It [the Brown Mountain light] is as
distinct in characteristics from a
locomotive headlight as a candle
flame is to a naked arc light." Again,
in an article in the Charlotte Ob-
server for March 27, 1922, the same
writer adds that "a headlight has
characteristics that distinctly and
unmistakably identify it as such."

The writer's observations, made in
company with persons long familiar
with the light, failed to substantiate
these statements. Of the 23 lights
noted by instrumental observation and
recorded on lines 1 to 21, seven
proved to originate from locomotive
headlights, and an eighth (No. 19) is
probably of similar origin, though
the data are insufficient to estab-
lish that fact, but none of these
seven lights cast a beam or possessed
any special quality that distin-
guished it from the other lights ob-
served, and only one of them (No. 16)
was known at the time of observation
to be a locomotive headlight. The
other six were identified as such
only after the lines and angles of
the record had been plotted, profiles
had been drawn, and train schedules
had been checked some days after the
observations were made. A locomotive
headlight seen at distances such as
those from which the Brown Mountain
light is observed has no visible mo-
tion and emits no "rays. II When its
line of direction coincides with the
line of observation, the light flashes
on or, if the air is misty, it flares,
much as an incandescent electric
light flares when it is turned on.
When its line of direction leaves the
line of observation, the light flahses
appears just as suddenly as it came.
The behavior of headlights in the
Brown Mountain region in this respect
is comparable to that of the lights
in the lighthouses on the Atlantic
Coast. From the seawall at Gloucester,
Mass., the writer has repeatedly seen
the light at Minots Ledge, southeast

of Boston, nearly 25 miles away in a
direct line. This light is identified
by a series of flashes that may be
represented by the numerals 1-4-3.
There is no beam and there are no
rays. The light cannot be seen unless
the air is fairly clear. Then it
simply flashes once, four times,
three times, and it has much the same
appearance as the Brown Mountain
light.

The supposed motion of the light at
times may be due to errors of obser-
vation. Reference has already been
made here to the fact that two ob-
servers who were present with the
writer at station A thought they saw
the light move when it was actually
motionless as seen in the telescope.
Some years ago McNeilly Du Bose, an
engineer then employed near Morganton,
tested observations made by himself
and others by tying a cord across the
fork of a tree in a place where "he
could see the light across the cord
and was surprised to find that the
light was stationary with respect to
the cord. Professor Perry. whose let-
ter has been quoted, notes that the
light was uniformly stationary when
he saw it. The eye is easily deceived
at night as to the stability or mo-
tion of an object, and an observer's
impressions are to a considerable ex-
tent affected by his mental and phys-
ical condition at the time of obser-
vation. It is not surprising that
under the circumstances different
eyewitnesses give quite different
accounts of the light, especially as
the light may appear suddenly against
a dark background with nothing near-
by that can be used as a scale to
determine its size or its possible
motion.

There remains the question of the
identity of the Brown Mountain light
as seen from Blowing Rock. Mr. Martin
specified two requirements: namely,
the light must be seen over Brown
Mountain and it must have motion. The