SUNlite - Vol 09 No 01

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 9, Number 1, published January-February 2017, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a subtitle, "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," and a quote from James Oberg, "The failure of the science of UFOlogy." The issue includes articles on various UFO-related topics, with a strong emphasis on skepticism and critical analysis of evidence.

Cruel UFOlogy

The lead article, "Cruel UFOlogy," discusses the negative aspects of the UFO community, particularly in the age of social media. It highlights the case of Isaac Koi, a researcher who used a pseudonym to protect his professional standing as a barrister in England. Ted Roe and Erica Lukes allegedly threatened to expose Koi's real name, which they used as a reason to dismiss his work debunking hoaxes. The author argues that this "us against those who we dislike" mentality hinders genuine research and leads to flawed conclusions. The article also touches upon the controversy surrounding Ted Roe's NARCAP report, which contained unverified and inaccurate data.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section provides a collection of brief summaries and commentary on various UFO-related online discussions and reports:

• "The bad astronomer" shared a video of "jumping sun dogs," suggesting rare phenomena can produce UFO reports.
• Robert Sheaffer reports on two Roswell festivals, noting the commercialization of the event.
• Robert Salas is seeking funds to present new witnesses for the Oscar flight, with uncertainty about whether they are genuinely new.
• Scott Brando exposed a UFO hoax in Turkey, leading to accusations of him being a "disinformation agent."
• Steve Longero emerged as a new witness for the Rendlesham incident, claiming to have seen lights and alarms at the Nuclear Weapons Storage Area. The author questions the veracity of his story, suggesting he might be merging details from different accounts.
• A green fireball sighting is discussed, noting that green meteors are not unusual.
• Jack Brewer offered an overview of UFOlogical history, concluding with the Ted Roe-Isaac Koi confrontation.
• Kevin Randle interviewed Robert Sheaffer about the 1952 Washington D.C. sightings. The author expresses skepticism about the evidence, suggesting it's a mix of inconsistent reports and anomalous propagation, with the USAF attempting to cover up evidence.
• The Neil Armstrong Planetarium in Altoona, Pennsylvania, is offering a UFO and ET course, with the author criticizing its pseudoscientific approach and the involvement of James Krug, director of the planetarium and MUFON Pennsylvania section director, in promoting his UFO hobby.
• Jan Harzan reported a UFO case from 2013, but the author found the video unimpressive and questioned the anonymity of witnesses.
• Cheryl Costa is calling for congressional hearings on UFOs, referencing the 2013 Citizens Hearing on Disclosure, which the author deemed a "publicity stunt."
• Starre Vartan provided an excellent description of the autokinetic effect, explaining optical illusions.
• A MUFON photograph is analyzed, revealing a "UFO" to be an internal reflection of the sun.

The Roswell Corner

This section focuses on the Roswell incident and related debates:

• The Roswell debate conspiracy: Mark O'Connell is frustrated that a debate with Don Schmitt is not being posted online, believing he won. Kevin Randle attempted to organize another debate, but O'Connell declined.
• Dr. Rios flails away on Facebook: The author recounts an exchange with Dr. Rios on Facebook regarding the Roswell slide showing a non-human body. The author blocked Rios due to his approach and inability to present verifiable evidence, noting that Rios has been unable to convince others that the slide is not a mummy after 18 months.

Ghost Ships Over Kwajalein?

This article investigates the "Ghost ship" story, which involved radar tracking of unidentified objects during a Minuteman missile launch in August 1973. The objects were described as inverted saucers, 10 feet high and 40 feet long, tracked by radar at approximately 400,000 feet. The author explores potential explanations, including the FAIR II vehicle, a test program for infrared sensors, or parts of the Minuteman missile itself. The article dismisses the idea of a natural phenomenon or malfunction, but also questions the accuracy of the dimensions and shapes reported, suggesting the information may be rumor. The author concludes that while the FAIR II vehicle and missile parts are likely candidates, more information is needed for a definitive explanation.

Crashology in Retreat?

This section critically examines Kevin Randle's latest book on Roswell. The author notes that Randle seems to be moving away from the alien spaceship explanation, acknowledging that government documents suggest the debris was from a balloon and rawin radar target. However, Randle still appears to reject the MOGUL explanation offered by skeptics. The article details Randle's arguments against the MOGUL theory, including claims that the NYU team did not launch balloons at night and only launched them in clear weather. The author refutes these claims by citing evidence from NYU reports and other launches, demonstrating that balloons were launched at night and under scattered cloud conditions. The author also addresses Randle's interpretation of the term "cluster of balloons," arguing that it referred to full balloon flights, not just partial arrays.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite include a critical examination of UFOlogy, a focus on evidence-based analysis, and a healthy dose of skepticism towards extraordinary claims. The magazine appears to champion a scientific approach, often debunking alleged UFO cases or offering alternative explanations rooted in known phenomena or human error. The editorial stance is clearly one of critical inquiry, challenging the more sensationalist aspects of UFO research and advocating for rigorous investigation. The "cruel UFOlogy" theme highlights a concern for the internal dynamics of the UFO community and the impact of personal attacks on genuine research.

This document, titled "THE UFO EVIDENCE" and published in 1964 by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), focuses on a review of UFO cases, particularly examining the investigative processes and conclusions of Project Blue Book. The issue delves into two specific cases: the Killian case from February 24, 1959, and the 701 Club Case 11394 from February 20, 1967.

The Killian Case (February 24, 1959)

The Killian case involved Pilot Killian of American Airlines reporting three bright lights pacing his aircraft during a flight from Newark to Detroit. The lights were initially seen west of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, at an elevation of about 15 degrees. Over the next 45 minutes, the lights moved ahead of the DC-6 and then returned to the port wing, changing intensity and color between yellow-orange and blue-white. The rear light moved back and forth relative to the other two. Captain Yates of United Airlines also observed similar objects. Multiple other sightings were reported in the vicinity, including over Lake Erie and near Sandusky, Ohio.

NICAP's summary details the sighting, noting the lights were at an angle of elevation of roughly 15 degrees above the plane, which was flying at 8500 feet on a heading of 295 degrees. The lights changed intensity, becoming "brighter than any star" and then fading. Colors varied, and the rear light exhibited relative movement.

Project Blue Book's investigation initially suggested the pilots might have confused the belt of Orion seen through clouds. However, later reports, including a statement from an unnamed USAF official commenting on witnesses' sobriety, led some UFO proponents to believe the USAF implied Killian was drunk, which the document refutes.

The primary explanation eventually provided by the USAF was a refueling operation involving a KC-97 tanker and three B-47 aircraft. This conclusion was reached after the Detroit Times contacted the USAF, leading to a call to Captain Killian and a subsequent statement from American Airlines. Killian's statement noted that a jet tanker refueling operation was a possible explanation, though he was unaware of the lighting involved at night. He also contacted Air Traffic Control (ATC) and found no record of three aircraft with clearance. He found it difficult to believe they were jets due to their low speed and configuration.

Handwritten notes revealed the USAF also spoke to a United Airlines pilot who described a similar sighting. The 2253rd base group at Greater Pittsburgh airport confirmed that tower operators observed three lights and that three B-47s were in the area for a night refueling mission. By March 11, Blue Book concluded the lights were from a refueling operation.

Further investigation and analysis by Major Tacker revealed the refueling operation explanation was initial and not fully analyzed. The 26th Air Division expressed dissatisfaction with Blue Book's handling of the case. An UFO advisory panel, including Dr. Hynek, agreed the refueling explanation was likely correct but deemed the investigation inadequate, recommending interviews with Killian and his co-pilot.

Killian reiterated his sighting details, flying a direct route from Newark to Detroit and sighting the lights halfway between Williamsport and Bradford. He also mentioned flying along the Victor 116 airway. The document notes that due to the lack of a Freedom of Information Act in 1959, memos and letters were written more candidly. Blue Book accepted the radar squadron's tracking of B-47s without further inquiry.

Major Friend, head of Project Blue Book, is described as a practical realist. However, his low rank made obtaining information from other commands difficult. The evidence gathered suggested a refueling operation, but the Air Force's documentation was criticized for lacking key items like SAC confirmation, a refueling route map, ACW squadron statements, ATC transcripts, and aerial charts.

Arguments against the refueling hypothesis include the discrepancy in the number of lights (three reported vs. four in a KC-97 and three B-47s), ATC's unawareness of the operation, and the lack of maps showing refueling routes. However, a refueling operation sighting near Parkersburg, West Virginia, in 1957, suggests such activities occurred in the region. The speed difference between Killian's plane (290 knots) and the refueling aircraft (230 knots) is used to explain the lights moving ahead and then behind his aircraft. Despite the lack of a paper record for the refueling operation, the ACW squadron's report is considered adequate confirmation. A letter from Major General Fisher to Senator Byrd confirmed an Air Force refueling mission involving a KC-97 and three B-47s near Bradford, Pennsylvania, though this location might have confused the refueling aircraft with Killian's plane. Killian's reported angle of elevation (30 degrees) is debated, with some suggesting it implies the lights were closer and others arguing it indicates a greater distance, potentially explaining sightings further south.

The conclusion is that while the refueling operation explanation is not entirely solid, there is no good reason to reject it. Rejecting it would require assuming the tower operators were lying or that Blue Book personnel, including Hynek and Friend, were involved in a conspiracy. The author does not consider this case to be "best evidence."

The 701 Club: Case 11394 (February 20, 1967)

This case, described by Don Berliner, involves a sighting by USAF veteran and truck driver Stanton Summer on February 20, 1967, in Oxford, Wisconsin. Summer reported an orange-red object flying parallel to his truck for two minutes. The Blue Book file is described as not very informative and potentially misleading. According to the BB record card and TELEX, the object approached the truck, paralleled its travel, and then flew east. However, the eyewitness report details include a duration of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, brightness comparable to a waning moon, a fuzzy/blurry appearance likened to an oval water tower reflecting sunlight, and an orange color with a bright red light on top. Sky conditions were reported as clear with a few stars visible, and no moon. The object disappeared behind trees, and the truck was driving west. The object appeared in the northwest at an elevation of about 60 degrees and disappeared to the north at an elevation of approximately 30 degrees.

Details from the report conflict with the TELEX, suggesting communication issues or alterations to the report. The witness's location was estimated to be 1-1/2 miles east of Oxford, on Route 82 between Interstate 39 and downtown Oxford.

Sky conditions are a point of confusion, with the witness reporting clear skies and the TELEX stating it was cloudy. Weather checks indicated mixed conditions. An astronomical solution was explored, identifying the moon as a potential source. The moon was low in the west-northwest at 3:10 AM, setting around 4 AM. The moon's movement across the sky could be interpreted as the object moving north relative to the driver's perspective. The hazy conditions and fuzzy description are consistent with observing the moon under less-than-clear skies.

The conclusion for this case is that it has a potential solution but cannot be definitively solved without further information. The moon is considered the most likely source.

Notes and References

The document includes extensive notes and references, citing various reports, books, and online sources, including "The UFO evidence" by Richard M. Hall, "The UFO Experience" by J. Allen Hynek, and numerous Fold3 web site references for official Air Force documents.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

A recurring theme is the critical examination of official explanations for UFO sightings, particularly those provided by Project Blue Book. The author expresses skepticism towards the thoroughness and objectivity of some Blue Book investigations, highlighting instances where information was incomplete or potentially mishandled. There is a clear stance that while some cases may have conventional explanations, the process of investigation and the handling of evidence are crucial. The document also touches upon the tendency of UFO proponents to interpret ambiguous statements or findings in favor of extraordinary explanations, while also acknowledging that official explanations are not always convincing. The author's stance leans towards a rational, evidence-based approach, questioning the validity of cases presented as "best evidence" when investigations are deemed inadequate.

This document is a review of the book "UFOs and Alien Abduction Phenomena: A Scientific Analysis" by Hal Povenmire. The review is written by an acquaintance of the author who expresses significant disappointment with the book's content and research quality.

Review of Hal Povenmire's Book

The reviewer begins by stating they knew Hal Povenmire in the 1980s and lost contact around 1997. Upon seeing Povenmire's book on Amazon, the reviewer was surprised to find it endorsing UFO cases that had been previously debunked or seriously questioned. Despite reservations, the reviewer purchased the book.

The review highlights several specific instances of what it considers poor research and factual inaccuracies:

• Cape Girardeau Alien Photograph: Povenmire's book starts with a photograph of an alien gray supposedly from the 1941 Cape Girardeau crash. The reviewer points out that this photograph was debunked by Isaac Koi and originated from a 1950 April Fool's joke.
• Government Investigations: Povenmire mentions the "Robinson report" regarding government investigations into UFOs. The reviewer notes that Povenmire incorrectly refers to it as the "Robinson report" and states it was never released publicly, contradicting the known history where the Robertson panel's findings were released in the 1950s.
• Chris Bledsoe: The reviewer notes that the "Chris Bledsoe family" is dedicated in the book, and Bledsoe was a primary source. Bledsoe reportedly defended Povenmire, stating Povenmire's resume included being a rocket scientist, head of NASA's press corps, and a world-famous astronomer. The reviewer disputes this, describing Povenmire as an experienced amateur astronomer with some work at Cape Canaveral, but not a rocket scientist or head of NASA's press corps. The reviewer suggests either Povenmire inflated his resume or Bledsoe inflated it.
• Compelling Videos and Photographs: Povenmire lists compelling evidence, including the Cape Girardeau photo and a November 26, 2011 video from Florida endorsed by Chris Bledsoe. The reviewer describes the video as unimpressive, showing only three lights moving behind trees. Povenmire also references a March 13, 1997 flying triangle over Phoenix, which the reviewer states only shows lights in formation that change position, not a craft.
• Frieburg Germany Crash (1936): Povenmire suggests reverse engineering of a vehicle, leading the reviewer to question why Germany didn't win the war.
• Cape Girardeau Crash (1941): Povenmire considers this credible and links it to MJ-12, which the reviewer believes is a hoax.
• Roswell Incident: Povenmire's account is described as a jumbled timeline and he is criticized for finding Philip Corso credible. Povenmire also incorrectly refers to the 1994 USAF report as "case closed" instead of its actual title.
• Kecksburg Incident: Povenmire is accused of relying on Stan Gordon's version and ignoring scientific evidence that it was a fireball.
• Rendlesham Forest Incident: Povenmire makes no mention of Ian Ridpath's work, which is readily available online.
• Belgium UFO Wave: Povenmire briefly discusses it, quoting General De Brauwer, but ignores Auguste Meessen's report attributing radar returns to anomalous propagation.
• JAL 1628 Flight: Povenmire gets the date wrong, stating November 7, 1996, instead of November 17, 1986.
• March 13, 1997 Arizona UFOs: Povenmire describes a video as showing a large craft, but the reviewer states it only shows five lights in formation. The reviewer also notes that amateur astronomer Mitch Stanley observed the lights as a formation of aircraft.
• Ancient Aliens: Povenmire mentions the television series and states the idea has merit, but fails to mention debunking programs like NOVA's "The case for ancient astronauts" and "Ancient Aliens Debunked."

The reviewer concludes that Povenmire predicts science will accept UFOs as fact by 2025, but notes that UFOlogists have been making similar predictions for decades without progress. The reviewer found the book full of mistakes and errors, making it difficult to read. They recommend books by Kevin Randle or Jerome Clark for those seeking a UFOlogist's perspective, noting that while biased, they at least get details correct. The reviewer deems Povenmire's book not worth the $10 paid and suggests it should be "bin it" material.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is a critical examination of Povenmire's book, highlighting its perceived lack of scientific rigor and reliance on questionable evidence. The reviewer's stance is one of strong skepticism towards Povenmire's conclusions and methodology, emphasizing the importance of accurate research and evidence-based analysis in the study of UFO phenomena.