One of the first newspapers to recognize the importance of our contribution to the world's knowledge was the Pittsburgh Leader. In their issue of December 28, 1913, they devoted a whole page to an exposition of our theory, with illustrations of the earth and a portrait of the writer of this book. They saw that if our idea was to be accepted it must stand the acid test of discussion, and so they picked out the most expert man they could find among scientists to examine the theory critically and to demolish it if he could. The scientist to whom this task was given was Dr. Leon Dominian, of the staff of the American Geographical Society. So in his article on our theory we have what is in effect the official answer of the scientists of the country, and especially of those most interested, the geographers, to our ideas. If there are any scientific arguments that go counter to our theory Dr. Dominian knows them. If he fails to demolish our theory it may be taken as proved, for there are no secrets in science, what one man discovers is communicated to all other scientists through their periodicals and societies, and when it comes to a matter of generally accepted principles one scientist can talk for the whole body just as well as an-
other can. Science rests upon a body of accepted doctrine, and when Leon Dominian speaks against our theory he is not uttering private objections to it, but is voicing the objections which all scientists would hold. And also when we answer Dr. Dominian we answer not an individual but the concerted voice of orthodox science. We will now proceed to give in full Dr. Dominian's attempt to demolish our theory, and after that we will give, word for word, our reply--a reply which crushed Dr. Dominian, for he never "came back" at all. Here, then, are his objections to our arguments. He begins by discussing the mammoth:
"The matter of the presence of remains and of whole mastodons in the Arctic ice has been known to the world for more than a hundred years. It is acknowledged by all authorities in the subject that the region of the poles was at one time in the earth's history a tropical zone. It is believed that some disturbance caused the axis of the earth toward the equatorial circle of the universe to change suddenly and to turn the tropical regions of the poles into their present conditions of a world of snow and ice. The mastodon were caught and preserved by the change, death coming instantly to those that have been found as whole bodies. Anyone who is not familiar with this explanation has not had much training in glacial theories.
"As for the 'red snow' it is believed to be carried to those northern cliffs of ice from a great distance just as the yellow sands of the interior of the Desert of Sahara are swept through the air to Egypt where it covers monuments and buildings at times with a coat of yellow. All Southern Europe feels something of this same thing when the African simoon becomes the French mistral with its sand-laden air that comes from the Sahara across the Mediterranean to plague the people of the Midi.
"There is no special significance in finding the trunk of a tree from the Temperate zone in the Arctic Sea. The vagaries of floating objects are too common for that find to excite anyone's suspicions or cause such an incident to create a theory of a new world. As for the south-going current observed by Nansen, that may be due to the one questionable point in our knowledge of the polar regions--that is, whether there really exists a continental mass south and west of Peary's route to the Pole.
"From observation of the tidal currents the scientists of the United States government believe that such a continental mass exists. If it exists its outposts may be Peary's Crocker Land of 1896, Keenan Land, the questionable Sanikov Land and the latest land sighted by the Russians as reported a few weeks ago. It
is to discover the existence of such a continental mass that Stefansson has gone into the polar seas under the patronage of the Canadian Government.
"Roughly speaking, this continental mass is supposed to be north of Siberia and Alaska, and it is the only portion of the Polar regions that has not been explored. If Stefansson finds it some of the few 'popular' mysteries of the Polar regions may be explained away, but none of them is likely to be found to come out of the center of the earth. The discoveries of Peary, Amundsen, and Scott at the two poles do not seem to have been taken into account by Mr. Gardner."
The Pittsburgh Leader thought that was a very conclusive answer to our argument, and it added on its own account a paragraph to the effect that all our arguments had been met by the studies which scientists had been carrying on "for years and years"--as if we did not know all about those very studies and quote them in our book. Also they played up in larger type a statement by Dr. Dominian to this effect:
"Geographers know two things about the poles to-day.
"The North Pole is within an area of open sea. Peary proved this.
"The South Pole is on a continental mass of rock and ice. Amundsen and Scott proved this.
"Scientists accept these discoveries as the final word in Polar exploration, so far as the general conditions existing at the poles are concerned."
As the official answer of science to our claims, the above remarks strike us as being very weak indeed. So let us now reprint the answer which we made at the time to Dr. Dominian's assertions--for they are assertions of belief rather than arguments. Our answer was printed in a prominent manner in the Pittsburgh Leader for February 8, 1914, as follows:
"A Reply to Leon Dominian by Marshall B. Gardner, author of 'A Journey to the Earth's Interior, or Have the Poles Really been Discovered.'
"When I sent out my little book I expected some very drastic criticism at the hands of scientists. I knew that the great majority of scientific men would not believe as I have come to believe in this matter. I also thought that they would not only express that disbelief, but back it up with arguments, and modify some of the details in my theory, or at least find more suitable ways of expressing its essential facts.
"May I say at the outset of my answer to the member of the American Geographical Society's staff who has written about my book in the Leader that if his position on the staff of that society means that he speaks with the authority of orthodox science and as a representative of that science, then I am astonished
at the feeble resistance to the new idea which orthodox science is putting up. That feebleness I shall now proceed to point out by taking up Mr. Dominian's points in order and answering them. I shall then mention a thing or two that he has apparently been quite unable to answer and has left unanswered, although his doing so robs his reply of all claim to be a really comprehensive answer to my arguments.
"First: Mr. Dominian first attacks my evidence based on the finding of the mastodon in a state of perfect preservation. He says these animals are found imbedded in polar ice because once upon .a time the polar lands, where their bodies are now found, were tropical. In those tropical lands they lived and had their being, then all of a sudden some disturbance caused the axis of the earth toward the equatorial circle of the universe to change suddenly and turn the tropical regions of the poles into their present conditions of a world of snow and ice, and that the mastodons were caught and preserved by this change, death coming instantly to those that have been found as whole bodies.
"'Well, I do not pretend to understand all of the above, especially that phrase, 'the equatorial circle of the universe,' my common sense judgment tells me that it is highly improbable. In the first place we note that Mr. Dominian only believes this--he does
not prove it. Now the only theory of a sudden change in the earth's axis for which scientists have ever claimed to have a shadow of proof is that change which they assert took place when the moon was separated from the surface of the earth. I doubt very much if that ever took place because the depths of the oceans on earth are hardly enough to account for the tearing away from the earth's surface of such a body as the moon. But even if that sudden change did take place it occurred many million years before there were any mammoths. 'Oh, well,' Mr. Dominian may reply, 'There was another sudden change after life had reached the point where the mammoths did inhabit the northern region.' Well, suppose there was. Why, then, are the mammoths alone preserved, and not the tropical vegetation and surroundings in which they were when the sudden change came? If the mammoth which I described in my book, which was caught while it was eating, was preserved so well that the very food between its teeth was identifiable, then why was not the food also preserved which had not yet been lifted from the ground--why was none of the surrounding foliage preserved? It is quite obvious that Mr. Dominian's belief of a sudden change fails altogether to meet my point.
"Second: My critic's next point is that the red snow did not come from the interior of the earth, but was pollen. He admits that it was blown from other
places, just as the sand of the Sahara is blown across the Mediterranean to Southern Europe.
"Now this is an interesting comparison, but it is not a complete parallel. In the first place Mr. Dominian knows where the sand comes from, but he does not pretend to say where the red pollen comes from. And what is more, if he did try to say where it came from he would solve the problem of its origin--and that has not yet been accomplished. But suppose we agree with him that it comes from a great distance, then why should it have such a strange affinity for the polar regions? Why should it not be blown to Southern Europe or Pittsburgh? Strange that magnetic attraction of the polar regions from a mysterious and great distance.
"Three: With my critic's next objection I have less fault to find. In fact it is the most logical in his whole paper. He says that there is no special significance in finding the trunk of a tree from the temperate zone floating in the Arctic Sea, the vagaries of floating objects being too common for that find to create a theory of a new world.
"Now isn't that true? Don't we just have to bow down before Mr. Dominian and assure him that he has indeed proved for all time that anyone who founds a theory of the world on a floating log is indeed a fool? Logic so compels us, and we do. Even Newton would hasten to deny that he founded the
theory of gravity on the falling of an insignificant apple if he were to hear that argument. But if Mr. Dominian is not merely laying down a general truth here, but trying to imply that I founded my theory on a floating log, then I must protest against his method of attacking an opponent, for I merely mentioned that log as an interesting little piece of corroborative evidence, and Mr. Dominian makes the most of it.
"By contrast let us see how much he makes of my direct ocular evidence from Mars, and which applies of course to every planet in the stellar universe. I cannot see any mention of it, for in all of his reply he has not deigned to discuss the matter at all.
"Well, perhaps he has shown where I am wrong on the Aurora Borealis. No. I fail to find any mention of that in his answer.
"And yet he calls his remarks a reply to my theory and ventures on the strength of them to assail my theory as impossible.
"Mr. Dominian himself admits the open polar sea, but he does not make any illuminating comment on it or explain why there should be such a warm sea around the North Pole. Except on my theory this is one of those puzzles which the orthodox scientists may have a job to solve.
"In conclusion let me say that I do not claim to speak as a trained scientist in putting out my theory. I have had no observatories or subsidies, nor years of
training along scientific lines to assist me in these investigations. To the criticism that amateurs attack great problems which true scientists leave alone which has been said about me--all I can reply is that the evidence makes the problem. I did not make up this theory out of a few mathematical formulas and a vivid imagination. I simply saw the facts and put them together. Any attempt to argue from the question of my equipment as a scientist is futile. I have stated the facts. Can they be explained in any other way? I answer, No."
Well that is our answer to Dominian, and as we have said, above, we never heard from him again. That his attempt to overthrow our theory was ridiculous is perfectly evident. We might have said more than we did in answer to him, but what we said was sufficient.
For instance, we might have added to our remarks on the mastodon, that if the axis of the earth had shifted with such suddenness as to freeze them instantly--which could not have happened anyway--but even if we suppose that it did, the enormous centrifugal force evolved would have lifted the beasts from the surface of the earth and as they fell they would have been dashed into fragments.