SUNlite - Vol 07 No 03

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNtite
Issue: Volume 7, Number 3
Date: May-June 2015
Theme: Shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs.

This issue of SUNtite delves into the controversial "Roswell slides," presenting a critical examination of the evidence and the claims made by its proponents. The magazine features a quote from Isaac Asimov emphasizing the importance of evidence, observation, and reasoning. It also includes a variety of articles discussing the future of UFOlogy, photographic analysis, and critiques of organizations within the field.

The Roswell Slides Controversy

Roswell Messiah?

The lead article addresses the impending "revival meeting" concerning the Roswell case, where promoters claim to present evidence that will prove humanity is not alone. The author expresses skepticism about the promoters' methods, particularly the restrictions on cameras, and suggests the slides may not be high-resolution or easily verifiable. Concerns are raised about the promoters' conduct and their failure to address obvious problems with the slides. The article notes that claims about political connections have been made without evidence, and the "non-body slides" are considered inconclusive. A significant point of contention is the possibility that the slides depict a mummy display, a theory supported by an anthropologist's observation. The article highlights the promoters' guardedness, threats of legal action, and even Stanton Friedman's unimpressed reaction, leading to the opinion that the slides are "Dead on arrival."

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews opinions and discussions within the UFOlogy community. Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos is discussed for his blog entry on the future of UFOlogy, proposing a panel of independent scientists to analyze top UFO cases. The author notes potential issues with such a panel being influenced by payment and the difficulty of analyzing cases with insufficient data. James Carrion's criticism of MUFON is highlighted, with Carrion stating that MUFON has been collecting data for over 40 years without producing concrete results, labeling it a "landfill" rather than science. The article also mentions Cheryl Costa's reporting of fireball meteor sightings as UFOs and notes the limited new information presented in a video about the Socorro incident.

The Roswell Corner: Eleazar Benavides AKA Eli Benjamin fallout

This article focuses on the controversy surrounding Eleazar Benavides, also known as Eli Benjamin, and his alleged connection to the Roswell slides. It details threats made by Anthony Bragalia against Paul Kimball and the author, accusing them of harassing Benavides. The author clarifies that Benavides volunteered for television appearances and that Bragalia's accusation of obtaining Benavides' name through hacked emails is false. The article discusses Benavides' military service, noting that while he served for twenty years, he was an E-7 enlisted rank, not a lieutenant as suggested in a video by Adam Dew. This discrepancy raises questions about Dew's credibility and the reliability of his sources, suggesting potential lies or misunderstandings from Benavides or his handlers.

Dating the Slides

This section critically examines the claims made by Anthony Bragalia regarding the dating of the Roswell slides. Bragalia's analysis, based on supposed expert opinions, suggests the film was manufactured between 1927 and 1947, with the cardboard sleeve dating it to 1941-1949, thus pointing to 1947 as the exposure date. However, the author questions the methodology, particularly the reliance on edge coding, and notes that Adam Dew's film only shows a "9" on the film edge, not a clear date code. The article points out that edge codes were not always present on every slide and that their presence only indicates film manufacture date, not exposure date. Slide mounts can narrow the window but not pinpoint the exact time. The author concludes that Bragalia's claim is unsupported by available evidence.

The Debut of the Roswell Slides

This article addresses the anticipation surrounding the unveiling of the Roswell slides and the potential for them to either prove alien visitation or be a mundane deception. It questions the provenance of the slides, suggesting they may not have been exclusively photographed by Bernerd and Hilda Ray, given the variety of locations and subjects. The article notes that Adam Dew, despite claiming not to call them "Roswell slides," has embraced the title and promoted them as such. It discusses the formation of "The Roswell Slides Research Group" (RSRG) to evaluate the evidence, but internal disagreements hampered progress. The RSRG examined claims about "non-body slides," finding them exaggerated or misleading, and debunked a photograph of Milton Eisenhower.

The "ghost"

This section delves into the background of Bernerd A. Ray, one of the alleged photographers of the Roswell slides. It reveals that Ray was an Oil Exploration Geologist in New Mexico and the Permian Basin in the 1940s. After 1947, he became inactive in his profession, leading to him being described as a "ghost." The article explores theories about how the Rays might have gained access to photograph an alleged alien body, including having expertise or knowing the right people. It critically analyzes the possibility of them secretly photographing the body, questioning how they could have avoided detection by the military, which was supposedly rigorously confiscating all evidence. The article also points out that Hilda Blair Ray did not come forward with the slides until much later, despite the Roswell event being publicized.

Photography and Technical Analysis

Kodachrome slide film

This article discusses the characteristics of Kodachrome film, a favorite among photographers for its sharp images and bright colors. It notes that Kodachrome had slow film speeds and required specialized labs for development. The author shares personal experiences with Kodachrome, including lost collections and the transition to digital photography. The article explains the "Sunny 16" rule and provides an exposure table for Kodachrome daylight film in 1946, illustrating the effects of slow film speed.

Kodachrome film and photography basics

This section further elaborates on Kodachrome film, noting its speed rating (8-16 ASA) and unique manufacturing process that resulted in sharp, high-contrast images. It explains the "Sunny 16" rule and provides an exposure table for Kodachrome daylight film in 1946. The article discusses how aperture settings (f-stops) affect depth of field and how high f-ratios require longer exposure times, which can lead to blurry photographs due to slow shutter speeds. It also mentions the Kodak 35 camera as a common model in the 1940s and the challenges of manual focus and slow shutter speeds for indoor photography.

Lighting

This article highlights the importance of lighting in photography, particularly with Kodachrome film. It states that Kodachrome was primarily a daylight film, and using artificial lighting introduced color reproduction problems. The author cites Fred Bond and Eastman Kodak on the limitations of household lamps for color photography due to their low illumination and yellowish light. An example is given of how room lamp lighting affected the color balance of a military model diorama photographed with Kodachrome 64 film, and a Venus Occultation photographed with Kodachrome 200 film showed an orange cast.

The good, the bad, and the ugly

This concluding section on photography reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of Kodachrome film. While praised for its colors and sharpness, its slow speed made it unsuitable for fast action, large depths of field, and low-light photography. The author suggests these factors may have affected the quality of the Roswell slides. The section also includes a list of notes and references.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of evidence, particularly in the context of UFOlogy and the Roswell incident. There is a strong emphasis on scientific methodology, skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, and the importance of verifiable proof. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious inquiry, challenging the promoters of the Roswell slides and advocating for rigorous analysis over blind acceptance. The magazine also touches upon the evolution of photography and its role in documenting events, while critiquing the scientific rigor of UFO organizations.

This issue of "Scouting" focuses on two primary areas: the oil industry in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico during 1941, and a detailed examination of the controversial "Roswell slides." The magazine provides an overview of drilling activities, new field developments, and significant wells, alongside a deep dive into the debate surrounding photographic evidence purported to show an alien body.

West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico Development in 1941

The issue begins with a report on the oil industry's performance in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico in 1941. Development was described as greater than in any year since 1937, with a total of 2,325 wells drilled, including deepened and recompleted wells. Of these, 2,100 (94%) were producers. The Slaughter field was the most active, contributing 678 wells. A total of 135 wildcat wells were drilled, with 27 proving to be producers and 108 dry holes. Nine of these wildcats established new production areas, while others extended existing ones or found new levels within established areas. Permian exploration was widespread across 43 counties, testing more zones than in previous years.

The article also touches upon the reputation of Bernerd A. Ray, an oil geologist. It addresses claims made by an individual named Bragalia, suggesting Ray was a prolific writer and active in Roswell in 1947. The author disputes these claims, noting that Ray's published work was minimal and focused on oil development, and that evidence of his presence in Roswell in 1947 is lacking. Bragalia's assertions about Ray's activities are presented as potentially exaggerated or misleading.

Scouting: New Locations and Field Development

This section provides specific details on drilling activities and new locations in various fields. It lists companies, well names, depths, and locations for new wells in areas such as North Cowden, the Queen field, the Wichita field, and the Landon field. Notable wells include those drilled by Pan American Petroleum Corp., Superior Oil, Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co., and others.

In Spraberry Area

This part of the magazine reports on new discoveries and completions in the Spraberry Trend Area Field. It highlights the opening of a third producing zone with Rowe Oil Co.'s No. 1 Schwertner, which yielded 284 barrels of 36 gravity oil. It also details discoveries by Forest Oil Corp. and Cities Production Corp. in west Midland County, including wells that produced significant amounts of oil from the Elienburger and Pennsylvanian sections.

The Roswell Slides Debate

The majority of the magazine is dedicated to a critical analysis of the "Roswell slides," which are claimed by some to show an alien body recovered from a UFO crash. The author, along with other UFOlogists and researchers, expresses skepticism about the authenticity and interpretation of these slides.

Bragalia's Claims and Counterarguments

Anthony Bragalia is presented as a key proponent of the alien interpretation. His claims include that the body in the slides is organic, has four digits, large eyes, an "insect-like" face, long limbs, and is encased in a non-museum-like container with a hastily cut blanket. He also suggests Bernerd Ray, an oil geologist, took these photos in 1947 in Roswell using Kodachrome film.

The author systematically refutes these claims. Regarding the "organic" appearance, it's noted that Kodachrome film and lighting conditions can create false color balance. The four-digit hand could be due to obscured digits or damage. The large eyes might be due to the skull's orbit size or the angle of the photograph. The "insect-like" face and long limbs are also questioned, with measurements suggesting they are within normal human proportions, possibly of a child.

Mummy Hypothesis

A significant part of the analysis focuses on the possibility that the slides depict a mummy, specifically Wistar catalog number 2397. This mummy, which resided at the Wistar Institute and later the National Museum of Natural History, shares several characteristics with the body in the slides: a length of under three feet, a separated head, a bright spot on the forehead, display in a burial shroud, and a similar body position. Dr. David Hunt, a physical anthropologist, observed that the body's positioning is consistent with Ptolemaic and Greco-Roman Egyptian mummification practices.

Skepticism and Controversy within UFOlogy

The magazine details a "revolt" among UFOlogists against the promoters of the Roswell slides, including Jaimie Maussan and Tom Carey. Many prominent figures in the field, such as Robert Hastings, Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman, and others, have expressed doubts about the slides' authenticity, provenance, and the promoters' methods. They criticize the lack of transparency, the reliance on anecdotal evidence, and the aggressive tactics used by some promoters to silence critics.

Allegations of Theft and Conspiracy

The article touches upon accusations of theft and conspiracy, particularly concerning the slides themselves. There are mentions of lawyers being engaged, and claims of cryptolocker hacking. The author suggests that the narrative of stolen slides might be a contrivance to create a sense of urgency or government suppression.

The "Enforcer" and "Us Against Them" Tactics

Anthony Bragalia is described as an "enforcer" who attempts to defuse explanations that contradict the alien narrative. The promoters are accused of using an "us against them" mentality, labeling critics as "debunkers" and suggesting they are financed by outside sources to discredit the event. The article notes that Stanton Friedman declined to participate in a presentation due to a lack of convincing evidence and transparency.

Conclusion on the Slides

Without direct access to the slides, the author relies on available information and expert opinions. The conclusion leans towards the slides being a misrepresentation, possibly of a mummy or a child's skeleton, rather than an alien body. The promoters' behavior, including secrecy and aggressive responses to criticism, further fuels skepticism. The article suggests that the promoters may be motivated by financial gain or notoriety, and that their claims are likely to be debunked.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the robust activity and discoveries within the oil industry, particularly in West Texas, and the intense debate and skepticism surrounding the "Roswell slides." The editorial stance is clearly critical of the Roswell slides' promoters, highlighting a lack of verifiable evidence, questionable provenance, and the use of manipulative tactics. The magazine advocates for scientific rigor, independent verification, and transparency in investigations, contrasting these principles with the methods employed by those promoting the alien interpretation of the slides.

This issue of UFO Magazine, dated 2015, delves into several intriguing topics related to UFO phenomena, including the controversial Roswell slides, the alleged experiences of airline pilot W.J. Hull, and technical aspects of image analysis. The magazine features a cover story that draws parallels between the Roswell slides and the classic Warner Brothers cartoon 'One Froggy Evening,' exploring themes of hidden potential and revelation.

The Roswell Slides and 'One Froggy Evening'

The article "Warner Brothers and the slides?" draws a comparison between the narrative of the Roswell slides and the Warner Brothers cartoon 'One Froggy Evening.' The cartoon depicts a man who finds a box containing a singing and dancing frog. Initially, the frog only performs for the man, but after being hidden away for a century, it reappears and performs for a new owner. The author suggests that the frog's selective performance might mirror the way the Roswell slides have been presented, with their full significance or 'performance' only being revealed to those who are receptive or actively seeking it.

Identifying the Non-Body Slides

This section examines various slides that do not appear to depict alien bodies or spacecraft, focusing on their potential to reveal locations and timelines. The "Tournament of Roses parade" on January 1, 1946, is identified as a specific event captured in one slide. Other slides are placed in Paris in the late 1950s, with the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG) identifying cars from that era. Some slides are suggested to have been taken in Kansas in the 1940s, possibly during a summer trip with a camping trailer, raising questions about the individuals' whereabouts in the summer of 1947, a time when they were supposedly in New Mexico investigating aliens.

Further analysis is given to slides purportedly showing individuals like Bernerd Ray and Hilda Blair Ray. The article questions the age of the individuals in the slides compared to their known ages in other photographs and the dates on the slide mounts, suggesting possible alterations or misidentification. The author concludes that these non-body slides may not directly link to a Roswell crash but do indicate travel to various locations and potentially a different summer activity in 1947 than what is commonly believed.

Pip A Close Encounter Turn A Leaping Debunker Into A Believer?

This lengthy article by Martin S. Kottmeyer critically examines the narrative presented in a Hangar One episode about Captain W.J. Hull, who is portrayed as a UFO debunker who became a believer after a 1956 sighting. Kottmeyer meticulously debunks this portrayal, presenting evidence from Hull's own writings and correspondence. He argues that Hull was never a debunker but rather an enthusiast who believed in UFOs from at least 1947. Hull's 1956 and 1957 sightings are analyzed, with Kottmeyer suggesting they could be misidentifications of meteors or other natural phenomena, and that the Hangar One portrayal is a fabricated 'morality tale.' The article details Hull's correspondence with Captain Bill Nash and his writings, including a review of Donald Menzel's book 'Flying Saucers,' which Hull saw as a deliverance from what he considered absurd claims in the UFO field.

Kottmeyer highlights the inconsistencies in Hull's accounts and the lack of independent corroboration for his sightings. He also discusses the possibility of autokinesis and psychological factors influencing Hull's perceptions. The article concludes by criticizing MUFON for promoting Hull as a leading debunker and true skeptic, stating that Hull's memory is insulted by this misrepresentation. Hull died in a plane crash in 1958.

Outlining Some Imagery Enhancement Principles and Introducing the Spatial Domain (ii)

This technical article by Geoff Quick continues a discussion on image enhancement, focusing on spatial frequency and the Fourier Transform. It explains how images can be represented in the spatial domain (pixel-based) and the frequency domain. The article uses diagrams to illustrate low and high spatial frequencies, showing how they appear in both domains. The Fourier Transform is presented as a method to convert an image into its frequency components, allowing for analysis and manipulation. The concept of filtering, such as low-pass and high-pass filtering, is introduced as a way to enhance or reduce specific spatial frequencies to make an image more interpretable. The article also touches upon image convolution as an alternative method for filtering directly in the spatial domain using kernels or masks.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO evidence and narratives. The magazine appears to adopt a stance that is both open to investigating UFO phenomena and skeptical of sensationalized or unsubstantiated claims. There is a clear emphasis on rigorous analysis, whether it involves comparing anecdotal accounts to known phenomena, scrutinizing historical claims, or applying scientific methods to image interpretation. The articles encourage readers to question official narratives and to look for logical explanations, while also acknowledging the possibility of genuine unexplained phenomena. The technical article on image enhancement suggests a commitment to providing readers with tools and knowledge to critically assess visual evidence related to UFOs.

This issue of "THE UFO EVIDENCE" from July-August 1960, Volume 1, No. 3, published by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), focuses on analyzing UFO reports, often attributing them to known phenomena or providing explanations. The magazine employs image processing techniques to analyze UFO imagery and critically examines historical and contemporary UFO cases.

Image Enhancement Techniques

The issue begins with a technical explanation of image enhancement techniques, specifically high-pass and low-pass filters, using the iconic George Adamski "Flying Saucer" photograph as a case study. The article explains how these filters can alter an image, making it appear 'crisper' by sharpening edges, but also potentially increasing visible 'noise'. It likens this process to adjusting audio bass and treble. A typical edge enhancement convolution kernel is also illustrated, showing how features can be brought out. The author notes that edge enhancement is often used in practical applications like satellite imaging and personal digital cameras.

Space Report: Rocket Launch Sightings

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to "Space Report," detailing UFO sightings that are often linked to rocket launches. Peter Davenport and Ted Molczan are credited with identifying many of these as rocket body re-entries or venting fuel. Several reports from March-April 2015 are presented, including those related to the Falcon 9 rocket launch from Cape Canaveral. Witnesses described various phenomena, such as orange/white objects with red tails, objects moving erratically, descending and ascending spheres, and bright lights.

Specific incidents include:

• Sunrise, Florida (March 1, 2015): An orange/white object with a red tail followed a launch, changed direction, and dissipated.
• Miami, Florida (March 1, 2015): A red trail was observed, followed by a gray or white object moving rapidly before disappearing.
• Kissimee, Florida (March 1, 2015): A fireball-looking sphere descended and then ascended.
• Orlando, Florida (March 1, 2015): An expert witness saw a super orange bright light from the horizon.
• Coral Springs, Florida (March 12, 2015): An unusual fire orange, comet-shaped object with a tail was seen.
• Daytona Beach (March 12, 2015): A round orange ball with strobe lights and an orange tail was observed.
• Troy, Montana (March 12, 2015): Witnesses reported a glowing, perfectly round object.
• Oxnard, California (March 12, 2015): An object with a plasma cloud descended rapidly and became undetectable.
• Stockton, California (March 13, 2015): Witnesses observed a bright blue fluorescent sphere with an erratic flight pattern.

The author notes that while some reports lack detail, the coincidence of timing with rocket launches strongly suggests they are the source.

Case Analysis: July 2, 1960, Venezuela

This section investigates a UFO report from July 2, 1960, involving a Venezuelan Airlines Super-Constellation flying near Puerto Rico. The pilot and crew reported being followed by a luminous UFO that paralleled the plane before shooting away at high speed. The source is cited as Ultimas Noticias. Project Blue Book had no additional information, but another sighting at the same time from San Juan, Puerto Rico, described a large, non-twinkling object like a "thin powder puff." The author concludes that this UFO was likely man-made, possibly related to an Atlas D rocket launch from Cape Canaveral that occurred around the same time. The trajectory of the missile aligns with the reported direction of the object.

Case Analysis: July 17, 1952, Lockbourne, Ohio

This case, "CASE 1482 JULY 17, 1952," from Lockbourne, Ohio, involves multiple sightings by Air National Guard employees and civilians, including William W. Stevenson. The object was described as circular, star-like, fluorescent, with an orange and green glow, and sometimes leaving a reddish trail. Sightings occurred on July 17, 20, 22, and 23, 1952. The object was observed for varying durations, with one sighting lasting two hours. It was seen moving north and south, about ten degrees from due east, at an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet. The author, after examining weather data and using Stellarium to simulate the night sky, concludes that the sightings were likely astronomical. The planet Jupiter, rising around 0600Z with an azimuth of 70 degrees, is identified as the most probable source. The disappearance and reappearance were likely due to cloud cover. A "bonus sighting" on July 21, 1952, is also attributed to Mars.

"Solved?" Section

The "Solved?" section summarizes the author's findings for the analyzed cases, stating confidence that the July 1952 sightings involved astronomical objects (Jupiter and Mars) and should be reclassified. The issue also includes extensive notes and references for each case.

UFOs on the Tube: "Hanger One" Review

The final section critically reviews the TV show "Hanger One," specifically an episode that aired in its second season. The author expresses disappointment with the show's reliance on sensationalism and unproven claims, particularly those promoted by MUFON experts. The episode covered events in Vietnam (1968), the HMAS Hobart attack (1968), an incident in April 1951 involving an "alien spaceship," a Korean War event (1950), the Rendlesham Forest incident, and a March 2003 event in Iraq. The author disputes MUFON's interpretations, suggesting more mundane explanations like earthly aircraft, friendly fire, or expended ammunition. The author criticizes the show for lacking evidence and promoting narratives similar to 1950s "contactee" stories, concluding that the show offers no improvement over its first season and recommends readers avoid it.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical analysis of UFO reports, the application of scientific and technical methods (like image enhancement and astronomical simulation) to investigate sightings, and a skeptical stance towards sensationalized UFO claims, particularly those presented in popular media. The editorial stance is one of seeking rational explanations, whether astronomical or man-made, and questioning the validity of evidence presented by UFO organizations and media programs. The author emphasizes the importance of verifiable evidence and warns against accepting anecdotal accounts or speculative interpretations without scrutiny.