Night of Dec. 7, 1900—for seventy minutes a fountain of light played
upon the planet Mars.
Prof. Pickering—“absolutely inexplicable” (_Sci. Amer._, 84-179).
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 _Popular
Astronomy_, 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 Dec. 7, 1900, it is either that the
greetings of an island of space have been hopelessly addressed to a
continental stolidity, or there will have to be the descent, upon
Flagstaff, Arizona, by all the amateur Champollions of this earth, to
concentrate in one deafening buzz of attempted translation.
It was at this time that Tesla announced that he had received, upon his
wireless apparatus, vibrations that he attributed to the Martians. They
were series of triplets.
* * * * *
It is our expression that, during eclipses and oppositions and other
notable celestial events, lunarians try to communicate with this earth,
having a notion that at such times the astronomers of this earth may be
more nearly alert.
An eclipse of the moon, March 10-11, 1895—not a cloud; no mist—electric
flashes like lightning, reported from a ship upon the Atlantic (_Eng.
Mec._, 61-100).
During the eclipse of the sun, July 29, 1897, a strange image was taken
on a sensitive plate, by Mr. L. E. Martindale, of St. Mary’s, Ohio. It
looks like a record of knotted lightning. See _Photography_, May 26,
1898.
In the _Bull. Soc. Astro. de France_, 17-205, 315, 447, it is said that
upon the first and the third of March, 1903, a light like a little star,
flashing intermittently, was seen by M. Rey, in Marseilles, and by
Maurice Gheury, in London, in the lunar crater Aristarchus. March 28,
1903—opposition of Mars.
* * * * *
In _Cosmos_, n. s., 49-259, M. Desmoulins writes, from Argenteuil, that,
upon August 9, 1903, at 11 P. M., moving from north to south, he saw a
luminous object. The planet Venus was at primary greatest brilliance
upon August 13, 1903. In three respects it was like other objects that
have been observed upon this earth at times of the nearest approach of
Venus: it was a red object; it appeared only in a local sky, and it
appeared in the time of the visibility of Venus. With M. Desmoulins were
four persons, one of whom had field glasses. The object was watched
twenty minutes, during which time it travelled a distance estimated at
five or six kilometres. It looked like a light suspended from a balloon,
but, through glasses, no outline of a balloon could be seen, and there
were no reflections of light as if from the opaque body of a balloon. It
was a red body, with greatest luminosity in its nucleus. The Editor of
_Cosmos_ writes that, according to other correspondents, this object had
been seen, at 11 P. M., July 19th and 26th, at Chatou. Argenteuil and
Chatou are 4 or 5 miles apart, and both are about 5 miles from Paris.
All three of these dates were Sundays, and even though nothing like a
balloon had been seen through glasses, one naturally supposes that
somebody near Paris had been amusing himself sending up fire-balloons,
Sunday evenings. The one great resistance to all that is known as
progress is what one “naturally supposes.”
In the _English Mechanic_, 81-220, Arthur Mee writes that several
persons, in the neighborhood of Cardiff, had, upon the night of March
29, 1905, seen in the sky, “an appearance like a vertical beam of light,
which was not due (they say) to a search light, or any such cause.”
There were other observations, and they remind us of the observations by
Noble and Bradgate, Aug. 28-29, 1883: then upon an object that cast a
light like a searchlight; this time an association between a light like
a searchlight, and a luminosity of definite form. In the _Cambrian
Natural Observer_, 1905-32, are several accounts of a more
definite-looking appearance that was seen, this night, in the sky of
Wales—“like a long cluster of stars, obscured by a thin film or mist.”
It was seen at the time of the visibility of Venus, then an “evening
star”—about 10 P. M. It grew brighter, and for about half an hour looked
like an incandescent light. It was a conspicuous and definite object,
according to another description—“like an iron bar, heated to an
orange-colored glow, and suspended vertically.”
Three nights later, something appeared in the sky of Cherbourg,
France—_L’Astre Cherbourg_—the thing that appeared, night after night,
in the sky of the city of Cherbourg, at a time when the planet Venus was
nearest (inferior conjunction April 26, 1905).
Flammarion, in the _Bull. Soc. Astro. de France_, 19-243, says that this
object was the planet Venus. He therefore denies that it had moved in
various directions, saying that the supposed observations to this effect
were illusions. In _L’Illustration_, April 22, 1905, he tells the story
in his own way, and says some things that we are not disposed to agree
with, but also he says that the ignorance of some persons is
_inénarrable_. In _Cosmos_, n. s., 42-420, months after the occurrence,
it is said that many correspondents had written to inquire as to
_L’Astre Cherbourg_. The Editor gives his opinion that the object was
either Jupiter or Venus. Throughout our Venus-visitor expression, the
most important point is appearance in a local sky. That unifies this
expression with other expressions, all of them converging into our
general extra-geographic acceptances. The Editor of _Cosmos_ says that
this object, which was reported from Cherbourg, was reported from other
towns as well. He probably means to say that it was seen simultaneously
in different towns. For all guardians of this earth’s isolation, this is
a convenient thing to say: the conclusion then is that the planet Venus,
exceptionally bright, was attracting unusual attention generally, and
that there was nothing in the especial sky of Cherbourg. But we have
learned that standardizing disguisements often obscure our data in later
accounts, and we have formed the habit of going to contemporaneous
sources. We shall find that the newspapers of the time reported a
luminous object that appeared, night after night, only over the city of
Cherbourg, as the name by which it was known indicates. It was a reddish
object. The Editor of _Cosmos_ explains that atmospheric conditions
could give this coloration to Venus. I suppose this could be so
occasionally: not night after night, I should say. We shall find that
this object, or a similar object was reported from other places, but not
simultaneously with its appearance over Cherbourg.
In the _Journal des Débats_, 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.
These were about the hours of the visibility of Venus. In this period,
Venus set at 9.30 P. M., and Jupiter at 8 P. M. It is enough to make any
conventionalist feel most reasonable, though he’d feel that way anyway,
in thinking that of course then this object was Venus. In my own earlier
speculations upon this subject, this one datum stood out so that had it
not been for other data, I’d have abandoned the subject. But then I read
of other occurrences: time after time has something been seen in 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.
In the _Journal_, it is said that _L’Astre Cherbourg_ had an apparent
diameter of 15 centimetres, and a less definite margin of 75
centimetres—seemed to be about a yard wide—meaningless of course. In the
_Bull. Soc. Astro. de France_, it is said that, according to reports,
its form was oval. In the _Journal des Débats_, we are told that, at
first the thing was supposed to be a captive balloon but that this idea
was given up because it appeared and disappeared.
_Journal des Débats_, April 12:
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 that it was a comet but
that no one knew what it was. The comet-explanation is of course ruled
out. The writer in the _Journal_ expresses regret that neither the
Meteorological Bureau nor the Observatory of Paris had sent anybody to
investigate, but says that the _préfet maritime_, of Cherbourg had
commissioned a naval officer to investigate. In _Le Temps_, of the 12th,
is published an interview with Flammarion, who complains some more
against general _inénarrable-ness_, and says that of course the object
was Venus. The writer in _Le Temps_ says that soon would the matter be
settled, because the commander of a war ship had undertaken to decide
what the luminous body was.
_Le Figaro_, April 13:
The report of Commander de Kerillis, of the _Chasseloup-Laubut_—that the
position of _L’Astre Cherbourg_ was not the position of Venus, and that
the disc did not look like the crescentic disc of Venus, but that the
observations had been made from a vessel, under unfavorable conditions,
and that the commander and his colleagues did not offer a final opinion.
I think that there was _inénarrable-ness_ all around. Given visibility,
I can’t think what the unfavorable conditions could have been. Given,
however, observations upon something that all 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 _Le Temps_, and other
newspapers published in Paris, it is said that, according to the naval
officers, the object might have been a comet, but that they would not
positively commit themselves to this opinion, either.
I think that somebody should be brave; so, though not positively, of
course, I incline, myself, to relate these appearances over Cherbourg
with the observations in Wales, upon March 29th; also I suggest that
there is another report that may relate. In _Le Temps_, April 12, it is
said that, at midnight, April 9-10, a luminous body, like _L’Astre
Cherbourg_, was seen in the sky of Tunis. Though it was visible several
minutes, it is said that this object was probably a meteor.
Every night, from the first to the eleventh of April, a luminous body
appeared in the sky of Cherbourg. Then it was seen no longer. It may
have been seen sailing away, upon its final departure from the sky of
Cherbourg. In _Le Figaro_, April 15, it is said that, upon the night of
the eleventh of April, the guards of La Blanche Lighthouse had seen
something like a lighted balloon in the sky. Supposing it was a balloon,
they had started to signal to it, but it had disappeared. It is said
that the lighthouse had been out of communication with the mainland, and
that the guards had not heard of _L’Astre Cherbourg_.
* * * * *
In the London _Times_, Nov. 23, 1905, a correspondent writes that, at
East Liss, Hants., which is about 40 miles from Reading, he and his
gamekeeper had, about 3.30 P. M., Nov. 17th, heard a loud, distant
rumbling. 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 A. M., and at 1.30 P. M. It is said that the
sounds were not like gunfire, and that the direction from which they
seemed to come, and the time in the afternoon, precluded the explanation
of artillery-practice at Aldershot or Portsmouth. Aldershot is about 15
miles from East Liss, and Portsmouth about 20.
_Times_, Nov. 24—that the “quake” had been distinctly felt in Reading,
about 3.30 P. M., Nov. 17th. _Times_, Nov. 25—heard at Reading, at
11.30, 1.30, and 3.30 o’clock, Nov. 17th.
_Reading Standard_, Nov. 25:
That consternation had been caused in Reading, upon the 17th, by sounds
and vibrations of the earth, about 11.30 A. M., 1.30 P. M., and 3.30 P.
M. It is said that nothing had been seen, but that the sounds closely
resembled those that had been heard during the meteoric shower of 1866.
Mr. H. G. Fordham appears again. In the _Times_, Dec. 1, he writes that
the phenomena pointed clearly to an explosion in the sky, and not to an
earthquake of subterranean origin. “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 phenomena having this source are wrongly ascribed to slight
and local earthshock.”
Mr. Fordham wrote this, but he wrote no more, and I think that somewhere
else something else was written, and that, in the year 1905, it had to
be obeyed; and that it may be interpreted in these words—“Thou shalt
not.” Mr. Fordham did not inquire into the reasonableness of thinking
that, only by coincidence, meteors so successively exploded, in a period
of four hours, in one local sky of this earth, and nowhere else; and
into the inference, then, as to whether this earth is stationary or not.
We have data of a succession occupying far more than four hours.
In the _Times_, Mrs. Lane, of Petersfield, 20 miles from Portsmouth,
writes that, at 11.30 A. M., and at 3.30 P. M., several days before the
17th, she had heard 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.
In the _English Mechanic_, 82-433, Joseph Clark writes that, a few
minutes past 3 P. M., upon the 18th a triplet of detonations was heard
at Somerset—“as loud as thunder, but not exactly like thunder.”
_Reading Observer_, Nov. 25—that, according to a correspondent, the
sounds had been heard again, at Whitechurch (20 miles from Reading) upon
the 21st, at 1.35 P. M., and 3.8 P. M. The sounds had been attributed to
artillery-practice at Aldershot, but the correspondent had written to
the artillery commandant, at Bulford Camp, and had received word that
there had been no heavy firing at the times of his inquiry. The Editor
of the _Observer_ says that he, too, had written to the commandant, and
had received the same answer.
I have searched widely. I have found record of nobody’s supposition that
he had traced these detonations to origin upon this earth.