SUNlite - Vol 05 No 03

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 5, Number 3
Date: May-June 2013
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," presents a predominantly skeptical perspective on UFO phenomena, focusing on the analysis and critique of various UFO cases and the broader field of UFOlogy. The magazine features articles that question the validity of commonly cited 'unexplained' cases, examine witness testimonies, and discuss the role of media and researchers in shaping public perception.

Key Articles and Content

"If they were so easy to solve, why are they on so many lists?"

This article challenges the claims made by UFOlogists regarding the high percentage of unexplained UFO cases. The author argues that many cases listed as 'unknowns' have readily available explanations that are often ignored. The piece highlights the case of the 1996 Yukon 'mothership' UFO, which was identified by Ted Molczan as a re-entering rocket booster, and the Trent photographs, which analysis suggests were likely fakes. The author criticizes the tendency of UFOlogists to shift the burden of proof onto skeptics and to promote mysteries rather than seeking scientific explanations.

"Who's blogging UFOs?"

This section, spread across several pages, reviews various online discussions and blog posts related to UFOs. It touches upon Robert Sheaffer's observations from an International UFO congress, John Rao's attempts to photograph UFOs, and critiques of claims made by figures like Governor Symington. The article also notes the Canadian government's decision to cease investigating UFOs and the consistent lack of conclusive evidence for UFOs being alien craft despite decades of civilian investigation. The analysis of the Trent photographs is presented, with points suggesting it was a model, possibly with wires that were lowered. The section also discusses Kevin Randle's critique of a sighting supposedly predating the Arnold sighting, which Randle suggests may have been fabricated.

Further in this section, Michael Swords' complaint about the internet degrading UFOlogical research is mentioned, along with critiques of 'cornerstone UFO cases' like the Belgian wave, which are presented as hoaxes. Stephen Greer's film, promoting 'free energy' and an alien body, is dismissed as a money-making scheme. Stanton Friedman's arguments are challenged, particularly his interpretation of the Arizona UFO case. The section also includes advice from Glenn Chaple of Astronomy magazine for amateur astronomers to observe carefully and avoid emotional conclusions, noting his own zero UFO sightings despite extensive observation. Leslie Kean's reporting on a 'fascinating, very strong case' is met with skepticism, referencing a past instance where she reported bug videos as UFOs.

Nick Pope's article on 'Unidentified flying threats' is critiqued for relying on explained incidents and for calling for government investigation, which the author deems unlikely due to past PR fiascos. Dr. David Clarke's follow-up on Margaret Thatcher and Rendlesham is discussed, with an interpretation that Thatcher's comments to Georgina Bruni were a warning against spreading unsupported stories. The upcoming 'UFO Today' magazine is mentioned. Steve Bassett's national press club UFO presentation, featuring a 'mock' hearing, is criticized as a costly publicity stunt rather than genuine research.

"The Roswell Corner"

This section contrasts the recovery of a crashed B-29 bomber in 1950 with the Roswell incident. The B-29 crash involved high security and media awareness, which the author suggests is different from the Roswell event where local media seemed oblivious to significant military activity. The article questions whether individuals might be confusing the B-29 recovery with the alien spaceship recovery narrative. It also discusses Anthony Bragalia's 'JARS' (Just another Roswell story) piece, which is deemed not credible. The section concludes by comparing the reporting of the Boston Marathon explosions, where details were initially inaccurate but facts eventually clarified, to the Roswell incident, suggesting that contradictory reports in the latter were more likely due to inaccurate information gathering than a cover-up.

"After sixteen years, who can you trust?"

This article revisits the 'Phoenix Lights' incident from March 13, 1997, questioning why Mitch Stanley's observations are often omitted from retellings. The author presents 'facts' of the case, including witness reports of lights and a dark shape, and notes that Mitch Stanley and Rich Contry identified the lights as aircraft. The video evidence is discussed, along with the analysis suggesting flares from the Maryland Air National Guard. The article then delves into Governor Fife Symington's revised account of the event, which the author finds inconsistent and lacking evidence, particularly regarding his claim of seeing a large, delta-shaped craft and the timing of news alerts. The author suggests Symington might be seeking public attention. The reliability of Trig Johnston, an airline pilot, is also questioned due to discrepancies in his timeline of the event. The article concludes by noting that many UFO witnesses, including pilots, have been proven inaccurate in their reports, and the phrase should be 'I know what I think (or believe) I saw'.

"Pilots are highly reliable...aren't they?"

This section continues the critique of witness reliability, focusing on Trig Johnston's account of the Phoenix Lights. The author points out that Johnston's reported sighting time of 22:20 is two hours after the main event, suggesting a possible error or confusion with other events, such as flares. The article also questions the activities of Johnston's son and friends on a school night. It then presents an account from a pilot who observed anomalous lights in a wide formation traveling south on Interstate 10 at approximately 8:15 PM, noting concern about distraction while driving. The pilot's observation of the lights being 'anomalous' is acknowledged, but the article emphasizes that this does not automatically equate to alien craft.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite are skepticism towards UFO claims, the importance of critical analysis of evidence, the unreliability of witness testimony, and the critique of UFOlogists and their methods. The editorial stance is clearly one of debunking and rational explanation, advocating for scientific rigor and questioning sensationalized accounts. The magazine aims to shed light on UFOlogy by providing a counter-narrative to the more credulous perspectives often found in the UFO community, emphasizing that many reported UFO sightings have mundane explanations or are outright hoaxes.

This issue of UFO Magazine, dated December 2013, features a cover story titled "STRING THEORY PART 1" which examines the photographic challenges of detecting thin objects like threads and fishing lines. The magazine also delves into the complex relationship between UFO phenomena and religious traditions, exploring historical accounts and modern interpretations.

Articles

"Build Me A Temple" by Martin S. Kottmeyer

Kottmeyer contrasts two schools of thought in the study of religions: perennialism, which posits a common core across faiths and UFO experiences, and constructivism, which emphasizes diversity shaped by culture and history. He uses Raoul Birnbaum's essay "Light in the Wutai Mountains" as a case study, detailing accounts of luminous lights and celestial beings in Chinese Buddhist traditions. Kottmeyer notes how perennialists might interpret these as evidence of a core UFO phenomenon, while constructivists would focus on cultural context. He highlights similarities between ancient Wutai accounts and modern UFO reports, particularly regarding lights and beings, but also points out differences in the nature of events, such as the duration and speed of sightings.

The article discusses how Buddhist traditions interpret these phenomena, sometimes linking them to 'auspicious birds' or luminous clouds. Kottmeyer raises concerns about perennialists potentially misinterpreting ancient materials through a modern lens. He then shifts to the recurring theme of celestial beings requesting or inspiring the construction of temples and shrines, citing examples from Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadaloupe. This impulse is also seen in modern UFOlogy, with figures like George Van Tassel building the Integratron and Brian Scott being tasked to rebuild a pyramid at Tiahuanaco. The article also mentions Julian Haynes's attempt to build a floating pyramid. Kottmeyer concludes that while not all UFO phenomena involve temple building, it represents a perennial human impulse that can be intertwined with UFO mystery.

"A Blue Book SNAFU results in an identified 'twofer'"

This section details a UFO sighting near Dubuque, Iowa, on March 4, 1960, involving three large elliptical objects. Initially investigated by Project Blue Book, the case was listed as 'unidentified'. The author, along with Herb Taylor, discovered that flights of three B-52 aircraft were in the area on the same day, suggesting a possible explanation. The article recounts the media reports of Charles Morris, an airplane instructor who saw and filmed similar objects, claiming they were not aircraft. Despite Morris's claims and his film, Blue Book's investigation was minimal, involving only a few calls to check for aircraft. The film was sent for analysis but returned with no unusual findings. Later, a group called CUFOR also investigated, initially classifying the case as 'unknown' based on Morris's report and another witness, Mrs. H.V. Ludovissy, who described flashing lights and smoke. However, upon receiving information from Ferdinand Nesler, who observed the objects with binoculars and identified them as large aircraft, CUFOR's perspective shifted.

"STRING THEORY PART 1" by Robert Sheaffer

This article details a photographic experiment conducted by the author and Robert Sheaffer to test the visibility of various threads and fishing lines under different lighting conditions. Using four cameras (Samsung Fascinate, Fujifilm FinePix, Pentax K110D, and Nikon D5000), they photographed a Styrofoam bowl suspended by different materials. The tests revealed that sunlight, especially when coming from a right angle, significantly aids in hiding these thin objects. Fishing line proved particularly difficult to detect, with all cameras failing to resolve it in some tests. Invisible thread was also challenging, though the Nikon camera showed better results. The author plans to conduct further tests using film cameras in a future issue.

Notes and References

The issue includes a list of notes and references, citing various sources such as CNN transcripts, History Channel documentaries, UFO-related websites, and books on UFO phenomena and religious visions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores the intersection of UFO phenomena with historical, cultural, and religious contexts. It presents a constructivist approach by examining specific cases and their potential explanations, while also acknowledging perennialist arguments about common themes across different eras and cultures. The editorial stance appears to favor critical analysis and empirical investigation, as demonstrated by the photography experiment and the re-examination of the Blue Book case. There is a clear effort to debunk misidentifications and to provide rational explanations where possible, while still acknowledging the enduring mystery of unexplained sightings.

This issue of "The UFO Evidence" delves into several UFO cases, primarily focusing on investigations and potential explanations, often contrasting witness testimony with official findings or astronomical possibilities. The publication appears to be a review of cases documented by NICAP and Project Blue Book, with a critical eye towards how these cases were handled and classified.

Dubuque, Iowa Sightings (March 4, 1960)

The issue begins by detailing a sighting by multiple witnesses in Dubuque, Iowa, who observed three large aircraft flying in a loose formation at a slow speed. One witness, Allan Jones, used binoculars and described the aircraft as possibly being like B-52s, noting their slow speed and high altitude (estimated at 40,000 feet). CUFOR (Civilian UFO Research) investigated and inquired with aircraft companies and Strategic Air Command (SAC). SAC responded on August 4th, stating that they did have 2-cell and 3-cell flights operating over Dubuque during the time of the sighting, and it was highly possible the observed objects were KC-135s or B-52s. However, CUFOR noted that Morris, a pilot witness, felt the objects moved too slowly to be jets and could not be reflecting light due to inconsistent intensity. Despite this, CUFOR initially considered the case unexplained before being aware of SAC's response. The article highlights a bureaucratic issue where ATIC (Air Technical Intelligence Center) initially seemed unaware of SAC's involvement, only requesting information after CUFOR sent their report. SAC confirmed on September 29th that three B-52 cell flights passed east of Dubuque on March 4th, with one flight occurring between 5:27 PM and 5:58 PM CST, coinciding with the sighting time. The article includes a Google Earth image plotting the flight path.

Quantico, Virginia Sighting (January 4, 1954)

The magazine then examines a case from Quantico, Virginia, where Marines reported seeing red revolving or blinking lights hovering and moving soundlessly over a Marine Corps base for six consecutive nights. The initial report came from a United Press clipping. The author questions NICAP's inclusion of this case as significant evidence, given its limited source. The article suggests that the Marines, possibly young and inexperienced sentries, might have mistaken stars or other astronomical phenomena for UFOs. However, further investigation revealed that Blue Book was involved, and the case file contained the original Washington Post story from January 4, 1954. This story described two sentries reporting a flying saucer landing, a helicopter chase, and rumors of platoons being deployed. The article points out that a rational explanation appeared in newspapers just a few days later. Major Glasebrook from intelligence, along with Major Fergusen, investigated and identified the phenomena as a Grimes Beacon on a commercial airliner, noting they could see the wingtip identification lights as well. Subsequent newspaper reports on January 5th and 6th confirmed that airliners had installed new flashing red lights called Grimes lights, which were unfamiliar to the Marines and caused the confusion. The article criticizes NICAP for potentially ignoring this explanation.

Kansas City, Missouri Sighting (July 26, 1952)

This section details a case from Kansas City, Missouri, described by NICAP as a greenish light with red-orange flashes seen for an hour by USAF Capt. H. A. Stone and others at control towers. The object descended from 40 degrees elevation to 10 degrees. The Air Intelligence report stated an airborne object was observed and notified to airport dispatchers. The witness, using 6X30 binoculars, described an unusually bright star in the western sky, observing it for about 15 minutes past midnight until it sank below the horizon. The witness provided a chronological statement of events, including shape (indeterminate, round), color (predominantly greenish with intermittent red-orange flashes), size (unknown, large impression), altitude (estimated 35,000-40,000 feet), speed (slow, taking an hour to cover 30 degrees of arc), and course (Northwesterly). The witness noted that his estimates of size and altitude were "guesstimates" and unreliable. The author questions whether these "guesstimates" prevented Blue Book from determining the source. A significant point of discussion is the time zone used (CST vs. CDT), with the author concluding CST was likely used.

A Possible Solution and Reasons for Rejection

The author proposes that the star Arcturus could be the explanation. Using Stellarium, the author mapped Arcturus's position at 0015 and 0115 local time, noting its azimuth and elevation changes. However, reasons for rejecting this explanation include discrepancies in the witness's estimated azimuth and elevation changes compared to Arcturus's motion. The witness reported a 50-degree change in azimuth and a 30-degree change in elevation, while Arcturus only changed by about 10 degrees in azimuth and roughly 10 degrees in elevation. Another reason for rejection is the color; while Arcturus is orangish-red, the witness described the object as predominantly greenish. The author discusses potential witness errors in estimating angles and directions, citing various investigators and studies that indicate a tendency to overestimate elevation angles. The author also notes that Arcturus can appear green under certain conditions, especially at lower elevations where scintillation can rapidly change its perceived color. The fact that Arcturus had essentially set when the witness lost sight of the UFO supports this explanation.

Why Didn't Blue Book Solve This One?

The article speculates on why Blue Book did not consider Arcturus as a solution. One reason suggested is the timing of the sighting, which coincided with other Washington D.C. sightings, potentially leading to the case being quickly filed as "unexplained" due to a lack of time for thorough examination. Errors in elevation/azimuth estimates are also cited as compounding the issue. The article mentions that Blue Book lacked sophisticated computer programs and likely relied on nomographs or planispheres, which have margins for error. The author concludes that while the case may not be "positively identified," it should be reclassified from "unidentified" to "possibly Arcturus," as it does not appear to be an exotic craft.

UFOs on the Tube: "Stephenville"

This section reviews a television program about UFOs, specifically focusing on the "Stephenville" case. The author criticizes the program for exaggerating Steve Allen's sighting and misrepresenting his written report. The author notes that Allen, a private pilot, is presented as a reliable witness, but questions the reliability of pilot witnesses in general. The program also featured constable Gaitan's video, which the author describes as an out-of-focus star. The author disputes the radar data presented by Robert Powell, stating that only one contact was weak and likely not related to the Allen sighting. The author criticizes MUFON for drawing conclusions not supported by scientific evidence. The program also included claims from Edgar Mitchell about unknown craft on Apollo 14 and Buzz Aldrin seeing a UFO land on the moon, which are questioned due to lack of public confirmation or denial. A bizarre story about a UFO at a high school football game is also mentioned, with the author noting the lack of public domain videos and the absence of the event in the NUFORC database. The actual event, according to the author, involved flickering lights seen by a few people, possibly related to F-16 aircraft operations in the area. The author concludes the program was full of exaggerated representations and typical UFO propaganda, lacking any skeptical arguments.

Book Review: "True UFO accounts: From the vaults of Fate magazine" by David Goodwin

The issue includes a review of David Goodwin's book. The reviewer found the book disappointing, stating it was more of the same old stuff. The pre-history section was found most interesting, particularly Kevin Randle's article debunking the 1897 Aurora crash. The Roswell section, featuring Stanton Friedman and John Keel, was not found very informative. Some close encounter recaps were interesting, but the inclusion of an article by "Professor" George Adamski was questioned. The speculation section was considered extreme, with the author disagreeing with the "extra-dimensional" and ETH arguments presented. An article about an underwater UFO base off the Southern California coast was dismissed as wishful thinking, lacking evidence. Despite the limited content, the reviewer found the book worth reading once and recommended it as a "borrow it" book.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO reports, the reliability of witness testimony, and the search for rational explanations, often contrasting with the findings of organizations like NICAP and Project Blue Book. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims and a preference for evidence-based conclusions, often favoring astronomical or conventional aircraft explanations when supported by data. There is a clear emphasis on debunking sensationalism and highlighting potential flaws in investigations and reporting, particularly when organizations like NICAP are perceived as selectively using evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion of alien visitation.