SUNlite - Vol 06 No 03

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 6 Number 3
Date: May-June 2014
Publisher: MUFON
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," critically examines various aspects of UFOlogy, with a particular focus on the MUFON organization and its television program "Hanger 1." The magazine adopts a skeptical yet engaged stance, questioning the scientific rigor of UFO research and the methodologies employed by organizations like MUFON.

Editorial Content

The Sociology of UFOs and Scientific Debate

The cover features a quote from Dr. William Hartmann, "The sociology of UFO's can tell us something about human nature. Jules Verne said, 'What one man can imagine, another man can do.' I propose a corollary: 'What one man can fantasize, another man will believe.'" This sets a tone that explores the psychological and sociological aspects of UFO belief alongside scientific inquiry.

Critique of MUFON's "Hanger 1" Program

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to dissecting MUFON's TV show "Hanger 1." The author argues that the program promotes questionable evidence, inauthentic documents, and unsubstantiated rumors, likening its formula to "Ancient Aliens." The article criticizes MUFON for allegedly falsifying data to promote theories and suggests that the show prioritizes outlandish claims for ratings and financial gain over genuine scientific research. The program's main cast, including Richard Dolan and Grant Cameron, are highlighted for their storytelling abilities but also for presenting what the author deems inaccurate information and conspiracy theories.

Jan Harzan, MUFON's Executive Director, is quoted on the organization's goal of "The Scientific Study of UFOs for the Benefit of Humanity." However, the author suggests Harzan is not taking this statement lightly, implying self-promotion and belief-driven narratives overshadow scientific integrity.

Specific Cases and Researchers

The magazine reviews several UFO cases and the researchers involved:

• The Minot UFO Case: Tim Hebert's investigation into the 1968 Minot UFO case is mentioned, with a discussion on whether ground personnel misperceived stars or if the object was indeed a UFO.
• John Fuller and Betty Hill vs. Carl Sagan: Kitty Mervine's account of John Fuller and Betty Hill's attempt to sue Carl Sagan for using their story in "Cosmos" is discussed. The author agrees with Sagan's stance that historical events in the public record cannot be copyrighted.
• John Ventre and Malaysia Airlines 370: John Ventre, MUFON state director of Pennsylvania, is criticized for proclaiming that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines 370 was an alien abduction, which the author views as an example of UFO organizations promoting conspiracy theories.
• MUFON's "Case Closed" Mentality: The article criticizes MUFON's frequent use of the term "Case closed" when unable to find an answer, suggesting it's a way to avoid proper investigation. Examples include a 1957 photograph of a cigar-shaped UFO and a 2010 case that Alejandro Rojas suggested was an advertising banner.
• Cash-Landrum Case: Curt Collins' work on the Cash-Landrum case is noted, particularly the discussion of handprints and a comparison of reported objects with known objects.
• Roger Leir and Alien Implants: The passing of UFO researcher Roger Leir is mentioned, with Paul Kimball's reflection on Leir's work with alien implants, noting that nothing extracted was proven to be of alien origin.
• Anthony Bragalia's Theories: Bragalia's attempts to explain the Lonnie Zamora case by suggesting a balloon launch from Mount Baldy are critiqued for relying on speculation rather than concrete evidence.
• Robert Sheaffer on Laurence Rockefeller and Carl Sagan: Sheaffer's article about Laurence Rockefeller's attempt to involve Carl Sagan in UFO research is highlighted, with Sagan's quote emphasizing the need for physical evidence over anecdotal accounts.
• Ambient Monitoring Project (AMP): Jack Brewer's account of the AMP is discussed, questioning why UFO groups that gathered abduction evidence did not reveal their findings, suggesting the data might not have supported their beliefs.
• Ted Molczan's Re-entries Database: Molczan's work on a database of space debris re-entries is praised as a valuable resource for identifying potential causes of older UFO cases.
• Nick Pope's Book: The daily mail's endorsement of Nick Pope's book on Rendlesham is seen as uncritical, with skeptics viewing Pope as repackaging flawed stories.
• Flying Triangle Photograph: A photograph of a flying triangle taken in Wichita, Kansas, is noted, with the author suggesting it might be a military aircraft.
• Kevin Randle and the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU): Randle's articles about the IPU are mentioned, clarifying that the IPU was created in 1958 and focused on satellite launches rather than recovering alien spacecraft. Randle's work on the Levelland case and electromagnetic effects is also noted, questioning the consistency of UFOs shutting down car engines.

Roswell and Presidential Involvement

• Roswell Corner: Kevin Randle's explanation of his limited involvement in the slide controversy is discussed. Tony Bragalia's honesty regarding seeing the slides is questioned.
• Bill Clinton on Roswell: Bill Clinton's brief mention of UFOs and Roswell on Jimmy Kimmel is noted, with the author suggesting disclosure proponents will claim secrets are classified.
• Anthony Bragalia and Professor Charles Moore: Bragalia's claim that Professor Charles Moore collaborated with the USAF on the 1997 Roswell report is examined. The author finds no evidence of collaboration, suggesting Moore likely knew the report's authors and discussed research with them.
• President Eisenhower and Palm Springs: The article questions the narrative of President Eisenhower's "disappearance" for a few hours, which MUFON speculates was a meeting with aliens at Muroc AFB. The official explanation of a dental visit is presented as more plausible.
• Mandate 0463: The document "Mandate 0463" (March 3, 1954), allegedly from the DOD, is presented as requiring the denial of alien existence. The author questions its authenticity, noting its wording may come from the MJ-12 SOM-1 manual and suggesting MUFON is promoting hoaxes.
• JFK and UFO Secrets: The article discusses MUFON's interpretation of the failed Cosmos 21 launch as a mysterious mission and JFK's alleged memo to the CIA ordering UFO information sharing with the USSR. The provenance of this document is questioned, and its connection to JFK's assassination is dismissed as a hoax suggestion.
• Jimmy Carter and George Bush: The narrative of George H.W. Bush briefing Jimmy Carter about UFOs and the CIA director's role is discussed, with the author pointing out that Carter had his own CIA director, Stansfield Turner.
• Antarctica UFO Battle: The "Hanger 1" program's claim of a Nazi underground base in Antarctica and a US Navy battle with a UFO during "Operation High Jump" is debunked. The author states the operation was for setting up an air base and operating in polar waters, with casualties resulting from an airplane crash and ship damage, not a UFO encounter.
• Admiral Byrd's Warnings: The article addresses Admiral Byrd's warnings about pole area attacks, questioning the accuracy of a recording attributed to him and noting that a Chilean newspaper's translation was incorrect. The original statement focused on defending the US from planes flying from polar regions.

Technology and UFOlogy

• Transistor Technology: MUFON's claim that the transistor was invented due to reverse-engineering a UFO crash artifact in Cape Girardeau in 1941 is refuted. The article states the transistor was developed at Bell Labs in 1947 by William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain, with no apparent connection to Purdue University as MUFON suggests.
• Alien Popcorn (Corso and Technology): The claims of Philip Corso regarding technology derived from the Roswell UFO crash, such as IC chips, fiber optics, and microwaves, are presented. The author specifically refutes the claim about microwaves originating from the Roswell incident, noting their prior existence and use in radar technology during WWII, with patents filed in 1945 and radar ranges available by 1947.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite are the critical examination of UFOlogy, particularly the practices and claims of MUFON, and the distinction between scientific investigation and belief-driven narratives. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a strong emphasis on the need for verifiable evidence and proper investigative techniques. The magazine advocates for a scientific approach to UFO phenomena, contrasting it with what it perceives as the sensationalism and fabrication prevalent in some UFO circles. The issue highlights the importance of historical accuracy and challenges attempts to rewrite history based on questionable sources or interpretations.

This issue of "Element 115" critically examines and debunks numerous claims and incidents promoted by MUFON (Mutual UFO Network), arguing that the organization often prioritizes sensationalism and conspiracy theories over scientific evidence. The publication appears to be a critical review of a television program or series that heavily featured MUFON's explanations and investigations of UFO phenomena.

Element 115: The Hoax Unveiled

The central theme revolves around element 115, a topic popularized by Bob Lazar, who claimed it was an alien-provided element crucial for anti-gravity propulsion. The article directly refutes this, stating that element 115 was synthesized long after Lazar's claims and that its most stable isotope, discovered in 2003 (not 2004 as claimed by some), has a half-life of only about 200 milliseconds. This instability contradicts Lazar's prediction of a stable "island of stability" and renders his claims about anti-gravity technology based on element 115 a hoax. The author criticizes John Ventre and Dwight Equitz for promoting Lazar's story without verifying the facts.

Ben Rich and the Question of ET vs. Man-Made UFOs

The issue delves into the claims surrounding Lockheed executive Ben Rich, who is suggested to have believed in both ET-origin and man-made UFOs. The article questions the accuracy of Jan Harzan's interpretation of a letter attributed to Rich, suggesting it was actually addressed to a model-kit designer regarding the origin of UFOs. It also highlights Rich's caution about "charlatans" in the UFO field. The author casts doubt on William McDonald's account of Rich confirming man-made UFOs based on alien technology, especially since McDonald's claims emerged after John Andrews' death, making it potentially hearsay or a fabrication.

A recorded statement attributed to Ben Rich, suggesting that humanity already possesses the means for interstellar travel locked in black projects, is also presented as unverified hearsay, with doubts raised about the authenticity of the voice recording.

Debunking MUFON's UFO Cases

The majority of the article systematically dissects various UFO cases presented by MUFON, exposing perceived flaws, lack of evidence, and alternative explanations:

Iranian UFO Crash

MUFON's explanation of Iran capturing a US drone using a UFO with anti-gravity and a tractor beam is challenged. The author suggests a more plausible explanation involving electronic jamming and the drone failing, citing a US statement that the drone "crash landed." The claim is linked to Dr. Mehran Keshe and a supposed 2004 UFO crash in Kerman, which the article suggests likely occurred in 2007 and was a meteor.

Technology Addiction

The article critiques the idea that humans are addicted to alien technology. It addresses a claim that UFOs were seen near power plants in August 2003, implying they caused a power outage. However, a check of the MUFON database revealed no such reports, and the author provides a more mundane explanation for the outage. The issue also quotes Carl Sagan on society's ignorance of science and technology, suggesting MUFON took his words out of context.

On-line Hoax and Non-Existent Crashes

An apparent UFO crash in Barstow, California, presented by MUFON, is dismissed as an "on-line hoax" originating from an internet forum with no corroboration in official databases. Similarly, the Aurora, Texas, UFO crash case from 1897, which MUFON promoted, is labeled a hoax that "won't die," with no photographic evidence of the alleged gravestone.

South of the Border UFO Crash (Coyame, Mexico)

MUFON's investigation of a 1974 incident where a UFO allegedly collided with a civilian aircraft near Coyame, Mexico, is presented as inaccurate. The author questions the logistics of the alleged recovery by the CIA and the military, the UFO's inability to avoid a civilian plane, and the lack of public notice. The case is described as based on rumor and few facts, with principal investigators admitting uncertainty, contrary to MUFON's portrayal.

Acorn Hunting (Kecksburg Incident)

The Kecksburg incident is revisited, with MUFON promoting a narrative of a UFO crash and subsequent cover-up involving military personnel. The author disputes the extent of witness accounts and suggests that much of the story was fabricated or exaggerated, particularly questioning a "letter" attributed to John Murphy, who allegedly died under mysterious circumstances after investigating the incident. The author suspects MUFON of fabricating or misrepresenting evidence.

When Stars Become UFOs

The article scrutinizes MUFON's presentation of UFO sightings, including "blue orbs" in Blue Springs, Missouri. The author suggests these were likely mundane celestial objects, possibly stars, and criticizes the investigation's lack of basic astronomical knowledge. The claim that a camera operator refused to work due to fear is also questioned.

Nuclear Attraction

MUFON's theory that UFOs are attracted to nuclear power plants is examined. The article discusses a sighting over the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in 1984, which MUFON claimed caused panic and disruption. The author disputes the details, noting discrepancies in dates, the nature of the security guards, and the alleged alarms. The idea that UFOs monitor or suck energy from nuclear reactors is dismissed as scientifically baseless speculation.

Nukes Without UFOs

MUFON's claim regarding a 2010 incident at Warren AFB involving a cigar-shaped object during missile shutdowns is debunked. The author found no UFO reports from the area in MUFON or NUFORC databases, suggesting the claims were based on rumors rather than tangible evidence. The idea that UFOs could control nuclear weapons is called absurd.

Buggy Videos

A November 2012 video showing a UFO in Denver is presented by MUFON as evidence of alien technology. However, the author reveals that skeptics investigated the site and identified the objects as bugs, a fact ignored by MUFON.

Red Bull Predicts Earthquakes

MUFON's theory linking fault lines to UFOs and earthquakes is criticized. The Santa Monica fireball incident, attributed by MUFON to "silver surfer" UFOs, is explained as Red Bull parachutists with flares, a fact allegedly ignored or misrepresented by MUFON.

Shooting Down a Meteor?

The Chelyabinsk meteor event is discussed, with MUFON promoting a theory that it was shot down by a space-based weapon. The author refutes this, explaining that meteors commonly break up upon atmospheric entry and that the video evidence presented was altered, showing a reflection on a car windshield rather than an impact.

MUFON's Legacy

The concluding section criticizes MUFON's overall approach, describing its reporting as misleading and its "experts" as uninformed or deliberately deceptive. The author quotes Antonio Paris, who suggested MUFON needed to "drain the swamp" of conspiracy theories and junk science to return to genuine Ufology. The article implies that MUFON's current direction prioritizes sensationalism and self-benefit over scientific integrity and benefiting humanity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the critical examination and debunking of MUFON's UFO claims and investigations. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of MUFON's methods and conclusions, portraying the organization as promoting hoaxes, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. The author consistently contrasts MUFON's narratives with scientific explanations, lack of evidence, or alternative, more plausible scenarios. The underlying message is that MUFON's approach is detrimental to genuine UFO research and public understanding.

This issue of "The UFO Evidence" is a review published in 1964 by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). It focuses on numerous reports of aerial phenomena, primarily from the 1950s, with a significant section dedicated to "Fiery Object Reports" and a specific focus on a Nevada sighting from Saturday night. The publication meticulously analyzes media coverage of these events, highlighting inconsistencies and discrepancies between various news services and witness accounts.

Analysis of Aerial Phenomena Reports

The issue details several key sightings. On June 24, 1950, a United Airlines plane was reportedly paced for 20 minutes by a cigar-shaped UFO over the California desert, while a Navy transport pilot reported a similar object over the Nevada desert. Subsequent reports from June 27 and 28, 1950, describe a United Airlines crew and passengers seeing a large orange and blue "flying saucer" over Southern California, and two airline pilots reporting a brilliant blue and orange object resembling a dirigible over Southern Idaho. Residents in Ely, Nevada, reported a mysterious phenomena described as a vapor trail or smoke, and fliers in Lovelock, Nevada, saw an object leaving a bright red vapor trail. In California, six persons in Modesto reported a "burst of orange fire," and three Air Force soldiers near San Rafael claimed to have seen a flame streak across the sky.

The publication notes that media reports often disagreed on details such as the object's shape, speed, and altitude. For instance, the United Airlines sighting was reported with varying durations and distances. The speed was estimated to be very high, with one report suggesting it was faster than the aircraft's 290 mph. Altitudes ranged widely, from 14,000 to 100,000 feet. The objects were often described as cigar-shaped, dark gray, gunmetal, orange, or blue, and some reports mentioned a shimmering heat radiation at the tail end. Physical traces like vapor trails, smoke trails, and trails of light were frequently observed, with one trail reportedly forming the shape of a number "3."

The 'Linda Legend' and 'Nighteyes'

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a comparative analysis between the alleged alien abduction case of Linda Cortile (often referred to as the "Linda legend") and the science-fiction novel "Nighteyes" by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. The article examines 16 alleged similarities between Cortile's abduction, as related by Budd Hopkins, and the novel's plot. While some researchers, like Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen (SBH), found these similarities compelling, others, such as Sean F. Meers, have attempted to repudiate them, often by focusing on minor discrepancies or alternative interpretations.

The author discusses how Meers nit-picks over details, while Luis Gonzalez notes a general pattern of resemblance in themes and settings. The article highlights specific parallels, such as the crucial role of a beach house, protagonists being kidnapped, and feeling strange sensations before and during an abduction. It also touches upon the "Third Man" letter, which warned of ecological problems and potential harm to world peace, and its possible connection to themes in "Nighteyes" and Cortile's story.

The author explores the possibility that Hopkins might have influenced Cortile's account, or that the similarities stem from common sources or cryptoamnesia. The motif of invisibility, present in "Nighteyes," is also discussed in relation to abduction lore, with reference to the Washburn case and photographs of alleged invisible UFOs and witnesses.

Literary Criticism and Skeptical Perspectives

The article acknowledges that skeptics are often in a difficult position, as believers may argue for broader thematic similarities when details are questioned, and for precise detail reproduction when themes are discussed. It suggests that if Cortile had read "Nighteyes," the novel's themes and details might have emerged during hypnotic sessions, altered by reconstructive memory. The inversion of the "incompetent government agencies" motif from "Nighteyes" into the "government knows everything" paradigm in UFO mythology is noted.

The author concludes that the comparison between the Linda legend and "Nighteyes" closely resembles the evolution of folklore, where tales are reconstructed and mutated from memory. It is suggested that it would not be in a hoaxer's interest to mimic the novel's plot too closely. The article also references various sources, including Budd Hopkins's book "Witnessed," Reeves-Stevens's "Nighteyes," and critiques of the Cortile case.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the analysis of UFO sightings, the reliability of witness testimony, the role of media in reporting such events, and the potential for hoaxes or misinterpretations. There is a clear editorial stance that favors critical examination of evidence and a skeptical approach to claims, particularly when comparing abduction accounts to fictional narratives. The publication aims to present documented evidence and media reports, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions while providing a framework for analysis and comparison.

This document, likely an excerpt from a magazine or journal focusing on UFO phenomena, presents a detailed analysis of a specific case: Case 4050, involving a sighting on April 4, 1956, in McKinney, Texas. The issue delves into the complexities of UFO investigations, the challenges of witness testimony, and the potential for misidentification, particularly with high-altitude balloons.

Case 4050: April 4, 1956, McKinney, Texas

The primary focus is a sighting described by Don Berliner, based on a report from Captain Roy Hall of the U.S. Army (ret.) and others. The object was observed for six hours, from 3:15 PM to 9:00 PM CST, appearing stationary and visible seven degrees north of Venus. Witnesses observed it through a 6-inch telescope and a 55-200x telescope. Hall computed the object to be roughly 200 feet across and at an altitude of about 100,000 feet, describing it as made of "translucent rubber."

Path Reversal and Witness Testimony Issues

The article begins by discussing common problems in UFO reports, such as "path reversal," where witness accounts, when analyzed numerically, appear to go in the wrong direction. It also highlights the issue of significant time gaps between an event and its recording, which can affect accuracy. A specific NICAP file report about the April 4, 1956 sighting, written years later, described a shift in direction from north to west and a "gun metal" or "dark grey" color, which contradicted the 1950 accounts that described the object as bright and emitting streams of light. The author expresses skepticism about this later report, suggesting it might be a confused memory or influenced by other phenomena, and concludes it cannot be used as definitive evidence.

"Is it solved?" - The Balloon Hypothesis

The author questions whether the case is definitively solved, noting that "The UFO evidence" selectively used stories to support a conclusion of alien visitation. The author remains unconvinced, suggesting a bright fireball as a possibility and labeling the case "insufficient information" due to a lack of accurate observations.

Notes and References

A significant portion of the document is dedicated to a list of notes and references, indicating a thorough research process. These references include various newspaper articles from 1950 detailing numerous sightings of "flying saucers," "discs," and "fiery objects" across California and Nevada, as well as academic works on UFOs and atmospheric phenomena.

The 701 club - Case 4050: April 4, 1956

This section provides a more in-depth look at the April 4, 1956 sighting. It details the witness accounts, including Roy Hall's letter and sketch. Hall computed the object's size and altitude, and noted that observers up to 100 miles away also saw it. The object was described as "translucent rubber" and appeared to move slowly westward before disappearing after sunset. The Blue Book file noted the object was "similar to balloon," but suggested it might be a parhelia due to cirrus clouds. The author questions if this explanation is adequate.

#### Additional Information: Upper Level Winds

To support the balloon hypothesis, the document presents data on upper-level winds in Texas on April 4, 1956. The wind azimuths at 30,000-50,000 feet generally came from the southwest, with speeds varying by location. The text explains that stratospheric winds can shift seasonally and by altitude, suggesting that winds from the east or west were possible at 80,000 feet and 33 degrees north latitude.

A Potential Source: Project Grab Bag

The document introduces "Project Grab Bag," a U.S. Air Force project launched from Goodfellow AFB on April 4, 1956. This project aimed to collect radioactive isotopes from the stratosphere using complex balloon systems. The description and figures illustrate how these balloons were launched, filled, and recovered. The stratocat database confirms a balloon launch from Goodfellow AFB on this date. The text notes that the general direction of travel for a balloon below 50,000 feet would be northeast, but upper-level winds could have pushed it westward or northwards.

#### Newspaper Reports and Identification

A search of newspaper archives revealed a report in the Denton, Texas newspaper identifying a similar object as a weather balloon. This identification was confirmed by Carswell AFB and fighter jets from Perrin AFB. The article notes the unusual altitude reported for a C-47 aircraft (45,000 feet) but suggests it might refer to the jet fighter. It is mentioned that a C-47 was used as a chase plane for Goodfellow AFB balloon flights, raising the possibility that this was the aircraft that identified the object.

Was it the Grab Bag flight?

The document explores whether the April 4th sighting was indeed a Grab Bag flight. It mentions previous balloon launches from Goodfellow AFB for projects like "Operation Skyhook" and "Ash Can." Newspaper reports from early 1956 indicated ten balloons were to be launched by General Mills technicians between January and February. While the witness sketch resembles a Grab Bag configuration, the timing of the April 4th launch (morning) and the typical three-hour ascent to 80,000 feet suggest it's unlikely the object seen that evening was from that specific morning launch. However, possibilities like malfunctions, delays, or test flights are considered.

#### "Wayward Balloon Not Sighted Today"

This section discusses a "wayward balloon" released from Goodfellow AFB on April 4, 1956, which was sighted over Breckenridge and Abilene on February 11, 1957. The balloon's deflation device reportedly failed, keeping it airborne for several days. This case highlights the potential for balloons to remain airborne unexpectedly.

#### "Big Weather Balloon Observed In Area"

Another report describes a large helium-filled stratosphere balloon observed over Brownwood, Texas, on April 22, 1956. This balloon, likely from San Angelo, was tracked by a helicopter and was part of research by the U.S. Navy, universities, and General Mills, measuring cosmic rays and their potential effects on future interplanetary ships.

Why didn't Blue Book get this one?

The author questions why the April 4, 1956 sighting wasn't investigated by Blue Book. The report was a single letter sent directly to USAF intelligence. It's speculated that since Carswell AFB identified the object as a weather balloon, they saw no need to report it further, leading to a missed opportunity for investigation.

Is it Solved?

The document concludes that while there are no definitive details for the Goodfellow balloon flight of April 4, 1956, the evidence strongly suggests the object was a research balloon. The identification by pilots of two aircraft and the witness's sketch support this conclusion. Therefore, the case is classified as a "probable research balloon."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the challenges of UFO investigation, the reliability of witness testimony, the potential for misidentification (especially with balloons), and the role of official investigations like Blue Book. The editorial stance is critical and analytical, favoring evidence-based explanations and questioning sensationalized interpretations of UFO sightings. The author emphasizes the importance of thorough research, accurate data collection, and a cautious approach to drawing conclusions, particularly when dealing with historical cases and limited information.

Book Review: UFO Investigations Manual

On page 35, there is a review of Nigel Watson's "UFO Investigations Manual." The reviewer acknowledges a personal bias due to having provided photographs for the book. The review highlights Watson's recap of UFO history, his use of "Official UFO" magazine's azimuth and elevation form for data collection, and his discussion of IFOs (Identified Flying Objects), crash retrievals, and alien abduction theories. The reviewer praises Watson's effort to meet the standard set by Allan Hendry and recommends the book for UFO libraries.