And our own underground investigations—and whether there is something in
the sky or not. We are in a hole in time. Cavern of Conventional
Science—walls that are dogmas, from which drips ancient wisdom in a
patter of slimy opinions—but we have heard a storm of data outside—
Of beings that march in the sky, and of a beacon on the moon—another
dark body crosses the sun. Somewhere near Melida there is cannonading,
and another stone falls from the sky, at Irkutsk, Siberia; and unknown
grain falls from an unknown world, and there are flashes in the sky when
the planet Mars is near.
In a farrago of lights and sounds and forms, I feel the presence of
possible classifications that may thread a pattern of attempt to find
out something. My attention is attracted by a streak of events that is
beaded with little star-like points of light. First we shall find out
what we can, as to the moon.
In one of the numbers of the _Observatory_, an eminent authority, in
some fields of research, is quoted as to the probable distance of the
moon. According to his determinations, the moon is 37 miles away. He
explains most reasonably: he is Mr. G. B. Shaw. But by conventional
doctrine, the moon is 240,000 miles away. My own idea is that somewhere
between determinations by a Shaw and determinations by a Newcomb, we
could find many acceptances.
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 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.
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?
If not, we have a direct unit of measurement, according to which the
moon is not 2160, but about 100, miles in diameter.
How far away does one suppose to be an object with something like that
diameter, and of the seeming size of the moon?
The astronomers explain. They argue that gravitation must be less
powerful upon the moon than upon this earth, and that therefore larger
volcanic formations could have been cast up on the moon. We explain. We
argue that volcanic force must be less powerful upon the moon than upon
this earth, and that therefore larger volcanic formations could not have
been cast up on the moon.
The disproportionality that has impressed me has offended more
conventional æsthetics than mine. Prof. See, for instance, has tried to
explain that the lunar formations are not craters but are effects of
bombardment by vast meteors, which spared this earth, for some reason
not made clear. Viscid moon—meteor pops in—up splash walls and a central
cone. If Prof. See will jump in swimming some day, and then go back some
weeks later to see how big a splash he made, he will have other ideas
upon such supposed persistences. The moon would have to have been
virtually liquid to fit his theory, because there are no partly
embedded, vast, round meteors protruding anywhere.
There have been lights like signals upon the moon. There are two
conventional explanations: reflected sunlight and volcanic action. Of
course, ultra-conventionalists do not admit that in our own times there
has been even volcanic action upon the moon. Our instances will be of
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, definite point of light would seem not to be the
appearance from a distance.
For Webb’s account of a brilliant display of minute dots and streaks of
light, in the Mare Crisium, July 4, 1832, see _Astro. Reg._, 20-165. I
have records of half a dozen similar illuminations here, in about 120
years, all of them when the Mare Crisium was in darkness. There can be
no commonplace explanation for such spectacles, or they would have
occurred oftener; nevertheless the Mare Crisium is a wide, open region,
and at times there may have been uncommon percolations of sunlight, and
I shall list no more of these interesting events that seem to me to have
been like carnivals upon the moon.
Dec. 22, 1835—the star-like light in Aristarchus—reported by Francis
Bailey—see Proctor’s _Myths and Marvels_, p. 329.
Feb. 13, 1836—in the western crater of Messier—according to Gruithuisen
(_Sci. Amer. Sup._, 7-2629)—two straight lines of light; between them a
dark band that was covered with luminous points.
Upon the nights of March 18 and 19, 1847, large luminous spots were seen
upon the dark part of the moon, and a general glow upon the upper limb,
by the Rev. T. Rankin and Prof. Chevalier (_Rept. B. A._, 1847-18). The
whole shaded part of the disc seemed to be a mixture of lights and
shades. Upon the night of the 19th, there was a similar appearance upon
this earth, an aurora, according to the London newspapers. It looks as
if both the moon and this earth were affected by the same illumination,
said to have been auroral. I offer this occurrence as indication that
the moon is nearby, if moon and earth could be so affected in common.
But by signalling, I mean something like the appearance that was seen,
by Hodgson, upon the dark part of the moon, night of Dec. 11, 1847—a
bright light that flashed intermittently. Upon the next night it was
seen again (_Monthly Notices R. A. S._, 8-55).
* * * * *
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, 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.
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 _Rept. B. A._, 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 saw the meteor apparently issue from it, and the planet
appear as if it was breaking up and dividing into two parts.”
Some of the greatest surprises in commonplace experience are discoveries
of the nearness of that which was supposed to be the inaccessibly
remote.
* * * * *
It seems that the moon is close to this earth, because of the phenomenon
of “earthshine.” The same appearance has been seen upon the planet
Venus. If upon the moon, it is light reflecting from this earth and back
to this earth, what is it upon Venus? It is “some unexplained optical
illusion” says Newcomb (_Popular Astronomy_, p. 296). For a list of more
than twenty observations upon this illumination of Venus, see _Rept. B.
A._, 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.
Unknown objects have been seen near Venus. There were more than thirty
such observations in the eighteenth century, not relating to so many
different periods, however. Our own earliest datum is Webb’s
observation, of May 22, 1823. I know of only one astronomer who has
supposed that these observations could relate to a Venusian satellite,
pronouncedly visible sometimes, and then for many years being invisible:
something else will have to be thought of. If these observations and
others that we shall have, be accepted, they relate to unknown bulks
that have, from outer space, gone to Venus, and have been in temporary
suspension near the planet, even though the shade of Sir Isaac Newton
would curdle at the suggestion. If, acceptably, from outer space,
something could go to the planet Venus, one is not especially startled
with the idea that something could sail out from the planet Venus—visit
this earth, conceivably.
In the _Rept. B. A._, 1852-8, 35, it is said that, early in the morning
of Sept. 11, 1852, several persons at Fair Oaks, Staffordshire, had
seen, in the eastern sky, a luminous object. It was first seen at 4.15
A. M. It appeared and disappeared several times, until 4.45 A. M., when
it became finally invisible. Then, at almost the same place in the sky,
Venus was seen, having risen above the eastern horizon. These persons
sent the records of their 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.
In the _Rept. B. A._, 1856-54, it is said that, according to “Mrs.
Ayling and friends,” in a letter to Lord Wrottesley, a bright object had
been seen in the sky of Petworth, Sussex, night of August 11, 1855.
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 Sept. 30. The
thing could not have been Venus, ascending in the sky, at this time of
night. An astonishing thing, like a red moon, perhaps with spokes like a
wheel’s, might, if reported from nowhere else, be considered something
that came from outer space so close to this earth that it was visible
only in a local sky, except that it might have been visible in other
places, and even half past eleven at night may be an unheard-of hour for
astronomers, who specialize upon sunspots for a reason that is clearing
up to us. Of course an ordinary fire-balloon could be extraordinarily
described.
June 8, 1868—I have not the exact time, but one does suspect that it was
early in the evening—an object that was reported from Radcliffe
Observatory, Oxford. It looked like a comet, but inasmuch as it was
reported only from Radcliffe, it may have been in the local sky of
Oxford. It seemed to sail in the sky: it moved and changed its course.
At first it was stationary; then it moved westward, then southward, then
turning north, visible four minutes. See _Eng. Mec._, 7-351. According
to a correspondent to the Birmingham _Gazette_, May 28, 1868, there had
been an extraordinary illumination upon Venus, some nights before: a red
spot, visible for a few seconds, night of May 27. In the issue of the
_Gazette_, 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 (_Eng.
Mec._, 40-130); and upon April 6, Webb had seen a similar appearance
(_Celestial Objects_, p. 57). At the time of the appearance at Oxford,
Venus was in the period of nearest approach (inferior conjunction July
16, 1868).
I think, myself, that there was one approximately great, wise
astronomer. He was Tycho Brahé. For many years, he would not describe
what he saw in the sky, because he considered it beneath his dignity to
write a book. 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 did appear only in a local sky of this earth, and if
it did come from outer space, how it could have “boarded” this earth, if
this earth moves at a rate of 19 miles a second, or 1 mile a second, is
so hard to explain that why Proctor and Hind, with their passionate itch
for explaining, never took the matter up, I don’t know. Upon Aug. 1,
1871, an unknown luminous object was seen in the sky of Marseilles, by
Coggia (_Comptes Rendus_, 73-398). According to description, it was a
magnificent red object. It appeared at 10.43 P. M., and moved eastward,
slowly, until 10.52.30. It stopped—moved northward, and again, at
10.59.30, was stationary. It turned eastward again, and, at 11.3.20,
disappeared, or fell behind the horizon. Upon this night Venus was
within three weeks of primary greatest brilliance, inferior conjunction
occurring upon Sept. 25, 1871.