SUNlite - Vol 06 No 04

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 6, Number 4
Date: July-August 2014
Theme: Shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs.

This issue of SUNlite focuses heavily on the controversial Big Sur UFO incident, presenting research and analysis from various perspectives. It also touches upon other topics within the UFOlogy field, including common misidentifications, organizational practices, and specific UFO cases.

Key Articles and Discussions

Mr. Carpenter's Missing Opus

The issue begins by discussing the sad news of Joel Carpenter's death and his extensive work on the Big Sur case. The author explains that Carpenter felt the case could be explained satisfactorily and had gathered crucial information. While Carpenter shared documents, he never published his findings. The author, using Carpenter's research and their own discoveries, aims to present an interpretation of the case, acknowledging that much of the information originated from Carpenter and other individuals. The author expresses a desire to present the information in a way that honors Carpenter's intended work. The article also addresses the tendency of some UFO proponents to label skeptics as liars, suggesting that mistaken identity or faulty memory are more likely explanations. Specifically, Robert Jacobs and Florenz Mansmann are mentioned as being mistaken rather than dishonest.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section critically examines various online discussions and claims within the UFO community. It highlights instances where individuals, even those identifying as photographers, misinterpret lens flares as UFOs. The article also discusses the issue of 'bug videos,' where insects are mistaken for UFOs, and criticizes MUFON investigator Mark Podell for his conclusions in such cases. The author also debunks Martin Clemens' skepticism regarding the Petit Rechain photograph, stating that the photographer, Patrick Marechal, has been identified and interviewed. The article also scrutinizes Larry Lowe's interpretation of the Rendlesham Forest incident report, suggesting a biased reading that ignores the report's emphasis on atmospheric or electric phenomena rather than alien spacecraft. A significant portion of this section is dedicated to critiquing Michael Horn's promotion of the Billy Meier case, labeling his tactics as 'chicanery' and comparing his approach to a 'con man.' The author quotes Carl Sagan on the dangers of being bamboozled and suggests Horn is either a simpleton or complicit in a hoax.

Further in this section, the article revisits a previous report about a wayward balloon in October 2012, which Google later claimed. The author concludes this case is 'solved' with the identification of the balloon. It also discusses Jack Brewer's findings regarding MUFON's collaboration with France's GEIPAN, suggesting MUFON may be embellishing the extent of this partnership. The death of pilot William Schaffner is clarified, debunking the UFO-related rumors and stating he was on a mission to test British defenses. James Fox's claim about the '701' unidentifieds in the Blue Book files is questioned, with the author asserting that the number is public knowledge and that SUNlite has already explained some of these cases. Finally, a possible explanation for the 2007 Hessdalen photograph involving Norwegian F-16s ejecting flare countermeasures is presented.

The Roswell Corner

This section addresses Kevin Randle's recurring arguments against the MOGUL project explanation for the Roswell incident. The author reiterates their previous arguments from SUNlite 5-5, stating that Randle offers no new information and is merely repeating his interpretations. The author views the belief in an alien spaceship crash at Roswell as more of a religious belief than a scientific or historical fact. Additionally, the article discusses rumors from Rich Reynolds suggesting that the Roswell research team has found evidence unrelated to the Foster Ranch debris, potentially dismissing the original findings. The author expresses skepticism about these claims, expecting more hype than substance.

Joel Carpenter and the Big Sur Case

This article details Joel Carpenter's research into the Big Sur UFO case. Carpenter contacted the author in 2009, and they exchanged ideas. Carpenter provided a document that was crucial to the investigation, a preliminary report on image orthicon photography from Big Sur by Kingston George. Carpenter also acquired another document, a report for Nike-X operations at Kwajalein Atoll in September 1964, which mentioned radar tracking of incoming re-entry vehicles from Atlas launches. Carpenter implied a collaborative effort for publication in the International UFO Reporter (IUR), but the collaboration waned, leaving him to finish the work. Carpenter expressed reservations about painting Robert Jacobs as dishonest, fearing a lawsuit. He also reportedly shared information with Robert Hastings, who responded with 'abuse and bluster.' The author feels reluctant to present Carpenter's research in their own words but does so to ensure it is not lost. The article includes images of three documents related to the Big Sur case: a preliminary report by Kingston George, an operational analysis by Kingston George, and a Nike-X progress report.

The Big Sur UFO Incident Saga

This section delves into the evolution of the Big Sur UFO incident story over three decades. It begins with the initial public revelation by Robert Jacobs in the National Enquirer in 1982, detailing an alleged UFO shooting down an Atlas F missile on January 8, 1965. The story evolved in Omni Magazine in 1985, with Florenz Mansmann confirming the story and a date of September 15, 1964, being established, though Vandenberg stated the missile hit its target. T. Scott Crain's investigation in 1988 found no USAF records of an Atlas F launch on that date, suggesting confusion with an Atlas D launch. Jacobs's 1989 MUFON Journal article, titled "Deliberate Deception," revised the date to September 2, 3, or 15, 1964, and suggested the missile might have been an Atlas D designed to defeat radar detection. Jacobs described seeing the nose cone separate and open like 'alligator's jaws,' followed by metallic chaff and a dummy warhead. The article notes that Jacobs did not see the UFO event until he reviewed the film.

The Florenz Mansmann Factor

This section examines the role of Florenz Mansmann, a member of the analysis team for the Big Sur case films. Mansmann confirmed Jacobs's story in letters, stating the Enquirer story was true except for the year (1964, not 1965) and that the camera system could image 'nuts and bolts' from 70 miles. He expressed concern about vital information falling into the wrong hands and hypothesized about secret scientific studies communicating with extraterrestrials. Mansmann also suggested the US was chosen for contact due to ET's interest in bettering mankind. In a later communication with Scott T. Crain in 1987, Mansmann stated that Bob Jacobs saw the film multiple times and that the film showed 'an interference with normal launch patterns.' He also mentioned that Vandenberg's response about the missile performing normally made no sense, implying it was not the launch they were describing. Mansmann believed the government might be withholding information related to the 'Star Wars' program.

The ship springs a leak

Kingston George presented a different version of the Big Sur events in a 1993 Skeptical Inquirer article. He described the launch as 'Buzzing Bee,' filmed on September 22nd, and stated that the Boston University telescope recorded something unique but not a UFO. George claimed the film showed the deployment of a decoy package, allowing differentiation between decoys and the actual re-entry vehicle. This discovery, he stated, led to security regulations being enforced on the film. George explained that the 'Buzzing Bee' launch involved decoys that were optically and via radar distinguishable, raising concerns at SAC Headquarters about the Soviets potentially defeating ICBM decoys. He detailed the subsequent identification and questioning of all personnel who saw the film, including Jacobs and himself, with strict orders not to discuss the matter. George's clearance level was later increased, allowing him to re-analyze the films.

Trying to plug the holes

By 2007, Robert Hastings attempted to promote his book by presenting letters from Florenz Mansmann and Robert Jacobs as evidence. Hastings criticized Kingston George for misquoting Jacobs and argued that the B. U. Telescope should have resolved the UFO. Hastings highlighted Jacobs's description of seeing the nose cone separate and open, followed by chaff and a dummy warhead, and multiple objects visible when the UFO appeared. Hastings then focused on an Atlas D launch on the 15th, which Jacobs identified as the event. Jacobs denied being present at the telescope on the 22nd but admitted seeing the film later. Hastings used the mention of a 'Low Observable Re-entry Vehicle' in the 15th launch description to support Jacobs's claim. The article questions the omission of Jacobs's 'Original mission log' from Hastings's presentation, suggesting its absence indicates nothing of importance was in it. Hastings then resorted to a conspiracy rant, implying Frazier, Klass, and George were part of a cover-up.

The decks are awash

Kingston George responded in 2009 with a Skeptical Inquirer article titled "Buzzing Bee mythology flies again." George described the B. U. Telescope's difficulty in resolving details during the 'Butterfly Net' launch (Atlas D on September 15th) due to lighting conditions, making it hard to see the re-entry vehicle against the daylight sky. He contrasted this with the 'Buzzing Bee' launch (before sunrise), where tracking was possible due to the contrast between the rocket body and the dark sky. George concluded that 'Buzzing Bee' was the only launch that could have shown the deployment of the re-entry vehicle as described by Jacobs and Mansmann.

Abandon ship?

This section presents four potential scenarios for the Big Sur evidence:

1. Kingston George's account: The events are as George described, and Mansmann/Jacobs confused events due to their belief in alien visitation.
2. Lying: Jacobs and Mansmann lied about the event.
3. Misinterpretation: Some other test was performed in September 1964, misinterpreted by Jacobs and Mansmann as an alien spaceship.
4. Massive Cover-up: Jacobs and Mansmann are telling the truth, and the US government (including Kingston George and CSI) covered it up to hide alien interference.

The author deems the alien spaceship scenario the least likely due to a lack of evidence beyond anecdotal claims. George's account is presented as a reasonable explanation requiring no alien spaceships or conspiracies.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite revolve around critical examination of UFO claims, the importance of evidence-based analysis, and the debunking of misidentifications and hoaxes. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, favoring rational explanations and questioning the reliability of anecdotal evidence and the motives of some UFO proponents. The magazine emphasizes the need for rigorous investigation and challenges those who promote unsubstantiated claims, particularly concerning the Big Sur incident. There is a strong emphasis on distinguishing between factual reporting and speculative interpretation within the field of UFOlogy.

This issue of The Journal of UAP Research, dated October 2008, focuses on the documented record of two missile launches, 'Butterfly Net' and 'Buzzing Bee', from Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1964. It critically examines the claims made by observers, particularly Florenz Mansmann and Bob Jacobs, regarding potential UFO interference during these events, contrasting them with official reports and technical analyses.

Butterfly Net - September 15, 1964

The launch of 'Butterfly Net' was described as not well recorded due to hazy conditions. The Boston University (BU) telescope and the 1369th Photo Squadron's 180-inch lens tracked the missile. While the booster engine staging was clear, the operators lost track before SECO (Sustainer Engine Cutoff). The BU telescope films were of lower quality than those of 'Buzzing Bee' due to the kinescope being too dark and contrast issues with the rising sun. The Nike-X Weapons report confirmed that the launch involved a Low Observable Re-entry Vehicle (LORV-L3), a graphite test vehicle, and a scientific passenger pod. The Discrimination Radar tracked the re-entry vehicle down to 21 nautical miles, observing an unidentified object late in the mission, but no unknown vehicle interference was mentioned in any reports, and the launch was considered a success.

Buzzing Bee - September 22, 1964

The 'Buzzing Bee' launch, occurring before sunrise, generated more media attention and UFO reports. The final report, though initially classified, indicated that the BU telescope filmed everything from BECO (Booster Engine Cutoff) to RV (Re-entry Vehicle) deployment, capturing objects up to about 650 miles. The films showed decoys and four Styrofoam spacers from the decoy tubes, suggesting a failure in the tethering system. While the quality of the reproduced images is lower than the original, they demonstrate the telescope's capability. The upper left object in one image is an azimuth/elevation indication. The T+320 seconds image shows decoys, the booster stage, and the RV. Joel Carpenter suggested a bright spot might be an HIRS plume, while the author suspects it was an artifact from the image orthicon tube or the filming process. The T+380 second image shows the RV and decoy warheads. No UFOs were apparent in these images.

The Boston University Telescope and Tracking Systems

The BU telescope was a large telescope used by the Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR) to monitor rocket launches. It featured a 24-inch mirror and a 240-inch focal length, extendable with barlow lenses. The system used an image orthicon tube, fed to a van monitor, and filmed by a 35mm Mitchell motion picture camera. This Kinescope-like recording system had limitations, including poor resolution, compressed brightness range, and noise, making detailed observation difficult.

The Kwajalein Island radar system, including the Zeus Acquisition Radar (ZAR), Discrimination Radar (DR), and Target Tracking Radars (TTR), was highly sophisticated. The ZAR had a range of 600 nautical miles and updated data every six seconds. The DR covered a target area of 22 nm out to 500 nm, and TTRs could track targets at 580 nm. The system was designed to identify and track ICBM warheads for interception.

Analysis of Claims and Resolution

Florenz Mansmann's claim of seeing 'nuts and bolts' from 70 miles away is considered exaggerated. The Image Orthicon final report suggests an Atlas missile at 100 nautical miles subtends an angle of about 28 seconds of arc, appearing about 3/4" long on a 10-inch monitor. The BU telescope, with its 720-inch focal length, could potentially image an Atlas missile at about 80 miles, but this would not constitute 'nuts and bolts' imaging. The report also notes that while certain failures could be observed, they were large parts of the missile, not small items.

Kingston George stated that the primitive IO setup of 1964 would not have produced a distinct shape, with the film being a collection of energetic blobs that only made sense in the context of the launch exercise. The implications are that seeing fine details at 70-100 miles was difficult, and seeing them at over 400 miles when the RV was deployed would have been very unlikely. Any craft orbiting the RV would have appeared as a blob of light.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating eyewitness accounts against documented evidence and official reports. It highlights the limitations of early photographic and video recording technology in capturing clear details of UAP phenomena. The editorial stance appears to favor a scientific and evidence-based approach, suggesting that while unusual events may occur, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that misinterpretations of technical artifacts or missile components are common in UAP investigations. The journal aims to resolve questions about UFO sightings by examining the documented records and technical capabilities of the time.

This issue of the magazine, titled "UFO, misidentification, or hoax?", delves into the complexities of UFO phenomena, critically examining witness testimonies and exploring the historical and fictional roots of alien breeding programs.

Analysis of the Nike-X Missile Test Observation

The issue begins by detailing a successful observation of an Atlas ICBM mission, designated KX-19, by the Kwajalein Nike-X radars on September 23. The target complex included a modified series-30 TVX and two radar decoys. The Nike-X radars successfully tracked the incoming targets, establishing a track on the re-entry vehicle at a range of 189 nautical miles and an altitude of 480,000 feet, maintaining the track until splashdown at 37 nautical miles. Tracks were also established on decoys, and optical instruments provided good tracking of the re-entry vehicle and other targets. The ground-based radiometer detected the target at 330 nautical miles. Notably, the payload reached the target area without interference from any unknown vehicles, and no unusual craft were reported by the radars.

Butterfly Net and Robert Jacobs' Recollections

The article scrutinizes the recollections of Robert Jacobs regarding this event, deeming them inaccurate. It states that the LORV was not shot down, made it to the target area as reported by USAF public affairs, and that there was no mention of a 'radar chaff cloud' in the Nike-X report. Furthermore, the B.U. telescope lost the rocket before the LORV release, and there was no filming of the missile's flight during the alleged UFO interference. The B.U. telescope also experienced difficulties in resolving details due to atmospheric haze. The only potential support for Jacobs' claims comes from the Discriminating Radar tracking an 'unidentified object,' which Joel Carpenter suggests might have been the scientific pod or debris, occurring after the payload was out of the telescope's visibility.

Buzzing Bee and Kingston George's Recollections

In contrast, Kingston George's recollections about the 'Buzzing Bee' film are considered accurate. There was indeed concern for security regarding the film's content about decoy deployment. George's sketch of the re-entry vehicle, rocket tank, and decoys, made over ten years prior, closely approximated the image shown at T+320 seconds. The article suggests that the 'energy beams' mentioned by Jacobs might be explained by the operation of the HIRS after RV deployment or retro-rockets on the Buzzing Bee creating momentary bright flashes, rather than actual UFO activity.

Misidentification/Confused Memory

The issue posits that misidentification and confused memory are significant factors in understanding this case. The 'Painted Warrior' Minuteman film malfunction, UFO reports from the Buzzing Bee launch, and security concerns may have combined in Jacobs' memory, influenced by his belief in alien visitation, to create a story of a UFO shooting down an ICBM. Florenz Mansmann's acceptance of this narrative further propagated the idea.

The "Breeding History" Article

A substantial portion of the magazine is dedicated to an article by Martin S. Kottmeyer titled "Breeding History." This article traces the concept of alien breeding programs, which gained prominence in UFO lore following the Herbert Schirmer alien encounter of 1967, where a 'breeding analysis' program was mentioned. Kottmeyer explores how this idea was developed in abduction studies by authors like Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs.

Origins in Science Fiction

The article traces the theme of breeding and genetic manipulation by aliens through various science fiction works. Early pulp stories, such as Keller's 1930 tale, depicted aliens experimenting on humans and breeding them. Science fiction films like "Dr. Strangelove" (1964) and "Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster" (1965) also explored themes of selective breeding for survival or repopulation. Authors like John Campbell, Erich von Daniken, and C.L. Moore and Henry Kuttner are discussed for their contributions to this theme.

UFO Abduction Literature and Breeding

Kottmeyer highlights how the concept of alien breeding became intertwined with UFO abduction narratives. He discusses how abductees' accounts, regressions, and interpretations by researchers often included themes of aliens taking human genetic material for breeding purposes, sometimes to create hybrid races or to repopulate their own species.

Examples and Interpretations

The article cites numerous examples, including the Villas Boas case, Carl Higdon's regression, Anya Briggs' experience, and David Jacobs' subjects, all of which touch upon alien breeding. It also notes how the term 'breeding' has been used in various contexts, sometimes imprecisely, to describe alien intentions.

Cultural and Psychological Factors

Kottmeyer suggests that the concept of breeding by aliens resonates with modern anxieties about genetic engineering, control, and the potential for exploitation. He also touches upon the psychological aspects of memory and how external information can influence recollections, as discussed by Elizabeth Loftus.

Conclusion

The issue concludes that, based on the documentation provided by Joel Carpenter, the events filmed by the B.U. telescope did not involve an alien spaceship. Despite these revelations, it is acknowledged that some individuals may remain unconvinced. The article suggests that for those interested in documented evidence, the case can be considered closed, referring to it as "another one for the Retired UFO Yarn Hall of Fame."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO claims, the potential for misidentification and false memories, and the pervasive concept of alien breeding programs in both science fiction and ufology. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensational UFO claims, favoring documented evidence and rational explanations while acknowledging the historical and cultural significance of these themes in popular imagination.

This document appears to be a collection of articles and reviews related to UFO phenomena, likely from a magazine or journal focused on the topic. The content spans various cases, historical analyses, and critiques of popular media and books.

Article: May 20, 1961: Tyndall AFB, Florida

This section details a UFO sighting that occurred at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida on May 20, 1961. The case, listed as Blue Book case 7413, involved four witnesses (three airmen and a staff sergeant) who observed an unidentified light for approximately an hour and a half. The object was described as an orange-like light emerging from the woods, moving up and down, and then moving towards the observers. It was also described as being about the size of a softball and exhibiting unusual movements. Radar contact was also reported, though it was intermittent and the pilot saw nothing visually. The article notes that NICAP listed the case, but later analysis by Adviser Webb suggested radar reports did not coincide with visual observations, leaving the reports unexplained. The Blue Book solution proposed that the observers saw the planet Venus, citing its position and visibility. The article provides a table of azimuth and elevation for Venus on that date and discusses reasons why the airmen might not have recognized Venus, such as being on an early morning shift or poor weather conditions on other days. The article concludes that there is a good chance the object was Venus, and that Blue Book likely got this one right.

Article: 701 Club: Case 2692 August 27, 1953

This section analyzes a UFO sighting that occurred on August 27, 1953, in Greenville, Mississippi. The case, identified as Case 2692, involved a "meandering light" observed for 50 minutes by USAF personnel. The Blue Book file contained fourteen pages of information, including maps and sketches. The summary card described a circular object emitting red, green, and white alternate flashes, traveling from SW to West, and appearing to rotate, disappearing by 2300 hours. The article details the statements of three witnesses: Master Sergeant Cooper, Airman Arceneaux, and Captain Lehman. Cooper observed the object from his bedroom window, sketching its path and noting its rotation and flashes. Arceneaux and Lehman observed the object from the control tower. The article suggests that the first sighting by Cooper might be explained by the star Arcturus, which was setting between 2145 and 2235 CST. The second part of the sighting, observed by the tower personnel, is suggested to be the star Antares, which was low on the horizon. The article notes that Blue Book's conclusion that Antares was not bright enough was questionable, as Antares is a prominent star. The article concludes that the case was likely "unexplained" due to a lack of time and resources for investigation, and proposes that the sightings were probably caused by Arcturus and Antares.

Review: "UFOs on the tube" Series and "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest"

This section critically reviews the "UFOs on the tube" television series and the book "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" by Nick Pope, Jim Penniston, and John Burroughs. The author criticizes the "UFOs on the tube" series for dramatizing events and having "experts" describe cases without providing explanations, citing the Yukon 1996 mothership case (attributed to the re-entry of the Cosmos 2335 rocket booster) and the Malmstrom Oscar flight missile shut down case (questioning the existence of a missile shut down and the involvement of UFOs). The presentation of airmen being scared by an orange light is described as "disturbing and completely inaccurate." The Rendlesham case, as presented by Leslie Kean and Nick Pope, is also scrutinized, with the author questioning the credentials and roles of Penniston and Pope. The article points out exaggerations in their descriptions, such as Penniston not being in charge of his own shift and the portrayal of airmen carrying M-16s. The author also criticizes Pope's attempts to explain away skeptical arguments and his focus on cases that "impress" him, suggesting he ignores details that would offer alternative explanations.

The review of "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" highlights that Nick Pope is the primary author, with Penniston and Burroughs contributing a chapter about their story. The author finds Pope's arguments to be a "rehash of the same old arguments" and criticizes his claim that the 1981 statements by witnesses were "watered down." The article notes that Pope attempts to dispose of the explanation offered by Ian Ridpath, focusing on the lighthouse. The author concludes that Pope is guilty of not doing thorough research beyond what he chooses to believe. The chapter by Burroughs and Penniston is described as begging for belief. The book is deemed to offer nothing new and is considered a "bin it book."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the analysis and critique of UFO phenomena, particularly as presented in media and popular culture. There is a strong emphasis on seeking rational explanations for reported sightings, often pointing to astronomical objects or misinterpretations. The editorial stance appears to be skeptical of sensationalized UFO accounts and critical of media that promotes "UFO propaganda" without providing balanced explanations. The document values rigorous research and evidence-based conclusions over sensationalism. The critique of the "UFOs on the tube" series and Nick Pope's book exemplifies this stance, prioritizing factual accuracy and critical analysis.