SUNlite - Vol 10 No 01

Magazine Overview

SUNlite, Volume 10, Number 1, published in January-February 2018, is a magazine dedicated to shedding light on UFOlogy and UFOs. The cover features a striking image of what appears to be a light anomaly against a dark, tree-filled background, accompanied by a quote from Allan Hendry that critiques the widespread ignorance within the UFO field regarding basic aerial phenomena.

Key Articles and Discussions

Merry Christmas UFOlogy

This section critically examines the news surrounding the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which studied UFOs between 2007 and 2012. The program, spearheaded by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and funded with $22 million, involved UFO enthusiast Robert Bigelow. The article questions the allocation of funds, noting that a significant portion went to Bigelow, who allegedly used some for upgrading his buildings to store metallic artifacts. The author expresses skepticism about the existence of alien metals and suggests the program might have been a 'boondoggle' for Bigelow, yielding little return for the government. The funding of MUFON's rapid response team is also mentioned. The article also revisits a previous article by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, questioning their findings and noting that their previous claims about UFO videos were debunked by skeptics.

Who's blogging UFOs?

This section reviews various online discussions and claims within the UFO community. It highlights Paul Dean's investigation into the Westall school UFO case, suggesting that much of it is mythology. A discussion about a 2014 MUFON case is presented, which was initially considered a top case but was later identified as a hoax involving a speck on a windshield. The article criticizes Tom DeLonge for posting unsubstantiated claims and then deleting them. It also touches upon the possibility of the Alan Godfrey case being solved and the Rendlesham incident being explained by simpler means. A free online book, "Belgium in UFO photographs 1950-1988" by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos and Wim van Utrecht, is recommended. Curt Collins' research into a potential prank involving helium balloons near Oak Ridge in the 1950s is discussed, along with Anthony Bragalia's ongoing promotion of the Socorro hoax scenario. Kevin Randle's alternative explanation for the Socorro story, suggesting Zamora lied, is also mentioned, with the author leaning towards Major Quintanilla's view that observations may have contained inaccuracies.

The article also revisits the AATIP program, noting that it was initiated by Harry Reid and influenced by Robert Bigelow, and that funding was hidden as a 'black budget'. It criticizes UFO proponents for ignoring the program's lack of significant findings despite its substantial budget. The article points out that Luis Elizondo, who claimed to run AATIP, resigned and joined Tom DeLonge's 'To the stars academy' (TTSA), suggesting a potential cash grab. The comparison is made to the Condon study, which received less funding but produced a more substantial report. The article expresses doubt about the evidence presented by AATIP, particularly two aircraft videos, questioning their provenance and suggesting they might be from questionable sources or manipulated.

The Roswell Corner

This section delves into the Ramey Memo and an interview with Adam Dew regarding the Roswell slides. The analysis of the Ramey Memo by Michael Primeau is discussed, with a focus on the interpretation of certain words. The interview with Adam Dew reveals tensions within the UFO research community, with Dew accusing Schmitt and Carey of lying and criticizing Tony Bragalia for spreading false information. Dew also clarifies the origin of the term "Roswell slides" and expresses disappointment with the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG).

International Space Station or mysterious orb?

This article thoroughly investigates a video of a supposed 'mystifying orb' recorded in Squamish, BC, Canada, on July 22, 2017. The witnesses, Rob Freeman and Marcus McNabb, claimed it was not the International Space Station (ISS). However, the author, citing Scott Brando's analysis, argues that the object was indeed the ISS. The article details the rebuttal by Freeman, who used different applications to demonstrate the ISS's path, but highlights discrepancies in his data and timing. The author then debunks Freeman's rebuttal by running TLEs (Two Line Elements) for the ISS on the dates in question, showing that the ISS's predicted path closely matched the recorded event. The article criticizes Freeman's lack of basic astronomical knowledge and reliance on technology he did not fully understand, suggesting confirmation bias led him to misinterpret the event. The author also questions why Freeman's extensive camera equipment did not capture clearer footage or why other videos were not presented.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a skeptical yet investigative stance towards UFO phenomena. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous research, critical thinking, and the application of basic scientific principles, particularly astronomy, in evaluating UFO claims. The publication highlights instances where seemingly anomalous events have mundane explanations, such as the ISS, aircraft, or hoaxes. There is a recurring theme of criticizing the UFO community for embracing unsubstantiated claims and ignoring evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The magazine also scrutinizes government programs related to UFOs, questioning transparency and the allocation of funds. The editorial stance is to provide a balanced perspective, debunk misinformation, and encourage a more evidence-based approach to UFOlogy.

This issue of 'The UFO Evidence' focuses on a review of Project Blue Book case files from January to June 1953, with specific deep dives into two cases: one from Rosalia, Washington, dated February 6, 1953, and another from Hackettstown, New Jersey, dated March 11, 1953. The magazine aims to re-evaluate the official explanations provided by Project Blue Book and offer alternative interpretations based on available data.

Rosalia, Washington Sighting (February 6, 1953)

The article begins by detailing the Rosalia, Washington sighting, which was reported by a USAF bomber. The incident involved a circling UFO with flashing lights, observed passing underneath a B-36 aircraft. The aircraft then executed a descending 180-degree turn, and the light was noted to be circling before heading south. The source of this information is cited as USAF intelligence reports, specifically the NICAP document 'The UFO Evidence'.

The Blue Book file for this case reportedly contained a bit more information. The light was first seen passing underneath the B-36, which was headed north towards Fairchild AFB. The plane then turned and the light was observed circling. The Best Evidence document implied the light was circling the B-36, but the report itself only stated the light was circling when observed.

A key element in the analysis is the timing of the event: 0913Z. This time is linked to the launch of a weather balloon from Spokane at 0900Z. Data from the NOAA ESRL Database for weather balloons launched at 0300Z and 1500Z is presented in a table, showing wind directions and speeds at various altitudes. The analysis suggests that the winds at 10,000 feet (3000m) were around 50 knots, and the balloon might have encountered northwest winds. The Blue Book's attempt to explain the sighting by calculating the balloon's trajectory contained errors, particularly in using wind values for 10,000 feet to measure distance traveled.

The article clarifies the location of the aircraft. While many reports list the location as near Rosalia, Washington, the IR-133-53 report indicates the aircraft (AF2708) was inbound, descending from 10,000 to 7,000 feet, approximately 10 to 15 miles out on the South leg of the Spokane radio range. The aircraft then turned towards Rosalia, Washington, where the UFO disappeared. The actual approximate location of the sighting was more towards the north and closer to the airfield, about 11 nautical miles southeast of where the balloon was launched.

The possibility of the balloon reaching the observed location and altitude is discussed, considering factors like a slower ascent rate, an earlier launch, or encountering faster winds. The article concludes that the observed effects, such as the light circling, could be attributed to the turbulence of the aircraft and eddy currents. With a cloud deck at 9000 feet, the B-36 likely saw the balloon briefly before it rose into the clouds and disappeared. The case is ultimately classified as a probable balloon sighting and not considered 'Best Evidence'.

Case 2490: Hackettstown, N. J. (March 11, 1953)

This section delves into Case 2490, reported by Mrs. Nina Cook, an experienced private pilot and wife of a Pan Am flight engineer. The case is described by Don Berlinner and Brad Sparks, who note a large light blinking at 10-15 times per minute, moving up and down along a mountain range. Sparks also mentions an earlier sighting at 9 p.m. The article questions the inclusion of this sighting on the '701 list' due to potential explanations for other UFOs Mrs. Cook reported that night.

Crucially, the Blue Book file for this case reportedly does not exist. The information comes from an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) report documenting an interview with Mrs. Cook conducted by special investigator George Wertz on March 17th, following a call from a friend to OSI on March 16th.

The Sequence of Events:
Mrs. Cook reported her sightings began at 2100, when she saw an orange, round object from her kitchen window, described as 'as high as the lowest stars and four times larger than the largest star'. Over ten minutes, the object changed color from orange to red to white, and then greenish-blue, blinking at 10-15 cycles per minute. It appeared to travel south, then northwest, and began to lose altitude, disappearing after about an hour towards the Delaware Water Gap, marked by an aircraft beacon light.

Following the object's disappearance, a bright column of light reportedly rose from the ground near the Delaware Water Gap, witnessed by her 13-year-old son. Mrs. Cook then went to bed at 2045 (noted as a potential error) but woke up at 2400, upset about the earlier sighting. She observed a similar blinking, color-changing object moving along the Kittinney mountain range for ten minutes before returning to bed. She woke again at 0400 to see another bright object over the Kittinney mountain range, which moved along the range, blinked, and changed color.

The OSI Investigation:
The OSI investigation involved probing questions. The husband was noted as skeptical but sincere. The son confirmed the light column sighting. A neighbor confirmed Mrs. Cook had called them around 2200 to recount her experience. Agent Wentz discovered a new toll bridge under construction near the Delaware Water Gap, illuminated by floodlights that sometimes swept the sky, though Mrs. Cook stated she did not see a floodlight. Investigations also revealed Hackettstown lay beneath an air traffic lane used by aircraft flying east-west from Newark Airport.

Blue Book and My Evaluation:
The article states there is nothing in the Blue Book files about this investigation. The monthly summary lists categories like 'Astro (Venus)', 'Astro (star/planet)', and 'Unidentified'.

The author's evaluation suggests that the sightings are likely misperceptions of stars. The 2100 sighting is explained as Venus, which was setting in the west between azimuths 290 and 310 degrees. The description of Venus as a bright celestial object fits Mrs. Cook's account, although the reported time of going to bed (2045) conflicts with the sighting time. The author suspects the sighting was centered around 2100 and lasted about an hour, possibly starting before 2100 and ending before 2200.

The 2400 sighting is considered potentially Jupiter, which was setting around 2245 at an azimuth of 291 degrees. Alternatively, the bright star Aldebaran (magnitude 0.85) was only 2 degrees above the horizon at azimuth 289 degrees. The author finds either a good candidate for this sighting.

For the 0400 sighting, the author questions the time frame but notes that bright stars like Pollux (magnitude 1.15) were low on the west-northwest horizon at an azimuth of 306 degrees and an elevation of 2 degrees. Regulus was also visible but less likely. The author concludes that the 0400 sighting can be classified as 'probably the star Pollux'.

The light beam reported by Mrs. Cook is suggested to be a floodlight from the bridge construction site. The article concludes that the case is nothing more than the witness misperceiving stars, with Venus being a prominent initial interest, and subsequent sightings being of scintillating stars near the horizon.

Project Blue Book Case Review: January - June 1953

This section presents a tabular review of numerous Project Blue Book cases from January, February, March, and April 1953. The author, who began this analysis in the 1970s, re-evaluates the Blue Book explanations and provides their own 'My evaluation'. Cases are listed with their date, location, Blue Book explanation, and the author's evaluation. Many cases are agreed upon, while others are reclassified as 'Possible meteor', 'Possible Arcturus', 'UNIDENTIFIED', or attributed to specific celestial bodies like Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Sirius, or Vega. Some entries note insufficient data or the inability to locate files.

Notable entries include:

• January 1953: Several cases are reclassified as possible meteors or Venus. A sighting in Adak, Alaska, is agreed upon as Astro (Meteor). A case in Larson AFB, Washington, initially UNIDENTIFIED, is reclassified as UNIDENTIFIED by the author. A balloon sighting in Gadsden, AL, is identified as a 'Moby Dick balloon Launched 1/8 CA'.
• February 1953: Many sightings are attributed to Venus or Mars. A case in Rosalia, WA, is identified as a balloon and agreed upon as 'Probably Venus - Set at 0754Z'. A sighting in Richmond, VA, is classified as UNIDENTIFIED by Blue Book but the author suggests 'Other (search-lights)'.
• March 1953: Numerous sightings are attributed to Venus. A case in Miamisburg, OH, involving a balloon, is noted as a 'Possible Moby Dick balloon FLT A33. CASE NOT ON FILE.' The balloon reportedly ended up in Tennessee.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes throughout this issue are the re-evaluation of Project Blue Book cases, the identification of UFOs as misidentified celestial objects (particularly Venus and Jupiter), weather balloons, aircraft, or meteors, and the critique of insufficient data or flawed explanations within the Blue Book files. The author's stance is critical of the Blue Book's conclusions, often providing alternative, more mundane explanations for the reported phenomena. The magazine emphasizes a rigorous, data-driven approach to analyzing UFO reports, prioritizing scientific explanations over sensationalism.

This issue of SUNlite, identified as issue number 27, focuses on a detailed review and reclassification of UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) cases from the Project Blue Book files. The period covered is from January through June of 1953. The author meticulously examines 261 cases out of an initial 288, noting that 27 files could not be located. A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to the author's reevaluation of these cases, with 47 instances (approximately 18%) being identified as improperly classified.

Case Review and Reclassification

The core of the magazine is a tabular presentation of UFO sightings, detailing the date, location, the original 'BB explanation' (presumably from Project Blue Book), and the author's 'My evaluation' or reclassification. This section spans multiple pages, listing numerous sightings from various locations across the United States and internationally, including Germany, Japan, Korea, Venezuela, and Morocco.

Common explanations offered in the 'BB explanation' column include 'Astro' (referring to celestial objects like Venus, Jupiter, Sirius, meteor, or moon), 'Balloon', 'A/C' (Aircraft), 'Other' (such as birds, hoax, hallucination, reflection, or ground lights), and 'UNIDENTIFIED'. The author's 'My evaluation' often provides a more nuanced or alternative explanation, frequently suggesting misidentification of celestial bodies, atmospheric phenomena, or simply insufficient data.

Several entries highlight specific cases:

• Hackettstown, NJ: Multiple sightings described as stars, possibly Venus, Jupiter, Regulus, Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, and Sirius, with one object setting over a hill.
• Greenville, MS: A 'Balloon (Moby Dick)' identified as Holloman AFB launch 133.
• Erding AFB, Germany: Sighting identified as Astro (Sirius), with Hynek suggesting it was Sirius.
• Old Baldy and Pork Chop Hill, Korea: An AP news report about UFOs on radar, lacking a formal report.
• Mascoutah, IL: Sighting identified as 'Other (Mirage)', with Hynek declaring it a mirage, but with no supporting evidence.
• Conrad, MT: Sighting identified as Astro (Venus), with Hynek suggesting Venus, but the time was incorrect, possibly Jupiter or Sirius.
• Dallas, TX: A report of an object moving rapidly, conflicting with other reports, and radar data indicating temperature inversions.
• Abadan, Iran: A report of a moon-sized object seen by a large group, with insufficient details, possibly a rocket test or high-altitude balloon.
• Pacific: Limited data describing an 'afterburner' effect, with the location far from land, making a jet fighter unlikely, and suggesting a meteor.
• Naha and Kadena, Okinawa: Blue Book classified part as an aircraft, but no evidence was found, leading to an 'UNIDENTIFIED' classification.

Reclassification Section

A dedicated section titled 'Reclassification' further elaborates on specific cases where the author felt the original classification was incorrect. This section provides more detailed reasoning for the proposed reclassifications. For instance:

• Oldtown, ME: Reclassified as 'Possibly Vega', with the author suggesting the observation sounded like a star scintillating and that motion might be due to the auto-kinetic effect.
• Brookley AFB, AI: Reclassified as 'Possible Meteor', noting that while listed as aircraft, the duration and simple disappearance suggested a meteor.
• Dallas, TX: Multiple entries discuss sightings, with one reclassified as 'Possibly Arcturus', noting Venus was not visible at that time, but Arcturus was rising. Another entry for Dallas, TX, OKC, highlights conflicting reports, temperature inversions, and radar data.
• Marysville, TN: Reclassified as 'Venus and Mars', based on a witness describing balloon-shaped objects with lights, and Mars and Venus setting.

Summary and Observations

The author concludes with a 'Summary' section, reflecting on the 18% misclassification rate. They state that this rate is not excessive and attribute errors to the human factor in the evaluation process, including personal bias, missed clues, and resource limitations. The author notes that some cases were perplexing and could not be definitively solved, thus labeled 'UNIDENTIFIED'.

Several observations are made about the review process:

• Dr. Hynek was heavily involved during this period, actively corresponding with Blue Book and requesting to continue receiving files.
• Most record cards used a 1963 form, indicating that older cards were redone in the 1960s, likely due to being lost, non-existent, damaged, or illegible.

The issue ends with a 'References' section, listing sources used for the investigation, including websites related to Project Blue Book, NOAA, and stratospheric balloons, as well as a book by E. U. Condon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical review and re-evaluation of official UFO case files, specifically those from Project Blue Book. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous analysis, aiming to correct misclassifications and provide more plausible explanations based on available data, while acknowledging the limitations and uncertainties in many cases. There's a clear emphasis on scientific methodology and a desire to demystify UFO reports by identifying them as known phenomena or insufficient data. The author expresses a commitment to updating their findings if new information surfaces.