Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
38 143685 Box Incident Summaries 101 172
Page 13
13 / 178
‘
Excerpt of letter dated April ll, 1948 from Dr. Lincoln baPaz, Director,
Institute of Meteorities, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, to the Deputy Executive Director, Committee on Geophysical
Sciences, Research and Development Board:
Thank you for the surprising documents sent me under date of March
30, As you remark, certain aspects of Markham's letters are fantastic
(for example: (1) the fireball procession of 1913, February 9, was
genuinely meteoric, although a rare type of chain fall; (2) no astronomer
could take seriously Markham's “invasion by beings from Venus or the Moon"=
theory: (3) he appeals to, and biases in his favor, such untrustworthy
evidence as newspaper stories, e.g., the absurd statement attributed to
i Dr. Rocht of the Chamberlin Observatory). Neventheless, Markham is justi-
t fied in calling attention to certain incidents as unexplained, for e le,
‘ the "flying lenses" (in my opinion 99% hoax and imagination and 1% reals
As regards the Norcatur, Kansas incident, I remain convinced that,
like the Four Corners incident, it was a genuine meteorite fall, although
one of exceptional size (again like the Four Corners fall), However,
there are many curious aspects of both these falls, some of an objective
nature, like the singular fact that in spite of intensive searches (ad-
mittedly under bad terrain and weather conditions), not a trace of meteoritic
material has so far been found; some of a non-objective nature, like the
amazing testimony given b y Mr. Leland Sammons, Mr. Alfred Glem, and other
witnesses of the Norcatur incident, both to members of the State Hi chway
Commission of Kansas and to Institute of Meteoritics field survey parties.
(See exhibits A, °B, ami C enclosed.)
Some comment on such testimony as appears in A,B, and C would seem
desirable: ;
eg
1. Glenn first reported the battery case as red hot. ‘hen I pointed
out that the paper on At was not charred, his account was changed to
"too hot to handle", The Institute of Meteoritics party found only two
men, not four, who saw the battery case fall. The battery case has been
examined by Dr. Victor Regener, Department of Physies, University of
New Mexico, who states that it appears to be identical with the small
batteries used in portable radios.
2. K. Hays' identification of the Noreatur object as a rocket has_
the following support? On the moming of February 19, I talked to the
towerman and two assistants at the Air Base at McCook Field, Nebraska.
All three denied the Norcatur object was a fireball and described it as
a black object with an extremely bright jet of flame pouring out of the
rear. Furthermore, a lj-year old, and presumably unbiased, schoolgirl
in Oberlin, Kansas wrote me a similar description of the "Fireball."
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic