SUNlite - Vol 04 No 05

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 4 Number 5
Date: September-October 2012
Subtitle: Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

This issue of SUNlite delves into various UFO-related topics, adopting a critical and skeptical perspective. The editor aims to examine cases, debunk common claims, and encourage a more scientific approach to UFOlogy. The magazine features a mix of case reviews, commentary on current events in the UFO community, and discussions on historical incidents.

Editorial and Cover Story

The cover features a quote from Arthur C. Clarke, "...the sky contains an almost endless variety of peculiar sights and objects, only a few of which any one person is likely to encounter in a lifetime. Yet any average observant person is bound to see some of them, and not knowing the explanation may be misled into thinking he's seen something incredible - Instead of merely unfamiliar."

The editorial section on page 2 expresses disappointment with MUFON's "block buster" announcements, deeming them overhyped and lacking in government documentation. The editor also addresses comments regarding the omission of Sheridan Cavitt from a previous Roswell article, defending the focus on Cavitt's testimony and critiquing attempts to pressure him. A significant portion of the editorial is dedicated to debunking Leslie Kean's CEFAA bug videos, with the editor presenting his own footage of a rocket launch where similar objects appeared, concluding they were likely bugs.

Key Articles and Features

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section (pages 2-4) reviews recent online discussions and blog posts related to UFOs. It touches upon:

• National Geographic UFO Poll: The author criticizes a poll suggesting only 36% believe UFOs exist, arguing that UFOs undeniably exist and the poll likely reflects belief in alien spaceships. The poll's findings on government cover-ups (79%) and the perceived suitability of superheroes to combat aliens are also noted.
• Fredrick Valentich Files: The availability of these files is mentioned, but the author remains unimpressed, finding no evidence of alien involvement.
• Jack Brewer's Blog: Brewer's call for UFOlogy to focus on current technology and proactive research is highlighted.
• David Clarke's MOD UFO Files: The release of these files is noted, with the author suggesting most significant information has already been made public.
• Tim Hebert on Robert Salas: Hebert's skepticism regarding Salas's account of a missile shutdown by a UFO is discussed, with Hebert suggesting Salas's story might be fabricated or confused.
• Rick Phillips' UFO Disclosure Clock: Phillips' blog is mentioned for showing images of alleged "orbs" in Florida, which the author suggests are likely reflections.
• Dr. Steven Greer: Greer's efforts to fund a film about disclosure and alien bodies are critiqued, with the author questioning the use of funds and suggesting it's a money-making scheme.
• Chris Rutkowski's Canadian UFO Survey: The survey's finding that only 11% of UFO reports were "unexplained" is used to counter Stanton Friedman's claims of higher unexplained rates. The low percentage of truly unexplained high-quality cases (less than 1%) and the average duration of sightings (11 minutes) are also noted.
• UFO Sightings at Night: The author notes that most sightings occur between 1700 and 0600, making photographic recording difficult, and suggests many reported UFOs are likely astronomical objects.
• London Olympics UFO: The sighting during the Olympics is discussed, with Billy Cox suggesting it might be an alien spaceship, while Robert Sheaffer identified it as a Goodyear blimp.
• David Clarke on Scottish Shepherd's Debris: Clarke's account of a shepherd finding debris in 1962 is presented, with the author suggesting it likely came from a "Moby Dick" balloon.
• MUFON's Disclosure News: The author reiterates skepticism about MUFON's announcements regarding Leonard Stringfield's files and Harry Drew's Kingman UFO crash research, suggesting the hype was to attract attendees.
• Anthony Bragalia and Socorro: Bragalia's continued investigation into the Socorro incident is mentioned, with the author expressing doubt and comparing it to Phil Klass's explanation of a hoax.
• Jeffrey Lindell on Foo Fighters: Lindell's article suggesting Foo Fighter sightings were likely illusions is noted.
• Jerry Cohen on Rendlesham: Cohen's attempt to revive the Rendlesham case is discussed, with the author finding his arguments against meteor and star explanations weak and unconvincing.

The Roswell Corner

This section (pages 5-6) scrutinizes claims surrounding the Roswell incident:

• Charles Brandon's Announcement: Brandon's claim of seeing CIA Roswell case files is met with skepticism, viewed as a potential ploy to promote his new book. The CIA's subsequent denial of knowledge of such files is noted.
• Burnt Ground and Air Force Button: Frank Kimbler's presentation of LANDSAT images suggesting a controlled burn at the crash site is questioned due to the debris field's orientation differing from witness accounts. The discovery of a silver Air Force button from the 1947-1949 period is analyzed, with the author pointing out that the Air Force did not exist in 1947 and suggesting the button might be a planted artifact, possibly by show producers, given its pristine condition and the context of military balloon tests in the area.
• More Whining from the Dream Team: Anthony Bragalia's criticisms are addressed, with the author defending his questioning of objectivity and highlighting evidence from 1947 media accounts and photographs that support balloon material explanations for the Roswell debris.

Peter Merlin comments concerning SUNlite 4-4

This section (pages 6-7) addresses comments from Peter Merlin regarding lightning strikes and photographic evidence:

• Lightning Strikes: Merlin's accounts of aircraft surviving lightning strikes are contrasted with the failure of an Atlas-Centaur rocket due to lightning. The author uses this to highlight the perceived lack of advanced shielding on alien craft compared to human technology.
• Private Photographic Records: Merlin's account of a Navy YF4H-1 Phantom II crash in 1959 and the landowner's photographs is presented. The author, however, expresses skepticism about the existence of a large gouge at the Roswell crash site, noting the lack of photographic evidence.
• Military Intimidation of Civilian Witnesses: Examples of military efforts to suppress information about aircraft crashes (A-12 near Wendover, D-21B near Area 51) are detailed. The author contrasts these documented cases with the Roswell incident, suggesting that the lack of widespread public outcry or documented complaints in Roswell indicates that the alleged intimidation tactics may not have occurred as described by proponents.

Reviewing some of the cases

This section (pages 6-10) systematically reviews and attempts to explain specific UFO cases found in the NICAP document:

• Case #1 - The bobbing UFO (April 3, 1959, Ocoee, Florida): The author suggests this sighting was likely a rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, noting the timing and direction align with a Jupiter rocket launch.
• Case #2 - The half-crescent with the pulsing light (September 26, 1963, Sunnyvale, California): This case is attributed to a failed Atlas E rocket launch on September 25, 1963, due to timing discrepancies and the visual characteristics of the event matching a rocket's trajectory and malfunction.
• Case #3 - A titanic radio shutdown (November 14, 1963, Carson City, Nevada): This incident is explained as a Titan I rocket launch from Vandenberg AFB, noting that the NICAP report had inaccuracies regarding direction and timing.
• Case #4 - UFO says “Aloha” (March 11, 1963, Oahu, Hawaii): This mass sighting is attributed to an Atlas D rocket launch, with the author noting that Blue Book correctly identified it, unlike NICAP.
• Case #5 - Air Defense Command cover-up (June 16, 1955, Eastern U.S.): The author questions the source of this information, finding it in Donald Keyhoe's book and noting the lack of mention in Project Blue Book files or newspaper archives. While acknowledging a bright fireball was seen that night, the author suggests this case may be exaggerated or misreported, and that the alleged "cover-up" is unsubstantiated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards extraordinary claims, the importance of rigorous investigation, and the tendency for misidentification of conventional phenomena as UFOs. The author consistently advocates for a scientific approach, challenging the methodology and conclusions of UFO organizations like NICAP and MUFON. The editorial stance is clearly that of a critical investigator aiming to debunk unsubstantiated UFO claims and promote rational explanations, often pointing to rocket launches, astronomical objects, and atmospheric events as the source of many reported sightings. There is a strong undercurrent of distrust towards sensationalism and a call for UFOlogy to mature into a more credible field of study.

This issue of SUNlite delves into the analysis of UFO cases, primarily focusing on those investigated by Project Blue Book. The article aims to provide plausible explanations for seemingly unexplained phenomena, often attributing them to misidentifications of natural objects or man-made technology. It critiques the methodology and completeness of the Project Blue Book database, suggesting that many cases lack sufficient data for proper investigation.

Case #6 - The great white whale breaches in Oregon

This case from September 11-13, 1953, in Chiloquin, Oregon, involved sightings of 'top-like' UFOs with flashing lights. The author suggests a strong possibility that these were research balloons from the 'Moby Dick' program, launched from Tillamook, Oregon. These balloons often had special lighting for night flights. While the sightings on the 11th and 12th are considered likely explained by these balloons, the events of the 13th remain less clear, though still potentially attributable to a balloon or a misinterpretation of mundane objects.

Case #7 - And resurfaces again in England

This case from November 3, 1953, in London, England, describes a 'completely circular' metallic UFO tracked by radar and observed visually. The author links this sighting to a 'Moby Dick' research balloon launched from Alamogordo Air Force Base (renamed Holloman AFB) on October 27, 1953. This unclassified payload failed to terminate its flight and was detected by the Royal Air Force over the Atlantic, heading towards London. The Stratocat database confirms England as a landing spot for this balloon. The author believes this case is likely explained by the balloon, though acknowledges the need for more conclusive evidence.

Case #8 - Keyhoe and Menzel fight over a lady

This case, occurring on April 8, 1956, involved an American Airlines crew chasing a UFO from Albany to Oswego, New York. The author contrasts the account presented by NICAP with the explanation provided by the US Air Force, which identified the object as the planet Venus. The article details how Venus, visible in the morning sky, could have appeared to move in a 90-degree arc due to the plane's movement and the pilot's perspective. The author argues that NICAP dismissed the Venus explanation without sufficient reason and that this case should be removed from the list of unexplained UFOs.

Case #9 - The selenites are coming!

This section discusses UFO sightings around Pierre, South Dakota, on November 24-25, 1956, including state police chasing a UFO and Air Force jets scrambling. The author notes the vagueness of the reports, which lump together multiple sightings. A specific incident involving police officers pursuing a 'bowl-shaped' object with a red light is analyzed. The author suggests this could have been the moon, specifically a last quarter moon low on the horizon, which can appear reddish and be mistaken for a UFO, citing a similar case documented by Alan Hendry.

Case #10 - How is the weather up there?

This case from September 18, 1962, in Northeast Ohio, involved six policemen sighting UFOs. The author notes that similar observations were made in New Jersey around the same time. The Blue Book explanation suggested the sightings were of a bright light leaving a cloud, possibly meteor observations. However, after further investigation, the author proposes a more specific explanation: the third stage firing of a Delta rocket launching the Tiros 6 weather satellite. The timing, location (east-northeast), altitude (around 375 nautical miles), and the description of a 'super contrail' or 'funnel' shaped trail are consistent with the reported UFO observations. The author criticizes NICAP for not identifying this plausible explanation.

The 701 club

This section introduces a new column dedicated to examining cases from Project Blue Book's 'unknown' list. The author aims to find potential explanations for these cases.

Case #7741

This case from November 21, 1961, near Gainesville, Florida, involved two men reporting a bright reddish-orange object rising above the trees and disappearing like a star. The Blue Book file noted it as unidentified but potentially explainable with more data. The author identifies this as a likely rocket launch, specifically a Titan I re-entry vehicle test from Cape Canaveral on November 22nd. Despite a potential directional discrepancy (Cape Canaveral being east-southeast, not south), the author suggests an error in the witnesses' bearings is possible. The lack of identification by the USAF is attributed to complacency and the classified nature of the launch.

Balloon material testing - Part II

This section details experiments conducted by Lance Moody and James Carlson to test the reaction of balloon materials to sunlight and environmental conditions. The tests aimed to compare the results with claims made by Roswell crashologists and to verify findings by Professor Moore. The materials, exposed to sun for periods ranging from ten days to over a month, showed changes in color (darkening) and texture (becoming drier, more fragile, and eventually parchment-like), but did not disintegrate into ash. The results are presented as consistent with Professor Moore's findings and suggest that the material in the Fort Worth images could be from balloons exposed to the sun for an extended period, not a brief exposure for deception.

Conclusions

The author concludes that the NICAP document, used as a database of unexplained UFO cases, is flawed due to insufficient investigation and inaccurate data in many entries. The cases examined in this issue are presented as examples of how phenomena can be explained with thorough research, often involving balloons or astronomical objects. The balloon material tests reinforce the idea that environmental exposure can alter the appearance of materials, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO reports, the emphasis on scientific explanations (such as balloons and celestial bodies), and the critique of organizations like NICAP and the methodology of Project Blue Book. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims and a preference for evidence-based explanations, highlighting the importance of accurate data and thorough investigation in resolving UFO cases.

Title: UFO ROUNDUP
Issue: Vol. 29, No. 12
Date: December 2014
Publisher: Mutual UFO Network
Country: USA
Price: $4.00
ISSN: 1073-4802

This issue of UFO Roundup delves into several prominent UFO cases and related topics, including an analysis of the Roswell incident, a critical examination of the Rendlesham Forest Incident, an investigation into alleged 'green fireballs' from the Apollo 7 mission, and a discussion on the science fiction film 'The Thing from Another World' and its purported links to UFO lore.

Roswell 1947: Balloon Debris Analysis

The cover story presents photographs comparing balloon materials tested for varying durations (1 day and 30 days) in different locations (Ohio, NH, NM, and Florida) with the debris from the Roswell crash. The images were converted to black and white for comparison. The conclusion drawn is that the balloon material tested for 30 days appears to be a closer match to the Fort Worth photographs in both color and appearance. While sections of the tested balloon material became brittle and fragmented, none turned to ash. The article notes that this fragmentation effect is usually experienced after many more weeks, citing Professor Moore's tests. The texture of the balloon material after just one day showed no significant change.

The Lighthouse at Orford Ness: Debunking the Rendlesham Case

This section critically examines the Rendlesham Forest Incident, focusing on retired Colonel Charles Halt's persistent claims that he was not confused by the Orford Ness lighthouse. The author, Martin S. Kottmeyer, presents evidence from Halt's own audio tape and memo, which indicate a bearing for the flashing light that contradicts his later statements. Halt's memo and tape suggest the object was at approximately 110 degrees, while the lighthouse was at a true bearing of 95 degrees. The article suggests that Halt may have confused the lighthouse with the Shipwash lightship, which was located at a bearing of approximately 118 degrees and had a flashing white light. The author argues that Leslie Kean's dismissal of the possibility of confusion is absurd, given the evidence. The article also mentions that James Penniston and John Burroughs, other key witnesses, were also confused by the lighthouse, as revealed in statements published by James Easton. The conclusion is that the lighthouse played a significant role in the witnesses' misidentification of the object.

The Thing from Roswell: A Skeptical Appreciation

Martin S. Kottmeyer analyzes the claims made by Bruce Rux and Robert Guffey that the 1951 film 'The Thing from Another World' was a thinly-veiled account of the Roswell Crash, intended to assimilate the public to the truth of alien presence. Kottmeyer scrutinizes the alleged connections, such as the screenwriter's relationship with Orson Welles and RKO's ties to the CIA. He debunks these connections by examining film history sources, noting Halliwell's misdated release year and his description of the film. Kottmeyer points out that Howard Hawks, the producer, was deeply involved, and there is no evidence of Orson Welles' significant involvement. The article contrasts the film's plot with the Roswell incident, highlighting the lack of similarities beyond conventional pulp science fiction tropes like scary eyes and bald heads. It also discusses the film's origins in John Campbell's story 'Who Goes There?', which predates Roswell. The article details the film's production challenges, including the Air Force's refusal to cooperate, which increased the budget significantly. The author concludes that the film's elements, such as crashed crafts and alien biology, are common in science fiction and do not necessitate a Roswell connection.

Did a green fireball follow Apollo 7?

This section investigates claims made by Anthony Bragalia regarding 'green fireballs' observed during the Apollo 7 mission. Bragalia presented images from NASA archives suggesting these fireballs exited the Earth's atmosphere to follow astronauts. The author refutes this, explaining that meteors, or 'earth grazers,' can indeed exit the atmosphere if they enter at a low angle. The article examines two specific NASA images (AS07-5-1613 and AS07-6-1700) and two additional images (AS07-8-1923 and AS07-8-1925) that Bragalia used. It is noted that all these images show the objects moving in the same direction relative to the film frame. The author concludes that these 'green fireballs' are likely artifacts from the original Kodachrome emulsion, the scanning process, or handling of the film, rather than actual extraterrestrial phenomena. Walt Cunningham, an Apollo 7 crew member, also stated that he did not see these 'green fireballs' in his original prints, indicating they appeared later.

UFOs on the tube: A secret history of UFOs

This article reviews a three-hour UFO documentary, expressing mixed feelings due to the author's participation. The show covered various UFO cases, including the Arizona UFOs segment and the abduction phenomenon, featuring interviews with Kathleen Marden and discussions on hypnosis and sleep paralysis. The Rendlesham case was presented, with the author criticizing Leslie Kean's reliance on Halt's testimony over known facts. The Roswell incident was also covered, with Don Schmitt presenting his escape pod theory, which the author critiques for shifting locations and lacking photographic evidence. The article notes that the show presented both sides of the arguments, making it a worthwhile watch compared to other UFO programs.

More chasing UFOs

This short piece expresses concern about a show that is receiving universal criticism from both skeptics and proponents. The author notes that the producers, James Fox and Ben McGee, have little control over the finished product. The Roswell episode is mentioned, specifically the 'lucky' find of an AF military button, which raises questions about staging. Kevin Randle's observation that the button was clean suggests potential manipulation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a skeptical yet open-minded approach to UFO phenomena. It prioritizes evidence-based analysis, often debunking sensational claims by examining primary sources, witness testimonies, and scientific explanations. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations, such as misidentification of natural phenomena or terrestrial objects, and critical evaluation of anecdotal evidence. The magazine highlights the importance of historical context and the potential for artifacts or misinterpretations in photographic and film evidence. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between genuine mysteries and cases that have been embellished or misrepresented over time.

This document appears to be a page from a magazine, likely focused on UFO phenomena, with a critical and skeptical perspective. The content includes a critique of a TV show, possibly 'UFO Hunters,' and reviews of several books related to UFOs.

Critique of 'UFO Hunters' (or similar TV show) The article expresses strong skepticism regarding the methods and participants of a TV show that investigates UFOs. It details instances where the show's team appears to stage events or misinterpret phenomena. For example, the author describes a scenario where a white van squealed its wheels and sped away, which the team interpreted as covert surveillance, but the author questions this interpretation.

Another incident mentioned is a night surveillance near Holloman AFB, where the team intercepted an official transmission. The author suggests this might have been due to the presence of the film crew rather than actual clandestine activity.

The author criticizes the show for featuring questionable characters from the UFOlogy community, citing Clifford Stone as an example, whom Kevin Randle reportedly considers an exaggerator. The presentation of the Stan Romanek video, showing an alien peeping into a window, is also questioned, as it was considered a hoax by many skeptics but presented as potentially real on the show. The author also points out that Erin Ryder, described as a technical expert, was seemingly fooled by a puppet/mask trick, suggesting a lack of critical assessment.

The appearance of Jeff Willes in an Arizona UFO segment is also noted, with Mike Fortson, an Arizona UFO witness, reportedly dismissing his videos as hoaxes. The author humorously points out that when the show did spot a UFO, it turned out to be a Chinese lantern. The inclusion of Jaimie Maussan and his 'alien baby' claim (later revealed to be a Marmoset skeleton) further fuels the author's criticism that the show promotes individuals with questionable motives and potentially hoaxes.

The Varginha case episode is singled out for its emotional appeal, with James Fox becoming emotional and being comforted by Erin Ryder. The author questions whether Fox's tears were due to the witness testimony or the realization that the case was a 'wild goose chase,' emphasizing the importance of objectivity and suggesting Fox is not suited for UFO investigation if he cannot remain detached.

Despite the criticism, the author acknowledges Ben McGee's efforts, noting that he eventually provided a skeptical response at the end of some episodes, capable of debunking events. McGee's work on the Mexican AF FLIR videos is mentioned as confirming earlier skeptical conclusions.

The author concludes that the program is a low point for National Geographic and doubts it will be renewed, comparing it to the perceived fate of 'UFO Hunters.'

Book Reviews The page includes a section with book reviews, categorized into 'Buy it!', 'Borrow it.', and 'Bin it!'.

Buy it! (No UFO library should do without it) * Phenomenon: Forty years of flying saucers by John Spencer and Hilary Evans. The reviewer enjoys books with multiple authors and diverse viewpoints. This book is praised for its comprehensive look at the UFO mystery, with particular appreciation for contributions from Martin Shough, Andy Roberts, Jenny Randles, John Keel, Hilary Evans, and John Spencer. The reviewer states there is something for everyone and recommends finding a copy.

Borrow it. (Worth checking out of library or borrowing from a friend) * The UFO evidence - NICAP (edited by Richard Hall). This document is available online and is described as an interesting compilation of cases. However, the reviewer notes that it overlooks many explanations.

Bin it! (Not worth the paper it is written upon - send to recycle bin) * Aliens from space by Donald Keyhoe. The reviewer found this book in a used bookstore and was disappointed. Keyhoe is described as rehashing the 'NICAP party line' with exaggeration, and the book was written in 1973. The author criticizes Keyhoe for dismissing the explanation for the UFO event of June 5, 1969, despite evidence published by Phil Klass that it was a fireball. Keyhoe's suggestion of 'luring' UFOs by placing dummy UFOs and buildings is also ridiculed as a ridiculous idea.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring theme throughout this page is a strong sense of skepticism towards sensationalized UFO claims and the media that promotes them. The editorial stance is critical of shows that feature questionable individuals and lack rigorous investigation, prioritizing emotional appeals over factual analysis. The reviews of books also reflect this critical approach, with a clear distinction made between valuable contributions to the UFO discourse and those considered to be unsubstantiated or outdated.