SUNlite - Vol 09 No 04

Magazine Overview

Title: SUNlite
Issue: Volume 9 Number 4
Date: July-August 2017
Cover Headline: "It's not what you see that is suspect, but how you interpret what you see."
Quote Source: Isaac Asimov

This issue of SUNlite magazine, subtitled "Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs," critically examines the field of UFOlogy, questioning its scientific future and the reliability of its evidence. The cover features an image of a solar eclipse and a quote from Isaac Asimov that emphasizes the subjective nature of interpretation.

The Curse Continues: UFOlogy's Future

The issue opens with reflections on the future of UFOlogy, citing comments from Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, who suggests the field is approaching a mythological status with little hope for resolution. The article highlights the inherent challenges in solving UFO cases, including bad input data, deception, and biased interpretation. It notes that many previously 'unsolved' cases have potential explanations, questioning whether the remaining 'unknowns' truly constitute proof of extraterrestrial life as proposed by NICAP.

UFOlogy is described as being "on the ropes," with new cases often being explained and older ones re-examined. The article points out that UFO proponents increasingly rely on older, classic cases as evidence, even as they are challenged. A specific example is given of a "mass sighting" that, upon minor detective work, was revealed to have a mundane source.

The upcoming solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, is mentioned as a significant event that will occupy the author's time. The author anticipates potential UFO reports related to the eclipse, recalling how Venus was mistaken for a UFO during the 1991 solar eclipse in Baja, Mexico. Readers are encouraged to witness the totality of the eclipse.

Who's Blogging UFOs?

This section critically reviews recent activities and opinions within the UFO community, particularly focusing on the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON).

• Paul Dean and the Department of Defense Document: Paul Dean's interpretation of a declassified Department of Defense document regarding UFO photographs is discussed. The author argues that the document simply categorizes unidentified aerial phenomena and does not imply that UFOs are an officially recognized or classified target, but rather a catch-all for unidentifiable images.
• MUFON's Roger Marsh and "Triangular Shaped Object": Roger Marsh is criticized for promoting a photograph of a "triangular shaped object" that was later admitted to likely be a balloon. The author suggests MUFON often promotes weak cases, making the organization appear "silly."
• Jan Harzan Interview and Financial Gain: An interview with MUFON's Jan Harzan by Kevin Randle is discussed. Harzan blamed the producers of a show for distorting the subject, but the author contends that much of the information presented by MUFON representatives was inaccurate. Harzan's emphasis on MUFON benefiting financially from the series is questioned, with the author wondering how much of the money is used for research versus personal gain.
• Ben Moss and the Trent Images: MUFON expert Ben Moss is criticized for declaring the Trent images authentic based on detecting a "plasma vortex." Robert Sheaffer's analysis suggests this is a print discoloration. Moss's claims are described as "gut feel" rather than based on evidence, and he allegedly left a discussion when challenged.
• John Ventre and "Dear White People" Controversy: John Ventre, a MUFON official, made controversial remarks about the Netflix program "Dear White People." MUFON's response, suggesting Ventre was merely a "volunteer" with no organizational responsibility, is seen as an attempt to distance the organization from his unsavory opinions, despite Ventre's significant role in MUFON Pennsylvania and "Hanger One." The author suggests Harzan's reluctance to condemn Ventre stems from financial ties, as Ventre had paid MUFON $5,000 for an "inner circle" membership.
• MUFON Symposium Theme: MUFON's symposium theme, focusing on secret space programs, is criticized as feeding "wild stories" rather than scientific research.

Other UFOlogy News and Reviews

• Peter Robbins and Larry Warren: Peter Robbins is reported to be distancing himself from Larry Warren, deeming his Rendlesham story inaccurate, which led Warren to label Robbins and Nick Pope as liars.
• Tom Delonge's Revelations: Anticipation for Tom Delonge's UFO revelations is waning, with no concrete information presented.
• Scott Brando and UFO Video: Blogger Scott Brando correctly identified a UFO video as a plane with pyrotechnics.
• Lubbock Lights Explanation: Gilles Fernandez pointed out an explanation for the Lubbock Lights photographs by Carl Hart, suggesting a hoax involving a cardboard box.
• Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos' Analysis: Olmos' scathing analysis of modern UFOlogy on his Fotocat blog is supported by the author, who agrees that the field has not significantly advanced in understanding perception issues since 1947.
• Mick West and Crowd Sourcing: Mick West's article on "crowd sourcing" for UFO case investigations is discussed. The author believes this method is effective for new events but less so for old cases.
• MJ-12 Documents: The recurring appearance of MJ-12 documents is noted, with Kevin Randle opining they are fraudulent. The belief in a secret cabal concealing UFO evidence is identified as a consistent theme fueling the MJ-12 myth.
• Cheryl Costa and Billy Meier: Cheryl Costa is identified as a supporter of Billy Meier, considering his photographs as "smoking gun" evidence, despite their alleged fraudulent nature.
• Jaimie Maussan's "Alien Body": Jaimie Maussan is promoting another "alien body" discovery, with Dr. Zalce and Dr. Rios involved. The author criticizes their abandonment of the scientific process and notes that Mick West has explained the unusual finger and toe count.
• Tony Bragalia's Return: Tony Bragalia has ended his "sabbatical" and launched a new website. The author notes that articles prior to the Roswell slides fiasco are not listed, referencing a past accusation of "stalking" by Bragalia.

Potential UFOs on August 21, 2017

This section focuses on the upcoming total solar eclipse and how various celestial and atmospheric phenomena might be misinterpreted as UFOs.

• The Sky at Totality: During totality, the sky will darken, allowing bright stars and planets like Venus and Jupiter to become visible. Their brightness might lead uninformed observers to consider them UFOs. Other visible celestial bodies include Mars and Regulus.
• Other Unique Events: The sun's corona can produce streamers and bright areas. Solar prominences and Bailey's beads on the sun's limb can also be misinterpreted. The possibility of a newly discovered comet is also mentioned.
• Usual IFOs (Identified Flying Objects): High-altitude aircraft, such as planes, might produce contrails or appear as bright objects, especially if illuminated by the sun outside the path of totality.
• Weather Balloons: Various groups might launch weather balloons during the eclipse, which could be mistaken for UFOs.
• Optical Artifacts: Lens flares and other optical artifacts in photographs and videos are expected to be presented as "smoking gun" evidence.
• Beware the Flimflammer: The author warns against showmen like Jaimie Maussan misrepresenting eclipse imagery as evidence of alien spaceships.

Target for Tonight

This personal account describes an observation on June 24th of a strange object in the sky that was initially unidentified but later determined to be a weather balloon.

The author, while setting up for astrophotography, noticed a bright, non-moving pinpoint of light. Initially thought to be a star, it was then considered a potential nova or supernova. Upon magnification, it appeared as a small, translucent sphere reflecting sunlight. After taking photos, the object burst into fragments. The author later deduced it was likely a weather balloon launched from Albany, NY, based on wind data and its trajectory.

This experience is presented as a debunking of the myth that astronomers do not encounter unidentified objects, emphasizing that careful observation and proper equipment are key to identification.

The Return of Chiles-Whitted?

This section investigates a mass sighting event in Florida and compares it to the famous Chiles-Whitted case.

• Space Debris Re-entry: An initial report of a space debris re-entry in Florida was investigated. However, re-entry prediction websites showed no such event. The American Meteor Society identified it as a bright fireball lasting over twenty seconds, fragmenting like space debris.
• "Phoenix Lights" Comparison: A news story about a Florida mass sighting of UFOs on May 3rd is compared to the Arizona sightings of March 13, 1997. Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center described approximately a dozen high-quality reports of a disc-shaped object descending and hovering. The author notes that the timing of these sightings coincided with the Florida fireball event, suggesting a potential explanation.
• NUFORC Database Analysis: The NUFORC (National UFO Reporting Center) database is reviewed, highlighting its strengths in collecting raw reports but noting the absence of crucial data like azimuth and elevation. Several reports from Florida are detailed:
• Jupiter (2300 EDT): A fast-moving object with a trail of fire/sparks, traveling south to north, with no noise.
• Clearwater (2345 EDT): 2-3 bright green lights moving west to east, faster than a plane, described as round moving colors.
• Plantation (2345 EDT): A "weird object" flying fast on an elliptical curve, described as a cross with 4 red light points, leaving a tail of fire.
• Apollo Beach (2345 EDT): A high-speed circular object moving west to east, below cloud level, arcing upward and producing no engine noise. Described as 20-30 feet in diameter with pale yellow light.
• Port Charlotte (2350 EDT): A white ball shape with red and orange flames flying across the sky, disappearing.
• West Palm Beach (2352 EDT): Green flash/meteor-like objects breaking up, with a dark object continuing to fly.
• Seminole (2353 EDT): A long, wide, silent object with parallel red flashing lights and long green lights, spinning and disappearing into clouds.
• Plant City (2353 EDT): A very low-flying, silent, cylinder craft with green and red/white lights, moving gracefully without altitude change, estimated at 35 mph.
• Largo (0000 EDT): A dark-colored plane with lit windows, described as huge, spinning down, and hovering with a loud wooshing noise. It had parallel red flashing lights and long green lights.
• Miami (0020 EDT): Two "firework-looking" color objects flying side by side, leaving a sparkling trail.
• Pinellas Park (0027 EDT): A plane with a red blinking light pulling what looked like a sparkler, going into a cloud and staying stationary.
• Cape Coral (0200 EDT): A large object with 5 circle bright white lights in front and a blue layer behind, followed by an orange tail, described as an "ice cream cone shape." It was silent and gave a warm fuzzy feeling. A piece reportedly broke off.

The author suggests that the Apollo Beach, Plant City, and Largo sightings sound similar to the Chiles-Whitted reports, implying they might also have natural explanations.

The American Meteor Society database

The article compares the NUFORC database with the American Meteor Society (AMS) database, noting that AMS had 88 reports with useful information on azimuth, elevation, and brightness. The AMS also provided three videos, two from Sky Sentinel, which confirmed the time of the event and identified it as a bright fireball.

Witness Remarks on Fireball

Several witness remarks are quoted regarding the fireball event:

• Witness 1497 cj: Described brilliant green fireballs with pieces breaking off, unlike anything seen before.
• Witness 1497 p: Mistook a meteorite for an airplane on fire.
• Witness 1497 ae: Saw a shooting star that appeared and disappeared quickly, but this one seemed close and looked like a stream of colors.
• Witness 1497 am: Observed a large, bright light with pieces breaking off that glowed orangish-red.
• Witness 1497 ba: Described a bright light appearing suddenly, illuminating the area like daylight.
• Witness 1497 bq: Called it the longest and most extreme object seen in 57 years, including 20 years as a pilot.
• Witness 1497 bs: Described a bright, colorful asteroid/shooting star that lasted 10-15 seconds, with multiple flashes as it broke up.
• Witness 1497 bg: Provided a lengthy account of a bright fireball seen over Philadelphia, noting its silence and large arc, and comparing it to a meteor shower event. The witness also mentioned a possible sonic boom that was not heard.

Zond IV and William Hartmann's Observations

This section discusses Dr. William Hartmann's observations regarding the Zond IV incident and the "excitedness effect" in UFO reports.

Hartmann's observations suggest that excited witnesses who believe they have seen a strange phenomenon tend to produce the most detailed but least accurate reports. Conversely, experienced observers who recognize the phenomenon's nature produce briefer, more accurate reports. This "excitedness effect" acts as a selection bias, making inaccurate reports more prominent. The article concludes by listing factors that demonstrably confuse reports of unidentified phenomena and hinder investigation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of SUNlite revolve around the critical examination of UFOlogy as a field. The magazine consistently questions the scientific validity of UFO claims, highlighting instances where sightings are explained by mundane phenomena like planets, weather balloons, or atmospheric events. There is a strong emphasis on the role of interpretation and perception in UFO reports, suggesting that many perceived anomalies are a result of misidentification or subjective bias. Organizations like MUFON are scrutinized for their handling of cases, their financial motivations, and their promotion of unverified information. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, advocating for rigorous investigation, scientific methodology, and a cautious approach to extraordinary claims, while acknowledging that some unexplained events may persist.

This issue of "UFO Evidence" (Volume 1, No. 1, August 1960) focuses on the critical analysis of UFO cases, particularly the August 13, 1960 incident in Red Bluff, California, and a 1952 case from Governor's Island, New York. The publication, likely from the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), aims to present a balanced view, examining witness testimony, official reports, and potential explanations.

Red Bluff, California Sighting (August 13, 1960)

The central article details a significant event reported by Officers Charles Carson and Scott of the California State Police. While on patrol near Red Bluff, they observed a highly maneuverable, silent object described as football-shaped or oblong, surrounded by a glow with definite red lights at each end and occasional white lights. The object performed unbelievable aerial feats, including sudden reversals of direction and speed, and appeared to use a red beam, which caused radio interference when directed at the patrol car. The object was also tracked by local radar, which confirmed it as unidentified. The sighting lasted approximately two hours and fifteen minutes.

Analysis of the Red Bluff Case

The article critically examines the Red Bluff case, exploring various potential explanations. It discusses the influence of popular culture on UFO perceptions, the 'excitedness effect' biasing reports, and the 'airship effect' where observers mistake light sources for objects. The authors contrast the 'less excited' observers' reports with those in the NUFORC database, suggesting that the latter may be more prone to misinterpretation. Skeptics' explanations, such as misperceiving meteors or planets, are presented as based on known perceptual errors. The report also notes that the USAF denied tracking any radar contact when contacted the following day.

The Hynek UFO Report and Blue Book File

Dr. J. Allen Hynek's involvement is mentioned, noting his book "The Hynek UFO Report" reproduced the written report and criticized Blue Book's handling of the case. However, Hynek's file reportedly had missing parts and lacked new information. The Blue Book file itself is described as difficult to access, with some documents misplaced. An interview transcript with Officer Carson from the Blue Book file provides slightly different timings for the event. The report also notes discrepancies in the date the report was written, suggesting it might have been after August 13th.

Other Witnesses and Conflicting Accounts

Additional accounts from Deputy Fry and Deputy Montgomery are discussed, with inconsistencies in their reported times and observations. Fry's sketch is noted as potentially not matching the event described by Carson and Scott. The 895th Radar Squadron log entries for August 14th mention a police officer reporting a 'UFOB' and other officers seeing multiple objects, but the times and descriptions vary.

Potential Explanations and Blue Book's Conclusion

The article scrutinizes Blue Book's explanations, including the error of using standard time instead of daylight saving time, which led to incorrect celestial position calculations. It also addresses the possibility of forest fires causing haze that could distort lights, and a strong temperature inversion. Blue Book's final explanation that the object was the planet Mars is rejected due to Mars not rising until later in the night. The article suggests that Blue Book's explanations often rely on assumptions that UFOlogists would find unlikely.

Reexamination of the Information

The author raises several issues with the reports, including conflicting times of the sighting (ranging from 2230 to 2350, with radar logs indicating a call at 0030). The account of Deputy Fry is particularly perplexing, with apparent confusion about events and times, suggesting he may not have been with Officer Montgomery as stated. The author questions the accuracy of the reported chase duration and distance, suggesting it might be an exaggeration.

Items Not Mentioned or Ignored

This section highlights factors that may have been overlooked in the official investigation. The rising moon on the night of the sighting is presented as a potential misidentification, as its appearance could be distorted by atmospheric conditions. The Echo-1 satellite, launched the day before, was highly visible and could have been mistaken for a UFO. The Perseid meteor shower, which had recently peaked, and other meteor activity are also considered as possible sources of confusion. The article notes that the moon was not mentioned in most accounts, despite its potential to be misperceived as a UFO.

The Case of the Governor's Island Photographs (July 6-12, 1952)

This section details a case involving four photographs taken by Charles Muhr at Governor's Island, New York. The photographer did not visually see the objects he photographed, and the film was developed by a photo store owner who then contacted the Army. The photographs are described as showing indistinct lights, with one image purportedly capturing a moon with a spot or UFO. The article questions the exposure times (stated as ten to twenty-five minutes) and suggests they were likely much shorter, based on experimental photography. The conclusion is that the objects in the moon photographs are likely internal reflections within the camera, and the other three lights are classified as 'unknowns' due to insufficient information.

Conclusions

The author concludes that while the Red Bluff case has potential explanations, they require significant assumptions. The case, by itself, does not prove UFOs are alien spaceships. The author quotes Dr. Carl Sagan, emphasizing that anecdotal claims, however sincere, carry little weight on important questions and are subject to irreducible error. The article suggests that many UFO explanations are considered unlikely by UFOlogists, and that radar data is crucial for verifying claims.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO reports, the importance of corroborating evidence (such as radar data), the analysis of potential misidentifications (celestial bodies, satellites, atmospheric phenomena), and the skepticism towards purely anecdotal accounts. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious inquiry, emphasizing the need for rigorous investigation and a critical approach to UFO phenomena, while acknowledging the complexity and potential for misinterpretation in witness reports. The publication seems to lean towards providing rational explanations for reported sightings, often highlighting the limitations of human perception and the possibility of natural phenomena or known objects being mistaken for UFOs.

This document is a page from a magazine, likely a UFO-focused publication, featuring an article titled "TREPANG UFO PHOTOGRAPHS SUNK". The article, dated March 1971 in its raw form but identified as issue 7-5, discusses the debunking of a set of UFO photographs by Wim van Utrecht.

The Trepang UFO Photographs Debunked

The central theme of the article is the investigation and conclusion by Wim van Utrecht that the famous Trepang UFO photographs are a hoax. Van Utrecht states that he has "solved the riddle" of these photographs, which were supposedly taken from a USS navy submarine during a joint military/scientific mission NE of Iceland in March 1971. He asserts that the photographs are "photoshopped" and points to a specific error: the use of two identical cloud parts in one of the shots, which he believes went unnoticed until his analysis.

Van Utrecht's findings are presented alongside comments from the article's author, who initially expressed skepticism about the photographs when they were published in SUNlite 7-5. The author highlights several questionable aspects, including the unspecified source of the images, the description of an enlisted man being at the periscope instead of an officer, and the poor quality of the photographs, which appear to be from 1941 rather than 1971. The author also notes that details about the Trepang's operations are available online and that the mention of an "Admiral" on board was likely an incorrect assumption, as commanding officers of submarines were typically Commanders or Captains, and Admirals rarely stayed on board for long missions.

The author further points out that the "admiral" mentioned was actually the Commanding Officer who later became an admiral, suggesting the source material was not familiar with submarine and navy ranks. The article recommends the book "Blind man's bluff" for readers interested in submarine operations during the Cold War.

Ultimately, the article concludes that thanks to Wim van Utrecht's work, the Trepang UFO case can be removed from the list of "unexplained" phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt are the critical examination of UFO evidence, the importance of provenance and source verification, and the debunking of alleged sightings. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a commitment to rigorous investigation, as demonstrated by the publication of Wim van Utrecht's findings and the author's own critical commentary.