Originally, I had said that the next notice for Edward Peters came in issue 8, December 1943, with word of his passing. This claim was incorrect. He actually appeared in issue 5, October 1941, as the lead column, under the headline “Contributed by Edward Peters.” He were his clippings: a piece from Popular Mechanics noting that a systematic error in astronomical calculations meant many stars were closer than previously thought; a note in Current Literature that an armchair astronomer—of sorts—thought that the moon was a looking glass, reflecting the earth; an un-cited piece about the death of French physicist Edouard Branley and his irritation that his own work had contributed to the birth of radio; another un-cited article, this one on the idea that earthquakes may come in groups, perhaps triggered by some event; a third un-cited claim—that the earth gains 100,000 tons per year from falling ‘star-dust’; and, most revealing, an un-cited announcement that the eighth of ten recognized vitamins—pantothenic acid—had been successfully synthesized.
The article concluded, somewhat confusingly, “In nature, this vitamin is widely distributed, found universally in all animal tissue, and it is believed that the synthesized product will be found highly valuable in nutrition. The exact field of usefulness for this vitamin has not been discovered. “ A careful Fortean reader, Peters caught the ambiguity of the ending, and Thayer included his commentary on the piece: “Please notice the contradiction in the last two sentences of this article. Pure ‘science’!! E.P. Peter’s’ point seemed to be that the scientists themselves weren’t sure what they were doing, but were trying to sell it to the public as important. Thayer similarly saw scientists as simultaneously ignorant and over-confident salesman.
The article concluded, somewhat confusingly, “In nature, this vitamin is widely distributed, found universally in all animal tissue, and it is believed that the synthesized product will be found highly valuable in nutrition. The exact field of usefulness for this vitamin has not been discovered. “ A careful Fortean reader, Peters caught the ambiguity of the ending, and Thayer included his commentary on the piece: “Please notice the contradiction in the last two sentences of this article. Pure ‘science’!! E.P. Peter’s’ point seemed to be that the scientists themselves weren’t sure what they were doing, but were trying to sell it to the public as important. Thayer similarly saw scientists as simultaneously ignorant and over-confident salesman.
