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.
- --
Light on Current Events
John S. Sargent
OPEN LETTER TO GEODETIC COAST SURVEY BUREAU
I have received your letter of August 31, 1923, and note that you are sending a copy of your book, entitled "Cellular Cosmogony," to this office, for which please accept my thanks.
On February 20, 1922, a copy of this book was sent me by Mr. C——, with the request that it be considered by this Bureau. On February 24, 1922, I wrote him that the book would be given an examination, and under date of April 29 I returned it to him as requested, with the statement that the book had been examined by several experts of this Survey, who were of the opinion that there must be some mistake in the observations reported, or in their interpretations, since none of the observations made by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey have been found to be inconsistent with the theory of the convexity of the earth and the accepted laws of optics.
I find the book ("Cellular Cosmogony") an interesting exposition of the theory of the form of the earth which was current some centuries ago, and which was proved incorrect by astronomic and mathematical researches.
In fairness, I should add that this Bureau cannot devote further time to considering a theory which has been proven erroneous by an immense number of accurately-performed, scientific experiments, made by scientists in many parts of the world, with varying kinds of apparatus. All of the experiments and measurements made by astronomers, geophysicists, and geodesists contradict the theory which you so interestingly present.
Such measurements were made with instruments of a very precise nature, which were corrected for any errors of structure, and the results are the same, though made by various scientists and in various parts of the world.
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey itself has done much precise and trigonometric leveling, which has proved without a doubt that the curvature of the earth is positive, rather than negative; that is, that the surface of the earth is concave instead of convex.
The earth is a spheroid, as is proved by the computations of the size and shape of the earth, based on physical measurements.
I would suggest that the Rectilineator which you described might be tested by the same exhaustive methods which are used to test scientific instruments used on geodetic work. It might be well to submit it to the astronomic or civil engineering department of the University of Florida, for a test which would doubtless reveal the inherent defect of the instrument.
Very truly yours,
A. L. F., Acting Director.
- --
THE ABOVE LETTER, intended to be a final declination to further consider the request to institute a geodetic survey for the purpose of determining the direction of the earth's curvature, is supposed to close the correspondence; but as it shows a lamentable misapprehension of the facts bearing on the question, it seems advisable, for the benefit of the gentlemen of said Bureau, as well as our reading public, to call attention to these errors, and to our views and reasons why this request should be granted.
That famous pioneer and hero of the Alamo, Davy Crockett, had for a homely maxim, "Be sure you are right then go ahead." But our learned men have utterly flouted this precaution and gone ahead on a mere assumption, an hypothesis or guess, and erected the most astounding theory of the universe that it was ever in the mind of man to conceive. Ingenious, it is readily admitted, because it seems to fit many facts, and to account for many phenomena, but absolutely in error as a demonstrated premise will show.
That the whole system of the popular astronomy is built upon and is dependent on the correctness of a mere "guess" for its stability, it is only necessary to refer to its author, and confirmed by some later adherents, as well as the undeniable facts in the case.
Copernicus said:
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. "Neither let anyone, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not to be considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
Damaging Admissions
That was the state of instability of the popular astronomy in its infancy; and up to within one hundred years ago, it had not substantially improved in that respect, as indicated by the great astronomer, La Place, who is credited with having proved the stability of the solar system; yet, while claiming that scientists found evidence that satisfied them, lamented that there was no direct evidence of the earth's motion.
In this connection I deem it worth while to quote from Dr. Woodhouse, an English Astronomer of Cambridge, a contemporary of La Place, as follows:
"When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary position can account for and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can to ours, in addition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and Scripture and facts in their favor, which we have not, it is not without some show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system. Whereas we must be content at present, to take for granted the truth of the hypothesis of the earth's motion, for one thing. "We shall never, indeed, arrive at a time where we shall be able to pronounce it absolutely proved to be true. The nature of the subject excludes such a possibility. However perfect our theory may appear, in our estimation, and however satisfactory the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth, that if our premises be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy. "Startling as this announcement may appear, it is nevertheless true; and astronomy would indeed be helpless, were it not for the implied approval of those whose authority is considered a guarantee of its truth. Should this sole refuge fail us, all our arguments, all our observations, all our boasted accuracy would be useless, and the whole science of astronomy must fall to the ground."
Isn't that a flimsy foundation for a great and almost universally accepted science to rest upon, and for which colleges, universities, and observatories are endowed with hundreds of millions of dollars to study and teach, the sole and last refuge of which is the approval of eminent authority? It is the old refuge of the unthinking mind: "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?" (John vii: 48.) We are asked to believe this theory, not because it is demonstrably true, but because some eminent authority impliedly approves of it.
The author of the letter we quote, asserts in effect that the concavity of the earth's surface has been proved erroneous by an immense number of scientific experiments, by scientists with varying kinds of apparatus of a very precise nature, etc. All of which contradicts the cellular form of the earth. And then he cites the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey's precise and trigonometric leveling, which has proved without doubt that the curvature of the earth is positive, rather than negative.
Just what is meant here by the assertion "that the curvature of the earth is positive rather than negative," would not be very clear to a layman (like the present writer) but for the explanation that follows, "that is, that the surface of the earth is concave [italics are ours] instead of convex."
Sure it is; that is just our contention, and we are positive of it. There is no conjecture, no hypothesis; we know whereof we speak, and will stake our whole science to stand or fall upon the absolute truth of our premise, and challenge the entire scientific world to the test.
Of course, it is plain that the writer intended to state just the opposite; it was a slip of the pen, or rather of the typewriter, and the gentleman, like unto Balaam of old, was made to express a truism that he did not intend; and it may here suggest itself that the machine, like Balaam's ass, was the instrument to correct his intended wrong assertion.
Do They Fear the Truth?
But however that may be, just why the Bureau of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey declines to make the test asked of them is incomprehensible to us, unless they fear the result, which their refusal to further consider our theory gives room for a good-sized suspicion.
Certainly, if they have the truth, there is nothing for them to fear. It would show conclusively and beyond question that the surface of the earth is convex, if their theory is right, and that there can be no other solution of the form and function of the universe than that which they advocate. They would then have an absolute premise to reason from, which would be tantamount to direct proof of the earth's motion, which La Place and Dr. Woodhouse acknowledged they did not possess.
Nor has there been discovered any such evidence since, although the heavens have been diligently scanned, and many experiments made, some of which are alleged to prove their claims. But we venture the assertion without fear of successful contradiction, that not one of their so claimed proofs would stand in any court of justice. Not even their trigonometric leveling will stand the test, because made with optical instruments by which it is imagined the eye can see in straight lines; but however accurate and well-adjusted the instrument, it does not, because the law of optics precludes that possibility except in conditions that do not obtain in leveling operations.
An Optical Illusion
In running levels, the engineer deems his line of vision straight. If over level plane or quiet waters, he would find the hair line in the object glass would, at the distance of a mile, cut the leveling staff some eight inches higher from the water than the glass is placed. This excess is attributed to convexity of the earth and to refraction. But if he will apply his instrument to a straight rail, say one foot above, trued to an exact parallel, he would find the same eight inches divergence in a mile.
Then if he will place it in the same relation to the side of the rail, the same divergence of eight inches from the rail will be indicated on the staff. Placed on the opposite side of the rail, he will get the same divergence, but in the opposite direction. If the rail was elevated so as to test the underside, the divergence would be downward instead of upward.
Let the gentlemen find a mile of straight railway and test this matter, as they can do, on three sides of the rail, and see how unreliable is their trigonometric leveling, as proof of the earth's convexity. They will find that a straight rail will appear to bend four ways at the same time by this optical phenomenon, which they claim proves the earth's convexity. If the line of vision is projected midway between the two rails, it will then be straight as between the two rails, because the pictures will be evenly balanced on both sides.
These phenomena of optical observation, the gentlemen of the Coast Survey seem to know little about; at least they make no practical application of the laws governing them in their surveys. Another thing which I doubt they take note of, is that every time the leveling instrument is set up as the line is advanced, another perpendicular is established, consequently another level line is projected that will cut the former line at an acute angle, and therefore cannot be claimed to be a right line, or rectiline, (as termed in Koreshan Science). Such a line is a line extended at a right angle from a perpendicular, without deviation, to its terminal point.
Well knowing that it was not possible to project any such lines with any degree of certainty with visual instruments, such as surveyors use, a set of double T squares was constructed by the best mechanic to be found in Chicago.
How a Right Line Was Mechanically Driven
This instrument was called a Rectilineator (right line maker). These squares were oblong, with metal facings at the corners to provide accurate adjustment. Four weeks were devoted to proving the accuracy of the instrument, during which time it was put to every possible test, by reversals and turning over each section, and interchanging them, bringing every adjustment to a hairline as determined by microscopic observation.
All this painstaking effort was done before the actual survey was attempted. The initial step for this was the setting up the first section of the Rectilineator on platformed standards, with the axial line at right angles to a perpendicular post at a height of 128 inches above mean tide level. The leveling of this section was made by a finely adjusted spirit level, confirmed by a mercurial level twelve feet long, invented for the occasion, and also the application of plumbs to the cross arms.
To this the second section was adjusted, with the axial line coinciding, and bolted to the first section and also clamped to platformed standards to hold it up. Then the third was likewise placed. Following this the first section was taken down, carried forward and attached to the third; then the second was loosened and placed in advance, and so on along the water's edge. To overcome any possible inaccuracies of the instrument, each section, at every change of location, was reversed (turned upside down) so as to correct its own errors if there were any. But to make a crucial test of their work, at a distance of 228 feet from the initial stake, the line was retraced to the starting point, where, at the last return adjustment, the section was found to be in exactly the same place as originally marked, the hair line precisely over the datum line on the brass plate set on the initial stake or perpendicular post. Coast and Geodetic Survey to the contrary notwithstanding.
How Mean Tide Level Was Ascertained and Compared with the Rectiline
Thus in traversing 456 feet there was found no error. At every eighth of a mile, the altitude was compared with the water level at mean tide. This tide level was obtained by an ingeniously devised caisson or box, set in the water so as to extend above and reach below the fluctuations of the tide averaging 3½ feet. Numerous small holes permitted the water to percolate freely into and out of this box as the tide rose and fell, yet protecting the water inside, calm and undisturbed by the wind and waves.
This enabled the tide level to be ascertained at any time; and by means of a tide staff extending vertically from the caisson, and a surveyor's leveling instrument on the bank, the altitude of the rectiline and tide level could be accurately compared.
Then by means of a portable caisson, to be placed in the water at the eighth-mile post, and a set of code signals to be wig-wagged from the initial post, the relative altitude of the rectiline to tide level could be determined at any point along the line as it advanced.
Thus at one mile the water level was found to have approached the rectiline 8.02 inches; at 2 miles, 32 inches, and at 2⅜ miles (where the further projection of the line with the Rectilineator was stopped by a pass, or inlet into a small bay) the convergence was 54 inches.
As in addition to the pass, the beach changed its direction so as to throw the line into the water, the further extension necessitated a resort to the visual process. This was carefully arranged so the line of collination, or line of sight of the levelling instrument, would exactly coincide with the horizontal line projected by the Rectilineator. This line was thus extended into the water, to 1½ miles beyond the pass, or 4¼ miles from the initial point. The distance was determined by mooring a small boat across the line of vision at the point where the horizontal line in the telescope cut the hull at the water's edge.
The ratio of curvature should have made this point 3 at 4 miles, and would no doubt, if completed by the initial method. So the one-eighth mile of excess may be very properly credited to geolinear foreshortening, inevitable in the employment of the visual ray in surveying.
However, this line projected continuously at right angles to a perpendicular from an altitude of 10 feet 8 inches above water level, penetrated the water at something near the proper distance according to the accredited ratio of the earth's curvature. This could not have occurred had that surface been convex, because the line, instead of proving to be a chord of arc, would have been a tangent line shooting off into space.
Marks an Epoch in Geodetic Surveying
To still further prove the accuracy of the instrument and the work of the Geodetic Staff, it was reversed at the 2⅜ mile tide stake, and run back one-half mile, where the return line fairly coincided with records on the tide stakes. Thus was completed the only survey ever made in the history of Geodesy, to determine the direction of the earth's curvature. In fact, it is the only one that could intentionally or incidentally have determined that fact,—the Bureau standing.
That the instrument used was thoroughly tested and found to be substantially accurate is clearly shown; and that the men comprising the Geodetic Staff were capable and sincere, is evidenced by the eight weeks of painstaking work devoted to the task for the truth's sake, and not for pay or hope of material reward.
A careful study of the data adduced will show that the figures could not have been faked as against an opposing curvation. Besides, there was no incentive to do so; for on the contrary, to have established an absolute premise for the earth's convexity, would have won worldly honor and public preferment, with a remunerating career on the lecture platform, as against the contumely and derision of a benighted and conceited world.
Of course, there have been numerous surveys made to determine if the surface of the earth was flat or curved; and finding the latter to be the correct contour of its surface, the conclusion has at once been jumped at without question, that the curve was convex, and everything was bent to that idea.
Triangles and quadrilaterals and meridian arcs have been projected, and the areas chained, that by finding the excess over and above that of a flat surface, the amount or ratio of curvation could be determined, and the diameter and circumference of the earth fairly estimated.
These mensurations have been practically correct, and Koreshan Science does not dispute their results, so far as they answer the questions or solve the problems for the purpose of which they were intended to elucidate. But not one of them, we venture to assert, was instituted and carried through for the purpose of determining the direction of the earth's curvature, nor do they indicate, prove, or disprove that curvation to be concave or convex; that it is the latter is merely conjecture, without proof.
The Inside Area of a Sphere Will Measure the Same as the Outside of the Same Sphere
That these astute gentlemen, with their mathematically trained minds, do not perceive that all these referred to surveys, measurements, and their results as proving the earth's convexity, can be as readily and as correctly applied to the inside of a sphere of same diameter or area of that sphere, is passing strange.
Even Professor Larkin shot that same bolt at the claim of concavity, with confident expectation that our premise would thereby be annihilated. These geodetic surveys and trigonometric levelings proved the curvation and the approximate ratio of the curve, but that they proved the direction of that curve is a wholly gratuitous assumption, for which the methods pursued did not (nor could not) furnish any evidence whatever.
A familiar and persistently resorted-to illustration claimed to prove the earth's convexity is the disappearance of a ship, hull down, at sea. It has gone down over the bulge of the water, say our learned men, whose words of wisdom the deluded public has been persuaded to hang on to, as if at the feet of Gamaliel. But "They that go down to the sea in ships," find that with a glass having a longer range of vision than the naked eye, the ship can be brought back to view—hull and all.
This oft-attested fact is apparently regarded as a sailor's yarn, by those gentlemen who are so credulous of every straw that seems to favor their theory. If they ever tested it, it was not admitted to the public.
In the dark ages, the church preserved the so called truths of faith by burning dissenters at the stake. Later on, when that method was growing unpopular, the clergy preserved their faith inviolate by refusing to look through Galileo's newly-invented telescope. The too inquisitorial about the tenets of religion were reprimanded and excommunicated, and all were warned not to inquire into the mysteries of Revelation. Christian scientists, to preserve their faith and occult powers, were enjoined to avoid discussion of their doctrines.
Taking their cue from these falsifiers of religion, the scientific theorists avoid discussion and investigation of all facts and phenomena militating against their espoused system of cosmogony. When "Parallax," in his experiments on the Bedford Canal, England, declared he could see a target over the water six miles away, when if the earth were convex it should have been out of sight, and put it up to Proctor to say how he explained that, this eminent astronomer replied: "I do not explain it. I refuse to believe it." He would not risk being disillusioned by taking a look at it himself.
Didn't Want a Sure Thing
Prof. Harkness, Naval Astronomer at Washington, in 1897, on being informed of the experiments by the Koreshan Geodetic Staff on Lake Michigan and elsewhere, replied that "if true, it would prove the theory concerning the convex rotundity of the earth is wrong," but, continuing, he said: "It is not true." Asked if he would put himself out to witness these experiments he replied most emphatically: "No!" that he was satisfied.
Upon being asked, "Is not the Copernican system of astronomy founded upon an assumption?" he replied again emphatically: "Yes: we have to assume something."
This most effectively bears out our claim that there is no direct evidence of the earth's convexity, therefore there can be no disproof of its concavity. The gentleman showed here by his own admission that he preferred to believe and teach a fiction of the imagination rather than accept a demonstrated truth.
Apparently in our experience, this whole class of scientists prefer a guess as their basis rather than risk a test that will reveal the absolute truth. Now why should they take such an equivocal position? We dislike to think that men of their standing and eminent qualifications fear the truth, even if it should upset their pet theory. They ought, it seems, to want it in vindication of themselves, and in justification of the use of the public's money in promulgating a questioned science.
To prove the diurnal motion of the earth, various experiments have been tried, such as dropping heavy balls from great heights, or firing cannon balls perpendicularly into the air, under the supposition that rotation of the earth from west to east would leave them to fall behind—that is, to the west. But the balls persisted in keeping to the perpendicular, or nearly so. In the case of firing a cannon, the ball repeatedly fell within two feet of the muzzle of the gun, and not in any certain direction; sometimes even hitting the muzzle.
Then it was claimed that trains on railroads running in a north and south direction, more often went off the track to the west than to the east, caused (these theorists claimed) by the rapid rotation of the earth; but practical railway engineers declared there was nothing to it; that the facts did not warrant the assumption.
Then there was Foucault's pendulum, which created a great furor of interest in scientific circles and their clientele of dupes. It was heralded far and wide, that at last direct proof, visible mechanical proof, of the earth's diurnal motion (the savior and redeemer of the Newtonian system), had been found, and like as the devil took the Christ up to the pinnacle of the temple, they hung the pendulum to a pivot in the Pantheon, to swing their fallacy into everlasting glory, little short of that which the sacred edifice and statuary was to commemorate.
But alas; their hopes were soon shattered. The pendulum's actions, which at first seemed disposed to favor their idea by departing, as desired, from the plane of the noonday meridian, soon began to behave unseemly; it went too fast, or too slow, or went not at all, and differences of opinion arose as to what it should or should not do, until compelled to drop it as a dead issue.
But the "long suit" of these scientific star gazers is the study of the heavens. Having made a wild guess at the earth's form, they proceed to confirm it by a long series of wilder and still wilder guesses, to keep within plausible consistency of the first faux pas, some of which is the location of the fixed stars, billions and trillions of miles away, and giving to others the magnificent diameters of millions and millions of miles.
The Logical Impossibility of Illimitable Space
This we apprehended, was a provident effort to take up and leave no waste in the gratuitously imagined illimitability of space. Just as if there could be space without dimension, or dimension without limit; or that there could be function without the requisite form in which to operate that function.
Because the heavenly orbs, the sun, moon, planets, and stars, appear as in globular form, what else, they argue, can the earth, as one of them, be but in like globular form. So it is, but not as imagined. It is globular, that is, a cell, because Nature is like herself in least as in greatest things, or vice versa, in greatest as in least. And as all life begins in a cell, ovum, seed, or egg, ergo, all life is contained in a cell.
If the earth is of design for human habitation, then it would be a strange quirk of the intellect that would construct a habitation for humanity, so that they could dwell only on the outside. The mortal man that would do this would be derided and scorned by these same savants who credit the Creator with such folly.
When the moon is eclipsed, we are told that it is the shadow of the earth cast upon the moon; as that shadow is circular, therefore the earth must be a convex sphere. That would seem to be pretty good proof, were it not for the fact that sometimes an eclipse of the moon occurs when both sun and moon are above the horizon.
Just how the shadow is diverted from a direct line so as to reach the moon, is a problem to the mind not schooled in the sophism of modern science, in that it is glibly accounted for by attributing this remarkable phenomenon to refraction. That is, the appearance of the sun and moon is thrown up above the horizon.
Supposing this to be true, how, or why, does the shadow follow? Parallax, who, though mistaken in his flat earth theory, yet appears to be an honest, capable
(Continued on page 18)
- --
Note: The article continues beyond page 256 of the PDF onto magazine page 18 of this issue, which corresponds to PDF page 260 onward in the bound volume. The surrounding pages contain other articles and features.
- --
The source scans remain the record.
← Flaming Sword Archive
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 37 · · PDF pp. 253-256