SUNlite - Vol 01 No 02

Magazine Overview

SUN LITE, Volume 1, Number 2, published July-August 2009, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on ufology and UFOs, often from a skeptical viewpoint. The cover features a silhouette of a telescope against a starry night sky, with the title prominently displayed.

Letters and Comments

The issue begins with a section addressing reader comments and emails. The editor expresses appreciation for positive feedback and dismisses negative opinions from those uninterested in his perspective. He clarifies that the newsletter's intent is not to replace Phil Klass but to provide a forum for skeptics. The editor also notes receiving unsolicited email newsletters from 'UFO Updates' and a cordial but critical letter from 'SCDR' in Key West, Florida, who referred to the publication as 'debunker' and complained about the focus on Roswell.

Articles and Features

Reflections and Memories of two UFOlogical Legends

Matthew Graeber writes about his friendship with the late Robert (Bob) Todd and Phil Klass. He describes them as skeptics who objectively questioned the UFO movement's doctrines. Graeber recounts humorous anecdotes and highlights their candor and quest for truth. He notes Bob Todd's death from cancer and Phil Klass's more diplomatic approach compared to Todd's bluntness. The article touches upon Budd Hopkins and his interactions with Phil Klass, and mentions Phil's belief that many UFO believers are 'well-intended folks.' Graeber also shares his personal interactions with Phil Klass, whom he considered a mentor and friend, and his initial skepticism stemming from a book about UFOs.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various UFO-related blogs and online discussions. It mentions Kevin Randle's blog, which discusses Roswell and the skepticism of science fiction writers. Frank Warren's 'UFO Chronicles' is noted for comparing SUNlite to Phil Klass's work. The article critiques Stanton Friedman's recurring arguments. It also discusses Dennis Balthasar's realization of a hoax in Oklahoma and the 'De Void' blog's stance on 'disclosure.' The author questions Cox's investigative reporting, citing his analysis of a UFO video from a Mexico City solar eclipse that he believes shows Venus. Magonia's blog is mentioned for announcing its cessation of publication due to the decline of UFO organizations. Kentaro Mori's 'Forgetomori' blog is noted for mentioning SUNlite. Phil Plait, 'The Bad Astronomer,' is discussed for his critique of Edgar Mitchell's claims and an article in Popular Mechanics concerning NASA UFO videos. The UFO Examiner's 'UFO Traffic report' is also mentioned.

The Roswell corner

This section critically examines claims surrounding the Roswell incident. It questions Kevin Randle's assertion of a 'double standard' for skeptics and argues that the testimony of Charles Moore, who was part of a team launching weather balloons, is more plausible than alien spaceship claims. The article points out the lack of documentation supporting the alien spaceship story from 1947. It also discusses the alleged discovery of new Roswell parts, questioning the funding requests for analysis and suggesting it might be another 'dud.' The 'Ramey memo non-update' section addresses Kevin Randle's blog post about the memo's security aspects.

Memory Metal Madness

This part of the magazine investigates claims made by Anthony Bragalia regarding the development of Nitinol (shape memory alloy) and its alleged connection to the Roswell spaceship. Bragalia suggests that a piece of the crashed spaceship was given to the Battelle institute, which then led to the development of Nitinol. The article refutes this, citing technical reports and historical accounts that indicate Nitinol's development was part of post-war aerospace research. It points out inconsistencies in Bragalia's claims, such as misrepresenting document titles and sources, and suggests that Bragalia embraces 'Corsoism'—the idea that scientific achievements are due to alien technology.

Spoon bending

This section continues the critique of Bragalia's claims, specifically addressing his assertion that the government tested Nitinol for its response to mind control using psychics. The article clarifies that the document Bragalia cites is actually a paper by Eldon Byrd about Uri Geller's influence on Nitinol, not an official US Navy study. It highlights that Geller was the only 'psychic' involved, contradicting Bragalia's implication of multiple psychics. The article also references Martin Gardner's work, which exposed errors in Byrd's claims.

Wright is wrong

This section addresses other speculative claims made by Bragalia, including linking General Exon's statements about an alloy used in Roswell craft to Nitinol. The article argues that Titanium alloys were common in the aerospace industry in the 1950s and 60s, making Exon's statement unsurprising and not proof of a connection to Nitinol. Bragalia's interpretation of the Shulgen memo, suggesting it describes Nitinol's characteristics, is also challenged. The article posits that the development of Nitinol was a logical advancement based on engineering needs, not a reproduction of mythical alien technology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUN LITE are skepticism towards UFO claims, critical analysis of evidence, and a focus on debunking unsubstantiated theories. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of scientific explanations and rational inquiry, often challenging the narratives promoted by prominent UFO proponents. The magazine aims to provide a counterpoint to what it perceives as sensationalism and a lack of rigorous research within the UFO community, particularly concerning the Roswell incident and the origins of advanced materials.

This issue of UFO Magazine delves into several key topics within the UFO community, critically examining research, debunking myths, and analyzing official reports. The primary focus includes a detailed critique of Anthony Braglia's work on the Roswell incident and the purported connection to Nitinol, a discussion on the USAF's 'Case Closed' report, an exploration of common misconceptions about astronomers and their observations, and an analysis of UFO sightings involving satellites and space stations.

Bragalia's Nitinol Claims Critiqued The article begins by dissecting Anthony Braglia's assertions regarding the Roswell debris and its connection to Nitinol. The author argues that Braglia selectively quotes from a George Schulgen memo, omitting crucial details like 'plastics' and 'balsa wood,' and misrepresenting the memo's focus on fuel storage capacity. The author contends that while the memo describes materials with extreme lightweight and structural stability, it does not specifically mention Nitinol or shape-memory alloys (SMAs). Braglia is accused of intellectual dishonesty and sloppy research, similar to other UFO proponents who cherry-pick information to fit their narrative. The author also suggests that Braglia's interview with Dr. Wang was an attempt to elicit a desired response, and that Braglia's claims about missing progress reports are likely unfounded.

The 'SUNRISE' Connection and Research Integrity Further scrutiny is applied to Braglia's research methods, highlighting his alleged failure to credit the 'Sunrise' website, run by an anonymous Australian researcher, as a source of information. The author implies that Braglia presented information as his own discovery, despite it originating from this website. This section questions the integrity of Braglia's research and his interactions with other researchers.

The Battle of Hastings and Skeptical Discourse The magazine then shifts to a critique of Robert Hastings, a figure accused of engaging in personal attacks and 'hurling insults' rather than addressing skeptical arguments. Hastings' reliance on decades-old letters from Mansmann and Jacobs, rather than technical research, is questioned. The author points out that Hastings misrepresents the author's stance on accepting evidence, stating that the author is open to better evidence but finds Hastings' arguments to be 'factually flawed.' The article also notes that Hastings did not provide evidence for his claims about a dummy warhead being destroyed or lost in flight, nor did he consider alternative explanations for events.

Astronomers and the Lack of UFO Sightings A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to addressing the question: "Why don't astronomers see physical craft in the sky operating under intelligent control that defy explanation?" The author clarifies that astronomers, both professional and amateur, are not necessarily ignoring UFOs but are trained to identify objects. The article debunks several myths propagated by UFOlogists:

Myth 1: Astronomers are too busy to notice things. This is countered by explaining that while professionals use electronic data gathering, amateurs often observe in groups and are trained to notice anomalies. The vastness of the sky and the capabilities of modern telescopes are discussed.

Myth 2: Astronomers fear ridicule. The article argues that experienced astronomers learn from mistakes and are not afraid of being ridiculed for reporting genuine discoveries. The 'Aries/Perseus Flasher' incident is cited as an example where unusual lights were eventually identified as satellite reflections.

Myth 3: Amateur astronomers observe from 'warming rooms.' While acknowledging that some amateurs do observe remotely, the author states that many still engage in traditional observing, especially during group events and star parties, increasing the likelihood of detecting anomalies.

The core argument is that astronomers are looking for 'exotic aerial vehicles' but require verifiable data, not just vague descriptions. The article suggests that when astronomers do report unidentified objects, like the 'Canary Islands UFOs,' they are often later identified as known phenomena such as ICBM tests.

UFO Chases Space Station! This section details a report of a UFO overtaking the International Space Station (ISS) on May 29, 2009. The object was described as fainter than the ISS, moving faster, and lacking navigation lights. Investigations suggest the object was likely a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite or rocket body, such as USSpacecom catalog number 35011, which was launched around the same time and shared a similar orbital inclination with the ISS. The author emphasizes the importance of understanding the skill level of observers and checking for known sources before submitting UFO reports.

Who is the dummy? Roswell: Case closed revisited This article revisits the USAF's 'Case Closed' report on the Roswell incident. It addresses why the USAF released a second report, explaining it was due to the discovery of other projects that could have been misinterpreted as spaceship recovery operations. The report's findings, particularly concerning 'crashed test dummies,' are discussed in detail. The author highlights that the dummies were viewed from a distance and bore resemblance to descriptions of alien bodies, leading to misinterpretations. The article also critiques retired Lt. Col. Roy Madson's claims that the USAF report was false and that Roswell involved alien bodies, suggesting Madson's opinions are unsubstantiated and based on hearsay and possibly Frank Scully's book. The role of Glenn Dennis's story is also examined, with the report suggesting it may have been influenced by a 1956 plane crash that killed personnel and resulted in badly burned bodies.

The article further discusses how UFO proponents, like Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, have allegedly edited witness testimonies to remove mentions of 'dummies' to support their alien body narrative. It notes that while the USAF report considered many witnesses unreliable by 1997, some proponents, like Stanton Friedman, continued to believe certain witnesses. The article concludes that the Roswell case remains open for proponents as long as they can find new witnesses with similar tales, even if based on previous accounts.

Obama "threatened" by Paradigm research group? This short piece discusses Steve Bassett's 'Paradigm research group' and their campaign for government disclosure of UFO information. Bassett's three-phase plan, involving mass FAX transmissions, is presented as a publicity stunt aimed at getting people to buy into his agenda, rather than a genuine effort to achieve disclosure.

Another Disclosure Prediction Michael Cohen's prediction of a mid-June disclosure event involving NASA, an unnamed organization revealing alien radio signals, and a major European nation admitting to alien visitation is analyzed. The author notes that while some nations have released UFO records, none have provided definitive proof of alien spaceships. The prediction is dismissed as typical of 'disclosure' proponents who make unsubstantiated claims.

Edgar Mitchell fuels more UFO rumors Former astronaut Edgar Mitchell's claims about the Roswell incident involving an alien spaceship crash and recovered bodies are discussed. The author points out that Mitchell's information comes from an unnamed Admiral and lacks any concrete evidence. The article questions why Mitchell's claims should be blindly accepted simply because he is a former astronaut, urging him to provide verifiable proof.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The magazine consistently adopts a skeptical yet analytical stance towards UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous research, critical examination of evidence, and the debunking of unsubstantiated claims and myths within the UFO community. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations, scientific methodology, and official reports over anecdotal evidence and speculative theories. There is a clear effort to distinguish between 'unidentified' objects and 'exotic aerial vehicles operating under intelligent control,' suggesting that most sightings, when properly investigated, have mundane explanations. The magazine promotes the idea that many UFO claims are based on misinterpretations, selective use of information, and a desire to believe, rather than concrete proof.

This issue of FATE magazine, titled "Light Pillars," features an in-depth exploration of aerial phenomena, primarily focusing on the research of Wim Van Utrecht, a Belgian UFO investigator. The magazine delves into the phenomenon of 'Light Pillars' and their potential connection to sightings of 'Mother Ships' and 'Cloud Cigars.' It also includes discussions on the nature of UFO research, the dichotomy between believers and skeptics, and critiques of popular media representations of UFOs.

Light Pillars: A New Classification?

The lead article, authored by Matthew Graeber, introduces Wim Van Utrecht's extensive research into 'Light Pillars.' Van Utrecht, a secretary by profession and a UFO investigator since his youth, has dedicated fifteen years to cataloging and analyzing these phenomena. The article explains that light pillars are a natural atmospheric effect caused by light reflecting off ice crystals, often mistaken for UFOs. Van Utrecht's significance lies in his unique investigative methodology, which allows for the classification of certain UFO observations as potentially natural phenomena, thus providing a more reasoned approach to UFOlogy and moving beyond mere speculation or debunking.

Graeber highlights Van Utrecht's work as a step forward for serious UFOlogy, enabling researchers to distinguish between genuine anomalies and misidentified natural events. The article presents several case studies and photographic evidence of light pillars, including instances in Terneuzen, Netherlands, and Ath, Belgium, where industrial lights and spotlights created impressive pillar effects. A notable event discussed is the massive light pillar display above Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 2008, which was photographed by David Wei.

The Debate Between Believers and Skeptics

Peter Brookesmith contributes an article titled "In Praise Of Bunk," which examines the long-standing conflict between 'debunkers' (or 'deniers') and 'True Believers' in the UFO community. Brookesmith argues that while True Believers' faith is often impervious to logic, skeptics, in theory, are proponents of reasoned discourse. However, he suggests that the current debate has devolved into an adversarial feud. Brookesmith advocates for a more dynamic, humanistic, and all-inclusive approach from skeptics, suggesting that understanding the believer's perspective is crucial. He posits that the 'bunk'—the underlying reasons why people believe weird things—is key to understanding these mythologies, and that exploring these can be done from the comfort of one's armchair.

Brookesmith also touches upon the importance of Magonia, a publication that focused on a 'psycho-social' interpretation of UFO phenomena, and laments its cessation. He emphasizes that debunking, in its proper sense, is essential for understanding cases, requiring knowledge of various scientific and environmental factors. He concludes by suggesting that a more exploratory and less antagonistic approach from skeptics could add to the 'gaiety of nations.'

UFOlogy in the 21st Century: A Challenge to Skeptical Thought

Matthew Graeber returns with an article titled "21st Century UFOlogy: A challenge to skeptical thought." He critiques the UFO proponents' historical failure to prove their cases to scientific communities, while also pointing out the shortcomings of skeptics. Graeber argues that skeptics often rely on outdated explanations and fail to keep current with new cases, leading to arguments that have become ineffective. He contends that the pro-UFO camp is perceived as more progressive and entertaining by the general public, while skeptics are seen as negative and unimaginative. Graeber calls for a revision and expansion of skeptical methods, urging skeptics to understand and accept the believer's position to avoid continued fruitless debate.

He also raises questions about the fate of certain UFO research initiatives, such as Peter Davenport's proposal for passive radar development and the UFO Research Coalition, noting their apparent lack of progress. Graeber suggests that the emotional and social aspects of UFOlogy need to be addressed before the phenomenon can be fully understood scientifically.

Media Critiques: Television and Books

The issue includes several critical reviews of UFO-related media. The article "The Bill Birnes show" by an unnamed author (likely Graeber) harshly criticizes the History Channel's "UFO Hunters" program. The reviewer dismisses the show as "nonsense," lambasting its reliance on questionable 'former employees,' staged events, and unsubstantiated claims about locations like AUTEC in the Bahamas. The reviewer also criticizes the show's use of remote viewing and interviews with figures like Maximillien de Lafayette, deeming the claims presented as lacking evidence and presented as fact.

Another article, "UFOs on the tube," reviews a UFO program that highlighted the Delphos case and the work of Ted Phillips. While finding the first half semi-intelligent, the reviewer found the second half "too far-fetched," particularly the claims about a metallic object removed from an abductee's arm by Roger Leir and a crashed saucer case involving Ruben Uriarte. The reviewer questions the lack of scientific testing and publication of evidence presented by Leir and dismisses the crashed saucer story as rumor.

Book reviews are also featured. "The UFOs that never were" by Randles, Roberts, and Clarke is recommended as a superb book with valuable information. "The UFO Enigma" by Peter Sutrrock is suggested for borrowing, though the reviewer notes flaws in its conclusions. "The truth about the UFO crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt is strongly criticized and recommended for the recycle bin due to its reliance on questionable witnesses and far-fetched stories.

Arizona Balloon UFOs

This section reports on several instances where NASA research balloons were mistaken for UFOs in Arizona. The article details how a NASA balloon launched from New Mexico was identified after initial reports of a UFO sighting. Similarly, balloons launched by a Space data corporation and NASA's EBEX balloon also generated UFO reports. The article notes the common descriptions of these objects as diamond-shaped or triangular and highlights the confusion and speculation that arose, with some individuals even suspecting NASA was not telling the truth.

E-mails to the Editor

The "E-mails to the Editor" section includes correspondence from 'Keith,' who criticizes the "UFO Hunters" show and host Bill Birnes, calling the show a disservice to real UFO hunters. 'The Duke' offers a criticism of ufological skepticism, suggesting that while exposing nonsense is useful, skeptics could do more to examine how and why claims come about. The editor responds, acknowledging the need for a broader approach. 'Werner' writes about a new e-zine focused on UFOs, expressing hope that it will offer a critical perspective and cover a range of UFO phenomena beyond just the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), similar to the work of Philip Klass. The editor responds, agreeing to explore other claims and cases.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO phenomena, the methodologies of UFO research, and the ongoing debate between proponents and skeptics. There is a strong emphasis on distinguishing between natural explanations (like light pillars) and genuine unexplained phenomena. The magazine appears to adopt a stance that favors rigorous investigation, critical analysis, and a balanced approach, moving beyond sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims. The editorial stance encourages a more nuanced understanding of UFOlogy, advocating for a scientific yet open-minded approach that acknowledges both the complexities of the phenomenon and the psychological factors influencing belief.