|
BOOK OF THE DAMNED
By Charles Fort
CHAPTER: 01,
02, 03,
04, 05,
06, 07,
08, 09,
10, 11,
12, 13,
14, 15, 16,
17, 18,
19, 20,
21, 22,
23,
24, 25,
26, 27,
28
TEXT-BOOKS tell us that the Dhurmsalla meteorites were picked
up "soon," or "within half an hour." Given a little time the
conventionalists may argue that these stones were hot when they fell, but that
their great interior coldness had overcome the molten state of their surfaces.
According to the Deputy Commissioner of Dhurmsalla, these
stones had been picked up "immediately" by passing coolies.
These stones were so cold that they benumbed the fingers. But
they had fallen with a great light. It was described as "a flame of fire
described as about two feet in depth and nine feet in length." Acceptably
this light was not the light of molten matter.
In this chapter we are very intermediatistic -- and
unsatisfactory. To the intermediatist there is but one answer to all questions:
Sometimes and sometimes not.
Another form of this intermediatist "solution" of
all problems is:
Yes and no.
Everything that is, also isn't.
A positive attempts to formulate: so does the intermediatist,
but with less rigorousness: he accepts but also denies: he may seem to accept in
one respect and deny in some other respect, but no real line can be drawn
between any two aspects of anything. The intermediatist accepts that which seems
to correlate with something that he has accepted as a dominant. The positivist
correlates with a belief.
In the Dhurmsalla meteorites we have support for our
expression that things entering this earth's atmosphere sometimes shine with a
light that is not the light of incandescence -- or so we account, or offer an
expression upon, "thunderstones," or carved stones that have fallen
luminously to this earth, in streaks that have looked like strokes of lightning
-- but we accept, also, that some things that have entered this earth's
atmosphere, disintegrate with the intensity of flame and molten matter -- but some
things, we accept, enter this earth's atmosphere and collapse non-luminously,
quite like deep-sea fishes brought to the surface of the ocean. Whatever
agreement we have is an indication that somewhere aloft there is a medium denser
than this earth's atmosphere. I suppose our stronghold is in that such is not
popular belief--
Or the rhythm of all phenomena:
Air dense at sea level upon this earth -- less and less dense as
one ascends -- then denser and denser. A good many bothersome questions arise--
Our attitude:
Here are the data:
Luminous rains sometime fall (Nature, March 9, 1882; Nature,
25-437). This is light that is not the light of incandescence, but no one can
say that these occasional, or rare, rains come from this earth's externality. We
simply note cold light of falling bodies. For luminous rain, snow, and dust, see
Hartwig, "Aerial World," p. 319. As to luminous clouds, we have more
nearly definite observations and opinions: they mark transition between the Old
Dominant and the New Dominant. We have already noted the transition in Prof.
Schwedoff's theory of external origin of some hailstones -- and the implications
that, to a former generation, seemed so preposterous -- "droll" was the
word -- that there are in inter-planetary regions volumes of water -- whether they
have fishes and frogs in them or not. Now our acceptance is that clouds
sometimes come from external regions, having had origin from super-geographical
lakes and oceans that we shall not attempt to chart, just at present -- only
suggesting to enterprising aviators -- and we note that we put it all up to them,
and show no inclination to go Columbussing on our own account -- that they take
bathing suits, or, rather, deep-sea diving-suits along. So then that some clouds
come from inter-planetary oceans -- of the Super-Sargasso Sea -- if we still accept
the Super-Sargasso Sea -- and shine, upon entering this earth's atmosphere. In Himmel
und Erde, Feb., 1889 -- a phenomenon of transition of thirty years ago --
Herr
O. Jesse, in his observations upon luminous night-clouds, notes the great height
of them, and drolly or sensibly suggests that some of them may have come from
regions external to this earth. I suppose he means only from other planets. But
it's a very droll and sensible idea either way.
In general I am accounting for a great deal of this earth's
isolation: that it is relatively isolated by circumstances that are similar to
the circumstances that make for relative isolation of the bottom of the ocean --
except that there is a clumsiness of analogy now. To call ourselves
deep-sea fishes has been convenient, but, in a quasi-existence, there is no
convenience that will not sooner or later turn awkward -- so, if there be denser
regions aloft, these regions should now be regarded as analogues of
far-submerged oceanic regions, and things coming to this earth would be like
things rising to an attenuated medium -- and exploding -- sometimes incandescently,
sometimes with cold light -- sometimes non-luminously, like deep-sea fishes
brought to the surface -- altogether conditions of inhospitality. I have a
suspicion that, in their own depths, deep-sea fishes are not luminous. If they
are, Darwinism is mere jesuitism, in attempting to correlate them. Such
advertising would so attract attention that all advantages would be more than
offset. Darwinism is largely a doctrine of concealment: here we have brazen
proclamation -- if accepted. Fishes in the Mammoth Cave need no light to see by.
We might have an expression that deep-sea fishes turn luminous upon entering a
less dense medium -- but models in the American Museum of Natural History:
specialized organs of luminosity upon these models. Of course we do remember
that awfully convincing "dodo," and some of our sophistications we
trace to him -- at any rate disruption is regarded as a phenomenon of coming from
a dense to a less dense medium.
An account by M. Acharius, in the Transactions of the
Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1808-215, translated for the North
American Review, 3-319:
That M. Acharius, having heard of "an extraordinary and
probably hitherto unseen phenomenon," reported from near the town of
Skeninge, Sweden, investigated:
That, upon the 16th of May, 1808, at about 4 p.m., the sun
suddenly turned dull brick-red. At the same time there appeared, upon the
western horizon, a great number of round bodies, dark brown, and seemingly the
size of a hat crown. They passed overhead and disappeared in the eastern
horizon. Tremendous procession. It lasted two hours. Occasionally one fell to
the ground. When the place of a fall was examined, there was found a film, which
soon dried and vanished. Often, when approaching the sun, these bodies seemed to
link together, or were then seen to be linked together, in groups not exceeding
eight, and, under the sun, they were seen to have tails three or four fathoms
long. Away from the sun the tails were invisible. Whatever their substance may
have been, it is described as gelatinous -- "soapy and jellied."
I place this datum here for several reasons. It would have
been a good climax to our expression upon hordes of small bodies that, in our
acceptance, were not seeds, nor birds, nor ice-crystals: but the tendency would
have been to jump to the homogeneous conclusion that all our data in that
expression related to this one kind of phenomena, whereas we conceive of
infinite heterogeneity of the external: of crusaders and rabbles and emigrants
and tourists and dragons and things like gelatinous hat crowns. Or that all
things, here, upon this earth, that flock together, are not necessarily sheep,
Presbyterians, gangsters, or porpoises. The datum is important to us, here, as
indication of disruption in this earth's atmosphere -- dangers in entering this
earth's atmosphere.
I think, myself, that thousands of objects have been seen to
fall from aloft, and have exploded luminously, and have been called "ball
lightning."
"As to what ball lightning is we have not yet begun to
make intelligent guesses." (Monthly Weather Review, 34-17.)
In general, it seems to me that when we encounter the
opposition "ball lightning" we should pay little attention, but
confine ourselves to guesses that are at least intelligent, that stand
phantom-like in our way. We note here that in some of our acceptances upon
intelligence we should more clearly have pointed out that they were upon the
intelligent as opposed to the instinctive. In the Monthly Weather Review,
33-409, there is an account of "ball lightning" that struck a tree. It
made a dent such as a falling object would make. Some other time I shall collect
instances of "ball lightning," to express that they are instances of
objects that have fallen from the sky, luminously, exploded terrifically. So
bewildered is the old orthodoxy by these phenomena that many scientists have
either denied "ball lightning" or have considered it very doubtful. I
refer to Dr. Sestier's list of one hundred and fifty instances, which he
considered authentic.
In accord with our disaccord is an instance related in the Monthly
Weather Review, March, 1887 -- something that fell luminously from the sky,
accompanied by something that was not so affected, or that was dark:
That, according to Capt. C. D. Swart, of the Dutch bark, J.
P. A., upon March 19, 1887, N. 37 39', W. 57 00', he encountered a severe
storm. He saw two objects in the air above the ship. One was luminous, and might
be explained in several ways, but the other was dark. One or both fell into the
sea, with a roar and the casting up of billows. It is our acceptance that these
things had entered this earth's atmosphere, having first crashed through a field
of ice -- "immediately afterward lumps of ice fell."
One of the most astonishing of the phenomena of "ball
lightning" is a phenomenon of many meteorites: violence of explosion out of
all proportion to size and velocity. We accept that the icy meteorites of
Dhurmsalla could have fallen with no great velocity, but the sound from them was
tremendous. The soft substance that fell at the Cape of Good Hope was
carbonaceous, but was unburned, or had fallen with velocity insufficient to
ignite it. The tremendous report that it made was heard over an area more than
seventy miles in diameter.
That some hailstones have been formed in a dense medium, and
violently disintegrate in this earth's relatively thin atmosphere:
Nature, 88-350:
Large hailstones noted at the University of Missouri, Nov. 11,
1911: they exploded with sounds like pistols shots. The writer says that he had
noticed a similar phenomenon, eighteen years before, at Lexington, Kentucky.
Hailstones that seemed to have been formed in a denser medium: when melted under
water they gave out bubbles larger than their central air spaces. (Monthly
Weather Review, 33-445.)
Our acceptance is that many objects have fallen from the sky,
but that many of them have disintegrated violently. This acceptance will
coordinate
with data still to come, but, also, we make it easy for ourselves in expressions
upon super-constructions, if we're asked why, from thinkable wrecks of them,
girders, plates, or parts recognizably of manufactured metal have not fallen
from the sky. However, as to composition, we have not this refuge, so it is our
expression that there have been reported instances of the fall of manufactured
metal from the sky.
The meteorite of Rutherford, North Carolina, is of artificial
material: mass of pig iron. It is said to be fraudulent. (Amer. Jour. Sci.,
2-34-298.)
The object that was said to have fallen at Marblehead, Mass.,
in 1858, is described in the Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-25-135, as a
"furnace product, formed in smelting copper ores, or iron ores containing
copper." It is said to be fraudulent.
According to Ehrenburg, the substance reported by Capt. Callam
to have fallen upon his vessel, near Java, "offered complete resemblance to
the residue resulting from combustion of a steel wire in a flask of
oxygen." (Zurcher, "Meteors," p. 239.) Nature, Nov. 21,
1878, publishes a notice that, according to the Yuma Sentinel, a
meteorite that "resembles steel" had been found in the Mohave Desert.
In Nature, Feb. 15, 1894, we read that one of the meteorites brought to
the United States by Peary, from Greenland, is of tempered steel. The opinion is
that meteoric iron had fallen in water or snow, quickly cooling and hardening.
This does not apply to composition. Nov. 5, 1908, Nature publishes a
notice of a paper by Prof. Berwerth, of Vienna, upon "the close connection
between meteoric iron and steel-works' steel."
At the meeting of Nov. 24, 1906, of the Essex Field Club, was
exhibited a piece of metal said to have fallen from the sky, Oct. 9, 1906, at
Braintree. According to the Essex Naturalist, Dr. Fletcher, of the
British Museum, had declared this metal to be smelted iron -- "so that the
mystery of the reported 'fall' remained unexplained."
CHAPTER: 01,
02, 03,
04, 05,
06, 07,
08, 09,
10, 11,
12, 13,
14, 15, 16,
17, 18,
19, 20,
21, 22,
23,
24, 25,
26, 27,
28
|
