SUNlite - Vol 08 No 04

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 8, Number 4
Date: July-August 2016
Publisher: SUNlite
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of SUNlite Magazine focuses on shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs, presenting a critical and often skeptical perspective on various cases and claims within the field.

Key Articles and Discussions

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews recent discussions and opinions within the UFO community. James Oberg is cited for his explanation of Chinese sightings as a satellite test (Kosmos 1379). Robert Sheaffer's review of David Jacobs' work is mentioned, with the author questioning the plausibility of alien hybrid theories. Ex-Astronaut Tom Jones is noted for his shift from UFO believer to skeptic after his experiences with NASA. The "alien cosmic expo" is criticized for attempting to legitimize UFO research by featuring familiar experts and avoiding genuine skeptical scrutiny. Gilles Fernandez's investigation into the 1965 Tulsa UFO photograph is discussed, revealing that the painting "The red poet" did not originally contain the UFO image, suggesting it was added later. An anonymous ex-US Navy radioman's claims of seeing documents about alien visitations are met with skepticism due to the individual's anonymity and colorful, potentially embellished, career claims. Silas Newton's foray into the oil business is reviewed, with geologist Dan Plazak presenting evidence that Newton was not a successful explorer and that Frank Scully's book was an exaggeration. Kevin Randle's re-examination of the Mantell incident suggests a Skyhook balloon as the most likely explanation, challenging other interpretations. Paul Dean's analysis of the military's OPREP3 system for filing UFO reports is discussed, with the author implying a hidden military study of UFOs, a conclusion the magazine finds speculative.

The Roswell Corner

This section critically examines the "Roswell slides" controversy. Jaime Maussan is highlighted for continuing to promote the slides as evidence of an alien body, despite admitting to paying for evidence and the potential for conflicts of interest. The analysis questions the methods used by Maussan's experts to deblur the slides and identify the body's size, suggesting that perspective rules were ignored. The reliability of witness testimony in the Roswell case is also questioned, with Kevin Randle stating that some stories are embellished or fabricated. Colonel Howard McCoy's statements indicating he knew nothing about Roswell are discussed, with the argument that his honesty is suggested by his lack of awareness that his correspondence would become public. The section concludes that many individuals have invested heavily in the Roswell myth, leading them to base conclusions on speculation.

Puerto Rico UFO video update

This section provides an update on the analysis of a 2013 infrared video from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, captured by the Department of Homeland Security. The Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) is criticized for delays in releasing their updated report and for not publicly admitting mistakes. Bob Bixler's independent analysis, which concluded that a balloon is a plausible explanation, is presented. The article details the methodology used to analyze the video, involving 4D geometry and the use of Google Earth to track the object's position and speed. The analysis suggests that the object, estimated to be 1-2 ft. in size, was likely drifting with the wind at an altitude of 690-970 ft. The variability in the infrared signature is attributed to atmospheric conditions, the object's nature (possibly a cooling hot air container), and the movement of the plane and camera.

A NARCAP case challenge

This section discusses a challenge posted by NARCAP on Facebook regarding photographs of a UAP taken in Palo Alto, California, in 2005. The magazine's analysis questions NARCAP's conclusion that the bright dot seen in the photographs was truly anomalous. The article points out discrepancies between the witness's testimony and the photographic evidence, particularly regarding the sun's illumination of the aircraft, suggesting the plane was flying in a northerly direction, contradicting the witness's account. The magazine criticizes NARCAP for not providing RAW images or EXIF data, citing copyright concerns, and suggests that the inconsistencies indicate a possible hoax. The numbering of the images in the NARCAP report is also noted as being incorrect.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Throughout the issue, a recurring theme is the critical examination of UFO evidence and the motivations of those who present it. The magazine consistently advocates for rigorous investigation, skepticism, and a scientific approach to understanding UFO phenomena. There is a strong emphasis on distinguishing between genuine evidence and speculation, hoaxes, or entertainment-driven narratives. The editorial stance appears to be one of caution towards sensational claims and a preference for explanations grounded in known physics and logical deduction, often challenging the conclusions of organizations like NARCAP and the claims of prominent UFO proponents.

This issue of "The Skylab 3 UFO" delves into the analysis and potential debunking of the famous 1973 Skylab 3 UFO incident, alongside a critique of a NARCAP report concerning a 2005 sighting in Palo Alto, California. The magazine questions the common interpretation of the Skylab photographs, suggesting that photographic artifacts and misinterpretations of witness testimony have led to an "exotic" conclusion.

The Skylab 3 UFO Incident

The article begins by recounting the observation of a bright red "satellite" by the Skylab 3 crew on September 20, 1973. Astronaut Owen Garriot took four photographs of the object. Initially reported as a satellite, the story evolved during debriefing to suggest the object was trailing the space station. The magazine highlights discussions with James Oberg, who has met with the astronauts and reviewed the case.

Photographic Analysis

The core of the analysis focuses on the photographs themselves. The author, drawing on photographic expertise, disagrees with assumptions made by researchers like Brad Sparks and Bruce Maccabee regarding the exposure settings and lens used. The author argues that photographing a point source of light in darkness would necessitate longer exposure times than the assumed 1/500th of a second. This would make the object appear as a streak or squiggle, especially with the motion of the camera, whether in orbit or hand-held on Earth. The magazine includes images demonstrating how camera motion and long exposures can create similar "squiggles" from point sources like planets Mars and Jupiter, and even from star images during a Russian missile test.

James Oberg's Statements and Arguments

James Oberg's perspective is presented, emphasizing that he has spoken directly with astronauts Garriot and Lousma. Oberg suggests several prosaic explanations for the sighting:

1. Illumination and Shadowing: The object's dimming could be explained by the spacecraft's position relative to the sun and Earth's shadow, independent of orbital sunrise/sunset. The wardroom window was on the down-sun side, making it plausible for an object to move into the station's shadow and disappear.
2. Space Debris: Oberg posits that the object was likely Skylab-shed debris, possibly a piece of reddish foil from a deployed parasol or sun shade. This would explain its pacing orbit and potential reflection of sunlight.
3. Lack of Tracking: If the object were a large, independent satellite, it would have been tracked by systems like SPADATS. No such tracking data exists, nor were there ground-based reports from Africa, suggesting the object was not large.
4. Camera Artifact: Oberg concludes that the most compelling explanation, considering the visual stimuli, illumination conditions, and witness testimony, is that the "fourth image" (Image 2141) is a camera or processing artifact.

The Wardroom Window's Location and Orientation

The magazine includes diagrams illustrating Skylab's orientation and the location of its windows. It supports Oberg's argument that the wardroom window (#8) was on the side that would typically face away from the sun during certain orbital phases, making the observation of an object moving into shadow plausible. The article suggests that the astronauts' debriefing statements might have been inaccurate due to the time elapsed since the event, and that their initial CAPCOM reports were more accurate.

The NARCAP Challenge and Critique

The issue also critiques a NARCAP report concerning a sighting in Palo Alto, CA, on July 3, 2005. The author expresses frustration with NARCAP's methodology, stating that without raw data, it's hard to test conclusions. Criticisms include:

• Cropped Images: The use of cropped images makes accurate analysis difficult.
• FOV Calculations: Discrepancies are noted in the calculation of the plane's elevation and field of view, suggesting NARCAP did not verify witness statements.
• Distance and Speed Estimates: Calculations for distance and speed are questioned, with the author suggesting the UAP's apparent movement might be due to the aircraft's motion.
• Burst Mode Accuracy: The report incorrectly states the camera's burst mode is one frame per second, when it is actually three frames per second, impacting speed calculations.
• Lack of Rigor: The author concludes that NARCAP's analysis shows little effort to evaluate evidence properly, with multiple errors and a tendency to "cherry pick" information supporting their conclusion.

Possible Explanations for the Palo Alto Sighting

Alternative explanations for the Palo Alto sighting are explored, including the planet Venus, a hot pixel, or a small balloon. The author notes that the witness was aware of UFO phenomena through "Coast-to-Coast AM," raising the possibility of preconditioning influencing the report.

Conclusion

The magazine concludes that the promotion of the Skylab 3 incident by UFOlogists has often ignored prosaic explanations. The author believes that while a definitive identification cannot be made, the evidence leans towards the object being a piece of debris or a camera artifact, rather than an exotic craft. The critique of the NARCAP report further emphasizes a perceived lack of scientific rigor in some UFO investigations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of UFO evidence, particularly photographic and testimonial data. The editorial stance is skeptical of extraordinary claims, favoring rigorous analysis, scientific methodology, and prosaic explanations when supported by evidence. The magazine emphasizes the importance of raw data, accurate calculations, and avoiding confirmation bias in UFO investigations.

This document, identified as page 20 of a publication, presents a "BELGIAN WAVE 1989-1991 FINAL CONCLUSION." The content focuses on an analysis of numerous UFO observations collected by SOBEPS between November 1989 and April 1991. The author, R. Paquay, a physicist, outlines criteria for analyzing witness data and offers conclusions that challenge the conventional interpretation of these sightings.

Analysis of Witness Data

The author emphasizes the critical distinction between "objective data" and "subjective data." Objective data includes measurable elements like the apparent diameter of an object, positions of lights, their color, and the absence of noise or a noise level higher than ambient. Objective data also encompasses the duration of an observation and its angular displacement, provided these are measured during the event. Radar detections are considered objective but are subject to false detections.

Subjective data, conversely, includes estimations of speed, distance, acceleration, stationarity, position relative to landmarks, and shapes that are often imagined rather than truly seen. The author notes that even numerical data, whether objective or subjective, must be used in calculus to test for coherence.

Media Influence and Witness Reliability

A significant finding is the "enormous influence from the medias on the people behaviour and on the result of their insistence on the abnormal nature from what they observe." A statistical study of the Belgian wave shows a "highly meaningful correlation coefficient of + 0,95" between media data in newspapers and the number of UFO declarations. This correlation is noted to not even account for the influence of radio and TV.

The author questions why the media did not inform about scientific methods to obtain usable data. A core conclusion is that "There is no proof that ET engines have flied above Belgium during the 17 months, November 1989 to April 1991." The author discovered that SOBEPS analysis often treated witness declarations as "objective data" when they were, in fact, "subjective data."

Misinterpretations and False Arguments

Numerous witnesses, regardless of their social or educational level, claimed to be able to estimate distances, speed, accelerations, altitude, and timing without making actual measurements. The author dismisses the use of social or educational level as an argument for the reliability of such estimations, calling it a "false argument."

Many witnesses confuse "apparent move" with "real move" and "apparent speed" with "real speed." They also estimate dimensions by comparing objects to nearby landmarks, failing to account for different distances, or by comparing to the Moon, often overestimating its size, which leads to overestimating object dimensions and underestimating distances. This results in false speed estimations and conclusions of nearby observations that are actually far away.

Photographic data is also critiqued, with the author noting that the angular diameter of the lens and the object are often omitted, leading to flat pictures without detail, especially in low light conditions where focus is assumed to be at infinity.

Specific Cases and Hoaxes

The document mentions that the principal picture from the Belgian wave on the cover of VOB1 and VOB 2 was a hoax, a fact allegedly hidden by SOBEPS and Cobeps.

Witnesses are also criticized for immediately asserting that what they see cannot be a plane, planet, or star, leading them to conclude it must be an engine with extraordinary capacities, without properly analyzing the observations. These remarks are stated to be applicable to cases outside Belgium as well.

The July 11, 1959, Pacific Ocean Sighting

This section details an event summarized by NICAP, involving Pan American Airways crews and other pilots observing UFOs with satellite objects making sharp turns over the Pacific Ocean, 900 miles NE of Hawaii, on July 11, 1959. Capt. George Wilson described a large bright light flanked by smaller lights that made an abrupt right turn. Co-pilot Richard Lorenzen and Flight Engineer Bob Scott also witnessed the event. First Officer D. W. Frost, Air Force bomber crews, a Slick Airways plane, and a Canadian Pacific airliner also reported similar phenomena. Capt. Lloyd Moffait of Canadian Pacific stated he never saw anything like it. NICAP was unable to interview the Air Force crews.

Blue Book's investigation is mentioned as having plotted the positions of aircraft and observations, indicating the objects were far away. The actual time of the event was around 1300Z (0300-0400 local time), and the duration was only 3-15 seconds. The data suggests the sighting was likely a bright fireball that fragmented, and pilots may have misperceived the change in direction. The author concludes that "reliable witnesses" can mistake ordinary events like fireballs for exotic ones, and this case should be removed from the "Best Evidence" list.

The August 18, 1952, Fairfield, California Case

This case, described by Don Berlinner, involved three policemen in Fairfield, California, on August 18, 1952, who witnessed an object change color from red-green-orange-blue, shaped like a diamond, and change directions over a 30-minute period, gaining altitude. Brad Sparks suggests there might have been military witnesses. The Blue Book file for this event is described as "practically barren of good information," containing only a record card and a worksheet. The object was reportedly to the northeast of Travis AFB and moved east while gaining altitude.

The author proposes a "Solution?" suggesting that objects moving rapidly, changing colors, and altitude over a significant period might be astronomical objects. For the date and time in question, Capella (a star) and Jupiter (a planet) are identified as candidates. Jupiter was brighter and could have attracted attention. The author believes Capella is the more likely explanation, as both objects would drift eastward in azimuth as they rose. The lack of reports from Travis AFB suggests the object was not as significant as the police officers thought, and Allan Hendry's observation that police officers tend to mistake astronomical objects for UFOs is cited.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the critical evaluation of UFO witness testimony, the significant impact of media on public perception and reporting of UFOs, and the potential for misidentification of common astronomical phenomena as UFOs. The editorial stance, as presented by R. Paquay, is highly skeptical of the extraterrestrial hypothesis for the Belgian Wave and similar sightings. The author advocates for rigorous scientific methodology in analyzing UFO reports and suggests that many cases can be explained by psychological factors, media influence, and misinterpretation of natural events. The overall conclusion is that the "UFO problem" is largely a societal phenomenon rather than evidence of alien visitation.