SUNlite - Vol 07 No 06

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 7 Number 6
Date: November-December 2015
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," delves into a controversial UAP video case and critiques the methodology of UFOlogy organizations. It features a cover image of a dark night sky over a brightly lit airport with an airplane in the foreground, accompanied by a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Is History Repeating Itself?

The lead article, "Is history repeating itself?", examines a "scientific" report released by the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) concerning a UFO video captured by a homeland security plane over a Puerto Rican airport. While the SCU report received significant promotion, it failed to convince many outside its immediate circle. The author notes that members of the Roswell slides research group (RSRG) formed a new group, the Puerto Rico Research Review (PRRR), to analyze the video and report. While agreeing with some points, the PRRR group found several flaws in the SCU's paper, with many members opining that the object was likely a balloon. The author intends to explore this balloon hypothesis and the perceived mistakes made by the SCU team in dismissing it, suggesting that their beliefs may have influenced their analysis, similar to how Roswell slides promoters allegedly allowed beliefs to affect their examination.

The article also touches upon the passing of Walt Andrus, MUFON's leader for three decades, who endorsed events like the Gulf Breeze fiasco. The author reflects on Andrus's significant influence within MUFON. Furthermore, the issue highlights recent criticism directed at MUFON, including the organization's decision to close its Facebook page, which deleted discussion records. The author suggests MUFON is more focused on image management and financial gain than on advancing UFOlogy.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section covers various contemporary topics in UFOlogy. It discusses a story about Patrick Moore editing out UFOs, tracing the claim back to Arthur Shuttlewood in 1969, and suggests the lights observed were likely distant planes or satellites. Cheryl Costa's writings on UFOs in NY state are mentioned, with a specific report of multiple white orbs of light in Delmar, NY, which the author easily explains as morning satellites or meteors. The upcoming film adaptation of the Betty and Barney Hill story is noted with skepticism about Hollywood's tendency to sensationalize.

The MUFON annual symposium's theme, "Opening new doors in academia, industry, and media," is discussed critically. The author finds the topics, such as "meeting the cast of Hanger one" and using the bible as a source, unlikely to impress academics. The keynote speaker, Paul Hellyer, is questioned for his potential involvement in the Roswell slides fiasco. The author suggests MUFON needs to close some "old doors on UFOlogy" to gain respect, pointing to the irony in their Sunday schedule which included talks by Jaime Maussan on "Video Evidence that UFOs are Real" and Stanton Friedman on "Making Ufology Respectable."

Billy Cox is criticized for promoting the Puerto Rico video study without critical examination. The article also mentions Robert Sheaffer's documentation of a NUFORC sighting from July 10th, identified as reentering space debris, and Brian Sanders' report on the witness's amended story involving telepathically received code from a UFO. The issue of space events generating UFO reports is raised, citing an Atlas rocket launch on October 8th that produced reports in Asia and the Middle East. Jaimie Maussan's announcement of a school offering a UFOlogy class is met with skepticism regarding its scientific basis. Jean-Michel Abrassart's paper "UFO Phenomenon and Psychopathology: A Case Study" is mentioned as an example of UFO reports explainable by hallucination. Isaac Koi's work debunking UFO videos is highlighted. The formation of an organization called UFOdata, aiming to establish stations to monitor the sky for UFOs, is discussed, with the author questioning its cost-effectiveness and data transparency.

Finally, the discovery of a peculiar light curve from a star monitored by the Kepler space telescope is mentioned, with SETI investigating the possibility of alien structures. The Delbert Newhouse footage is also discussed, with Gilles Fernandez presenting evidence suggesting the objects were likely seagulls, supporting earlier scientific conclusions.

The Roswell Corner

This section revisits the Roswell incident, focusing on interpretations of the event and the Roswell slides. Kevin Randle's commentary on the Roswell timeline is discussed, particularly his questioning of how Marcel could have cleaned the debris field and still arrived home late. The author suggests Randle is overlooking the possibility that Marcel stayed overnight. The article also addresses the Circleville story and its limited national media coverage, contrasting it with the Roswell Daily Record and Morning Dispatch reports. The author argues that Colonel Blanchard likely would have categorized the Circleville incident similarly to other recovered disc reports, based on available information at the time.

The "Ramey memo" photograph is also discussed, with efforts to obtain higher-resolution scans. The author notes that the text is difficult to resolve due to signal-to-noise ratio and suggests that interpretations will likely be subjective, akin to a Rorschach test.

A New Candidate for "Best Evidence"?

This article provides a detailed critique of the SCU's report on the Puerto Rico UAP video. The author questions the SCU's claim of scientific study, noting that some members are also part of MUFON. The report's extensive calculations are described as potentially overwhelming, but the conclusion that the object was an "exotic craft" is challenged. The formation of the Puerto Rico Research Review (PRRR) group is detailed, highlighting their collaboration with Isaac Koi, who created a website to share data and information.

The article scrutinizes the instrument accuracy in the SCU report, pointing out limitations in digital readouts for position and azimuth, and potential errors in measurements. It analyzes specific frames (332, 362) and compares calculated azimuths with Google Earth data, indicating potential discrepancies and errors in the SCU's measurements. The author emphasizes the importance of instrument accuracy for drawing valid conclusions.

Is It a Balloon?

This sub-section focuses on the hypothesis that the UAP was a balloon. Viktor Golubic's prior debate on the matter is mentioned. The author presents diagrams based on Florent Michaud's plots, suggesting a linear track consistent with wind direction and speed, rather than the SCU's proposed looping trajectory. The author's own exercise using the video data indicates a displacement of about 0.6 miles in 2 minutes and 20 seconds, equating to approximately 15 mph, which aligns with typical wind conditions.

It's Not a Balloon

The SCU report's section dedicated to refuting the balloon hypothesis is analyzed. The author argues that the SCU's primary argument is based on a flawed measurement from frames 711 and 712, which fails to account for the plane's motion and the concept of parallax. The SCU's secondary argument, concerning the object's distance and angular motion, is also deemed invalid due to the flawed assumption about camera rotation. The author criticizes the SCU for selecting only data that supports their arguments and for ignoring simple geometric principles. The SCU's rebuttal to the balloon explanation is also critiqued for lacking specific data and frames for replication, and for relying on a limited number of data points.

The article concludes that the SCU's analysis is not truly scientific, as it appears to be a case of cherry-picking data. The author suggests that a more thorough analysis, using more data points and considering all hypotheses, is necessary. The issue includes images illustrating parallax and diagrams showing multiple sight lines pointing to a general region, supporting the idea that the target was not moving significantly.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite include a critical examination of UFOlogy organizations' methodologies, particularly the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) and MUFON. There is a strong emphasis on scientific rigor, data analysis, and the importance of considering all possible explanations, especially the balloon hypothesis, when investigating UAP sightings. The editorial stance appears to favor skepticism towards claims lacking robust scientific evidence and a preference for objective, verifiable data over belief-driven interpretations. The magazine champions the idea that true UFOlogy should be grounded in scientific principles and open to scrutiny, rather than promoting sensationalism or defending preconceived notions.

This issue of SUNlite, dated October 2015, focuses on the analysis of a Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) video, primarily critiquing a report by the Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) and exploring the possibility that the observed object was a balloon. The magazine presents a detailed examination of the video evidence, challenging the SCU's conclusions and offering alternative interpretations.

Analysis of the UAP Video

The article begins by dissecting the SCU's report, which aimed to definitively prove the UAP was not a balloon. The author argues that the SCU's methodology was flawed, potentially due to confirmation bias, and that their conclusions were not as conclusive as they claimed. The analysis highlights the difficulty in precisely locating the object using line-of-sight data and suggests that the balloon hypothesis remains viable.

Object Characteristics and Behavior

The UAP is described as appearing pale white and exhibiting behaviors such as fading, disappearing, and seemingly submerging into the ocean. The SCU report interpreted these events as evidence of an exotic object. However, the author proposes alternative explanations. The "disappearances" are attributed to the way the imager displayed the object against its background, potentially due to clouds, fog, or mist, rather than the object hiding behind trees or diving into water. The "submergence" sequence, in particular, is re-examined, with the author suggesting that the object might have faded into the ocean background or been obscured by atmospheric conditions, such as clouds, rather than actively submerging.

The Balloon Hypothesis

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to exploring and supporting the balloon hypothesis. The author notes that the object's speed, estimated around 20-25 mph, is consistent with that of a balloon. The SCU's dismissal of the balloon explanation is challenged, with the author arguing that their reasoning is flawed. The article highlights the work of Lance Moody and Florent Michaud, who created a 3D simulation of the UAP event. This simulation, which incorporated the known position of the plane, camera direction, and approximate zoom levels, assumed the object was a balloon of approximately 14 inches in size, at an altitude of 245 +/-20 meters, and moving at 20 mph. The simulation produced a result that several members of the PRRR group found to be a reasonable match to the video, providing a convincing argument for the balloon explanation.

Critique of SCU's Findings

The author directly confronts several points made by the SCU. For instance, the SCU's claim that the UAP could not be a balloon because it disappeared behind objects is countered by the argument that these disappearances were intermittent and could be explained by atmospheric conditions or camera artifacts. The SCU's interpretation of the UAP's heat signature, calculated at 105 degrees F, is also discussed. While the SCU used this to argue against a balloon, the author notes that this temperature is also consistent with that of birds, though the object's behavior was more balloon-like.

Airport Operations and UAP Interference

The issue also addresses the SCU's claim that the UAP interfered with airport operations, leading to a shutdown. The primary witness stated that the airport was shut down for a significant period. However, the author presents evidence from the video suggesting that a FedEx plane's delay was likely caused by a Homeland Security plane orbiting the airport at low altitude, rather than the UAP itself. The security plane's presence necessitated the FedEx plane waiting for it to clear the area, thus explaining the observed delay without invoking UAP interference.

Unresolved Issues and Future Work

While the author leans towards the balloon explanation as the most plausible, they acknowledge that some issues remain unresolved. The article expresses hope that continued work by the PRRR group and others will help resolve these remaining questions. The SCU team's extensive research period of over a year is noted, suggesting that the PRRR should be afforded a similar timeframe to produce their findings.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around critical analysis of official reports (specifically the SCU's), the exploration of alternative hypotheses for UAP sightings, and the importance of rigorous scientific methodology. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards definitive conclusions drawn from limited or potentially flawed data, advocating for open-mindedness and thorough investigation. The magazine emphasizes the need for evidence-based reasoning and challenges interpretations that may be influenced by preconceived notions or biases. The balloon hypothesis is presented as a strong contender, supported by simulation and re-evaluation of the video evidence, contrasting with the SCU's more definitive, yet questioned, conclusions.

This issue of "UFO Evidence" delves into several UFO cases, primarily focusing on debunking them through astronomical explanations and critical analysis of witness testimony and investigative procedures. The magazine challenges common UFO narratives by suggesting mundane explanations for seemingly anomalous events.

Chasing a UFO: Yorktown Heights, NY Sighting

The article "Chasing a UFO" by Cheryl Costa examines a sighting that occurred on March 31, 2015, in Yorktown Heights, NY. A witness driving south on Somerstown Turnpike (SR 100) reported a bright, cross-shaped object hovering over the Muscoot Reservoir. The author, while acknowledging Costa's willingness to report UFOs, questions her astronomical knowledge. The article proposes an astronomical solution, suggesting the bright star Sirius, visible low on the southwest horizon around 11:00 PM, could have been the object. Weather data indicated clearing skies by 11:38 PM, supporting the possibility of astronomical visibility. A table shows the azimuth and elevation of Sirius at various times, correlating with the witness's path and the object's reported location relative to the reservoir. The author concludes that the witness likely mistook Sirius for a UFO, criticizing Costa for promoting such events without thorough investigation.

Stars are not cross-shaped!

This section addresses a common argument from UFO proponents: that stars are not described as "cross-shaped." The author cites Allan Hendry's UFO handbook, which lists various descriptions of objects reported by witnesses, including "discs," "domes," "teacups," and "bananas." The author argues that dismissing a star as a potential explanation because it wasn't described as "cross-shaped" is an oversimplification and ignores the diverse ways witnesses have described celestial objects.

Solved? (Yorktown Heights Case)

While not claiming 100% certainty, the author strongly suggests that the bright star Sirius is the most likely candidate for the Yorktown Heights sighting. The author criticizes Cheryl Costa for repeating UFO stories without investigation and advises her to take an astronomy class to better distinguish between astronomical events and UFOs.

Raising the Ante on the Roswell Slides

This section critically examines a press conference held by Jaimie Maussan, who presented experts from INACIFO (National Institute of Forensic Sciences) to support his interpretation of the Roswell slides. Maussan claimed that the body in the slides was "non-human" and that Dr. Zalce's work was correct. The Director of INACIFO, Miguel Angel, reportedly supported these claims, stating the slides were evidence of extraterrestrial life and that money was not a factor. However, the author refutes Maussan's assertion that Dr. Zalce's work was not incorrect, pointing out that Zalce miscalculated the body's height due to a failure to understand perspective. The author notes that neither Zalce, INACIFO, nor Maussan have addressed this issue. The article suggests that INACIFO is "doubling down" on Zalce's inaccurate work, contradicting their motto of "For the truth through science." The author also compares the body in the Roswell slides to the Palmer mummy, finding them to be very similar, and argues that the Roswell slide body is not four feet tall as claimed, but likely the same length as the Palmer mummy (29 inches), with the heads being of similar approximate size when scaled.

Spirit Lake, Iowa Sighting (November 23, 1955)

This case, described in "The UFO Evidence" chronology and detailed in Section VII, involved two Ground Observer Corps spotters, Earl Rose and Gay Orr, who reported a brilliant object changing color and maneuvering erratically for about 20 minutes near Spirit Lake, Iowa. The object was described as moving against the wind and unlike an aircraft. The article investigates a possible astronomical source, noting that sunset was at 4:57 PM CST and nautical twilight ended at 6:03 PM, leaving the sky dark enough for bright objects to be visible. Venus, at magnitude -3.9, was low in the sky at azimuth 232 degrees around 5:45 PM CST and set around 6:10 PM, closely matching the observers' report of the object disappearing twenty minutes after initial observation. The author suggests that the apparent movement could be an auto-kinetic effect and that the observers' failure to mention Venus adds weight to the conclusion that they observed Venus. The case is reclassified as "probably Venus" and not an example of "Best Evidence."

Radium Springs, New Mexico Sighting (November 6, 1957)

This case, identified as Case 5227 in the "701 CLUB," involved a policeman and a deputy sheriff who reported a round object changing from red to green to blue to white, rising vertically from a mountain top for 10 minutes. Brad Sparks' summary also notes this. The Blue Book file contains two cards: one UFOB record card suggesting an astronomical explanation and a Project 10073 record card listing the case as "UNIDENTIFIED." The article reveals that the Air Intelligence Service Squadron concluded the sighting was caused by stars. A teletype message indicates that USAF personnel investigated and noted 60% cloud coverage. They observed another "light" rise above the mountains and enter the clouds, concluding it was a star. T/SGT Albro, involved in the investigation, stated that the observed object was merely a star rising from behind the mountains, and two previous objects sighted at the same point were also stars. The author expresses surprise that this case is listed as "unexplained" in the Blue Book file. The astronomical explanation is further supported by noting that Sirius was at azimuth 112 degrees and an elevation of just over 4 degrees at 10:50 PM MST, aligning with the Organ mountains' position and the object's described behavior. The scintillating effect of Sirius at such a low angle could explain the changing colors.

Conclusions (Radium Springs Case)

The author concludes that the Radium Springs case was likely a star, possibly Sirius, scintillating and entering a cloud bank. The airmen present also observed another star rise similarly and felt the objects were stars. The case should be listed as "identified - Astronomical." The article also touches on the controversy surrounding Blue Book's classification, suggesting that some cases were deliberately mislabeled. It questions whether Dr. Hynek, as the astronomical expert, might have overlooked or intentionally downplayed astronomical explanations in some cases, possibly due to conflicts with personnel like Sgt. Moody.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO reports, with a strong emphasis on providing rational, often astronomical, explanations for sightings. The editorial stance is skeptical of sensational UFO claims, particularly those promoted by figures like Jaimie Maussan. The magazine advocates for rigorous investigation, scientific methodology, and a clear distinction between genuine unexplained phenomena and misidentified common objects or events. There is a consistent effort to reclassify previously "unidentified" cases as explained, often attributing them to misidentified stars, planets, or atmospheric effects. The publication appears to prioritize evidence-based reasoning over anecdotal accounts and sensationalism, aiming to ground the study of UFOs in a more scientific framework.