SUNlite - Vol 04 No 03

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 4, Number 3, published May-June 2012, is a magazine dedicated to UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features an F-16 fighter jet and the headline 'Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs'. The issue delves into specific UFO cases, analyzes radar data, and presents a critical, often skeptical, perspective on UFO phenomena.

Table of Contents

The issue includes articles on "Who's blogging UFOs?", "The Roswell Corner", "The coming of the triangles", "March 30-31, 1990 - The Belgium F-16 UFO Chase", and various other topics including specific case studies and reviews.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section discusses various online discussions and blogs related to UFOlogy. It mentions Isaac Koi posting Dr. Willy Smith's book, the UFO Iconoclast(s) blog featuring an interview with Peter Gersten and Dr. Hynek, and Dr. Dil posting James Easton's "Resolving Rendlesham" article. The availability of 16 issues of the UFO data magazine for download is also noted. Robert Sheaffer's skeptical viewpoint on the 21st international UFO congress is highlighted, with criticism of some speakers. Frank Warren's promotion of the Arizona UFO case is questioned for its one-sidedness. The enduring nature of the Aztec UFO crash, despite being considered a hoax, is discussed, emphasizing that no single UFO case satisfies all UFOlogists. Tim Hebert's recap of the Echo flight shutdown story is contrasted with other viewpoints. The article also mentions the online availability of the SUNlite index and feedback regarding the magazine's layout, with a move towards a single column format planned.

Hot topics and varied opinions

This section continues the discussion on online UFO content. It addresses the "unexplained" cases presented by Leslie Kean, critiquing the reliability of witnesses and the research behind the book. The article points out inconsistencies in Fife Symington's story and the flawed handling of the Petit-Rechain image case by UFOlogists. The impending cessation of the International UFO Reporter in print form is noted, with speculation about its transition to an online format. The section also touches upon the "bug video" from Chile and a similar video from Las Vegas, suggesting mundane explanations. Erick Von Daniken's work on ancient astronauts is revisited, with a NOVA program cited as a damaging influence on earlier beliefs. A notorious alien photograph is revealed to be a hoax from an April Fool's joke. Phil Klass's claim about offering Steve Pierce a bribe is debunked. Debates surrounding the Rendlesham Forest incident are discussed, with skepticism about proponent's explanations. Robert Hastings' critique of Stephen Bassett's petition regarding UFOs and nukes is mentioned, questioning Hastings' interpretation of alien motives.

The Roswell Corner: The missing Brazel interview

This article questions the reported existence of an audio interview with Mack Brazel from 1947, which was allegedly lost. The author presents three scenarios: the recording never existed, it existed but was mundane, or it contained the "smoking gun" evidence of bodies and a spaceship. The author leans towards the first scenario, suggesting the story was a fabrication, possibly related to the Showtime "Roswell" movie.

The coming of the triangles

This piece explores the rise in reports of massive triangular UFOs, contrasting them with the historically more common disc-shaped sightings. The author traces the emergence of triangular UFO reports to the Hudson Valley UFO events in the early 1980s and the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1992. The "airship effect," coined by Dr. William Hartmann, is discussed as a phenomenon where witnesses interpret multiple lights as a single craft based on popular designs. The article speculates that the increase in triangular UFO reports may have coincided with the popularity of the "Star Wars" movies, which featured massive wedge-shaped star destroyers.

March 30-31, 1990 - The Belgium F-16 UFO Chase

This is the central article of the issue, detailing the events of the Belgian F-16 UFO chase. It begins by noting that the Belgian UFO wave is often considered a landmark event, but SUNlite has previously questioned the official descriptions. The article aims to present the events of March 30-31, 1990, in a way that is understandable and demonstrates that the case is not as exotic as claimed.

Visual sightings

Prior to March 30th, the Belgian Air Force had an agreement to intercept UFOs. On the night of March 30th, gendarmes in Ramilles reported seeing points of light that formed a triangle. These lights were described as large stars that constantly changed color. Other patrols also reported lights. Radar at Glons detected contacts drifting westward, leading to the dispatch of two F-16s from Beauvechain.

The F-16 radar

The F-16s were equipped with AN/APG-66 pulse-doppler radar. The article notes that an earlier version of the radar had a high number of false alarm returns, which might have played a role in the event.

The F-16 interception

Shortly after midnight, the F-16s took off. They were initially directed southwest of Brussels. The article details the flight path and radar contacts over approximately forty minutes, based on studies by Salmon and Gilmard, and Auguste Meessen. The F-16s struggled to detect any craft visually or on radar, despite being directed towards contacts. They reported seeing a bright flashing light on the ground, identified as a smokestack. Several radar contacts were registered, but the pilots made no visual confirmation. The article suggests that the "contacts" were likely atmospheric phenomena or false targets.

The gendarmes were confused

The article notes that during this time, the F-16s were flying in the area where visual observations were made. The Lambrecht's report indicates that the gendarmes saw the F-16s fly by their UFOs without noticing them, implying the reported UFOs were not visible to the pilots.

Aftermath

In the summer of 1990, a report by the Belgian air force described the events, giving the impression that something was in the sky with the F-16s, but also noting the pilots failed to see anything visually. The report highlighted the reliability of the gendarme reports. The article states that over the years, the number of interceptions and "lock-ons" by the F-16s has been exaggerated, with the actual number of "lock-ons" being only three according to the Lambrecht's report.

Salmon-Gilmard

In 1992, Major Salmon and civil engineer Gilmard released a study analyzing the radar data. They concluded that on three occasions, the contact registered by one F-16 was the other F-16. They also felt that many contacts were radar angels/false targets and ground clutter. One contact indicated reflection. The study suggested that "moist air cells" or convection bubbles, possibly from industrial centers, could have caused the radar echoes. The article translates a portion of Meessen's paper, stating these moist air masses could act as lenses. The F-16s kept flying around the same general area chasing contacts that the ground radar stated were present, but they only saw a smoke stack with a flashing light.

Closing the book

This section concludes that the Belgian F-16 chase has become a staple in UFO literature but was not an extraordinary event. The work of Meessen and Salmon-Gilmard is noted as being little known or ignored. The case is presented as an application of Phil Klass' UFOlogical principle #9: when a radar operator is asked to search for an unknown target, an "unknown" target will be found. Conversely, if an unusual target is spotted on radar, and an observer is dispatched to search for a light, a visual sighting is almost invariably made. The article concludes that the radar contacts were likely phantom targets that disappeared upon close examination. The article also mentions the possibility of police officers mistaking stars for UFOs due to unusual atmospheric conditions, with Sirius being a prime suspect. A contact labeled "unidentified" due to lacking a transponder signal is discussed, suggesting it was likely an aircraft with a malfunctioning transponder.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the critical examination of UFO cases, the emphasis on mundane explanations, and the debunking of extraordinary claims. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, favoring scientific and logical explanations over paranormal or extraterrestrial interpretations. The magazine highlights the importance of rigorous investigation, the analysis of radar data, and the potential for misidentification and atmospheric phenomena to account for UFO sightings. There is a consistent effort to contrast these findings with the more sensationalized accounts often found in UFO literature.

This issue of SOBEPS, identified as VOB1, focuses on a significant event that occurred on the evening of March 30, 1990, in Belgium, involving observations by gendarmes and F16 fighter jets. The cover headline, 'The evening of 30 March 1990: Observations by the F16s,' sets the stage for an in-depth investigation into this incident.

Observations by the Gendarmes

The article begins by detailing the initial observations made by gendarmes in Wavre around 11 PM. They reported seeing bright lights in the sky forming a large triangle, accompanied by smaller triangles, totaling eight lights. These lights displayed variations in color (white, yellow, green, blue, and red) and brilliance. The gendarmes contacted the Belgian military radar center CRC from Glons, which detected a single radar echo at 10000 feet. The decision to send an F16 was not immediate.

The text notes that the apparent 'jerky moves' of the lights around a fixed position and their color changes could be attributed to the observer's eye movements and atmospheric conditions. It also suggests that bright stars, such as Jupiter (magnitude -2.2), Sirius, Procyon, Rigel, Betelgeuse, Castor, Pollux, and Capella, were visible that evening and could have contributed to the perception of multiple triangles.

An interesting phenomenon described is an optical illusion that occurs when a plane with lights passes close to a star. The stars appear to move as the plane is between them and then return to their original position once the plane moves away. This illusion is explained as the witness using the plane as a reference point, causing the star's apparent position to shift and then return.

Observations of the F16s

At 0h15, following the radar observation from Glons, two F16s took off from Beauvechain to investigate an abnormal radar spot at 10000 feet in the Wavre area. Despite their efforts, the F16 pilots could not visually observe anything. However, they registered abnormal radar contact, including data suggesting supersonic speeds and significant accelerations. Simultaneously, the gendarmes continued to describe bright objects in a triangle formation.

The article references the 'Lambrechts report,' sent to SOBEPS by the Belgian air force in late May 1990, which compiled declarations from gendarmes, radar chronology, and pilot communications. The report noted one radar contact, and the two F16s registered abnormal data but saw nothing. One F16 contact seemed to indicate an acceleration of 22G, with speeds changing from 150 knots to 560 knots in one second while maintaining altitude. No supersonic bang was heard.

The report also mentioned atmospheric conditions, including temperature inversion near the ground and at 3000 feet, and strong winds (50-60 knots) at 10000 feet, which could potentially explain some of the abnormal data. Another radar property is also cited as a possible explanation.

A second radar spot was detected at 0h32 by Glons and Semmerzaeke, described as an engine flying from Beauvechain towards Liege at approximately 900 km/h. This object was not detected by civilian radars from Bertem or Maastricht, which is considered intriguing given Bertem's proximity to Wavre. The object disappeared at 2000m altitude near Bierset military airport.

Notably, the F16s were close to this detected engine but did not identify it, raising questions about why they were not sent to investigate.

Analysis of Radar Data and Accelerations

The article critically examines the reported 'fantastic accelerations' and supersonic speeds, particularly the 22G acceleration claim. It points out that the Lambrechts report used the law of uniformly accelerated motion (v = v0 + a*t) to calculate acceleration but failed to verify this with the law of distance (e = v0*t + 1/2 a*t²). This omission is presented as a serious error.

Using the provided data (v0 = 77.166 m/s, v = 288.09 m/s, t = 1 second), the calculated acceleration is 21.5G. However, the distance covered in one second with this acceleration would be only 182.626 meters, which contradicts the implied distance covered by the 'engine' or object. The article suggests that the calculated acceleration of 22G does not correspond to a real object but is an artifact of the radar. It highlights that if the data are incoherent, the results will be erroneous.

Further analysis suggests that the radar data are inconsistent, and it cannot be concluded that an engine was detected or that there was a fantastic acceleration. The article posits that the radar's detection mode, using pulse Doppler radar with correlation on quasi-simultaneous impulses at different frequencies, can produce echoes with very high speeds that do not relate to a real object. This property is cited as a likely explanation for the observed phenomena, aligning with pilots' reports of frequently observing such 'spots' that are generally vertical and at very high speed.

The article concludes that the fantastic accelerations and supersonic speeds are inexistent, stemming from a lack of data coherence verification. It criticizes the media and ufologists for publishing these unverified results and promoting the idea of extraterrestrial craft with advanced capabilities.

Other Explanations and Reports

Several explanations for the observed phenomena are discussed:

• Gilmard-Salmon report: Concluded that three observations were the second F16, and abnormal echoes were due to atmospheric conditions. The bright lights seen from the ground were identified as stars.
• Professor Meessen: Acknowledged that abnormal echoes were due to meteorological circumstances of long duration.
• Pulse Radar Doppler Properties: The article references Michel Carpentier's book 'Radars, bases modernes' to explain that pulse Doppler radar can generate echoes with very high speeds due to its detection mode, which are not indicative of real objects.

The Story of Elijah

The latter half of the magazine issue shifts focus to a detailed retelling and analysis of the biblical story of the prophet Elijah, presented by Martin Kottmeyer. This section explores Elijah's confrontations with King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, his challenges to the prophets of Baal, his flight to Horeb, and his divine encounters.

Kottmeyer frames Elijah's story as a narrative of divine intervention, prophecy, and conflict, highlighting key events such as the drought, the contest on Mount Carmel, Elijah's escape from Jezebel, and his ascension to heaven.

Ufological Interpretations of Elijah's Story

The article delves into how ufologists and ancient astronaut theorists interpret biblical narratives, particularly Elijah's story, as potential evidence of extraterrestrial contact. The concept of 'miraculous ascension,' where a human is taken up to heaven, is discussed in relation to UFO abduction imagery, such as a person being lifted by a beam of light from a flying saucer.

Kottmeyer examines various interpretations, including those by Erich von Däniken, Budd Hopkins, and Zecharia Sitchin, who suggest that biblical miracles could be explained by advanced alien technology. He notes that the image of a 'miraculous ascension' has become a recurring motif in UFO culture.

The article also touches upon the idea that Elijah's story, like other biblical accounts, is often presented as 'event-level reality' by ufologists, despite its mythological and legendary nature. The author expresses skepticism towards these interpretations, questioning the literal application of ancient myths to modern UFO phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently questions official explanations and emphasizes critical analysis of evidence, whether it pertains to UAP sightings or biblical narratives. There is a strong undercurrent of skepticism towards claims of advanced extraterrestrial technology and a preference for natural or technological explanations for anomalous phenomena. The article on the March 30, 1990 event aims to debunk sensational claims of fantastic accelerations and supersonic speeds, attributing them to radar artifacts and misinterpretations. Similarly, the exploration of Elijah's story, while acknowledging its place in ufological discourse, maintains a critical distance from literal interpretations of divine events as alien interventions. The overall stance appears to be one of rigorous investigation, seeking logical and verifiable explanations for unexplained events and phenomena, while also acknowledging the cultural impact of UFO theories on the interpretation of ancient stories.

This issue of Official UFO magazine, dated July 1976, focuses on the phenomenon of 'miraculous ascension' within UFO abduction narratives. It explores various cases and their potential origins, drawing connections to science fiction and historical accounts.

Miraculous Ascension in UFO Abduction Cases

The article begins by examining early contactee accounts, such as Dan Martin's, which described being lifted into a craft, and Carl Anderson's automatic writing predicting similar rescues. It highlights that Martin's tale, with its specific details like spiral shutters and a lack of 'Grays,' stands out and may have been influenced by Judeo-Christian apologetics.

The research suggests that the first abduction experience to involve miraculous ascension might be the Canadian case of David Seewaldt in November 1967. Seewaldt, a young boy, briefly described being pulled up into a ship by a beam. Investigators initially dismissed his account as a nightmare but later found similarities to the 1973 Pascagoula abduction.

The 1973 Pascagoula abduction, involving Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, is discussed for its 'alien dream kinetics,' where the entities floated and the abductees felt lighter, experiencing a paradoxical sense of movement without physical exertion. They entered the craft through a side opening and felt suspended.

The Dionisio Llanca case from October 1973 in Argentina is presented as another possible instance of miraculous ascension, where Llanca was grabbed and forced upright, later recalling being transported by 'means of a light.' However, this case is regarded as a hoax by some ufologists today, though it appeared in publications like Saga's Ufo Magazine in the 1970s.

Other cases explored include:

• Bill McGuire and Nora Johnson: Their 'ultimate' abduction straddles the line of relevance, with regressions suggesting ascension.
• Carlos Diaz (January 4, 1975): After leaving a society, Diaz was pulled off the ground and blacked out, waking up inside a craft with featureless-headed creatures.
• Brian Scott (October 8, 1975): Scott reported an ascension type event while approached by a disk with a strange light, feeling held in some sense.
• Liberty, Kentucky triple abduction (January 1976): Women experienced missing time, and their car was dragged backward into a UFO.
• Sara Shaw (March 22, 1976): Shaw described being floated towards a UFO on a tilted beam of light, akin to an escalator.
• Sebastian Acevado (April 14, 1974): An attempted abduction in Tandil, Argentina, involved a powerful illumination and a light beam that attempted to lift him.
• Judy Kendall: Recalled her car floating skyward, with no light beam associated with the lifting.
• Womack (May 1977): Saw a thick beam of light drop from a UFO, and was hit by a red light, remembering being inside a UFO.
• William Herrmann (March 1978): Saw a UFO over the Ashley River and experienced a 'pulling sensation' into a craft via a tubular haze of light.
• Philip Osborne (April 1979): Reported rushing toward a UFO resembling a geodesic dome, feeling like he was hurtling through space.
• Lori Briggs (May 30, 1979): Described creatures floating and lifting things with light, and experienced being transported to a UFO surrounded by light.
• Megan Elliott (August 21, 1980): Her car was lifted into a giant flying saucer by a tractor beam.

Parallels in Fiction and History

The article also traces the history of the concept of miraculous ascension in science fiction and older traditions. It notes that the idea of being lifted by rays or beams appeared in pulp magazines as early as the 1930s, with illustrations in magazines like 'Amazing Stories' and 'Wonder Stories' depicting such scenes. Examples include Edward E. Chappelow's "The Return of the Air Master" (1930) and illustrations for stories like "The World of Singing Crystals" (1936) and "In 20,000 A.D." (1930).

Animated cartoons also featured the concept, with 'Ruff & Reddy' (December 14, 1957) showing a dog being lifted through a flying saucer by a beam of light. The film 'The Mysterians' (1957) and 'This Island Earth' (1953) are also mentioned for their depictions of levitation and light beams.

The article references ancient accounts, including the ascension of Elijah, the Ascension of Christ, and legends surrounding Apollonius of Tyana and Egyptian magicians, suggesting that these might be precursors or influences on modern UFO narratives. It also discusses a 5th-century account from Constantinople of a child being lifted into the air.

Skepticism and Interpretation

The author expresses skepticism towards some of the historical and religious accounts, particularly the 5th-century Constantinople case, suggesting that they may be pious fiction or misinterpretations. The article also touches upon the idea that miraculous ascension might be a recurring theme in dreams and fantasy, reflecting a desire for advanced or magical technology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the exploration and documentation of 'miraculous ascension' as a specific type of UFO abduction experience. The magazine appears to present these cases with a degree of seriousness, while also acknowledging the skepticism and potential for hoaxes or misinterpretations. The editorial stance seems to be one of documenting and analyzing these phenomena, drawing connections across different eras and media, and considering various interpretations, from literal alien encounters to psychological or mythological explanations.

This issue of Flying Saucer Review, specifically the "Beyond Condon Special Issue no. 2" from June 1969, edited by Charles Bowen, delves into critical analyses of UFO phenomena, often from a skeptical perspective. It questions the methodologies and conclusions presented by UFO proponents, highlighting instances of potential misinterpretation, lack of evidence, and flawed statistical claims.

The Chilean UFO Video Controversy

The issue extensively discusses the controversy surrounding UFO videos presented by CEFAA (Chilean Experimental Flight Committee) and promoted by Leslie Kean. The author expresses skepticism, noting the lack of high-quality, verifiable video evidence and the fact that the videos were leaked to UFO blogs rather than published in scientific journals. A major point of contention is the unavailability of the original videos for independent analysis, drawing parallels to past debacles like the Mexican Air Force FLIR video. The article highlights the "bug hypothesis" as a plausible explanation, supported by analysis from individuals like HOAXKILLER, who found evidence of editing and frames showing the object transiting in a manner consistent with bugs. The role of CEFAA and its experts, particularly Dr. Luis Barrera, is questioned, with suggestions that General Bermudez may have misrepresented Barrera's findings. The author criticizes the proponents' acceptance of CEFAA's claims without critical examination, contrasting it with the thoroughness of skeptics.

Fireballs and Misidentifications

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to exploring how natural phenomena, particularly bright fireballs and meteors, are frequently mistaken for UFOs. The article details the case of a bright fireball seen on April 25, 1966, in the northeastern United States, which was reported as a UFO crash in Litchfield, Connecticut. The author cross-references media reports and meteor databases to show that the event was a widely observed fireball. The case of the Zond IV re-entry and Cosmos 1068 re-entry are also discussed, with sketches from these events bearing a striking resemblance to UFO sightings, suggesting a pattern of misidentification. The article posits that many cigar-shaped UFOs might be explained by meteors or re-entering space debris, and that the lack of comprehensive sky monitoring networks in the past made such misidentifications more common.

Analysis of UFO Statistics and Reports

The issue scrutinizes the statistical claims made by UFOlogists, particularly Stanton Friedman, regarding the prevalence of unexplained UFO reports. Friedman's reliance on Project Blue Book's Special Report 14 (BBSR14) and the 1964 NICAP UFO briefing document is challenged. The author argues that BBSR14's data was subjective and that many cases were never truly investigated, leading to an inflated number of "unexplained" reports. Similarly, the NICAP report's selection of 746 "unexplained" cases out of over 5000 is questioned, as many of these were simply newspaper clippings or radar anomalies without proper investigation. The article also points out that Friedman selectively uses the "all sightings" category from Battelle's study, which yields higher percentages of unknowns, rather than the more accurate "object sightings" category.

Critiques of UFOlogists and Organizations

The magazine criticizes the methodology and perceived biases within the UFOlogy community. Stanton Friedman is portrayed as someone who stops research once he arrives at a desired conclusion, engaging in "research by proclamation." Leslie Kean is depicted as someone who, despite being a journalist, relies heavily on the pronouncements of organizations like CEFAA without independent verification. The article suggests that UFOlogists often exhibit a lack of learning from past mistakes, citing the Mexican FLIR video incident as an example. The author also questions the credibility of certain UFO organizations, suggesting that CEFAA, in particular, may be more interested in promoting UFOs than in rigorous scientific analysis.

Specific Case Studies and Examples

Beyond the broader themes, the issue examines specific cases:

• The El Bosque UFO sighting: Multiple videos were analyzed, with skepticism raised about CEFAA's interpretation and the possibility of bugs being the cause.
• The Towanda, Pennsylvania incident: A bright fireball was misidentified as a UFO crash, highlighting the potential for misinterpretation.
• The Chiles-Whitted sighting (1947): This case is mentioned as potentially being a bright fireball, similar to other cases.
• The Bentwater's incident (1956): Investigations revealed exaggerations in this case.
• The RB-47 case: Phil Klass provided a reasonable explanation.
• The Trent photographs: These are suggested to be a potential hoax.
• The Yukon UFO event (1996): Space debris from a rocket was identified as the cause, matching witness descriptions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around skepticism towards UFO claims, the importance of rigorous scientific methodology, and the critical examination of evidence presented by UFO proponents. The editorial stance is clearly one of challenging unsubstantiated claims and promoting a more rational, evidence-based approach to understanding UFO phenomena. The magazine emphasizes the need for transparency, peer review, and the consideration of mundane explanations before jumping to extraordinary conclusions. It suggests that many UFO reports can be attributed to misidentifications of natural phenomena, man-made objects, or flawed data analysis.

This issue of "UFOs on the tube" (page 43) critically examines the field of UFOlogy, focusing on the work of Stanton Friedman and the scientific investigation of UFO reports. It questions the progress of the field and debunks several prominent UFO cases.

The IFO Rate and Stanton Friedman's Claims

The article begins by addressing Stanton Friedman's "ridiculous proclamation" regarding the percentage of unexplained UFOs. The author argues that Friedman is overplaying his hand by selectively using statistics. The National Academy of Sciences' review of the Condon report is cited, stating that while some sightings remain unexplained, there's no reason to attribute them to extraterrestrial sources without more convincing evidence. The report also noted the difficulty of applying scientific methods to transient sightings.

The author then delves into the IFO (Identified Flying Object) rate. While Friedman suggests a low IFO rate, the article presents data from various UFO organizations. The Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) states that about 5% to 10% of reports are truly puzzling, implying a 90-95% IFO rate. The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) is quoted as saying well over 90 percent of all reported UFOs prove to be IFOs. British UFOlogist Timothy Good suggests up to 90% can be explained conventionally, while Jenny Randles implies that failing to solve at least nine out of ten cases is a failure. The author's own initial estimate of a 3-10% unexplained rate is supported by these figures.

Dr. Hynek is quoted from an early 1980s interview with Tom Snyder, stating that a nationwide police network receives reports, with most being conventional objects like planets, and only about 10% being pursued further. Allan Hendry's study is also cited, showing an 8.6% unknown rate, which drops to 3.4% when "near IFOs" and "problematic" cases are excluded. The author criticizes Friedman for ignoring this consensus and cherry-picking data.

The Rules for Friedman

The author outlines what they perceive as Friedman's violations of debunking rules:
1. He fails to mention that UFO organizations state roughly 10% of reports are unexplainable.
2. He ignores this fact for his own chosen values.
3. He declares the author ridiculous by ignoring common knowledge that supports the author's position.

The Narrow Field of View Myth

This section addresses Friedman's claim that astronomers miss UFOs because they look through narrow telescope eyepieces. The author refutes this, stating that astronomers do not solely rely on telescopes and often observe with the naked eye, binoculars, or all-sky cameras. They attend public viewing parties where many observers are present, increasing the chance of spotting events. The author notes that while unusual events are seen, they are typically explained. Furthermore, meteor and satellite observers rely on eyesight. The article questions how many UFOs defying explanation have been recorded by all-sky cameras.

The author also points out that BBSR14 statistics show 47.6% of "unknowns" had a duration of over a minute. Bright objects in the sky, even when an astronomer is looking through an eyepiece, draw attention due to shadows and illumination. The author uses the example of Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer who identified a UFO V-formation as planes, a case Friedman allegedly dismissed.

Stacking Cow Pies

This section critiques Friedman's argument that UFOlogy has made no progress and that some UFO reports are caused by alien spaceships. Friedman's analogy about whether any UFOs are spaceships is countered by the author, who states that while 7-foot-tall people exist, alien spaceships visiting Earth is a different claim. The author dismisses Friedman's reliance on "thousands" of physical trace, radar-visual, and abduction cases as proof, stating that NONE of these have been proven to be extraterrestrial. The author uses the analogy of stacking cow pies: they won't turn into gold, meaning inconclusive evidence does not become strong evidence.

A Debate Challenge?

Friedman challenges the author to a debate, accusing them of "noisy negativism" and being afraid. The author expresses no interest in debating Friedman under his preferred conditions (live radio/TV grandstanding) and suggests a formal, moderated debate focused on specific cases, with Friedman financing it.

Promoting Proves Nothing

The author asserts that Friedman's attempts to convince the public that UFOs are alien spaceships have failed to gain acceptance from any scientific body outside of UFOlogy. They argue that Friedman blames "debunkers" and the government for his failure, calling it a "blame game" and a "cop-out." The evidence, according to the author, speaks for itself and tells a story Friedman does not want heard.

NASA: The Unexplained Files

This section reviews an installment of UFO programs from the Science Channel titled "NASA: The Unexplained Files." The author finds the program unimpressive, stating that many important points were omitted or ignored, misleading viewers. Several cases are discussed:

• Friendship 7 "fireflies": Initially presented as unexplainable, the author notes that ice particles were the accepted explanation, with Scott Carpenter and Story Musgrave confirming this.
• Gemini missions: The Gemini 4 mission's unidentified object is discussed, with suggestions of a classified payload or an unnamed satellite. The Gemini 7 "bogey" story is mentioned, with Frank Borman stating it was likely booster parts.
• Gemini 11 UFO: This case is mentioned, with James Oberg suggesting it might have been a space walk equipment package.
• Apollo 11 UFO: This is described as likely an SLA panel from the S-IVB.
• Skylab 3 case: Estimated at 100 meters, it's suggested to be space debris or a satellite.
• Space shuttle videos: Videos from STS-48, STS-75, STS-80, and STS-115 are discussed, with the author agreeing with MUFON's Marc D'Antonio that they are likely ice particles.

The author criticizes the program for being one-sided and cramming too much into one hour, suggesting it should have focused on fewer, better-examined cases.

NASA Produces Some UFO reports

This section discusses a NASA launch experiment called "Anomalous transport rocket experiment" (ATREX) on March 27th. The experiment involved launching rockets that released trimethyl aluminum (TMA), creating milky white clouds visible over a wide area. While the event was spectacular, it led to several UFO reports. Two reports from Wilmington, PA, and Johnston, Rhode Island, are mentioned. However, two other reports from Katonah, NY, and Newville, PA, are noted as being influenced by witness excitement, describing erratic movements and "dances" of lights. The author suggests that MUFON investigators should consider the ATREX test when evaluating these reports, especially those involving emotional witness accounts.

Book Reviews

Three book reviews are presented:

• "UFO!: Danger in the air" by Jenny Randles: Recommended as essential for any UFO library, this 1998 book is praised for its discussion of aircraft encounters and its recognition of problems with meteors, space debris, and false radar contacts. The author disagrees with some conclusions but finds the book well-written and open to possibilities beyond the ET explanation.
• "Project SIGN Air Force documents 1948-1949" edited by Richard Hall (FUFOR): This book is recommended for those interested in Project SIGN documents. It's described as a valuable resource for understanding the efforts to resolve UFO issues in the late 1940s, though the author now has electronic copies.
• "The UFO conspiracy" by Jenny Randles: This book, written in 1987, is deemed outdated and not worth reading. The author was disappointed that Randles listed cases like Mantell, Chiles-Whitted, and Gorman as "unexplained" and defended the Rendlesham forest case. It offers little beyond Randles' opinions at the time.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is a critical examination of UFOlogy, particularly the claims made by Stanton Friedman. The author consistently advocates for scientific rigor, evidence-based analysis, and conventional explanations for unexplained phenomena. There is a strong stance against sensationalism and what the author perceives as Friedman's selective use of data and misrepresentation of facts. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of extraterrestrial explanations for UFOs, emphasizing the importance of thorough research and the debunking of cases with plausible conventional causes. The issue also highlights the role of organizations like CUFOS and MUFON in categorizing and explaining UFO reports, suggesting that a significant majority are indeed explainable.