Devils Tower

in
*Amazing Stories*
June 1947 ed.,
pp. 146—8

PETRIFIED TREE STUMP
★ — OR NOT? ★

National Monument, Wyoming." Accord-
ing 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 approxi-
mately 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
of the Devils Tower to a tree stump. The fol-
lowing reply came from the Park:
"Dear Mr. Shaver: Your interesting letter, un-
dated, has just been received, in which you remark
concerning the resemblance of the Devils Tower
to a huge tree stump. As you suspected, this like-
ness 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 pro-
pounded 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 explana-
tion is at variance with this idea. Orthodox scien-
tific 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

1. ↑ Devils Tower has also been called "Great Gray Horn" by First Nation people. See US National Park Service, Frequently Asked Questions

of giant humans because of the oft-times striking
resemblance of certain hills or mountains to
various parts of the- human anatomy, especially
the female breast.

"The rock of which the Devils Tower is com-
posed closely resembles granite in appearance and
is quite similar mineralogically. The fluting which
produces the appearance of bark is brought about
by columnar rock structure which in turn results
from relatively rapid cooling of the molten rock.
Such columnar jointing can be observed in forma-
tion today in vicinity of volcanos. The columnar
rock here is like the now-forming columnar rock
in many respects, so many that we cannot at-
tribute it to coincidence.

"As to the over-all shape, it has resulted from
the arrangement of the columns as they were
formed in response to varying rates of radiation
of heat, gases and liquids into rock surrounding the
molten mass as it cooled. Four miles to the north-
west of here there is a convex-shaped hill of the
same sort of rock which displays an arrangement
of columns within the mass of such a nature that
when erosion and undercutting progress further,
certain columns will fall off and the shape of the
hill will change from convex to a stump-like
structure similar to the Devils Tower.

"In the case of this hill, it will be quite possible
in years to come to liken it to a giant tree stump.

Its existence, so close to the Devils Tower which
also has that appearance, will likely cause visitors
of that time to remark upon the similarity of
what they see to a "forest" of giant tree stumps.
Those who base their conceptions on superficial
appearances will be more certain than they are
today that there was a time when gigantic trees
were in existence. But the records will show, if
records for man exist for that long a time, that
at least one of these stumps was once just a hill.
And a study of the nature of the rock at first
hand, which you have not had the privilege of
making and which you inqure about, will show
that the only resemblance to a petrified tree stump
is in the superficial shape.

"I wish to thank you for writing to us for
information, instead of cataloguing this structure
as favoring your theory of giantism without at-
tempting any research." \*

The foregoing is the official statement about
the Devils Tower. We want to thank the Park
officials for their kind and complete reply to Mr.
Shaver's letter. It gives us facts to work on,
rather than theory. But let's examine the facts
and see what they really are. First, geologists
are by no means in agreement with the origin of
Devils Tower. They do agree that it is standing
free, and not buried in the earth, because erosion
freed it. If it was buried in the earth, then at

148

AMAZING STORIES

least 1280 feet of surrounding terrain were eroded.
This does not seem likely. If it was the core of
a volcano, we have a problem — why would the
volcano structure itself, which is lava, be eroded
away without trace, leaving the core, which is
just lava, subjected to the same rate of erosion
because it is the same material?

Your editor has a piece of petrified wood which
is "eroded," and when placed on end, it shows
the same columnar, fluted structure mentioned
as being peculiar to Devils Tower. The similarity
is so striking that one wonders if study of petrified
plant structures ought to be carried still further.
It would seem that the peculiarities of plant
structure would be rather hard to identify if the
evidence were to be based on plant matter on a
gigantic scale. The cellular structure would be
unrecognizable because of the huge scale on which
it occurs. A mistake might easily be made in
calling it something not plant-like at all.

The convex hill nearby has (they say) a core
like Devils Tower. Only from superficial examina-
tion of the hilltop, it would seem. Or maybe the
whole hill is lava. It would seem this is the case.
But that doesn't prove anything — since it would
take at least one or two million years to erode
the hill (the length of time the geologists estimate
it took to erode Devils Tower), before we would
have the visual evidence before us. Maybe the
smaller hill is just the mound left of a burned-
over stump?

Let's picture a day in the Earth's past, say only
50,000 years ago. ... We have two giant trees
growing side by side. They tower S000 feet into
the air. The earth enters an area in space
where there is a "nebula" of dust and meteoric
material which falls in a tremendous fiery rain.
This incandescent material burns the trees, and
buries the stumps beneath debris, covering them
completely. The glowing stumps carbonize, are
subjected to intense pressure, compressed to a
rock-like structure very much like lava, in col-
umnar form (have you ever made charcoal? ever
iooked at a piece of charcoal and noticed the
structure?) and then cooled relatively rapidly —
due to the cessation of the storm of incandescent
material from the skies. This material being more

of an ash than anything else, could easily erode
in 50,000 years leaving the burned and hardened
tree stump standing free. The smaller tree could
have burned down to just a rounded mound as
it exists today. If the larger tree was eroded free
in any length of time you want to give for the
process, isn't it likely the smaller tree would have
eroded in at least the same time? Unless the
smaller tree is already uncovered, and it is only
the "superficial" appearance to a tree stump that
it lacks to be exactly the same as the Devils
Tower?

The geologists say Devils Tower is "like the
now-forming columnar rock in many respects (but
not all)" to a volcano lava formation. They say
they do not agree as to just how Devils Tower
was formed. They say it is "similar" from actual
observation.

We say it is a tree, and from "similarities" with
actual observation of such things as charcoal,
petrified wood, etc. Why should either "deduc-
tion" be accorded preference?

Shaver and Amazing Stories say it is a tree out
there at Devils Tower.

Geologists say it is "similar to lava" in a vol-
cano or molten rock injected between layers of
rock. They aren't sure.

Orthodox scientific explanations are based upon
the preponderance of (all) evidence known to man
at this time. It is known that the Age of Mam-
mals (when Devils Tower is supposed to have
been formed) was 50 million years ago; and it is
known that man is less than 50,000 years old ; and
it is known that the erosion had to take 2 mil-
lion years in order to conform with other things
that are known. None of them are really known,
but all hypothecated.

Maybe it's a tree, who knows. One can only
hypothecate, if that's all we have to go on !

Recently the head of the chair of geology at
Edinburgh University reported to the Royal So-
ciety that he had computed the age of the earth
1619 times and gotten 1619 different answers !

Really now !

It's a tree !

'Tain't !

'Tis!

1. ↑ In Kiowa and Lakota folklore, seven girls went out to play and were spotted by several giant bears, who began to chase them. The seven girls stepped onto a massive stump, fell to their knees, and prayed to Great Spirit to save them. Hearing their prayers, Great Spirit made the stump rise from the ground towards the heavens so that the bears could not reach the girls. The bears clawed the sides of the stump, leaving deep grooves, which are apparent on the sides of the butte of Devils Tower. When the girls reached the sky, they were turned into the seven stars of Pleiades. — Robert Burnham, Jr.: Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Volume 3, page 1867