SUNlite - Vol 08 No 03

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 8, Number 3, published May-June 2016, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a night sky photograph with a distant purple light and silhouetted trees, accompanied by a quote from Dr. J. Allen Hynek emphasizing the need to present UFO information to the scientific world in an acceptable manner. The issue's main headline is "UFOs: Unresolved!"

Editorial Stance and Key Themes

The magazine adopts a critical and skeptical stance towards much of contemporary UFOlogy, emphasizing the importance of scientific rigor, verifiable evidence, and logical reasoning. It argues that many UFOlogists rely on speculation, biased interpretations, and anecdotal evidence, which prevents the subject from being taken seriously by the scientific community. The issue highlights the frustration of dealing with unsubstantiated claims and the tendency for UFOlogy to promote mystery rather than solve it. Key themes include the critique of UFOlogy's methodologies, the analysis of specific UFO cases, the role of media and bloggers in shaping narratives, and the promotion of prosaic explanations for alleged UFO sightings.

Article Summaries

UFOs: Unresolved!

This introductory article expresses frustration with the current state of UFOlogy, criticizing advocates who make mind-boggling logical leaps and draw conclusions based on speculation or biased interpretations. It argues that this approach keeps UFOs a mystery and does not advance the study of the subject. The author questions what UFOlogy is waiting for, suggesting that many organizations may be content with the status quo, as promoting a mystery is easier than solving it.

The Puerto Rico Video Story and SCU Accusations

The article mentions that the Puerto Rico video story remains unresolved, with some members of the Puerto Rico Research Review (PRRR) group suggesting it was a lighter-than-air object. Meanwhile, the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) has accused SUNlite and PRRR members of not being scientific. The author notes that peer review in UFOlogy is often superficial and criticizes the SCU for not releasing their corrected report, suggesting they may be too busy with conferences or unwilling to admit mistakes.

Recent UFO Events and Surveys

Over the past few months, there have been few significant UFO reports. One event involved an airline crew reporting a large light, which proponents seized upon as a spectacular UFO case, though the author believes investigators ignored a prosaic source in favor of an exotic explanation. The release of the 2015 Canadian UFO survey is also discussed. While commending the effort to collect reports, the author is critical of the evaluation process, stating that too many identified flying objects (IFOs) or poor reports are categorized as 'unknown,' inflating statistics. Criticisms of the survey are detailed starting on page 10.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various UFO bloggers and their opinions:

• Billy Cox complains about news coverage of the International UFO Congress, urging UFOlogy to clean up its act to become respectable.
• The Arizona UFO event's 19th anniversary is noted, with the author finding it amazing that some still believe the 10 PM event was not flares, referencing Dr. Maccabee's analysis.
• The Terra Obscura blog is criticized for its take on the UFO disclosure movement, calling it a logical fallacy. Despite this, many prominent UFOlogists still believe in a government cover-up.
• Jaimie Maussan received an honorary doctorate from the Mexican Institute of Leadership Excellence, which the author questions, wondering if promoting frauds contributes to a better world.
• Jack Brewer emphasizes that reasonable people are convinced by facts and verifiable evidence, not anecdotes. He points out that UFO proponents often present second-hand information as facts, which can be made up or distorted.
• A UFO near the author's location is examined. The video is unimpressive, likely showing a distant airplane and its contrail.
• Marty Kottmeyer on Robert Sheaffer's Bad UFOs blog criticizes Vallee and Aubeck's book, "Wonders in the Sky," pointing out that some explanations were known over a century ago.
• IPACO released a report exposing the 1952 Lac Chauvet photographs as fakes, likely a clay pigeon.
• Kevin Randle is noted for recognizing UFOlogy's serious problem with the lack of photographic evidence despite widespread camera availability. He questions why UFOlogists don't use dash-cams or skyward-pointing cameras.
• Nick Redfern posted a story about "spheres" from space, which Ted Molczan had explained as the re-entry of a Delta rocket stage.
• Robert Hastings' film "UFOs and Nukes" is available for download, but the author questions the pay-per-view model, suggesting it's more about money than public benefit.
• A crashed saucer on Google Earth is dismissed, with a dark spot visible for years likely being a structure for hunting or astronomy.
• Billy Cox is criticized for using UFO report numbers as significant, similar to Cheryl Costa. The author questions the methodology and the significance of congressional districts for UFO reports.
• Cheryl Costa is mentioned for her belief that the STS-48 video and a Billy Meier film are proof of alien UFOs. The author dismisses Billy Meier as credible and suggests the STS-48 flash is related to the shuttle's RCS thrusters.
• Open Minds published an article on using computers as UFO detectors, but the author notes the claim that UFOs only last seconds is statistically inaccurate.

The Roswell Corner

This section discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the Roswell slides. It criticizes Gilles Fernandez and Dr. Rios for their analysis of the slides, particularly regarding the measurement of the body in the photograph. The author suggests that Don Schmitt and Tom Carey have admitted the photograph shows a mummified boy, but Rios continues to deny this, possibly due to a desire to preserve his reputation rather than pursue science. The article also touches upon the MOGUL hypothesis as an explanation for the Roswell debris, arguing that crashologists like Kevin Randle fail to positively prove that MOGUL could not be the source. A new theory proposed by Brian Bell suggests a back-engineered Soviet B-29 as a possible explanation, which the author finds unlikely but notes the similarity in how ET crash proponents dismiss explanations based on witness testimony.

The Annual Mogul Offensive is Early

This piece details Kevin Randle's arguments against the MOGUL hypothesis for the Roswell crash. The author contends that Randle's arguments are one-sided and that he fails to prove MOGUL could not be the source of the debris. Specific examples are given, such as Randle's rationalization of flight launch times to fit his narrative. The author suggests that Randle's reasoning is an attempt to falsify the MOGUL explanation without considering all possibilities.

Another Roswell Explanation?

Brian Bell proposed a theory that a back-engineered Soviet B-29 might have been involved in the Roswell incident. The author finds this scenario unlikely but notes that proponents of the crashed spaceship theory dismissed it, ironically using the same type of reasoning (biased interpretation of witness testimony) that they themselves employ.

He Wasn't Serious

This section addresses Kevin Randle's previous statement that aliens might have crashed their spacecraft on purpose to announce their existence. Randle later clarified this was a joke, but the author points out that he had previously called it a "favorite" theory, suggesting a lack of clear humor.

Update on CEFAE (Argentina)

This article corrects a misinformation report from "Latin Post" stating that the Argentine government had closed CEFAE, an Air Force unit that studies UFO phenomena. The author, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, confirms with Commodore (ret) Rubén Lianza, the head of CEFAE, that the information is false. CEFAE was created in 2011 and reactivated in January 2015. It operates with unpaid consultants and investigates UFO reports as a public service. Its first annual report, released in December 2015, covered 10 resolved UFO reports. The agency does not require operational expenditures, and the claim of a relationship with San Martín National University is also denied. The author attributes the false report to political maneuvering.

Another Classic UFO Case?

This article analyzes a UFO case reported by an aircrew over Utah. Billy Cox promoted the case on his blog, but the author, acting as a news reporter, finds it to be mere storytelling. The investigation focused on radar data, with William Puckett obtaining FAA radar data that showed multiple contacts. However, the author critically examines Puckett's analysis, pointing out flaws such as using radiosonde data from the wrong time and not considering other factors like traffic on Interstate 15. The author concludes that the radar data does not match the visual report and that the likely explanation for the mile-wide lights is the Currant Creek Power Plant, which the aircraft flew over. The article includes images of the power plant and a light pollution map showing the aircraft's flight path.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Throughout the issue, there is a consistent emphasis on critical thinking, evidence-based analysis, and skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims within UFOlogy. The magazine actively debunks popular UFO narratives and highlights the tendency for proponents to rely on speculation and anecdotal evidence. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of scientific methodology and transparency, advocating for a more rigorous approach to the study of anomalous phenomena. The issue suggests that many UFOlogists are more interested in promoting a mystery than in solving it, and that the field needs to mature to gain credibility. The use of blogs and online media is frequently discussed, often with a critical eye towards how information is presented and disseminated.

This issue of the magazine, dated 2015, focuses on an analysis of the "2015 Canadian UFO Survey". The cover headline proclaims "2015 Canadian UFO survey released", and the main article delves into the methodology and findings of this survey, questioning its rigor and the classification of certain cases.

Defining an Unknown

The article begins by acknowledging the effort involved in publishing the Canadian UFO survey, which lists 146 cases classified as "unknowns". However, the author immediately expresses skepticism, wondering if the data within these "unknown" classifications has been closely examined. The survey's definition of an "unknown" is presented: it is adopted if there is extensive information or data available, and/or if the contributed data or case report contains enough information such that a conventional explanation cannot be satisfactorily proposed. The author implies that this definition is not consistently applied, suggesting that some cases classified as "unknown" should not have been given this designation.

Missing Data

A significant criticism is the presence of missing data in the "unknown" classifications. The author notes that almost half (69/146) of these cases lack a duration for the event. This is considered a critical omission, as "duration" is deemed an important parameter for evaluating a case, as stated by Allan Hendry. Furthermore, seven cases are missing a time listing, and one lacks a specific location beyond "British Columbia". The author argues that these cases should be categorized as "insufficient information" rather than "unknown", as they do not contain enough data for any conventional explanation to be attempted or ruled out.

How Reliable is Reliable?

The article questions the reliability ratings assigned to some "unknown" sightings, finding several examples that seem dubious despite receiving high ratings. The author examines a sighting report from May 22nd, classified as "unknown" and given a reliability rating of "6" out of "10". The witness described seeing a glowing red orb that emitted a humming sound, which then transformed into an angelic figure. The witness's mother also reported seeing a similar red orb that night. While acknowledging the possibility of an unusual sighting, the author expresses skepticism about classifying an event with religious overtones and miraculous visions as highly reliable, suggesting the "6" rating is inflated.

Another case, classified as "unknown" with a reliability rating of "3", involved a witness claiming to be an alien named "EBE 868" stranded on Earth since October 2015, seeking help due to a disaster on "Matif". The author considers this a potential hoax or indicative of psychological problems, suggesting a lower reliability rating or "insufficient information" classification unless the witness could prove their alien origin.

A November 5th sighting received a "7" reliability rating. The witness reported over 100 UFO sightings, with 7-10 close encounters, including an abduction. The witness woke up with memory gaps, later recalling the event upon reviewing cell phone pictures, which were described as out-of-focus images of "anything". The author questions whether blurry images constitute a convincing report and whether such cases should be considered highly reliable.

The author contacted Chris Rutkowski, who explained that reliability is a measure of report quality, with low reliability for least information and high reliability for well-investigated cases. However, the author observes that the scale is not used uniformly, suggesting a lack of standardized criteria among graders, leading to personal bias and questionable results.

A table is presented outlining a suggested graduated scale for UFO report reliability, from 1 (single witness, minimal information) to 9 (multiple reports with angular sizes, speeds, and photographic/video evidence). The author believes most Canadian UFO survey reports fall within the 1-5 category.

Two for One

The article points out the issue of duplicate entries in the database, likely arising from witnesses submitting reports to multiple forums (e.g., MUFON and the internet). An example is given of two reports from Winnipeg on October 24th, 2015, describing "red lights" in the sky. One was classified as "probable" and the other as "unknown", with differing numbers of lights reported. The author suggests these could be Chinese lanterns. Another example from Sainte-Brigitte de Laval on February 15th, 2015, shows varying reliability ratings (4 and 7) and classifications ("Insufficient information" vs. "unknown") for what appear to be similar cases involving humanoids and aliens.

Similar classification discrepancies are noted for a May 29th "unknown" sighting at Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, where one report was "probable" and another "unknown". The August 22nd Levis sightings, however, had the same source and classification. The author questions whether these similar reports should be lumped together as one event or two, and highlights how different classifications for seemingly identical reports undermine the survey's standards.

How Much Investigation?

The survey appears to have conducted minimal investigation beyond evaluating the reports found in databases. Even "most reliable/interesting" cases from 2015 were not well investigated. One case was previously explained in "SUNlite 7-2".

A Mass Sighting?

The survey singled out ten "most interesting" cases. One involved a large group witnessing an enormous craft hovering over a metropolitan area, reported to the NUFORC database. The witness described a brightly lit triangle, estimated to be over 200 feet long, hovering at about 500 feet elevation. Police were present, and the craft reportedly ascended rapidly and silently. This sighting received a reliability rating of "7". However, despite the involvement of multiple witnesses and police, no information about the incident appeared in local news archives or other databases. Chris Rutkowski confirmed the RCMP's presence but had no details, and implied that other witness reports might exist but were not in the databases.

A Star or Planet Photograph?

Another "7" reliability sighting from October 11th involved a witness who took photographs of a "radiating object" in the shape of a large diamond, exhibiting changing colors. The sighting occurred around sunrise in Toronto, Canada. The photographs, taken with a simple point-and-shoot camera with exposure times of 1-2 seconds, are described as showing "different rotating-changing shapes in all kinds of hues". The author notes that the witness saw the event on two successive mornings, suggesting a potential astronomical observation. The planet Jupiter, Venus, and Mars were visible in the east around sunrise. The author suspects the object might be Venus, and believes the photographs, which show a point source out of focus, do not help resolve the case. Hand-holding a camera with a slow shutter speed can create apparent motion. The author demonstrates this by photographing the star Capella and Sirius, producing similar trails.

The images submitted by the witness are compared to the author's own experimental photographs, leading to the conclusion that the source might be astronomical, and the motion seen in the images was created by the camera operator.

The Solution Was There But...

The article revisits two cases from January 10, 2015, which were classified as "unknown" with a "6" strangeness rating. The author, working with Ted Molczan, identified these as a venting second stage following the launch of a Falcon rocket earlier that morning. The track of the second stage matched the observers' reports, and one sighting even included a video resembling a venting rocket stage. The author expresses surprise that these cases were not identified as such in the survey, especially given the witness descriptions of the object passing into the tree-line in the east.

Another case from Gimli, Manitoba, occurring minutes after the Elfros sightings, also described a venting rocket stage but was listed as "probable" instead of "unknown". The author questions this discrepancy. The article also notes that several sightings listed as "daylight discs" likely occurred in darkness or early twilight, as sunrise in January is after 8 AM.

A "most interesting" Canadian UFO sighting from Lumsden, SK, on January 10, 2015, at 1:00 pm, described a large object with a halo. While the time initially seemed to rule out the Falcon 9 rocket, the author suspected a mistake in the listed time. Chris Rutkowski confirmed that the original time of 1300 CST was incorrect and was actually Zulu time. This aligns with the Falcon 9 venting event. Airliners reportedly saw this event at 0700 CST, not 1300 CST. The report itself is not very informative, but the description strongly suggests it was another observation of the Falcon 9 second stage venting.

Is This the Best UFOlogy Has to Offer?

The author questions whether the Canadian UFO survey is a serious effort to resolve the UFO mystery or merely a collection of stories. While acknowledging the effort, the author notes that the same exercise is repeated annually, proving only that people report seeing exotic objects in the sky. The measurable results are limited to statistics, which Alan Hendry questioned as a reflection of frustration rather than genuine knowledge.

The article suggests that UFO statistics do not necessarily represent a valid pursuit for more knowledge and asks how they differ from past datasets like Blue Book. Despite the honest effort, the author concludes that the survey is not enough and that the study of UFOs needs to move beyond simply collecting stories, urging for a "next step" in the research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical analysis of UFO survey data, the questioning of reliability ratings, the identification of potential misidentifications (especially of rocket stages and astronomical objects), and the critique of the investigative depth of UFO organizations. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a call for more rigorous, evidence-based investigation and analysis within the field of ufology. The author emphasizes the need for clear definitions, complete data, and standardized evaluation methods to move beyond mere collection of anecdotal reports.

This document, page 20 of "UFO Magazine", Issue 20, discusses a specific UFO sighting and proposes a likely explanation. The content focuses on analyzing the visual data and context of the sighting to determine its nature.

Analysis of the Sighting

The text begins by describing the apparent angular size of the observed object, stating that at close approach, it would have had an angular size of about 5' of arc, which is approximately 1/6th the size of the moon. Such an angular size would indicate a small object where details would be difficult to discern.

It is noted that the object was moving in the opposite direction of the aircraft. This observation leads to the consideration that the aircraft's own motion might have produced the apparent speed, and the UFO could have been moving at a slower speed or remained stationary. Under this hypothesis, the possibility that the object was a balloon is raised. The text emphasizes that all estimates are tentative and that the object could have been smaller and closer to the plane. A rapidly moving plane making a close pass of a balloon could create the impression of an object moving rapidly in the opposite direction.

Solved?

The section titled "Solved?" presents the most probable solution: the sighting was of a balloon. The apparent speed is explained as a combination of the aircraft's motion and the balloon being blown in almost the opposite direction by the wind. While a weather balloon is a possibility, another likely source is suggested to be the "Winds of Freedom" campaign. This campaign, active between 1951 and approximately 1956, involved dropping leaflets behind the Iron Curtain using large numbers of balloons. Given that the aircraft was near the East German border, it is plausible that the observed balloon was part of this effort. The article recommends that this case be reclassified as "possible balloon".

Notes and References

The document includes a list of four references that support the analysis:

1. Berliner, Don. "The Bluebook unknowns". NICAP. Available online.
2. Sparks, Brad. Comprehensive Catalog of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns. Available online.
3. "Air Intelligence Information Report dtd 10 June 1952". Available on the Fold 3 web site.
4. Cummings, Richard H. "Operation "Winds of Freedom" and Ballooncasting: Balloons, Leaflets, and Radio Broadcasts". Cold War Radio Vignettes. August 7, 2012. Available online.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The editorial stance appears to favor rational explanations for UFO sightings, particularly those that can be attributed to known phenomena or historical events. The "Winds of Freedom" campaign provides a specific, plausible context for the observed phenomenon, suggesting a shift from unexplained aerial phenomena to a more mundane, albeit historically significant, explanation. The recurring theme is the critical examination of UFO reports and the application of logical deduction and historical context to resolve them.