Page Content (OCR)
closely with Gould's estimate of his object. Bone quotes his telegram and concludes that both he and Gould have seen some peculiar type in addition to comet 1881b. We are now sufficiently remote in time to have an objective view, and we can see more in this correspondence than met the eye in 1881-82. Hark back to Dr. Gould's announcement. Not only did he fail to relocate his comparison star on the 11th, but he admits that his observations on the 10th also failed for the same reason. Now, Dr. Gould, producer of the Uranametria Argintina, was too experienced a man to make this sort of blunder as a matter of habit. Something more than carelessness is demanded to explain. Dr. Bone made the same error, if it can be called an error, and at not too different a time, on the 10th. His comparison star disappeared also. It, too, was moving rapidly during the period of observation. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that something was moving around in the sky, which Bone and Gould thought was a star, or at least as distant as the comet, and which some other equally capable people did not see at all. The element which was consistently overlooked was the possibility that the wayward cometary object(s) was close to the earth and not as distant as either comet or stars. Even Dr. Bone, in his belated statement, failed to see the connection between his abortive observation of the 10th and Dr. Gould's similar debacle. It seems obvious that the illusive thing used by Bone for comparison was moving rapidly enough that it come into line with the comet as seen from Cordoba a few hours later, and thus appeared to offset the effect of the rotation and revolution of the earth in causing parallax. This can only mean that the position of the object was being maintained on a line between earth and comet, which (the comet being close to the sun) was very close to being the line between the earth and sun, and hence through the neutral. Rotation of the earth brought first Bone and then Gould into this line, the revolution of the earth on its axis around the sun being offset by the object revolving with the earth around the sun. The apparent movement of the object quite rapid as seen by both observers, was a movement relative to the stars (including the comet) and was a natural consequence of the object maintaining its position between earth and sun as seen from the earth. This, if our analysis and reasoning are even partially correct, proves intelligent control and space navigation! Zemja pdrida fastaticoni, dlo?_ He proves this too Many times, Not?_ Thus, Who would ever believe him here. The fact that Dr. Gould saw something again, on the 11th, from Cordoba, indicates either that there was a second object, or that the first one was still maintaining its position in the line of sight. That Tebbutt did not see it during the morning of the 12th, at Windsor, Australia, is obviously due to parallax of a very high order, and this established the proximity of the object to the earth rather than to the comet. Anything closer than the moon might very well fulfill these conditions, and since the gravitational neutral of the earth-sun is within the moon's orbit, it becomes not incomprehensible that the object was maintaining itself at "the neutral," or thereabouts, and perhaps even adjusting itself to the gravitation of the moon at the same time. But Mr. Tebbutt's sense of scientific proprietary had been outraged. He wrote again to the Editor of Observatory: Sir: No sooner had Dr. Gould's mysterious observation of comet 1881b been, as | conceive, satisfactorily explained, than another bone of contention (italics by Tebbutt) is presented to astronomers in the shape of two papers in the Monthly Notices, but it is one which | trust may soon be disposed of... 158 We now have that something!