SUNlite - Vol 09 No 02

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 9 Number 2
Date: March-April 2017

This issue of SUNlite, a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs, adopts a critical and skeptical perspective. The cover features a suburban nighttime scene with the provocative statement: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck," setting a tone of rational inquiry.

Table of Contents

The issue includes articles such as "Who's blogging UFOs?", "Another black eye for CEFAA", "UFO Evidence under review: April 8, 1956: The Ryan case", and "The 701 Club: April 30, 1966 Sacramento, California."

Editorial and Main Articles

The editorial, "Fool me once.....?", critiques the state of UFOlogy, particularly the promises made by various organizations like NICAP and the Paradigm Research Group. The author expresses skepticism about the long-held belief in a global conspiracy and the idea that UFOs are alien spaceships, noting that after seventy years, UFOlogy is no closer to definitive answers. The piece also mentions the retirement of Dr. Richard Haines from NARCAP and the ongoing debate surrounding the "Roswell slides."

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various online discussions and claims within the UFO community. It scrutinizes claims made by "professional UFO spotter" John Mooner, whose 2017 UFO sighting is debunked as an airplane contrail, and his "alien abduction" evidence on Google Earth is shown to be reflections off greenhouse glass. The article also touches on the contrived stories of individuals like Steve Longero and criticizes CEFAA's promotion of a new infrared video, while Argentina "debunked" 40 UFO sightings. The Jimmy Carter sighting is re-examined, with a new theory suggesting it might have been a barium release from a rocket. The CIA's release of declassified UFO files is noted, though no "smoking guns" are found. Jan Harzan's claim that 30% of MUFON sightings remain unexplained is questioned, suggesting that a more objective examination might reduce this number. The article also covers Gilles Fernandez's blog on the similarity between UFO and IFO reports, William Hartman's Condon study findings, and a Google Earth claim of a "saucer" near JPL, which turned out to be a container. Newsweek's article on alien abductions is mentioned, along with Tim Hebert's cessation of blogging and Dr. Plaitt's move to the SYFY website. Rich Reynolds' link to a possible solution for the Westfall UFO landing case (a downed research balloon) is discussed. A mid-February trident missile launch off the California coast sparked UFO reports, and James Oberg's explanation of rocket booster venting is noted. Robert Sheaffer's report on the international UFO congress in Phoenix, including the "Phoenix lights" anniversary and the Battle of LA case, is also covered. Richard Dolan's complaints about media ridicule are amusingly contrasted with his own role in the "Hanger One" documentary and the "Roswell slides fiasco." Mark O'Connell's departure from MUFON due to alleged pressure from his state director to manipulate case classifications is highlighted.

Another black eye for CEFAA

This extensive section focuses on the Committee for Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena (CEFAA) and its promotion of a specific UFO case involving an infrared video from a Chilean Navy helicopter on November 11, 2014. The article details how CEFAA, led by General Ricardo Bermudez and Jose Lay, along with UFOlogist Leslie Kean, presented this case as an unexplained phenomenon. The video showed an object with heat sources and exhaust. Despite CEFAA's claim that they investigated for two years and consulted experts who could not explain it, the article systematically debunks the case. It highlights inconsistencies in CEFAA's reporting, such as the object's direction of travel and the aircrew's estimated distance. The analysis, primarily from the Metabunk forum moderated by Mick West, identifies the object as a commercial aircraft, specifically flight IB6830 (a four-engine jet from Santiago to Madrid) or possibly flight LA330 (a twin-engine airliner). The article criticizes Leslie Kean for promoting the case without proper vetting, for not crediting the debunkers like Mick West, and for misrepresenting the work of others, such as promoting Robert Powell as the solver of the case after Metabunk had already resolved it. It also questions CEFAA's motivations, suggesting they may be more concerned with job security and maintaining a stream of unexplained cases than with scientific accuracy.

IPACO's analysis

This section briefly discusses the analysis by IPACO (involving Francois Louange, Geoff Quick, and Antoine Cousyn) of the CEFAA video. It notes that IPACO had limited information from CEFAA and had to make assumptions. Their conclusion was similar to Kean's, but they provided data that addressed CEFAA's objections, such as the possibility that air traffic controllers were looking too far north for radar returns and that the jet might not have been monitoring specific frequencies.

Metabunk to the rescue!

This part details how the Metabunk forum, moderated by Mick West, collaboratively investigated the CEFAA video. The group used tools like planefinder.net to identify aircraft in the area at the time of the sighting. They determined that flight IB6830, a four-engine jet, was the most likely source, matching the object's path, banking, size, and thermal signature. The article emphasizes the collaborative nature of this investigation, contrasting it with CEFAA's approach. It concludes that the case was solved through rational analysis and evidence.

Ignoring the obvious

This section further criticizes Leslie Kean for her continued promotion of the CEFAA case despite the mounting evidence against it. It notes her responses to debunkers, claiming the case was not solved, and her appearance on "Open Minds" with Alejandro Rojas, where the potential explanation was not discussed. The article points out Kean's apparent reliance on CEFAA for information and her tendency to dismiss skeptical findings.

Crediting the wrong people

This section details how Leslie Kean, in a subsequent article, credited MUFON's Robert Powell with solving the case, while ignoring the work of Mick West and the Metabunk group. It highlights the irony that CEFAA had claimed no aircraft were in the region, yet aircraft data later confirmed their presence. The article questions CEFAA's competence and suggests a possible attempt to conceal information. It also criticizes Kean's portrayal of debunkers' work as sloppy and unscientific, while CEFAA itself does not produce formal reports, raising questions about its scientific methodology.

What is wrong with CEFAA?

This section reiterates the criticism of CEFAA's approach, suggesting they are motivated to find unexplained cases rather than explain them. The author speculates that CEFAA's desire to maintain its funding may influence its findings, as demonstrating that UAPs pose no hazard could lead to reduced funding. The article concludes by stating that organizations like CEFAA and promoters like Leslie Kean have a responsibility to perform due diligence before promoting cases, and CEFAA's failure is also hers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards UFOlogy, the importance of rigorous scientific investigation, and the critique of organizations that prioritize publicity over accuracy. The editorial stance is clearly that of a rationalist, debunking sensational claims and advocating for evidence-based analysis. The magazine emphasizes the need for critical thinking and transparency in the study of anomalous phenomena, contrasting the methods of scientific inquiry with the often agenda-driven approach of some UFOlogists.

Title: THE RYAN CASE
Issue Date: April 8, 1956
Document Type: Magazine Issue

The Ryan Case: April 8, 1956

This section details the UFO sighting by Captain Ryan of American Airlines on April 8, 1956, near Schenectady, New York. The flight was en route from Albany to Buffalo, with stops in Syracuse and Rochester. Shortly after takeoff from Albany, the crew observed a brilliant white light, described by First Officer Neff as "like an approaching aircraft with its landing lights on" and "standing still."

Captain Ryan reported the direction as over Schenectady and also described the object as "standing still." The aircraft turned slightly south to pass the light, which was then off their wingtip. The object then moved west at an estimated speed of 800-1000 mph, momentarily disappearing and then reappearing with an orange color as it continued west. The crew contacted Griffiss AFB to track the object on radar, but the base's radar was not operational and required 30 minutes to warm up. However, Griffiss AFB reported seeing a light south of their base and a silhouette. Communications with Watertown and Albany also indicated they could see the object, with the Albany tower placing it to the west.

Captain Ryan reported the object was staying ahead of them, and Griffiss AFB directed them to temporarily abandon their next stop and maintain course and altitude, also stating they would scramble fighters. Ryan noted that the sky was overcast, ruling out a star, and that the object must have slowed down significantly, as he was flying at 250 mph and the object was at low altitude. They followed the object to Oswego, having bypassed their landing at Syracuse. The scrambled jets never arrived, and the object disappeared to the northwest towards Toronto.

Investigations and Discrepancies

Section IX discusses investigations by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), and American Airlines (AA). These investigations reportedly found that aircraft logs and official testimony from Captain Ryan refuted parts of the story, and there was no pursuit by the airplane. NICAP listed the case in their UFO evidence file.

A message from Griffiss AFB reported seeing a plane-like silhouette for three minutes at 03332 GMT, moving east to west and south of their location, estimated to be larger than a C-47 but later stated to be about the same size. Albany tower reported seeing a star-like object for 4-6 minutes at 0314 GMT to the northwest, disappearing over the horizon. A jet fighter was scrambled but could not locate the target.

In relation to Ryan's sighting, a message indicated a clear sky in most locations, but a thin overcast over Schenectady. The object was seen off the starboard wing and disappeared after 45 minutes when it was 5 degrees relative to the aircraft's flight path.

At the insistence of Donald Keyhoe, the CAA investigated the case in 1957. The Blue Book file included a reference to Donald Menzel's book, which mentioned the investigation. However, no original reports or transcripts were found. The CAA stated that Ryan never deviated from his course and landed at Syracuse ahead of schedule. Blue Book eventually determined that Ryan had pursued the planet Venus, which set around 10:45 PM EST in a northwest direction.

The CAA Investigation

Loren Gross's collection of UFO history includes a letter from the CAA to Keyhoe in the fall of 1957. The CAA addressed Ryan's reported deviation from course to follow the object. Captain Ryan emphatically stated he did not deviate from his prescribed course, nor was he requested to do so. He had filed a VFR flight plan with Syracuse as the destination. The scheduled time for American Airlines Flight 775 was 49 minutes, but the elapsed log time was 40 minutes. The CAA concluded that this schedule could not have been maintained if the flight had deviated, and since safety did not appear to have been compromised, further investigation was not warranted.

Missing from NICAP's best evidence document was this letter and a statement from the Vice President of American Airlines, Willis Player. Captain Ryan stated unequivocally that he did sight an object but also unequivocally stated that he did not chase it, and his flight time between Syracuse and Albany confirmed this. It appears there was a disconnect between Ryan's press statements and his official statements, raising questions about his other statements.

Ryan disappeared from the record shortly after April 1956 and did not respond to letters from Keyhoe. The CAB/CAA investigation results were not what NICAP expected, leading them to declare it a conspiracy.

After a 7-month probe, NICAP had evidence indicating that important facts were withheld and that Captain Ryan may have been pressured into changing his report. The case raised questions about airline-passenger safety, and all documents were to be submitted to Senate and House subcommittees. Both the CAA and CAB investigations were made at NICAP's request.

Since April 10, 1956, the case had remained a "sleeper," with requests for further details refused by the Air Force, American Airlines, and Captain Ryan. It is suggested that Ryan and Neff may have exaggerated their account when approached by the press, embellishing details to explain why Ryan refused to respond to Keyhoe's letters.

The Nuclear Connection

In 2009, Joel Carpenter proposed a nuclear connection to the Ryan case, suggesting the UFO was hovering over the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories (KAPL) facility in Schenectady. KAPL operated a Separations Process Research Unit and nuclear prototypes in West Milton. Carpenter noted that in 1956, only one reactor existed at the Kesselring site, a prototype for the liquid metal cooled design used with the USS Seawolf, enclosed in a large ball to contain explosions.

The Explanation (Venus)

Blue Book explained the sighting as the planet Venus. However, there are issues with this explanation. Ryan claimed the sky was cloudy, but weather reports indicated a thin overcast near Schenectady and clear skies elsewhere. While Albany had light snow early in the day, Utica reported clear skies at 10 PM. The Blue Book files suggest clear enough conditions to see Venus.

A second reason to reject the Venus explanation is that Ryan reported seeing the object between 10:15 and 11:00 PM EST, while Venus set around 10:45 PM EST for Syracuse. This discrepancy might be due to Ryan misremembering the duration, as the official flight log indicated only 40 minutes. If they took off at 10:15 PM, they would have landed around 10:55 PM EST, before Venus disappeared.

The biggest reason to reject the Venus explanation is that Ryan and Neff stated the object was seen off their starboard wing and then sped towards the front of the aircraft, and that the object was over Schenectady when they took off. Venus could not have moved through 90 degrees of azimuth. The article suggests that the plane's departure runway (east-west or north-south) and its track towards an azimuth of 285-300 degrees could have placed Venus in their field of vision, potentially appearing to move relative to their heading. The authors suggest that the story might have been exaggerated during retelling.

Arguments against Venus are based on Captain Ryan's statements, not verifiable facts. The article notes that Ryan or Neff never mentioned Venus being visible, which is significant given the clear conditions. The absence of this observation suggests the UFO was likely Venus.

On a final note, a case from the following night involved airmen at Griffiss AFB reporting a light that interceptors chased, and it was agreed that it was probably a planet, disappearing at 10:43 PM EST, the same time Venus was setting.

The article concludes that the Ryan case, like the Killian case, involved NICAP clashing with Blue Book over conclusions, with proponents believing in a conspiracy. The author's opinion is that the evidence to reject the Venus explanation is insufficient and the evidence to support it is sufficient, recommending the case be removed from "best evidence" documents.

The 701 Club: Case 1550: April 30, 1966 Sacramento, CA

This section details a case described by Don Berlinner involving Anita Miller in Sacramento, California. Miller reported one light moving around the sky for 2.5 hours on April 30, 1966.

The Blue Book File

The Blue Book file includes Miller's report form, letters between her and Blue Book, notes on communications with Mather AFB, and a defense intelligence report from McClellan Air Force Base. Miller reported three sightings:

• Sighting 1 (April 29th, 4:30-6:00 AM PDT): Seen from a garage door. The object displayed multiple, non-twinkling lights and was a steady light that blinked on and off three times. The sky was described as "overcast" with haze after daybreak. The object was first seen in the east, moving southeast, rising 30 degrees, then moving southeast 75 degrees. The light moved erratically, and the witness did not see it disappear as she was busy preparing for school. She mentioned it to a neighbor.
• Sighting 2 (April 30th, 4:15-6:30 AM PDT): Seen from a neighbor's yard. Similar description to the 29th, but the object was first seen in the Southeast and moved East. Sketches indicated horizontal movement from right to left with an elevation change from near the horizon to overhead. The object was described as "disintegrating" or "translucent" when it disappeared after sunrise. It was observed rising upward.
• Sighting 3 (May 18th, time not given): A light was seen flying straight up, dropping a red light. A fire was reported in a field across from her home around 10 PM.

McClellan AFB reported that Mrs. Miller called them on April 30th, stating the sighting was between 0500 and 0600 and north of her location, obscured by clouds or the rising sun. The base reported little to no cloud cover.

Correspondence with Blue Book

Major Quintanilla of Blue Book initially explained the April 29th sighting as the planet Venus, but made no mention of the April 30th sighting. Mrs. Miller agreed with the Venus explanation for the 29th but stated the 30th sighting and the fire were unexplained.

Mather AFB reported fuel testing in March-May at Jackass flats, Nevada, but found no records of a fire on April 29th or 30th. On August 2, Major Quintanilla suggested the April 30th sighting was fuel testing, but Mather AFB later stated this was an invalid explanation.

Mrs. Miller wrote a critical letter to Blue Book, pointing out the fire was on another date. In a subsequent letter, Major Quintanilla repeated the Venus conclusion for April 29th but could not identify the April 30th object, though he suggested Venus might be a possibility, but her description ruled it out.

Mrs. Miller accepted the Venus explanation for the 29th but felt her other sightings were unexplained. She also felt too much time had passed to complete more forms.

In a final letter on September 2, Major Quintanilla classified the April 30th observation as unidentified and apologized for misunderstandings.

Commentary

The author suggests looking at the April 29th observation (likely Venus) to understand the April 30th event. The witness did not see the UFO and Venus, which would have been visible. The likely reason for seeing the object move in a different direction is that the witness mixed up directions because she was observing from a different location (neighbor's yard), compounded by the three-week delay in filling out the report. Her recollections may not have been accurate.

The observations through a 10X telescope/binoculars raise questions about the instruments used. The author suggests that the witness might have been observing an out-of-focus image, similar to sketches presented in Allan Hendry's UFO Handbook.

The author's opinion is that there is a good possibility that the witness misidentified Venus and that Blue Book could not identify the April 30th object because she confused her directions. The author suggests reclassifying this as "probably Venus." The third sighting has insufficient information for analysis.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this document is the investigation and explanation of UFO sightings, particularly the Ryan Case and the 701 Club case. There is a clear tension between the findings of official investigations (like Blue Book) and the interpretations of UFO researchers and organizations (like NICAP). The editorial stance appears to favor a critical examination of evidence, often leaning towards conventional explanations like planetary sightings (Venus) when supported by data, while acknowledging the limitations and potential biases in both official reports and witness testimonies. The author expresses a personal opinion that the Ryan case is not "best evidence" and should be removed from such classifications, suggesting a skeptical but open-minded approach to UFO phenomena.