SUNlite - Vol 09 No 03

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 9 Number 3
Date: May-June 2017

This issue of SUNlite, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," presents a critical examination of the field of UFOlogy, focusing on the need for scientific rigor, the analysis of evidence, and the challenges of convincing the scientific community. The cover features a quote from Dr. William Hartmann emphasizing the necessity for proponents to select strong cases for scientific investigation.

Cover Story and Editorial Stance

The cover story, attributed to Dr. William Hartmann, titled "Historical perspectives: Photos of UFOs," sets a skeptical yet open tone. Hartmann argues that for extraordinary phenomena to be taken seriously, proponents must present a single, strong case for scientific investigation, placing the burden of proof on them. He stresses the importance of concise, specific evidence to convince the scientific community.

The editorial content, particularly in the section "Here we go....again.....", expresses a strong critique of the current state of UFOlogy. The author laments the perceived desperation of UFOlogists for proof, citing figures like Tom Delonge as the "latest messiah." The editorial questions the novelty of promised "reveals" and predicts vagueness, highlighting a pattern of unfulfilled expectations. It criticizes organizations like MUFON for not publishing their investigation reports, deeming their practices unscientific and not beneficial to humanity. A correction is also noted regarding CEFAA's claim about aircraft not ejecting waste water, with Geoff Quick providing clarification on "drain masts" used for venting.

Articles and Features

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various online discussions and articles related to UFOs. Rich Reynolds is noted for criticizing skeptics who attribute UFO sightings to the planet Venus. Ryan Sprague is mentioned for articles on Ingo Swan's remote viewing claims about alien bases on the moon, and for an article about a supposed alien shooting at Fort Dix in 1978, which the author suggests is a debunked hoax. Sprague also wrote a piece about alleged alien bodies seen by Ellison Onizuka, which is dismissed as hearsay. Jason McClellan is criticized for promoting sensational UFO stories and for complaining about media portrayal of UFOlogy while contributing to its ridicule. The "Phoenix lights" anniversary is discussed, with criticism directed at a panel that focused on military involvement and flare explanations, allegedly ignoring other witness observations and amateur astronomer Mitch Stanley's findings. The author argues that sensational reports overshadow mundane explanations, perpetuating mysteries.

John Greenewald's investigation into a 1986-1989 UFO report near a nuclear reservation is mentioned, with the author finding little substance. Stanton Friedman's theory about aliens being interested in keeping humanity imprisoned due to chemical rockets is dismissed as speculation. The Canadian UFO survey for 2016 is reviewed, with criticism that some "unidentified" cases are not credible and should be classified differently. Michael Salla's claims about the US using a GBU-43 bomb to take out "Giants" are called nonsensical. The Allagash Abduction case is discussed, with a claimed abductee stating it was made up, though a UFO was reportedly seen. Cheryl Costa's book on UFO sightings is described as a collection without concern for quality, similar to stamp collecting. James Oberg's debunking of Gordon Cooper's "secret treasure" claims is also noted.

The Roswell Corner

This section addresses a book titled "THE FINAL REVELATION: The Sun Project," which claims to have evidence of the Roswell UFO crash. The author is skeptical, suggesting the carbon sheets containing "morning reports" are likely forgeries intended to promote the book.

A NEW SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UFOS?

This extensive section delves into the challenges and potential of scientifically studying UFOs. It begins by referencing Dr. Condon's conclusions from the Colorado Project, noting his awareness of the passionate controversy surrounding the subject. The author argues that the Condon Project, while criticized by UFOlogists, had its own set of flaws, including not examining old cases, not solving many cases, and issues with witness testimony. The article counters criticisms of the Condon report, suggesting that unsolved cases do not automatically imply extraterrestrial origins and that witness testimony can be unreliable.

The section discusses the perceived "conspiracy" surrounding the Condon study, refuting claims that scientists were told to debunk UFOs. It analyzes documents like the Low Memorandum and a letter from Colonel Hippler, interpreting them as attempts to guide the study's conclusions to allow the USAF to potentially discontinue Project Blue Book, rather than a directive to debunk.

The impact of the Condon study is discussed, with the author asserting that it has not prevented scientists from studying UFOs, though meaningful results have been scarce. The Sturrock panel, convened to examine UFO evidence, is presented as having largely mirrored Condon's conclusions, despite a biased presentation from UFO scientists. Dr. Von R. Eshleman, a co-chair of the Sturrock panel, is quoted expressing the need for an open mind and acknowledging that UFOs remain unidentified due to insufficient evidence, while also noting that many people associate UFOs with aliens or government cover-ups.

The panel's conclusion that current UFO investigations often lack scientific rigor is highlighted, suggesting that evaluations must be objective and consider rival hypotheses.

A new scientific study

This sub-section proposes that if Condon's study was flawed, a new one should be conducted, funded by outside sources to avoid conflicts of interest. It suggests that organizations like MUFON could team up to fund such a study, as they are the ones claiming the evidence exists.

Wanted: Scientists

This section addresses the perceived reluctance of scientists to study UFOs, attributing it to a lack of interest and the potential for harassment from UFOlogists. It outlines the multidisciplinary approach needed for a comprehensive study, including astronomy, geology, atmospheric sciences, chemistry, optics, and medical professionals for abduction claims.

A "possible project" is detailed, including examining old cases selected by UFOlogists, dispatching field teams to significant cases, collecting instrumentation data, setting up UFO stations in "hot spots," and conducting medical examinations of abductees. The author addresses potential problems with these goals, noting that old cases often have explanations and that UFOlogists may reject scientific conclusions that don't align with their beliefs. The idea of UFO stations is critiqued, pointing out existing networks like NASA's fireball network and Sky Sentinel that monitor the skies without recording "unknown" craft.

The section questions the worth of a new study, predicting it would yield similar results to Condon's and that UFOlogists would not accept them. It also dismisses the idea of a government agency for UFO study as a misuse of taxpayer funds. The only viable path suggested is for UFOlogists to select one case and present it professionally, as outlined by Dr. Hartmann.

The UFO evidence under review: June 30, 1954

This article details a specific UFO sighting that occurred on June 30, 1954, near Lifjell, Norway, during an eclipse expedition. Three aircraft carrying scientists, newsmen, and observers witnessed and photographed two "enormous" silvery discs. Approximately 50 people on the planes observed the objects, which sped along the horizon, exhibited apparent rotation, and disappeared after about 30 seconds. The chief cameraman, John Bjornulf, captured about 10 seconds of 16mm color film. The film was reportedly shown on American television in December 1954. The source for this account is a story from the London Evening News by Robert Chapman, written over a year later, based on an account by Ernest Graham. The article notes discrepancies, such as the location being Norway, not Denmark, and the timing being during partial eclipse phases, not totality. It mentions that NICAP did not include the photographs, but research revealed they are available and show the aircraft's wing and two white lines that appear to be streaking points of light or disk-shaped objects seen on edge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

Throughout the issue, a recurring theme is the stark contrast between the methods and standards of scientific inquiry and the practices within much of the UFOlogy community. The editorial stance is one of critical skepticism, advocating for rigorous, objective analysis of evidence and a willingness to accept explanations that do not involve extraordinary phenomena. The publication emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with those proposing extraordinary claims and that the scientific community requires more than anecdotal evidence or sensationalized accounts. There is a consistent call for UFOlogists to adopt more scientific methodologies, to be transparent with their data, and to engage with the broader scientific community in a constructive manner, rather than perpetuating what is perceived as a fringe or pseudo-scientific field.

Title: Flying Saucer Review
Issue: January-February 1956
Date: 1956-01
Publisher: Flying Saucer Review
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue of Flying Saucer Review features a detailed investigation into the "Eclipse Photos Show 'Saucers'" case, which gained media attention in July 1954. The magazine presents a nuanced perspective, contrasting initial reports with later scientific analysis and debunking attempts.

News Accounts: The 'Eclipse Photos Show Saucers' Case

The primary focus of the magazine is the incident involving photographer Johnny Bjornulf, who captured images during a solar eclipse in July 1954. Initially, newspapers reported that Bjornulf had seen and filmed "shiny white objects like flying saucers." However, the article notes that Bjornulf himself did not see the objects at the time but only discovered them after reviewing the film. A photographic expert suggested that these "objects" might have been reflections resulting from filming through laminated glass windows, a possibility that Bjornulf also seemed to consider.

The news accounts, as reported in various newspapers, presented a slightly different narrative than what appeared in NICAP's documents. The newspaper reports mentioned that an unnamed photographic expert felt the phenomena were reflections from the camera lens. Bjornulf's own opinion was that the shining white spots on the pictures were a "kind of mirage of the first one."

Flying Saucer Review Debunks the Film

Sixteen years later, in a 1972 article, Flying Saucer Review published a new version of the story, labeling the film a "hoax." Charles Bowen revealed that the film was allegedly not taken by Bjornulf but by a man named Conradi. The article details how Bjornulf began promoting the "saucer" aspect of the film shortly after the eclipse. At that point, a scientist named Dr. Garwick suggested the sightings were reflections in the window. To debunk the film, Dr. Garwick and H.C. Christensen conducted a similar experiment using a plane flying the same route at the same time. They observed similar reflections on the windows.

An examination of photographs taken during the eclipse, along with the position of the plane's wing, indicated that the pictures were taken through the third window on the plane, which had panes. Dr. Garwick explained that the last two windows on the port side had been removed, but the photographer and others believed the pictures were taken through a window without panes. The team (Brade, Garwick, and Christensen) took pictures from the last three windows with the same camera used on the flight. These were superimposed on the pictures showing the light spots, and it was found that the wing perspective matched exactly for the picture from the third (paned) window.

The article references an earlier investigation by Brade, Garwick, and Christensen published in Af-tenposten on October 14, 1954. In that article, they presented evidence about which window the photographs were taken from. The proponents of the UFO explanation argued there was no window, but Conradi had thought he shot through a window without glass. However, a photograph taken from the rear of the plane showed Conradi on the right side of the plane, indicating that personnel were not always in the same location. Since the film was taken after totality, it is suggested that Conradi had moved and filmed through a window with glass.

The article implies that NICAP and Flying Saucer Review were unaware of this earlier debunking information when they published their one-sided accounts. The true story, it suggests, was only revealed in 1972 when further investigation occurred.

Forklaringen på de lysende flekker på filmen fra sol-formørkelsen (Explanation of the bright spots on the film from the solar eclipse)

This section, written in Norwegian, provides a detailed explanation from R. Brahde, H.C. Christensen, and J.V. Garwick regarding the bright spots on Bjornulf's film. They argue that the spots are not UFOs but rather double reflections of the plane's windows. The article includes diagrams and photographic evidence to support their claim. They explain that the bright spots are reflections of light sources from inside the plane, and the "tail lines" are condensed vapor. The movement of the spots relative to the landscape is attributed to the plane's turning maneuver. They also discuss the camera lens used and its focal length, correlating it with the observed reflections. The authors assert that the case is fully explained and express their disinterest in further debate on the topic, considering the phenomena to be of no scientific interest.

Redegjørelse fra fotografen Ravn Conradi (Account from photographer Ravn Conradi)

Ravn Conradi provides his account of the events. He explains that his task was to film the incoming shadow of the moon during the solar eclipse. He did not have a plane with an open window and had to film through a window. He states that he was sure there was no glass in the window he filmed through. However, when asked by a journalist if he had filmed through glass, he replied that if the "saucers" were where he filmed the incoming shadow, then he was sure there was no glass. He later saw the film and expressed to the journalist and Bjornulf that it looked like reflections and he did not rule out the possibility of filming through glass.

The 701 CLUB: CASE 1236: MAY 29, 1952

This section details a sighting on May 29, 1952, in San Antonio, Texas. A USAF pilot, Maj. D.W. Feuerstein, reported observing a bright tubular object that tilted from horizontal to vertical for 8 minutes, then returned to horizontal, tilted vertical again, accelerated, and appeared to lengthen and turn red. The entire sighting lasted 14 minutes.

The Blue Book file on this event describes the object as long and tubular, moving horizontally, with possible exhaust flames. It changed to a vertical position, then tilted horizontal before going vertical again, moving up and out of sight, lengthening and turning mild red/orange. The object was visible at 25-30 degrees elevation, moving upwards to 45 degrees before disappearing. The sighting occurred between 1900 and 1914 CST, with high scattered cirrus in the area.

Solution?

The article suggests that the minimal information makes a definitive solution difficult, but clues point towards a sun dog reflection. The sighting occurred just before sunset, and the estimated azimuth was roughly 20-30 degrees to the right of the setting sun, consistent with a sun dog. The changing shape could be attributed to shifting cirrus clouds, and the described flame-like colors are similar to those of sun dogs.

Vapor Trail Explains Local Air Object

This section discusses several instances where "mysterious objects" reported by the public were later explained as vapor trails from aircraft, particularly when illuminated by the setting sun. Examples include reports from Pottstown, Pennsylvania; Columbus, Ohio; and the San Jose/South San Francisco area. In each case, police and weather bureaus attributed the sightings to vapor trails from high-altitude aircraft, sometimes mistaken for "burning planes" or "flying saucers."

Nope, It Wasn't A Flying Saucer, It Was A Vapor Trail

This article reiterates the explanation of vapor trails as the cause of "mystery type" aircraft sightings. It describes an ordinary twin-engine plane flying at high altitude, leaving a vapor trail that appeared as a "trail of white smoke." The article explains that vapor trails are formed by air condensing around the heated exhaust of an airplane in cold temperatures, essentially creating a small cloud.

Conclusion on Case 1236

The article concludes that while the case cannot be definitively listed as "explained," it could be reclassified as a possible contrail or sun dog. The Blue Book file noted the possibility of a reflection, and the witness was described as a pilot, suggesting the possibility of mistaking an unusual contrail for a UFO.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the debunking of UFO sightings through scientific explanation and logical analysis. The magazine emphasizes that many phenomena initially reported as UFOs can be attributed to natural occurrences such as reflections, vapor trails, and contrails. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards extraordinary claims, favoring evidence-based explanations and scientific investigation. The "Eclipse Photos Show Saucers" case is presented as an example where initial excitement and speculation were later superseded by a rational explanation, highlighting the importance of thorough investigation and critical thinking in the field of UFO research.