Anybody who lost a pond would be heard from

Fort records that on July 30, 1838, according to Notes and Queries (8-7-437), little frogs were found in London after a heavy storm. The explanation for such phenomenon is that the frogs were scooped up by a whirlwind. His commentary: “In the exclusionist-imagination there is no regard for mud, debris from the bottom of a pond, floating vegetation, loose things from the shores–but a precise picking out of frogs only. Of all instances I have that attribute the fall of small frogs or toads to whirlwinds, only one definitely identifies or places the whirlwind. Also, as has been said before, a pond going up would be quite as interesting as frogs coming down. Whirlwinds we read of over and over–but where and what whirlwind? It seems to me that anybody who had lost a pond would be heard from.”

–Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned, p. 82-83 (The Complete Books of Charles Fort, Dover, c1974).

Peasants believed in meteorites

Peasants believed in meteorites.
Scientists excluded meteorites.
Peasants believe in “thunderstones.”
Scientists exclude “thunderstones.”
It is useless to argue that peasants are out in the fields, and that scientists are shut up in laboratories and lecture rooms. We cannot take for a real base that, as to phenomena with which they are more familiar, peasants are more likely to be right than are scientists: a host of biologic and meteorologic fallacies of peasants rises against us.

Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned, p. 101-102 (The Complete Books of Charles Fort, Dover, c1974).

This is a common reflex

This is a common reflext with the exclusionists: that substances not “truly meteoritic” did not fall from the sky, but were picked up by “truly meteoritic” things, of course only on their surfaces, by impact with this earth.

Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned, p. 74 (The Complete Books of Charles Fort, Dover, c1974).

It seems to me

It seems to me that the exclusionists are still more emphatically conservators. It is not so much that they are inimical to all data of externally derived substances that fall upon this earth, as that they are inimical to all data discordant with a system that does not include such phenomena–

Or the spirit or hope or amibition of the cosmos, which we call attempted positivism: not to find out the new; not to add to what is called knowledge, but to systematize.

Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned, p. 45 (The Complete Books of Charles Fort, Dover, c1974).

The power of exclusionists

The power of exclusionists lies in that in their stand are combined both modern and archaic systematists. Falls of sandstone and limestone are repulsive to both theologians and scientists. Sandstone and limestone suggest other worlds upon which occur processes like geological processes; but limestone, as a fossiliferous substance, is of course especially of the unchosen.

Charles Fort, The Book of the Damned, p. 68 (The Complete Books of Charles Fort, Dover, c1974).