Page Content (OCR)
But there is another powerful factor to consider. If this celestial object was even approximately as far away as the moon it would not have sufficient parallax to take it out of sight of the Melbourne observers while Dr. Bone was observing at Castelmaine, only three minutes of longitudinal distance away. Therefore, it was so close to Dr. Bone's observatory that it was completely out of the line of sight at Melbourne. To have been seen as a disc, to move so much more rapidly than a comet, and to have only an infinitesimal part of the velocity of a meteor, this object had to have been controlled and navigated. Little wonder remains that all astronomers were puzzled by this thing, or series of things, for such proximity to the earth was unthought of in those days — and is unrecognized and unspoken today. Who dares panic a World so intent on showing off its Morals compared to another Nations? Such revelation of fact extant would Make All Mankind Brothers, bound by need of one anothers resources to observe & fight the "S" men. In Nature, the patient editor breathed a sigh of relief as he rendered a final account of the Gould- Tebbutt imbroglio. He follows his usual policy and quotes almost verbatim from Dr. Gould's final letter of rebuttal against Tebbutt: ...we gave an account of Dr. Gould's observation on June 11th of last ;year, and it was mentioned that Mr. Tebbutt had suggested that the objects were 60-Eridini and Bradley 718. This explanation was considered a probable one and the same view was taken by the Editor of Astronomische Nachrichten, which has occasioned a further communication from Dr. Gould who rejects Mr. Tebbutt's solution. Dr. Gould says the appearance of the comet precluded the slightest doubt as to its identity; "The verist tyrp could recognize it as a comet..." no jar of the telescope took place. The field of the telescope was fully under control from the beginning, the declination clamp remaining tight. No account of blurring could have given such an aspect to a fixed star, though it was far brighter 60-Eridini. Dr. Gould doubts if a star of the sixth magnitude would have been visible under the circumstances. He concluded: "I can only suppose another comet to have been in the field. That it is not a companion comet is manifest, not only from the relative motion, and for examination next day, but from later abundant scrutiny in the Northern Hemisphere. That it was not a fixed star was evident from the beginning." Thus (says the Editor) is the matter left by Dr. Gould, who, it must be admitted, is by far the most competent judge of the probable explanation of the difficulty. Again, the matter should have rested, but Mr. Tebbutt was to be heard from again, and Gould replied with a final rebuttal to all of them. The Parthian shot came from_a_ surprising source. Dr. Piazzi Smith, Astronomer Royal of Scotland, wrote in Nature, as follows: While there seems no doubt that the honor of being the discoverer of the great Comet of 1881 belongs without doubt to that life-long and most persevering observer, as well as successful computer of comets, in Australia, Mr. John Tebbutt, three communications which have chanced to arrive here this morning from different countries, containing the most diverse ideas of the nature of that portion of the comet's light which universal spectroscopic observation proves inherent to the comet itself, which is quite different from the reflection of solar light. “Pyacha" he was to us & Piachi he "called" Himself, too. Smith My eye! The rest of Smith's letter is too technical for this book, but it will suffice for our purpose to say that this comet was a_most remarkable object and appeared to contain incandescent materials. Piazzi Smiths' explanations of the electrical nature of the comet's condition are about on an intellectual par with his soaring hypothecations on the portents of the Great Pyramid. All we need to know is that 160