SUNlite - Vol 07 No 05

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 7, Number 5
Date: September-October 2015
Theme: UFOlogy and UFOs, with a focus on critical examination of cases and evidence.

Editorial Stance

The editorial stance of this issue is highly skeptical and analytical, challenging conventional UFOlogy narratives and emphasizing the importance of objective evidence over subjective witness testimony. The magazine aims to shed light on UFOlogy by critically reviewing cases and promoting a more scientific approach.

Articles and Features

Back to the Unknowns

This section introduces the issue's theme of re-examining UFO cases that may not amount to much. The author highlights the inherent problem with witness testimony, noting that it is subjective and people may not accurately recall what they saw. The article mentions a group called "The Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy" (SCU) that claims to have the "best documentation of an unknown aerial and submerged nautical object exhibiting advanced technology." However, the author criticizes SCU for its self-published report, lack of critical review, and potential for bias, comparing it to the issues surrounding the Roswell slides. Readers are directed to the Puerto Rico Research Review (PRRR) website for more information. The author also notes that summer schedules have limited article writing, resulting in a thinner issue, and mentions a fictional story about UFO proponents and a skeptic examining a case.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section critically reviews recent discussions and claims within the UFO community, often found on blogs and in publications.

• MUFON's Astronomical Claims: The author questions MUFON's claim to be an astronomical organization, suggesting many members lack basic astronomical understanding when analyzing UFO reports.
• The Black Vault's Submarine Periscope Images: Images supposedly taken through a submarine periscope in 1971 are presented, but the author raises numerous questions about their source, description, and authenticity, suggesting they might be a hoax.
• Charles Halt and Rendlesham: Charles Halt's claims of new evidence for the Rendlesham Forest incident, including radar tracking, are discussed. The author notes that this evidence is anecdotal and lacks corroborating radar data.
• Gary Osborn and Jim Penniston's "Binary Code": Gary Osborn's comments on Jim Penniston's "binary code" are analyzed. The author is skeptical of Osborn's claims, suggesting the seven earth locations mentioned have mystical connections and are designed to hook believers.
• Kecksburg Event: The author dismisses recent retellings of the Kecksburg event as lacking new information and relying on embellished stories, urging readers to consult previous SUNlite issues.
• Roger Marsh's UFO Stories: Two stories published by Roger Marsh are critically examined. One involves children reporting triangular UFOs and an "ape-like" creature, with the author suggesting the witnesses may have been influenced by the TV show "Hanger One." Another story about a cigar-shaped UFO near Tulsa is dismissed as likely being an airplane contrail.
• Kingman UFO Crash: The evidence for the Kingman UFO crash, previously presented at a MUFON conference, is deemed underwhelming.
• Edgar Mitchell's Claims: Edgar Mitchell's assertion that aliens prevented a nuclear war is questioned. The author argues that UFOs are more likely to interfere with nuclear stockpiles than prevent war, citing the Big Sur story as a distortion of history.
• Lee Speigel and Edgar Mitchell: A discrepancy is noted between Lee Speigel's reporting of Mitchell's statements and Mitchell's denial, raising questions about Mitchell's memory.
• James Carrion's Challenge to MUFON and CSI: James Carrion's challenge for MUFON to present its best UFO evidence to CSI for debunking is discussed. The author believes MUFON would likely fail unless the judges were biased.
• Fausto Perez's "Floating Humanoid": A video of a "floating humanoid" over Los Angeles is dismissed as likely being a balloon, with a lack of data making it impossible to verify.
• Seth Shostak on Old UFO Cases: Seth Shostak's criticism of UFOlogy relying on old cases is supported, with the author agreeing that such cases often fade under scrutiny and do not constitute hard factual data.
• MUFON's Symposium on Respectability: The author is skeptical of MUFON's announcement of a symposium to discuss making UFOlogy respectable, given their association with "Hanger One."
• Gilles Fernandez on Turkish UFO Videos: Gilles Fernandez's skeptical analysis of Turkish UFO videos is praised, with the author agreeing they likely are hoaxes.

The Roswell Corner: The Roswell Slides slow and painful death

This section details the ongoing controversy surrounding the Roswell slides. The author notes that the debate has largely faded since the previous issue, with proponents like Jaime Maussan and his experts sticking to their claims despite flawed arguments. A planned press conference was canceled. The author criticizes Schmitt and Carey for their continued weak arguments and for attempting to demonize members of the Roswell Slides Research Group. The excuse that they were limited by Adam Dew's control of the slides is deemed exaggerated, as high-quality scans were available. The author questions the credibility of Schmitt and Carey's research, suggesting that if they were fooled by the slides, they may also be fooled by their witnesses in other cases. The section includes ten "undeniable truths" about the Roswell slides, asserting that many of these are facts, while others are opinions based on evidence. These points challenge claims made by Carey and Schmitt, suggesting the slides depict a mummified two-year-old boy, potentially from Mesa Verde in 1947, and that there is no verifiable evidence linking them to an alien discovery at Roswell.

Revisiting the Kerman, CA UFO Case of May 13, 1978

This article re-examines the Kerman, California UFO case from May 13, 1978. The author responds to Kevin Randle's blog post, which suggested the UFO was a rocket launch from Vandenberg. The author, with the help of Ted Molczan, computed a trajectory for an Atlas rocket launch that occurred around the same time and in the same general direction as the sighting. The article details the witness's account, including observations of a hovering, circular object that emitted a blue light and caused sunburn-like burns. It also discusses the medical diagnosis of "mild first degree burns" and questions whether these burns were actually caused by the UFO. The article presents evidence that an Atlas rocket was launched from Vandenberg that evening and argues that the trajectory and visibility of such a launch are consistent with the witness's description. The author concludes that there is no good reason to reject the rocket launch hypothesis, citing the unreliability of eyewitness estimates and the lack of evidence linking the burns to the UFO.

How bright?

This section addresses the argument that a rocket launch would not have been bright enough to be seen as described by Officer Amparano in the Kerman case. The author draws on personal experience observing numerous rocket launches from distances comparable to the Kerman sighting (around 150 miles from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg). These launches, including Atlas-Centaur, Delta, Titan, and Space Shuttle launches, were often prominently visible, sometimes as bright as Venus or Jupiter. The author also recalls observing submarine-launched missiles from significant distances. The section concludes that Atlas rocket launches, particularly from Vandenberg, are capable of being very prominent to observers within their visibility zone, countering the argument that the Kerman sighting could not have been a rocket launch due to its brightness.

Why wasn't this identified as a rocket launch?

This section explores why the Kerman UFO sighting was not immediately identified as a rocket launch. The author notes that the specific rocket launch on May 13, 1978, was not widely publicized in newspaper archives or even in aviation magazines like FLIGHT International until later. Military launches from Vandenberg were often not widely announced, and investigators may have been unaware of a coinciding launch. The article mentions that an investigator named Hendry reportedly received a negative report when checking for rocket launches, suggesting unreliable sources or reliance on media outlets. The author posits that if Hendry had access to the launch data in 1978, he might have explained the Amparano sighting as a rocket launch. The section also includes a news clipping about a US Air Force Atlas F launch of a Navstar GPS satellite on May 13, 1978, confirming the event. A table of trajectory data for Atlas D launches is also provided for comparison.

Conclusion?

This concluding section reiterates that there is no strong reason to dismiss the rocket launch hypothesis for the Kerman sighting. The author emphasizes that eyewitness estimates of size, distance, and elevation are often unreliable. The key reliable factors are the direction the witness was facing and the time of the event, both of which support the rocket launch explanation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the alleged UFO caused the "mild first degree burns" Amparano received, as sunburn is a more plausible explanation. The author concludes that the promoters of the case rely heavily on the witness's statement "I know what I saw," which is not sufficient evidence. While the author cannot definitively prove Amparano saw the rocket launch, the bulk of the evidence strongly indicates that the rocket launch was the source of the reported sighting.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of SUNlite consistently promotes a critical and skeptical approach to UFOlogy. Recurring themes include the unreliability of witness testimony, the tendency for UFOlogists to dismiss conventional explanations like rocket launches, and the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny of evidence. The magazine challenges the claims of prominent UFO organizations like MUFON and individual researchers, advocating for a more evidence-based and less sensationalist approach to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena. The editorial stance is one of debunking unsubstantiated claims and promoting rational explanations, particularly when they are supported by verifiable data and scientific principles.

This issue of UFO magazine, identified as issue number 10, features a prominent cover headline: "A DIFFERENT CASE WITH SIMILAR ARGUMENTS." The content primarily focuses on a detailed analysis and debate surrounding a specific UFO sighting, the July 9, 1959 case in the Bahamas, and explores broader themes of UFOlogy, skepticism, and the interpretation of evidence.

The July 9, 1959 Bahamas Sighting: A Case Study

The central focus of the magazine is the July 9, 1959 sighting, which was classified as an "unidentified" case by Project Blue Book. The article presents a debate between the author and UFO researcher Brad Sparks, who argues that the case should not be considered a missile launch. Sparks' arguments are based on several points, including the perceived distance of the object, the described trajectory not matching a ballistic path, discrepancies in timing, and the reported large angular size of the object, suggesting it was not a Jupiter missile.

The author, however, counters Sparks' arguments by suggesting that the visual phenomena could be explained by the venting of unused fuel from a Jupiter missile launch, which occurred around the same time. The article details how such fuel clouds could reflect sunlight, making the rocket and its components appear larger and brighter. It also references other UFO cases that occurred concurrently with rocket launches, suggesting a potential for misidentification.

Further analysis is provided by Ted Molczan, who largely agrees with the author's conclusion that the sighting was likely related to the Jupiter missile launch and the venting of its fuel. Molczan addresses Sparks' magnitude arguments, noting that calculations can be conservative and that fuel venting can create impressive displays visible from afar. He suggests that observers were likely drawn to the "vapor cloud" and then saw individual objects within it.

Arguments Against Misidentification and Eyewitness Reliability

The magazine critically examines common arguments used to dismiss potential UFO sightings as misidentifications of known objects, such as rocket launches. These arguments, as presented by Sparks, include:

1. The object was too far away and too faint to be seen: The author counters that venting fuel could make objects appear brighter and larger.
2. The witness was an expert and could not be mistaken: The article emphasizes that even reliable witnesses are human and subject to errors in perception and memory. The case of the pilot witness in Jamaica is discussed, where details in a later sketch seemed to contradict earlier descriptions.
3. The witness gave descriptions that did not precisely match the rocket launch: The author suggests that variations in timing and descriptions can be attributed to factors like timepiece inaccuracies or the witness not immediately consulting a clock.

The Role of Skepticism and UFOlogy's Reputation

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a fictionalized debate titled "11 Angry UFOlogists and a Skeptic," which simulates a discussion among various individuals evaluating a "best UFO case ever." This segment highlights the differing perspectives within the UFO community, from ardent believers to skeptics.

The skeptic character raises valid points about the need for rigorous evidence, questioning assumptions, and avoiding confirmation bias. The debate touches upon the interpretation of radar data, the possibility of misperceptions (e.g., Venus, Chinese lanterns, aircraft formations), and the tendency for some UFO proponents to dismiss mundane explanations in favor of extraordinary ones.

The fictional debate underscores the challenges in UFO research, where personal beliefs and the desire to promote certain cases can sometimes overshadow objective analysis. The article concludes this segment by suggesting that even if a case is not definitively explained, it does not automatically mean it was an alien spaceship.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine's editorial stance appears to favor a critical and analytical approach to UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous investigation, the acknowledgment of potential misidentifications, and the critical evaluation of eyewitness testimony. The article implicitly critiques the tendency within some UFO circles to promote cases without sufficient scrutiny or to dismiss evidence that contradicts a desired conclusion.

The recurring themes include:

• Misidentification: The frequent possibility that UFO sightings are actually misinterpretations of known phenomena, such as rocket launches, atmospheric events, or celestial bodies.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The inherent unreliability of human perception and memory, even from seemingly credible witnesses.
• Skepticism vs. Belief: The tension between a skeptical, evidence-based approach and a more credulous, belief-driven perspective within UFO research.
• Case Analysis: The detailed examination of specific UFO cases to determine their validity and potential explanations.

The magazine advocates for a more balanced and evidence-based approach to UFO research, urging proponents to weed out potential misidentifications (IFOs) from their databases to maintain credibility and focus on genuinely unexplained phenomena.

This issue of "Canadian UFO Identified" focuses on the 2014 Canadian UFO reports, as announced by Chris Rutkowski. The publication aims to provide a public analysis of these cases, distinguishing itself from groups that may keep investigations private. The issue delves into specific reports, offering critical analysis and exploring potential explanations.

Analysis of 2014 Canadian UFO Reports

The lead article discusses the 2014 Canadian UFO survey, praising Chris Rutkowski and his associates for their efforts in analyzing and identifying UFO reports. The author expresses a desire for the survey to improve its handling of "unidentified" cases. A specific case from MUFON, dated November 27, 2014, involving a red crescent object fading away in Toronto, is examined. Initially reported as "not the moon," the author investigates this claim using astronomical data from Stellarium and Timeanddate.com. The analysis suggests that the object was very likely the moon, setting in the west around 22:27, with a potential error of a few minutes in the witness's observation time. This case is used to illustrate that some "unidentified" reports in UFO databases may actually be misclassified Identified Flying Objects (IFOs).

Case Study: November 16, 1952 Landrum South Carolina

This section details a sighting on November 16, 1952, near Landrum, South Carolina, where hundreds of people reportedly saw a huge disc. The event is described as a "tremendous glowing streak" visible for about 10 minutes, disappearing to the southwest. John Ellis, an air traffic controller, described the object as "unlike anything I have ever seen," likening its shape to a saucer tilted at about 30 degrees. An EAL pilot also reported seeing a "bright light" that appeared as a silver craft with a hexagonal shape, or a sphere tilted at a 30-degree angle, leaving a "heavy fan tailed blast" trail. Despite the number of witnesses, no photographs were taken. The Blue Book file indicates the event was recorded on film, but only a few frames showed "two blobs of bright light, apparently reflected from the sun," which was attributed to "mock sun" or "sun dog" phenomena. Donald Keyhoe's letter describes objects the size of automobile tires, changing color from burnished silver to burning orange, with marked up and down movements. The article concludes that while the event is difficult to definitively explain without images, it was likely an unusual airplane contrail or parahelia, and not evidence of "intelligently controlled" extraterrestrial life.

Case Study: August 24, 1954 Egilstadir, Iceland

This case, reported by Don Berlinner, involves a farmer in Egilstadir, Iceland, who witnessed a cylinder-shaped object, approximately 2-2.5 feet long and 4-5 feet in diameter. The object reportedly made a loud whizzing sound, flew straight and level at varying speeds, and then fell into a sandbar. The USAF sent an investigative team to locate the object but failed to find anything, even with a mine detector. The witness marked the location a week after the incident, and the river had risen and fallen, potentially burying the object. The USAF decided against further excavation due to cost. The article questions if this could be a job for the "great Roswell dig team." The conclusion is that it is highly unlikely the object was anything incredible or unknown to science, and it is considered a case of "insufficient information" rather than "unknown," noting that single witness observations have a high potential for error.

Book Review: "How UFOs Conquered the World" by David Clarke

This section reviews David Clarke's book, which is described as a departure from standard UFO literature. Instead of just recounting famous cases, Clarke shares his personal encounters and insights into the UFO phenomenon. His involvement with the Ministry of Defense (MOD) UFO files and his relationship with MOD personnel are highlighted. The review notes Clarke's description of Dr. Paul Davies's transformation from a skeptic to someone who views UFO sightings as "Ghost stories." Clarke's book posits a psychosocial hypothesis (PSH) for UFO claims and is skeptical of many UFO reports. The review lists Clarke's ten basic truths for "the UFO syndrome," which include the idea that there are many phenomena that cause UFOs, not a single "UFO phenomenon," and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The reviewer agrees with Clarke's approach, suggesting that many UFO proponents assume an alien origin and then try to prove it, which is deemed the wrong approach. The book is recommended as a must-read for UFO enthusiasts, regardless of agreement with its conclusions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the critical analysis of UFO reports, the importance of proper classification (distinguishing between unidentified and misidentified phenomena), and a skeptical approach to extraordinary claims. The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations and scientific investigation, as evidenced by the debunking of the Toronto crescent sighting and the cautious conclusions drawn from the Landrum and Iceland cases. The review of David Clarke's book further reinforces this skeptical and analytical perspective, emphasizing the need for strong evidence and questioning the validity of the "UFO syndrome."