It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hornum
Note: interesting that you saw it at 11:15pm in Sydney and I viewed it in Auckland in the same phase? I know for sure that I viewed it between 11:00pm and 11:30pm because I had just left a friends place after watching "US Marshalls" which finished on TV at 11:15pm and I left about 5-10 mins after it had finished.
Was it a thing or the shadow of a thing? Acceptance either way calls not for mere revision but revolution in the science of astronomy. But the dimness of the datum of only two chapters ago. The carved stone disk of Tarbes, and the rain that fell every afternoon for twenty—if I haven't forgotten, myself, whether it was twenty-three or twenty-five days!—upon one small area. We are all Thomsons, with brains that have smooth and slippery, though corrugated, surfaces—or that all intellection is associative—or that we remember that which correlates with a dominant—and a few chapters go by, and there's scarcely an impression that hasn't slid off our smooth and slippery brains, of Leverrier and the "planet Vulcan." There are two ways by which irreconcilables can be remembered—if they can be correlated in a system more nearly real than the system that rejects them—and by repetition and repetition and repetition. Vast black thing like a crow poised over the moon. The datum is so important to us, because it enforces, in another field, our acceptance that dark bodies of planetary size traverse this solar system. Our position: That the things have been seen: Also that their shadows have been seen. Vast black thing poised like a crow over the moon. So far it is a single instance. By a single instance, we mean the negligible. In Popular Science, 34-158, Serviss tells of a shadow that Schroeter p. 226 saw, in 1788, in the lunar Alps. First he saw a light. But then, when this region was illuminated, he saw a round shadow where the light had been. Our own expression: That he saw a luminous object near the moon: that that part of the moon became illuminated, and the object was lost to view; but that then its shadow underneath was seen. Serviss explains, of course. Otherwise, he'd not be Prof. Serviss. It's a little contest in relative approximations to realness. Prof. Serviss thinks that what Schroeter saw was the "round" shadow of a mountain—in the region that had become lighted. He assumes that Schroeter never looked again to see whether the shadow could be attributed to a mountain. That's the crux: conceivably a mountain could cast a round—and that means detached—shadow, in the lighted part of the moon. Prof. Serviss could, of course, explain why he disregards the light in the first place—maybe it had always been there "in the first place." If he couldn't explain, he'd still be an amateur. We have another datum. I think it is more extraordinary than— Vast thing, black and poised, like a crow, over the moon. But only because it's more circumstantial, and because it has corroboration, do I think it more extraordinary than— Vast poised thing, black as a crow, over the moon.