new edition of Smyth’s <i>Cycle</i>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, Chambers challenged Sadler to publish, +say, fifty “stupid errors.” See page 451, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 33, <i>English +Mechanic</i>—Sadler lists just fifty “stupid errors.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The <i>English Mechanic</i> 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 <i>Cycle</i>, in <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 40-497, +and the language in this criticism, by <abbr class='spell'>S. W.</abbr> 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.” Burnham lists 30 +pages of errors.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Following is a paper by <abbr class='spell'>E. B.</abbr> Knobel, who published 17 pages +of instances in which, in his opinion, Mr. Burnham had been too +severe. Knowing of no objection by Burnham to this reduction, +we have left 13 pages of errors in one standard astronomical +<span class='pageno' id='Page_41'>41</span>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Reminiscences of an +Astronomer</i>, 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.” 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_42'>42</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SIX</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'><i>English Mechanic</i>, 56-184:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, upon April 25, 1892, Archdeacon Nouri climbed +Mt. Ararat. It was his hope that he should find something of +archæologic compensation for his clamberings. He found Noah’s +Ark.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 saints. Dr. Holden was waiting for 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 that 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 <i>Observatory</i>, +20-467. This revelation came from Prof. Colton, who, +though probably faithful to all the “saints,” did not like Dr. +Holden.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_43'>43</span>hear it said, so authoritatively, that the round shadow of this +earth upon the moon proves that this 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. An object six +miles away should be depressed 288 inches, or, allowing for refraction, +according to Proctor (<i>Old and New Astronomy</i>) 216 +inches. 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 <i>Field</i>, 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 most 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 80-40, some one writes to find out +<span class='pageno' id='Page_44'>44</span>about the “Bedford Canal Experiment.” 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 established doctrine. Upon page 138, +Lady Blount answers—that, upon May 11, 1904, she had gone to +the Bedford Canal, accompanied by Mr. <abbr class='spell'>E.</abbr> 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. 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 <i>English Mechanic</i>, a reproduction +of this photograph is published. 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. <abbr class='spell'>H.</abbr> Yule Oldham +read a paper upon his investigations at the Bedford Canal. He, +too, showed photographs. In his photographs, everything that +should have been invisible was invisible.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Earth Features and Their +Meaning</i>, Prof. Hobbs says that this earth is top-shaped, quite as +the sloping extremities of Africa and South America suggest. +According to Prof. Hobbs, observations upon the pendulum suggest +that this earth is shaped like a top. Some years ago, Dr. +Gregory read a paper at a meeting of the Royal Geographical Society, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_45'>45</span>giving data to support the theory of a top-shaped earth. 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 <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 17-315; 18-143; +<i>Pop. Sci. News</i>, 31-234; <i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 77-159; <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 100-441.</p> + +<p class='c004'>As to 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>Well, for instance, that it is this earth that moves, though the +sun seems to, by the same illusion by which to passengers on a +boat, the shore seems to move, though it is the boat that is moving.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_46'>46</span>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Young, for instance, in his <i>Manual of Astronomy</i>, 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. Then, if Copernicus founded the present system, +he founded upon nothing. He had nothing to base upon. He +either never heard of, or could not detect one of these abstrusities. +All his logic is 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_47'>47</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SEVEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>The three abstrusities:</p> + +<p class='c004'>The aberration of light, the annual parallax of the stars, +the regular, annual shift of the lines of the stellar spectra.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 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. 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 a 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, this 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_48'>48</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Young’s third “proof” is spectroscopic.</p> + +<p class='c004'>To what degree can spectroscopy in astronomy be relied upon?</p> + +<p class='c004'>Bryant, <i>A History of Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 206:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, according to Bélopolsky, Venus rotates in about 24 hours, +as determined by the spectroscope; that, according to Dr. Slipher, +Venus rotates in about 224 days, as determined by the spectroscope.</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to observations too numerous to make it necessary +to cite any, the seeming motions of stars, occulted by the moon, +show that the moon has atmosphere. According to the spectroscope, +there is no atmosphere upon the moon (<i>Pubs. Astro. Soc. +Pacific</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 6, <abbr title='number'>no.</abbr> 37).</p> + +<p class='c004'>The ring of light around Venus, during the transits of 1874 and +1882, indicated that Venus has atmosphere. Most astronomers +<span class='pageno' id='Page_49'>49</span>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 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, +4-22).</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 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. In <i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 27-178, +are published results of spectroscopic examinations of Mars by +Huggins: abundance of oxygen; same vapors as the vapors of this +earth.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the 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.” 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 the rate of 12.4 miles a second—“as they ought to,” +says Prof. Young, in his gospel, <i>Elements of Astronomy</i>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not be seen at all without a telescope, +whereby they seem to constitute a solid and motionless +structure, and one admires, or one worships, according to one’s +inexperience—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_50'>50</span>as we will—there’s the 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>A gleam on a planet that’s like shine on a sword to deliver us—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The White Spot of Saturn—</p> + +<p class='c004'>A bright and shining deliverer.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Often has a white spot been seen upon the rings of Saturn: by +Schmidt, Bond, Secchi, Schroeter, Harding, Schwabe, De Vico—a +host of other astronomers.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It is stationary.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 49-195, Thomas Gwyn Elger publishes +a sketch of it as he saw it upon the nights of April 18 +and 20, 1889. 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 <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 49, <i>English Mechanic</i>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Nature</i>, 53-109:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, in July and August, 1895, Prof. Mascari, of the Catania +<span class='pageno' id='Page_51'>51</span>Observatory, had seen dark spots upon the crepe ring of Saturn. +The writer in <i>Nature</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Certainly enough, relatively to my purpose, which is to 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 the view of manufacturers +of spectroscopes, for instance; but a phantom thing dies +a phantom death, and must be slain over and over again.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I should say that just what is called the spectrum of a star is +not commonly understood. It is one of the greatest 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 <abbr class='spell'>D.</abbr> Anderson, of Edinburgh, +discovered a new star that became known as Nova Aurigae. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Monthly Notices</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr>, 1893, it is said that probably for +seven weeks, up to the time of calculation, one part of this new +<span class='pageno' id='Page_52'>52</span>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 × 60 × 60 × 24 +× 49, whatever that may be.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the 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 <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. +A. A.</abbr></i>, 2-258.</p> + +<p class='c004'>After that, the “controls” became hysterical. They flickered +that there were six parts of this new star, according to Dr. Lowell’s +<i>Evolution of Worlds</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 9. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +(<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 2-365).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Nova Aurigae became brighter. Accordingly, Dr. Campbell +“determined” that it was approaching this earth at a rate of +128 miles a second (<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 2-504).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then Dr. Espin went into a trance. It was revealed to him +that the object was a nebula (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 56-61). Communication +from Dr. and Mrs. Huggins, to the Royal Society—not a +nebula, but a star (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 57-397). See <i>Nature</i>, 47-352, +425—that, according to <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Eugen Gothard the spectrum of <abbr class='spell'>N. A.</abbr> +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 <abbr class='spell'>N. A.</abbr>, and the spectrum of a +nebula.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For an account of the revelations at Stonyhurst Observatory, +see <i>Mems. <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 51-129—that there never had been a composition +of bodies moving at the rates that were so definitely announced, +because <abbr class='spell'>N. A.</abbr> was a single star.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_53'>53</span>Though I have read some of the communications from “Rector” +and “Dr. Phinuit” to Mrs. Piper, I can not 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 <abbr class='spell'>N. A.</abbr>, +ten years later, see <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 62-65. For Prof. Barnard’s +observations twenty years later, see <i>Sci. Amer. Sup.</i>, 76-154.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The spectroscope is useful in a laboratory. Spoons are useful +in a kitchen. If any other pilgrim should come upon 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Regular Annual Shift of Spectral Lines versus Solar Motion—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, if this earth moves around the sun, the shift might be +found by scientific Mrs. Pipers so to indicate—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 only that this earth moves relatively to the stars: quite +as convincingly they indicate that the stars in one composition +gyrate relatively to a central and stationary earth, all of them +<span class='pageno' id='Page_54'>54</span>in one concavity around this earth, some of them showing faintest +of parallax, if this earth be not quite central to the revolving +whole.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Three giants have appeared against us. Their hearts are bubbles. +Their bones wilt. They are the limp Karyatides that uphold +the phantom structure of Palaeo-astronomy. By what miracle, +we asked, could foundation be built subsequently under a +baseless thing. But three ghosts can fit in anywhere.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Amer. Jour. Sci.</i>, 2-12-402; +<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 93-293, 306; <i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 2-265. 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_55'>55</span>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 <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 229.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_56'>56</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER EIGHT</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 can not be understood +by the unhypnotized any more than can 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 upon this supposed +velocity: determinations of distance, and 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_57'>57</span>when nearest Jupiter. Given measurement of the distance between +opposite points in the earth’s supposed orbit, and time consumed +in traveling this distance—there you have the velocity of +light.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Annals of Philosophy</i>, 23-29, <abbr title='Colonel'>Col.</abbr> Beaufoy writes that, +upon <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 7, 1823, he looked for the emergence of Jupiter’s third +satellite, at the time set down in the <i>National Almanac</i>: for two +hours he looked, and did not see the satellite emerge. In +<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 44-8, an astronomer writes that, upon the night +of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 15, 1883, one of the satellites of Jupiter was forty-six +minutes late. A paper was read at the meeting of the British +Astronomical Association, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 8, 1907, upon a satellite that was +twenty minutes late. In <i>Telescopic Work</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 191, <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning +writes that, upon the night of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 12, 1889, he and two other +astronomers could not see satellite <abbr title='four'>IV</abbr> at all. See the <i>Observatory</i>, +9-237—satellite <abbr title='four'>IV</abbr> disappeared 15 minutes before calculated +time; about a minute later it re-appeared; disappeared again; re-appeared +nine minutes later. For Todd’s observations see the +<i>Observatory</i>, 2-227—six times, between June 9 and July 2, 1878, +a satellite was visible when, according to prediction, it should +have been invisible. For some more instances of extreme vagaries +of these satellites, see <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 43-427, and <i>Jour. +<abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 14-27: observations by Noble, Turner, White, Holmes, +Freeman, Goodacre, Ellis, and Molesworth. In periodical astronomical +publications, there is no more easily findable material for +heresy than such observations. We shall have other instances. +They abound in the <i>English Mechanic</i>, for instance. But, in +spite of a host of such observations, Prof. Young (<i>The Sun</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 35) +says that the time occupied by light coming from these satellites +is doubtful by “only a fraction of a second.” It is of course +another instance of the astronomers who know very little of +astronomy.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It would have been undignified, if the astronomers had taken +the sheep of little Bo-peep for their determinations. They took +<span class='pageno' id='Page_58'>58</span>the satellites of Jupiter. They said that the velocity of light +is about 190,000 miles a second.</p> + +<p class='c004'>So did the physicists.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can +not be followed by the eyes. The limit of the perceptible is said +to be ten changes a second.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, Richard Proctor awakens 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_59'>59</span>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.” 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-Maclear-Pearson, Hodgson, Carlisle, Siminton. 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 could be relied upon, accepting +every word, writing his gospel, glorying in this miracle of science. +I call it a tainted agreement between the physicists and the astronomers. +I prefer mild language. If by a method by which +nothing could 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_60'>60</span>up to Proctor’s day, not known with 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 upon Mars, deduced +13,000,000 miles as this earth’s distance from the sun. By the +same method, which is the now discredited method of simultaneous +observations, Roemer determined this distance to be +82,000,000 miles. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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 these 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_61'>61</span>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 (<i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 280).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 more 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. 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’ <i>Handbook of Astronomy</i>, published at +this time—that the sun’s distance had been ascertained, “with +great accuracy” to be 95,298,260 miles—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 an impression of painstaking, +independent scientists not utterly slavishly supporting one +another, but at the same time keeping well over the 90,000,000 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_62'>62</span>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 <i>History of Astronomy</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 230. 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. 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. 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, +Glassenapp “found” that the time is 16 minutes and 40 +seconds, which is what he should, or “ought to,” find. 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 the <i>Méchanique Céleste</i>. Of +course he said that he had calculated independently, because his +method was by triangulation, and Laplace’s was the gravitational.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_63'>63</span>That the word “worthless” does apply to observations upon +transits of Venus:</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Old and New Astronomy</i>, Proctor says that the observations +upon the transits of 1761 and 1769 were “altogether unsatisfactory.” +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 <i>Reminiscences +of an Astronomer</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 181, Newcomb says that the United +States Commission, of which he was Secretary, had, up to 1902 +never published in full its observations, and probably never +would, because by that time all other members were either dead +or upon the retired list.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Solar +System</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 86. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>One simple question:</p> + +<p class='c004'>To what degree can triangulation be relied upon?</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_64'>64</span>To great degree in measuring the height of a building, or in +the 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_65'>65</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER NINE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>According to Prof. Newcomb, for instance, the distance +of the sun is about 380 times the distance of the moon—as +determined by triangulation. But, upon page 22, <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, +Newcomb tells of another demonstration, with strikingly +different results—as determined by triangulation.</p> + +<p class='c004'>A split god.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The god Triangulation is not one undivided deity.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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-illumined, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>“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 had said is of +almost 90 degrees. He says 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We have had some experience.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Does anybody who has been through what we’ve been through +suppose that there is a Prof. Keeler in the world who would not +<span class='pageno' id='Page_66'>66</span>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? +But suppose we agree that this simple thing can not be done.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That astronomers can tell under which Crusade, or its decimalated +moment a shine left a star, but can not tell when a shine +reaches a line on the moon—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Chats on Astronomy</i>, tells +us that the diameter of this earth, at the equator, is 41,851,160 +feet. But blessed be the meek, we tell him. In the <i>Observatory</i>, +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. 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 <i>Observatory</i>: he hopes Brenner will pardon him, but is it +necessary to carry out the finding to the fourth decimal of a second? +However, I do not mean to say that all astronomers are +as refined as Brenner, for instance. In the <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 1-382, +Edwin Holmes, perhaps coarsely, expresses some views. He says +that such “exactness” as Capt. 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 Nelson, these diameters +are 27,000 miles and 28,500 miles. MacPherson, in <i>A +Century’s Progress in Science</i>, 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, placed +one inch apart, and viewed from a distance of one hundred and +<span class='pageno' id='Page_67'>67</span>eighty miles.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The moon’s surface is irregular. I do not say that anybody +with brains enough to know when he has half a shoe polished +should know when the sun has half the moon shined. I do say +that if this simple thing can not be known, the crowings of astronomers +as to enormously more difficult determinations are mere +barnyard disturbances.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The blow that crumples a god:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, by triangulation, there is not an astronomer in the +world who can tell the distance of a thing only five miles away.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Humboldt, <i>Cosmos</i>, 5-138:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Height of Mauna Loa: 18,410 feet, according to Cook; 16,611, +according to Marchand; 13,761, according to Wilkes—according +to triangulation.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Scientific American</i>, 119-31, a mountain climber calls +the Editor to account for having written that Mt. Everest is 29,002 +feet high. 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 <i>Scientific American</i>, +102-183, and 319, Miss Annie Peck cites two measurements +of a mountain in India: they differ by 4000 feet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Alpine Journal</i>, +22-150: they vary from 12,672 to 19,500 feet. D’Abruzzi +<span class='pageno' id='Page_68'>68</span>climbed Mt. St. Elias, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 1, 1897. See a paper, in the <i>Alpine +Journal</i>, 19-125. D’Abruzzi’s barometric determination—18,092 +feet.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 or 240,000,000 miles away.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_69'>69</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Pseudo heart of a phantom thing—it is Keplerism, pulsating +with Sir Isaac Newton’s regularizations.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 its measurements could +be deduced. I take from Newcomb, in <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, that, +in Kepler’s view, there was 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Observatory</i>, December, 1920: “The discordances between +theory and observation (as to the motions of Jupiter’s satellites) +are of such magnitude that continued observations of their precise +moments of eclipses are very much to be desired.” In the +Report of the Jupiter Section of the British Astronomical Society +(<i>Mems. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 8-83) is a comparison between observed times +and calculated times of these satellites. 65 observations, in the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_70'>70</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the 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 eight and the 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, <abbr title='Kentucky'>Ky.</abbr>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_71'>71</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_72'>72</span>perhaps, that the slower-moving planets are the remoter, but that +has nothing to do with proportional remoteness.</p> + +<p class='c004'>This is the pseudo heart of phantom astronomy.</p> + +<p class='c004'>To it Sir Isaac Newton gave a seeming of coherence.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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. 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. Astronomers +have pointed to the sky, and there has been nothing; +one of them pointed in four directions at once, and four times +<span class='pageno' id='Page_73'>73</span>over, there was nothing; and many times when they have not +pointed at all, there has been something.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 may it be said that he invented, or discovered, +analytic geometry; only patriotically do Englishmen say that Newton +invented, or discovered, the infinitesimal calculus. 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. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Sir Isaac Newton lived long ago. Every thought in his mind +<span class='pageno' id='Page_74'>74</span>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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The squirm:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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;</p> + +<p class='c004'>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;</p> + +<p class='c004'>To admire Newton’s <i>Principia</i> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_75'>75</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Kepler’s three laws are popularly 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 +inter-spaced 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 ratiociations upon the Three +Abstrusities, or our intolerably painful attempts to write seriously +upon the Three Abstrusities.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 a system, but the crotch of +quandary.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_76'>76</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER ELEVEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 virtually 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Struve’s announcement of his discovery of the “Companion +of Procyon” is published in <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 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.” 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 time, distances, position-angles; +from March 19 to April 2, 1873, after which his observations +had to be discontinued until the following year. In +<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 34-355, are published the resumed observations. +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_77'>77</span>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. +He says that Ceraski, of Moscow, had seen the “companion,” +“without being warned of the place where it was to be looked +for.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>However—see back some chapters.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. There is +nothing far-fetched in this analogy, except the factor of velocity. +Goldschmidt did announce that there were 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_78'>78</span>the calculated and the observed orbit. Besides the irreconcilable +observations noted by Flammarion, see the <i>Intel. Obs.</i>, 1-482, for +others. Then came standardized seeing. So, in the <i>Observatory</i>, +20-73 is published a set of observations, in the year 1896, upon +the “Companion of Sirius,” placing it exactly where it should be. +Nevertheless, under this set of observations is published another +set, so different that the Editor asks—“Does this mean that +there are two companions?”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<i>Mems. <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 49-214; <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 59-637; <i>Monthly +Notices</i>, 38-104. It may be said that they are not of the Algol-type. +Neither is Algol, we have shown.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>As to “proper motion,” the situation is this:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 humorousness, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_79'>79</span>that if we’re going to be serious at all in these expressions +of ours we had better pass on.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'><i>Observatory</i>, March, 1914:</p> + +<p class='c004'>A group of three stars that disappeared.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In Agnes Clerke’s <i>System of the Stars</i>, 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.” There are loops of stars +in a cluster in Auriga; lines and arches in Ophiuchus; zig-zag +figures in Sagittarius. 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.” As to figures in Sagittarius, +Fison (<i>Recent Advances in Astronomy</i>) cites an instance +of 30 small stars in the form of a forked twig, with dark rifts +parallel. 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 lanes 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_80'>80</span>For a detailed comparison, by <abbr class='spell'>J. E.</abbr> Gore, of stars of today +with stars catalogued by Al-Sufi, about 1,000 years ago, see the +<i>Observatory</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 23. The stars have not changed in position, +but it does seem that there have been many changes in magnitude.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Other changes—<i>Pubs. Astro. Soc. Pacific</i>, <abbr title='Number'>No.</abbr> 185 (1920)—discovery +of the seventeenth new star in one nebula (Andromeda). +For lists of stars that have disappeared, see <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 8-16; +10-18; 11-47; <i>Sidereal Messenger</i>, 6-320; <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, +14-255. Nebulæ that have disappeared—see <i>Amer. Jour. +Sci.</i>, 2-33-436; Clerke’s <i>System of the Stars</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 293; <i>Nature</i>, +30-20.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Sidereal Messenger</i>, 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 +<i>Zeta</i>, in Cassiopeia.</p> + +<p class='c004'>So, then, changes have been seen at the distance of the stars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 mere light-rays, because they did not go out +uniformly from the star, but moved out variously and knotted and +curved.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It was visible motion, at the distance of Nova Persei.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Monthly Notices</i>, 58-334, Dr. Espin writes that, upon the +night of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 16, 1898, he saw something that looked like a cloud +in Perseus. 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 <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 24. He writes that, upon +<abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 17, Mr. Heath and Dr. Halm saw it, like a cloud, dimming +and discoloring stars shining through it. At the meeting +of the British Astronomical Association, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 23, 1898 +(<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 8-216) Dr. Espin described this appearance and +answered questions. “It was not a nebula, and was not like one.” +<span class='pageno' id='Page_81'>81</span>“Whatever it was it had the peculiar property of dimming and +blotting out stars.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>This thing moved into Perseus and then moved away.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Clerke, <i>The System of the Stars</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 295—a nebula that changed +position abruptly, between the years 1833 and 1835, and then +changed no more. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>That it is not distance from this earth that has kept changes of +position 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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to the aberration-forms of the stars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Suppose all the stars to be openings, fixed in position relatively +to one another, in some inter-spacing substance. Conceive of 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 at 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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>If all stars are points of light admitted from externality, held +<span class='pageno' id='Page_82'>82</span>fixed and apart in one shell-like composition that is opaque in +some parts and translucent in some parts and perforated generally—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The Gegenschein—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That we have indication that there is such a shell around our +existence.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The crux:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Reflected sunlight—but reflecting from what?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Observatory</i>, 17-47:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“The Gegenschein has no parallax.”</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 11, +1878, was read a paper by <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 had radiated. 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 itself: +<span class='pageno' id='Page_83'>83</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There was no parallax along the great base line from Canada +to Florida.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then these meteors did come from Leo, or parallax, or absence +of parallax, is meaningless.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The circumstance of precise position maintained under a moving +constellation upon the night of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That the stars are near.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning among them, he will +say, “I can not explain.” But the other wise men will be like +<span class='pageno' id='Page_84'>84</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Leo and Lyra and Andromeda—argosies that sail the sky and +that bombard this earth—and that they are not far away.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The Sickle of Leo, from which come the Leonids, gleams like +a great question-mark in the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The answer—</p> + +<p class='c004'>But God knows what the answer to anything is.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Perhaps it is that the stars are very close indeed.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_85'>85</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWELVE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 is 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_86'>86</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>This 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 mis-applied, our language +is that all expressions so far developed are to us of 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Neo-astronomy:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 nebulæ 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We conceive of the variability of the stars and the nebulæ +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 surrounding +<span class='pageno' id='Page_87'>87</span>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 <i>1830 Groombridge</i> and Barnard’s “runaway +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. If some of these bodies +be planets, the irregularities of some of them are consistent with +the irregularities of Jupiter’s satellites.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 wisemen 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 reasoning +<span class='pageno' id='Page_88'>88</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I typify the result of all examinations 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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That motion follows least resistance.</p> + +<p class='c004'>How are we to identify least resistance?</p> + +<p class='c004'>If motion follows it.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then motion goes where motion goes.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then we think of an organism that needs no base, and needs +nothing of finality, nor of special guidance to any part local to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_89'>89</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>So it is that 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 that 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 +required 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We have reached our catalog 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_90'>90</span>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.</p> +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_91'>91</span> + <h2 class='c005'>PART <abbr title='two'>II</abbr></h2> +</div> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_93'>93</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER ONE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 7, 1802—an unknown body that was seen, by Fritsch, of +Magdeburg, to cross the sun (<i>Observatory</i>, 3-136).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 10, 1802—an unknown dark body was seen, by Fritsch, +rapidly crossing the sun (<i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 83-587).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Between 10 and 11 o’clock, morning of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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” +(<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-53).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Amer. Jour. Sci.</i>, 39-339. Here a writer tries to show +the phenomena were subterranean, but says that there was no +satisfactory explanation.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-68, it +is said that aërial phenomena did occur; that, before 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. From April 2 to April 8, forty shocks +<span class='pageno' id='Page_94'>94</span>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 had 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, at Borgo San Donnino, about 40 miles east +of Piedmont (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1860). 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 <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 22, 1810.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 9, 1812—two explosive sounds at East Haddam (<i>Amer. +Jour. Sci.</i>, 39-339).</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 5, 1812—one explosive sound at East Haddam (<i>Amer. +Jour. Sci.</i>, 39-339).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 28, 1812—“phantom soldiers” at Havarah Park, near +Ripley, England (<i>Edinburgh Annual Register</i>, 1812-II-124). +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Night of July 31, 1813—flashes of light in the sky of Tottenham, +near London (<i>Year Book of Facts</i>, 1853-272). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Dec. 28, 1813—an explosive sound at East Haddam.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-106).</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_95'>95</span>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 in the year +1795. Almost all records of the phenomena of Comrie start with +the year 1788, but, in Macara’s <i>Guide to Creiff</i>, it is said that the +disturbances were recorded as far back as the year 1597. 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 <i>Times</i>, 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 (<i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, 31-110) a resident of +Comrie had reported “a large luminous body, bent like a crescent, +which stretched itself over the heavens.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>There was another quake in Scotland (Inverness) June 30, +1817. It is said that hot water fell from the sky (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, +1854-112).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 6, 1818—an unknown body that crossed the sun, according +to Loft, of Ipswich; observed about three hours and a half +(<i>Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst.</i>, 5-117).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Five unknown bodies that were seen, upon June 26, 1819, +crossing the sun, according to Gruithuisen (<i>An. Sci. Disc.</i>, +1860-411). 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, +<i>Celestial Objects</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 40).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon Aug. 28, 1819, there was a violent quake at Irkutsk, +Siberia. There had been two shocks upon Aug. 22, 1813 <i>(Rept. +<abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-101). Upon April 6, 1805, or March 25, according +to the Russian calendar, two stones had fallen from the sky at +Irkutsk (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1860-12). One of these stones is now in +the South Kensington Museum, London. Another violent shock +at Irkutsk, April 7, 1820 (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-128).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Unknown bodies in the sky, in the year 1820, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 12 and +April 27 (<i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 83-314).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Things that marched in the sky—see Arago’s <i>Œuvres</i>, 11-576, +or <i>Annales de Chimie</i>, 30-417—objects that were seen by many +<span class='pageno' id='Page_96'>96</span>persons, in the streets of Embrun, during the eclipse of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 7, +1820, moving in straight lines, turning and retracing in the same +straight lines, all of them separated by uniform spaces.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>An. Reg.</i>, 1821-689); and upon +the 5th by Dr. Olbers (<i>Mems. <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 1-159). It was a light +like a star, and was seen again, May 4th and 6th, by the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> +Ward and by Francis Bailey (<i>Mems. <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 1-159). At Cape +Town, nights of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 28th and 29th, 1821, again a star-like light +was seen upon the moon (<i>Phil. Trans.</i>, 112-237).</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst.</i>, 20-417:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +detonations continued, sometimes thirty or forty, sometimes several +hundred, a day.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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” (<i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, 31-119).</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 15, 1822—the 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 <i>Galium spurium</i>, but that other scientists disagreed. Later +more of them fell at Posen, Mecklenburg. See <i>Bull. des Sci.</i> +(<i>math.</i>, <i>astro.</i>, <i>etc.</i>) 1-1-298.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Aug. 19, 1822—a tremendous detonation at Melida—others +continuing several days.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_97'>97</span><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 23, 1822—two unknown dark bodies crossing the sun; +observed by Pastorff (<i>An. Sci. Disc.</i>, 1860-411).</p> + +<p class='c004'>An unknown, shining thing—it was seen, by Webb, May 22, +1823, near the planet Venus (<i>Nature</i>, 14-195).</p> + +<p class='c004'>More unknowns, in the year 1823—see <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 49-811 +and Webb’s <i>Celestial Objects</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 43.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr>, 1824—the sounds of Melida.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 11, 1824, a slight shock was felt at Irkutsk, Siberia +(<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-124). Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 18, or, according to other +accounts, upon May 14, a stone that weighed five pounds, fell +from the sky at Irkutsk (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1860-70). Three severe +shocks at Irkutsk, March 8, 1824 (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-124).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr>, 1824—the sounds of Melida.</p> + +<p class='c004'>At five o’clock, morning of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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, until 5.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, when sunrise ended the +observations (<i>Sci. Amer. Sup.</i>, 7-2712). And, upon <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 22, +1825, again shone out the star-like light of Aristarchus, reported +by the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>J. B.</abbr> Emmett (<i>Annals of Philosophy</i>, 28-338).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_98'>98</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWO</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In one of the numbers of the <i>Observatory</i>, 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. <abbr class='spell'>G. B.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_99'>99</span>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. And I start off with just about the impression of +disproportionality that I should have, if someone should tell me +of a pigmy with ears five feet long.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Is there any somewhat good reason for thinking that the volcanic +craters of the little moon are larger than, or particularly different +in any other way from, the craters of this earth?</p> + +<p class='c004'>If not, we have a direct unit of measurement, according to which +the moon is not 2160, but about 100, miles in diameter.</p> + +<p class='c004'>How far away does one suppose to be an object with something +like that diameter, and of the seeming size of the moon?</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 lights 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_100'>100</span>definite point of light would seem not to be the appearance from +a distance.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For Webb’s account of a brilliant display of minute dots and +streaks of light, in the Mare Crisium, July 4, 1832, see <i>Astro. +Reg.</i>, 20-165. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 22, 1835—the star-like light in Aristarchus—reported by +Francis Bailey—see Proctor’s <i>Myths and Marvels</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 329.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 13, 1836—in the western crater of Messier—according to +Gruithuisen (<i>Sci. Amer. Sup.</i>, 7-2629)—two straight lines of +light; between them a dark band that was covered with luminous +points.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. <abbr class='spell'>T.</abbr> Rankin and Prof. Chevalier +(<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1847-18). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>Monthly Notices <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, +8-55).</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_101'>101</span>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 favorableness +increases up to the climacteric opposition in August again. This +is a cycle of changing proximities within a period of about fifteen +years.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 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 <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1874-272. 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 witnesses, 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. Without +parallax, this luminous thing was seen from these points “to +emerge and separate itself from the disc 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 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_102'>102</span>saw the meteor apparently issue from it, and the planet appear as +if it was breaking up and dividing into two parts.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Some of the greatest surprises in commonplace experience are +discoveries of the nearness of that which was supposed to be the +inaccessibly remote.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>Popular +Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 296). For a list of more than twenty observations +upon this illumination of Venus, see <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1873-404. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1852-8, 35, it is said that, early in the +morning of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 11, 1852, several persons at Fair Oaks, Staffordshire, +had seen, in the eastern sky, a luminous object. It +was first seen at 4.15 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr> It appeared and disappeared several +times, until 4.45 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_103'>103</span>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 supposititiously +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 Fair 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 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 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. According to 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.” +Upon August 11, 1855, Venus was two weeks from primary greatest +brilliance, inferior conjunction occurring upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 30. The +<span class='pageno' id='Page_104'>104</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 7-351. According to a correspondent to +the Birmingham <i>Gazette</i>, 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. In the issue +of the <i>Gazette</i>, of June 1st, someone else writes that he saw this +light, appearing and disappearing upon Venus. Upon March 15, +Browning had seen something that looked like a little shaft of +light from Venus (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 40-130); and upon April 6, Webb +had seen a similar appearance (<i>Celestial Objects</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 57). At +the time of the appearance at Oxford, Venus was in the period of +nearest approach (inferior conjunction July 16, 1868).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. The undignified, or more or +less literary, or sometimes altogether too 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_105'>105</span>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 <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 1, 1871, an unknown luminous object was +seen in the sky of Marseilles, by Coggia (<i>Comptes Rendus</i>, +73-398). According to description, it was a magnificent red object. +It appeared at 10.43 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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 +11.3.20, disappeared, or fell behind the horizon. Upon this +night Venus was within three weeks of primary greatest brilliance, +inferior conjunction occurring upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 25, 1871.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_106'>106</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER THREE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>One repeating mystery—the mystery of the local sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>This earth is supposed to rip space at a rate of about 19 miles +a second.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Concepts smash when one tries to visualize such an accomplishment.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 this local sky and nowhere else at the times.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We have had 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 <i>Report of the +British Association</i>, 1854-20, it is said that, in Dr. Erman’s +opinion, the sounds that preceded the quake were in the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 100. +Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 15, 1837, a black powder fell upon the Comrie region +(<i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, 31-293). <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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.” In Mallet’s Catalog (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_107'>107</span>seemed to be high in the air, and was often heard without any +sensible shock.” Upon the 23rd of October, occurred the most +violent quake in the whole series of phenomena at Comrie. See +the <i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 32. All data in this publication +were collected by David Milne. According to the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> +Maxton, of Foulis Manse, ten miles from Comrie, rattling sounds +were heard in the sky, preceding the shock that was felt. In +<abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 33, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 373, of the <i>Journal</i>, 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.” 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 <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 34, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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.” 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 <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_108'>108</span>the phenomena from the year 1788, says: “Occasionally there +was a fall of fine, black powder.”</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 or concussions that followed +explosions, 247 occurrences, between <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 3, 1839 and <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 14, +1841, are listed in the <i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, 32-107. It looks +like bombardment, and like most persistent bombardment—from +somewhere—and the frequent fall from the sky of the débris of +explosions. <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 18, 1841—a shock and a fall of discolored rain +at Comrie (<i>Edin. New Phil. Jour.</i>, 35-148). See Roper’s <i>List +of Earthquakes</i>—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. 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 <i>Amer. Jour. Sci.</i>, +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. 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 gives his +opinion that possibly the object did fall from the sky. The story +that 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For a description, in a letter, presumably from Sir William +Murray, or some member of his family, see <i>Year Book of Facts</i>, +1856-273. It is said that about 12 fragments of scorious matter, +hot and emitting a sulphurous odor, had fallen.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In Ponton’s <i>Earthquakes</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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.” Though +felt in Illinois, the center of the disturbance was at St. Louis, +Mo. One notes the misleading and the obscuring of such wording: +<span class='pageno' id='Page_109'>109</span>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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 8, 1857. +According to Timbs’ <i>Year Book of Facts</i>, 1858-271, “a blinding +meteoric ball from the heavens” was seen. “A large and brilliant +meteor shot across the heavens” (St. Louis <i>Intelligencer</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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 +<i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 12, a slight shock was said to have been felt four +hours before the great concussion, and another three days before. +But see Milne’s <i>Catalog of Destructive Earthquakes</i>—not a mention +of anything that would lead one way from safe and +standardized suppositions. See <i>Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer.</i>, 3-68—here +the “meteor” is mentioned, but there is no mention of the +preceding concussions. 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 <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>How many times can we accept that explanation as to similar +series?</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research</i>, +19-144, a correspondent writes that, in Herefordshire, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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. Again the “mystery +of the local sky”—if these sounds did come from the sky. We +have no data for thinking that they did.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_110'>110</span>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. Upon the +3rd of November, 1858, he had heard the sounds again, repeatedly, +and louder than they had been three years before. In the <i>Times</i>, +<abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 12, someone else says that, at Dolgelly, he, too, had heard +the “mysterious phenomenon,” on the 3rd of November. Someone +else—that, upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 13, he had heard the sounds at Swansea. +“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 the 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 <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 20—that, +with little doubt, the sounds were from artillery practice at Milford. +He does not mention the investigation as to the sounds of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 13, +but says that there had been cannon-firing, upon <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 3rd, at Milford. +<i>Times</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 1—that most of the sounds could be accounted +for as sounds of blasting in quarries. <i>Daily News</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 16—that +similar sounds had been heard, in 1848, in New Zealand, +and were results of volcanic action. <i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 16—that the +“mysterious noise” must have been from Devonport, where a +sunken rock had been blown up. So, with at least variety these +sounds were explained. But we learn that the series began before +October 13. Upon the evening of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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 <i>Quar. Jour. +Geolog. Soc. of London</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 15.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Somewhere near Barisal, Bengal, were occurring just such +sounds as the sounds of Cardiganshire, which were like the sounds +of Melida. In the <i>Proc. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1870, are +published letters upon the Barisal Guns. One writer says that +the sounds were probably booming of the surf. Someone else +<span class='pageno' id='Page_111'>111</span>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 <i>Nature</i>, 53-197, Mr. <abbr class='spell'>G. B.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> +17, 1860. See the <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 24th. To say that a meteor had +exploded would, at present, well enough account for this phenomenon.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Sounds like those that were heard in Herefordshire, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 24, +1854, were heard later. In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 100-279, it +is said that, upon <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 9, 1862, the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>T.</abbr> 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. Upon <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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 +<abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'><i>Arcana of Science</i>, 1829-196:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, near Mhow, India, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 27, 1828, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_112'>112</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +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 (<i>Meteorology</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 465) yellowish brown corpuscles, some round, a few +cylindrical, were found upon the ground, June, 1830, near +Griesau, Silesia. 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, Erklenz, +and Juliers, according to <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Schwann, of the University of Liége, +in a communication to the Belgian Academy of Science (<i>La +Belgique Horticole</i>, 2-319).</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 5-549, is Dr. Wartmann’s account of +water that fell from the sky, at Geneva. At nine o’clock, morning +of <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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. <i>Year Book +of Facts</i>, 1839-262—that upon May 31, 1838, lukewarm water +in large drops, fell from the sky, at Geneva. <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_113'>113</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 85-681, is noted a succession of falls of +stones in Russia: June 12, 1863, at Buschof, Courland; <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 8, +1863, at Pillitsfer, Livonia; April 12, 1864, at Nerft, Courland. +Also—see Fletcher’s List—a stone that fell at Dolgovdi, Volhynia, +Russia, June 26, 1864. I have looked at specimens of all four of +these stones, and have found them all very much alike, but not +of uncommon meteoritic material: all gray stones, but Pillitsfer is +darker than the others, and in a polished specimen of Nerft, +brownish specks are visible.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the Birmingham <i>Daily Post</i>, June 14, 1858, Dr. <abbr class='spell'>C.</abbr> 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.” Someone else writes that +many pounds of the stones had been gathered from awnings, and +that they had damaged greenhouses, in the suburbs. In the <i>Post</i>, +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. It is not often that sentiment +is brought into meteorology, but in the <i>Report of the British Association</i>, +1864-37, Dr. Phipson explains the occurrence meteorologically, +and with an unconscious tenderness. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>They fell again from the sky, two years later. In <i>La Science +Pour Tous</i>, June 19, 1860, it is said that, according to the Wolverhampton +<span class='pageno' id='Page_114'>114</span><i>Advertiser</i>, a great number of little black stones had +fallen, in a violent storm, at Wolverhampton. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Eight years after the second occurrence, they fell again. <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the exiles in Birmingham is overdoing. +That’s not sentiment: that’s mawkishness.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Birmingham Daily Post</i>, 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.” In the <i>Post</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It may be that for days before and after May 29, 1868, occasional +stones fell from some unknown region stationary above +Birmingham. In the <i>Post</i>, 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 +<i>Post</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_115'>115</span><i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 4-137:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That, according to the Birmingham <i>Gazette</i>, 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_116'>116</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FOUR</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Upon page 287, <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Most of our instances are reports by some of the best-known +astronomers.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 30, 1863—an unknown body that was seen by Spörer to +cross the sun (Webb, <i>Celestial Objects</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 45).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 1, 1859—two star-like objects that were seen by Carrington +to cross the sun (<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 20-13, 15, 88).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Things that crossed the sun, July 31, 1826, and May 26, +1828—see <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 83-623, and Webb’s <i>Celestial Objects</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 40. From <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 6, to <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1, 1831, an unknown luminous +object was seen every cloudless night, at Geneva, by Dr. Wartmann +and his assistants (<i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 2-307). It was reported +from nowhere else. What all the other astronomers were +doing, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr>-<abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr>, 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 (<i>Amer. +Jour. Sci.</i>, 31-158). Two unknowns that according to Pastorff, +crossed the sun, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1, 1836, and <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 16, 1837 (<i>An. Sci. Disc.</i>, +1860-410)—De Vico’s unknown, July 12, 1837 (<i>Observatory</i>, +2-424)—observation by De Cuppis, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 2, 1839 (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 83-314)—by +Scott and Wray, last of June, 1847; by Schmidt, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 11, +1847 (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 83-623)—two dark bodies that were seen, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 5, +1849, by Brown, of Deal (<i>Rec. Sci.</i>, 1-138)—object watched by +<span class='pageno' id='Page_117'>117</span>Sidebotham, half an hour, March 12, 1849, crossing the sun +(<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 83-622)—Schmidt’s unknown, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 14, 1849 (<i>Observatory</i>, +3-137)—and an object that was watched, four nights in +October, 1850, by James Ferguson, of the Washington Observatory. +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 (<i>Smithson. Miscell. +Cols.</i>, 20-20).</p> + +<p class='c004'>About May 30, 1853—a black point that was seen against the +sun, by Jaennicke (<i>Cosmos</i>, 20-64).</p> + +<p class='c004'>A procession—in the <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1855-94, <abbr class='spell'>R. P.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>June 11, 1855—a dark body of such size that it was seen, without +telescopes, by Ritter and Schmidt, crossing the sun (<i>Observatory</i>, +3-137). <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 12, 1857—Ohrt’s unknown world; seemed +to be about the size of Mercury (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 83-623)—Aug. 1, 1858—unknown +world reported by Wilson, of Manchester (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, +9-287).</p> + +<p class='c004'>I am not listing all the unknowns of a period; perhaps the object +reported by John <abbr class='spell'>H.</abbr> Tice, of St. Louis, Mo., <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 15, 1859, +should not be included; Mr. Tice was said not to be trustworthy—but +who has any way of knowing? 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 29, 1860—unknown object, of planetary size, reported +from London, by Russell and three other observers (<i>Nature</i>, +15-505). Summer of 1860—see <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 35-340, for an account, +by Richard Covington, of an object, that without a telescope, +he saw crossing the sun. An unknown world, reported by Loomis, +of Manchester, March 20, 1862 (<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 22-232)—a +newspaper account of an object that was seen crossing the sun, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_118'>118</span><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 12, 1864, by Samuel Beswick, of New York (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, +2-161)—unknown that was seen, March 18, 1865, at Constantinople +(<i>L’Ann. Sci.</i>, 1865-16)—unknown “cometic objects” that +were seen, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 4, 9, and 18, 1865 (<i>Monthly Notices</i>, 26-242).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Most of these unknowns were seen in the daytime. Several reflections +arise. How could 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 the 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Something that was seen at night; observer not an astronomer—</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 6, 1866—an account, in the London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 2, 1867, +by Senor De Fonblanque, of the British Consulate, at Carthegena, +<abbr class='spell'>U. S.</abbr> Columbia, of a luminous object that moved in the sky. +“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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_119'>119</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FIVE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>If we could stop to sing, instead of everlastingly noting <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> this +and <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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 inter-planetary 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 a 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>But after all, it may be better that we go back to <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>—see +<abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 1849, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_120'>120</span>A great number of red points in the sky of Urrugne, July 9, +1853 (<i>An. Soc. Met. de France</i>, 1853-227). Astro. Reg., 5-179—<abbr class='spell'>C. +L.</abbr> Prince, of Uckfield, writes that, upon June 11, 1867, he saw +objects crossing the field of his telescope. They were seeds, in his +opinion.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Birmingham <i>Daily Post</i>, May 31, 1867:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Mr. Bird, the astronomer, writes that, about 11 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, May 30, +he saw unknown forms in the sky. In his telescope, which was +focussed 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>“All of them seemed to have hairy appendages, and in many +cases a distinct tail followed the object and was highly luminous.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Flashes that have been seen in the sky—and they’re from a +living island that wags his luminous peninsular. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Post</i>, June 3, 1867, Mr. <abbr class='spell'>W. H.</abbr> Wood writes that the objects +were probably seeds. <i>Post</i>, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>And the planet Venus, and her veil that is dotted with blue-fringed +cupids—in the <i>Astronomical Register</i>, 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. 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_121'>121</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>With the phenomena of <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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 <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, 3-159, Prof. +Swift writes that, at Mattoon, Ill., during the eclipse of the sun, +of <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 7, 1869, he had seen, crossing the moon, objects that he +thought were seeds. 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 (<i>Les Mondes</i>, 21-241). In the +<i>Jour. Frank. Inst.</i>, 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. 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 (<i>Pop. Astro.</i>, 2-332).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It may be that out from two floating islands of space, two processions +had marched across the moon. <i>Observatory</i>, 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; +<span class='pageno' id='Page_122'>122</span>that, with a telescope, another person had seen another large object, +crescentically illumined, farther from the sun and moon in +eclipse. See <i>Nature</i>, 18-663, and <i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 7-227.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the seeming 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Amer. Jour. Sci.</i>, 2-28-270:</p> + +<p class='c004'>It is said that, according to investigations by Prof. Shepard, +a luminous substance was seen falling slowly, by Sparkman <abbr class='spell'>R.</abbr> +Scriven, a young man of seventeen, at his home, in Charleston, +<abbr class='spell'>S. C.</abbr>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 fibres.” 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>For full details of the following circumstances, see <i>Comptes +Rendus</i>, 13-215 and <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1854-302:</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 17, 1841—the fall, at Genoa, Italy, of a red substance from +the sky—another fall upon the 18th—a slight quake, at 5 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, +<abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Canobbia, of Genoa. He says it was oily and +red.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_123'>123</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SIX</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>In a pamphlet entitled <i>Wonderful Phenomena</i>, by Curtis Eli, +is the report of an occurrence, or of an alleged occurrence, that +was investigated by Mr. Addison <abbr class='spell'>A.</abbr> Sawin, a spiritualist. He interpreted +in the only way that I know of, and that is the psyco-chemic +process of combining new data with preconceptions with +which they seem to have affinity. It is said that, at Warwick, <abbr class='spell'>C. +W.</abbr>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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, not 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 remarkable cloud,” and had heard the +sounds, but had not seen the angels. He ends up: “Yours is 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_124'>124</span>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 +Brewster’s <i>Natural Magic</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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. In Clarke’s <i>Survey of +the Lakes</i> (fol. 1789) is an account in the words of one of the +witnesses. See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 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 manœuvring +upon the other side of the mountain. 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 manœuvre 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Or the “phantom soldiers” that were seen at Ujest, Silesia, in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_125'>125</span>1785—see Parish’s <i>Hallucinations and Illusions</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 309. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 27, 1846—a city in the sky of Liverpool (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, +1847-39). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Summer of 1847—see Flammarion’s <i>The Atmosphere</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 160—story +told by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> 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.” There was no resemblance to any city +known to <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Grellois.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 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. A city—and +an army, in the sky. One supposes that a Brewster would +say that nearby was a terrestrial city, with troops manœuvring +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 <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 13, 1848, a still more discouraging—or +perhaps stimulating—spectacle was, or was not, seen in Scotland. +Afternoon of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 9, 1848—Quigley’s Point, Lough Foyle, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_126'>126</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Phantom soldiers” that were seen in the sky, near the Banmouth, +<abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 30, 1850 (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1852-30).</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Phantom soldiers” that were seen at Buderich, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 22, 1854 +(<i>Notes and Queries</i>, 1-9-267).</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Phantom soldiers” that were seen by Lord Roberts (<i>Forty-One +Years in India</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 219) at Mohan, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 25, 1858. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Extra-geography—its vistas and openings and fields—and the +Thoreaus that are upon this earth, but undeveloped, because they +can not find their ponds. A lonely thing and its pond, afloat +in space—they crossed the moon. In <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Phantom soldiers” that were seen, about the year 1860, at +Paderborn, Westphalia (Crowe, <i>Night-side of Nature</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 416).</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_127'>127</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SEVEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>An unknown vegetable substance falls from the sky. The +datum is buried: it may sprout some day.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The earth quakes. A luminous object is seen in the sky. +Substance falls from the unknown. But the event is cataloged +with subterranean earthquakes.</p> + +<p class='c004'>All conventional explanations 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_128'>128</span>to slight perturbations of maternal indigestion. It is Exclusionism.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Stones fall from the sky. To the same part of this earth, they +fall again. They fall again. They fall from some 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, 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. An unknown light in the sky is said to be +auroral. This is standardization, and the essence of this standardization +is Exclusionism.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_129'>129</span>hypnotics, or somnambulics 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that should try +to climb a tree and 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_130'>130</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER EIGHT</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +thought by some lunarians to be manœuvres 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—why +<span class='pageno' id='Page_131'>131</span>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 (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 2-264).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 24, 1864—period of nearest approach by Mars—red lights +upon opposite parts of Mars (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 85-538). Upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 16, +Ingall had again seen the light west of Picard. <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 3-255). <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 3, 1865—again the +red lights of Mars (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 85-538). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>April 10, 1865—west of Picard, according to Ingall—“a most +minute point of light, glittering like a star” (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 3-189).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 5, 1865—a conspicuous bright spot west of Picard (<i>Astro. +Reg.</i>, 3-252). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 24, 1865—a speck of light that was seen by the Rev. +<abbr class='spell'>W. O.</abbr> Williams, shining like a small star in the lunar crater +Carlini (<i>Intel. Obs.</i>, 11-58).</p> + +<p class='c004'>June 10, 1866—the star-like light in Aristarchus; reported by +Tempel (Denning, <i>Telescopic Work</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 121).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_132'>132</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>A hitherto unpublished episode in the history of theologies:</p> + +<p class='c004'>The new prophet who had appeared upon the moon—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>God of the moon, when mists make it expressionless—a vast, +bland, silvery Buddha.</p> + +<p class='c004'>God of the moon, when seeing is 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not organize until comes scheduled +time. So there are local congeries of development of a chick in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_133'>133</span>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 <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1867.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 14, 16, 25, 27, 1866, Linné was seen as a white +spot. 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 (<i>The +Student</i>, 1-261). The most important consideration of all is +reviewed by Schmidt in the <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1867-22—that sunlight +and changes of sunlight had nothing to do with the changing appearances +of Linné. <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>A geometric figure that was white-bordered and centered with +black, formed and dissolved and formed again.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 the ridges of their Cheops of +<span class='pageno' id='Page_134'>134</span>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 +heavens marginal.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Astronomical +Register</i>, 5-114, Thomas <abbr class='spell'>G.</abbr> 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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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 part of the moon (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 5-220). 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 (<i>The Student</i>, 1-261).</p> + +<p class='c004'>August 6, 1867—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 rims of more or less +parallel mountain ranges, still shining in sunlight, but surrounded +by darkness—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 as a bold black 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon August 6, 1867, Buckingham saw upon Linné, which +<span class='pageno' id='Page_135'>135</span>was in darkness, “a rising oval spot” (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1867-7). In +October, 1867, Linné was seen as a convex white spot (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, +1867-8).</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>History of Astronomy</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>See index of <i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>—many instances of +stars that have been refracted out of place when occulted by the +moon. See the <i>Observatory</i>, 24-210, 313, 315, 345, 414; <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 23-197, 279; 26-229; 52-index, “atmosphere”; +81-60; 84-161; 85-108.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 18-638. 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 <i>English Mechanic</i> and <i>L’Astronomie</i>. 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_136'>136</span>North America that have so logically been attributed to the Mound +Builders. In a letter, published in the <i>Astronomical Register</i>, +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.” +There is a geometric object, or marking, shaped +like an “<abbr class='spell'>X</abbr>,” in the crater Eratosthenes (<i>Sci. Amer. Sup.</i>, 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 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 35-34); +reticulations, like those of a city’s squares, in Plato (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, +64-253); and there is a structural-looking composition of angular +lines in Gassendi (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 101-466). Upon the floor of +Littrow are six or seven spots arranged in the form of the Greek +letter <i>Gamma</i> (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 101-47). This arrangement may be +of recent origin, having been discovered <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 <i>L’Astronomie</i>, +1888-110. As to appearances like viaducts, see <i>L’Astronomie</i>, +1885-213. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>So then the little nearby moon—and 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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_137'>137</span>numbered them. They were fixed in position, but rose and fell +in intensity.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Rept. +<abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 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!”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In August and September, 1869, occurred a notable illumination +of the spots in Group <abbr class='spell'>I</abbr>. It was accompanied by a single light +upon a distant spot. +February and March, 1870—illumination of another group.</p> + +<p class='c004'>April 17, 1870—another illumination in Plato, but back to the +first group.</p> + +<p class='c004'>As to his observations of May 10-12, 1870, Birt gives his +opinion that the lights of Plato were not effects of sunlight.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 or down a scale from 4 to 28. As to independence of sunlight, +Pratt says (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1871-88) as 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. In Pratt’s opinion, and, I think, +in the opinion of the other observers, these lights were volcanic. +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_138'>138</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.” <abbr title='Number'>No.</abbr> 22 subsided, and the +leading part shone out in <abbr title='Number'>No.</abbr> 14. It, too, subsided, and <abbr title='Number'>No.</abbr> 16 +brightened.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'>W. R.</abbr> 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_139'>139</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER NINE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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. I’d like +to hear Andrew Barclay’s opinion upon that. I’d like to hear +Capt. Noble’s.</p> + +<p class='c004'>If sometimes does the planet Mars almost graze this earth, as is +not told by the great telescopes, which are only millionaires’ +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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>June 19, 1875—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Flashes that were seen in the sky upon the 25th of June, 1875, +by Charles Gape, of Scole, Norfolk (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 21-488). The +Editor of <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i> (see <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 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. +To Mr. Gape the appearances seemed to be meteoric.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The year 1877—climacteric opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There were some discoveries.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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 attention +<span class='pageno' id='Page_140'>140</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 5, 1877—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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 <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, +37-193.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Dundee Advertiser</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 22, 1882, it is said that, between +10 and 11 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 21, at Broughty Ferry, Scotland, a +correspondent had seen an unknown luminous body near and a +little above the sun. In the <i>Advertiser</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.” In <i>Knowledge</i>, 2-489, this story is told by a writer +who says that undoubtedly the object was Venus. But, in <i>Knowledge</i>, +3-13, the astronomer <abbr class='spell'>J. E.</abbr> Gore writes that the object could +not have been Venus, which upon this date was 1 <abbr class='spell'>h.</abbr> 33 <abbr class='spell'>m.</abbr>, <abbr class='spell'>R. A.</abbr>, +west of the sun. The observation is reviewed in <i>L’Astronomie</i>, +1883-109. 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 <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 16.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 3, 1884, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Staevert, of the Brussels Observatory, +saw, upon the disc of Venus, an extremely brilliant point (<i>Ciel +et Terre</i>, 5-127). Nine days later, Niesten saw just such a point +<span class='pageno' id='Page_141'>141</span>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, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr> It had features that suggest the structural: +a globe the size of the moon, surrounded by a ring; +two dark lines crossing the nucleus (<i>Science Monthly</i>, 2-136). +Upon the 26th of July, 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 (<i>Nature</i>, 30-360). And in the <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 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, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, had, upon +August 17, seen a brilliant point upon Venus.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_142'>142</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Explosions over the towns 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 <i>Nature</i>, +53-197, says that they did seem to come from overhead. For a +report upon the Barisal Guns, heard between April 28, 1888, and +March 1, 1889, see <i>Proc. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal</i>, 1889-199.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Phenomena at Comrie were continuing. The latest date in +Roper’s <i>List of Earthquakes</i> is April 8, 1886, but this list goes +on only a few years later. See <i>Knowledge</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 6-145—shock +and a rumbling sound at Comrie, July 12, 1894—a repetition +upon the corresponding date, the next year. In the <i>English +Mechanic</i>, 74-155, David Packer says that, upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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. According to other accounts, this shock was +in Comrie and surrounding regions (London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 19, +1901).</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Smithson. Miscell. Cols.</i>, 37-Appendix, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 71:</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to <abbr class='spell'>L.</abbr> Tennyson, Quartermaster’s Clerk, at Fort +Klamath, Oregon, at daylight, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_143'>143</span>published in the <i>Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer.</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr>, 1919, not one is +attributed to volcanic eruptions. Mr. <abbr class='spell'>W. D.</abbr> 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 in Lassen Peak. But Lassen Peak is in California, +and the explosion upon <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 8, 1867 was so close to Fort +Klamath that almost immediately ashes fell from the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The following is of the type of phenomena that might be considered +evidence of signalling from some unknown world nearby:</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>La Nature</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 30, 1883—a somewhat startling experience—steamship +<i>Resolute</i> alone in the Arctic Ocean—six reports like gunfire—<i>Nature</i>, +53-295.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Nature</i>, 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. There is +no findable record of an earthquake in England upon this date. +In the London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. One of the correspondents writes that +he had heard the sound but had felt no shock. In the London +<i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 12, the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>J. F.</abbr> 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.” In the +<i>Morning Post</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. Night +of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13—an explosion in the sky, at Brighton (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, +1869-307). In the <i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 22, a correspondent writes +from Swaffham, Norfolk, that, about 8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 15, something +of an unknown nature had frightened flocks of sheep, which had +<span class='pageno' id='Page_144'>144</span>burst from their bounds in various places. All these occurrences +were in adjoining counties in southeastern England. Something +was seen in the sky upon the 13th, and, according to the <i>Chudleigh +Weekly Express</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13, 1869, something was seen in the +sky, night of the 10th, at Weston-super-Mare, near Bristol, in +southwestern England. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>—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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> See <i>Les Mondes</i>, 24-190, and <i>Comptes +Rendus</i>, 72-789. 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 (<i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 6-39). There were six shocks +near Manchester, between 6 and 7 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and others about 11 +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>; and in Lancashire about 11 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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 <i>Times</i>, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_145'>145</span>I have other such records not here published, and others that +will be here investigated.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 18, 1884, at West Mersea, near Colchester, a loud +report was heard (<i>Nature</i>, 53-4). 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 <i>Times</i>, April 23. There is a long list of +towns 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 (<i>Daily Chronicle</i>, April 28).</p> + +<p class='c004'>There was something in the sky. According to <abbr class='spell'>G. P.</abbr> Yeats +(<i>Observations upon the Earthquake of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 17, 1896</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 6) there +was a red appearance in the sky over Colchester, at the time of +the shock of April 22, 1884.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The next day, according to a writer in <i>Knowledge</i>, 5-336, a +stone fell from the sky, breaking glass in his greenhouse, in +Essex. It was a quartz stone, and unlike anything usually known +as meteoritic.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, April 26, “the most extraordinary darkness +remembered”; forty minutes later fell rain “as black as ink,” +and then black snow and black hail (<i>Nature</i>, 30-6). Black hail +fell at Chaigley, several miles from Liverpool (<i>Stonyhurst Magazine</i>, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_146'>146</span>1-267). Five hours later, black substance fell at Crowle, +near Worcester (<i>Nature</i>, 30-32). Upon the 28th, at Church +Stretton and Much Wenlock, Shropshire, fell torrents of liquid +like ink and water in equal proportions (<i>The Field</i>, May 3, 1884). +In the <i>Jour. Roy. Met. Soc.</i>, 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. Upon the 3rd of May, +black substance fell again at Crowle (<i>Nature</i>, 30-32).</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Nature</i>, 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.” 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 <i>List of Earthquakes</i>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Was not the loud report heard upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>Comrie, Irkutsk, and Birmingham.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_147'>147</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER ELEVEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Upon the night of the 13th of July, 1875, at midnight, two +officers of <abbr class='spell'>H. M. S.</abbr> <i>Coronation</i>, in the Gulf of Siam, saw a +luminous projection from the moon’s upper limb (<i>Nature</i>, +12-495). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon the night of <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 20, 1877, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Trouvelot, of the Observatory +of Meudon, saw, in the lunar crater Eudoxus, which, +like almost all other centers of seeming signalling, is in the north-western +quadrant of the moon, a fine line of light (<i>L’Astronomie</i>, +1885-212). It was like a luminous cable drawn across the crater.</p> + +<p class='c004'>March 21, 1877—a brilliant illumination, and not by the light +of the sun, according to <abbr class='spell'>C.</abbr> Barrett, in the lunar crater Proclus +(<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 25-89).</p> + +<p class='c004'>May 15 and 29, 1877—the bright spot west of Picard (<i>Eng. +Mec.</i>, 25-335).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Observatory</i>, 2-238, is Neison’s report from his own memoranda. +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 <abbr class='spell'>N</abbr>, according to the selenographers’ +terminology. In the <i>Astronomical Register</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>June 14, 1877—a light on the dark part of the moon, resembling +a reflection from a moving mirror; reported by Prof. Henry Harrison +<span class='pageno' id='Page_148'>148</span>(<i>Sidereal Messenger</i>, 3-150). June 15—the bright spot +west of Picard, according to Birt (Jour <i><abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 19-376). Upon +the 16th, Prof. Harrison thought that again he saw the moving +light of the 14th, but shining faintly. In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, +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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>These are data of extraordinary activity upon the moon preceding +the climacteric opposition of Mars, early in September, 1877.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Now we have an account of an occurrence during an eclipse of +the moon:</p> + +<p class='c004'>On the night of the eclipse (<abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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 (<i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 1878-75).</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Astro. Reg.</i>, 17-251:</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 13, 1877—Hyginus <abbr class='spell'>N</abbr> standing out with such prominence +as to be seen at the first glance;</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 14, 1877—not a trace of Hyginus <abbr class='spell'>N</abbr>, though seeing was +excellent:</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 3, 1878—the most conspicuous of all appearances of Hyginus +<abbr class='spell'>N</abbr>;</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 4, 1878—not a trace of Hyginus <abbr class='spell'>N</abbr>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon the night of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1, 1879, again in the period of opposition +of Mars (opposition <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 12) again the bright spot west of +Picard (<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 19-376). 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 <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1, 1879, a “vivid flash” was +seen and a shock was felt at West Cumberland (<i>Nature</i>, 21-19).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 4, 1883 +and March 29, 1884, see the <i>Sidereal Messenger</i>, 3-121. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_149'>149</span>Something like another luminous cable, or like a shining wall, +that was seen in Aristarchus, by Trouvelot, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 23, 1880 +(<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1885-215); a speck of light in Marius, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13, 1881, +by <abbr class='spell'>A. S.</abbr> Williams (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 32-494); unexplained light in +Eudoxus, by Trouvelot, May 4, 1881 (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1885-213); an +illumination in Kepler, by Morales, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 5, 1884 (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 9-149).</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Knowledge</i>, 7-224, William Gray writes that, upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 19, +1885, he saw, in Hercules, a dull, deep, reddish appearance. In +<i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1885-227, Lorenzo Kropp, an astronomer of Paysandu, +Uruguay, writes that, upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>May 11, 1885—two lights upon the moon (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 9-73).</p> + +<p class='c004'>May 11, 1886—two lights upon the moon (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 6-312).</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_150'>150</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWELVE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr>, 1881, to +<abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr>, 1888. I take most of the data from <i>Nature</i>, <i>Knowledge</i>, +<i>Cosmos</i>, and <i>L’Astronomie</i>, published in this period. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The first definite account of the mirages of Sweden, findable +by me, is published in <i>Nature</i>, 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.” Night of +<span class='pageno' id='Page_151'>151</span>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 (<i>Monthly +Weather Review</i>, May, 1883). May 28, 1883—at Finsbo, +Sweden—changing scenes, at short intervals: mountains, lakes, +and farms. <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 16, 1884—Lindsberg—a large town, with four-storied +houses, a castle and a lake. May 22, 1885—Gothland—a +town surrounded by high mountains, a large vessel in front of +the town. June 15, 1885—near Oxelosund—two wooded islands, +a construction upon one of them, and two warships. It is said +that at the time two Swedish warships were at sea, but were at +considerable distance north of Oxelosund. <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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. <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 29, 1885—again at Valla—between +8 and 9 o’clock, <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>; a lurid glare upon the northwestern +horizon; a cloud bank—animals, groups of dancers, a forest, and +then a park with paths. July 15, 1888—Hudikwall—a tempestuous +sea, and a vessel upon it; a small boat leaving the vessel. +Upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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. Petersburgh, which is about 200 miles +from the Baltic.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1887-426, <abbr class='spell'>MM.</abbr> 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. 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 <i>L’Astronomie</i>, these two +observers write separately, and, in the city of Marseilles, their +<span class='pageno' id='Page_152'>152</span>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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The rock that hung in the sky of Servia—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>banjite</i>, after the town near which it fell.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Seventeen years later (<abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 1, 1889) another rock of banjite +fell in Servia, near Jelica.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For Meunier’s account of these stones, see <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1890-272, +and <i>Comptes Rendus</i>, 92-331. Also, see <i>La Nature</i>, 1881-1-192. +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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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 seismologist +<span class='pageno' id='Page_153'>153</span>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, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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 <i>Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes</i>, lists the occurrence +as an earthquake, and does not mention stones that fell from +the sky. All combinations greatly affect the character of components: +in our combination of the 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 earthquakes. 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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 that a great explosion, +perhaps in London, had occurred. It was reported from +Reading, and from four towns near Reading, and Reading is said +to be one of the places where the concussion was greatest. There +were several accounts of slight alarm among sheep, which are +sensitive to meteors and earthquakes. But, in <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, +Mr. <abbr class='spell'>H. G.</abbr> Fordham wrote that the occurrence was not an earthquake; +that a meteor had exploded. He had very little to base +<span class='pageno' id='Page_154'>154</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 23-154, Dr. <abbr class='spell'>R. H.</abbr> Wake writes that, +upon the evening of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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. 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 +<i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 7, 1889, the Rev. <abbr class='spell'>J.</abbr> Ross Barker, of Chesham, a +town about 25 miles northeast of Reading, writes that, upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> +25, 1889, many flocks of sheep, in a region of 30 square miles, +had, by common impulse, broken from their folds. Mr. Barker +asks whether anyone knew of a meteor or of an earthquake at the +time. In <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 24, <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, Mr. Symons accepts that +all three of these occurrences were effects of meteoric explosions in +the sky. 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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_155'>155</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER THIRTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 of 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_156'>156</span>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 the 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>April 10, 1874—a luminous object that exploded in the sky of +Kuttenberg, Bohemia. It is said that the glare was like sunlight, +and that the “terrifying flash” was followed by a detonation that +<span class='pageno' id='Page_157'>157</span>rumbled about a minute. April 9, 1876—an explosion that is +said to have been violent, over the town of Rosenau, Hungary. +See <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1877-147.</p> + +<p class='c004'>These two objects which appeared in virtually the same local +sky of this earth—points 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 +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and the other at 8.20 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> Same night in the year, according +to extra-terrestrial calendars: the year 1876 was a leap year.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 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 (<i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1867-430). Rosenau and Knysahinya +are about 75 miles apart. Of course one can very much extend +our own circumscribed little notions, and think of the firing of +projectiles from beyond the stars, just as one can think of our +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 <abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, or +<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, or <i>L’Astro.</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_158'>158</span>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, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, +<abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 9, 1891, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 5, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 2, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 29, March 27, April 23, 1892. +In the <i>Scientific American</i>, May 7, 1892, Dr. <abbr class='spell'>M. A.</abbr> Veeder writes +that, from <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 9, 1891, to April 23, 1892, there had been a +bright light that he calls “auroral,” in the sky of Lyons, every 27th +night. 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, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, so localize its effects, one can’t clear up. In <i>Nature</i>, +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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Nature</i>, 15-451, a correspondent writes that, at 8.55 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, +he saw a large red star in Serpens, where he had never seen such +an appearance before—Gunnersbury, March 17, 1877. 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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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 <i>Observatory</i>, 1-20, Capt. Tupman writes +that, at 9.57 o’clock, a great meteor was seen first at Frome, Tetbury, +and Gunnersbury. The red object might not have been in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_159'>159</span>the local sky of Gunnersbury; might have been in the constellation +Serpens, unseen in all the rest of the world.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <i>Rept. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr></i>, 1879-77—the +great meteor of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 5, 1868. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_160'>160</span>To think upon this subject, except as one is told to think, is, or +seems to be considered, impious.</p> + +<p class='c004'>But how can one account for an earth that moves?</p> + +<p class='c004'>By thinking that something started it and that nothing ever +stopped it.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Earth that doesn’t move?</p> + +<p class='c004'>That nothing ever started it.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Some more sacrilege.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_161'>161</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FOURTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I have a note upon a determined luminosity that was bent upon +Saturn, as its objective. In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 63-496, a +correspondent writes that, upon July 13, 1896, he saw, through +his telescope, from 10 until after 11.15, <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, after which the +planet was too near the horizon for good seeing, a luminous object +moving near Saturn. He saw it pass several small stars. “It was +certainly going toward Saturn at a good rate.” There may be +swifts of 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 conventionally +<span class='pageno' id='Page_162'>162</span>taught be accepted, the orbital velocity of Venus is +far cut down.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>La Nature</i>, 1873-239). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Perhaps a similar thing that visited the moon, and was then +seen sailing away—in the <i>Astronomical Register</i>, 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.” 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. <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 27, 1881—South +Africa—an object that was seen near the moon, by Col. Markwick—like +a comet but moving rapidly (<i>Jour. Liverpool Astro. +Soc.</i>, 7-117).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Knowledge</i>, 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.” 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 <i>Knowledge</i>. Then Capt. Noble saw the +nucleus from which this light came. It was a brilliant object. +Upon page 207, <abbr class='spell'>W. K.</abbr> Bradgate writes that, at 12.40 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, August +29, at Liverpool, he saw an object like the planet Jupiter, a +ray of light emanating from it. Upon the nights of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 11 and +13, Prof. Swift saw, at Rochester, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, an unknown object like +a comet, perhaps in the local sky of Rochester, inasmuch as it +was reported from nowhere else (<i>Observatory</i>, 6-345). In +<span class='pageno' id='Page_163'>163</span><i>Knowledge</i>, 4-219, Mrs. Harbin writes that, upon the night of +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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. And several +months later (<abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr>, 1883) a similar object was seen obviously +not far away, but in the local sky of Porto Rico and then of Ohio +(<i>Amer. Met. Jour.</i>, 1-110, and <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 50-40, 97). 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 Porto 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Aug. 22, 1885—Saigon, Cochin-China—according to Lieut. +Réveillère, of the vessel <i>Guiberteau</i>—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 (<abbr class='spell'><i>C. R.</i></abbr>, 101-680).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>But the stationariness of this earth can not be subordinated. +It is crucial.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_164'>164</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER FIFTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 <i>Times</i>, 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.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Scientific American</i>, +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.” The writer suggests that, though probably +something had been 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 <i>Monthly Weather +Review</i>, and if that doesn’t give us a modern touch, I mistake the +sound of it. <i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, Sept, and <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr>, 1881—an +auroral display in Maryland and New York, upon the 23rd +of September; all other auroras in September far north of the +three states in which it was said phenomena were seen. October—no +auroras until the 18th; that one in the north. There was +a mirage upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 23, but at Indianola; two instances in October, +but late in the month, and in northern states.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_165'>165</span>It is said, in the <i>Scientific American</i>, that, according to the +Warrentown (Va.) <i>Solid South</i>, a number of persons had seen +white-robed figures in the sky, at night. The story in the <i>Richmond +Dispatch</i> 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. Then a dispatch from +Wilmington, Delaware—platoons of angels marching and counter-marching +in the sky, their white robes and helmets gleaming. +Similar accounts came from Laurel and Talbot. Several persons +said that 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1888-392:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. The writer in <i>L’Astronomie</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 5-70). An army that was watched, +forty minutes, by M. Jacquot, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 30, 1886 (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1886-71)—things +or beings that seemed to march and to counter-march: all +that moved in the same direction, moved in parallel lines. In +<i>L’Année Scientifique</i>, 29-8, there is an account of observations by +<abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Trouvelot, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 29, 1871. 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_166'>166</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Sun</i>, 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. 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Eagle</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 18, 1892—a +mirage in the sky of Lewiston, Montana—Indians and hunters +alternately charging and retreating. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Altogether there are many data indicating that vessels and living +<span class='pageno' id='Page_167'>167</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>La Nature</i>, 1888-2-66, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Adrian Arcelin writes that, +while excavating near de Solutré, in August, 1878, upon a day, +described as <i>superbe</i>, sky clear to a degree said to have been <i>parfaitement</i>, +several dozen sheets of wrapping paper upon the ground +suddenly rose. 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 <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Arcelin, +the dust on the ground under and around was not disturbed. +The sheets of paper continued upward, and disappeared +in the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>A powerful force that swooped upon a fishing vessel, raising +it so far that when it fell back it sank—see London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> +24, 1875. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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 (<i>Pop. Sci.</i>, 15-566). +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>La Nature</i>, 1879-1-166, quotes the <i>Courrier des Ardennes</i> 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. There had not been +<span class='pageno' id='Page_168'>168</span>a trace of wind. The writer of the account says that the force, +which he calls a <i>trouble inoui</i> had so singled out this house that +nothing in its surroundings beyond a distance of thirty feet had +been disturbed.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Scientific American</i>, July 10, 1880—that, according to the +<i>Plaindealer</i>, of East Kent, Ontario, two citizens of East Kent were +in a field, and heard a loud report. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It may be that witnesses have seen human beings dragged from +our 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 has 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon December 10, 1881, Walter Powell and two companions +ascended from Bath in the Government balloon <i>Saladin</i> (Valentine +and Tomlinson, <i>Travels in Space</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 227). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_169'>169</span>came in upon a luminous object that was seen in the sky at the +time that this balloon disappeared. In the London <i>Times</i>, 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 <i>Morning Post</i>, it is said that +this luminous display was the chief feature; that it was this +sparkling that had made the object visible. In the <i>Standard</i>, +Dec. 16, is an account of something that was seen in the sky, +five o’clock, morning of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 15, by Capt. Mc. Bain, of the +steamship <i>Countess of Aberdeen</i>, off the coast of Scotland, 25 miles +from Montrose. 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 <i>Morning Post</i> 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 <i>Standard</i>, +Dec. 19, it is said that two bright lights were seen over Dartmouth +Harbor, upon the 11th.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_170'>170</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1886-312, Prof. Paroisse, of the College Bar-sur-Aube, +quotes two witnesses of a <i>curieux phénomène</i> that occurred +in a garden of the College, May, 22, 1886—cloudless sky; +wind <i>très faible</i>. 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 witnesses said that they had felt no disturbance in +the air.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Scientific American</i>, 56-65—that in June, 1886, according +to the London <i>Times</i>, “a well-known official” was entering Pall +Mall, when he felt a violent blow on the shoulder and heard +a hissing sound. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Charleston <i>News and Courier</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 25, 1886—that, at Edina, +Mo., <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 23, a man and his three sons were pulling corn on a +farm. Nothing is said of meteorologic conditions, and, for all +I know, they may have been pulling corn in a violent thunder +storm. Something that is said to have been lightning flashed +from the sky. The man was slightly injured, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Brooklyn Eagle</i>, March 17, 1891—that, at Wilkesbarre, Pa., +March 16th, two men were “lifted bodily and carried considerable +distance in a whirlwind.” 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 <i>Times</i>, March 17, 1891, +it is said that two men, Smith Morehouse, of Orange Co., <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, +and William Owen, of Sussex Co., N. J., were walking in Vanderbilt +<span class='pageno' id='Page_171'>171</span>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. 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 had seen +the flash before the explosion, but could not say whether it had +been from something falling or not. In the <i>Brooklyn Eagle</i>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_172'>172</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SIXTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 (<i>Nature</i>, +50-500).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 3, 1892—climacteric opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon August 12, 1892, flashes were seen by many persons, in +the sky of England. See <i>Eng. Mec.</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> 56. At Manchester, so +like signals were they, 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 <i>English Mechanic</i>, who wrote: “I have +never seen such an appearance of an aurora.” “Rapid flashes” +reported from Loughborough.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>A shining triangle in a dark circle.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 1888-75, Dr. Klein publishes an account of +de Speissen’s observation of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 23, 1887—a luminous triangle +on the floor of Plato. Dr. Klein says it was an effect of sunlight.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>So then—at least conceivably—something similar upon the +moon. Flakes of light moving toward Plato, this night of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> +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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_173'>173</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 13, 1889, was reported by Prof. Thury, +of Geneva—a black spot with an “intensely white” border.</p> + +<p class='c004'>March 30, 1889—a black spot that was seen for the first time, +by Gaudibert, near the center of Copernicus (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1890-235). +May 11, 1889—an object as black as ink upon a rampart of +Gassendi (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1889-275). 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 (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1890-187).</p> + +<p class='c004'>The star-like light of Aristarchus—it is a long time since +latest preceding appearance (May 7, 1867). Then it can not be +attributed to commonplace lunar circumstances. The light was +seen, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 7, 1891, by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> d’Adjuda, of the Observatory of Lisbon—“a +very distinct, luminous point” (<i>L’Astro.</i>, 11-33).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon April 1, 1893, a shaft of light was seen projecting from +the moon, by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> de Moraes, in the Azores. A similar appearance +was seen, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 25, 1893, at Paris, by Mr. Gaboreau +(<i>L’Astro.</i>, 13-34).</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>Another association like that of 1884—in the <i>English Mechanic</i>, +55-310, a correspondent writes that, upon May 6, 1892, he saw +a shining point (not polar) upon Venus. 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 (<i>Ast. Nach.</i>, <abbr title='number'>no.</abbr> 4106).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. Upon this +day, according to the <i>Scientific American</i>, 73-374, a boy, Robert +<span class='pageno' id='Page_174'>174</span>Alcorn, saw a large luminous object falling from the sky. 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 <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 4, +1895, Dr. <abbr class='spell'>J. A. H.</abbr> Murray writes that, at Oxford, a few minutes +before 8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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. 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 <i>Times</i>, +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. Another correspondent, +who had not read Dr. Murray’s letter, his own dated +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 3, writes from a place not stated that about 8.20 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> +31, he had seen a star-like object, moving eastward, remaining +in sight four or five minutes. Then someone who, about 8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the Oxford <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 7, Dr. Murray’s letter to the London +<i>Times</i> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_175'>175</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 18, 1895—inferior conjunction of Venus.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Still in the same period, there were, in London, two occurrences +perhaps like that at Donegal. London <i>Morning Post</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> +16, 1895—that, at noon, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 15, an “alarming explosion” occurred +somewhere near Fenchurch Street, London. 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 <i>Daily News</i>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Observation by Müller, of Nymegen, Holland—an unknown +luminous object that, about three weeks later, was seen near Venus +(<i>Monthly Notices, <abbr class='spell'>R. A. S.</abbr></i>, 52-276).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon the 28th of April, 1897, Venus was in inferior conjunction. +In <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, 5-55, it is said that many persons +had written to the Editor, telling of “airships” that had been seen, +about this time. 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>The first group of our data, I take from dispatches to the New +York <i>Sun</i>, April 2, 11, 16, 18. First of April—“the mysterious +light” in the sky of Kansas City—something like a powerful +searchlight. “It was directed toward the earth, travelling east at +a rate of sixty miles an hour.” About a week later, something +<span class='pageno' id='Page_176'>176</span>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Herald</i>, 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.” +It is said that a white light, a red light, and a green light had +been seen.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Alpha Orionis</i> for an airship. Prof. Hough explains +that astronomeric effects may have given a changing red +and green appearance to this star. <i>Alpha Orionis</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Herald</i>, April 12—said that the object had been photographed +<span class='pageno' id='Page_177'>177</span>in Chicago: “a cigar-shaped, silken bag,” with a framework—other +explanations and identifications, not one of them applying to +this object, if it be accepted that it was seen in places as far apart as +Illinois and Texas. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Prof. George Hough maintains that the object seen is <i>Alpha +Orionis</i>.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>April 14—story, veritable observation, yarn, hoax—despatch +from Carlensville, Ill.—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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>April 15—shower of telegrams—development 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Herald</i>, April 20—that, upon the 19th, about 9 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, +at Sistersville, W. Va., a luminous object had approached the town +from the northwest, flashing brilliant red, white, and green lights. +“An examination with strong glasses left an impression of a huge +<span class='pageno' id='Page_178'>178</span>cone-shaped arrangement 180 feet long, with large fins on either +side.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>My own general impression:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 had 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—</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_179'>179</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER SEVENTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 <i>Nature</i>, 61-127, appears a report by Henry <abbr class='spell'>S.</abbr> Schurr, who +investigated the sounds in the years 1890-1891:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“These Guns are always heard in triplets, <abbr class='spell'>i. e.</abbr>, 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, +<abbr class='spell'>i. e.</abbr>, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <abbr title='volumes'>vols.</abbr> 16 and 17, <i>Ciel et Terre</i>, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Van den Broeck published +a series of papers upon the mysterious sounds that had +been heard in Belgium.</p> + +<p class='c004'>July, 1892—heard near Brée, by Dr. Raemaekers, of Antwerp—detonations +at regular intervals of about 12 seconds, repeated +about 20 times.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Aug. 5, 1892—near Dunkirk, by Prof. Gérard, of Brussels—four +reports like sounds of cannons.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_180'>180</span><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 5, 1893—at Middelkirke—loud sounds of remarkable intensity.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 8, 1893—English Channel near Dover—by Prof. Gérard—an +explosive sound.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Ciel et Terre</i>, 16-485, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Van den Broeck records an experience +of his own. 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 were 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 16, 1895—a triplet of detonations, heard by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> de Schryvere, +of Brussels.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There were attempts to explain. Some of <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> 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 +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 13, 1895, four shocks were felt and sounds heard at Southampton: +a series of three and then another (<i>Nature</i>, 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. However, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Van den Broeck says that +Mr. Harmer, of Aldeburgh, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>It was <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> de Schryvere’s opinion that the triplet of detonations +that he had heard was from vessels in the North Sea. But now, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_181'>181</span>according to developments, the sounds of Belgium can not very +well be attributed to terrestrial cannonading in or near +Belgium: in <i>Ciel et Terre</i>, 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. 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 <i>positivement aérien</i>. In +<i>Ciel et Terre</i>, 17-14, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 24, 1896—a triplet of triplets—between 2.30 and 3.30, +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>—by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Overloop, of Middelkirke, Belgium—three series +of detonations, each of three sounds.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The sounds went on, but, after this occurrence, there seems +to me to be little inducement to me to continue upon the 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 +kind of a 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_182'>182</span>theologies, in the balanced compositions of all the arts, in logical +demonstrations, and in the indefinite feelings that are supposed +to be superstitious.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The sounds went on, as if there were experiments, or attempts +to communicate by means of other regularizations and repetitions. +<abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 18, 1896—a series of more than 20 detonations, at intervals +of 2 or 3 minutes, heard at Ostend, by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Pulzeys, an engineer +of Brussels. Four or five sounds were heard at Ostend by someone +else: repeated upon the 21st of <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> Heard by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Overloop, +at Ostend, April 6: detonations at 11.57.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, and at +12.1.32 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> Heard the next day, by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Overloop, at Blankenberghe, +at 2.35 and 2.51 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr></p> + +<p class='c004'>The last occurrence recorded by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Van den Broeck was upon +the English Channel, May 23, 1896: detonations at 3.20 and 3.40 +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 a subterranean +origin. The admission by Symons and Fordham that we +have recorded, as to occurrences of 1887-89, has survived.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The earliest of the 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, <i>A True and Perfect Relation of the +Terrible Earthquake</i>. 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 offsprings all of whom +<span class='pageno' id='Page_183'>183</span>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 toward 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 a 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Our subject now is the supposed earthquake centering around +Worcester and Hereford, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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 <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 6, 1863, and of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>At 5.45 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 2. 1893, a loud sound was heard at a place +ten miles northeast of Worcester, and no shock was felt (<i>Nature</i>, +49-245); however at Worcester and in various parts of the west +of England and in Wales a shock was felt.</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to James <abbr class='spell'>G.</abbr> Wood, writing in <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, +29-8, at 9.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. +Half an hour later, something else occurred: according to Denning +(<i>Nature</i>, 49-325) it was in several places, near Hereford and Worcester, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_184'>184</span>supposed to be an earthquake. But, at Stokesay Vicarage, +Shropshire (<i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 74-155, David Packer calls attention +to “a strange meteoric light” that was seen in the sky, at Worcester, +during the quake of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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. There was something in the sky. +In <i>Nature</i>, 55-179, <abbr class='spell'>J.</abbr> 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. +In <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 31-180, are recorded many observations +upon lights that were seen in the sky. In an appendix to his +book, <i>The Hereford Earthquake of 1896</i>, Dr. Charles Davison +says that at the time of the quake (5.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>) there was a +luminous object in the sky, and that it “traversed a large part of +the disturbed area.” 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Shocks that had been felt before midnight, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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 of 5.30 o’clock was from a great explosion +in the sky—and by what multiplication of strangeness of coincidence +<span class='pageno' id='Page_185'>185</span>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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>In some minds it may be questionable that the earth could be +so affected as it was at 5.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 17, 1896, by an explosion +in the sky. Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Suppose, just at present, we disregard all the Worcester-Hereford +phenomena except those of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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 one 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The phenomena associate with an opposition of Mars. <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> +10, 1896—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>But we have gone on rather elaborately with perhaps an insufficiency +to base upon. We can not say, directly, that all the +phenomena of the night of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We apply the idea of the 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 an +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_186'>186</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, 23-57, is a report, by the +Director of the Florida Weather Service, upon “mysterious +sounds” and luminous effects in the sky of Florida. According +to investigation, these phenomena did occur in the sky of Florida, +about noon, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 <i>Review</i> thinks that three meteors may have exploded +so in succession in the sky of Florida, and nowhere else, +“by coincidence.”</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_187'>187</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER EIGHTEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 +might I 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 subjects, 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, 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 +relations 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 grouping +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 descriptions +<span class='pageno' id='Page_188'>188</span>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 of 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Lost tribes and the 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_189'>189</span>of them? Bones of the Mayans, picked white as frost by space-scavengers, +regioned to this day in a sterile luxuriance somewhere, +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. We conceive of Supervision +upon this earth’s development, but for it the names of +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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That Elimination and Redistribution swept an earlier Egypt +with suctions—because it was 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That often has Clarification destroyed transitionals, that they +shall not hold back development.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>An astronomer upon this earth notes that things in parallel +lines have crossed the sun.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_190'>190</span>of ribs and protrusions of skulls and stacks of vertebræ, as +numerous as if from dead land they had sprouted there. 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 were 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>History, geology, palæontology, astronomy, meteorology—that +<span class='pageno' id='Page_191'>191</span>nothing short of cataclysmic thinking can break down these united +walls of Exclusionism.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.” 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 as its foothills, to a +gigantic existence commensurate throughout with the sea monsters +that sometimes reach regions known 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 be +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_192'>192</span>In the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, +is the mummified body of a monster called a <i>trachodon</i>, found +in Converse County, Wyoming. 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 <i>trachodon</i>, now in the +Museum of Frankfort. 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 <i>trachodons</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Ciel et Terre</i>, +22-198, it is said that, about 2 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, June 8, 1901, a glue-like +substance fell at Sart. The story is told by an investigator, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> +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 <i>Ciel et Terre</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1905—the tragedy of the space-pig:</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 86-100, Col. Markwick writes that, +according to the <i>Cambrian Natural Observer</i>, something was seen +in the sky, at Llangollen, Wales, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1905. It is described +as an intensely black object, about two miles above the earth’s +<span class='pageno' id='Page_193'>193</span>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 <i>Cambrian Natural Observer</i>, 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, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1905. 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Five days later, according to a member of the Astronomical +Society of Wales—see <i>Cambrian Observer</i>, 1905-30—a purple-red +substance fell from the sky, at Llanelly, Wales.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>English Mechanic</i>, 55-34. Upon +March 7, 1893, a luminous object, shaped like an elongated pear +was seen in the sky of Val-de-la-Haye, by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Raimond Coulon +(<i>L’Astro.</i>, 1893-169). <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Coulon’s suggestion is that the light +may have been a signal suspended from a balloon. The signal-idea +is interesting.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_194'>194</span>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. 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 circumstance 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 <i>National +Geographic Magazine</i>, 9-102. 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:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“Statement of a balloon passing over the Horse-Fly Hydraulic +Mining Camp, in Caribou, British Columbia, 52°, 20′, and Longitude +120°, 30′—</p> + +<p class='c004'>“From letters of <abbr class='spell'>J. B.</abbr> Robson, manager of the Caribou Mining +Co., and of Mrs. <abbr title='William'>Wm.</abbr> Sullivan, the blacksmith’s wife, there, and +a statement of Mr. John <abbr class='spell'>J.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 39-356, a satisfactory +<span class='pageno' id='Page_195'>195</span>correspondent writes that, at Lille, France, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 4, 1898, he saw +a red object in the sky. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 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. “Altogether beats me,” says Col. Markwick.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon March 2, 1899, a luminous object in the sky, from 10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, +until 4 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, was reported from El Paso, Texas. Mentioned in +the <i>Observatory</i>, 22-247—supposed to have been Venus, even +though Venus was then two months past secondary maximum brilliance. +This 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 southwestern states. In the +<i><abbr class='spell'>U. S.</abbr> Weather Bureau Report</i> (<i>Ariz. Sec.</i>, March, 1899) it is +said that, at Prescott, Arizona, Dr. Warren <abbr class='spell'>E.</abbr> Day had seen a +luminous object, upon the 8th of March, “that travelled with +the moon” all day, until 2 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> It is said that, the day before, +this object had been seen close to the moon, by Mr. <abbr class='spell'>G. O.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>La Nature (Sup.)</i> <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 11, 1899—that at Luzarches, France, +upon the 28th of October, 1899, <abbr class='spell'>M. A.</abbr> Garrie had seen, at 4.50 +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, a round, luminous object rising above the horizon. About +the size of the moon. 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 <i>La Nature (Sup.)</i> <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 16, 1899, someone writes +that he had seen, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 15, 1899, 7 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, at Dourite (Dordogne) +an object like an enormous star, at times white, then red, and +sometimes blue, but moving like a kite. It was in the south. He +had never seen it before. Someone, in the issue of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 30th, says +<span class='pageno' id='Page_196'>196</span>that, without doubt it was the star Fomalhaut, and asks for precise +position. Issue of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. The kite-like motion may have been merely seeming motion—object +may have been Fomalhaut, though 35 degrees above +the horizon seem to me to be too high for Fomalhaut—but, then, +like the astronomers, I’m likely at times to expose what I don’t +know about astronomy. Fomalhaut is not an enormous star. +Seventeen are larger.</p> + +<p class='c004'>May 1, 1908, between 8 and 9 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, at Vittel, France—an +object, with a nebulosity around it, diameter equal to the moon’s, +according to a correspondent to <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 58-535. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Dark obj., by Prof. Brooks, July 21, 1896 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 64-12); +dark obj., by Gathmann, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 22, 1896 (<i>Sci. Amer. Sup.</i>, +67-363); two luminous objs., by Prof. Swift, evidently in a local +sky of California, because unseen elsewhere in California, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> +20, and one of them again, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 21, 1896 (<i>Astro. Jour.</i> 17-8, +103); “Waldemath’s second moon,” <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 5, 1898 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, +67-545); unknown obj., March 30, 1908 (<i>Observatory</i>, 31-215); +dark obj., <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 10, 1908 (<i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 23-74).</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_197'>197</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER NINETEEN</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Cold Harbor, Hanover Co., Virginia—two men in a field—“an +apparently clear sky.” In the <i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, +28-29, it is said that upon <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 7, 1900, two men were +struck by lightning. The Editor says that the weather map gave +no indication of a thunderstorm, nor of rain, in this region at the +time.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In July, 1904, a man was killed on the summit of Mt. San +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” (<i>Ciel +et Terre</i>, 29-120).</p> + +<p class='c004'>It is said, in <i>Ciel et Terre</i>, 17-42, that, in the year 1893, nineteen +soldiers were marching near Bourges, France, when they +were struck by an unknown force. It is said that in known terms +there is no explanation. Some of the men were killed, and others +were struck insensible. At the inquest it was testified that there +had been no storm, and that nothing had been heard.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Celestial Objects</i> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_198'>198</span>earth and the swiftly moving sun. 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 <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 22, 1898, Lieut. +Blackett, <abbr class='spell'>R. N.</abbr>, assisting Sir Norman Lockyer, at Viziadrug, +India, during the total eclipse of the sun, saw an unknown body +between Venus and Mars (<i>Jour. Leeds Astro. Soc.</i>, 1906-23). +We have had other instances, and I have notes upon still more. +The photographic plate is a special condition, or sensitiveness. +In <i>Knowledge</i>, 16-234, a correspondent writes that, in August, +1893, in Switzerland, moon-lighted night, he had exposed a +photographic plate for one hour. Upon the photograph, when developed, +were seen irregular, bright markings, but there had been +no lightning to this correspondent’s perceptions.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The details of the sheep-panic of <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 <i>Symons’ Meteorological Magazine</i>, that, in +a tract of land twenty-five miles long and eight miles wide, thousands +of sheep had, by a 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. See London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 20, +1888. 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 spread over 200 square miles. Something of an alarming +nature and of a 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_199'>199</span>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 <i>Country Queries and Notes</i>, 1-138, 417, it is +said that, in the sky of Gosport, Hampshire, night of <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 14, +1908, was seen a light that came as if from an unseen moon. +It may be that I can here 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 <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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 <i>English Mechanic</i>, 88-211. 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 a film a space-island that had been +invisible to his eyes. It seems so, anyway.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Country Queries and Notes</i>, 1-328, it is said that, upon +<abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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. 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 us 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 a 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 <i>Country +<span class='pageno' id='Page_200'>200</span>Queries and Notes</i> says—“Circumstantial accounts have even 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 a 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 10, 1897, a correspondent to +the <i>Weekly Times and Echo</i> is quoted. 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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. 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 <i>Alaska</i>, +<abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 140, Miner Bruce says 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 1899, he had accompanied +Willoughby to the place over which the mirage was +said to repeat. It seems that he saw nothing himself, but he +quotes a member of the Duc d’Abruzzi’s expedition to Mt. St. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_201'>201</span>Elias, summer of 1897, Mr. <abbr class='spell'>C. W.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In Chapter 10, of his book, <i>Wonders of Alaska</i>, 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. 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 the repeating mirages, has nothing to do with the +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. 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 by +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_202'>202</span>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 detachment from primaries, and not +reflecting in the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For the first identification of the Willoughby photograph as +a photograph of part of the city of Bristol, see the New York +<i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 20, 1889. That this photograph was somebody’s +hoax seems to be acceptable. But it was not similar to the frequently +reported scene in the sky of Alaska, according to descriptions. +In the New York <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 31, 1889, is an account, +by Mr. <abbr class='spell'>L. B.</abbr> French, of Chicago, of the spectral representation, +as he saw it, near Mt. Fairweather. “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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Jour. Roy. Met. Soc.</i>, 27-158:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>La Nature</i>, 1901-1-303:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That a number of scientists had set out from Victoria, <abbr class='spell'>B. C.</abbr>, +to Mt. Fairweather, Alaska, to study a repeating mirage of a city +in the sky, which had been reported by the Duc d’Abruzzi, who +had seen it and had sketched it.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_203'>203</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>Night of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 7, 1900—for seventy minutes a fountain of +light played upon the planet Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. Pickering—“absolutely inexplicable” (<i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 84-179).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 this geo-system. See +Lowell’s account in <i>Popular Astronomy</i>, 10-187. 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 <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 61-100).</p> + +<p class='c004'>During the eclipse of the sun, July 29, 1897, a strange image +<span class='pageno' id='Page_204'>204</span>was taken on a sensitive plate, by Mr. <abbr class='spell'>L. E.</abbr> Martindale, of St. +Mary’s, Ohio. It looks like a record of knotted lightning. See +<i>Photography</i>, May 26, 1898.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 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 <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Rey, in Marseilles, +and by Maurice Gheury, in London, in the lunar crater +Aristarchus. March 28, 1903—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>In <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 49-259, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Desmoulins writes, from Argenteuil, +that, upon August 9, 1903, at 11 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, moving from north +to south, he saw a luminous object. 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 <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> 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 <i>Cosmos</i> writes that, according to +other correspondents, this object had been seen, at 11 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 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.” There were other observations, and they remind +us of the observations by Noble and Bradgate, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 28-29, 1883: +<span class='pageno' id='Page_205'>205</span>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 <i>Cambrian Natural Observer</i>, 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.” It was seen at the time +of the visibility of Venus, then an “evening star”—about 10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> +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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Three nights later, something appeared in the sky of Cherbourg, +France—<i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i>—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).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Flammarion, in the <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 19-243, says +that this object was the planet Venus. He therefore denies that +it had moved in various directions, saying that the supposed observations +to this effect were illusions. In <i>L’Illustration</i>, April +22, 1905, he tells the story in his own way, and says some things +that we are not disposed to agree with, but also he says that the +ignorance of some persons is <i>inénarrable</i>. In <i>Cosmos</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 42-420, +months after the occurrence, it is said that many correspondents +had written to inquire as to <i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i>. 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 <i>Cosmos</i> +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 contemporaneous +<span class='pageno' id='Page_206'>206</span>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 <i>Cosmos</i> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Journal des Débats</i>, the first news is in the issue of +April 4, 1905. It is said that a luminous body was appearing, +every evening, between 8 and 10 o’clock, over the city of Cherbourg.</p> + +<p class='c004'>These were about the hours of the visibility of Venus. In this +period, Venus set at 9.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and Jupiter at 8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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 a 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Journal</i>, it is said that <i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i> 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 <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, it is said that, according +to reports, its form was oval. In the <i>Journal des Débats</i>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Journal des Débats</i>, April 12:</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_207'>207</span>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 <i>Journal</i> +expresses regret that neither the Meteorological Bureau nor the +Observatory of Paris had sent anybody to investigate, but says +that the <i>préfet maritime</i>, of Cherbourg had commissioned a naval +officer to investigate. In <i>Le Temps</i>, of the 12th, is published an +interview with Flammarion, who complains some more against +general <i>inénarrable-ness</i>, and says that of course the object was +Venus. The writer in <i>Le Temps</i> says that soon would the matter +be settled, because the commander of a war ship had undertaken +to decide what the luminous body was.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Le Figaro</i>, April 13:</p> + +<p class='c004'>The report of Commander de Kerillis, of the <i>Chasseloup-Laubut</i>—that +the position of <i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i> was not the position +of Venus, and that the disc did not look like the crescentic disc of +Venus, but that the observations had been made from a vessel, under +unfavorable conditions, and that the commander and his +colleagues did not offer a final opinion.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I think that there was <i>inénarrable-ness</i> all around. Given visibility, +I can’t think what the unfavorable conditions could have +been. Given, however, observations upon something that all the +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 <i>Le Temps</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<i>Le Temps</i>, April 12, it is said that, at midnight, April 9-10, a +luminous body, like <i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i>, was seen in the sky of +Tunis. Though it was visible several minutes, it is said that this +object was probably a meteor.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Every night, from the first to the eleventh of April, a luminous +body appeared in the sky of Cherbourg. Then it was seen no +<span class='pageno' id='Page_208'>208</span>longer. It may have been seen sailing away, upon its final +departure from the sky of Cherbourg. In <i>Le Figaro</i>, 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. 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 <i>L’Astre Cherbourg</i>.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>In the London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 17th, heard +a loud, distant rumbling. According to this hearer, the rumbling +seemed to be a composition of triplets of sounds. 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 that he had heard similar sounds at 11.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, +and at 1.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 24—that the “quake” had been distinctly felt in +Reading, about 3.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 17th. <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 25—heard +at Reading, at 11.30, 1.30, and 3.30 o’clock, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 17th.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Reading Standard</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 25:</p> + +<p class='c004'>That consternation had been caused in Reading, upon the 17th, +by sounds and vibrations of the earth, about 11.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, 1.30 +<abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and 3.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Mr. <abbr class='spell'>H. G.</abbr> Fordham appears again. In the <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 1, he +writes that the phenomena pointed clearly to an explosion in the +sky, and not to an earthquake of subterranean origin. “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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_209'>209</span>phenomena having this source are wrongly ascribed to slight and +local earthshock.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We have data of a succession occupying far more than four +hours.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Times</i>, Mrs. Lane, of Petersfield, 20 miles from Portsmouth, +writes that, at 11.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, and at 3.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, several days +before the 17th, she had heard the 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 82-433, Joseph Clark writes that, a +few minutes past 3 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, upon the 18th a triplet of detonations +was heard at Somerset—“as loud as thunder, but not exactly like +thunder.”</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>Reading Observer</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 25—that, according to a correspondent, +the sounds had been heard again, at Whitechurch (20 miles from +Reading) upon the 21st, at 1.35 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and 3.8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> 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 <i>Observer</i> +says that he, too, had written to the commandant, and had received +the same answer.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I have searched widely. I have found record of nobody’s supposition +that he had traced these detonations to origin upon this +earth.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_210'>210</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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 (<i>Proceedings, +<abbr class='spell'>A. N. S. P.</abbr></i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr>, 1905) says that, of the trafficers in +this meteoritic material, he knew of two men who had shipped +away fifteen tons of it. But Barringer’s minimum estimate of a +body large enough so to gouge the ground is ten million tons.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not be thought of as fragments of a greater +body, and can not 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. Within the formation, shales +<span class='pageno' id='Page_211'>211</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There is no knowing when this great gouge occurred, but cedars +upon the rim are said to be about 700 years old.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +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 <i>Amer. +Jour. Sci.</i>, 2-13-290.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_212'>212</span>physicians, north of the formation, saw the meteor falling south +of them. For analysis and description of this object, see <i>Amer. +Jour. Sci.</i>, 4-21-353. 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Other phenomena in Arizona:</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 (<i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, 1897-56). Yarnell, +Arizona, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 12, 1898—“a loud, deep, thundering noise” that +was heard between noon and 1 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> “The noise proceeded from +the Granite Range, this side of Prescott. From all accounts, a +large meteor struck the earth at this time” (<i><abbr class='spell'>U. S.</abbr> Weather Bureau +Rept., Ariz. Section</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr>, 1898).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Amer. Jour. Sci.</i>, 4-34-437. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>About a month later (<abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 18) there was another concussion at +Holbrook. This was said to be an earthquake (<i>Bull. Seis. Soc. +Amer.</i>, 1-209).</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_213'>213</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>The climacteric opposition of Mars, of 1909—the last in +our records—the next will be in 1924—</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 8, 1909—see <i>Quar. Jour. Met. Soc.</i>, <abbr class='spell'>n. s.</abbr>, 35-299—flashes +in a clear sky that were seen in Epsom, Surrey, and other places +in the southeast of England. They could not be attributed to +lightning in England. The writer in the <i>Journal</i> finds that +there was a storm in France, more than one hundred miles away, +For an account of these flashes, tabulated at Epsom—“night fine +and starlight”—see <i>Symons’ Met. Mag.</i>, 44-148. During each +period of five minutes, from 10 to 11.15, <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 23, 1909—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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. 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_214'>214</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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 <i>Bulletin +of the Seismological Society of America</i>, 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. 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 of shooting stars.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>The duplication of the circumstances of <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr>, 1896, continues. +If of course this concussion in Germany and Switzerland +was the effect of something that 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. <i>Nature</i>, 88-117—that +this succession of phenomena did occur. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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:</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_215'>215</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning (<i>Observatory</i>, 31-288).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Not long before the opposition of Mars, in 1909, the bright +spot west of Picard was seen twice: March 26 and May 23 +(<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr> A.</i>, 19-376).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 16, 1910—an eclipse of the moon, and a “meteor” that +appeared, almost at the moment of totality (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 92-430). +It is reported, in <i>Nature</i>, 85-118, as seen by Madame de Robeck, +at Naas, Ireland, “from an apparent radiant, just below the +eclipsed moon.” The thing may have come from the moon. +Seemingly with the same origin, it was seen far away in France. +In <i>La Nature</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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.” There may have been something occurring +upon the moon at the time. In the <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr> A.</i>, 21-100, +it is said that Mrs. Albright had seen a luminous point upon the +moon throughout the eclipse.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'>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 the visibility of Venus, when the planet is nearest. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_216'>216</span>“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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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 <i>Sun</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 1, +1908, is published a dispatch, from Boston, dated <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 31. It is +said that, near Bridgewater, at four o’clock in the morning of <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> +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 then 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 trace 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_217'>217</span>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.” In +the New York <i>Sun</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 that, upon the 15th of December, +1909, crowds stood, at noon, in the streets of Rome, watching it, +or her (New York <i>Sun</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 16). At 3 o’clock, afternoon of +December 24th crowds stood in the streets of New York, watching +Venus (New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 25). 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 for several hours after sunset, slowly descending +in the southwest: primary maximum brilliance <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 8th, +1910; inferior conjunction <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 12th.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. So this unrecorded +<span class='pageno' id='Page_218'>218</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to the New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 23—that a “mysterious airship” had +appeared over the town of Worcester, Mass., “sweeping the heavens +with a searchlight of tremendous power.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Sun</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 24, are more details. 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 <i>Sun</i>, 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_219'>219</span>“at a high speed.” It is said that the object had been seen at +Marlboro, Mass., nine times since <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 14.</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 1, 1910—dispatch from Huntington, +West Virginia, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13, 1910, it is said that, at 9 o’clock, +morning of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 12, an airship had been seen at Chattanooga, +Tenn. “Thousands saw the craft, and heard the ‘chug’ of its +engine.” Later the object was reported from Huntsville, Alabama. +New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 15—dispatch from Chattanooga, +<abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 on Thursday, +it returned north.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the middle of December, 1909, someone had won a prize for +sailing in a dirigible from St. Cyr to the Eiffel Tower and back.</p> + +<p class='c004'>St. Cyr is several miles from Paris.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Huntsville, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, are 75 miles +apart.</p> + +<p class='c004'>An association between the planet Venus and “mysterious visitors” +either illumines or haunts our data. In the New York <i>Tribune</i>, +<abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 29, 1910, it is said that a luminous object, thought to +be Winnecke’s comet, had been seen, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 28, near Venus; reported +from the Manila Observatory.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +kept a secret is to announce it with red lights and a searchlight. +However, our acceptance depends upon general data as to the development +<span class='pageno' id='Page_220'>220</span>of 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 <i>English Mechanic</i>, 104-71, a correspondent, who signs +himself “Rigel,” writes that, upon <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 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. The correspondent is James Fergusen, Rossbrien, +Limerick, Ireland. He writes frequently upon astronomical +and meteorological subjects, and is still contributing to the somewhat +enlightened columns of the <i>English Mechanic</i>.</p> + +<hr class='c007'> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 19, 1912—explosive sounds reported from Sunninghill, +Berkshire. No earthquake was recorded at the Kew Observatory, +and, in the opinion of <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning (<i>Nature</i>, 9-363, 417) the +explosion was in the sky. It was a terrific explosion, according +to the Westminster <i>Gazette</i> (<abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 19). 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 <i>Gazette</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 28, Sir George Fordham +(<abbr class='spell'>H. G.</abbr> Fordham) writes that, in his opinion, it was an +explosion in the sky. He says—“The phenomena of airshock +never have, I believe, been very fully investigated.” His admissions +and his omissions remain the same as they have been since +occurrences of the year 1889. He does not mention that, according +to Philip <abbr class='spell'>T.</abbr> Kenway, of Hambledon, near Godalming, about +thirty miles southeast of Reading, the sounds were heard again +the next day, from 1.45 to 2 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> Mr. Kenway thinks that there +had been big-gun firing at Portsmouth (<i>West. Gaz.</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 21). +In the London <i>Standard</i>, a correspondent, writing from Dorking, +say that the phenomena of the 19th were like concussions from +<span class='pageno' id='Page_221'>221</span>cannonading—“at regular intervals”—“at quick intervals, lasting +some seconds each time, for five minutes, by the clock.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>It develops that Reading was the center over which the detonations +occurred. In the Westminster <i>Gazette</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 30, it is said +that the shocks had been felt in Reading, upon the 19th, 20th, +and 21st. Only from Reading have I record of phenomena upon +the 21st. Mr. <abbr class='spell'>H. L.</abbr> 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 the 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the Westminster <i>Gazette</i>, <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 9, <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning writes that +without doubt the phenomena were “meteoric explosions.” 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>London <i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 23, 1912—that, according to Lieut. +Col. Trewman, of Reading, the sounds had been heard at Reading, +at 9 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>A. M.</span></abbr>, upon the 19th; 1.45 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, the 20th; 3.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, the +21st.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_222'>222</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>“Unknown Aircraft Over Dover.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to the Dover correspondent to the London +<i>Times</i> (<abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 6, 1913) something had been seen, over Dover, heading +from the sea.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the London <i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 24, 1913, it is said that, +upon the morning of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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. These places are +several hundred miles apart.</p> + +<p class='c004'>London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 21—report by Capt. Lindsay, Chief Constable +of Glamorganshire: that, about five o’clock, in the afternoon +of <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 17, he saw an object in the sky of Cardiff, Wales. +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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>The next day, according to the <i>Times</i>, there were other reports: +people in Cardiff saw something that was lighted or that carried +lights, moving rapidly in the sky. In the <i>Times</i>, of the +28th, it is said that an airship that carried a brilliant light had +been seen in Liverpool. “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 <i>Standard</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_223'>223</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>If the unknown object did carry something like a searchlight, +an idea of its powers is given in an account in the Cardiff <i>Evening +Express</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 25, 1913—“Last evening brilliant lights were +seen, sweeping skyward, and now, this evening, the lights grow +bolder. 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 <i>Express</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 6, is a report upon this light like a searchlight, +and the object that flashed it, by the police of Dulais Valley. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Still does the conventional explanation, or suggestion, survive. +It is said that members of the staff of the <i>Evening Express</i> had +gone to the roof of the newspaper building, but had seen only +the planet Venus, which was brilliant at this time.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Then writes a correspondent, to the <i>Express</i>, 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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 manœuvring 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 thousands +<span class='pageno' id='Page_224'>224</span>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 the hours of visibility of +Venus, then an “evening star.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr> All former +attempts to explain had been abandoned, and the general +supposition was that German airships were manœuvring 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 <i>Flight</i> 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 towns in Warwickshire, and more than +a hundred miles from the Yorkshire towns, a luminous object was +seen upon the night of the 21st. Ipswich <i>Evening Star</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> +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. Portsmouth <i>Evening +News</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 25—that soon after 8 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, evening of the 24th, had +been seen a very bright light, appearing and disappearing, remaining +over Portsmouth about one hour, and then moving away. +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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_225'>225</span>sky, “the lights of which were easily distinguishable.” Hull is +about 190 miles northeast of Portsmouth. Hull <i>Daily Mail</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> +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. In the <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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. 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 +other persons had seen, over Cardiff, something that carried a brilliant +light and travelled at a rate of sixty or seventy miles an +hour.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon April 24, 1913, the planet Venus was at inferior conjunction.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>If German airships were manœuvring 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 manœuvring, inasmuch as the accusation was +denied in Germany (<i>Times</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 26 and 27). 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 +has not seen a map since he left school. There were more observations +upon sudden appearances and disappearances than I have +recorded: stationariness often occurred.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_226'>226</span>The objects were absent from the sky of Great Britain, from +<abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 5 to <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 21.</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to data published by Prof. Chant, in the <i>Journal of +the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada</i>, 7-148, the most extraordinary +procession in our records was seen, in the sky of +Canada, upon the night of <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 9, 1913. 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 <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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 <i>Journal</i>, 7-405, <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Denning writes that, +though he had been watching the heavens since the year 1865, he +had never seen anything like this. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>If now be 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_227'>227</span>Toronto <i>Daily Star</i>, 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.” Toronto <i>Daily Star</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 10—“They +passed from west to east, in three groups, and then returned +west in more scattered formation, about seven or eight in all.”</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_228'>228</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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. <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 13, 1914—things that were gathering +in the sky. They were seen by <abbr class='spell'>G. W.</abbr> Atkins, of Elstree, +Herts, and were seen again upon the 16th and the 17th (<i>Observatory</i>, +37-358). <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 9, 1914—a host in the sky; watched several +hours by <abbr class='spell'>W. H.</abbr> Steavenson (<i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A. A.</abbr></i>, 25-27). 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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 (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 100-236). “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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Mikkelsen (<i>Lost in the Arctic</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 345):</p> + +<p class='c004'>“During the last few days (<abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr>, 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 advance 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_229'>229</span>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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Jan 31, 1915—a symbolic-looking formation upon the moon—six +or seven white spots, in Littrow, arranged like the Greek +letter <i>Gamma</i> (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 101-47).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 13, 1915—Steep Island, Chusan Archipelago—a light-house-keeper +complained to Capt. <abbr class='spell'>W. F.</abbr> Tyler, <abbr class='spell'>R. N.</abbr>, 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 (<i>Nature</i>, 97-17).</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the middle of February, 1915, the planet Venus was about +two months and a half past inferior conjunction. 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 +<i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 15, 1915—that, at 10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 14, three aëroplanes +had been seen to cross the St. Lawrence river, near Morristown, +<abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, according to reports, but that, in the opinion of +the Dominion police, nothing but fire-balloons had been seen. +It is said that two “responsible residents” had seen two of the +objects cross the river, between 8 and 8.30 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, and then return +five hours later. In the Canadian Parliament, Sir Wilfred +Laurier had said that, at 9 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, he had been called up by +the Mayor of Brockwell, telling him that three aëroplanes, with +“powerful searchlights” had crossed the St. Lawrence. The story +is told in the New York <i>Herald</i>. Here it is said that, according +to the Chief of Police, of Ogdensburg, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, 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 of Morristown had sent up paper balloons, which had exploded +<span class='pageno' id='Page_230'>230</span>in the sky, after 9 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, night of the 14th. New York +<i>Times</i>—that the objects had been seen first at Guananoque, Ontario. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 11, 1915, Bernard Thomas, of Glenorchy, Tasmania, +saw a “particularly bright spot upon the moon” (<i>Eng. +Mec.</i>, 103-10). It was on the north shore of the 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 the Mare Crisium, and most +of the illuminations near Picard have occurred several months +from an opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 (<i>Bull. Soc. +Astro. de France</i>, 30-383).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 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 <i>Herald</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13, 1916).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 9, 1916—opposition of Mars.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 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. 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 at Ballinasloe, and resembles the occurrence +of Sept 11, 1852, reported by Lord Wrottesley. Inferior +conjunction of Venus was upon July 3, 1916. We have noticed +that all occurrences that we somewhat reluctantly associate with +nearness of Venus associate more with times of greatest brilliance, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_231'>231</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 10, 1916—a reddish shadow that spread over part of the +lunar crater Plato; reported from the Observatory of Florence, +Italy (<i>Sci. Amer.</i>, 121-181).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 25, 1916—about twenty-five bright flashes, in rapid succession, +in the sky of Cardiff, Wales, according to Arthur Mee +(<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 104-239).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Col. Markwick writes, in the <i>Jour. <abbr class='spell'>B. A.</abbr> A.</i>, 27-188, that, at +6.10 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, April 15, 1917, he had seen, upon the sun, a solitary +spot, different from all sunspots that he had seen in an experience +of forty-three years. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 4, 1917—an eclipse of the sun, and an extraordinary luminous +object said to have been a meteor, in France (<i>Bull. Soc. +Astro, de France</i>, 31-299). About 6.20 <abbr class='spell'><span class='fss'>P. M.</span></abbr>, this day, there +was an explosion over the town of Colby, Wisconsin, and a +stone fell from the sky (<i>Science</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 14, 1917).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 29, 1917—a luminous object that was seen moving upon +the moon (<i>Bull. Soc. Astro. de France</i>, 31-439).</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 21, 1919—an intensely black line extending out from the +lunar crater Lexall (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 109-517).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr class='spell'><i>K U J</i></abbr> and <abbr class='spell'><i>V K A J</i></abbr>.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 13, 1913, Albert Jewel +started to fly in 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. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_232'>232</span>New York <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 14, 1913—“That was the last seen or +heard of him ... he has been as completely lost as if he had +evaporated into air.” But as to the disappearance of Capt. +James there are circumstances that do call for especial attention. +New York <i>Times</i>, 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. 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; boy scouts turned out. Up to this +date of writing there has 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, <abbr class='spell'>N. Y.</abbr>, had been +found the remains of a plane; that part of a plane had been +washed ashore from Long Island Sound, near Branford. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>For an extraordinary story of windows, in Newark, <abbr class='spell'>N. J.</abbr>, +that were perforated by unfindable bullets, see New York <i>Evening +Telegram</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 19, 1919, and the Newark <i>Evening News</i>. +The occurrence is a counterpart of Mikkelsen’s experience.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The detonations at Reading were heard seven years apart. +Here it is not quite seven years later. London <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 26, +1919—that upon <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 25, a shock had been felt at Reading; that +inquiries had led to information of no known explosion near +Reading. In the <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 14, Mr. <abbr class='spell'>H. L.</abbr> Hawkins writes that +the shock was “quite definitely an earthquake, but its origin was +superficial” and that the shock “was transmitted through the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_233'>233</span>earth more than through the air.” In the London <i>Daily Chronicle</i>, +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 27, Mr. Hawkins, having considered all suggestions +that the 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.” +And, in the London <i>Daily Mail</i>, 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. And in the whole series +of the Reading phenomena, this violent detonation was most +distinctly local to Reading.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Reading <i>Observer</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>There was a similar shock in Michigan, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 27, 1919. In +many cities, persons rushed from their homes, thinking that +there had been an earthquake (New York <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 28). +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><i>English Mechanic</i>, 110-257—<abbr class='spell'>J. W.</abbr> Scholes, of Huddersfield, +writes that, upon <abbr title='December'>Dec.</abbr> 19, 1919, he saw, near the lunar crater +Littrow, “a very conspicuous black-ink mark.” Upon page 282, +<abbr class='spell'>W. J.</abbr> West, of Gosport, writes that he had seen the mark upon +the 7th of December.</p> + +<p class='c004'>March 22, 1920—a light in the sky of this earth, and an illumination +upon the moon (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 111-142). That so close +<span class='pageno' id='Page_234'>234</span>to this earth is the moon that illuminations known as “auroral” +often affect both this earth and the moon.</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 20 and 21, and <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 13, 1920—dull rumbling sounds +and quakes at Comrie, Perthshire (London <i>Times</i>, July 23 and +<abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 14, 1920).</p> + +<p class='c004'>According to a dispatch to the Los Angeles <i>Times</i>—clipping +sent to me by Mr. <abbr class='spell'>L. A.</abbr> 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.” “The explanation of the +local Weather Bureau is that they may have been picked up +by a whirlwind 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the <i>Literary Digest</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1921, is published a letter +from Carl <abbr class='spell'>G.</abbr> Gowman, of Detroit, Michigan, upon the fall from +the sky, in southwest China, <abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 17 (1920?) of a substance +that resembled blood. It fell upon three villages close together, +and was said to have fallen somewhere else forty miles away. +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 23, 1920—a correspondent writes, to the <i>English Mechanic</i>, +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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>About <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 1, 1921—several irregular, black objects that crossed +<span class='pageno' id='Page_235'>235</span>the sun. To the Rev. William Ellison (<i>Eng. Mec.</i>, 112-276) +they looked like pieces of burnt paper.</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 25, 1921—a loud report, followed by a sharp tremor, +and a rumbling sound, at Comrie (London <i>Times</i>, July 27, +1921).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Poor, degenerate times—nowadays something comes close to +this earth and lisps little commonplaces to her—</p> + +<p class='c004'>July 31, 1921—a shower of little frogs that fell upon Anton +Wagner’s farm, near Stirling, Conn. (New York <i>Evening World</i>, +<abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 1, 1921).</p> + +<p class='c004'>At sunset, <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 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. 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, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_236'>236</span>of Detroit. In the <i>English Mechanic</i>, 114-241, <abbr class='spell'>H. P.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>It 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. <abbr title='August'>Aug.</abbr> 7, 1921—a severe shock at +New Canton, Virginia. See <i>Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer.</i>, 11-197—Prof. +Stephen Taber’s explanation that the shock had probably +originated in the slate belt of Buckingham County, intensity +about <abbr class='spell'><i>V</i></abbr> on the <abbr class='spell'><i>R.-F.</i></abbr> scale. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Tribune</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1921:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“<abbr class='spell'>J. C. H.</abbr> 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 <i>Electra</i>, 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 wave-lengths 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, consisting +<span class='pageno' id='Page_237'>237</span>apparently 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>But, in the summer of 1921, the planet Mars was far from +opposition. 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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>The San Salvadors of the sky—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>That the dot that spread upon the western horizon of Lisbon, +March 4, 1493, can not be the only ship that comes back from +the unknown, cargoed with news—</p> + +<p class='c004'>And it may be <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> this, nineteen hundred and twenty or +thirty something, or <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> that, nineteen hundred and twenty or +thirty something else—and, later, see record of it in <i>Eng. Mec.</i>, +or <i>Sci. Amer.</i>, <abbr title='volume'>vol.</abbr> and <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 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 sky scrapers will precipitate torn +up papers and shirts and skirts, too, when the papers give out.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Some now unheard-of De Soto, of this earth, will see for himself +the Father of Cloudbursts.</p> + +<p class='c004'><span class='pageno' id='Page_238'>238</span>A Balboa of greatness now known only to himself will stand +on a ridge in the sky between two auroral seas.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Fountains of Everlasting Challenge.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_239'>239</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 can not 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>I point out that this expression of ours is not meant for aid +and comfort to the reactionaries of the type of Col. <abbr class='spell'>W. J.</abbr> Bryan, +for instance: it is not altogether anti-Darwinian: the concept of +Development replaces the concept of Evolution, but we accept +the process of Selection, not to anything loosely known as Environment, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_240'>240</span>but relatively to underlying Schedule and Design, predetermined +and supervised, as it were, but by nothing that we conceive +of in anthropomorphic terms.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Consider anything of a sociologic nature that ever has 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, seemingly +<span class='pageno' id='Page_241'>241</span>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 that 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. 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. +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 supposititiously +highest of intellects, more than adumbratorily 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, 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 that era—but that the data did +survive, or were preserved for future usefulness—that there are +<span class='pageno' id='Page_242'>242</span>“Thou shalt nots” engraved upon something underlying all things, +and then effacing, when phases pass away.</p> + +<p class='c004'>We conceive now of all building—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 functioning of 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 sub-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 the service of a building science, the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_243'>243</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> +<div> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_244'>244</span> + <h3 class='c012'>CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX</h3> +</div> +<p class='c006'><abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 7, 1922—an explosion “of startling intensity” in the sky +of the northwestern point of the London Triangle (<i>Nature</i>, +<abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 23, 1922).</p> + +<p class='c004'>Repeating phenomena in a local sky—in <i>L’Astronomie</i>, 36-201, +it is said that, at Orsay (Seine-et-Oise) <abbr title='February'>Feb.</abbr> 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. It is +said that, 10 nights later, at Verneuil, in the adjoining province, +Oise, a great, fiery mass was seen falling from the sky.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Times</i>, March 12, 1922). Large, smooth +rocks that “seemed to come straight from the clouds.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>In the San Francisco <i>Chronicle</i>, 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.” San Francisco <i>Call</i>, +March 16—“warm rocks.” It is said that crowds gathered, and +that upon the 17th of March a “deluge” of rocks fell upon a +crowd, injuring one person. The police “combed” all surroundings: +the only explanation that they could think of was that somebody +was firing stones from a catapult. 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>The circumstances point to one origin of these stones, stationary +in the sky, above the town of Chico.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Upon the first of January, 1922, the attention of Marshal <abbr class='spell'>J. A.</abbr> +<span class='pageno' id='Page_245'>245</span>Peck, of Chico, had been called to the phenomena. After investigating +more than two months, he said (San Francisco <i>Examiner</i>, +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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>Prof. <abbr class='spell'>C. K.</abbr> Studley, vice-president of the Teachers’ College, +Chico, is quoted in the <i>Examiner</i>:</p> + +<p class='c004'>“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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 +<i>Nature</i>, 105-759—a description of two dissimilar stones, cemented +together, seen to fall from the sky, at Cumberland Falls, Ky., +April 9, 1919.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Miriam Allen de Ford (<abbr class='spell'>P. O.</abbr> Box 573, San Francisco, Cal.—or +see the <i>Readers’ Guide</i>) 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>There have been other phenomena at Chico. In the New York +<i>Times</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr> 2, 1878, it is said that, upon the 20th of August, +1878, according to the Chico <i>Record</i>, 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. Perhaps the +most important observation is that they fell from a cloudless sky. +Several occurrences are listed as earthquakes, by Dr. Holden, in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_246'>246</span>his Catalog; but the detonations that were heard at Oroville, a +town near Chico, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 2, 1887, are said, in the <i>Monthly Weather +Review</i>, 1887-24, to have been in the sky. Upon the night of +March 5-6, 1885, according to the Chico <i>Chronicle</i>, a large object, +of very hard material, weighing several tons, fell from the +sky, near Chico (<i>Monthly Weather Review</i>, March, 1885). In +the year 1893, an iron object, said to be meteoritic, was found at +Oroville (<i>Mems. Nat. Acad. Sci.</i>, 13-345).</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Times</i>, <abbr title='January'>Jan.</abbr> 13, 1843. +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. Stones that fell upon a house, near the +Pantheon, Paris, for three weeks, January, 1849—see Dr. Wallace’s +<i>Miracles and Modern Spiritualism</i>, <abbr title='page'>p.</abbr> 284. 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?</p> + +<p class='c004'>Boston <i>Transcript</i>, March 21, 1922—clipping sent to me by +Mr. J. David Stern, Editor and Publisher of the Camden (N. J.) +<i>Daily Courier</i>—</p> + +<p class='c004'>“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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_247'>247</span>that the insects were blown in on the wind from a warmer climate.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>May 4, 1922—discovery, by <abbr class='spell'>F.</abbr> Burnerd, of three long mounds +in the lunar crater Archimedes. See the <i>English Mechanic</i>, +115-194, 218, 268, 278. It seems likely that these constructions +had been recently built.</p> + +<p class='c004'>St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, May 18, 1922 (<i>Associated Press</i>)—particles +of matter falling continuously for several days. “The +phenomenon is supposed here to be of volcanic origin, but all the +volcanoes of the West Indies are reported as quiet.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>New York <i>Tribune</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'><abbr title='October'>Oct.</abbr> 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, of persons to collect some of this substance. He is +Mr. <abbr class='spell'>L. A.</abbr> 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 +<span class='pageno' id='Page_248'>248</span>upon this earth, in October, but that, in terrestrial terms, seasonal +migrations 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 <i>Scientific Australian</i>, <abbr title='September'>Sept.</abbr>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>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 <i>Bul. Seis. Soc. +Amer.</i>, 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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Latest of the great quakes in Chile—1,500 dead “recovered” +in one of the cities of the Province of Atacama. New York <i>Tribune</i>, +<abbr title='November'>Nov.</abbr> 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.”</p> + +<p class='c004'>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, <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> 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 <i>Science</i>, 14-434. +Here the extreme abundance asserted by <abbr class='spell'>M.</abbr> Darlu is questioned: +it is said that only thirteen of these objects were known to science. +But, according to descriptions, four of them are stones, or stone-irons, +differing so that, in the opinion of the writer, and not +<span class='pageno' id='Page_249'>249</span>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Behind concepts that sometimes seem delirious, I offer—a reasonable +certainty—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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—</p> + +<p class='c004'>Silence that is conspiracy to hide past ignorance; that is imbecility, +or that is the unawareness of profoundest hypnosis.</p> + +<p class='c004'>Hypnosis—</p> + +<p class='c004'>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.</p> + +<p class='c004'>THE END</p> + +<div class='tnotes'> + + <ul class='ul_1 c002'> + <li>Transcriber’s Notes: + <ul class='ul_2'> + <li>nothing? + </li> + </ul> + </li> + </ul> + +</div> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78289 ***</div> + </body> + <!-- created with ppgen.py 3.57i on 2026-03-24 13:59:55 GMT --> +</html> diff --git a/78289-h/images/cover.jpg b/78289-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c2bcf7e --- /dev/null +++ b/78289-h/images/cover.jpg |
