SUNlite - Vol 05 No 02

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 5 Number 2
Date: March-April 2013

This issue of SUNlite magazine, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," presents a critical and skeptical examination of various UFO phenomena and the discourse surrounding them. The cover features a striking image of clouds and a quote from Allan Hendry's "The UFO handbook" that questions the assumptions made by UFOlogists when accepting witness descriptions at face value.

Key Articles and Discussions

Promises of Great Revelations.....SOON!

The editorial section opens with skepticism regarding claims by Rich Reynolds of the "UFO Iconoclast(s)" blog about a secret recovery in 1947 near Roswell, separate from the Brazel find, potentially involving extraterrestrial material. The author questions the verification of Reynolds' alleged documentation and wonders why such information has not surfaced sooner. The section also addresses the ongoing debate about the Trent photographs, with two groups investigating claims that they are a hoax due to evidence of a "thread" found in scans of the original negatives. One group has reportedly quit UFOlogy, while the other's findings are pending release.

The article discusses the fireball event over Russia on February 15th, noting that while most evidence points to a large meteor, some UFO proponents have interpreted it as a UFO event. The author uses this event to highlight the lack of multiple video recordings for many reported UFO sightings, contrasting it with the widespread recording of the Russian fireball, and urges UFO groups to utilize modern technology like dash cameras.

Magnetic Drives: The Secret Saucer Technology?

This extensive article by Martin S. Kottmeyer delves into the historical concept of magnetic drives as a potential propulsion system for flying saucers. It presents a chronological compilation of fictional and speculative accounts from various sources, starting with Cyrano de Bergerac in 1651 and continuing through numerous literary works and early UFO literature up to the mid-20th century. The article highlights how magnetism, anti-gravity, and electromagnetic forces have been recurring themes in discussions about UFO propulsion, often drawing parallels between science fiction concepts and alleged real-world UFO technology.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section features a series of critical reviews and commentaries on contemporary UFOlogy and its proponents. It begins with a critique of an amateur astronomer who mistook a weather balloon for an exploding planet, questioning the expertise of some self-proclaimed "amateur astronomers." The section also addresses the lack of UFO photographs from professional photographers, a point raised by "The UFO Iconoclast(s)."

Michael Salla's claim that NASA was deleting UFO images is debunked, with James Oberg providing evidence that the images in question were from 1998 and likely depicted an insulation blanket. Kathleen Marden's defense of the Betty and Barney Hill case is also scrutinized, with the author pointing out perceived misrepresentations and misleading comparisons regarding driving times and weather conditions.

The section criticizes Bill Wickersham for relying on Leslie Kean and promoting UFO propaganda without proof, and Bill Chalker for rehashing old arguments and misinterpreting evidence. The article also touches upon "sky spirals," the Aztec crash story, and Robert Hastings' campfire stories from veterans, all with a skeptical tone.

It discusses a heated debate surrounding the "Wanaque: Bragalia vs Reynolds" article and photograph, with the author leaning towards the photo being a hoax. James Fox's offer of $100,000 for proof of alien spaceships is framed as a publicity stunt to promote his upcoming film.

The section concludes by mentioning the 100th anniversary of the 1913 meteor procession and a YouTube video labeled a "stunning UFO sighting" that is identified as likely being aircraft in formation.

The Roswell Corner: Blanchard's Leave

This article examines the timing of Colonel William Blanchard's leave of absence starting on July 8, 1947, in relation to the Roswell incident. Kevin Randle had previously suggested this timing was unusual. The author presents a teletype from July 7th and a press release from July 10th confirming Blanchard's planned three-week leave in Santa Fe and Colorado, starting on July 9th. The author offers a plausible explanation that Blanchard was heading towards Colorado and wanted to stop in Santa Fe first. However, the author also suggests that Blanchard's delay in starting his leave until the evening of July 8th might have been influenced by a major inspection by the Eighth Air Force that day. The article also notes that Blanchard likely would not have gone on leave during the July 4th weekend due to local festivities in Roswell.

A correction is also made regarding a previous statement about Frank Warren's presence at an interview, clarifying that Warren had access to a copy of the interview tape rather than being present.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims in UFOlogy, a critical examination of evidence presented by both proponents and debunkers, and a focus on historical context, particularly concerning the concept of magnetic propulsion. The editorial stance is clearly one of critical inquiry, emphasizing the need for verifiable evidence and questioning the assumptions and methodologies prevalent in the UFO community. The magazine appears to favor scientific explanations and historical analysis over anecdotal accounts and speculative theories, particularly when they lack rigorous proof.

This document, likely an issue of a magazine focused on UFOs and related phenomena, extensively details the historical development and persistent speculation surrounding magnetic propulsion systems for flying saucers and alien craft. It covers a wide range of accounts, theories, and fictional portrayals from the 1950s through the late 1990s, highlighting how magnetic principles have been a recurring theme in understanding UFO technology.

Magnetic Propulsion Theories and Accounts

The issue begins by referencing early ideas from physicists like Dr. Fernand Roussel and Franz Zwicky, who suggested that space ships might tap into universal electromagnetic fields or use upper atmosphere ions for propulsion. Donald Menzel, while skeptical, noted the prevalence of magnetism in saucer theories.

Early Contactee and Fictional Portrayals (1950s)

Several accounts from the 1950s are detailed:

• January 23, 1954: A fictional alien explains magnetic propulsion across an "electron bridge."
• 1954 (Stranger from Venus): A Venusian describes their ships using a "highly developed mechanical device" that pushes or pulls against planetary magnetic forces, requiring no fuel.
• 1954 (George Hunt Williamson): Discusses how "Resonating Electromagnetic Fields" explain saucer shapes.
• 1954 (Truman Bethurum): Clarionites claim their crafts use "own magnetic power and other secret equipment."
• 1955 (George Adamski): Adamski is shown a "magnetic pole" within a saucer used for propulsion.
• 1955 (Orfeo Angelucci): Explains the "magnetic principle of propulsion."

Development and Skepticism (1950s-1960s)

• 1956 (Buck Nelson): Mentions landing sites with "magnetic currents" and a "magnetized bar on a string" saucer detector.
• March 15, 1956 (Forbidden Planet): The phrase "reverse polarity" is used, implying electromagnetic principles.
• July 1956 (Earth vs. the Flying Saucers): Aliens claim to generate a magnetic field stronger than Earth's gravity for propulsion, a claim that a scientist exploits.
• May/June 1957 (T. Lobsang Rampa): Describes a Tibetan-bowl shaped saucer using magnetism repelling Earth's magnetism, powered by cosmic energy.
• December 4, 1957 (Disneyland): A documentary suggests an "electromagnetic drive" as a future spaceship technology.
• 1958 (Anchor): "Mother-ships" use "magnetic propulsion and repulsion."
• Summer 1958 (Hubert Lewis): Learns that "magnetic power" drives craft.
• 1958 (Whitley Strieber): Experiments with an anti-gravity machine using electro-magnets.
• 1958: Articles by W. Kerman and Wilbert Smith on magnetic detectors are noted.
• 1960 (Hal Draper): An OTC-X1 prototype flying saucer is said to "generate a Rotating Magnetic Field."
• 1962 (Fireball XL5): Grovarians use magnets for propulsion and remotely lifting objects.
• 1966 (T. Lobsang Rampa): Reiterates the use of magnetism repelling Earth's magnetism and attracting destination planets.
• 1966 (R.H.B. Winder): Proposes a propulsion scheme using a fusion reactor and kilogauss magnetic fields, though noted as potentially dangerous.

Integration into Abduction Narratives and Continued Speculation (1960s-1990s)

• 1967 (The Ambushers): A film depicts a flying saucer using "electromagnetic force," with a "reverse field" switch.
• December 3, 1967 (Herb Schirmer): Schirmer's account of a flying saucer is linked to "electrical-magnetic force" controlling gravity.
• January 16, 1968 (The Invaders): A theoretical propulsion engine is discussed, potentially electromagnetic.
• February 13, 1968 (Herb Schirmer): Schirmer's regression mentions "electrical-magnetic force" controlling gravity, with a note on potential inconsistencies with flames.
• June 8, 1968 (Herb Schirmer): A transcript mentions "Reversible electro-magnetic energy" to control matter and gravity. The film "The Ambushers" and "Allende letters" are cited as possible influences.
• 1968 (Ummo contact): Propulsor uses ionized gas controlled by a complex magnetic field.
• 1968 (Signor Walter Rizzi): UFOs operate by a "particular sort of magnetic drive."
• 1968 (James Harder): Skeptical of magnetic fields alone for propulsion due to dipole limitations.
• 1968 (Bamboo Saucer): Alien saucer drive utilizes "magnetism" and follows specific magnetic force lines.
• 1970 (Bob Renaud): Contactee reports an alien pilot racing "magnetic ships."
• November-December 1970: A review of Eugene H. Burt's "UFO & Diamagnetism" is mentioned.
• 1971 (Lenora Huett): Extraterrestrials mention "complex magnetic fields of an ultrahigh frequency nature."
• 1972 (Koldas contacts): Alien craft has "8 magnetic motors that check and control their travel on the magnetic field."
• 1974 (Carl Higdon): Abductee states craft traveled by "magnetic force."
• 1974 (Eugene H. Burt): Paper on "Magnetic Explanations of UFOs."
• 1975 (Charles A. Silva): Pleiades contactee explains craft uses "reversible electromagnetism" to control gravity.
• May 1977 (Juan Jose Benitez): An engineer describes nullifying gravity using a system similar to "electromagnets."
• September 1977 (Starship Invasions): "Reversible electromagnetism" is mentioned as a drive force.
• Summer 1978 (Norvell): Predicts future use of magnetism for propulsion.
• Winter 1978 (Julio F.): Abductee experiences a powerful magnetic field causing weapons to be drawn upward.
• 1980 (R.B. Hooper): Shown a model of a wheel creating an "anti-gravity function" using magnetic poles.
• 1980 (UFO Syndrome): Documentary suggests saucers are electric motors using "repelling electrical-magnetic lines of force."
• 1983 (Gordon Creighton): Notes a "polarized magnetic contraption" in a central stem.
• February 1984 (Jan Pajak): Engineers design a spacecraft using a powerful magnet whose orientation determines flight direction.
• 1988 (Betty Andreasson): Mentions magnetic rings on saucers.
• 1989 (Bill Cooper): Discusses a "magnetic drive surrounded by an aura of bright white light."
• 1989 (John Ackerman): Advocates a magnetic drive theory.
• 1992 ('Mona'): Crash of a spacecraft experienced when "mapping magnetic lines."
• 1994 (Jenny Randles): Notes entities often refer to a magnetic field harnessing device for atmospheric flight.
• July 6, 1996 (David Hamel): Efforts to invent a magnetic drive using "compression of magnetic energy."
• July 1997 (Philip Corso): Claims saucers displace gravity through "propagation of magnetic wave."
• 1998: German pilot reports seeing "Magnetscheibe" (magnet-disk) saucers.
• November 23, 2001 (Christopher Kelly): Believes magnetic fields are the key to solving the UFO mystery and building better spacecraft.
• 2002 (Lisette Larkins): Entities explain utilizing "magnetized energy field" that permeates the universe.
• February 2006 (David Hamel): Bio updates his odyssey, mentioning "inherent magnetic forces that attracted and repelled its components."

Discussion and Critique

The "Discussion" section, attributed to Martin S. Kottmeyer, provides a critical perspective on the prevalence of magnetic drive theories. He notes that magnetic drives were a common speculation in early science fiction pulps, often overshadowed by rockets. Kottmeyer argues that while the idea is simple and appeals to a sense of wonder, its dominance in UFO culture might stem from its basic simplicity and the mystique of magnets. He points out significant scientific hurdles: the immense energy required for a magnetic drive to lift a car-sized saucer would cause detectable disturbances to Earth's magnetic field, radio signals, and electronics. Such a field would also interact with the atmosphere, creating plasma and lightning. Kottmeyer suggests that the idea is more likely a reflection of psychological bias, historical inertia, and the recycling of popular myths rather than a reflection of actual alien technology. He concludes that UFO study is unlikely to reveal the secret of building starships and advises readers to be cautious.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the document is the persistent fascination with magnetic propulsion as an explanation for UFO flight. The editorial stance appears to be one of documenting these theories and accounts, while also presenting critical analysis, particularly in the "Discussion" section, which questions the scientific validity and practical feasibility of magnetic drives for UFOs. The document highlights how the concept has evolved from early scientific speculation and fictional portrayals to becoming a staple in contactee narratives and abduction reports, often presented as a simple yet powerful force that defies conventional understanding.

Title: SUNlite 5-1
Issue: 701 club (case #9053) explanation untenable.
Date: January-February 2013
Publisher: SUNlite
Document Type: Magazine Issue

Article 1: SUNlite 5-1 701 club (case #9053) explanation untenable.

This article critically examines and ultimately debunks a proposed explanation for UFO case #9053, which involved a potential Wallops Island rocket launch. The author initially suggested this explanation, assuming a time error in the original report. However, UFOlogist Herb Taylor offered this explanation to the project 1947 mailing list, which was met with criticism, primarily due to a 30-minute discrepancy in the recorded time.

Brad Sparks is highlighted as a key critic. Sparks raised several points, including the direction the plane was flying and the accuracy of the time estimate. He argued that the teletype message specified 2 minutes and a time of 0535-0537, questioning the author's assessment of the time as an estimate. The author defends the use of estimates for time, stating that any report of time will have a margin of error unless precisely measured.

The fatal flaw in the author's hypothesis was discovered by Sparks when he found an error in the Blue Book record card regarding the plane's position. The teletype message indicated a different position than the 200 miles east of Dover, Delaware. The corrected information revealed that the "GOD" intersection was likely a typo for "COD" intersection, located at 68 degrees west longitude and 41 degrees 29 minutes north latitude. This placed the plane approximately 600 miles northeast of Wallops Island, rather than the previously assumed 200 miles. The author concedes that it is unlikely for both time and position errors to occur simultaneously, thus rendering the Wallops Island Rocket launch explanation untenable.

Article 2: The great and powerful Sparks has spoken!

Following the critique from Brad Sparks, the author acknowledges that the explanation for case #9053 was no longer possible. Sparks had pointed out that the aircraft's position was over 200 miles east of Cape Cod, not Dover, which meant the Wallops Island launch did not fit the data. The author admits that his initial hypothesis was based on a 30-minute time error and the plane being closer to Wallops Island.

Sparks further criticized the author's description of the plane's position as "OVER 200 miles east of Cape Cod," suggesting it was more like 300 miles. The author apologizes for not being 100% precise, explaining that he chose an easily relatable reference point instead of exact longitudes and latitudes.

Sparks also reiterated an argument about the time being local rather than Zulu/GMT, citing the lack of a "Z" identifier. He suggested that the time of 0535-0537 was local time, and to fit his argument, it would have to be ADT (Atlantic Daylight Time), meaning sunrise would be around 0630, allowing for "Night" conditions. The author counters this by noting the teletype listed "NIGHT" conditions, and that daylight saving time was not universally used in 1964, questioning its relevance for a plane over the ocean.

The author also addresses Sparks' argument that the pilots thought the conditions were "night." The author suggests they could equally be considered "dawn" conditions. He questions Sparks' insistence on ADT without proof and his attempt to "force-fit" the time and distance to dismiss potential explanations.

Article 3: Not a launch or re-entry test

With the corrected position of the plane being much farther northeast, the author concludes that a rocket launch or re-entry would not have been visible. The rocket would have been below the horizon during its boost phase, or too dim to be noticed at that distance. Even if a fireball occurred from re-entry, it would likely be too faint to be seen from 600-700 miles away. The rocket launch explanation is deemed unworkable, even with a thirty-minute time error.

Article 4: Still unidentified

The author states that the Blue Book team misinterpreted the plane's position, and this error is present in many UFOlogy catalogs. He admits his own mistake in not scrutinizing the original message more closely. The author raises questions about potential errors in the time and position reporting, suggesting that the imprecision indicates the crew did not accurately record the event's specifics. Without knowing the plane's takeoff and landing times, the case remains "unidentified."

Article 5: The 701 Club Case #8388 - June 15, 1963

This section delves into a different UFO case, #8388, from June 15, 1963. The file contains a record card, a witness letter with a sketch, and a memo sent to NASA regarding a possible satellite sighting. The author notes that NASA's response is either missing or was lost.

The Blue Book record card lists the location as 14° 27′ N, 69° 57′ E in the Indian Ocean, with a time group of 15/15392 GMT. The observation was of a luminous disc at 30 degrees elevation, bearing 325 degrees true, descending and traveling east for 3-4 minutes. It appeared faster than the "Echo" satellite and was described as a bright light behind a cloud. The "Echo" satellite was observed 30 minutes later.

UFOlogists like Don Berliner and Brad Sparks cataloged this case, describing a luminous disc traveling at 1.5 times the speed of a satellite. However, the author points out a significant error in their listings: they incorrectly placed the sighting north of Venezuela. The Blue Book record card clearly states East longitude and the Indian Ocean. The author suggests that Berliner plotted the position incorrectly, and Sparks compounded the error by changing the longitude to West, possibly due to a typo in the latitude. The witness's letter, dated June 19th, is addressed from Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia, confirming his location in the Indian Ocean and sighting in East longitude.

Article 6: Analysis of the 1963 Sighting

The witness described a luminous disc observed at 151539 GMT, descending eastward for three to four minutes. It was difficult to estimate the height but appeared very high, traveling slightly faster than the US satellite "Echo." The object was observed passing through an area without clouds but did not change its appearance. About 30 minutes later, "Echo" passed over and disappeared in nearly the same location. Three other individuals witnessed the event and agreed with the statement. The witness provided a sketch of the sighting.

The author challenges the UFOlogists' interpretation that the object's angular speed of 1.5 times that of a satellite indicated it was not a satellite. He argues that this speed is consistent with a satellite in low Earth orbit. The witness's description of an angular size of one-quarter to one-half of a degree, rather than a pinpoint of light, suggests it might have been a rocket venting fuel in low Earth orbit.

Article 7: Astronautix web site to the rescue

Investigating rocket launches around the time of the sighting, the author found a candidate: a Thor Agena D launch on June 15, 1963, from Vandenberg. This launch included the Lofti 2A and NRL PL130? satellites. The Agena D stage had a partial failure, failing to circularize its orbit. The author speculates that the observed phenomenon was the venting of unspent propellant from the Agena D stage, which could create a "luminous disc" effect.

Ted Molczan, an expert, confirmed that the TLEs (Two line elements) for the 1963-021 launch (Agena D 2353) and Echo 1 correlated beautifully with the description and sketch. The Agena stage, being larger than the satellites, would be the visible object. The failure of the second stage to ignite meant that a large amount of fuel would be available to vent.

Article 8: Why didn't Blue Book solve this?

The author suggests that Blue Book's failure to solve this case might be due to complacency, lack of manpower, or the classification of satellites like POPPY until 2005. NASA may not have informed Blue Book, or Blue Book may not have conducted a thorough check, ignoring the possibility of the Agena stage being visible.

Article 9: Is it solved?

The author concludes that, unless a coherent counter-argument is presented, the case is considered closed, with the Agena stage venting fuel being the likely explanation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical re-examination of UFO explanations, particularly those found in Project Blue Book records and cataloged by UFOlogists. The magazine emphasizes rigorous investigation, cross-referencing of data, and the importance of accurate reporting. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards simplistic explanations and a commitment to finding the most plausible, evidence-based solutions, even if they involve conventional phenomena like rocket launches or satellite activities. The publication highlights how misinterpretations, errors in record-keeping, and selective reporting can lead to the perpetuation of UFO mysteries.

This issue of "UFOs on the tube" features a review of a television episode titled "UFOs: The real deal" from "The Universe" series, and a critical review of Richard Dolan's book "UFOs and the National Security state". The magazine is presented in English and appears to be a single-issue publication, possibly a newsletter or a special edition, with page number 30 visible.

Review of "The Universe: UFOs: The real deal"

The reviewer expresses surprise at the episode's inclusion in "The Universe" series and details its content. The show began with the Kenneth Arnold sighting, clarifying that Arnold described 'discs' only after a reporter mistakenly assigned the term. The infamous Roswell case was summarized briefly, not rehashed in detail. Other UFO cases were mentioned, and space shuttle videos were shown with minimal explanation. Notably, the 1997 Arizona videos were identified as flares, and planetary scientist Kevin Grazier admitted to seeing an unidentified moving light, but cautioned that "It is a big jump from a UFO to an extraterrestrial spacecraft," a sentiment the reviewer notes many UFOlogists imply.

The program then shifted focus to whether UFOs could be alien spaceships. Scientists suggested that the rapid right-angle turns and high speeds described by witnesses would be fatal to human crews without a system to dampen inertial effects. The lack of a sonic boom was also discussed, with a negative wave suppression system proposed as a solution. The power required for such technology was deemed incredible.

The show also explored interstellar travel, examining various fuel and propulsion methods. It was concluded that even exploding nuclear bombs behind a spacecraft could not achieve speeds beyond 5% of the speed of light. Chemical and nuclear fusion were considered, but the weight of the vehicles needed to hold the fuel was immense. Only anti-matter propulsion offered the possibility of reaching near light speed, but its creation would be prohibitively expensive, and the shielding required for the crew would need to be enormous. A warp drive was proposed as a final solution, but the extreme temperatures within the warp bubble would be unsuitable for human occupation, and its effects could be catastrophic to nearby planets.

Towards the end, the show proposed that aliens might be using interplanetary probes, suggesting UFOs could be piloted by or be robots capable of handling extreme speeds and turns, thus avoiding the time constraints of interstellar travel and the need for human-like frailties. The reviewer found this a more plausible explanation than the common depiction of "frail little gray aliens."

While the reviewer enjoyed the discussion on interstellar travel, they felt the program could have been better by critically examining several high-profile UFO cases with experts from outside the UFO field, questioning if such an approach would ever be seen on television.

Review of "UFOs and the National Security state" by Richard Dolan

The reviewer had high expectations for Richard Dolan's book, especially after Dolan stated in the preface his intention to stick to the facts. However, the reviewer found this to be the only part of the book they liked.

The core criticism is that Dolan "spends a great deal of time twisting 'facts' to fit his personal view of the UFO conspiracy." The book is accused of using standard UFOlogical "catch phrases" and "buzz words" to persuade the reader. Dolan is criticized for failing to identify specifically who or what is behind the UFO mystery, instead implying that various deaths, including Dr. McDonald's, are related to this conspiracy. The reviewer speculates that if Dolan truly believes this, he must live in constant fear of being the next target.

Dolan's approach to the Roswell incident is described as agnostic in his section on it, but then he criticizes skeptical arguments while giving a free pass to proponents. His endorsement of MJ-12 and Robert Willingham, who allegedly changed the year of his UFO crash from 1950 to the mid-1950s, is highlighted as particularly telling about Dolan's mindset. The reviewer questions Willingham's credibility, noting that Kevin Randle considers his military career questionable.

The reviewer asserts that Dolan's goal was to start with a massive UFO conspiracy and work backward, comparing his approach to that of Keyhoe. Dolan is said to have interpreted almost anything said over the last sixty years as "proof" of a conspiracy, essentially taking "a whole bunch of 'stuff' (mostly from NICAP's UFO evidence document), threw it against a wall, and hoped that something would stick." The reviewer notes that many cases Dolan cited had reasonable explanations that he failed to mention, concluding that Dolan "never met a UFO story he did not like."

The book is recommended as a "borrow it book" at best, with the reviewer feeling they wasted their money.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the presentation and analysis of UFO phenomena on television and in books, the scientific and technological challenges of interstellar travel, and the critical examination of conspiracy theories surrounding UFOs. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious skepticism towards sensationalized UFO claims, particularly those presented in books that prioritize conspiracy over factual analysis, while remaining open to scientific inquiry into unexplained phenomena. There is a clear preference for evidence-based discussion and expert analysis over speculative narratives.