Extracted text
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the scan. Line-break hyphenation, spacing, capitalization, and unmistakable OCR errors have been repaired; the claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
Query, Chat, and News Departments.
Automatic Picture Projection.
I agree that we cannot always be sure of a fact from the visual appearance. To illustrate, I will relate what came under my observation repeatedly in Colorado. A neighbor lived one mile to the east, whose house was obscured by a slight swell in the ground; I could see a part of the roof from the second story. This was the ordinary appearance, but occasionally the appearance of the whole roof would show from the ground floor. I might say that on these occasions my vision was curved down. The roof certainly looked as natural and real as if I had not been more than five rods distant. There are many similar phenomena that have been reported by credible observers in different parts of the world. I do not believe that my vision was bent down at these times, or that the house was raised up, but simply that the appearance or picture was projected up so lifelike that neither I nor any other party could detect it from the real.
If we admit this explanation as the true one, we can easily suppose that the targets in the Old Drainage Canal, near Chicago, were carried up under the operation of the same law, which would annul the value of the experiments made at that place. The same reasoning would apply to the disappearance of ships from the view of the naked eye, and bringing them up again by the aid of the telescope. Let us remember another thing: Ships disappear from the telescopic vision in precisely the same order that they do from the naked eye, and can be brought to view again by occupying a higher elevation. These experiments are interesting as showing the aberrations of vision; but they tend to confirm the idea that the earth is convex.
I do not deny that vision is exactly on a straight line. If Prof. Morrow has any evidence that our vision curves upward at the ratio of 13 inches to the mile, or any other ratio, better than I have here given, that it curves downward, I would like to have him present it for my inspection and criticism. I believe that vision extends in perfectly straight lines; but as it is an important point, I am willing to be convinced. I am discussing this question in the interest of the truth, and not for personal triumph.
SAMUEL BLODGETT.
Then the writer of the above has not truth definitely settled in his mind concerning physics and optics; if he is open to conviction, it is an admission that his conclusions are not absolute. Upon the demonstrated premise that the earth's surface is concave, curvating concavely at the ratio of eight inches to the mile, the ratio of curvation of visual lines radiating from the eye, is determined by looking horizontally over the vertical points of staffs set at given distances from the eye. Perspective and curvilineation necessitate the elongation of each succeeding staff in recession from the eye, at the ratio of about five inches to the mile. The first point to be settled is our premise, in the mind of the investigator; then our conclusions follow as a necessary consequence.
The author of the above can easily insinuate, as he has in past letters, that the experiments of the Koreshan Geodetic Staff are bogus; and yet he attempts to explain some facts we observed. Were we truthful, then, regarding the phenomena on the Canal, Gulf, and Bay? He can ask the reader to doubt all our long array of evidences, obtained for the public by two years' painstaking effort, and at the same time ask our readers to accept not only his statements concerning an alleged phenomenon, but also his conclusions as the "true explanation." We might take it from the above, that the neighbor's house was in the automatic picture business, that raised and lowered its projection or image, regardless of any visual relations to the eye. Something seized the image and carried it up under the operation of the "same law," (!)—something tugged away at it until it stood as a banner in the breeze, the mere ghost of a thing! We infer that the writer of the above never studied refraction, nor any scientific explanation of the phenomenon, and for that reason, employs the schoolboy method of explaining it—why, the picture or image just raised itself up!
We were not aware that a one-sided admission of an explanation was capable of annulling the value of any scientific fact. If we undertook to admit such conjectures, we might easily suppose anything; but as direct demonstrations, or as direct methods of disproof of statements, we have no use for such admissions nor consequent suppositions, and inasmuch as the writer of the above affirms that "vision is straight" under all circumstances, and consequently cannot rationally explain his own observations, it is obvious that he cannot touch a single argument we put forth, nor weaken a single fact which we have observed. Before asking for any more things to criticise, we think it would be well for him to finish up what he has already undertaken.
Besides, what is the use of arguing the matter if he has a proof that will settle the whole question? It would be a saving of time and space, if the proof were presented right away; settle the question at once and for all, with the one thing that will do it! It would not then matter that other "similar phenomena" have been seen by others. Suppositions, inferences, and admissions are foreign to logical demonstrations. All that reason could suggest to our opponents under the circumstances, is to present evidences of fact in opposition to our premise; combat our premise, not our conclusions! Arguments about facts, denials, or doubts inferred or insinuated, can never overthrow the facts which we know to be true, and have proven over and over during past years. No man can logically deny our demonstrations until he has as carefully and persistently entered, by actual test, into the details of the experiments we have conducted, and has found our testimony to be false. Our opponents who have never conducted the same or similar experiments cannot know to be untrue, the facts which we know and have observed to be true! A fact will remain a fact; and no amount of explanation or argument can change it. We know what we know; and knowing that the facts are as they are, we laugh at any and all attempts to overthrow our premise or conclusions! We are not open to conviction; we challenge the world to disprove that which is true.
We await the "simple, inexpensive method," which we are told will settle the question for every one of our readers. At this juncture, some readers of THE FLAMING SWORD are becoming anxious to know what is left of the evidences that the earth is convex, after the scientific world is robbed of all the usual "proofs" through the western attorney's wonderful rays of vision which can go in absolutely straight lines and in curves at the same time! Our facts still stand as they were; they do not need defense.
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the periodical's argument without presenting its conclusions as independently established results.
← Flaming Sword Archive
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 12, No. 36 · · PDF pp. 10-11