LDLN - No 078

Magazine Overview

This issue of "LES LUMIERES D'OUTRE-CIEL" (The Lights of the Sky Beyond) from November 1965, published by the Association astronomique du Nord, is primarily dedicated to exploring enigmatic aspects of Mars and astronomical phenomena. The main article, "CHAPITRE VIII: ENIGMES MARTIENNES" by Louis DUBREUCQ, delves into the possibility of Phobos and Deimos being artificial satellites, drawing parallels with older science fiction and modern astronomical theories.

Martian Enigmas: Phobos and Deimos

The article begins by noting how modern scientific discoveries sometimes echo ancient intuitions, citing writers like Swift and Voltaire. It highlights the remarkable insistence of Mrs. Hall, wife of the discoverer of Phobos and Deimos, in pursuing research related to these moons. The author references a 1889 novel by G. Le Faure and H. De Graffigny, "Aventures Extraordinaires d'un savant Russe," which described Phobos as an asteroid that was once part of a larger body between Mars and Jupiter, later used for depositing debris from canal construction. This narrative is presented as a striking precursor to modern theories.

In 1951, American astronomer HERD proposed that Mars's moons were artificial satellites created by Martians between 1762 and 1877. By 1960, Professor CHKLOVSKI observed an inexplicable acceleration in Phobos's orbit. Chklovski expanded on Herd's hypothesis, suggesting that if the satellites had a high reflectivity, their diameters could be much smaller than initially estimated. In 1964, Chklovski concluded that if Phobos and Deimos had surfaces like mirrors, their diameters would be around 1 to 2 kilometers, a detail remarkably similar to the 1889 novel's description.

Chklovski posits that Phobos's acceleration can only be explained if it's a hollow sphere, suggesting it's an artificial satellite placed in orbit by unknown technicians. He also notes that Phobos and Deimos orbit Mars in nearly circular paths within the equatorial plane, which would imply their masses are not considerable. The article contrasts this with the idea that if they were captured asteroids, their orbits would be more eccentric and in different planes.

Further supporting the artificial satellite theory, the article mentions Professor O. SCHMIDT's theory of formation by agglomeration of small particles, which Chklovski refutes due to the expected elliptical orbits of such small bodies. The conclusion drawn is that extraterrestrial beings, Martian or interstellar, constructed these artificial satellites as part of larger projects on Mars.

The article points out that astronomers had observed Phobos and Deimos for decades, with Russian astronomer STRUVE meticulously tracking their orbits. However, in 1945, astrophysicist SHARPLES noticed that Phobos was deviating from its calculated position, showing an advance of 2.5 degrees over 50 years. Chklovski later suggested this deviation was due to atmospheric resistance on Mars, despite its low density.

In 1959, Chklovski publicly presented his theory that Phobos is lighter than air, hollow, and artificial, predicting its crash on Mars in 15 million years, implying it must be younger than Mars itself. The article also cites a surprising declaration by Dr. E.C. SLIPHER of the Lowell Observatory, based on 20,000 photos of Mars, stating "Mars is alive, I have proof of its vegetation," further bolstering the idea of extraterrestrial life.

The author questions whether Hall witnessed the launch of Phobos and Deimos in 1877, suggesting that the intuitions of writers like Swift and Voltaire might be more relevant. The article posits that Phobos and Deimos were not noticed before 1877 because astronomers like Arago, Flammarion, and Laplace did not consider such small, close-orbiting moons to be possible. Modern astronomers, however, seriously consider the possibility of Martians constructing and operating on their planet.

Extraterrestrial Activity and Planetary Events

The article recounts an event in 1956, following Mars's opposition to Earth, where A. MIKHAILOV, Director of the Poulkovo Observatory, announced the recording of a "formidable explosion" on Mars. Since no volcanic activity could explain it, the phenomenon was classified as a nuclear explosion. The author suggests that such an explosion on Mars would likely be artificial.

Alexandre Kazantsev is quoted as suggesting that the Poulkovo observation supports the existence of intelligent beings on Mars. The article expresses a hope that these beings are "reasonable" and that the 1956 explosion is not indicative of an armed conflict.

Strange, bright points appearing on Mars, followed by tiny clouds lasting a few minutes, have been observed periodically. These events, indicating "curious vitality," were noted in 1926 when a large sector of Mars disappeared under an opaque cloud, and again in 1937, 1951, and 1954.

Professor Ogorodnikof and researcher KAZANTSEV support Dr. Slipher's assertion about life on Mars, proposing that a third planet, once located between Venus and Mars, may have harbored life in the past. This planet, imagined by Wilhelm Olbers in the 19th century, is hypothesized to have disintegrated, scattering debris throughout space. In 1951, astronomers established that 15% of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter were once part of a planet named "PHAETON." The article suggests that this original large planet might have collided with another.

The Precession of the Equinoxes

On page 2, J.P. Rohart, an Assistant-Astronomer, addresses the question of the Sun's movement, clarifying that the Sun moves towards Hercules relative to nearby stars and towards Lyra relative to distant stars. This apparent contradiction is explained by the Sun's movement within a star cluster that itself moves within the Galaxy.

On pages 2 and 3, V. ZAMBONI critically examines the official explanation of the precession of the equinoxes, particularly the role of Earth's equatorial bulge ("bourrelet équatorial") and the "top" (toupie) analogy. He argues that the Moon's gravitational pull is crucial and often omitted in explanations. Zamboni disputes the idea that the equatorial bulge causes asymmetric attractions leading to Earth's tilt, and he questions the symmetry required for a regular 26,000-year cycle.

Zamboni expresses skepticism about the "top" analogy, finding it inappropriate to compare Earth's movement in free space to a spinning top constrained by a point of support. He believes these analogies obscure the true problem: the positional relationships between Earth, the Sun, and distant stars. He also challenges the idea that the Earth's rotation axis's obliquity can transform into a force acting in the opposite direction indefinitely.

He references François Arago's testimony that due to precession, constellations will shift over centuries, and the pole star will change. The article credits Hipparchus with discovering precession and notes its consequences with clarity. The author also disputes the claim that William Herschel, in 1796, described the Milky Way as a biconvex lens, stating Herschel used the term "stratum" (couche or tranche) instead.

Correspondence and Opinions

Pages 4 and 5 feature a response from G. GENAY to an article by M. CHATILLON, who apparently blamed Christianity for humanity's misfortunes. Genay defends Christianity, arguing that judging the religion based on the actions of individuals is flawed. He discusses the concept of militarism, noting that while Jews are often described as antimilitarist, their history includes military conquest. Genay also addresses Chatillon's views on religion and morality, suggesting that while individuals are responsible for their actions, collective action is necessary for change.

Genay also critiques Zamboni's arguments regarding the Sun's movement and the precession of the equinoxes, asserting that Zamboni reasons correctly but starts from false premises. He emphasizes that the publication of documents does not imply endorsement of all their terms, but rather a pursuit of truth.

On page 5, G. GENAY also offers a "SIMPLE REMARQUE A L'ATTENTION DE MONSIEUR CHATILLON," refuting the idea of an anthropomorphic Christian God. Genay states that God is presented as a "PURE SPIRIT, OMNIPOTENT and OMNIPRESENT," and that the incarnation of Jesus is a theological concept of a Man-God. He distinguishes between a Man-God and a God-Man, placing the latter in the realm of mythology.

Genay also addresses Chatillon's view on "OLD RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES, INAPPLICABLE, UNACCEPTABLE TO OUR MODERN BRAINS." He argues that it's modern materialistic life that struggles with religious doctrines, not necessarily a transformation of our brains. He asserts that moral principles are universal, and individuals must adapt to them. Genay criticizes Chatillon's focus on hypocrisy, stating that hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue, and sometimes concealment is preferable to open display.

Diffusion and Meteorological Forecasts

Page 5 includes a section on "POUR LA DIFFUSION DE NOS IDÉES" (For the Diffusion of Our Ideas), proposing the use of free "AFFICHES-AUTO" (car stickers) to promote the magazine. The initiative aims to increase the magazine's reach through vehicles parked in public places.

A "SOUSCRIPTION PERMANENTE" (Permanent Subscription) is also announced to cover advertising costs. Two initial contributions are mentioned.

Pages 5 and 6 feature "PREVISIONS METEOROLOGIQUES" (Meteorological Forecasts) for November 22, 1965, to January 22, 1966, compiled by Paul BOUCHET. These forecasts detail expected weather patterns across France and Spain, including temperature variations, precipitation, winds, and potential natural phenomena like seismic activity and cyclonic disturbances, particularly around the solar eclipse of November 23rd.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores topics at the intersection of astronomy, ufology, and philosophical inquiry. There's a recurring theme of questioning established scientific explanations and proposing alternative, often speculative, theories, particularly concerning Mars and extraterrestrial life. The editorial stance appears to be open to unconventional ideas, encouraging debate and the pursuit of truth, while also grounding discussions in scientific observations and historical context. The publication seems to value critical thinking and the examination of evidence, even when it challenges conventional wisdom. The inclusion of reader correspondence and debates, such as the exchange with M. Zamboni and M. Chatillon, highlights a commitment to engaging with diverse viewpoints and fostering a community of interested individuals.