SUNlite - Vol 07 No 04

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 7, Number 4
Date: July-August 2015
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite focuses on the controversy surrounding the 'Roswell Slides' and the 'BeWitness' program that took place on May 5th, 2015. The magazine critically analyzes the claims made by promoters and presents evidence that debunks the idea that the slides show an alien body, instead identifying it as a mummified two-year-old boy.

BeWitless! The 'BeWitness' Program and its Aftermath

The editorial begins by noting the anticlimactic nature of the 'BeWitness' program, which failed to convince the public of its claims. Despite a presentation in Mexico City, a poll on the Coast to Coast AM website showed that a significant portion of participants did not believe the slides depicted an alien body, with many remarking it looked like a mummy. The promoters' insistence on the slides showing an alien, even in the face of contradictory evidence, is highlighted as a reason for their eventual embarrassment.

The article points readers to various blogs that documented the 'slides debacle,' including 'A Different Perspective,' 'The UFO Chronicles,' 'Blue Blurry Lines,' 'The UFO Trail,' 'Did it Really Happen,' 'The Roswell Slides Research Group,' 'Nab Lator's site: Nabbed!,' and 'The anomaly archives by Stephen Miles Lewis.' The author mentions that regular articles for SUNlite were omitted to focus on this commentary and analysis, and they would return in the next issue.

BeWoeful: The Death of the Roswell Slides

The author expresses regret for investing $15 and three hours in the 'BeWitness' program, finding it poorly organized and boring. The presentation, which was supposed to be two to three hours, stretched to five. The most tedious parts involved videos of witnesses recounting their experiences, some of which were deemed unbelievable, such as a claim of accessing classified 'Blue Book' records. The keynote speaker, James Hurtak, is described as having a poor, droning speech that included discredited evidence like the 2004 Mexican AF FLIR video. Paul Hellyer is also mentioned for repeating his stories about alien races and government conspiracies.

Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, expected to be strong presenters, were disappointing. Their presentation quickly devolved into a rapid showing of slides without adequate explanation, seemingly to promote their books. They focused on slides showing their books, and their talk concluded with Frankie Rowe's description of alien heads resembling crickets.

Adam Dew's presentation is described as not very good. He revealed that much of the information about Hilda Blair was second or third-hand. Dew's attempt to link the Rays to the Eisenhowers through their attendance at Kansas State was seen as backward logic. His claim that the slides were separate and hidden was based on the testimony of one woman with a financial stake. The author concludes that Dew's evidence was shaky and based on anecdote rather than verification.

BeBored: May 5th was Mostly a Snooze Fest

The author reflects on the lack of planning for the 'BeWitness' program, contrasting it with naval career experiences where planning prevented poor performance. The program's length and lack of structure made it extremely boring. The videos of witnesses were particularly unconvincing, with one individual claiming access to non-existent 'Blue Book' files. Speakers like James Hurtak and Paul Hellyer were criticized for their unpreparedness and the re-promotion of discredited evidence.

Schmitt and Carey's presentation was also found lacking, focusing on promoting their books rather than explaining the slides. Adam Dew's presentation relied heavily on hearsay and weak logical connections, such as linking the Rays to the Eisenhowers through Kansas State. His primary evidence for the slides' significance was a story about them being hidden, based on questionable testimony.

BeMissing: There was no edge code

This section addresses the claim that the slides were manufactured in 1947, based on 'edge coding.' The author questions Anthony Bragalia's assertion and reveals that Adam Dew presented a statement from Robert Shanebrook, who could only date the film to 1945-1950 and had no specific edge code evidence. A scan of the slide revealed no 'edge codes' (shapes like triangles, circles, or plus signs), indicating the slide was developed and mounted in the late 1940s, debunking the 1947 manufacturing claim.

BeMini: Smaller than advertised

The article discusses the size of the body depicted in the slides. While told to be 3.5-4 feet, the author uses preliminary measurements from a high-resolution scan. By comparing the body's dimensions to the frame holding the glass shelf, and estimating the frame's hole size (0.4-0.6 inches), the estimated body length is around 3 feet. The author suggests that foreshortening and the body's proximity to the camera might make it even smaller. Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benítez's estimate of 1.2 meters (about 47 inches) is questioned, as it appears to be based on a 1:1 comparison with a woman in the background who is likely further away. The author estimates Benítez's figure to be 1.5-2 times too high, suggesting the actual height is 0.6-0.8 meters (24-32 inches), and calls his measurement unscientific.

BeWhere: Secret location or museum?

Prior to the 'BeWitness' program, Maussan and Carey were critical of skeptics, but the blurry image they used was deemed accurate in size and dimensions. The author speculates that if skeptics had seen the real slides earlier, the program might have been destroyed. Tom Carey described the body's display as a temporary construction in an indoor location, not a museum. However, when high-resolution images were revealed, objects with placards were visible, suggesting a museum setting rather than a crash site artifact display. This supports the idea that the body was a mummy, not an alien.

BeWishful: Speculation heaped upon speculation

This section criticizes the gross errors made by speakers during the 'BeWitness' presentation, suggesting they were either incompetent or more interested in promoting their narrative than stating facts. Adam Dew is singled out for proclaiming a slide showed 'White Sands' in New Mexico, when it was actually the Great Dunes National Park in Colorado. This error, along with others, blinded him to clues that might have led to the true source of the body, which was not related to Roswell or aliens.

BeBlurry: The debunkers will be disappointed

Adam Dew presented four experts who examined high-resolution images of the placard but reported they could not read it. This contradicted Tom Carey's earlier statement that the placard had been read. Dew expressed concern about people deciphering the placard themselves, fearing it would lead to combating false information. The article then details how members of the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG), using software like SmartDeblur, were able to decipher the placard, reading "Mummified body of two year old boy." This process involved sharing images and cross-referencing readings with other experts.

Concerns were raised within the RSRG about the provenance of the image, with the possibility of it being a hoax to discredit them. However, when Curt Collins posted about the findings, the news spread. Anthony Bragalia accused the RSRG of using a photoshopped image. Bragalia was challenged to provide his own scans, which he did, and the RSRG continued their deblurring efforts. Adam Dew later posted a high-resolution image of the placard on his website, which the RSRG used, establishing provenance.

BeAbandoned: Seven days in May

Following the release of the deblurred images, Tony Bragalia accused the RSRG of a hoax. Within hours, he apologized to the Native American community for using the image of a mummified boy as evidence of an alien crash. Bragalia then, surprisingly, located the source of the mummy image. His apology to Native Americans was seen as sincere by some, but hollow by RSRG members who had been targeted with threats and accusations. Bragalia also criticized Adam Dew for not providing good enough images, a claim the author disputes, stating that Dew's images were deblurrable with the right skills and patience.

The remaining promoters, including Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, and Adam Dew, continued to repeat accusations against the RSRG, calling them debunkers and internet trolls. However, as the RSRG demonstrated how to deblur the placard, the narrative began to shift. Many in the UFOlogy community did not accept the story that the RSRG had hoaxed the placard image.

BeDeceitful

On May 14th, Jaime Maussan stated that Don Schmitt and Tom Carey were still accepting the slides as non-human. However, Don Schmitt issued an apology, stating he was ashamed for allowing his beliefs to affect his evaluation and now considered the matter concluded, recognizing the image as a mummy. He admitted to being overly trusting. Tom Carey, however, refused to concede, recalling statements made with Maussan where they declared debunkers incapable of admitting they were wrong. Carey insisted the thing was not human and that critics were destroying their own worldviews.

Adam Dew faced criticism from Bryce Zabel, who revealed Dew's association with the slides since August 2014. Zabel suggested Dew show the slides to news outlets for professional analysis, but Dew refused, likely to maintain control and revenue. Zabel declined to participate in the 'BeWitness' production due to his knowledge of the slides, calling the effort amateurish.

Jaime Maussan struggled to answer criticisms, repeating that experts had spoken and the placard's content was irrelevant. He convinced himself the body was not human or a mummy. After Bragalia recanted, Maussan attacked him, implying he had something to hide. When Schmitt withdrew, Maussan ignored it and offered a bounty for a photograph of the mummy. Maussan drew a line in the sand to save the slides and his reputation.

To save the slides, promoters focused on expert opinions rather than the placard. Richard Doble restated his case that the body was non-human and not a mummy. This effort aimed to provide a favorable assessment of the body, ignoring the placard's clear statement.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination and debunking of claims within the UFOlogy community, specifically concerning the 'Roswell Slides.' The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a strong emphasis on rigorous evidence verification. The magazine champions the scientific method and exposes what it perceives as misinformation, sensationalism, and a lack of due diligence among some prominent figures in the field. The issue highlights the importance of transparency and the consequences of promoting narratives without sufficient proof, ultimately advocating for a more grounded and evidence-based approach to the study of UFO phenomena.

This document, titled "THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE," appears to be an issue from a publication focused on UFOlogy, specifically addressing the controversial "Roswell slides." The content critically analyzes the claims made by Jaime Maussan and his associates regarding these slides, particularly concerning the identification of a body depicted within them.

Analysis of the Roswell Slides Controversy

The article begins by dissecting the claims made by Jaime Maussan and his team, including an anesthesiologist named Richard O'Connor, who asserted that the body in the slides was non-human. The author questions O'Connor's objectivity, given his affiliation with the "Crop circles research foundation" and interest in UFOs. While skeptics suggested the body was a mummy, Maussan allegedly sought experts to declare it non-human, proposing the placard was intentionally obscured to hide an alien.

Adam Dew, associated with Open Minds, echoed Maussan's rationale, suggesting experts like Eleazar Benivedes had already deciphered the placard. However, Dew subsequently disappeared from public view. The narrative highlights a shift in Don Schmitt's stance; he initially conceded the body was a mummy on May 14th but later rejoined the "slides bandwagon" on May 29th, employing the argument that the RSRG (Roswell Slides Research Group) used "skulduggery" to deblur the placard.

Debunking Deblurring Claims and Misinformation

The author refutes Schmitt's claims about the RSRG's methods, stating they never used a "screen grab" to deblur the placard. Nab Lator, an RSRG member, was the first to deblur the placard using an inside source's image, and others, including the author, later deblurred an image provided by Adam Dew. Schmitt is portrayed as either uninformed, incapable of understanding, or lying about these events.

Tom Carey, backed by Schmitt, publicly criticized the RSRG's work on Jimmy Church's radio program, claiming the deblurring was recent and that the original slide appeared cursive while the translated placard was in block letters. The author explains this perceived difference as a result of "shutter shake" and motion blur, a common issue with slow-speed Kodachrome film. David Rudiak, whom Carey and Schmitt often cited, admitted in mid-May that shutter shake was the reason he couldn't deblur the image earlier.

The article emphasizes that Rudiak agreed the image *could* be deblurred with the proper software. The author accuses Schmitt and Carey of being either clueless or dishonest for ignoring Rudiak's statements and relying on his pre-deblurring comments. They are also accused of implying Adam Dew was part of a hoax and demanding new scans, which the author suggests is a tactic to avoid admitting their own mistakes.

The "Mummy" Identification and Maussan's Tactics

Don Schmitt continued to emphasize the "experts" over the placard, stating their original analysis that the body was not human would stand, and additional scientists supported this. He proposed a public science forum to present findings. The author criticizes this logic, pointing out that mummified bodies can have missing parts and that Schmitt's reasoning is pseudo-scientific and biased.

The article details how Maussan's team attempted to demonstrate the body was too large to be the same mummy described in the Palmer documents. They relied on using a woman's hand as a ruler, but failed to account for the difference in distance between the woman and the body from the camera, leading to inaccurate size estimations. The author provides a detailed analysis of "angular size measurements" and "mapping the room" to demonstrate the flaws in these calculations. Using a 50mm lens and field of view of 39.6 degrees, the author calculates that the body was approximately 29 inches long, and the woman was significantly farther away, making her hand appear smaller relative to the body.

On June 10th, Jorge Peredo presented an image of the body for Maussan's $5000 bounty, claiming it was a different mummy. Maussan immediately declared it a hoax and a painting. However, Anthony Bragalia and an associate discovered the image originated from a Picasa album uploaded in 2008 by Frances Hadl, showing photographs from her trips in Arizona in 1957 and 1967. The image was titled "Montezuma castle mummy." Isaac Koi contacted Frances Hadl's husband, Frank, who confirmed the photograph was taken in December 1956 while he was stationed in Arizona with the Air Force. He provided a photograph of the slide mount, which, despite being partially obscured, showed a placard consistent with the mummy.

Maussan's hasty response, calling it a hoax, is seen as an indication he never intended to pay the bounty. Shepherd Johnson's FOIA request for information about the mummy yielded a 186-page file documenting its travels between Mesa Verde and Montezuma Castle, including a photograph of the mummy. Maussan then produced another analysis by Biologist José de la Cruz Ríos López, who claimed the body was 1.195 m long, not 0.7366 m. The author dismisses López as not being an optical expert and reiterates that his two-dimensional analysis failed to account for perspective.

The "Four Foot Theory" and Experimental Verification

The article further challenges the "four foot theory" promoted by Maussan and his experts, which suggests the body is 48 inches long. By using the same table as for the 29-inch measurement, the author shows that if the body were 48 inches, the woman would be only about one foot outside the depth of field and nearly in focus. However, the image shows the woman out of focus, supporting the 29-inch body theory and indicating the "four foot theory" is not tenable.

To verify these computations, the author conducted an experiment with a digital SLR camera, photographing a 29-inch rod at a distance of 4 feet. The results mirrored the conditions seen in slide #11, where the "hand" (used as a ruler) appeared to be at the correct distance, while the rod was slightly further away, leading to an apparent length of about 48 inches when measured with the hand. This demonstrates the flawed methodology used by Maussan's experts.

Conclusions and Critique of UFOlogy

The author concludes that while Maussan's experts may be intelligent, they either failed to understand or deliberately ignored the principle of perspective regarding the woman's distance from the camera. This makes them either incompetent or dishonest. The article suggests that the "Roswell slides" controversy, like many in UFOlogy, is characterized by charlatans, mistaken identities, and a desire to believe at all costs, which hinders objective evaluation.

The author expresses pity for those who were duped but notes that this pity disappeared upon seeing their reactions after the placard was deblurred. Instead of apologizing, the promoters renewed accusations against the RSRG. The author predicts that similar sensational claims will continue to emerge in UFOlogy, urging the community to abandon "childish beliefs" about UFOs, cosmic brotherhoods, and government cover-ups to make genuine progress.

The article ends with a strong recommendation for individuals interested in the UFO subject to cultivate skepticism towards outlandish claims, emphasizing that being proven wrong is a pleasant surprise, and being right means not losing anything. This approach, the author argues, would have saved people money and prevented promoters from appearing foolish.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes include the debate over the nature of the "Roswell slides" body (mummy vs. alien), the methods and integrity of UFO researchers and promoters, the role of photographic analysis and deblurring technology, and a critique of the UFOlogy field's tendency towards sensationalism and lack of critical thinking. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of the claims made by Maussan and his associates, advocating for rigorous scientific methodology, transparency, and a healthy dose of skepticism when evaluating extraordinary claims.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as Volume 7, Issue 7-4, published around May 9th, 2015, delves deeply into the controversy surrounding the "Roswell Slides." The magazine's primary focus is on the deblurring and analysis of a placard associated with these slides, which had been presented by various individuals as evidence of an alien body. SUNlite takes a critical stance, aiming to debunk the claims made by promoters and present scientific findings.

The Deblurring of the Placard

The core of the issue revolves around the efforts to decipher the text on a placard visible in one of the Roswell slides. The narrative follows a chronological log of communications and actions by individuals, primarily associated with the RSRG (Roswell Slides Research Group), as they worked to deblur the image using software like SmartDeblur. Key figures in this process include Nab Lator, who made significant progress in deblurring, and Tim Printy, who provided commentary and shared his findings. The deblurred text was eventually revealed to be "Mummified body of two year old boy."

Expert Opinions and Scientific Analysis

Following the deblurring, the magazine presents a compilation of opinions from various scientists, including forensic anthropologists and curators. These experts, when presented with the images (even before the placard was fully deciphered), largely concluded that the subject was a mummified human child. Notable contributors include Dr. Daniel Antoine, François Gaudard, Frode Storaas, Dr. Suzanne Onstine, S.J. Wolfe, Dr. Ronald Leprohon, Dr. Patricia Podzorski, Salima Ikram, and Denise Doxey. Their consistent assessment was that the remains appeared to be those of a child, mummified either naturally or through embalming, and not an alien.

Criticism of Slide Promoters

SUNlite strongly criticizes the primary promoters of the Roswell slides, identifying Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, Anthony Bragalia, Adam Dew, and Jaime Maussan as "villains" in the saga. The magazine accuses them of manipulating evidence, making unsubstantiated claims, and avoiding scientific scrutiny. Adam Dew is particularly singled out for withholding high-resolution images and allegedly setting up a "Kodachrome" website to promote a film. Jaime Maussan is described as blindly promoting UFO stories without critical analysis. The article suggests that these promoters were more interested in fame and money than in uncovering the truth.

The "Heroes" and "Villains" of the Saga

The issue frames the narrative as a battle between those seeking truth and those perpetuating a myth. Nab Lator is presented as a "hero" for his instrumental role in deblurring the placard. Shephard Johnson is also recognized for his efforts in contacting the Eisenhower library and filing a Freedom of Information Act request that reportedly demonstrated the body was a mummy. Conversely, the promoters are painted as villains who engaged in "hate and vitriol" and spread rumors.

Failed Promises and Counterarguments

The magazine highlights promises made by Adam Dew to present further analysis from scientists, which SUNlite claims did not materialize. It contrasts the promoters' claims with the consistent findings of independent scientists. The article also mentions a Spanish television program, "Cuarto Milenio," which offered a rebuttal to Maussan's experts, featuring Professor Miguel Botella, who stated the slides depicted a "child, mummified in a natural way."

The Scientists Who Would Not Look

A significant portion of the article addresses the claim by promoters that American scientists refused to examine the slides. SUNlite questions the sincerity of these attempts, suggesting that promoters may have biased their approach by mentioning "Roswell" upfront, thus potentially influencing the scientists' responses. The magazine presents a counter-narrative, citing a comment by Adam Dew that it's "nearly impossible task to get someone with a scientific background to look at a photo of a body with any human-like characteristics and say it's something other than human." This implies that scientists who did comment correctly identified the body as human, a conclusion that contradicted the promoters' agenda.

Conclusion and Recurring Themes

The issue concludes that the Roswell slides saga, from SUNlite's perspective, played out largely as predicted. The presentation on May 5th was found to be underwhelming, and the ease with which the placard was deciphered surprised many. The overarching theme is the triumph of rigorous scientific analysis and debunking over unsubstantiated claims and alleged manipulation within the UFO community. The magazine emphasizes the importance of verifiable evidence and critical thinking, contrasting it with the promoters' perceived reliance on personal belief and a desire for fame.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the debunking of UFO claims through scientific analysis, the critique of individuals and organizations within the UFO community who allegedly prioritize fame or personal belief over truth, and the importance of forensic image analysis. SUNlite's editorial stance is clearly skeptical of the Roswell slides as evidence of alien life, advocating for a rational, evidence-based approach and highlighting the consensus among scientific experts that the slides depict a mummified human child.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as issue 7-3, focuses heavily on the controversy surrounding the "Roswell Slides." The primary narrative revolves around the shifting perspectives and accusations among individuals involved in the analysis and promotion of these slides, particularly concerning Anthony Bragalia and Adam Dew.

Trying to erase and rewrite history

The article "Trying to erase and rewrite history" details how certain individuals associated with the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG) began to distance themselves from their past involvement after May 9th. Rich Reynolds is mentioned for his tendency to delete blog entries that presented him unfavorably. The author notes managing to retrieve some of this history before it vanished, aiming to document Anthony Bragalia's transformation from a "vicious slides enforcer" to a "slide critic."

The death

On May 9th, Anthony Bragalia wrote about the RSRG's work in deblurring the placard associated with the slides. He initially stated that the public reveal had caused an uproar and that "rabid slide-skeptics" might be committing photo-fraud. Bragalia suggested that the being depicted was a child mummy in a museum and that scientists were afraid of their reputation being tarnished. He also indicated that professionals had identified the body as not being human and that the RSRG's work was a hoax using Photoshop. However, he maintained confidence that the slides showed a being that looked like it came from Roswell.

The resurrection

Shortly after, Bragalia changed his mind, admitting that the slides did not depict a Roswell alien but rather a mummified child. He published a story about a mummy found at Montezuma Castle in 1894, crediting the RSRG as the source but downplaying his previous insults towards them. The author points out that this discovery was essentially a simple Google search of words found on the deblurred placard, replicated by others. Despite this, Bragalia received credit for solving the mystery.

The transfiguration

To absolve himself of wrongdoing, Bragalia attempted to portray himself as a victim of deception. He targeted Adam Dew, blaming him for the failure of the slides. Bragalia claimed he never saw the true-view of the slides and placard, only manipulated digital reproductions. He alleged that Dew used photo-cropping, light-blasting, color contrast changes, and selective resolution to obscure details, including a second placard, a black furry/hairy head, and a background room. Bragalia stated that Dew deliberately obscured the text of the placard and that his own analysis of Dew's provided images revealed brightness enhancement and light blur, indicating manipulation. He asserted that Dew's versions were "sweetened" and "tweaked," and that the placard versions provided by Dew were of low resolution and had applied color contrasts, making them "not true images."

The author counters Bragalia's claims by noting that prior to May 10th, Bragalia was enthusiastic about the image quality and claimed to have access to the highest resolution images. Bragalia's earlier comments indicated that certain details were visible, such as the lower part of the face appearing "insectile" and the upper part "frog-like/amphibian," with a "pointed" chin. He also described the being as being in a glass container and resting on a hastily-cut blanket, suggesting temporary storage. Bragalia had also indicated that clear versions of the slides depicted a being whose anatomy did not correspond to a human.

The article questions Bragalia's claims of poor image quality and limited access, given his detailed observations. It notes that on May 6th, everyone had access to a high-resolution image of slide #11, and many noticed artifacts and thought the body looked like a mummy. Bragalia remained silent until May 9th, when he criticized the RSRG as "rapid skeptics" and defended the slides, stating they did not indicate a mummy. He claimed to have viewed over 500 Google images of mummies without finding a match. The author points out that Bragalia never mentioned reservations about the images he received during the three days he had the opportunity to do so.

The author concludes that Bragalia's claim of being duped by Adam Dew is contradicted by his actions prior to May 10th. The article also mentions that at least two of the four placard images Bragalia posted on Rich Reynolds' blog could be deblurred enough to read the top line, and a third was partially visible, contradicting his claims of poor quality.

Born again?

This section discusses Bragalia's attempt to seek redemption by portraying himself as a key figure in solving the Roswell slide mystery. While acknowledging his minor achievements, the author deems his self-portrayal inaccurate. Bragalia is accused of trying to paint himself as an innocent victim, despite documented history suggesting otherwise. He allegedly ignored the possibility of the body being a mummy for over a year and did not try hard enough to solve the mystery, allowing his beliefs to influence his investigation. The author states that without the work of the "rabid skeptics" he denigrated, Bragalia would still be claiming it was a dead alien body. The article asserts that Bragalia's paper trail indicates he was not as innocent as he now tries to portray.

Notes and references

The issue includes a comprehensive list of notes and references, citing various articles, interviews, and online sources related to the Roswell Slides, primarily from May and June 2015. These include references to Adam Dew, Jaime Maussan, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, Erica Lukes, Philip Mantle, and Jasper Hamill, among others. Sources include UFO Conjecture(s), MUFON Radio, YouTube, and various blogs.

E-MAIL TO THE EDITOR

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos sent an email responding to comments made in the "Who's blogging UFOs" section of SUNlite 7-3. He expresses the need for a healthy and friendly debate. Olmos proposes defining the best-documented sightings, supported by eyewitness reports and data, or the most influential incidents that remain unknowns. He envisions a scenario where selected experts, chosen by background and research experience, would work independently in quiet labs or studios, without being influenced by UFO promoters. He contrasts this with mainstream science, which often relies on university, government, or industry grants that can influence research. Olmos suggests that analyzing old cases is crucial for substantiating the UFO myth, arguing that if there is no UFO phenomenon, the response lies in studying past events. He acknowledges this might be a utopia but believes it's better than continuing to face future decades of mysteries.

MATT GRAEBER AND BRUGE DOENSING RIP

The author expresses sadness over the passing of Bruce Duensing, a respected commenter on many blogs. He also mourns the death of Matthew Graeber, a friendly person and gifted artist who had provided articles and artwork for SUNlite. Graeber, who was often amused by the "Roswell crowd," would likely have found the recent Roswell slides debacle fascinating. The author regrets that Graeber's declining health prevented him from creating a humorous masterpiece about the event. Graeber had informed the author a year prior that he could no longer communicate due to his failing health. The author intends to include more of Graeber's artwork in future issues to commemorate his contributions to ufology.

A cartoon is included depicting a tow truck with a UFO on it, with the caption: "WELL, I GUESS THE GOVERNMENT GUYS JUST GOT TIRED OF PICKIN EM UP... YOU KNOW, AFTER AZTEC, KINGMAN, KECKSBURG, CARBONDALE AND ROSWELL."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO evidence, particularly the Roswell Slides, and the individuals involved in its interpretation and promotion. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a focus on documented evidence and rigorous analysis. The author emphasizes the importance of historical accuracy and calls out individuals who attempt to rewrite or manipulate narratives for personal gain or attention. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between speculation and established facts, and a critique of how personal beliefs can influence research. The inclusion of an email from Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos suggests an openness to debate and a desire for a more structured, scientific approach to UFO research, focusing on historical cases. The obituaries for Bruce Duensing and Matthew Graeber highlight the personal losses within the ufology community and the contributions of individuals to the field.