SUNlite - Vol 06 No 02

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 6, Number 2, published in March-April 2014, is a magazine dedicated to UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a striking image of a streaking light and a quote from Jenny Randles questioning the reality of perceived UFOs, suggesting they can be products of the mind. The issue includes a table of contents listing various articles on topics such as "Who's blogging UFOs?", "The Roswell Corner", "Cell phone cameras: A solution to the UFO problem?", and specific case analyses.

All that glitters is not gold

The editorial section, "All that glitters is not gold," addresses the tendency of UFOlogy to ignore or offer weak explanations for sightings, citing a Discovery Channel Canada program as an example. The author expresses frustration with proponents who avoid discussing skeptical explanations. To counter this, a significant portion of the issue is dedicated to the Yukon UFO mothership case of 1996, presenting both the proponents' view and explanations offered by Ted Molczan and Harro Zimmer. The editor also discusses recent online debates, particularly on Rich Reynolds' blog, and corrects a previous statement about the planet Venus in relation to nocturnal UFO reports. A note is made about the increasing popularity of Chinese lanterns as a Fourth of July celebration device, suggesting they might explain some UFO reports. Finally, a planned UFO hoax for April 5, 2014, involving amateur drone pilots, is mentioned.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section details online discussions and debates among UFO researchers and skeptics. It covers an attack on Gilles Fernandez's "Airship wave" article by Rich Reynolds, who initially described it as "skeptical propaganda" but later called it "sloppy" and "fictional." The author criticizes Reynolds' arguments and his accusations against skeptics. The section also notes the revival of "UFO updates" on Facebook and the creation of "The UFO collective" by Isaac Koi. Paul Hellyer's claims about aliens walking among us are mentioned, along with Ted Molczan's updated visible re-entries catalogue. A video of Budd Hopkins interviewing Phillip Corso about his claims is discussed, with Hopkins showing skepticism.

Robert Sheaffer and Tim Hebert are highlighted for their criticism of a Discovery Channel Canada production, particularly regarding the Yukon UFO case and the Oscar flight shutdown. Sheaffer's critique of the 2014 International UFO conference is summarized, including concerns about Stephen Bassett's "UFO disclosure" project and the promotion of UFO connections by the National Atomic Testing Museum. Jasper Copping's observation that UFO "enthusiasts" are questioning the phenomenon is noted, along with David Clarke's comment on the lack of clear footage despite widespread camera availability. Thomas Bullard's "crisis of confidence" in some UFO cases is discussed, emphasizing the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. Dr. Tyler Kokjohn's video on abduction evidence and genetic research is also mentioned.

The Roswell Corner

This section focuses on the ongoing "big reveal" of alleged Roswell slides. Anthony Bragalia is criticized for comparing the sale of slide viewing opportunities to Phil Klass selling books, with the author expressing concern about promoting a potential fraud. The secrecy surrounding the slides and the lack of transparency from the investigative team are questioned. Rich Reynolds is cited as leaking information that the image shows an alien body with a placard, but the text on the placard is unreadable due to focus issues. The possibility of Jaimie Maussan's involvement if the reveal occurs in Mexico City is raised. The author predicts the slides will be presented at the annual Roswell UFO festival.

Dating slides

This article explores the challenges of dating old Kodachrome slide films, which is relevant to the Roswell slides. The author details attempts to date slides from his own collection and purchased slides from ETSY. He explains the use of edge coding on film as an indicator of manufacture year, referencing a document from film preservation.org. However, inconsistencies and lack of clear coding on many slides are noted, making it difficult to definitively determine the age of the film, particularly for the alleged 1947 Roswell slides. The author hopes for full scans of unmounted slides to prevent digital manipulation and for outside certification of authenticity.

There is a "profound truth” to the Roswell myth

This piece clarifies the distinction between the Roswell myth and the "core of truth" to the story. The author explains that skeptics do not deny the factual events, such as Mack Brazel picking up debris and it being identified as weather balloon debris. The myth, however, evolved from these facts. The article recommends books by Benson Saler, Charles Ziegler, and Charles Moore for further understanding of the Roswell myth's genesis.

Cell phone cameras: A solution to the UFO problem?

This multi-part article investigates the capabilities of modern cell phone cameras in recording UFOs. It begins by addressing criticisms of cell phone cameras in UFOlogy and then details resolution tests. The author photographed aircraft and the moon to assess the camera's ability to capture details at various distances and angular sizes. The tests suggest that an 8-megapixel camera can resolve objects with an angular size of about half a degree, comparable to a 35mm camera. However, objects smaller than this, or at greater distances, may appear as unidentifiable blobs or specks. The article discusses the challenges of night photography with cell phones, particularly autofocus issues and automatic shutter speed adjustments that can cause light streaks. The Chelyabinsk meteor event is used as an example of how cell phone videos can provide useful information, such as triangulating the fireball's path. The author concludes that while cell phones are unlikely to solve the UFO question alone, the abundance of these devices increases the likelihood of a "true UFO" event being recorded. The lack of convincing recent cell phone imagery of unexplained UFOs suggests that such events may not be as common as claimed, and it is time for UFOlogists to "up their game" to provide credible data.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite include the critical examination of UFOlogy, the importance of skepticism in analyzing UFO claims, and the use of photographic and video evidence. The magazine consistently promotes a rational and evidence-based approach to UFO investigation, often highlighting the explanations provided by skeptics and investigators. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious inquiry, encouraging rigorous analysis and questioning unsubstantiated claims, particularly those that lack documentation or rely heavily on eyewitness testimony. The issue emphasizes the need for verifiable evidence and transparency in UFO research.

Title: December 1996 Yukon UFO revisited
Issue Date: December 1996
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: Canada

This article revisits the December 1996 Yukon UFO case, which gained prominence through a Discovery Channel Canada series. The author notes that while Ted Molczan and Robert Sheaffer had proposed an explanation involving the re-entry of a rocket body (Cosmos 2335), the principal investigator Martin Jasek and other Canadian UFOlogists remained quiet. Chris Rutkowski publicly rejected the re-entry explanation, favoring subjective witness testimony. The article aims to review the case and the evidence.

Who is Ted Molczan?

Chris Rutkowski referred to Ted Molczan as an unnamed "satellite tracker." The author expresses frustration with this description, arguing that Molczan, with his reputation in the space and astronomical community for computing orbits and re-entering space debris, is highly qualified to evaluate such cases. The author also criticizes the Discovery Channel for not presenting a balanced view, suggesting Molczan could have been interviewed.

An instant classic

Martin Jasek, the principal investigator, collected reports from witnesses over two years after the event. His conclusion was that they saw a "huge mothership UFO." The case was widely promoted and considered one of the top ten UFO cases by UFOlogists for Paul Kimball's "Best evidence" film. The event occurred on the night of December 11th, 1996, in the remote Yukon Territory. Witnesses were located along the Klondike Highway, spanning a distance of approximately 120 miles. Jasek organized the sightings into three concentrations: seven witnesses at Pelly Crossing, nine at Carmacks, and six near Whitehorse at Fox Lake.

The Pelly Crossing sightings

Seven witnesses in Pelly Crossing, a small, remote village, reported seeing the UFO. PEL1 (Don Trudeau) saw an object in the west that appeared to react to his flashlight, emitting a beam as it moved. PEL2 and PEL3 described a "whole big cluster of stars moving" that slowly faded away. PEL4, 5, 6, and 7, who were taking a college course, noticed a formation of lights in the northwest that traversed the sky. Witness PEL7 estimated the object to be much higher than PEL5 and 6. Some witnesses heard that people in Dawson and Mayo also saw the UFO.

The Carmacks concentration

In Carmacks, nine witnesses reported sightings. Four were in the same vehicle (CRM1-4), reporting a dark shape behind lights moving from northwest to northeast, then east and south. CRM1 estimated the time at 7:00 PM. CRM2 reported the lights were visible for about ten minutes and estimated the angular size at 60 degrees. The remaining five witnesses (CRM5-9) were a family. The father saw lights moving slowly and low, consisting of a row of lights that went out as it moved. CRM5 initially reported the time as between 9 and 10 PM but adjusted it to just after 7 PM.

Observations at Fox Lake

Witnesses at Fox Lake were in cars driving north. FOX1 saw a bright light to the north-northwest that later appeared as three rows of lights moving eastward. FOX2 and FOX3 saw the UFO "hovering" over the lake. FOX2 reported the UFO approached him and passed overhead. FOX3 also saw the UFO approach FOX2 and pass over him eastward. FOX3 noted the time as between 8:25 and 8:30 PM. FOX4 and FOX5 saw the UFO pass over the lake, noting its travel from west/northwest to east/northeast. FOX5 remembered the time as 8:23 PM.

The mothership conclusion

Based on the witness accounts, Martin Jasek concluded that a massive UFO was flying low across the Klondike Highway. He suggested that either multiple UFOs were involved or a single UFO made multiple passes. However, the author points out that if the UFO was very low, it would be impossible for all witnesses to see the same object at the same time. Jasek's analysis relies on subjective data to compute altitudes and object size.

How good are the eyewitness reports?

The article delves into the reliability of eyewitness testimony, citing Elizabeth Loftus's work. Loftus's three-stage model (Acquisition, Retention, Retrieval) highlights how memory is not a perfect recording. Expectations can influence perception and interpretation. The author questions whether the movie "Independence Day," released in July 1996, might have influenced witnesses' perceptions of the UFO's size. Jasek's interviews were conducted over two years after the event, raising concerns about the retention stage, where memories can change due to external information and personal thoughts. The article emphasizes that people are less accurate after a long retention interval and that post-event discussions can alter memories.

Two key witnesses, FOX2 and FOX3, whose testimony was used for triangulation, had discussed the event immediately after. The author questions the accuracy of FOX2's description two years later, particularly regarding the angle of elevation.

The skeptical viewpoint

Skeptics view the eyewitness testimony as less reliable, not necessarily lying but prone to errors. The article discusses inconsistencies in reported times, with most sightings occurring between 7 PM and 10 PM, with a median around 8:30 PM. Directional descriptions are generally consistent (eastward, north of them), but some variations exist. The author notes that Jasek's calculations for the Pelly Crossing sighting rely heavily on Don Trudeau's account, who was in the woods and lacked a clear reference point for direction. The article suggests that if Trudeau's initial observation was northwest instead of due west, the UFO would be much farther away. It is argued that witnesses across such a wide distance could not have seen the same object up close at the same time.

The article critiques the triangulation argument based on FOX2 and FOX3, pointing out inconsistencies in FOX2's sketches and the potential for misinterpreting angles of elevation. It concludes that if all witnesses saw the same UFO, it must have been very high in altitude and distant.

The explanation

Ted Molczan and Harro Zimmer proposed that the Yukon UFO was the re-entry of the booster rocket from Cosmos 2335. They computed a trajectory that closely matched the path reported by many witnesses, moving from northwest to northeast. The sketch by witness PEL2 was noted as a close approximation to the computed trajectory. The rocket body re-entry explanation accounts for why witnesses over a wide area saw something similar, with most reporting an easterly motion from the west or northwest. Discrepancies in reported angles of elevation or directions are attributed to mistaken perceptions during the acquisition stage or altered memories.

Re-entry events perceived as UFOs

The article explains that space debris re-entries have frequently been mistaken for UFOs since the early days of the space age. Examples include Sputnik 2, Zond IV, Cosmos 2068, Gorizont 21, Cosmos 2238, and various Proton K rockets. These events often produce reports of bright fireballs or objects with lights, especially when the debris breaks up and spreads across the sky. The article includes images of various space debris re-entries that were misinterpreted as UFOs.

The missing witnesses

Dr. Hartmann's observation of the "Excitedness effect" in the Zond IV case is discussed, where highly excited witnesses produce the most detailed but often misconceived reports, while those with experience who recognize the phenomenon produce brief reports. The author suggests that while Jasek focused on UFO witnesses, there might have been observers who identified the event as a meteor or re-entry. A Royal Canadian Mountain Police officer reportedly told a witness that the event was a meteor breaking up. Additionally, the article notes the absence of newspaper reports from December 12 or 13, 1996, in the Yukon, but found a report from Alaska's Daily Sitka Sentinel describing meteors lighting up the skies, which sounds similar to the Yukon event.

No explanation, other than an alien spaceship, is ever good enough

The article concludes by criticizing the UFOlogical response to Molczan's explanation, characterizing it as a "to the last man" defense. It argues that instead of acknowledging the possibility of the re-entry explanation or providing a counterargument, Jasek and Rutkowski retreat to the standard position of assuming eyewitnesses "knew what they saw." This approach, the author contends, ignores the bulk of testimony suggesting the object was farther away and higher, and fails to address the fact that the re-entry occurred around the same time as the sightings, yet was not seen by the witnesses. The author suggests that either it was an incredible coincidence, or the witnesses misinterpreted the re-entry as a UFO.

Notes and references

The article includes a comprehensive list of notes and references, citing various sources including UFO sighting archives, books on eyewitness testimony, and scientific studies of UFOs.

This issue of "The 701 Club" presents an in-depth analysis of two significant UFO cases and explores a statistical anomaly in UFO reporting.

Case 1124: April 17, 1952 - Longmeadow, Massachusetts

The issue begins by detailing a sighting on April 17, 1952, in Longmeadow, Massachusetts, as described in Don Berlinner's list. The event involved two witnesses, S.B. Brooks and J.A. Eaton, both engineers, who observed a round, deep orange object for 40 minutes starting at 8:30 p.m. The object reportedly flew fast and erratically, occasionally emitting a shaft of light and changing its shape as it gained altitude. It was described as being four times brighter than any star. The author initially considered astronomical explanations due to the long duration and time of night.

A "Blue Book Investigation" record card for Project 10073 is presented, confirming the witnesses were two engineers and detailing the object's characteristics: star-like color and shape, rapid climbs and dives, and erratic movement. The object was described as "very erratic" and "4x as bright as star," with its shape changing as it gained altitude.

Further investigation revealed more details: the object was round and deep orange, emitted light from its rear, moved at speeds estimated between 600mph and 1000mph, and changed shape, appearing to approach and recede. The azimuth was reported as 20 degrees, but also as east or towards Boston. One witness was an MIT graduate, and both admitted to having no training in astronomy or aerodynamics, with one having recently read a LIFE magazine article on UFOs. They reported their observations to Westover Air Force Base and continued to observe the object for forty minutes, even going inside with it still visible.

The author then attempts to "make sense of the report," focusing on the azimuth discrepancy. The real azimuth to Boston from Longmeadow is about 73 degrees (ENE). The witness's estimate of 20 degrees might have been an angle of elevation. Astronomical objects visible at that time and location are considered, with Arcturus (azimuth 96 degrees, elevation 37 degrees) and the planet Mars (azimuth 116 degrees at 2030 local time) being candidates. The author suggests confusion might have arisen from discussing altitude, and the 20-degree value could have been an angle of elevation. The road they lived on, Nevins Avenue, might also have influenced their directional perception, potentially leading them to look ESE (around 109 degrees) instead of East.

Assuming the object was Mars, the author notes that Mars is orangish-red and was approximately magnitude -1.25 on that date, making it about 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 0 star like Arcturus (-0.04). The fact that the object remained visible for 40 minutes and that no other sightings were reported despite notification to the Air Force suggests an astronomical explanation. The author concludes that Mars is a "likely solution," classifying the case as "probably Mars."

Case: August 28, 1954 - Oklahoma City

The second major case examined is from August 28, 1954, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NICAP lists this case, which reportedly involved fifteen UFOs in a precise triangular formation observed by hundreds of citizens and tracked by Tinker AFB radar. The report states the UFOs were tracked on radar, chased by jets, changed to a semi-circle formation, and sped away.

However, the author finds that the Blue Book record for this case is "almost non-existent," listing it only for "Information only" and not as "unidentified." The source for the initial report is cited as Donald Keyhoe's "Flying Saucer Conspiracy." Further investigation into the files reveals a letter from James Maney, deputy director of a UFO group, requesting analysis of the formation. ATIC reported having no records of UFO sightings over Oklahoma City in August 1954, prompting Colonel Tacker to suggest Maney check local newspapers.

Other sources, including Brad Sparks' catalog and Larry Hatch's database, trace the information back to Donald Keyhoe. Keyhoe's "Flying Saucers: Top Secret" is cited, which describes the event with radar tracking and jet pursuit. However, the author notes that the newspaper archive yielded no reference to this specific case, though a similar sighting of 1500 people seeing a balloon was reported in Woodward, Oklahoma. The author finds a newspaper article from "The Oklahoman" dated August 29, 1954, titled "Airforce Keeps Eyes Peeled At Reports of Strange Objects."

This article describes strange aerial objects sighted northeast of Oklahoma City on Saturday evening, with descriptions varying but generally involving a triangular flight pattern and a luminous glow. Tinker Air Force Base was investigating, but officials cited security restrictions. The highway patrol and Will Rogers Field were notified to watch for the objects. The weather bureau suggested that clouds and lightning could cause apparitions, but later stated local weather conditions would not cause them. Mrs. R. H. Cox reported seeing 15 to 20 objects flying at high speed, heading west, in a regular airplane shape, but without noise. Her husband stated they flew in a triangular pattern, then changed to a semi-circular formation. Some witnesses who reported to the Daily Oklahoman did not give their names.

The author questions why this case is listed, noting the discrepancy between Keyhoe's account (radar, jets, hundreds of witnesses) and the newspaper report (no mention of radar or jets, varying descriptions, some witnesses unnamed). The author suggests that Keyhoe's sensationalist style may have exaggerated the events, and the lack of independent confirmation for radar contact or jet intercepts makes the claims unlikely. The case is ultimately classified as "insufficient information."

Independent UFOs: The July 4th Effect

The latter part of the magazine delves into a phenomenon termed the "July 4th effect," explored by Marty Kottmeyer. This refers to a significant spike in UFO reports occurring on July 4th, particularly noted in the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) data. The author highlights that July 4, 2013, had the single largest volume of UFO reports for that year, and similar spikes have been observed for the past several years.

Kottmeyer discusses David R. Saunders' theory of UFO waves occurring in 61-month cycles, moving eastwards in 30-degree steps, and the earlier idea that UFO flaps were timed by Mars' orbit. He notes that while Saunders' theory has largely been dismissed, he was curious about the July 4th spike as a potential test point.

He contrasts this with his own theory that UFO flaps are correlated to periods of national shame, which elevate paranoia. July 4th, being a day of national pride, would seemingly contradict this theory. Kottmeyer presents charts of Blue Book data from 1950-1969 showing that July 4th did not exhibit an elevated number of UFO reports, suggesting it was a "noneffect."

However, recent data from 2000-2012, particularly from NUFORC, shows a consistent and striking increase in reports around July 4th, especially since 2008. The author questions why this effect has arisen recently and was absent in historical Blue Book data.

Possible explanations for the July 4th effect are explored, including an "audience effect" where people are outside watching fireworks. However, this doesn't explain the absence in older data. Another possibility is the release of Chinese lanterns or other attention-getting items, which could be a modern hoaxing fad. The author notes that Chinese lantern hoaxes are common in England, where people no longer report them. He questions if there are enough hoaxers to account for the excess reports.

Kottmeyer concludes by posing the question of why this phenomenon is occurring now and not in the 1950s and 1960s, suggesting that perhaps the explanation lies in a social phenomenon rather than a genuine UFO increase.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO reports, the importance of reliable sources, and the analysis of statistical trends in UFO sightings. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensationalist claims, favoring evidence-based investigation and seeking rational explanations, whether astronomical or sociological. The magazine encourages readers to consider multiple perspectives and to question the presented evidence, particularly when it relies heavily on anecdotal accounts or unverified sources like Donald Keyhoe's work.

This document is a single page from a magazine, featuring two main sections: a review of a television episode titled "UFOs on the tube: Uncovering Aliens: Alien Harvesting" and a review of the book "Wonders in the sky" by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck.

"UFOs on the tube: Uncovering Aliens: Alien Harvesting" Review

The review of the "UFOs on the tube" episode criticizes it as a poorly produced program from the Discovery Channel, presented as an unbiased investigation but failing to meet minimal standards. The episode focuses on Matthew Reed, who claims to have experienced an hour and a half of missing time on March 30, 2009, after seeing an orange light. His car was allegedly magnetized and irradiated, and he later found himself standing in a field miles away. The review notes that the show did not investigate the car or provide records, and that weather reports contradicted Reed's claim of a clear sky.

The investigative team for the show includes Mike Bara (described as an "experienced aeronautics engineer" and "skeptic"), Maureen Elsberry (a "respected UFO journalist" who helps organize international UFO congresses), Steven Jones (a "self-proclaimed contactee"), and Derrel Simms (a "private investigator/Ex-CIA/abductee" with a questionable association with the CIA).

The review highlights the investigation at the field where Reed claims to have experienced missing time. Derrel Simms is shown detecting radiation in the snow, a measurement the reviewer dismisses as "bogus" because it was not the same snow and ground from the time of the alleged event. The reviewer suspects the program may have planted a radioactive source to produce this effect.

The episode also features an interview with Reed's brother, who confirms an alleged abduction experience from their childhood. A doctor who examined Reed noted marks that looked like they were made with a scalpel, which the reviewer sarcastically contrasts with advanced alien technology.

Steven Jones discusses the case with Timothy Good, who claims the phenomenon is about the hybridization of the human race and mentions world-wide conspiracies and underground bases. The team tells Reed and his brother they have been selected to help advance human evolution.

The reviewer points out a "straw man" skeptical approach by "skeptic" Mike Bara, who suggests lightning as an explanation. After a staged experiment showing lightning could cause memory loss, the show's producers allegedly looked at weather records, which showed no lightning storms in the area. The reviewer believes the producers failed to explore the possibility that Reed was lying or fantasizing, and that there is no real evidence for his story.

The review concludes that the show is as bad as "UFO Hunters" and advises readers not to waste their time.

"Wonders in the sky" Book Review

The second section is a review of the book "Wonders in the sky" by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck. The reviewer had heard good things about the book and decided to purchase it. The book is described as a collection of unusual aerial phenomena throughout human history up to the year 1879.

The book is divided into three main sections: a chronology of events, a listing of cases determined to be hoaxes, religious visions, or celestial/atmospheric phenomena, and an explanation of the authors' methodology.

The reviewer finds some cases in the first section questionable, particularly those taken from the Bible, which they do not consider a reliable historical source. Other included cases are deemed interesting but questionable. As an amateur astronomer, the reviewer is familiar with reports of solar transits of objects other than Venus or Mercury, and satellites of Venus, which are known not to exist, leading to the conclusion of observer/instrument error. Despite these criticisms, the reviewer notes that other cases are more interesting and difficult to explain, coming from credible historical sources.

The second section, titled "Myths, legends, and chariots of the gods," exposes hoaxes that have been repeated over the years, often due to authors not checking their sources. The reviewer commends Aubeck and Vallee for their effort in investigating and exposing these cases.

The reviewer considers the book a "superb collection of unusual aerial sightings predating the year 1879" and a "very good resource." They recommend it as a "buy it" book that belongs in any UFO library.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document exhibits a critical stance towards sensationalized and poorly researched UFO television programs, contrasting it with a more favorable view of academic and historical UFO research. The review of "UFOs on the tube" highlights skepticism towards the investigators' methods and motivations, suggesting a lack of genuine inquiry. Conversely, the review of "Wonders in the sky" praises the authors for their thorough research and critical examination of historical UFO reports, even while offering constructive criticism on specific inclusions. The overall editorial stance appears to favor rigorous, evidence-based investigation and historical documentation over speculative or entertainment-focused UFO content.