Page 4 of Flying Saucers Magazine - August 1960

A needle is quite a simple thing; for sewing, that is. When it comes to the kind of needle we put into a compass, that's an entirely different thing! Maybe you've found it out, too, if you've been doing any really serious investigation into our theory on the strange condition of the Earth at the Poles. But if you haven't, let's take a peek at the mental gyrations this poor editor has been going through on this one simple mechanical device. The question of the compass became very important when some of our readers made some flat statements about navigation in the Polar area. We even got letters from Polar Navigators (aircraft, that is) on how we were all wet. We looked into the matter, and decided that we would make no Polar flights with these fellows as navigators! Not that they don't do a good job, but they do it ALL ON ONE SIDE OF THE POLE. If we were going to request a flight across the pole and INTO THE OTHER HEMISPHERE, we'd rather do our own navigating, because we just couldn't trust these fellows ONCE THEY VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE of "playing it safe."

Before we get into the interesting material behind these innuendoes of ours, let's cut the compass thing short with a few flat statements of our own. 1) The compass is worthless for navigation within a thousand miles of the Pole, and in fact, it's worthless almost anywhere. It just gives you a GENERAL IDEA of which is North or South, and if you really want to know where you are and where you are going, you have to "shoot the sun" with a sextant. Further, have any of you asked yourself which direction the compass needle points at the Equator? Well, where does it point? The answer is, we're hanged if we know! 2) The gyro-compass is the instrument used instead, for navigation. It is much more dependable than the magnetic compass, and it is best to use both together, so as to get the most out of either. But let's make what seemed to us at the time a fantastic discovery when we read it in the July 1959 National Geographic: "Nautilus had made an exploratory cruise under the ice pack in the fall of 1957 and discovered there were problems. Her gyrocompasses had failed. .." And again: "By the next afternoon we (Skate) were within 150 miles of the Pole, and our regular gyrocompasses could no longer tell us which direction was north." Well, there you have it. As you approach the Pole, your vaunted gyroscope CAN NO LONGER TELL WHICH DIRECTION IS NORTH! So, as 2y,: aside to those pilots who wrote' '-s such sarcastic and uppity letters, you can just go jump in the Arc,- c Ocean with your gyrocompass, if you think this editor is going to trust you to use It in taking him ANYWHERE near the Pole!

The foregoing are facts. No argument about them. So what did Nautilus and Skate use in navigating under the polar ice? Well, they invented a new use for a device originally designed as a guided missile gimcrack-the "inertial guidance system;" they adapted it to submarine navigation. In short, this system senses the Earth's rotation and charts its speed. Delicate instruments feel the direction of the motion resulting from the Earth's eastward spin-thus they tell which direction is east. They sense speed as well as motion, and since the rotation of a point on the Earth's surface decreases as one goes toward the Poles, the inertial gadgets can sense their distance from the Pole. Theoretically (our word, not theirs, because theirs is spelled positively) when the gadget registers no motion, the location must be the only point on the Earth's surface where there is no eastward motion, the Pole-the exact Pole. Our reason for saying theoretically is one that will get us plenty of arguments; so we'll merely say that theoretically, we don't feel that inerita, gravity, mass, electromagnetism are at all understood, and actually, we are not at all positive as to their relationship with each other, and whether or not one is effected by the other. In short, is inertia REALLY a constant? In a previous issue of FLYING SAUCERS we told you how the Russians had gotten the peculiar idea that retrorockets might not be necessary on landing on some planetary bodies, because the gravity-field was different than the one peculiar to the Earth. Also, they had the idea (now widely held, as we shall show in future discussions) that inertia BEYOND GRAVITY may not exist, and that therefore, once beyond the clutches of gravity, a space ship can be propelled by an ION BEAM, which has hardly more energy than an ordinary flashlight. The Russians seem, to suspect that gravity does not decrease inversely with the square of the distance, but cuts off abruptly at a sort of "boundary." Wonder where they'd get such a queer idea? And still hit the moon precisely, while we miss it by 79,000 miles!

Yes, you've guessed it by now - we think Nautilus and Skate reached a point where the inertial guidance system showed no eastward motion of the Earth, but IT IS MERELY AN ASSUMPTION that this lack of motion means the point reached is the GEOGRAPHIC North Pole. All it means is that they reached a "failure point" where the inertial guidance system no longer is able to determine motion, just as the gyrocompass, at a distance of 150 miles from the Pole, is unable to decide when it is being swerved and not being swerved from its axis of rotation! If anybody had said that a gyrocompass could be turned on its axis and NOT REGISTER that turn, he would have been laughed out of the halls of science. Yet, when Nautilus went to the Pole, they found out that this was precisely what happened, and the gyrocompass was useless for navigation. No loud screams from the halls of science-just a flat admission in the National Geographic that it is so. We challenge science to explain WHY to us! When they do, we will be able to tell them why the inertial guidance system is subject to the same failure.

By now, you must be as confused as we are, about compasses. Their pesky needles are sticking us in a tender place, suggesting that the only smartness we can claim is the "smart" of the prodding needle. Perhaps a glance at the map showing Skate's Polar gyrations will give us some clue to a way out of our confusion. If the inertial guidance system is unreliable in any way at all, it should show up in the Skate's maneuvers. And so it does! Skate's explorations very carefully cover only 15 of 18 parallels of longitude IN ONE HEMISPHERE. Perhaps they could have navigated in the other 21, but they would have GONE AROUND the Pole to do it. NOT ACROSS! They WENT AROUND the Pole on every maneuver, except the one where they went TO it. And this peculiar fact leads one to wonder if the path of the Skate was not necessarily so circumspect because of INABILITY of the inertial guidance system to guide them in anything but an area THIS SIDE of the point where it stopped registering motion!

We are in a decidedly weak area of discussion here, because it doesn't necessarily mean that Skate couldn't go where we think it should have gone. It could mean it was under orders to go only where it actually went. But it is true that it never made a move toward that mysterious direction we are forced to call (as Admiral Byrd did) BEYOND the Pole. Why did they not proceed in a direction which would cause the inertial guidance system to report motion in a westward direction. That would have been BEYOND the Pole! But they carefully stayed in an area where the inertial guidance system indicated eastward motion. Or will they tell us that there is no such thing as westward rotation of the Earth? To a layman like ourselves, we can picture the Skate proceeding toward the North Pole, watching its gadget register a constantly decreasing eastward motion of the Earth, until at last we jubilantly cry "The Pole has been reached"; and we can picture the engineer, unaware of the cry in his engine room, blithely driving the ship forward, and the gadget beginning to register motion in the OPPOSITE direction! How could it do otherwise? The Earth is rotating the other way, in relation to the inertial guidance system's original heading, on the other side of the Pole. So, it should register westward motion. How about navigating from there?

Chart a course for central Siberia! Don't back up and square the gadget with the east, as it should be I Plunge on. See if you can navigate in reverse! Afraid to get lost?

Now we come to that mysterious man, F. Amadeo Giannini, P. O. Box 695, New Providence, New Jersey. We give you his address because we think he should get some attention! He should have an opportunity to explain himself to anyone of our readers who cares to check him personally, and not just take our word for it.

Such a person is reader Richard Ogden, 1233 Ninth Ave., West, Seattle 99, Washington. He wrote Mr. Giannini on April 25, 1960. Here is what Mr. Giannini replied, word for word:

"Replying to yours of the 13th instant: Please be advised of the following: The standard reference works, dealing with the late Rear Admiral Richard Evelyn Byrd's Antarctic exploration do not mention the 1,700 mile flight over land beyond the North Pole point of theory, in February, 1947.

"And there is no question about Rear Admiral Byrd's Antarctic venture of 1946. But that recorded Antarctic exploration of 1946 can in no way detract from the U. S. Naval task force flight over land beyond the North Pole in February, 1947.

"This author cannot be held responsible for political whims and any and all political and militaristic misrepresentations of fact imposed upon an otherwise intelligent, but conveniently considered most unintelligent and gullible, public of the year 1947 or 1957.

"Hence your interest may be satisfied by The New York Times accounts of December, 1946, through February, 1947. And, if they will, responsible agents of the U. S. Naval Intelligence Office, Wash., D. C., can provide additional satisfaction.

"Please be assured that your interest is deeply appreciated, as is the interest of Mr. Ray Palmer who has purportedly "reviewed" this author's book. And, in that another source has informed this author of Mr. Palmer's enthusiastic designation of liar, a copy of Mr. Palmer's "review" would be welcome. For, in the modern order of surpassing lies and liars, even the liar designation would hold certain merit for this author."

That ends Mr. Giannini's statement. Note that it repeats what he said in his book-that there was a flight over the North Pole in 1947. It infers that there is "political and militaristic misrepresentation of facts" concerning this flight. Then it goes on to say Ray Palmer reviewed his book and called him a liar. Neither is true. We mentioned his book, even quoted from it, but we didn't review it. If we had, we would have wound up talking to ourselves! Note, however, that Mr. Giannini stakes his verity. on the New York Times accounts of December, 1946 through February 1947. In short, if such a - North Pole flight was made, mention of it is in the Times during that period. Is it? The answer is no. All about South Pole flights, but not North, Pole flights. For which research we thank- Mr. Ogden, and we courteously point out that if anybody is calling Giannini a liar, it is Mr. Giannini.

But then Mr. Odgen goes on enthusiastically to state that all this not only disposes of Mr. Giannini, it also disposes of Ray Palmer and his theory of something strange at the Poles. No equivocation-just plain and simple "out with it", says Mr. Ogden. To your editor this is tremendously interesting. As we have pointed out before, our original covering of this mystery in the December, 1959 FLYING SAUCERS gave a wealth of information including the now false Byrd North Pole flight. But it did NOT give a single word about the 1947 South Pole Flight. At the most, all that could be claimed is that we got the Poles mixed up. We also pointed out later that we deliberately used the Giannini version because it was the ONLY way to smoke out a "classified" North Pole flight, if it existed. What it smoked out is Mr. Giannini, and in the process, poses a truly fantastic mystery. WHY did Mr. Giannini make his supposedly stupid mistake, which he STILL adheres to, but leaves himself clear to be lightly dismissed by setting up an "out" In the columns of the New York Times. He wants to be lightly dismissed. We don't intend to let him be lightly dismissed!

We've read Giannini's book again, and we can only say that throughout the book, he belabors the point. The entire book is hung on that one fictional flight! If Mr. Glannini was familiar with the Times, as he evidently is, he KNEW his whole book was based on a weakness that could not fail to destroy his theory, and entirely obviate any reason for writing it at all! He deliberately wrecked his own book. Why?

Oh, we know why; and the why is glaringly evident in Mr. Ogden's delightfully final dismissal of the "whole thing," in spite of the fact that the smallest supporting item for our theory was the Giannini episode. A whole convincing mass of material that CANNOT be dismissed appeared in that same December issue of FLYING SAUCERS, and in the February 1980 issue, and in the June 1960 issue, and in THIS Issue, and in issues to come, which Mr. Ogden chooses to bypass with stealthy steps. Again, why?

No, Mr. Ogden, our theory isn't dead. It has been remarkably enhanced. Mr. Giannini, if we may be permitted, may not be a liar at all! He may have done what we must call "Palmer's opposition in this Polar Theory business" a great service. For the sake of our ego, let's go ahead and call everybody who opposes our theory as "Palmer's Opposition". Mr. Giannini did something in writing that book, and we'll be hanged if we can put our finger precisely on what it was he did!

Recently, geography has become a number one subject for study by this editor. He has gone "back to school" to find out what it was that he missed, and is quite staggered to find out he missed so very much! All our old concepts have been smashed. All the little pet beliefs we had about the earth and where everything is are shattered. We used to think, as we sat on the shore of Lake Michigan and watched the ore boats and car ferries go "hull down" over the horizon, that we were "checking on our geography teacher". It was wonderfully stimulating to observe the phenomenon that proves the Earth is round! But now we'd like to ask our readers to do a little checking on this very thing, with one exception. After you've watched the ship go down beyond the horizon until only the smoke (not even the smokestack) is visible, with the whole ship down out of sight behind the curve of this round earth, set up a 50 power telescope and take another look.

That's all we ask.

We want to know what you see. You can bet that as soon as we get a chance to go to the lake shore, we're going to cart our telescope with us and watch a ship go hull down with our naked eyes until it has disappeared, and then we're going to use the telescope.

All we should see is the smoke, coming up over the horizon.

Most of you will agree, won't you?

But will some of you do it, just the same?

And tell us what happens?

Nothing will happen. It couldn't! All the telescope will do is bring the smoke, and the horizon, nearer, make it more plainly visible than to the naked eye. We're absolutely sure of that, because the geography books tell us the earth is round, and this hull-down thing proves it.

You see, this editor has to be reassured now, with all this amazing mass of evidence coming in that something is awry with the Earth and its shape. He's getting a little bewildered, and he could use a little "down to earth" reaffirmation that everything hasn't gone topsyturvy.

How many of us have gone through life, reading the textbooks, faithfully following their dictums, fatuously sitting on the seashore, declaiming that "seeing is believing", and never giving the matter another thought? How many of us bother to think everything through, rather than accepting somebody else's thinking? How many of us actually have no proficiency at thinking, because we never think? Is it too hard? Or is it a waste of time to go through something another mind has already worked out? What about doing such thinking only as an exercise? If exercise strengthen's muscles, won't thinking strengthen the brain? is it so bad to have a strong brain? Thinking, like exercise, should begin with the easy things. You don't go in cold and pitch nine innings--you warm up in the bullpen first. You think about simple things. Like the hulldown proof that the Earth is round -first with the naked eye, and then, quite silly of course, with a telescope. But is it silly? Isn't the idea of enhancing your vision in this test of the roundness of the earth a good one? If the naked eye is an instrument that proves an important point, isn't it a good idea to make doubly sure, and add a telescope to the naked eye?

Maybe all we're doing is trying to trick you into a little thinking. But isn't your curiosity roused? What DO you see when you add a telescope? Has anyone ever done it? And wouldn't it be nice to be able to report that even with a telescope things are still on the up and up in the geography books, and we didn't waste 5th grade after all!

Mr. Ogden dismisses things too easily-and maybe a little simple exercise such as we've just described would teach him not to ignore hundreds of little facts because they are overshadowed with an OBVIOUS one. Mr. Giannini's book may be obviously in error, but Mr. Giannini himself is not at all obvious! Rap.

THE END