| |
Nininger Moment #13
The Eaton, Colorado Meteorite
In a paper by Harvey Nininger, is the account and information as
well as the conclusion of the Eaton, Colorado fall. The fall was
called an entirely new type (copper-zinc-lead) and coordinate with
the sideritic variety (nickel-irons). In describing any new and
different material, Nininger qualified his opening statement by
saying he was aware of his obligation to scientists in the various
related fields and for accurate investigation of the specimen in
question. Had it not been for this awareness a paper would have been
published years before, nearer the time of the fall. Nininger's
earlier counselors in the field of meteoritics were Dr. O.C.
Farrington and George P. Merrill both cautious scientists. Both had
firmly warned Nininger the danger of trusting too far the factor of
human testimony in arriving at conclusions regarding the identity of
meteorites.
Nininger at the time of his investigation of the Eaton Meteorite had
20 years of investigative experience and several hundred percent
more experience in meteorites than either of his mentors to draw
from. Everyone who has done much investigation of meteorites in the
field has come to realize that as far as human testimony is concern
that even cases that appear to be quite sound and make sense but
upon investigation of the material found was the result of serious
error of judgment on the part of the observer. Dr. Merrill once
wrote "when it comes to the identification of meteorites, human
testimony can never be considered as evidence. The specimens
themselves must always supply the answer." Nininger stated that
although he highly regarded the statement as a very good guide when
looking for meteorites it was a bit of an overstatement and had it
not been for human testimony that was relied upon in the first
place, we should have never known that meteorites exist. The truly
scientific procedure is to consider critically all human testimony,
to check it against the characteristics of the material under
consideration, in the light of all other circumstances related to
the case, and then to try, without prejudice, to reach a conclusion
that is in harmony with all of the known facts. In the case of the
Eaton Fall Nininger expressed that he expected to be criticized. He
also stated he felt the matter would be settled in the lap of time.
Nininger further stated that in the course of 20 years he had dealt
with the falls of enough meteorites and with enough witnesses of
those falls (certainly well above a thousand) to know when a story
sounds right. The Eaton Meteorite fall did. Nininger stated that the
specimen was right except for one exception and that was of its
composition. The Garnett, Kansas, Meteorite found in a cow pasture
that showed free copper in this specimen indicating that such a
cooper nugget might also be found in a fall if the incoming meteor
were to break apart during a fall possible leaving the metal to
reach the ground. (note) Some of the Esterville Mesosiderite was
recovered in this manor.
On a bright sunny day in May of 1931 a Mr. W. H. Foster, a man of
usually quiet manor and of few words, brought to the superintendent
John C. Casey of the public schools of Eaton an object that he was
somewhat excited but embarrassed about. The object 2.5 inches long
and of a very irregular shape had whizzed past his head and struck
the ground about 7 feet away. He had been attracted to the humming
noise some little time before it reach him. It struck in his garden
with a thud and he looked just in time to see the soil turn up upon
its arrival. He had been hoeing the garden when he heard the noise.
When he stepped up to the point and saw a bright metallic part of
the object at the point of the fall He then bent over to pick it up.
In doing so he averred that he burnt his finger, and the
superintendent testified that his finger showed a fresh burn half
way between its tip and first joint. He had come to the
superintendent for an explanation of the event. After careful
discussion of the event they ruled out several possibilities
including a meteorite as it didn't fit the description. Three weeks
later the story was related to Nininger in a story from a friend who
asked his opinion. A few days later Nininger went to investigate the
fall along with Mr. Frank Howland, the curator of Minerals at the
Colorado Museum of Natural History, Denver.
They found Mr. Foster still in possession of the nugget and were
lead to the spot in the garden of the fall. His story conformed well
with that related by Nininger's friend. Mr. Foster placed no
particular value on the object and was glad to lend it to Nininger
for study in which he set no time limit, but did asked for the piece
back after study. The Superintendent substantiated everything as far
as he had been witness to and who assured Nininger that Mr. Foster
had a good reputation in the community. Nininger later on stated
that they could not find any justification of doubting the sincerity
of Mr. Foster and the accuracy of his report. Later on Nininger
convinced Mr. Foster to sell the specimen to him so that in the
event it was a rare find that it would not be lost to science. The
sum of $5.00 was paid for the piece. Because of its extreme radical
departure from the known range of meteoritic composition, Nininger
decided to devote a great effort to disqualify the specimen for
admission to the extra-terrestrial ranks.
Source: The Published Papers Of H.H. Nininger
By the Center for Meteorite Studies Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ
Published originally in Popular Astronomy May 1943 Pg. 273 to 280
The Nininger Moments are articles or books written originally by
Harvey Nininger and put into a consolidated form by Al Mitterling.
Some of the items written in the moments might be old out dated
material and the reader is advised to keep this in mind.
--AL Mitterling
|
