The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1877-10-18

Wind, is it? Was it wind in the
Iowa tornado that shot the water
, elm saw log weighing 1900 pounds
into the air, as though mine had
exploded underneath it? Science
stultifed itself when, as it did, il
set itself about calculating the We
locity of the wind necessary to ac.
complish such a feat. Two hun
| dred and forty-nine miles was found
to be the required velocity of the
wind. But this was to be a per-
pendicular wind, and as the log lay
fat upon the ground it had no space
to start in, but started it must have
with the velocity of 249 miles an
hour. Was it the wind that shot
out the water from Jerome Hen
bricks well at Monroe city? Was
it the wind that shot out the plat
form of the iron elevator from the
bottom of the shaft in the pier of
the bridge, in the East st. Louis
tornado? Was it the wind that, in
the same tornado, seized the iron
rails at the end of the sidings and
bent them up like sleigh runners?
Was it the wind that snatched up
barn at Avon, ILL.,, on the 3rd of
July, 1876, leaving a man who had
fed to it bewildered to find the barn
gone? At Lake City, Ind, in the
tornado of the 9th of April, of the
current year, man in the field,
seeing the tornado coming aud his
house apparently in its track, ran
to it to save his family. So close
was the tornado upon his heels
when he got there that, finding one
of the children in the door, he
snatched it up and ran to grasp
tree to keep him from being blown
away. Was it wind that, when he
threw out his arm to grasp the
body of the tree, tore up the tree by
the roots so quickly and carried it
into the cloud that the man with
the child in his arms stood bewil-
dered, for both tree and tornado
had vanished like dream? These
are facts that the wind theory, even
if there were not insuperable and
fatal objections to it, never has and
never will answer. But those who
PROFOUND the wind theory must
first show an ineligible and suffi
cient cause for the wind before their
theory deserves consideration,
/ have mentioned the bending of
the iron rails on the sidings at East
st. Louis. Besides this there were
iron plaJes 90 inches square and
seven-eighths of an inch thick, to
be used on the scafolding, lying
upon the river shore. Many of
those were turned up and some of
them were folded over like butt
hinge. Was it wind that did this?
Why did not the academicians ex-
anime these and the rails, and Sc
cure some specimens for preserva-
ton, to be studied hereafter? Why, |
indeedl Simply because, wise in
their own conceit, they assumed |
that they knew all about it. The |
wind in their estimation did all Of
it; why therefore look for evidence
that it did not do it2 / examined |
these rails and irons and there was
unmistakable evidence that the |
bending was not done by mechan
zeal force or train, but they had all |
the appearance as though it had
been done while the metal was in
semi-fuld state. / ordered that
some of both be laid aside for me
until my return from Colorado, but
when / did return they could not
be found; the man who had taken
the matter in hand in the mean
while having moved to the State Of
Kansas. have no doubt that the
iron of the Omaha bridge if ever
examined, evidences of the same
kind of bending and torsion will be
found; and if so they should be
preserved for the interest OF science
hereafter when juster and more ra
tional theories of storms will pre-
vail
1t should be regarded not only as
an insensate piece of arrogance, but
an objectionable piece of sacrilegc
for any man to attempt to tamper
with facts. Yet we have those,
claiming to be scientists, when the
shape of the facts do not suit them,
who seek to discredit the testimony
of the senses Of eye witnesses of the
facts. / always find it SO; theories
must be upheld, even at the sacri-
fee of the most imposing and i'm
portant facts shedding floods Of
light on the subject matter. No
one is permitted the privilege Of
looking at phenomena with his nat
ural eyes. No, he must look at
them through the distorting Cog
giles Of text book, that he may see
things as nobody ever saw them,
but as theorists have imagined them
to be.