SUNlite - Vol 01 No 03

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 1, Number 3, published September-October 2009, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs with a critical and skeptical perspective. The cover features a quote from Thomas Huxley emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.

Key Articles and Discussions

Wherefore art thou UFOlogy?

This section addresses the proliferation of self-proclaimed UFO experts and the tendency for UFOlogy to be dominated by 'disclosure' and conspiracy theories, which the author believes are undermining its scientific credibility. The editor notes receiving emails from readers and recounts an unpleasant exchange with Anthony Bragalia, who allegedly threatened legal action. The editor also mentions the passing of UFOlogists John Keel and Richard Hall, and expresses a view that some UFO proponents' requests for donations to their websites are akin to 'begging'. A late submission by Colonel Moulder is highlighted. The editor also shares a personal note about a trip to Nova Scotia and a photograph of M31, the home of the 'Axthadans'.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This recurring section reviews various online UFO discussions and blogs. It critiques Kevin Randle's observations on UFOs and his stance on Dr. Marcel, suggesting Randle is as guilty of labeling others as 'liars' as those he criticizes. The blog also discusses Robert Salas's critique of the 'disclosure movement' and 'Exopolitics', and the amusing arguments used by some UFOlogists who accuse scientists of being 'gatekeepers'. The 'De Void' blog's promotion of James Fox's documentary is mentioned, with skepticism about its focus on witness honesty versus interpretation. The section notes that 'The Bad Astronomer', Phil Plait, has noticed SUNlite, discussing an article on astronomers and UFOs. It also touches upon a UFO Examiner report about a spike in UFO reports over the Fourth of July weekend, with speculation about fireworks being a cause.

Further entries discuss Michael Cohen's claims about an alien UFO base in Tierra del Fuego and aliens from the planet Axthada influencing human civilization and the economy. The Honolulu UFO examiner is criticized for a lack of astronomical knowledge regarding a UFO supposedly entering the sun, which is identified as a star. The section also reviews Kal Korff's work and his involvement in a supposed anti-terrorism group, and criticizes the Sci-Fi channel's investigation into the Kecksburg UFO case, noting a lack of progress and evidence from Leslie Kean.

The Roswell Corner

This section delves into various aspects of the Roswell incident. It questions claims by Carey and Schmitt about possessing crashed spaceship debris, suggesting it's a recurring pattern of unfulfilled promises. Anthony Bragalia's assertion that a fireman involved in the Roswell incident was interviewed by Phil Klass is corrected; it was Karl Pflock, and Bragalia's claims about the fireman's testimony are questioned. The author argues that the story needs verification and not just acceptance based on appeal, citing the example of Frank Kaufmann's deception. Bragalia's implication that organizations like RAND had in-depth knowledge of the Roswell crash is also discussed, with the author pointing out that RAND's 1948 report suggested UFOs were likely from foreign nations, not outer space.

Missing progress report goes public

Anthony Bragalia sent an email claiming a missing second progress report, obtained via FOIA, would reveal something 'astounding' and urged the author to stop writing about Nitinol. The report was posted online by the USAF, and upon review, the author found Bragalia's claims to be overinflated. The technical nature of the report is noted, but it does not support Bragalia's assertions.

Life Photographer taken out to the desert to photograph crashed "meteor" but sees.....nothing!

This article investigates a story involving Life magazine photographer Allan Grant and the Roswell incident. Bragalia claims Grant was sent to New Mexico in July 1947 to cover a 'meteor crash' but found nothing, suggesting it was a cover-up. However, the author's research indicates that Allan Grant was actually sent to the Shiprock area in November 1947 to photograph a meteorite search led by Dr. Lincoln La Paz. The search was unsuccessful, and the author concludes that Grant likely confused the dates and locations, and that the Roswell crash story, as presented by Bragalia, is likely a misremembered or conflated event.

Deflating the rest of the Nitinol balloon

This section directly addresses Anthony Bragalia's complaints about the author's previous article on Nitinol. Bragalia claimed to have amassed extensive materials on the subject, but the author found his articles to be sketchy and potentially misrepresenting source material, particularly regarding the history of Titanium alloys and Nitinol. The author also addresses Bragalia's claim that he did not mention the SUNRISE web site, explaining it was an omission and that Bragalia should have acknowledged contributions. The article also scrutinizes Bragalia's use of the 'Wang report' and the 'missing progress report', arguing that Bragalia omitted crucial details that undermine his argument. Furthermore, the author refutes Bragalia's claims regarding Elroy Center's testimony, which was second-hand and lacked verifiable sources, suggesting Bragalia distorted the information from an article by Dr. Irena Scott and William Jones.

The Center of attention

This part of the Nitinol discussion focuses on Anthony Bragalia's upset that the author ignored Elroy Center's testimony. The author explains that the testimony was second-hand and from an unnamed source, making it unreliable. Upon investigation, the author found a document by Dr. Irena Scott and William Jones that appears to be the source of Bragalia's information, but notes discrepancies between Bragalia's version and the original article. The author also points out that Center's daughter and wife do not recall hearing the story, further casting doubt on its validity.

Awed Indians Refuse Aid To Scientists Seeking Meteorite

This is a news clipping from the Albuquerque Journal dated November 7, 1947, detailing a meteorite hunt in the Shiprock area. It mentions that Navajo Indians refused to cooperate with scientists, believing the meteorite was a 'spirit'. The article also notes that Life magazine was sending photographer Allen Grant to cover the event.

Elaborate U. Expedition Combing Shiprock Area In Search for Meteor

This article from the Albuquerque Journal describes a scientific expedition led by Dr. Lincoln La Paz from the University of New Mexico to search for a large meteor that fell in the Shiprock area. The expedition included scientists, students, Civil Air Patrol members, and military personnel. The article highlights the challenges of the search, including the superstitious nature of the Navajo Indians and the vastness of the area. It also mentions the involvement of photographer Allen Grant.

Meteorite Hunt Is Narrowed To 5-Mile Circle

This news clipping, also from the Albuquerque Journal, reports on the progress of the meteorite hunt in the Four Corners area. The search area was narrowed down to a five-mile circle, and the Civil Air Patrol was actively involved in coordinating the search. The article notes that Navajo students helped break down the reticence of their tribesmen. It also mentions the CAP mobile unit and its communication capabilities.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is a strong emphasis on skepticism and the demand for verifiable evidence in UFOlogy. The editor consistently challenges unsubstantiated claims, conspiracy theories, and anecdotal accounts, advocating for a more rigorous and scientific approach. The magazine appears to be a platform for debunking popular UFO narratives and correcting what it perceives as misinformation within the UFO community. The editorial stance is clearly one of critical inquiry, aiming to separate fact from speculation and belief.

This issue of UFO Iconoclast delves into the complex claims surrounding the development of Nitinol and its alleged connection to the Roswell incident, primarily by critiquing the work of UFO researcher Anthony Bragalia. The publication also examines statistical data on UFO sightings by amateur and professional astronomers, contrasting it with the arguments presented by prominent ufologists.

Critiquing Bragalia's Nitinol-Roswell Connection

The article begins by dissecting Anthony Bragalia's assertion that Dr. Cross fed information to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to develop Nitinol, a shape memory alloy, in connection with the Roswell crash. The author argues that Bragalia's evidence is based on "extremely fragile links" and misinterpretations of documents, such as a 1948 paper by Cross on Titanium Alloys. The author notes that this paper was part of a larger symposium on Titanium research and did not specifically mention alien spaceships or Nitinol. Bragalia's attempt to link Cross with Eastwood, a co-author of a missing progress report, is also dismissed as a weak connection, as Cross, being a metallurgist, would have likely co-authored numerous papers with various scientists.

Furthermore, the article addresses Bragalia's omission of Uri Geller's name from a source, suggesting it was an attempt to avoid negative responses from skeptics and readers. Bragalia's motivation for going public with his "discovery" is questioned, with the author speculating it might be for personal reasons or to meet deadlines, rather than solely to present the "truth."

The 1948 Titanium Symposium and Dr. Howard Cross

A significant portion of the issue focuses on the 1948 ONR symposium on Titanium studies. The author explains that Howard Cross's paper was just one of seventeen presented and did not focus on Titanium-Nickel alloys or Nitinol. The article highlights that the study of Titanium was already a priority for the USAF and USN in mid-1947, predating the Roswell incident, thus undermining the claim that interest in Titanium was directly linked to Roswell debris.

The author also points to a paper from the Bureau of Mines (Paper #5) that discussed Titanium-Nickel alloys and included a phase diagram. This is contrasted with Bragalia's claim that the first phase diagram for Titanium-Nickel appeared in a missing 1949 report. The article suggests that the Bureau of Mines' extensive research indicates that the interest in Titanium-Nickel alloys was not necessarily tied to alien debris, but rather to standard materials research.

The "Missing" Second Progress Report

The article addresses Bragalia's claim of receiving a "missing" second progress report via FOIA, which he stated would change perspectives on Roswell. The author found the report online and notes that its title and contents (September 1 to October 31, 1949, on research and development of Titanium Alloys) do not mention duplicating alien metals or creating shape memory alloys. The report's "limited" classification is also highlighted as being far from "Confidential."

Looking at the cover letter from Eastwood, the report's contents are summarized as alloy development, refractory development, and vacuum-fusion techniques for oxygen determination. There is no specific mention of shape memory alloys. The section on Titanium-Nickel is described as uninformative, with a phase diagram that is almost worthless for creating Nitinol due to the low concentration of Nickel. The author concludes that the report is "a handful of nothin" regarding Roswell.

Amateur Astronomers and UFO Sightings

The issue then shifts to examine the topic of amateur astronomers and UFO sightings, refuting claims made by ufologists like Stan Friedman and Kevin Randle. The article presents data from a 1976-77 survey of professional astronomers (2% reported sightings) and a parallel survey of amateur astronomers (5.2% reported sightings). These figures are compared to a 1978 Gallup Poll, which found a 9% sighting rate among the general public.

The author argues that the data suggests that increased familiarity with the sky, as possessed by astronomers, leads to fewer reported UFOs, not more. This contradicts the ufologists' assertion that astronomers don't report UFOs due to fear of ridicule or narrow fields of view. The article criticizes ufologists for ignoring statistical data and misrepresenting the observations of individuals like Clyde Tombaugh.

The Case of Nick Pope and "Alien Technology"

Another section discusses Nick Pope, a former Ministry of Defence (MoD) official who wrote "Open Skies, Closed Minds." The article questions Pope's self-promotion and the accuracy of his claims about his role in the MoD. It also examines his defense of certain sightings as evidence of alien intrusion, such as the Shawbury sighting, which the author suggests was likely a police helicopter.

The article touches upon Pope's claims that the MoD wanted to suppress his book and his subsequent resistance to releasing documents related to his work, citing privacy rights. The author speculates that Pope might be hiding something or that the documents might not support his claims.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Throughout the issue, there is a consistent theme of skepticism towards extraordinary claims within the UFO community, particularly those that lack robust evidence or rely on misinterpretations of data. The publication emphasizes the importance of critical examination, factual accuracy, and the use of verifiable sources. The editorial stance appears to favor a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding UFO phenomena, often contrasting it with what is perceived as the more speculative and sometimes self-serving narratives promoted by certain ufologists. The issue highlights a pattern of ufologists attacking critics rather than engaging with counter-evidence and data, and it champions the scientific method in investigating such claims.

This issue of "TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY UFOLOGY - PART II" (Volume 2) from SUNlite, dated 2006, focuses on the intriguing phenomenon of 'Minisaucers' and the ongoing debate surrounding UFO disclosure and skepticism. The magazine explores various facets of UFOlogy, including witness accounts, potential psychological explanations, and the historical context of the field.

Articles and Content

Fooling voters to waste tax payer's money

This article criticizes Jeff Peckman, describing him as a "snake oil salesman in UFOlogy" for his efforts to create an "ET affairs commission" in Denver. Peckman's website is noted for promoting standard disclosure project narratives while soliciting money through various means, including requests for donations and offers of paid shows. The author also highlights Peckman's "Metatron Cosmic Peace Program," which offers software to reduce stress and create a "vortex" of energy, raising concerns about potential spyware.

Still waiting for disclosure

This section discusses Michael Cohen's commentary on UFO disclosure, referencing a blog entry by an anonymous individual who claimed France was paid by the US to remain silent about UFOs. The source suggested a disclosure event was planned for June 12th, but alleged that internet service issues and file deletions were attempts to thwart it. The author notes similarities to slow responses on the James Randi Education Foundation forum, questioning if government interference or server maintenance was responsible.

Say it isn't so Buzz!

This piece addresses Buzz Aldrin's comment on CSPAN about going to Mars to look at a "monolith" on Phobos. The author expresses dismay that this remark has led conspiracy theorists to proclaim it as a prelude to "full government disclosure," shaking their head at the interpretation.

A Correction to last issue!

In this section, the author corrects a previous statement made in the "UFOs on the tube" section of the last issue, where he remarked that a Nova television program "pretty much shot down" the New Zealand UFO case of 1978. Dr. Bruce Maccabee questioned this assessment. After reviewing Dr. Maccabee's writings, the author admits to having "overstated" his conclusion, revising it to state that the case was not completely explained and that some events remain "unidentified."

Sex and Saucers

Written by Matt Graeber, this article critiques the sensationalized portrayal of UFOs in popular culture, particularly abduction stories and alleged sexual encounters with aliens. Graeber, a former director of a pro-UFO group, expresses his disillusionment with the lack of concrete trends found in his investigations. He criticizes the "saucer celebrities" and media for exploiting these narratives, questioning the logic behind alien-human sexual liaisons and the presentation of such claims as evidence in legal proceedings.

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY UFOLOGY - PART II

This multi-part series continues with an examination of "MINISAUCERS" or "Dual Process of Perception events." Matt Graeber discusses his research and interviews, suggesting that some UFO reports might stem from subjective, human-centered experiences rather than purely external phenomena. He introduces the concept of "Minisaucers" as a unique category of UFO experience, distinct from traditional sightings.

#### MINISAUCERS

Graeber posits that UFO sightings might not solely be misidentifications or alien spacecraft, but could include other forms of 'real' experiences. He references his previous discussions of "Dynamic Display" (D.D.) and introduces "Minisaucers," which he encountered while directing UFORIC in the late 1970s. These are defined as miniature unidentified flying objects operating within commercial buildings or residences, often thought to be alien monitoring devices.

#### MINISAUCER CASE STUDY NO.1: "Close encounter within a university office"

This case study details the experience of Joe Delaney, a young man who reported seeing a dark, fluttering, black cylindrical object in a university office cubicle. The object was described as hexagonal, about six to eight inches long, and moved with a gentle rocking motion. Delaney's reaction was to throw his jacket at it, but the object was not trapped.

#### MINISAUCER CASE STUDY NO.2: "An interactive close encounter"

This case study describes Mr. Greene's experience of seeing a "big black spot" on his bedroom ceiling. Initially mistaken for a spider, the object was identified as a convex, matte black oddity that moved in precise synchronicity with Mr. Greene's thoughts, eventually disappearing when he thought "vanish."

#### MINISAUCER CASE STUDY NO.3: "A close encounter in the park"

This case study recounts the experience of Erik, a young man who encountered a luminous disk of white light on the ground in a park. The disk moved ahead of him at his pace, appearing to come from beneath the snow. Erik initially feared it was a laser beam but later considered it a paranormal experience, possibly related to his recent grief over his grandmother's passing.

INVESTIGATIVE NOTES:

The investigative notes discuss the characteristics of Minisaucer sightings, including their potential for telepathic communication and curious disappearance phenomena, similar to reports of pilots encountering UFOs that mimicked their maneuvers. The author suggests that Minisaucers might be psychically produced imagery rather than physical craft.

POSSIBILE CLUES ON ERIK'S MINISAU-CER ENCOUNTER

This section speculates on Erik's experience, suggesting it might be a "Dual Process of Perception (D.P.P.)" where subconscious dream imagery merges with conscious perception. The author also references sleep researcher Professor Nathan Kleitman's work on REM sleep, noting the similarity between REM dreaming brain wave patterns and waking state activity.

INSTINCTUAL REACTION:

Witnesses in indoor Minisaucer cases, like Joe Delaney and Mr. Greene, initially react with instinctual self-preservation, remaining motionless. Fears subside as rational evaluation occurs, and the tone of the experience shifts.

E-mails to the editor

#### Fan Mail and a theory

Lucinda writes in, expressing her enjoyment of the newsletter and posing a theory that actress Pauley Perrette from TV's NCIS resembles Eileen Faton from "Who Is the Dummy? Case Closed Roswell," suggesting Faton was abducted by aliens and sent through a time warp.

#### Some notes about Robert Todd

Barry Greenwood expresses appreciation for SUNlite and its coverage of UFO researchers Robert Todd and Phil Klass. He shares memories of working with Bob Todd and the newsletter "The Spot Report."

#### UFO proponents vs Skeptics

Michael writes, agreeing with Matt Graeber that the skeptical community has "dropped the ball" in addressing ufology. He argues that proponents offer exciting, albeit false, answers to the question of what UFOs are, while skeptics struggle to compete with this narrative. Michael suggests that instead of refuting 'irrefutable' cases, skeptics should encourage believers to explain why belief is important to them.

#### Editor's Response to Michael

The editor acknowledges Michael's points and expresses a desire to provide information objectively, not to sway believers but to offer a more complete picture. He dislikes the idea of "battling" and prefers to view it as two opposing opinions.

#### Matt Graeber responds

Matt Graeber thanks Lucinda and Michael for their comments and mentions that Bob Todd spoke fondly of Barry Greenwood. He expresses a desire to write about other UFOlogical legends like Karl Pflock.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of UFO experiences, particularly the less conventional "Minisaucer" phenomena, and the ongoing tension between UFO proponents and skeptics. The editorial stance, as expressed by the editor and Matt Graeber, leans towards providing a balanced perspective, acknowledging the emotional appeal of UFO beliefs while emphasizing the need for critical evaluation and objective information. There's a clear critique of sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims within the UFO community, particularly concerning "Sex and Saucers" narratives and the exploitation of public interest by self-appointed experts. The magazine encourages readers to consider psychological and subjective factors in UFO encounters, moving beyond purely physical or extraterrestrial explanations.

This issue of "UFO Mystery solved!" focuses on the controversial announcement by Ivan Michael Wright, an author and UFO investigator, who claims to have definitively solved the UFO mystery and proven that some UFOs are alien spaceships. The magazine presents Wright's claims alongside skeptical reactions from scientists, astronomers, and other commentators, as well as a segment on the testing of a purported Roswell UFO fragment.

Ivan Michael Wright's Announcement and Claims

Ivan Michael Wright, author of numerous UFO books, declared on his blog, "A divergent viewpoint," that the UFO mystery is solved. He asserts that UFOs are alien spaceships and criticizes the scientific community and "debunkers" for not accepting his evidence, suggesting they are being prevented from doing so by the USAF. Wright compares himself to Galileo, implying his work is being suppressed. He states that people are not listening to him outside the UFO community and that the evidence is "overwhelming."

When asked for comment, a USAF spokesperson stated they no longer handle such matters and provided a fact sheet from forty years prior. The spokesperson suggested Wright present his evidence to scientists, as they were not interested.

Skeptical Reactions from Scientists and Experts

Astronomer Dr. Ben Allen Dish, director of the Mount Randile observatory, questioned why Wright's information had not appeared in scientific journals. He noted his observatory's sky surveys had not detected any alien spaceships. Dr. Stephen Edward Ti, an astronomer studying extraterrestrial signals, reported his radio receivers had not detected any such signals, humorously suggesting they might be tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Regarding how aliens might travel vast distances, Wright referred to his colleague Kant B. Rong, who allegedly proposed easy space travel methods. Rong, when reached, claimed rocket scientists were wrong and that interstellar travel would not require much energy or time. He also suggested that "inside politics" were preventing the revelation of UFO secrets and space travel advancements, hoping the newly elected President would expose the truth.

Dr. Cesare Simplicio, Chairmen of the world UFO investigation committee, supported Wright's announcement, accusing scientists of forming a "cabal" to suppress the truth and claiming both amateur and professional astronomers were hiding evidence of alien spaceships.

However, local amateur astronomer Deborah Uncker stated that during regular skywatches, no one had ever reported seeing alien spaceships, with the most unusual sighting being a booster rocket fuel dump. She invited the public to attend future skywatches.

Dr. Don Worddance, a physics professor emeritus at the University of Denver, suggested that if Wright had new evidence, he should present it in proper scientific forums for debate and examination. Science writer John "Skip" Teck was critical of Wright's claims, stating he could find no UFO cases positively identified as alien and compared Wright's interpretation of data to looking through a kaleidoscope.

Wright responded to his critics by calling them "ignorant individuals" unwilling to examine evidence with an open mind, reiterating that the evidence was overwhelming and that only those with preconceived notions would deem it insufficient. He also claimed to be adept at identifying liars and exaggerators among the hundreds of witnesses he had interviewed.

Roswell Fragment Testing and Analysis

The magazine also features a segment on a TV program titled "Proof positive: Evidence of the paranormal," which investigated a fragment from the Roswell UFO crash. UFO investigator Roger Leir presented a fragment he claimed was from the crash, which he had obtained from an anonymous source via his brother, a commercial chemist, who deemed the material "very unusual."

Leir's claims were supported by Jesse Marcel Jr., who recalled similar characteristics from the debris he saw. The fragment was purportedly tested by Dr. Russell Vernon Clark in 1997, with results presented at the Roswell festival. However, these results faced scrutiny, and "Dr. Clark's" credentials were later questioned, with it being revealed he was not employed by the University of California at San Diego.

In 2001, Leir planned a press conference and internet presentation of new test results. However, the press conference was reportedly canceled due to threats against the producer. Leir suggested that people who came into contact with the fragment were mysteriously dying.

In contrast to Leir's claims, the "Proof positive" program had the fragment tested by Dr. Kevin McKeegan, a geochemist at UCLA. McKeegan concluded that the silicon piece was "virtually identical to any piece of industrial silicon one might buy from a semiconductor manufacturer." The article criticizes Leir for not submitting his alien implant evidence to real laboratories and for relying on questionable earlier results.

The article notes that "Proof positive" was a short-lived Sci-Fi channel show, suggesting the channel might not have been interested in debunking paranormal events.

Book Reviews

The issue includes three book reviews:

• "Encounters at Indianhead" by Karl Pflock and Peter Brookesmith ed. is recommended for its presentation of multiple viewpoints on the Hill case, making it suitable for skeptics and proponents alike.
• "The interrupted journey" by John G. Fuller is described as a good starting point for learning about the Betty and Barney Hill case, despite some overlooked flaws.
• "Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill experience" by Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden is heavily criticized. The reviewer deems Marden biased as Betty Hill's niece and Friedman as an uncritical proponent. The review points out issues with the book's presentation of evidence, scientific organizations, and its discussion of debunkers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the ongoing debate between UFO proponents and skeptics, with a focus on the presentation and validation of evidence. The magazine appears to lean towards a skeptical stance, highlighting the lack of scientific rigor in some UFO claims, such as those made by Ivan Michael Wright and Roger Leir, while also acknowledging the existence of paranormal investigation programs. The editorial stance seems to favor scientific methodology and peer review, as evidenced by the critique of Leir's testing and the encouragement for Wright to present his findings through proper channels. The book reviews further reinforce this by recommending books that offer balanced perspectives or critiquing those perceived as biased.