U.S. Air Force Analysis of Flying Objects in the United States, 101-172

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

a ,a
.
Excerpt of letter dated April 11, 1948 from Dr. Lincoln LaPu, Director,
Institute of Meteoritics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, to the Deputy Executive Director, Committee on Geophysical
Science~, Research and Development Board:
Thank you for the surprising documents sent roe under date of March
3().
As you remark, certain aspects of Markham's letters are fantastic
(for example:
(1) the fir~ball procession of 1913, February 9, waa
genuinely meteoric, although a rare type of chain fall; (2) no astronomer
could take seriously Markham's 11invasion by beings from Venus or the Moon"­
theory: <,) he appeals to, and biases in his favor, such untrustworthy
evidence as newspaper stories, e.g., the absurd statement attributed to
Dr. Rocht of the Chamberlin Observatory) .
Nevertheless, Markham is justi­
fied in calling attention to certain incidents as tD1explained, for example,
the 11flyin6 lenses" (in my opinion 99% hoax and imagination and 1% r eal).
As r egards the Norcatur, Kansas incident, I remain convinced t hat,
like the Four Corners incident, it was a genuine meteorite fall, although
one of exceptional size (again like the Four Corners fall ) .
Hovrever,
there are many curious aspects of bot h these falls, some of an objective
nature, like the singular fact that in spite of intensive searches (ad­
mittedly tmder bad terrain and weather conditions), not a t race of meteoritic
material has so far been found; some of a non-objective nature, like the
amazing testimony given by Mr. Leland Sammons, Mr. Alfred Gle:m, .and other
witnesses of the Norcatur incident, both to members of the State H1gtiway
Commission of Kansas and to l nstitute of Meteoritics field survey parties.
(See exhibits A, B, am C enclosed.)
Some comment on such testimony as appears in 1i.,B, and C would seem
desirable:
1.
Glenn first reported the battery case as red hot. hhen I pointed
out that the pa·'er on it 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 '1as been
examined by Dr.
11ictor Regener, Department of Physics, University or
New "'exico, who stat.es that it appears to be identical witn the small
batteries used in portable radios.
2.
K. Hays ' identification of the Norcatur object as a rocket has
the following support:
On the morning of February 19, I talked to the
to,rer man and two assistants at the Air Base at McCook Field, Neb!'aska.
All three denied the Norcatur object was a fireball and described it as
a filack object with an extremely bright jet of flame pouring out of t he
rear. Furthermore, a l h-year old, and presumably unbiased, schoolgirl
in Oberlin, Kansas wrote me a similar description of the "Fireball."
l