SUNlite - Vol 09 No 06

Magazine Overview

This issue of SUNtire, titled "Shedding some light on Ufology and UFOs," is from November-December 2017, Volume 9, Number 6. It is published by U.S. AIR FORCE TECHNICAL INFORMATION and presents a critical examination of UFO phenomena, investigations, and related organizations.

Key Articles and Content

Project Blue Book and UFO Evidence Review

The issue begins with a retrospective on Project Blue Book, highlighting that after nearly two decades and over 10,000 sightings, the U.S. Air Force found no verified evidence that could not be explained by known science and technology. This sentiment is reinforced by a statement from the U.S. Air Force Technical Information questionnaire, emphasizing the lack of satisfactory evidence for cases outside current scientific understanding.

UFO Business Ventures and Critiques

Tom DeLonge's new venture, "To the Stars," is discussed, with the author expressing skepticism about its claims of developing UFO-like technologies and selling related products. The article warns potential investors with a "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) message, suggesting that such organizations may prioritize profit over substance. The formation of the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) is also noted as a new player in the field, competing with established groups like CUFOS and MUFON.

Case Studies and Investigations

Several UFO sighting reports from Project 10073 Record forms are presented, including:

• Roy, Utah (March 30, 1966): Eleven objects were observed maneuvering, with some fading from view and others appearing near aircraft. The conclusion was "Possible gulls Jet."
• Cloverdale, California (April 23, 1966): Fifteen objects described as white glowing masses were seen, with the conclusion being "Other (birds)."
• Ely, Nevada (April 1966): Multiple objects were reported hovering and traveling rapidly, with the conclusion suggesting "Aircraft very prob. grot."
• Toms River, New Jersey (April 1966): A bright star-like object was observed moving southwest, with the conclusion "Possible (AIRCRAFT)."
• Albany, Oregon (April 20, 1966): A round object was seen, described as consistent with an aircraft sighting.

The Kecksburg Incident Analysis

Dr. Bob Gross's theory that the Kecksburg object was a man-made spacecraft, specifically a film capsule from a Corona Satellite, is analyzed and largely debunked. Experts like Ted Molczan and Robert Sheaffer argue that Gross's theory is based on misinterpretations of classified documents and ignores the most plausible explanation: a meteor. The article criticizes the tendency of some UFOlogists to create elaborate explanations rather than accepting simpler, evidence-based conclusions.

The Roswell Slides Controversy

The issue touches upon the ongoing debate surrounding the Roswell slides, suggesting that critics like Schmitt and Carey were blinded by their "will to believe" and that their claims about the slides being manipulated were excuses for poor work. The article also addresses Tony Bragalia's denial of creating fake stories about Bernard Ray, asserting that Ray was active after 1947.

Case Study: Nancy, France (1969) - Hallucination or False Memory?

This detailed case study examines a close encounter of the third kind reported by Madame X in Nancy, France. The authors, Robé and Abrassart, propose a psychosocial explanation, suggesting that the witness may have experienced a head injury that led to a false memory. They draw parallels to an episode of "The Twilight Zone" titled "The Invaders," suggesting that the witness may have conflated the TV show with her own experience, especially given the episode's broadcast history in Luxembourg.

The USCGC Sebago Sighting (November 5, 1957)

This section provides an extensive account of the USCGC Sebago radar and visual sighting. While NICAP concluded it was a single craft, the Blue Book file indicated separate radar contacts, likely spurious returns or aircraft. The visual sighting was described as a brilliant white object moving at high speed. The Condon report evaluation by Gordon Thayer concluded that the visual object was likely a meteor and the radar targets were probably due to anomalous propagation, with one possibly being an aircraft.

Radar Contact Evaluation

An analysis of radar contacts from the Sebago incident suggests that the first contact behaved like an aircraft, while subsequent contacts were erratic. The data indicates temperature inversions in the atmosphere that could have produced false radar targets. The visual sighting is considered separate from the radar contacts and likely a meteor.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical evaluation of UFO claims, the skepticism towards UFOlogy as a business, and the preference for scientific and psychological explanations over extraordinary ones. The editorial stance is clearly one of debunking and rational analysis, emphasizing that most reported UFO phenomena can be explained by known natural events, human perception errors, or misinterpretations of data. The magazine promotes a "buyer beware" attitude towards UFO organizations and encourages a rigorous, evidence-based approach to the subject.

This issue of THE 701 CLUB, Case 1023, dated December 7, 1951, focuses on the UFO sighting by amateur astronomer Carl Loar in Sunbury, Ohio. The magazine presents a detailed analysis of the case, including associated radar contacts and potential explanations, alongside a broader discussion of Project Blue Book's investigative methods and criticisms.

Carl Loar Sighting: Sunbury, Ohio, December 7, 1951

The primary focus is the sighting by Carl Loar, who observed a "silvery sphere" through his telescope at 4:30 PM. He described it as large and moving rapidly, with two lights on its side. Shortly after, the object appeared to explode, followed by a cloud and approximately 100 specks of light. The entire event lasted 30 minutes. The article notes that Loar is not prone to flights of imagination and is certain of what he saw.

The Blue Book File

The Blue Book file for this case is described as thin, containing a newspaper clipping and a summary sheet. The newspaper clipping, titled "Weird Sphere, Odd Lights, Cloud Seen by Farmer with Telescope," details Loar's account. A "Project 10073 Record Card" summarizes the sighting, listing it as "UNIDENTIFIED."

Analysis of Loar's Sighting

The article discusses the possibility that Loar's observation through a hand-held telescope might have led to misperceptions of motion due to instability. It also mentions a "Hell Roarer" folder reference, suggesting a possible explanation involving an A/RB-26 invader aircraft using a magnesium "torpedo," but dismisses this as not matching the witness's description.

Solution? - The Weather Balloon Hypothesis

The author proposes that the sighting strongly resembles a weather balloon reflecting the setting sun. A specific weather balloon launched from Dayton, Ohio, on December 7, 1951, at 1600 EST (4 PM) is examined. Data on wind speed and direction at various altitudes is presented, along with a plot showing the azimuth from Dayton to Sunbury. The article suggests that wind speeds in the upper troposphere could have carried the balloon to the Sunbury area by 4:30 PM. The author concludes that the description is consistent with a weather balloon that had burst and reclassifies the case as "probable balloon."

Radar Contacts

• The issue also details three radar contacts:
• Radar contact 2: Lasted two minutes, was transitory, and suggested a false target, unrelated to the first sighting.
• Radar contact 3: Confusing and unrelated to the second contact or visual sighting, possibly an aircraft or false target. It was lost at 175 miles, with uncertainty about its relation to a stationary target seen earlier.

Solved?

The radar contacts are deemed not to represent extraterrestrial life. The evidence suggests they were likely due to anomalous propagation and possibly an aircraft. The visual sighting is considered to be most likely a bright meteor. While the case cannot be conclusively solved, it is not considered "best evidence" due to a viable hypothesis that does not involve alien spaceships.

Project Blue Book Case Files: UFO Treasure or UFO Trap?

This section critically examines the Project Blue Book system, which contained over 12,000 case files. The author notes that the files, often found on Fold3, are not perfect, with missing events and misfiled information. Despite the handicap of insufficient information and sometimes poor investigations, some UFO proponents view the files as a source of vital information and scientific revelation.

"Scientifically Sifted"?

The article questions what "scientifically sifted" means, referencing the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) effort in the 1970s, which produced statistics on unidentified cases rather than earth-shattering findings. It suggests some proponents might desire a sifting with a more "positive attitude."

Possible, Probable, Identified

Problems with Blue Book are attributed to its operational methods, with a small staff relying on local Air Force bases for investigations. The quality of investigation varied. The project staff's task was to identify sightings, and they developed a certainty scale due to limited data. Captain Ruppelt's briefing in March 1953 explained how probabilities were determined, using categories like "known balloon," "probable balloon," and "possible balloon." This methodology was subjective but considered a valid attempt.

Classification System

The Battelle study introduced two levels of classification for identified cases: "Certain" (over 95% probability) and "Doubtful." The University of Colorado UFO project developed a "plausibly explained" classification, meaning an ordinary explanation could be made even without complete proof.

Criticism of Blue Book's Efforts

Donald Keyhoe and NICAP were major critics, running a negative campaign and producing a "Best evidence" document that included cases already explained by Blue Book. Dr. James McDonald, an atmospheric physicist, was a prominent critic, stating that Blue Book assigned "outrageously unscientific 'explanations'" to sightings, calling "birds" for feathered creatures and improbable "balloon" phenomena. He felt the "percentage of unidentified" was deliberately reduced. The article acknowledges that while McDonald's criticisms were strong, Blue Book mistakes likely occurred, but his reliance on eyewitness testimony sometimes led him to consider cases as evidence of alien spaceships.

Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Blue Book's scientific consultant, also criticized Sgt. Moody, who classified cases in the mid-1960s. Hynek accused Moody of a "conviction-before-trial method," immediately labeling unexplained cases as "crackpot" or "psychological." Hynek claimed Moody reclassified cases, turning "unidentified" into "identified" to reduce the number of unexplained reports. However, the article presents data showing that the number of unknowns decreased during Moody's tenure, contradicting Hynek's claim that Moody was increasing them. The author also notes that Hynek himself used "likely" and "probably" in his classifications, suggesting a similar practice.

Moody's Classification of Venus Cases

An examination of Venus cases during Moody's tenure (1963-1966) showed that only 9% were classified as "probably not Venus," suggesting Moody was not consistently misidentifying Venus. The article notes that comments in these "probably not Venus" reports were sometimes confusing.

Reclassification of Cases

The article analyzes changes in case classifications over time, particularly focusing on the years 1956-1958. It notes that while Hynek claimed Moody "cooked the books," the number of unknowns decreased during Moody's time. The author also examines specific cases where classifications were changed, such as temperature inversions, insufficient data, and balloon explanations, noting that some changes predated Moody's involvement or were based on expert technical input.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the analysis of specific UFO cases, the challenges of UFO investigation, and the critique of official government programs like Project Blue Book. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical examination, seeking rational explanations for sightings while acknowledging the limitations and biases within historical UFO investigations. The article favors a scientific approach, emphasizing evidence-based conclusions and questioning the validity of claims that lack strong support. The reclassification of the Carl Loar sighting as a "probable balloon" exemplifies this approach, prioritizing a plausible explanation over the unknown.

This issue of the magazine delves into the complexities of Project Blue Book's UFO investigations, with a particular focus on the classification of 'possible' and 'probable' meteors and the broader definition of 'unknown' cases. The content critically examines the methodologies and conclusions of prominent UFOlogists, contrasting them with the official Air Force stance and scientific evaluations.

Analysis of Project Blue Book Cases

The article begins by presenting a table of specific UFO cases from Project Blue Book, detailing their dates, locations, and classifications. These include sightings like the Comet Arend-Roland in 1957, airborne lights near Shreveport, LA, a probable balloon sighting at Niagara Falls, NY, and radar targets in the Panama Canal zone. The analysis highlights instances where initial reports lacked sufficient data for conclusive analysis, such as the Montauk AFS case in 1958.

The author notes that 'Moody's fingerprints' are primarily on radar cases, where he sought expert analysis from FTD. This is presented as evidence that Moody was diligently evaluating cases rather than nefariously altering them, as suggested by some UFOlogists.

Hynek's Characterization of Moody

The issue includes an anecdote from Major Quintanilla's unpublished manuscript, detailing Dr. Hynek's complaints about Dave Moody. Hynek felt Moody did not treat him with the scientific stature he deserved, while Moody reportedly found Hynek to be a distraction, spending too much time socializing and gossiping. The author relates to Moody's perspective, drawing parallels to his own experiences in the Navy where enlisted personnel focused on task accomplishment, sometimes clashing with officers perceived as interfering.

The author questions the objectivity of UFOlogists like McDonald, Hynek, and Vallee, suggesting their opinions might be biased due to their differing views from Blue Book personnel or perceived lack of respect.

Scientific Evaluations of Blue Book

The article then shifts to examine evaluations of the Blue Book system by other scientific groups.

The Robertson Panel

The Robertson panel in January 1953, despite claims of being a fixed hearing by UFO proponents, included prominent scientists who reviewed Blue Book cases. Their conclusion was that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most sightings, and that there was no evidence indicating a need to revise current scientific concepts.

Project Blue Book Special Report #14

This report, based on a scientific evaluation of the data, concluded that while it could not be absolutely proven that 'flying saucers' do not exist, the data obtained did not show any marked patterns or trends. Inaccuracies and incompleteness of reports obscured potential patterns. The report deemed it highly improbable that the examined aerial objects represented technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

The O'Brien Committee

A panel of scientists, referred to as the O'Brien committee, evaluated Blue Book records and interviewed personnel. Unlike some UFO proponents, their review did not indicate cases proving alien visitation. They concluded that most 'unidentified' cases were listed as such due to insufficient information for analysis, and that there was no verified evidence of cases clearly outside the framework of known science and technology.

Defining an "Unknown"

The article addresses the definition of an 'unknown' UFO case, referencing Ruppelt's criteria: a report with a relatively good amount of data, where no known objects or phenomena can explain the sighting. Quintanilla's definition is similar, stating a sighting is 'unidentified' when it contains data suggesting a valid hypothesis but cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon.

However, some UFOlogists adopt a broader definition, considering cases with probable or possible explanations as 'unknowns'. This leads to significantly higher percentages of unexplained cases, such as the 88.79% figure cited based on a specific interpretation of Blue Book data.

The Condon Study and Sparks' List

The Condon study disagreed with equating possible/probable explanations with 'unknowns', suggesting that if an incident can be 'plausibly explained,' the solution should be accepted. UFO proponents, conversely, often insist that explanations must account for every detail, even inaccurate ones. The article also discusses UFOlogist Brad Sparks' extensive list of 'unknowns,' noting that his methodology and inflated numbers are questioned, and that his 'unknowns' do not meet Ruppelt's criteria for a 'good amount of data'.

The "Possible/Probable" Meteor

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to the reclassification of Blue Book unknowns as 'possible' or 'probable' meteors. The author explains that these events acted like meteors (short duration, straight travel, visible at night) but lacked confirmation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many fireball events are reported by only one or two individuals, making confirmation difficult.

The American Meteor Society (AMS) statistics are presented, showing the number of fireball events reported by year and by the number of observers. The data indicates that roughly 60-70% of fireball events are reported by a single observer, complicating the determination of whether a UFO report was from a fireball.

The author argues that if there is no good reason to reject a meteor explanation for a sighting, it should be considered a possible or probable fireball.

The Failures of Blue Book

The article concludes by defending Project Blue Book against what it terms unfair characterization by UFOlogists like Vallee, McDonald, and Hynek, and the NICAP agenda. While acknowledging that mistakes were made, the author asserts that the criticism is unjust, given Blue Book's objectives: to identify potential threats and determine technical aspects of UFOs, not to conduct detailed scientific studies.

The author suggests that the sheer volume of cases involving misperception, hoax, and wild stories likely led to 'saturation' among Blue Book staff, fostering skepticism. Despite imperfections, the article posits that Blue Book managed to identify a significant percentage of cases and that the staff did a reasonably good job considering the data limitations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is a critical examination of UFOlogists' interpretations of Project Blue Book data, particularly their tendency to inflate the number of 'unknown' cases and push for exotic explanations. The editorial stance is that many 'unknown' cases are simply unidentifiable due to insufficient data or are explainable by natural phenomena like meteors. The magazine advocates for a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to UFO analysis, emphasizing that 'unknown' does not automatically equate to alien visitation or phenomena beyond current scientific understanding. The article champions the idea that a plausible explanation, even if not definitively proven, is sufficient if there is no reason to reject it, using the analogy: "If it acts like a balloon and looks like a balloon, it probably is a balloon."