Page:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu/146

146 physics, on some wrinkle of a knowledge of energy denied to us. Each of them a great invention on the surface and worthless down there because they are ignorant and we do not know they exist. Some of these things could be gotten off those people if we knew and tried. We do not! I try, but I am only one of a few people, the ones who understand that Shaver has something more than a fertile imagination and a yen to get into print, no matter how.

There are more kinds of blindness than the loss of eyes. Men lost their mental eyes when they decided to deny all the truth behind such phenomena as witchcraft.

Note for Shaver Opponents:

The incredulous attitude, historically speaking, has always been in the majority, and it HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. This is not only true of such impossible gadgets as the telephone and radio, it has been true of every new discovery of every kind. It has always been true of visitors to the underworld and their tales upon returning. Strangely enough, it HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN TRUE OF WITCHCRAFT. The credulous, in various times and places, far outnumbered the incredulous, where witchcraft was concerned. They KNEW, they said; THEY FELT AND SAW AND HEARD THE TRUTH.

To be incredulous of witchcraft, witches and related forms of superstition is comparatively a modern attitude.

To be incredulous of Shaver's statements, which do explain these once generally believed in and accepted phenomena, explains them logically and sanely—supported by endless references in antique writings; supported by countless letters from present-day people who have experienced these phenomena in the present day; supported by other eye-witness accounts of the antique mechanisms; supported by countless occurrences in our daily papers explained in no other way (explainable in no other way) than by acceptance of Shaver's "theories."

Note for all psychiatrists:

I, Shaver, solemnly swear I have never heard a voice. They do not exist except in deranged minds.

Note for all who even partially agree with Shaver:

I solemnly swear I hear voices every night.

Note for all opponents of Shaver:

Above you can find two confessions. Take your choice.

Note to all psychiatrists and other repressors of truth:

I do solemnly swear and affirm I have never had a dream I consider irregular or out of the way—in any way. Just the ordinary type of dream.

Note to proponents of Shaver:

Oh My! How's yours? 



HE cut on this page is "Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming." According to literature published at the park, the Tower rises to a height of 1280 feet from the river bed and 865 feet from its apparent base on the hilltop. Its diameter at the base is approximately 1000 feet, and at the top it averages 275 feet.

As to the mode of origin of the Devils Tower geologists are by no means in agreement. That the rock of the Tower was at one time molten and was forced upward from deep within the earth is no question, and that it cooled beneath the surface is probable. But whether the gear shaft as it now stands is in reality hardened lava in the neck of an old volcano, the enclosing walls of which have been removed by erosion, or whether it is part of a great sheet or sill of molten rock which was injected between rock layers, cannot be positively stated.

On the basis of either explanation hundreds of feet of rock have obviously been removed by erosion from around the Tower and carried by rivers to the sea.

Mr. Shaver, in line with his stories of giant life on the earth in the past, wrote to the Park authorities suggesting the similarity of appearance of the Devils Tower to a tree stump. The following reply came from the Park:

"Dear Mr. Shaver: Your interesting letter, undated, has just been received, in which you remark concerning the resemblance of the Devils Tower to a huge tree stump. As you suspected, this likeness has often been mentioned.

"Many persons think of Paul Bunyan and some of the trees he must have worked upon, when they see the huge rock. A few persons have propounded the theory you propound now—that it is actually a stump of a tree growing in a past period of giantism.

"It is true that the orthodox scientific explanation is at variance with this idea. Orthodox scientific explanations are based on the preponderance of evidence known to man at this time. From a study of petrification of plant structures as well as the crystalline development in lava rock, we would say that the structure here is the cooled remains of a mass of once-molten material, and that it does not in any way resemble petrified plant material, except as to its superficial shape. Superficial shape may well be coincidence—in fact no serious person hypothecates the existence 