SUNlite - Vol 05 No 04

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue Date: July-August 2013
Volume: 5
Number: 4
Subtitle: Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

This issue of SUNlite magazine delves into various aspects of UFOlogy, offering critical analysis and debunking of popular claims and recent events. The magazine adopts a skeptical yet investigative tone, aiming to provide a more grounded perspective on UFO phenomena.

Citizen's Hearing on UFO Disclosure: A "Glorified UFO Conference"

The issue begins by dissecting the "Citizen's Hearing on UFO Disclosure" held in Washington D.C., characterizing it as a "monumental waste of money and time" and a "glorified UFO conference/pep rally for UFOlogists." The event, organized by Steve Bassett, is criticized for not being an official government hearing and for paying retired congress people to attend. The magazine questions the integrity of these proceedings, suggesting the paid officials were unlikely to challenge the presenters. It is argued that the hearing failed to achieve its strategic goals, including providing verifiable evidence of alien visitation or motivating the media and government to investigate.

Debunking Claims and Questioning Evidence

Several articles focus on debunking specific UFO cases and claims. The "Roswell geologist photographs" are discussed, with skepticism raised about their authenticity and the motives of those promoting them. The magazine highlights the lack of verifiable evidence from 1947 concerning alien bodies or spaceships, contrasting it with hearsay and suspect stories. Stanton Friedman's theory that aliens were drawn to New Mexico due to the atomic bomb is also challenged, with factual inaccuracies pointed out regarding the location and status of atomic weapons and rockets in 1947.

The magazine also examines the case of the alleged Oscar flight shutdown, attributing it to internally generated electrical noise pulses rather than alien intervention, a view supported by former Echo flight officers. Lt. Col. Richard French's claims as a retired Air Force officer and UFO investigator are scrutinized for inconsistencies and exaggeration, with the magazine suggesting his stories are crafted from bits and pieces of known cases and lack credible evidence.

UFOlogy and the Internet

The role of the internet and blogging in UFOlogy is explored. The emergence of new blogs like "UFO DNA" is noted, along with their attempts to analyze and debunk UFO cases. The magazine points out how easily misinterpretations can occur, such as identifying space debris as UFOs due to the "airship effect." It also highlights instances where seemingly unusual sightings were later identified as mundane phenomena like Chinese lanterns or the International Space Station (ISS).

Specific Cases and Analysis

• Heflin photographs: Debunked as fakes based on stereoscopic photography.
• Chiles-Whitted sighting: Declared an earth-grazing meteor, with calculations of its trajectory questioned.
• Near-miss in Scotland: Identified as a lost helium shark balloon.
• Tennessee and Colorado sightings: The Tennessee sighting is questioned, while the Colorado sighting is identified as a bright meteor.
• ISS sightings: The International Space Station is identified as the probable cause for several UFO reports.
• Parahelic circle photograph: Presented as an example of strange meteorological optics, not necessarily alien activity.
• Canadian UFO survey: Revealed that most sightings lasted 15 minutes, with a majority occurring at night, making documentation difficult.

The Rendlesham Lawsuit and Other Controversies

The Rendlesham lawsuit involving Penniston and Burroughs is presented as a "carnival" atmosphere, with skepticism directed at their claims and their ability to explain discrepancies in their accounts, such as chasing a lighthouse. The magazine also questions their ability to obtain medical records and the timing of their health concerns.

Mr. X and the "Secret to Reversing Gravity"

A mysterious figure known as "Mr. X," interviewed by Richard Dolan, is presented with claims of being a former CIA official who knew about Project Blue Book, MJ-12, and Eisenhower's threats regarding Area 51. The magazine expresses skepticism about these claims, particularly the "secret to reversing gravity," suggesting they are exaggerated stories from an attention-seeking individual.

Steve Bassett's UN Initiative

Following the Citizen's Hearing, Steve Bassett announced plans to take his disclosure efforts to the United Nations. The magazine views this as another publicity stunt, predicting a cold reception and suggesting Bassett prefers the attention of a "publicity hound" rather than engaging in scientific forums.

Report Card on the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure

The magazine provides a "Report Card" grading the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure's six strategic goals. It concludes that the CHD failed to accomplish any of its objectives, including providing verifiable evidence, prompting congressional hearings, motivating the media, or pushing the White House into disclosure. The only success noted is Bassett receiving credibility within the UFO community.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include skepticism towards sensational UFO claims, a focus on debunking alleged evidence, and a critical examination of prominent figures and organizations within the UFOlogy community. The editorial stance is clearly one of promoting a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding UFO phenomena, often contrasting it with what the magazine perceives as unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories. The magazine emphasizes the importance of scientific investigation and verifiable data, while highlighting the prevalence of hearsay, misinterpretation, and deliberate misinformation within the UFO field.

This issue of the magazine, titled "UFOs/religion," features a lead article by Matt Graeber that explores the intersection of UFO phenomena and religious belief, while also critically examining the field of UFOlogy itself. The issue includes several articles investigating specific UFO cases and analyzing the methodologies of UFO researchers.

UFOs/religion by Matt Graeber

Matt Graeber, a 71-year-old researcher with 39 years of study in the UFO enigma, shares his perspective on the field. He begins by referencing Dr. Carl G. Jung's book 'UFOs a Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky,' noting that while Jung explored UFO appearances, some experts felt he was overly focused on the fear of nuclear holocaust as a cause for sightings. Graeber discusses Jung's concepts of 'Maximum Tensions' and 'visual rumors,' and his speculation that people may see things not physically present more often than assumed.

Graeber introduces his own theoretical work, 'Dynamic Display (D.D.)' and 'Dual Process of Perception (D.P.P.),' which he believes can explain sudden perceptions of external objects and internally generated subconscious productions, respectively. He states that these articles can be found online.

UFO OBSERVATIONS

Graeber recounts his experience as the director of the Philadelphia-based UFO Report and Information Center (UFORIC) from 1972 to 1980. During this time, UFORIC investigated UFO reports from a three-state area, collecting data from various sources. Initially a "pro-UFO" organization, UFORIC's research data ultimately produced no meaningful spikes or trends, leading them to conclude that UFOs were not visiting alien spacecraft. Graeber criticizes "self-appointed expertise" in the field, calling it subjective, delusional, and often motivated by monetary gain.

He details UFORIC's investigative process, which involved phone reports, written forms, and interviews, aimed at detecting inconsistencies and understanding witness personalities. Graeber notes that witness perception and subjectivity were significant issues, with some witnesses lacking clear identification due to not wearing glasses or the object being too distant.

Nocturnal Light Observations (NLOs) that corresponded to known flight paths of airliners were generally identified as misidentifications of conventional aircraft. UFORIC disbanded in 1980 after Graeber received a call from an "abduction expert" who was angry that Graeber did not readily believe a witness claiming abduction. Graeber expresses concern about the rise of "abductology," which he considers the most "deluded and dangerous hobby," with practitioners often lacking proper training and sometimes offering questionable therapies.

Graeber asserts that despite decades of research, no incontrovertible evidence has been presented to prove that UFOs are alien spacecraft. He highlights the visual nature of the phenomenon and the wide variation in reported object shapes, suggesting that belief in UFOs is a matter of faith rather than science.

He then discusses his interactions with prominent figures in the UFO field, including Phil Klass, whom he respected as an "in-house skeptic" at UFORIC. Graeber recounts how Klass was unfairly "smeared as a debunker" for asking objective questions. He shares a personal anecdote about Klass's inscription in his book on abduction, "Matt Graeber, may you be spared," which Graeber interprets as Klass's early recognition that abduction claims were a sham.

Graeber also speaks about Karl T. Pflock, a former marine and CIA employee who was a UFO believer but drew a line at Roswell rumors. He mentions Robert G. Todd, who focused on the Roswell mythos and relentlessly exposed Roswell fantasy in his newsletter, 'Cowflop quarterly.' Graeber emphasizes that these individuals, despite their flaws, were human beings whose virtues outweighed their shortcomings.

Graeber then describes a DVD he encountered, originally intended as a cable TV show about ghosts but rejected for airing. The DVD focused on the search for an alien ghost at Roswell. He critiques the participants' credentials and the group's approach, which involved a séance at the alleged crash site. He notes the reliance on "authority figures" who claim expertise without certification and the tendency for believers to be "hypnotized" and embrace the experts' analyses.

He connects this to Jung's ideas about people being drawn to authority figures and the concept of "cosmic brotherhood," warning against replacing spiritual deities with "techno-angels." Graeber questions the longevity of the "saucer-faith" compared to established religions like Judaism and Christianity.

Graeber concludes by urging a shift towards critical thinking and a "21st century-style approach" to UFOlogy, emphasizing the need to ask the right questions and move beyond "ignorance."

Canadian Unknowns identified

This article by an unnamed author examines several UFO reports from Ontario, Canada, on April 3, 2012, initially suspected by "Herb" to be related to a rocket launch. The author investigated and found that the sightings were likely related to a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) spy satellite launch from Vandenberg.

Venting rocket boosters

The author notes that many UFO reports are actually related to rocket launches and re-entering space debris, such as rocket boosters venting fuel. Examples include sightings in Australia (June 2010) and Norway (December 2009).

The source

Ted Molczan's posting about the NROL-25 launch from Vandenberg, scheduled for April 2, 2012, caught the author's attention. This rocket and its payload had an unusual retrograde orbit, moving towards the northwest. The launch occurred shortly before the reported UFO sightings.

Orbit

The NROL-25 satellite had an unusual orbit with a 123-degree inclination, causing it to move towards the west, which is atypical for satellites.

Locations

The author plotted the reported UFO sightings on Google Earth and found they all originated from observers located between 77.5 and 82.5 west longitude, consistent with the predicted ground track of the satellite.

Why is this an "unknown"?

The author critiques the Canadian UFO database for listing these sightings as "unknown/unidentified" or "insufficient information." He argues that the descriptions are consistent with a booster rocket venting fuel and that the retrograde orbit should not have led investigators to dismiss this explanation. He believes the database investigators failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

How good is this database?

The author questions the quality of the UFO database, stating that it took him only 10 minutes to find a likely explanation for the Canadian sightings. He criticizes the database for listing reports as "unknown" when potential explanations are readily available, suggesting it amounts to "stamp collecting" reports.

He provides examples of other questionable entries, such as two sightings on March 26, 2012, that described the same event but were classified differently ("unknown" and "probable"). He also points out that reports of two lights in the sky on March 13, 2012, should have been classified as "probable" Venus and Jupiter, given their conjunction in the western sky after sunset.

Critical review is necessary

The author emphasizes the need for critical review in UFOlogy, arguing that many UFOlogists lack quality work and avoid peer review. He cites the Yukon mothership UFO case of 1996 as an example of a case that was "well documented" but "not well investigated," where potential explanations like space debris re-entry were ignored in favor of a more spectacular "UFO mothership" explanation.

He criticizes UFO researchers for not educating themselves about potential misidentifications and for a perceived "deliberate suppression" of mundane explanations. He urges UFOlogists to exhaust all possible solutions before classifying a case as "unknown."

STRING THEORY PART II

This article, by an unnamed author, continues a series on detecting model UFOs using digital cameras. This installment focuses on testing film cameras, specifically a 35mm camera and a Holga camera.

The Holga camera

The author describes the Holga camera as a cheap camera with a plastic lens, but notes its advantage of using large format film. He compares its resolution and focus to a 35mm camera, stating that the 35mm performed slightly better due to its superior lens.

Results

The author performed tests using daylight and the same models and strings as in the previous issue. He scanned the negatives and examined them with a computer and an 8X loupe. The Holga camera was less capable than digital cameras in resolving threads, with only the black thread being clearly visible. The bead wire was resolved with Photoshop adjustments. The 35mm camera's photograph of the bead wire was only visible after similar adjustments. The author was surprised that the white thread was not resolved by the Holga, attributing it to blending with the sky background.

Conclusions

The author concludes that film cameras did not perform as well as digital ones, and even a cell phone seemed to perform better. He expresses disappointment that the 35mm camera malfunctioned and plans to retest it in a future issue.

DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS BY not getting the facts right

This article, by an unnamed author, critiques Steve Lantz's analysis of the "Phoenix Lights" event, arguing that Lantz distorted facts and misrepresented the skeptics' positions.

Flares

The author states that Lantz inaccurately claims skeptics solely used flares to explain the entire event. While some skeptics did consider flares for the 10 PM videos, which showed flares dropped by the Maryland ANG, this explanation does not account for the earlier 8-8:45 PM event.

Hoax with Cessnas/helicopters

The author refutes Lantz's claim that the Phoenix Lights were a hoax involving Cessnas. He argues that Lantz misrepresented witness Mitch Stanley's account, stating Stanley used a dobsonian reflector, not a Celestron telescope, and that Lantz's assertion about the impossibility of tracking planes with such telescopes is incorrect. The author also corrects Lantz's understanding of Class-B airspace, explaining that aircraft flying above 10,000 feet are not penetrating it, and that a formation of aircraft en route to Tuscon would have flown above this controlled airspace.

Is this a religion?

The author concludes that Lantz's arguments are not an honest attempt to address facts but rather a distortion to support his beliefs, implying that the Phoenix Lights phenomenon is being framed as a "new age religious faith."

701 club

This entry details a UFO sighting case from February 10, 1955, in Bethesda, Maryland.

Case Summary

The witness, E.J. Stein, a model maker at a U.S. Navy ship design facility, reported seeing an object shaped like a portion of the Moon, with a radiant yellow color, hovering for 30 seconds. Its bottom then changed to a funnel shape. The total sighting lasted 1.5-2 minutes.

Record card details

The object was described as saucer-shaped and luminous, at an altitude of 150 feet. It had a flat top and spherical bottom, with a yellowish, radiant color. It remained stationary for 30 seconds before the bottom portion assumed a funnel shape, and the object appeared to diminish in size. The night was dark and cloudy, with no moon or stars visible.

Location

The witness was driving east on MacArthur Boulevard between 75th or 76th street and Cabin Johns Gardens entrance. The UFO appeared to the right of the car.

Weather

The report states the conditions were dark and cloudy. Weather underground records for Bethesda and Silver Hill indicated a mix of clear, scattered, and mostly cloudy conditions, with overcast skies later in the evening.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFOlogy, the nature of belief versus scientific investigation, and the analysis of specific UFO cases. The editorial stance appears to favor skepticism and rigorous investigation, questioning the validity of self-appointed experts and advocating for the exploration of mundane explanations before classifying phenomena as unknown. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of critical thinking and the potential for misidentification in UFO reports. The issue also touches upon the philosophical and psychological aspects of belief in UFOs, drawing parallels to religion and faith.

This issue of 'The UFO Evidence' (Volume VIII, Issue VIII, dated March 23, 1957) critically examines several UFO cases, primarily focusing on events from March 1957 and offering a skeptical analysis of claims made by UFOlogists, particularly those associated with NICAP. The publication appears to be a review or analysis of UFO evidence, with a strong emphasis on scrutinizing the methodology and conclusions of organizations like NICAP and the portrayal of events in documentaries.

The Moon Hypothesis and the March 22-23, 1957, Long Beach Sighting

The article begins by exploring the possibility that the moon was mistaken for a UFO in a sighting. It references weather conditions and the moon's rising time and position on the night of February 10, 1955, suggesting that brief appearances through cloud cover could explain some descriptions. However, the main focus shifts to the March 22-23, 1957, events in Long Beach, California, where four UFOs were reportedly tracked on CAA radar, accompanied by widespread visual sightings. A key piece of evidence highlighted is the report from an anonymous CAA radar operator who described tracking targets moving at extreme speeds, including one that stopped abruptly, reversed course, and disappeared off the scope at 50 miles. The operator estimated the objects were at or below 10,000 feet. The article notes that NICAP presented this as a radar-visual case.

However, the author strongly questions NICAP's interpretation. A significant criticism is that NICAP did not disclose, or the source omitted, that the radar equipment in question suffered a power supply failure just 17 minutes after the bizarre maneuvers were observed. This raises the possibility that the erratic returns were due to equipment malfunction rather than actual UFOs. Furthermore, the article points out that advanced air search radar at Santa Rosa, which was closer, did not detect any targets, casting further doubt on the validity of the CAA radar contacts. The author concludes that this was not a radar-visual case.

The Beaudoin Sighting (Oxnard, California)

The issue also details the sighting by Mrs. Robert Beaudoin on the night of March 22/23, 1957, in Oxnard, California. She reported a large, silent object with a brilliant red light, which later appeared to be joined by two red lights. The object was described as moving quickly but not changing its position significantly, appearing to jump back and forth and pulse or throb. The object was seen low in the northeast sky, appearing green and brighter than stars.

The USAF's 4602nd AISS investigated the case. Their findings suggested that the highway patrol and sheriff's deputies who responded saw nothing unusual, only stars. The investigation also noted that lights on a nearby barn might have reflected off wires, causing confusion. An astronomer suggested that the bright star Vega, visible low in the northeast, could be a candidate for the UFO, while stars Castor and Pollux were low in the west. The article implies that Lt. Ott, who initially responded to Mrs. Beaudoin's call, may have mistaken a radar contact report from five hours prior for a current one. The article suggests that NICAP may have blamed the USAF for intimidating witnesses, but questions whether NICAP simply failed to pursue the case closely or chose not to reveal all the facts.

The Pasadena Sightings (March 23-24, 1957)

The article then addresses the Pasadena sightings, which occurred the following evening. These reports involved multiple people, including Ground Observer Corps (GOC) personnel, seeing a round object, bright red with white flashes of light, described as orange-red with a bright white light flashing. The object reportedly disappeared in the west after fourteen minutes. The Blue Book file classified this as a possible aircraft exhaust glow. The author, however, suggests astronomical explanations, such as the setting of Sirius (around 11:45 PM) or Betelgeuse (around midnight), which are visible low in the sky and can appear red, especially when scintillating.

Evaluating the Evidence and Project Blue Book Exposed

The author expresses a critical view of the evidence presented in 'The UFO Evidence,' stating that all the events discussed are either explained or have plausible explanations. The article criticizes NICAP for not gathering more information beyond newspaper reports and a single radar operator's account, especially when that account was compromised by equipment failure. The author questions the reliability of anecdotal evidence and implies that NICAP created a significant case from minor events.

A separate section reviews Kevin Randle's book, 'Project Blue Book Exposed.' The reviewer finds the book to be more of an attack on the USAF than an honest evaluation of Project Blue Book. The reviewer argues that Randle incorrectly assumes the USAF only tried to explain cases away after the Ruppelt era and questions why there were still unidentified cases. The reviewer also disputes Randle's claims about meteors never moving upward and criticizes his interpretation of the Chiles-Whitted case and the Zond IV re-entry. The reviewer concludes that Randle's assertion that 'Flying saucers' (not UFOs) exist and are ET in origin is not supported by the files he examined.

Roswell Incident Critique

The issue also includes a critique of a documentary about the Roswell incident. The author questions the claims made by UFOlogist Stanton Friedman, particularly his assertion that the Roswell event was "one of the biggest stories of the millennium" and that his interviews with Jesse Marcel Sr. were conducted before any public versions of the story emerged. The article suggests that Friedman has developed an ability to understand what aliens think. The program's focus on alien body witnesses like Glenn Dennis and Gerald Anderson is questioned, with the author stating they have been shown to be "less than reliable" and that their descriptions of aliens were likely influenced by popular television shows. The article also notes that Marcel Jr.'s claims about the alien spaceship crash being the simplest explanation for the debris are challenged, as Marcel Sr. himself denied seeing I-beams. The author criticizes the documentary for misrepresenting the USAF 1997 report on Roswell and for not fully explaining its context. The article concludes that the documentary presented a distorted view of the Roswell incident.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue consistently adopts a skeptical stance towards UFO claims, particularly those promoted by NICAP and certain UFOlogists. The editorial stance is to critically evaluate evidence, question the methodology of UFO investigations, and propose conventional explanations for sightings. Themes include the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the possibility of misidentification (of celestial bodies, aircraft, or equipment malfunctions), and the perceived bias or flawed research practices of UFO organizations. The article emphasizes the importance of rigorous investigation and factual accuracy, contrasting it with what it views as sensationalism and speculation in the UFO field. The overall tone suggests that many UFO cases, when thoroughly examined, have mundane explanations or lack sufficient credible evidence to support extraordinary claims.