SUNlite - Vol 04 No 06

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 4, Number 6
Date: November-December 2012
Cover Headline: Stars that move back and forth? Stars that chase after cars? Of course not...yet many of the witnesses claimed that 's just what they saw.

This issue of SUNlite, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," critically examines various UFO cases and the methodologies used to investigate them. The cover features a striking visual of what appear to be multiple star-like lights, hinting at the theme of misperceived celestial objects. The issue delves into debates surrounding well-known cases like Rendlesham and Roswell, often contrasting astronomical explanations with witness testimony.

Key Articles and Discussions

Rendlesham and Roswell Cases

The editorial, "Once more unto the breach...", addresses discussions inspired by the Rendlesham and Roswell cases. The author notes that while some readers find these topics tired, others are interested in further analysis. The author also touches upon the challenges of gathering and presenting evidence, referencing a discussion with Anthony Bragalia about the Socorro case and the alleged hoax.

Who's blogging UFOs?

• This section reviews various online discussions and opinions on UFO topics. It highlights:
• Anthony Bragalia's Socorro hoax theory: Criticized by David Rudiak for not adequately explaining the event, with Bragalia's response being deemed weak.
• UFO presentation at the National Atomic Testing Museum: The author suggests that claims of military UFO secrets being revealed were exaggerated, listing known figures in the UFO community who were present.
• Coleman's Leukemia story: A tale of a miraculous cure that raises questions about its veracity.
• Charles Halt's accusations: Halt accused the US and British governments of covering up the Rendlesham case, which the author finds ironic given Halt's own past possession of witness statements.
• Robert Friend's call for government investigation: Friend believes the government should re-enter UFO investigations, but the author questions which organization would undertake such a task and the likelihood of public funding.
• Derrick Pitts and Lee Spiegal's call for scientific investigation: The author agrees with the need for scientific investigation but notes that UFOlogists have not yet proven that UFO reports represent alien spaceships.
• John Harney's critique of MUFON: Harney points out the MUFON journal's lack of scientific approach, citing Margie Kay's description of a UFO event where she was "90%" sure it was Vega.
• Nick Redfern on UFOlogy's future: Redfern suggests that decades of collecting UFO stories have proven little beyond misperception and misidentification, calling for a change in UFOlogy's methodology.
• Nick's explanation for the Kingman crash: Redfern proposed a drone aircraft crash near Kingman, Arizona, during atomic bomb tests, which the author finds plausible but lacking documentation.
• Jack Brewer's critique of UFO organizations: Brewer's series criticizes UFO promoters who profit from speaking at conferences.
• "Veteran's Today" report: The author dismisses a report about US and Chinese warships combating underwater UFOs as sensationalist and lacking detail.
• Martin Willis vs. Seth Shostak debate: Willis is criticized for relying on UFO literature and ignoring skeptical arguments, while Shostak is commended for presenting skeptical viewpoints.
• "Ancient Aliens" debunking video: The author recommends a video that debunks the "Ancient Aliens" show, noting a shift from supporting ancient astronaut theories to a more critical stance.
• Gilles Fernandez's blog: Fernandez's blog analyzes the Yukon UFO case, which the author had previously mentioned.
• Sky divers mistaken for UFOs: The author notes that videos initially thought to be UFOs were later identified as sky divers with flares.
• US News and World Report article on UFOs and aviation safety: The author criticizes the article for relying on Leslie Kean's book and failing to address mundane explanations for "near miss" cases.

The Roswell Corner

This section revisits the Roswell incident, focusing on Kevin Randle's blog posts regarding the "Nun's diary" and the press release. The author questions the reliability of Randle's sources and the accuracy of his claims, particularly regarding the military's actions to retrieve the press release. The author also contrasts the Circleville case with Roswell, highlighting differences in how the objects were identified and the potential involvement of weather balloons and the Thunderstorm Project.

Rendlesham Astronomy

This extensive section, titled "Bright Fireballs and how they are reported," directly addresses arguments made by Jerry Cohen regarding the Rendlesham case. The author aims to demonstrate that Cohen's arguments against astronomical explanations are specious.

• Misperception of meteors as aircraft: The article cites examples from 1966 and 2012 where bright fireballs were reported as crashing aircraft. It references the 1983 MUFON field investigators manual, which acknowledges that observers can perceive fireballs as passing close by or landing nearby.
• Allan Hendry's UFO handbook: Hendry's descriptions of meteors include various shapes and sizes, often compared to "downed planes," "fireballs," and "teardrops."
• The 1983 MUFON manual: The manual notes that fireballs can appear as brilliant balls, disks, or elongated teardrop shapes, and can be described as "large as the moon" or like "a plane crashing."
• The British Astronomical Society's documentation: A very bright fireball on December 26th was documented, coinciding with initial reports of an event near the east gate.
• "It's a Bird, a Plane, Holy Stars--a Meteor" article: This newspaper clipping details a fireball incident in Wellsville, where many residents reported seeing a meteor, with some describing it as a "ball of white fire" that became greenish and trailed pieces of flame.
• Jerry Cohen's dispute: Cohen questions the meteor explanation, focusing on the color red and the perceived relationship between the lighthouse and the meteor. The author counters that different observers report colors differently, citing variations in descriptions of a 2012 fireball.
• Photographic evidence: The article notes that while a meteor photographic network was not in place in Britain at the time, the British Astronomical Society did record the event. The lack of photographs is attributed to the absence of such networks.
• Meteorite fragments: The author explains that most fireballs do not produce meteorites, and any fragments would likely have fallen into the ocean if heading eastward.
• "Flaming or glowing tail": The author addresses Cohen's question about tails, stating that witnesses don't always mention them, and that the "tail end" of teardrop shapes is not typically described as a tail by amateur astronomers.

Stars Misperceived

This section continues the critique of Jerry Cohen's arguments, focusing on how stars can be misperceived as UFOs, particularly when viewed through optical instruments.

• Night vision scopes: The article explains that night vision scopes can distort points of light, making stars appear enlarged or warped, especially when not perfectly focused. A video frame from a 1988 meteor shower illustrates this distortion.
• Allan Hendry's experience: Hendry's work with witnesses shows that normal optics can make stars appear to take on exotic shapes due to atmospheric distortions. Stars can be described as "domed discs," "pentagons," "cones," and "triangles."
• Sharp, angular motion: Cohen implies that Halt's description of "sharp, angular motion" eliminates the possibility of stars. However, the author suggests that unsteady images from hand-held optics in cold weather, or the phenomenon of auto-kinesis, could explain such perceptions.
• Witness descriptions of star motion: The article lists numerous ways witnesses have described the motion of perceived UFOs, including darting up and down, zigzagging, and executing figure eights, all of which could be misinterpretations of stellar behavior or atmospheric effects.
• Sirius and Halt's observations: The author suggests that Halt's description of an object moving towards him and then reversing direction could be a misperception of the star Sirius, which was in the same area of the sky.
• Spain case and Venus: The author questions Ian Ridpath's evaluation of a case from Spain, challenging the idea that stars can cause glare and spurious shapes, or that Venus could appear as low as 7-8 meters above a car.
• Misjudged distances: Hendry's evaluation of UFO cases includes instances where people severely misjudged distances of stars, reporting them as being only 100 to 1,000 feet away.
• Cohen's final argument: Cohen's argument about "beams" shooting down to the ground is attributed to a misperception of the star Sirius. The author notes that Halt initially stated it "appears" to be shooting beams, suggesting a perception rather than a definitive observation.
• Objects to the north: An interview with Jenny Randles describes objects to the north that persisted and faded as dawn approached. This is explained as a likely misperception of bright stars like Deneb and Vega.

Star watching UFOlogists vs amateur astronomers

This section contrasts the perspectives of astronomers and ufologists, quoting Nick Pope's statement that they are not equally qualified to discuss each other's fields. The author argues that astronomers, with their expertise in observing the night sky, are better equipped to interpret nocturnal phenomena than ufologists, who may allow personal beliefs to influence their interpretations. The article concludes by suggesting that astronomical explanations, such as those proposed by Ian Ridpath for the Rendlesham case, are plausible and require basic research to understand.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO phenomena through scientific and astronomical lenses, the importance of distinguishing between genuine sightings and misperceptions, and the critique of UFO organizations for their lack of scientific rigor. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, favoring rational explanations and scientific methodology over unsubstantiated claims and sensationalism. The magazine advocates for a more evidence-based approach to UFOlogy, emphasizing the need for verifiable data and critical analysis.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as Volume U. 146 and Issue 10, dated July 2011, focuses on analyzing imagery related to the Brazel debris field and examining military evaluation systems. The cover headline is "Brazel debris field imagery," and the main theme revolves around questioning claims of extraterrestrial debris and exploring alternative explanations.

Brazel debris field imagery

The article begins by discussing Frank Kimbler's announcements about his work at the Roswell debris field, specifically his claim that recovered debris was extraterrestrial. The author notes that later analysis indicated a margin for error, and a LANDSAT image presented by Kimbler was confusing due to a lack of exif data and anachronistic appearance. The author questions why a 1970s satellite image would show something not visible in earlier aerial photographs, raising suspicion that Kimbler might be withholding information.

The debris field over four decades

Professor Bill Doleman's book, "The Roswell Dig Diaries," is cited for providing aerial images of the debris site from 1946 and 1954. These stereo-pair images, when inspected with a stereoscope, exaggerate topography. The study found no linear trace visible in 1954 that was not present in 1946, indicating no evidence of a furrow-like feature. Further examination of images from 1982 and 1986 suggests little change over forty years, with the 1986 photograph showing similar major features to the 1946 images. The author notes that any attempt to hide a gouge would have affected surrounding features, implying either expert concealment or the absence of such a gouge. The article also references the impact mark of the third A-12 test aircraft ('Article 123') being visible on Google Earth, even after documented efforts to hide that crash site.

What year was Kimbler's photograph from?

In an interview, Frank Kimbler described manipulating satellite imagery to reveal a disturbed area that matched witness accounts of direction. However, the author points out that Kimbler's stated direction (NE to SW) contradicted a principal witness's testimony (WNW to ESE). Concerns are also raised about Kimbler's claims of photo manipulation, with no explanation provided on how he achieved the results. Kimbler presented an image to Open Minds and the "Chasing UFOs" team but was secretive about its date, only vaguely suggesting it was from the "late 90s early 2000...it might even have been before that." The author questions why Kimbler couldn't be more specific and if he looked for the feature's first appearance.

An anonymous SUNlite reader provided information that the feature first appeared in 1998. Images downloaded from the Landsat 5 satellite database for June 22nd, July 8th, and August 25th, 1998, are presented. The thermal images (TIR) show a bright spot corresponding to the feature on July 8th, indicating heat radiation. The author concludes that this feature likely resulted from a controlled burn designed to remove shrubbery, as it was not present in the June 22nd images and faded in subsequent years. The feature was likely created between June 22nd and July 8th, 1998.

Multispectral images from 1998 and 1999 are also examined. While some reflectance images show a burned area at a crossroads, the author questions if this indicates alien debris or is simply routine.

Just routine?

The article states that prescribed or controlled burns are common in New Mexico. Another feature was found in the same area on May 19, 2009, which was not visible on April 17, 2009, suggesting it was recently created. The author questions if those who performed the 1998 burn returned in 2009.

Hide, melt, or alter.....

Kimbler suggested in interviews that the controlled burn was intended to hide, melt, or alter alien spaceship material. The author finds this speculation invalid, arguing that a controlled burn would reveal metallic debris rather than hide it. The temperatures of a brush fire are insufficient to alter or melt modern alloys, and it's unlikely isotopic ratios would be affected. The idea of using a brush fire in 1998 to hide evidence from a 1947 crash is deemed ludicrous.

More of the same

The author questions if Kimbler's "will to believe" is affecting his objectivity. Kimbler's approach of trickling out information and not presenting it in a scientific journal is seen as hurting his credibility. The author suggests that the 1998 "feature" is likely a coincidence and not related to an alien spaceship crash.

...an inclination to MAGNIFY...

This section discusses military evaluations, particularly those of Jesse Marcel, and the common perception of grade inflation. The author, drawing from experience in the late 1970s, notes that military evaluations can be subjective, with commands often interpreting guidelines to give their personnel favorable chances for promotion. This leads to an "escalation effect in grades," where average marks become above average, and excellent scores become maximum value.

Is everybody a superior performer?

The article explains that in a competitive environment, performance evaluations tend to inflate. The language used to describe performance becomes crucial, with distinctions made between "excellent," "outstanding," and "best officer in his/her year group." A "zero-defect" career is perceived as necessary for success, leaving little room for error or learning from mistakes. While selection boards can interpret these evaluations, services sometimes "reset the system" with new tools. Young officers may struggle to interpret evaluations, and experienced officers often provide input. The graph shows a trend of increasing leniency in officer efficiency reporting from 1922 to 1941.

The author relates this to personal experience, noting that in 1984, seventeen out of seventeen First Class Petty Officers on a submarine received a maximum score of 4.0, with only four receiving the next lowest score. When writing evaluations for junior officers, the author rarely rated anyone below 3.6 unless they had received formal punishment, finding it difficult to be fair without hindering advancement. Most received 3.8 or 4.0 marks.

Who is Jesse Marcel?

The article examines Jesse Marcel's May 1948 evaluation, noting that he was ranked third out of four Majors, despite being directly involved in retrieving debris from a crashed alien spaceship. His scores, while above average, were not as high as others in his command. The author suggests the command's evaluation system likely suffered from grade inflation, making it inaccurate to portray Marcel's scores as exceptional.

Colonel Dubose's comment on Marcel's evaluation, stating he "personally do not know this officer," is highlighted. The author questions why Dubose would make such a standard comment about an officer who had demonstrated great initiative in recovering alien spaceship debris, suggesting it implies the event was not considered earth-shattering or was a simple case of mistaken identity.

A public relations fiasco?

Roswell proponents argue that Jesse Marcel should have received negative evaluations if the incident was a mistaken identity of a weather balloon. The author, with over twenty-two years of military service, states that adverse evaluations are typically reserved for serious issues, not innocent mistakes. Isolated events, unless resulting in official discipline, usually don't appear in evaluations. The author shares personal examples of minor mistakes that did not negatively impact evaluations.

Evidence of foul-up or cover-up?

The article questions whether Marcel's evaluations prove or disprove the recovery of alien spaceship or balloon materials. The lack of significant improvement in Marcel's ranking suggests that the incident had no positive or negative effect on his evaluations, implying either the command didn't recognize its significance or it was a simple case of mistaken identity that was quickly forgotten.

"Drooling idiots" and "elite" units

This section addresses the argument that skeptics portray Jesse Marcel and other 509th bomb group officers as "drooling idiots" for mistaking weather balloon materials for a flying disc. The author argues that the "elite" status of the 509th was related to their nuclear weapons training and not transferable to other abilities. There is no evidence that weather personnel were consulted or that Blanchard or Marcel had experience with ML-307s.

Marcel's radar training exposed him to RAWIN targets.

Marcel's training focused on bombing targets from an airplane using radar, not tracking balloons. His service record shows no exposure to ML-307 reflectors. The article debunks the idea that Marcel and Blanchard knew about ML-307 reflectors from seeing them in use at Fort Worth or Kwajalein, stating these are speculations without proof.

The passage of flight #5 miles about four miles south of the base in early June exposed Blanchard and Marcel to the activities of the NYU group at Alamogordo, which included the use of ML-307 reflectors.

This argument is presented as speculative, with no evidence of meetings with the NYU group or concern about the flight. The article notes that flight #5 had no radar targets, and there's no proof Blanchard or Marcel were even on base that day, as the 509th was on field maneuvers.

The article concludes that the arguments for Marcel and Blanchard knowing about ML-307 reflectors are not conclusive and are based on speculation. The "drooling idiots" accusation is deemed inaccurate, as nobody in July 1947 knew what a "flying disc" was. The media was speculating, and the Roswell Morning Dispatch article on July 8th described two flimsy foil discs found in Texas, similar to ML-307s, which the Army Air Force was investigating. This could have led to the conclusion that the recovered debris was from a flying disc.

The author refutes the idea that Colonel Blanchard could not be promoted to General due to the errant press release, stating that it was a minor incident with no serious repercussions, unlike the cases of Chester Nimitz and Hap Arnold, who overcame more significant setbacks.

Contrary to crashologists' claims, skeptics do not view the 509th men as incompetent but rather as having made an honest mistake in identifying debris due to the unknown nature of "flying discs" at the time. The "drooling idiots" argument is seen as a straw man tactic to make a conspiracy argument seem more reasonable.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as issue 4-4, features a cover story titled "Flip-Flopping," which critically examines the reliability of witness testimony in UFO cases, particularly concerning the Roswell incident. The magazine explores various accounts, investigative approaches, and potential explanations for sightings.

Flip-Flopping: The Roswell Debate

The lead article, "Flip-Flopping," by the author, directly addresses Kevin Randle's critique of the author's previous analysis of the Thomas Dubose testimony regarding the alleged "switch" of debris at Fort Worth. The author aims to provide a more detailed case for why a switch did not occur, refuting the idea that this theory is the cornerstone of the alien spaceship conspiracy. The author points out that Jesse Marcel Sr. stated he brought the debris into General Ramey's office and that it later transformed into weather balloon debris. The author contrasts this with other statements by Marcel, including those made to Bob Pratt, in the movie "UFOs are real," and to Linda Corely, where Marcel indicated he brought the debris and covered it with brown paper under Ramey's orders. The author suggests Marcel's later statements might have been an attempt to reconcile his memory with photographs that did not show the actual debris.

The article scrutinizes the testimony of Thomas Dubose, noting that hypnosis was used in his initial interviews with Randle and Schmitt. The author questions whether hypnosis introduced false memories or influenced Dubose's recollections, citing the Royal College of Psychiatrists' caution about hypnosis. Dubose's main points, as presented in the MUFON journal, included that the weather balloon explanation was a cover story and that the debris in Ramey's office did not come from Roswell. However, the author highlights inconsistencies in Dubose's accounts, particularly when compared to his interview with Shandera, which seemed more consistent with Marcel's testimony. Dubose's statement to Shandera indicated there was no switch and that the photographs showed the debris Marcel brought from Roswell. The author also notes that Don Ecker received two different stories from Dubose, with the second one emerging after Shandera "refreshed" his memory. An audio recording from "The UFO Anthology" also appears to contradict Randle and Schmitt's interpretation of Dubose's testimony, suggesting the debris came from Roswell.

The author concludes that Dubose may have confused different debris events, possibly bringing debris from the Foster ranch (recovered on the 4th) to Colonel Clark for transport to Washington, while the debris Marcel picked up on Monday evening (July 8th) was what came into Ramey's office. The author also references conclusions by Schmitt and Carey, who stated that Dubose never saw any debris other than weather balloon debris and that the debris was not switched, contradicting Randle's claims.

Mack Brazel's Interview

The article briefly touches upon Mack Brazel's interview, noting his description of the debris as rubber, sticks, and paper-backed tin foil, which aligns with the photographs of debris at Fort Worth. The author dismisses the conspiracy theory that Brazel was forced to give this description, stating that his testimony, supported by other 1947 statements, indicates the debris in the photographs came from the Foster ranch and was not switched.

Making Sense of It All

The author attempts to reconcile the conflicting accounts from Dubose and Marcel, suggesting that personal beliefs, time, and suggestion may have influenced their memories. The author proposes that the debris retrieved by Brazel on the 4th was given to Colonel Clark, while the debris Marcel picked up on the 8th went into Ramey's office. The author believes Dubose became confused about which debris was which. The author also notes that Schmitt and Carey concluded there was no switch, which Randle allegedly ignores.

The UFO evidence: Under Review - Buenos Aires Sighting

This section examines a UFO case from the 1964 document "The UFO evidence," focusing on an incident near Buenos Aires, Argentina, on December 22, 1962. NICAP's version describes tower operators and flight crews observing a large, round, glowing object at the airport. However, the author notes significant discrepancies in various sources regarding the date, time, and details of the event, including accounts from UFOINFO, the Magonia database, and the APRO bulletin. The article highlights conflicting information, such as different dates (December 21st, 22nd, or 23rd) and times (3:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m.), and descriptions ranging from a fiery disc to a football-shaped object with an "hombrecito" (little man) emerging.

A potential solution is proposed, suggesting the event might be explained by astronomical phenomena like moonrise or Venus, combined with atmospheric conditions like fog or clouds distorting the appearance. The author emphasizes that the varied dates and descriptions invalidate the claim of an exotic craft and that the case remains unexplained due to insufficient information and lack of thorough investigation.

A strange UFO: Kentucky Sighting

This section details a UFO sighting by amateur astronomer Allen Epling in Virgie, Kentucky, on October 16th. Epling photographed a UFO hovering for hours, appearing transparent and reflecting sunlight. The MUFON database revealed similar sightings in different locations over a 100-mile area, leading to speculation about a balloon. Radiosonde data suggested an altitude of around 20,000 meters (65,000 feet), consistent with a large research balloon. The article mentions the Red Bull Stratos flight and a balloon launched from Fort Sumner, New Mexico, as possible explanations. The author notes that if the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility confirms recovery of their balloon, it might point to a military high-altitude balloon.

The 701 club: Pacific Sighting

This case, #10693, describes a sighting by Radio Officer Steffen Sorensen on June 27, 1966, 400 miles east of Wake Island. Sorensen reported seeing a "cloud" expand with a light inside, then accelerate away. The Blue Book file includes correspondence between Sorensen, Blue Book, and Dr. Hynek. The author analyzes the event and suggests it was likely a missile test from Vandenberg Air Force Base, given the timing, location, and description of the exhaust plume resembling a luminous ball. The article notes that Dr. Hynek had suggested a rocket launch explanation but it was not pursued by Blue Book, possibly due to fear of negative publicity or complacency.

Aren't You Forgetting Doorway Amnesia?

This article by Martin S. Kottmeyer discusses the concept of "doorway amnesia" in alien abduction mythology, referring to the phenomenon where abductees skip the moment of entering or exiting a UFO. Kottmeyer credits Bullard with popularizing the term, citing his studies on abduction cases. The article explores the idea that doorway amnesia might support the objective reality of abductions due to its seemingly illogical nature. However, it also notes that this trait is not universal and may be a minority experience in abduction narratives. The author questions the priority of discovery, mentioning earlier references by Lorenzen and Jacobs, and Jenny Randles's research, which Kottmeyer suggests may have been based on a misimpression of the prevalence of the phenomenon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO evidence, the reliability of witness testimony, and the challenges of distinguishing between genuine phenomena and misinterpretations, psychological factors, or conventional explanations. The author's stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensationalist claims and a preference for logical, evidence-based analysis, often favoring conventional explanations like missile tests or atmospheric phenomena over exotic craft. The magazine encourages readers to critically evaluate information and consider multiple perspectives when investigating UFO reports.

This issue, titled "UFOs over Illinois" and dated March 1993 (with a reference to winter 1989), delves into the phenomenon of "doorway amnesia" in the context of alien abductions. It explores whether this specific type of missing time is a reliable indicator of genuine extraterrestrial encounters or if it has roots in fictional narratives and psychological processes.

Doorway Amnesia: Fictional Precedents and Real Cases

The article begins by examining the concept of doorway amnesia, where individuals have no recollection of entering or exiting a UFO. It notes that while some researchers see this as a signifier of reality, skepticism has existed since early UFO literature. Peter Rogerson's report on Malcolm Kent's "The Terror Above Us" is cited as an early fictional example of doorway amnesia, though the author finds it unlikely to have directly influenced real cases.

Further fictional analogues are explored, tracing back to an eleventh-century legend of Queen Zaynab al-Nafzawiya, who allegedly led her husband to a hidden treasure, with him not remembering the journey. A more direct literary comparison is made to Jules Verne's writings, particularly "Hector Servadec, or the Career of a Comet" (1878). In this novel, characters experience instantaneous, unconscious transitions and surreal environments, with the ending being a blend of reality and dream. The author highlights the "strange purposelessness" and "cyclical nonhappenings" in Verne's work, which bear resemblance to abduction narratives.

The article then shifts to real-world abduction cases. It discusses how doorway amnesia does not always occur consistently, even within the same abduction event or for individuals experiencing multiple abductions. Examples include Betty Hill not showing doorway amnesia while Barney Hill did, and Virginia Horton's varying experiences. The author notes that if doorway amnesia were a reliable signifier, it would be more exclusive to specific alien types or activities.

Psychological and Cinematic Explanations

Several alternative explanations for doorway amnesia are proposed. One is the analogy to first-time actors who may skip lines or scenes due to stage fright, suggesting that hypnotic subjects might similarly experience a less linear narrative. The mind's natural tendency to free-associate in dreams and relaxed states is also mentioned, drawing a parallel between lying on a couch and lying on an abduction table. The process of forming a continuously flowing narrative is seen as more characteristic of a logical, awake mind.

Cinematic shortcuts are also considered, with "Lost in Space" and the film "Inseminoid" (1980) cited as examples where transitions are abrupt or scenes jump directly to the point of significance without showing the intervening movement.

The most salient explanation offered is the disjointed nature of dreams. While dreams have narrative structure, they often feature "jump cuts and edits." The author references Carl Jung's "A Modern Myth," which contains accounts of UFO dreams that predate abduction reports. Two specific dream examples from Jung's work are analyzed, demonstrating how dreams can abruptly shift scenes (e.g., from a UFO encounter to a hospital setting) without continuity, mirroring the experience of doorway amnesia.

Based on these findings, the author concludes that the puzzle of doorway amnesia is adequately accounted for by the nature of dreams, suggesting readers can "forget about doorway amnesia if you want to."

Appendix: Procurements with Doorway Amnesia

The appendix provides a detailed list of individuals and cases where doorway amnesia was reported, often with brief descriptions of the reported experience. This list includes well-known cases like Barney Hill, Betty Hill, and Travis Walton, as well as numerous others, with notes on whether they experienced amnesia during entry, exit, or both.

UFOs on the Tube: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind - The Real Story"

This section reviews a Smithsonian Channel broadcast that explored the UFO events that influenced Steven Spielberg's movie. The program is critiqued for its handling of the Dexter, Michigan case, where the "swamp gas" explanation was tested but found to be unreplicated by witnesses. The show's portrayal of Dr. J. Allen Hynek's involvement is also questioned, particularly regarding claims of pressure from Washington.

The Betty and Barney Hill incident dominated the program, with Kathleen Marden and Stanton Friedman presenting their case. However, the review notes that the two hours of missing time could be explained by road conditions and stops, and that Professor French suggested Betty's account might be influenced by nightmares and Barney's subconscious. The program also highlighted issues with Marjorie Fish's UFO map, demonstrating how new astronomical data rendered the match with Betty Hill's sketch inaccurate.

Despite these criticisms, the program's discussion on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) and the concept of using music for communication with aliens is noted as interesting. The review concludes that the program was "not too bad" but not worth the DVD price.

The IUR DVD - CUFOS

This review discusses a DVD collection of the International UFO Reporter (IUR) journal. The reviewer notes the evolution of the journal from an "honest quest for evidence" to a "UFO propaganda sheet" for certain authors, with a lack of critical review and verification of research. While acknowledging some articles were biased, the reviewer found the DVD a good resource, recommending it despite the $100 price.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently questions the validity of UFO phenomena when alternative explanations, particularly psychological ones like dreams and fictional influences, can account for the reported experiences. There is a critical stance towards certain UFO research methodologies and interpretations, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and skepticism. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations over unverified claims, while still acknowledging the enduring interest in UFOs and extraterrestrial encounters.