SUNlite - Vol 06 No 05

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 6, Number 5, published September-October 2014, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. This issue is characterized by a critical and skeptical approach to the subject, questioning the methods and motives of many within the UFO community.

Boring UFOlogy

The editorial section opens with a critique of the current state of UFOlogy, lamenting that the subject has become "boring and predictable." The author expresses disappointment that the infamous Roswell slides have not yet appeared, suggesting that the pursuit of money may be hindering their release. A critique is also leveled against the presentation of the "Oscar flight" UFO case, which was presented as fact without sufficient evidence, based solely on the testimony of Robert Salas. The author argues that the producers and proponents of this case have not provided adequate proof.

The magazine discusses the annual MUFON symposium, which focused on UFOs and the media. The author criticizes the usual "dog and pony show" where UFOlogists complain about media bias, citing MUFON's own "Hanger One" program as an example of how the media does not take the subject seriously. The awarding of the "excellence in UFOlogy" award to Steve Bassett for his role in the "$600,000 flying saucer fizzle" is also mentioned, highlighting the perceived self-serving nature of some UFOlogy activities.

A personal anecdote from a trip to Paris with fellow UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez is shared, where they agreed that UFOlogical debates have become repetitive and unproductive. The author concludes that the "science of UFOlogy" is dead, with efforts focused on conferences and media appearances rather than genuine research.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various online discussions and articles related to UFOs. The Economist is noted for an article on "UFO day," which linked sightings to drinking hours, a conclusion the author dismisses. Boston.com is cited for declaring New England a "UFO hot spot."

CEFAA is discussed for presenting still images of a UFO from Chile, analyzed by Leslie Kean. The author expresses skepticism about the size and altitude estimates provided by anonymous witnesses and questions the limited number of photographs taken. The analysis of the El Bosque videos is also mentioned, with the author agreeing with forum posters that the images might be reflections.

Leslie Kean's attempt to spin a meeting with Chile's civilian aviation organization is critiqued, with the author questioning why the government funds such investigations if UFOs pose no threat. The article emphasizes that the "U" in UFO stands for "unidentified" and no UFO report has been definitively proven to be extraterrestrial.

Fife Symmington's testimony, promoted by Kean, is questioned for its agreement with known facts. The author also addresses the claim that flares cannot explain certain UFO sightings, pointing out that illumination flares can last for minutes, not seconds, and that the Belgian air force's response was not a direct confrontation with alien triangles.

The section also highlights the work of Chip Taylor in investigating his own UFO sighting, contrasting it with MUFON's approach. Ryan Mullahy is commended for debunking an internet UFO myth regarding an old photograph. Robert Sheaffer's piece on the JAL1628 UFO case is noted for providing a different perspective, with MUFON's file containing extensive information.

Tony Bragalia's discussion of Dewey Fournet's personal UFO study is examined. The author questions Bragalia's understanding of how Fournet could have accumulated files while working for Blue Book. A letter from Fournet to NICAP is referenced, where he claimed to have eliminated all but extraterrestrial explanations for sightings, but the Robertson Panel could not accept his raw, unevaluated reports.

Ted Molczan is credited with exposing a case of alleged alien spacecraft debris as man-made space debris from a Delta 2 rocket stage. The article also mentions James Carrion's appearance on The Paracast and comments made by Don Berlinner on Billy Cox's blog, with a critical note on Cox's tendency to promote sensationalized accounts and endorse fraudulent documents like MJ-12.

Jason Covalito's review of Giorgio Tsoukalos's "In search of ancient aliens" is mentioned, characterizing it as sensationalist. Billy Cox's report on the renewal of "Hanger One" is discussed, with concerns raised about MUFON's pursuit of sensationalism to increase membership. Scott Brando's blog is noted for satirizing UFOlogists' investigative tools and for identifying the moon Phobos in a Mars Rover "Curiosity" photograph, contrasting it with UFO author Scott Waring's interpretation.

The issue also references a debunked Washington DC flap photograph explained as lens flares and the Petit-Rechain photograph, which was later admitted to be a hoax, questioning the validity of other cases from the same wave.

The Roswell Corner: Slip-sliding away

This section expresses disappointment that the Roswell festival did not feature the release of alien body slides. The author discusses information from a commenter named "Larry" who claims to have seen the slides, describing them as potentially depicting a "freak of nature" or wax figure, rather than alien bodies. The author is skeptical of Anthony Bragalia's claims about the slides, noting his track record and the lack of presented evidence. The reluctance to release the slides is attributed to the fear that their source could be identified as something other than alien, which would be a failure for the "Roswell research team."

Are UFOs Attracted by Nuclear Explosions, Weapons, or Reactors?

This article explores the theory linking UFO activity to US nuclear activities. It begins by noting that since the dawn of modern UFOlogy, there has been an effort to connect UFO reports to nuclear weapons, suggesting aliens might have been alerted by explosions or were monitoring humanity's development of atomic power.

The article details the first atomic bomb test at Trinity site on July 16, 1945, and subsequent nuclear explosions, including those in Japan and Operation Crossroads in the South Pacific. It notes that the Trinity test was the only one conducted in darkness, with the flash visible from afar. The article also discusses the ionizing radiation (gamma rays and neutrons) and neutrinos produced by nuclear explosions, explaining how their intensity decreases with distance.

Regarding detection from space, the article suggests that while a nuclear explosion might be visible from the moon or Mars under certain conditions, it would be difficult to detect amidst background signals. The detection of particles like neutrinos is described as akin to finding a drop of water in the ocean, making it highly unlikely to be detected outside the solar system.

Nuclear attraction

This section delves into the "To serve man" theory, which posits that aliens are monitoring Earth, with their observation increasing after the 1945 atomic bomb explosions. Donald Keyhoe is credited with proposing that Earth has been under periodic observation for centuries, which intensified in 1947. Jean-Jacques Velasco is cited for observing a correlation between nuclear activity and UFO sightings, suggesting aliens might be monitoring dangerous nuclear activity.

An alternative interpretation is presented: that UFOs are a source of "divine intervention" to protect humanity from self-annihilation through nuclear war. Richard Dolan is mentioned as implying that UFOs would prevent humanity from using nuclear weapons, but the author finds this "divine intervention" theory illogical, arguing that aliens would not incite a nuclear exchange by threatening military facilities.

The "To fear man" theory, promoted by Stanton Friedman, suggests that aliens are monitoring us because we are a threat to them and the "neighborhood." The author finds this backward, arguing that if aliens were concerned about self-destruction, they would have influenced humanity away from nuclear conflict rather than being concerned about space exploration.

The article questions why aliens would be interested in invading airspace or interfering with nuclear facilities if they were merely monitoring progress. It suggests that monitoring from a distance would be safer and more logical than risking detection or confrontation.

What about those reactors?

This part of the article addresses the belief that UFOs are interested in nuclear reactors. Jan Harzan is quoted as stating that there are numerous UFO encounters reported at US nuclear power plants. The author dismisses this as "cherry picking" and questions the definition of a "UFO encounter," suggesting that similar numbers of reports could be found near other high-traffic areas like Yankee Stadium. The author also notes personal experience working with nuclear reactors on submarines without ever seeing a UFO.

The article discusses the possibility that UFOs are attracted to nuclear reactors due to the radiation they emit, even at reduced levels compared to weapons. John Ventre's theory that UFOs are either monitoring reactor development or recharging their systems is presented. The author finds the idea of UFOs needing to recharge from reactors illogical, given the availability of other energy sources and the ease with which advanced beings could obtain energy or create their own.

Nuclear attraction 2

This section continues the discussion on UFOs and nuclear reactors. It reiterates that nuclear reactors emit radiation, but unlike weapons, they do not cause explosions. The theory that UFOs are monitoring nuclear development is questioned, with the author suggesting that hacking into network systems would be a more efficient way for advanced beings to gain knowledge.

The idea of UFOs recharging themselves by hovering over reactors is further scrutinized. The author argues that if UFOs need energy, they can obtain it anywhere and do not need to be near reactors. The limited energy that leaks from reactors, such as gamma rays and neutrons, is largely shielded, while neutrinos, though unshielded, are abundant elsewhere. The author finds it illogical for UFOs to "suck" neutrinos from reactors when more readily available sources exist or they could build their own reactors.

Nuclear statistics

This section critically examines Donald Johnson's study from the International UFO Reporter, which claimed UFOs appear more frequently near nuclear facilities. The author identifies several flaws in Johnson's methodology, including the use of the UFOCAT database, which contains uninvestigated reports and cases with known explanations. The article cites Allan Hendry's critique of UFOCAT as a statistical tool, noting its violation of precepts like random sampling and data uniformity.

Johnson's reliance on questionable sources, such as a book about "Soviet UFOs" without verification, is highlighted. The author debunks a specific report about a UFO at the Chernobyl disaster, stating that it is not supported by data and that radiation levels were much higher than reported. The exclusion of US counties with military bases from Johnson's control group is also criticized for skewing the results.

The article concludes that Johnson's study has flaws that render its conclusions baseless, and the theory that UFOs are attracted by anything nuclear is unproven.

The Nuclear facility and UFO myth?

This concluding section acknowledges that UFO sightings around nuclear facilities are documented in government files, partly due to the constant guarding of these sites. However, it emphasizes that "U" in UFO means "Unidentified" and not "alien." The article states that there is no documentation proving that any governmental organization considers UFOs a serious threat to nuclear facility security. Reports of weapon or reactor anomalies coinciding with UFO sightings are dismissed as rumor, making the UFO-Nuclear connection tenuous at best and a myth at worst.

Notes and references

The issue concludes with a list of notes and references, citing various articles, books, and online sources that support the discussions within the magazine.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite are skepticism towards mainstream UFOlogy, critical analysis of UFO evidence, and the debunking of popular UFO theories. The editorial stance is clearly that of a critical investigator, aiming to separate fact from speculation and to challenge claims that lack rigorous evidence. The magazine actively questions the motives and methods of UFOlogists, particularly those who seem more interested in promoting mystery and personal gain than in genuine scientific inquiry. The "nuclear attraction" theory is thoroughly examined and largely dismissed due to a lack of credible evidence. The overall tone is one of reasoned doubt and a call for higher standards of evidence and investigation within the UFO field.

This issue of the magazine, identified as issue number 10, focuses on the topic of astronomer UFO reports. The main article, 'A listing of Astronomer UFO reports,' critically examines a compilation of sightings by astronomers, questioning the accuracy and validity of many entries. The publication appears to be a periodical, but specific volume, issue date, publisher, country, and ISSN are not provided.

What About Those Sources

The article begins by scrutinizing the sources used for a list of approximately 400 UFO sightings compiled by Philip Wylie, which spans from 1623 to 2000. The author expresses skepticism, suggesting that many sightings are likely misidentified objects (IFOs) and that older cases are often misrepresented. To illustrate this point, the first six cases from the list are analyzed in detail.

Case 1: November 17th, 1623

This report of a 'burning globe' seen across Germany and Austria, with a reported sound of cracking, is explained as a meteor fireball. Johannes Kepler's observations were reportedly used to determine the meteor's altitude, suggesting a natural phenomenon.

Case 2: March 21st, 1676

An object reported by Geminiano Montanari to Edmund Halley, described as appearing over the Adriatic and crossing Italy with a sound like rattling, is also identified as a bright fireball. The author notes the absence of a terminal explosion description, which would be expected from a fireball.

Case 3: May 1677

Edmund Halley reportedly saw a 'great light in the sky' over Southern England. However, the lack of a specific date makes verification difficult. The author questions if Halley was the proper source, as he was on the island of Helena during that period, suggesting he might have been commenting on others' observations. The comet of 1677 is proposed as a possible explanation.

Case 4: July 31st, 1708

An apparition described as a 50-mile high object moving with 'incredible speed' and leaving a pale white light is again attributed to a bright fireball, as described by William Whiston.

Case 5: 1715

Unusual phenomena observed on the Moon during a solar eclipse by Edmund Halley and J.E.de Louville are interpreted as sunlight leaking by lunar mountains and craters, not an alien encounter.

Case 6: March 6th, 1716

Halley's observation of an object illuminating the sky for over two hours is identified as a great aurora visible across England. Similar phenomena reported by other astronomers are also linked to natural events.

The author concludes that these historical cases have reasonable explanations and that many other observations on the list can also be explained as natural phenomena.

Other Observations and Explanations

Pre-Twentieth Century Observations

• Observations predating the twentieth century on the list include:
• Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP): Many are attributed to tricks of light and shadow or potential meteorite impacts on the moon.
• Planetary Observations: These are identified as phenomena that have since been explained.
• 'Dark Objects' Transiting the Sun: These are suggested to be airborne objects (birds, debris, insects) or sunspots. The author dismisses classifying these as 'alien' sightings.

Hoaxes

The list includes entries featuring George Adamski and the Zainesville UFO photographs by Ralph Ditter, which are widely considered hoaxes by UFOlogists. The author questions the compiler's discrimination in including such entries.

Modern UFO Reports

The article discusses the challenges in accepting reports from self-proclaimed 'amateur astronomers,' preferring the term 'sky watchers.' It notes that inexperienced observers may hastily declare unusual sightings. The International Astronomical Union is cited as stating that amateur astronomers often report discoveries of comets too hastily, with the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT) receiving numerous unconfirmed reports.

#### Erroneous Observations Example

A specific example is given of an amateur astronomer in Cheyenne, Wyoming, on October 5th, 1997, who reported seeing a 'comet' moving at satellite speed. This was later identified as the space shuttle Atlantis conducting a water dump, a phenomenon similar to Comet Hale-Bopp.

#### Other Modern Phenomena

• Other modern entries are linked to known phenomena:
• April 25, 1966 fireball: Widely photographed and filmed, yet John Keel reportedly claimed it was not a meteor.
• Cosmos 2238 re-entry: Two observations are noted.
• Stratospheric balloons: Potential sightings of these are mentioned for August 2, 1968, and September 5, 1968.

Lack of Details

The list is criticized for lacking dates and times, with some cases merely stating an amateur astronomer saw a UFO without further details on their proficiency or the observed event.

Just a List

The author critiques the list for its 'shotgun approach,' including cases of questionable provenance that cannot be verified or have simple explanations. The author suggests that a list of ten compelling, well-analyzed cases would be more valuable than hundreds of poorly researched ones.

Notes and References

Pages 3 and 8 provide extensive notes and references for the cases discussed, citing various books, articles, and online sources, including works by Philip Wylie, William Whiston, Edmund Halley, and Richard M. Hall.

Another Astronomer UFO Story

This section recounts a story posted by Kevin Randle about an APRO bulletin article from November 1959 concerning a sighting by three professional astronomers on July 13, 1959. The object was described as a 'flying saucer.' Randle interprets this as an alien spaceship because the term 'flying saucer' was used instead of 'UFO.'

Case # 6431

Further investigation into this case revealed that the primary source was a newspaper article, potentially missing details or containing errors. One observer, Sirio Vas, was identified as a Captain in the Army's technical school, not necessarily an astronomer. The constellation 'Alfa' was likely a misspelling of 'Ara' or 'Aquila.'

#### Details of the Event

The object was described as a disk with a conical protuberance and green lights forming a Maltese cross. It emitted an orange-colored jet. The astronomers reportedly stated the disc traversed 130 degrees in 20 minutes but could not calculate linear velocity, which the author finds perplexing given the angular velocity. The speed was also cited as preventing photography.

#### What Might It Have Been?

The author speculates that the sighting might have been a balloon, possibly an illuminated weather balloon, or even 'fire balloons' used during St. John's festivities in Rio de Janeiro, as described by poet Elizabeth Bishop. The presence of twenty-four lights in a cross pattern could be explained by multiple candles used for lift. The 'orange jet' might have been melting wax.

#### Alien Spaceship?

The author concludes that while the sighting cannot be definitively solved, an earthly source is possible. The astronomers' conclusion of a 'flying disc/saucer' might have been premature, and they likely saw something they could not identify rather than an alien spaceship.

The Chance to Record a Once in a Lifetime Event

This section discusses the author's purchase of a dash camera for his car, inspired by events like the Chelyabinsk meteor. The camera records in HD and can capture objects in daylight and night conditions, though night sensitivity is limited.

Technical Specs

The camera records HD video (1920x1080) and can store about 4-5 hours on a 32GB Micro SD card. Its resolution limit is estimated at 0.5 degrees, considered adequate for recording bright fireballs.

Daylight and Night Tests

Daylight tests included recording aircraft, like a Fed Ex plane, and a helium balloon. The author notes that if a 'disc' or large triangle were present at a similar distance, it would have been clearly recorded. Night tests were limited, with only the moon being resolved.

Potential for UFO Recording

While the camera is primarily intended for recording fireballs, the author acknowledges the possibility of it recording a 'true UFO' event.

Are UFOlogists Afraid of the Proactive Approach?

The author questions why more UFOlogists do not adopt proactive measures, such as installing dash cameras in their vehicles, to record potential UFO events. He suggests that with widespread adoption, it would be possible to record at least one such event annually.

June 30, 1957: Case 1011

This section details an incident described in a NICAP document and a newspaper article from 'Diairo Popular.' An airliner en route from Belo Horizonte to Rio de Janeiro encountered a 'glowing red-orange disc-like object' that maneuvered around the DC-3.

Looking for Supporting Information

The author notes that information on this case is scarce, with the primary source being a single newspaper article. Keyhoe and Weinstein are cited as referencing NICAP, and Richard Haines is also mentioned, suggesting the case's foundation is weak.

A Coincidence?

An article in 'Sky and Telescope' from November 1957 documented a spectacular daylight fireball visible from Belo Horizonte. The fireball's appearance, trajectory, and timing (between 5 and 5:30 PM local time) closely match the reported UFO sighting, occurring within about an hour of the reported time.

Fireballs as UFOs

The article emphasizes that reporting fireball meteors as UFOs is common. A daylight fireball event in Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa, which startled pilots, is cited as an example. The author suggests that the time discrepancy in the 'Diairo Popular' report could be due to an hour's error, and the aircrew might have seen the fireball instead of a UFO.

Classification

This case is classified as 'Insufficient information' or 'possible meteor' and should be removed from lists of 'Best evidence.'

The 701 Club: Case 1011 - November 18, 1951

This section examines a case from Don Berliner's list of Blue Book unknowns. On November 18, 1951, at 3:20 a.m., the crew of a Capital Airlines DC-4 flight and an Andrews AFB air traffic controller, Tom Selby, observed an object with several lights that followed the DC-4 for about 20 miles before turning back.

The Blue Book Record

The Blue Book record card states a 'strange object following Pilot airplane (DC-4) for about 20 miles at 8000 ft and turned back.' The file contains only the report from Tom Selby, not the pilot.

Selby's Account

Selby initially saw nothing unusual but was alerted by Washington tower about a strange aircraft. He then observed an object with brilliant light and several other lights. The object followed the DC-4 for 20 miles and then disappeared to the east. Selby later saw it again, appearing stationary, before it disappeared south. A F94 aircraft sent to investigate saw nothing, and radar could not track the object.

Analysis

• Key points highlighted include:
• The information about flight 610 was second-hand.
• Selby only saw the object after being prompted by Washington tower.
• The object was seen briefly and appeared stationary before disappearing.
• There was no radar contact, despite claims by Sparks and Weinstein.
• The report was received by Blue Book late (April 11, 1952), hindering a proper investigation.

Possible Explanations

Looking at airline tables, flight 610 was likely an air coach flight from Detroit to Miami, passing through Washington D.C. The observed object's position relative to the aircraft (east of Edwards AFB) suggests it was to the northeast of the aircraft, giving the impression of being followed. Venus, which had risen and was at an elevation of about 3 degrees, is proposed as a possible explanation for the initial sighting. Saturn was also visible. Selby's second observation, where the object went south, might have been a Leonid meteor, which peaked around that time. The possibility of seeing some sort of aircraft is also mentioned.

Is It Solved?

The author considers the case unsolved but suspects Venus may have been involved in the initial sighting. Selby's subsequent observations are deemed insufficient. The case is categorized as 'possible astronomical (Venus/Saturn/ meteor)' or 'insufficient information,' rather than 'unidentified.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO reports, particularly those attributed to astronomers. The author consistently seeks natural explanations for sightings, often identifying them as fireballs, meteors, planets, or other known phenomena. There is a strong emphasis on the need for rigorous investigation, the unreliability of anecdotal evidence, and the potential for misidentification and hoaxes. The editorial stance is skeptical of claims of extraterrestrial visitation, favoring scientific and logical explanations for reported anomalies. The issue advocates for a more proactive and technologically equipped approach to UFO research, such as the use of dash cameras.

Title: UFOs on the tube
Issue: 20
Cover Headline: Aliens on the moon: The truth exposed
Document Type: Magazine Issue
Language: English

This issue of 'UFOs on the tube' critically examines a SYFY channel program that purported to expose the truth about aliens on the moon. The author expresses immediate skepticism due to the program's title and the inclusion of clips from the movie 'Sharknado 2', questioning what is science fiction and what is presented as documentary.

Program Analysis: Participants and Claims

The author divides the program's participants into three distinct groups:

The Qualified Group

This group included Astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchell, Space historian Amy Shira Teitel, and geologist Danielle Wyrick. The author found them credible but felt they were frequently cut off mid-sentence, preventing them from making their points. An example cited is Wyrick's suggestion that a "bridge/pipe" feature on the moon could be an unusual formation of ejecta, only for the narrator to proclaim it an "engineering marvel" constructed long ago.

The 'They Should Know Better' Group

This group comprised UFO personalities such as Marc D'Antonio, Lee Speigel, and Nick Redfern. Redfern speculated wildly about alien attacks from the moon, appearing to confirm the program's claims. Speigel offered weak endorsements, while Marc D'Antonio, whom the author previously respected, seemed to endorse images he couldn't explain, possibly due to pareidolia. The author notes D'Antonio's lack of expertise in planetary geology makes his opinions on lunar images worthless and speculates this might be an audition for 'Hanger One'.

The 'Kooks'

This group included individuals like Ken Johnston, described as a "simple shipping clerk at NASA" with an "all sorts of patches" jacket, whose credentials were allegedly inflated. Don Ecker, who claimed to be part of the production, reportedly had trouble distinguishing boulders making tracks. Joshua Warren promoted the "Apollo 20 hoax," which the author dismisses due to the lack of Saturn V launches after 1973. Michael Bara, who reportedly would appear in 'Hanger One', endorsed nearly every claim and is associated with Richard Hoagland, diminishing his credibility. Allan Sturm is described as someone who, wanting to create a "coffee table" book of moon photos, instead decided to promote a "wild conspiracy book about aliens on the moon" for profit.

Donna Hare claimed NASA airbrushed out UFOs without having security clearance, but provided no verifiable details. The author found none of these individuals credible.

Debunking Specific Claims

The article highlights that the program relied on decades-old images of the moon, failing to utilize more recent, higher-resolution images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). A specific claim about a "satellite dish" was debunked, with the author stating it was merely a crater. This leads the author to conclude that producer Robert Kiviat and others were intentionally misleading people for financial gain.

Producer and Program Verdict

Robert Kiviat is identified as the producer, also responsible for the "Alien Autopsy hoax." The author states Kiviat is motivated by profit, not truth, and advises readers not to watch the program if it airs again. The author expresses sympathy for those who did watch it, considering it a waste of time, and would have preferred watching 'Sharknado 2'.

Editor's Note

Due to a lack of time to read any books on the subject, the editor opted not to include a book review in this issue, choosing instead to pass on the opportunity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critique of sensationalist UFO programming and the questionable credibility of its participants and producers. The editorial stance is highly skeptical and critical, dismissing the claims made in the SYFY program as "nonsense" and a "hoax" driven by financial motives. The author prioritizes factual accuracy and verifiable evidence over speculation and conspiracy theories, contrasting the program's content with scientific data from sources like the LRO.